Sitting of 9 June 1997

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

    Mandatory Minimum Sentences
    Mr. Streeter: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to introduce mandatory minimum sentences. [914]
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): I am considering the relevant provisions of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 against the need to ensure that sufficient provision is available within the Prison Service.
    Mr. Streeter: I am afraid that that answer does absolutely nothing for me. The Labour party talked tough in opposition and, apparently, is already acting soft in government. Why will not the Secretary of State join us in sending a clear signal to serious repeat offenders, by agreeing today to introduce minimum mandatory sentences?
    Mr. Straw: I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, but I dare say that it will be the first of many occasions when I do so. The hon. Gentleman, however, is way behind the times. I made it clear on 19 May, in the debate on the Loyal Address, that I fully intended to implement section 2 of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 relating to life sentences for serious violent and sexual offenders as soon as possible and, I hope, within the time frame laid down by the previous Administration.
    Mr. Beith: What is the Home Secretary's estimate of the number of new prison places that would be required to implement each of the mandatory sentencing provisions of that legislation? Is he seriously prepared to contemplate the massive diversion of resources from policing and crime prevention that would be involved in building another 10 or 20 new prisons over and above those required to deal with the present trend in prison numbers to implement that legislation, which had much of the character of a confidence trick by the previous Administration, willing the end without willing the means?
    Mr. Straw: The right hon. Gentleman is entirely right in his last point. The right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) made several undertakings about the future of the prison population
    776
    without the backing of his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke)—a habit which he has not broken out of in opposition.
    However, I was asked specific questions. It is estimated that section 2 would lead to an increase of between 600 and 800 prison places over a 15-year period. As most of those offenders—the serious violent and sexual offenders—are bound to be sentenced to prison in any event, the impact in the next five to 10 years on the prison population will be small.
    It is estimated that section 3, relating to drug dealers, would have an impact on the prison population over a similar period of about 200 places.
    The estimated impact on the prison population of section 4, relating to repeat burglars, is significant. It is also significant because the most that the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe could do was to provide an illustration of when that policy might be implemented, sometime in 2001—near the next general election.
    Mr. Llwyd: I remind the Home Secretary that, in Committee, there was much talk about the need for a working definition of "exceptional circumstances" in which a judge could exercise discretion not to impose mandatory sentences. In view of the considerable time spent on that subject in Committee—I remember that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) spent much time, as I did, trying to knead that out—does the Home Secretary have any information on that very important aspect?
    Mr. Straw: My view is that section 1, which sets down the special circumstances that would apply to sections 3 and 4 of the Act relating to drug dealers and repeat burglars, is in satisfactory order. When he was Secretary of State, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe denied that. He put his argument to the people of this country at the recent general election. It was the only law and order issue that he argued about throughout a six-week campaign; the people of the country gave a clear answer in that regard.
    On section 2, relating to automatic life sentences for serious sexual and violent offenders on a second or subsequent occasion, I am also satisfied that the narrower definition of "exceptional circumstances" is the appropriate one.

    Criminal Activity
    Mr. Jim Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has to address the circumstances that lead to criminal activity. [915]
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Alun Michael): As well as speeding up youth justice, we plan to implement a wide range of measures to divert potential offenders away from criminal activity. We intend to have parental responsibility orders to ensure that parents face up to their responsibilities when their children misbehave and new child protection orders to help keep children off the streets and out of trouble late at night. We are also determined to break the vicious circle between crime and

    777
    drug and alcohol misuse, and, through our welfare to work programme, enable young people to find work and stay in work.
    Mr. Cunningham: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his appointment to the Front Bench. This is the first time that I have had an opportunity to do so. Does he recall the series of meetings held both in Coventry and in the House of Commons to discuss juvenile crime and, in particular, community safety orders? Can he give us an idea when those safety orders will be introduced so that we can satisfy people in Coventry, who have been extremely concerned about that?
    Mr. Michael: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. I know of the great interest that he took in this matter during the last Parliament. I was grateful for his active support on a number of Committees dealing with legislation. We should also pay tribute to the efforts made by Coventry city council, working with the local police, to find a way, despite the gap in legislation, to control some of the difficult problems that have arisen. I agree that there is a problem. When we were in opposition, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary touched a chord when he proposed community safety orders, which will enable the police and local authorities to tackle the real problems experienced throughout the country, and he was applauded for that. We intend to make allowance for introducing those orders within the crime and disorder Bill, which will be debated later in the Session.
    Mr. Greenway: Will the new Labour Government honour the pledge of the last Conservative Government and introduce more closed circuit television cameras in towns and villages, as they have had a devastating effect in reducing crime?
    Mr. Michael: The hon. Gentleman's question would have been more impressive had he checked the Home Office budget. He would then have seen that although the previous Home Secretary made statements during the election period, he made no financial allowance to fulfil those manifesto commitments. He has not put the money in the budget.
    Mr. Cunliffe: Is not one of the principal reasons for the rise in youth crime pointed out by many licensees and suppliers: under-age drinking is on the increase? Does he agree that the best deterrent would be to introduce some form—voluntary or compulsory—of identity card, to include photograph and age?
    Mr. Michael: A voluntary identity card is still under consideration, but my hon. Friend is right to identify the problem of youth drinking and rising youth crime. The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), has taken up the issue of alcopops with the industry and is pursuing it vigorously. Alcohol-related crime is a serious problem. The steps that we intend to take in relation to youth crime will have a significant impact, but the problem of drink-related crime among young people, as among older groups, is serious.

    Prison Population (Growth)
    Mr. Boswell: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to curb the rate of growth in the prison population. [916]
    Mr. Straw: Within a broad sentencing framework laid down by Parliament, who is sentenced to imprisonment and for how long is a matter for independent decision by the courts. On present trends, the prison population is likely to rise in the foreseeable future. In the longer term, the growth in the prison population should be affected by action that we are taking to deal with the appalling delays in the criminal justice system and, above all, by our policies to tackle youth crime to stop so many young offenders graduating to adult crime and adult prisons.
    Mr. Boswell: I welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his new position. He will have heard the earlier exchanges on the importance of differentiating between dangerous criminals and society's demands for their incarceration. Does he accept that we simply cannot go on building prisons for ever? Will he take the longest and most careful possible look at the distinction between those who must be in prison for the public's safety and those for whom alternative approaches may be appropriate, whether or not he gets the benefit of his social policies in due course? Will he undertake to look carefully at the situation in Onley in my constituency, where his proposal for a second prison is giving rise to a great deal of concern on the part of my constituents?
    Mr. Straw: I thought that there was a reason for the question, and it emerged right at the end. Everybody wants criminals locked up, but not in his own backyard.
    I thank the hon. Gentleman for his congratulations. Despite the debates that took place at the end of the last Parliament about mandatory minimum sentences, every single person currently serving a prison sentence is in prison because of sentencing decisions made under the Criminal Justice Act 1991 by independent sentencers. Any Government must take account of the public spending consequences of a rising prison population. At the same time, we must recognise that, after a period of 18 years during which crime doubled, there are many serious criminals whom courts consider it appropriate to lock up in prison.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Does the prison system that my right hon. Friend inherited from a Conservative Government really work, or will there have to be revolutionary changes in it?
    Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend is right to say that prison works for some prisoners. It plainly works to incapacitate prisoners. Of the 60,000 people currently in prison, the courts have made their own independent judgment that that is the most appropriate place for them to serve their sentence. Like almost every other hon. Member, I do not want people to be sentenced unnecessarily to prison, but sentencers will not use community sentences to the extent that perhaps they should, unless and until there is more public confidence in those sentences, and the public can be assured that their safety is guaranteed as far as possible when people serve community sentences.
    Madam Speaker: Before I call the next speaker, may I ask Ministers to remember that they are addressing the House and not the individual who put the question? We would all like to hear the answer, and I like to see handsome faces, even if they are only in profile.
    Miss Widdecombe: I invite the right hon. Gentleman to note that I have two prisons in my backyard, of which I am extremely proud. Considering that he will have to house the population growth and additional prisoners as a result of the previous Government's very apt sentencing policy, will he clarify once and for all what hitherto has been fudged on a number of occasions? Will he tell the taxpayer and the public at large whether he will honour current private sector contracts and let all prisons be privately managed in future under the private finance initiative?
    Mr. Straw: I apologise for the fact that I was turning away from you, Madam Speaker. That was a serious omission on my part.
    I made it clear before the election that we would honour existing contracts that were in the pipeline. I said that in a lecture to the Bourne Trust in January 1995. With regard to renewal, that depends on value-for-money considerations, as I made clear on 19 May.
    Mr. Flynn: When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State drafts his welcome new law which will apply to hon. Members and introduce prison sentences for acts of corruption, will he ensure that that Act applies retrospectively?
    Mr. Straw: Much as I would be tempted to make such an Act apply retrospectively, it is an important principle that Parliament should not pass retrospectively Acts which make into crimes previous acts that were not crimes.

    Immigration Policy
    Sir Teddy Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the changes which the Government propose to make to immigration policy as regards the primary purpose rule and the admission of elderly relatives. [917]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): We announced the abolition of the primary purpose rule on 5 June in answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz). We have no plans at present to change the rules relating to the admission of elderly relatives.
    Sir Teddy Taylor: Will the Minister confirm that that extremely important policy change will apply to current cases, that is, ones in which the refusal took place before 5 June or the appeal was made before then? Bearing in mind the fact that many of the people concerned have waited a long time already and have been subject to considerable delays, will the Minister examine the representations of the Immigration Advisory Service, which provides an excellent service? The IAS believes that there may be further delays stemming from the
    780
    difference between a genuine marriage and the primary purpose rule. Will the Minister make sure that having sorted out one problem, we do not create another?
    Mr. O'Brien: We are glad that the hon. Gentleman supports our proposals, and we hope that he will continue to support us in future. We shall review all outstanding appeals. Where the refusal was based solely on primary purpose grounds, we shall return the papers to the entry clearance officer who will issue the clearance. Where the refusal was based on primary purpose and other grounds, we shall examine the case in full. However, we shall lodge appeals in most cases.
    Mr. Gerrard: I thank my hon. Friend for making the change, which will be widely welcomed. The press release that announced the change suggested that the 12-month probationary period for marriage would remain. Will my hon. Friend look sympathetically at cases where women are forced by violent relationships to leave the marriage within one year? We would not wish to see the deportation of people in that situation. Will he consider also the plight of elderly dependants? EU citizens living in Britain have more right than British citizens to bring elderly dependants into the country.
    Mr. O'Brien: My hon. Friend raises several important points. The one-year rule will remain. As to domestic violence cases, he will be aware that I was a member of the Home Affairs Select Committee that made recommendations in that regard. We are currently examining the issues relating to domestic violence cases and the operation of the one-year rule.
    In the case of elderly relatives, I am conscious of the paradox that my hon. Friend describes. We are examining the issues involved and we are committed not only to having fairer immigration and asylum rules but to ensuring that they are both firm and fair.
    Mr. Howard: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his appointment. Does he recognise that the changes will open up a substantial loophole in our system of immigration control? Our excellent race relations record has always gone hand in hand with firm but fair immigration control. Does not the change put that record at risk?
    Mr. O'Brien: It is a pity that the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not share the views of the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir Teddy Taylor), who supports our proposals. The primary purpose rule was a rule without a purpose: it was unfair and arbitrary. Too often, it caught genuine marriages where the parties intended to live together permanently in the United Kingdom. The abolition of that rule without a purpose enables us to focus resources on the remaining three marriage rules that deal with bogus marriages more effectively. Compared with the last Government, our policy will be firmer but fairer. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman wanted to do something about bogus marriages, why did he not deal with the immigration advisers and other such scandals? He refused to address those problems year upon year.

    Deportees (Detention)
    Dr. Godman: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent discussions have been held with representatives of the Scottish Prison Service concerning the circumstances surrounding the detention of persons awaiting deportation. [918]
    Mr. Mike O'Brien: Discussions took place with the Scottish Prison Service last summer about the detention of persons awaiting deportation. These discussions found that, due to the relatively small number of persons held in Scottish prisons under sole immigration powers, it would be difficult to justify a custom-built facility solely for Immigration Act detainees.
    Dr. Godman: In my view, such persons should not be detained in Greenock prison, where a serious disturbance took place recently involving convicted prisoners and persons awaiting deportation. Will my hon. Friend consider establishing a detention centre, like those in England and Wales, for persons awaiting deportation from Scotland?
    Mr. O'Brien: I am looking again at the rules regarding detention in prisons. The Scottish situation involves several issues—for example, the numbers: approximately 20 to 30 persons are held in Scottish establishments at any one time. It would also be unfair to lodge all immigration detainees in one establishment, as they would be away from friends, relatives and perhaps legal representatives.
    Because of the small numbers involved, it is not practical to separate immigration detainees from other prisoners. Immigration detainees are generally treated in a similar way to remand prisoners—a situation which will probably continue for some time. However, I invite my hon. Friend to discuss the matter with me at greater length because the general issues and the case that he mentioned raise important questions.

    Crime (Drug Abuse)
    Mr. Tony Clarke: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of crime he estimates to be linked to drug abuse. [919]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. George Howarth): My hon. Friend will be aware that the university of Cambridge is conducting an investigation into the links between drugs and crime. Not surprisingly, the preliminary findings are that such links exist, but we shall have to wait until October for the final version of the report, which we hope will be published by the end of the year.
    Mr. Clarke: I welcome those comments and add my congratulations to those given earlier to my hon. Friend. Does he agree that previous studies have shown a distinct link between drug abuse and crime—so much so that the police estimate that two thirds of all crime is drug related? Does my hon. Friend therefore agree that the public will welcome the measures that he is proposing to reclaim the streets in the fight against crime and the fear of crime that flourished under the previous Government?
    Mr. Howarth: I very much agree. A raft of anecdotal evidence from chief constables and others shows strong links between drugs and crime and disorder. Our proposed treatment and testing order will address that problem. We hope that it will give the probation service and others a means to provide treatment for addicts and therefore break the link with spiralling crime. I hope that that measure will have the support of the whole House.
    Mr. Malins: Does the Minister accept that a huge amount of crime is linked to drug abuse—not just the drug takers but burglars who sell the goods to feed their drugs habit? Does he agree that we should adopt a much tougher attitude towards first-time drug takers, many of whom are dealt with in the courts more leniently than those convicted of minor traffic offences?
    Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. I am sure that he agrees that the most important issue for the Government is to deal with drug offenders and other offenders in ways that are clear and have been shown to work. We aim to break the link between drugs—possession, dealing or other aspects of the problem—and other forms of crime, including burglary. We shall pursue that clear intention and I am sure that we shall have the support of the whole House.
    Mr. Miller: When my hon. Friend considers the paper presented to him by Parents Against Drug Abuse from my constituency, will he look carefully at the proposal for a national network of telephone helplines? When he considers the cost, will he also consider the potential savings to the public purse from improved advice to young people to ensure that they do not get involved in drugs at an early age, cutting the links with crime?
    Mr. Howarth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has written to me about that group in his constituency. I hope to meet him and the group in the near future. Parents, together with the education service and others, have an important role in trying to find ways, at the earliest possible stage, to prevent young people from getting involved in drugs. The initiatives that my hon. Friend describes are of interest and I look forward to discussing them.
    Mr. Maclean: I, too, welcome the hon. Gentleman to his first Home Office questions on the Government side of the House. He has laid great emphasis on his new drug treatment and testing order. How would it add to the extensive powers already available to the courts when ordering a probation order with conditions?
    Mr. Howarth: The right hon. Gentleman should know that there are problems with exercising probation orders in this context. Last week, I visited a probation-led scheme in Plymouth where there are problems in getting co-ordination between the various departments of the criminal justice system and the health service, for example. The whole purpose of the treatment and testing order is to bring all those factors together, to link that to what happens in the courts and to ensure that all the agencies bring all their skills and resources to bear on the problem. That has not been happening to the extent that it should have done. We recognise that, and that is the whole point of the treatment and testing order.

    Mandatory Sentences
    Mr. Lidington: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to implement the mandatory sentencing provisions of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997. [920]
    Mr. Straw: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave a few moments ago to the hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter).
    Mr. Lidington: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his appointment. Does he consider that a three-year prison sentence for a career burglar is too long?
    Mr. Straw: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his congratulations. As I made clear during the passage of the Crime (Sentences) Bill, I do not consider that three years is too long for the typical career burglar. We expect that kind of sentence to be carried forward.

    Pistol Clubs
    Mr. Colvin: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many pistol clubs there are in the United Kingdom; how many there were a year ago; and what was their total membership. [921]
    Mr. Michael: The total number of pistol clubs approved by the Secretary of State throughout the United Kingdom is 1,605. Precise information about the number of such clubs a year ago could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The Government have no information on the number of members of approved pistol clubs.
    Mr. Colvin: It seems clear from that reply that a number of pistol target shooting clubs have managed to survive on the basis of small-bore. 22 shooting alone. As the Minister will know from the introductory explanatory memorandum to the Firearms (Amendment) Bill, which the House will consider on Wednesday, it is highly likely that none of those clubs will exist if the Bill is enacted unamended. Will he ensure that proper compensation is paid not only to the owners of firearms and ancillary equipment, but to owners of clubs that will lose their premises, their business and their fee income? That would rectify one of the injustices of the present Act and give the Minister, whom I congratulate on his appointment, an opportunity to rectify an injustice and to demonstrate to the House that new Labour really is new.
    Mr. Michael: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his welcome and for the implied criticism of his right hon. and hon. Friends in that he is inviting us to go way beyond the compensation allowed for in the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997, which was enacted before the general election. Of the 1,440 clubs approved for pistols in England and Wales, only 49 were approved for pistols only—less than 4 per cent. of the total. In any event, it is right that individuals who were affected by the legislation should be compensated. We have no intention of going beyond that.
    Mr. Salter: Is my hon. Friend aware that replica pistols that are exact copies of those used in gun clubs
    784
    are openly and lawfully on sale to young children in Reading and elsewhere? Is he further aware that those replica weapons, including imitation Magnum. 45s, are indistinguishable from the real thing, and can be, and have been, used in armed robberies? What action does my hon. Friend propose to take to deal with the issue?
    Mr. Michael: I am aware of the problem, which has been highlighted on a number of occasions. My hon. Friend will be aware that we have targeted one specific gap in the law for action this Session—that is the continuation of the availability of. 22 handguns. We have taken the view that the legislation, which will be debated in the House later this week, needs to be narrow in order for it to proceed through the House quickly. We decided, therefore, that we would not address wider issues. We shall return to issues of the sort that my hon. Friend raises. I shall look carefully at the evidence he has described which, I am sure, he will wish to supplement following today's discussion. We shall certainly wish to address the issue he raises.

    Prison Places
    Mr. Lansley: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he plans to take to ensure the continuing provision of an adequate number of prison places. [924]
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Ms Joyce Quin): My right hon. Friend outlined the options available for the prison population issues in answer to the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell).
    The Prison Service secured additional resources in last year's Budget to speed up refurbishment of Victorian wings and to provide 8,600 new places to ensure adequate prison capacity over the next three years.
    Mr. Lansley: Will the hon. Lady ensure that the supply of prison places is sufficient to implement a policy of honesty in sentencing so that there will be no automatic early release from prison?
    Ms Quin: As I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, we are committed to honesty in sentencing. We are also keen to examine a range of options to improve the system, including speeding up certain aspects of the criminal justice system and cutting delays affecting remand, for example.
    Mr. Pike: I congratulate my hon. Friend on her appointment. Does she agree that far too many people in England are held in custody on remand awaiting trial and that we need to take steps at least to equal the position in Scotland and ensure that people are tried as speedily as possible?
    Ms Quin: My hon. Friend raises an important matter which we are looking at urgently. It is certainly one part of the system which is crying out for reform.
    Mr. Rowe: I am sure that the Minister is aware that over the past 30 years or so some of the best ways of helping people when they come out of prison and preventing young people from going to prison have been

    785
    imaginative schemes created in partnership with voluntary organisations. I am sure that she is also aware that many such schemes are funded by the Home Office in the first instance for a maximum of three years and are then expected to be picked up by the local authorities, which have a lamentable record in doing any such thing. Will she make sure that the balance between the advantages gained by local authorities and by central Government from the successful schemes is examined again?
    Ms Quin: As I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, my hon. Friend the other Minister of State takes great interest in the voluntary sector and is keen to promote best practice and encourage projects such as those to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. Local authorities have found it difficult to finance many such schemes because of their budgets, but we are looking at ways to ensure that the best schemes can be carried forward successfully.

    Women Prisoners
    Ms Corston: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of convicted women prisoners in England and Wales are serving sentences for non-payment of fines. [925]
    Ms Joyce Quin: At the end of the first quarter of 1997, women sentenced to imprisonment for default on fines represented around 0.2 per cent. of women serving a prison sentence in England and Wales. The number of fine defaulters in prison is now falling steadily.
    Ms Corston: I congratulate my hon. Friend on her welcome and excellent appointment. Has she had time to look at Home Office research published last July which found that despite the welcome fall in the number of women fine defaulters, they are generally unemployed and have multiple debts of some £1,300? Would it not be more appropriate to find other means of punishing those women as, in most cases, they have shown not unwillingness to pay a fine but inability to do so?
    Ms Quin: I thank my hon. Friend for her kind words of welcome. She has raised an important matter. We must find ways to ensure that imprisonment is seen only as a last resort. We shall look closely at the issue of fine defaulting in the coming months.
    Mr. Garnier: I, too, congratulate the hon. Lady on her new appointment. In regard to the main question, has she looked at the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997?
    Ms Quin: Yes. We believe that it is helpful in many respects. I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for his kind words. As the question refers in particular to women prisoners, I should also like to make it clear that, as a new Minister in the Home Office, women's prisons and the female prison estate are matters that I shall look at carefully in the near future.
    Mr. Howard: I, too, congratulate the hon. Lady on her appointment. Will she tell us a little more than the Home Secretary did a few moments ago about the Government's plans to sign new contracts for privately operated prisons?
    786
    Did she share the Home Secretary's previously expressed view that such prisons are "morally repugnant"? If so, when did she change her mind?
    Ms Quin: I am somewhat surprised that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should choose to ask a supplementary question on a main question about the proportion of convicted women prisoners serving sentences for non-payment of fines. The main question has already been answered by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. Among other things, we are considering the recommendation of the Home Affairs Committee report, which made some very interesting proposals on that subject.

    Young Offenders Institution, Colchester
    Mr. Bob Russell: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the future of the young offenders institution at Colchester military corrective training centre. [926]
    Mr. George Howarth: As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the Government are committed to finding out what works in the prison system. In line with that, we have decided that the Colchester experiment will run to the end of the year, when it is due to be concluded. In the light of that experience, we will decide on its long-term future.
    Mr. Russell: Does the Minister agree that both the Prison Service and the military authorities were opposed to the establishment of the boot camp in Colchester? Although both military and prison staff should be congratulated, does he accept that the prime reason for the military establishment being foisted on Colchester in the run-up to the general election had more to do with a very expensive face-saving exercise by the former Home Secretary? Will the experiment run until the end of the calendar year or the financial year? Will he make it the sooner of the two? How does the cost of the Colchester institution compare with that of a normal institution?
    Mr. Howarth: Irrespective of how the establishment came about, the point is that, if the Government were to try to reverse the decision, all the money that has already been spent on it would be wasted, so it obviously makes sense to allow the establishment to complete its first year. By first year I mean the full first year of its operation. On comparable costs, the establishment is marginally more expensive than, for example, a young offenders institution. Any establishment with such a highly structured regime will be more expensive. The cheapest way of keeping prisoners is to lock them up and do nothing with them. That is not what we intend. We shall certainly look at the results of the experiment to see whether there are any wider applications.
    Mr. Whittingdale: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the high rate of reoffending among young offenders suggests that the present system is not working and that anything that can bring it down is likely to be good value for money? Is he aware of the considerable success in remotivating and rehabilitating service offenders at the military corrective training centre and that, contrary to the suggestion of the hon. Member for

    787
    Colchester (Mr. Russell), the staff at the MCTC are convinced that they can remotivate and rehabilitate civilian offenders by employing the same methods?
    Mr. Howarth: I entirely accept the hon. Gentleman's point that we should look at the results and see how the two systems compare. That is precisely the point that I made. There are no easy options in dealing with young offenders. One of the things to which the Government are absolutely committed is breaking the link between young people and crime and all the things that lead to young people becoming involved in crime. We will find out what works, and what works is precisely what we will implement to deal with the problem.

    Closed Circuit Television Schemes
    Mr. St. Aubyn: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much money his Department plans to set aside over the next five years to provide for CCTV schemes. [927]
    Mr. Michael: Our manifesto made it clear that for the next two years we will work within the ceilings on departmental expenditure that have already been announced. We are reviewing existing expenditure programmes and reassessing priorities to ensure that we make best use of the resources available. A decision on whether there will be another closed circuit television challenge competition in 1997–98 will be made later in the summer.
    Mr. St. Aubyn: Given the huge success of CCTV, which in Guildford alone has cut street crime in the city centre by more than a third in one year, and the popularity of the previous Government's pledge to spend £75 million on CCTV in this Parliament, why is the Minister being so evasive, and why is he failing to live up to his party's promises on the subject? Are not the Government being weak on crime and weak on crime prevention?
    Mr. Michael: We will be tough on inappropriate soundbites. The hon. Gentleman should show some respect for the fact that we are keeping our manifesto commitments whereas the former Home Secretary gave promises during the election campaign for which he had not made allowance during his period in office. We will assess whether next year's money—this year's money was completely allocated before we took office—would be best used on CCTV alone or whether it could be better used in other ways. We have inherited a limited financial situation from the previous Government, but we will ensure that we use the available money to prevent and tackle crime in a way that the Conservative Government failed to do.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: Before my hon. Friend spends £75 million, will he make a careful assessment of how effective CCTV is in controlling crime; whether it displaces crime to other areas that are unable to deal with it; and what implications it has for the protection of human rights?
    Mr. Michael: People feel safer with CCTV and, fortunately, there have been few abuses of its provision. I supported the provision of CCTV in my local town
    788
    centre and it is of value in wider community safety and crime prevention. It is not a magic wand that will do everything; other issues of crime prevention need to be tackled also. For that reason, we will review the available expenditure and we intend to ensure that it is used to the best result for the future protection of the public.

    Violent Crime
    Mr. William O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of violent crime resulted in prosecution in (a) 1979 and (b) the latest period for which figures are available. [929]
    Mr. Michael: In 1979, 59 per cent. of recorded violent crimes resulted in prosecutions. In 1995, the figure was down to 35 per cent.
    Mr. O'Brien: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply and wish him well in his new post. It is significant that violent crime almost trebled under the Conservative Government, while prosecutions fell by more than half. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Labour Government have inherited an appalling legacy from the Conservatives? We have more violent crime and more people getting away with violent crime. Will he assure me that resources will be afforded to West Yorkshire police to help them continue their strenuous efforts to reduce violent crime in our local communities?
    Mr. Michael: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. He is right to highlight the previous Government's failure. Nothing could illustrate that failure more than the way crime increased, yet the number of people convicted and punished fell. The fall in prosecution rates is a serious matter and we will address it through our plans to increase the efficiency of the Crown Prosecution Service and other steps that will enable the police, the courts and other agencies to be more successful in tackling and preventing crime. We believe that the police have been overwhelmed in recent years by bureaucracy and the increasing crime rate; we intend to ensure that they can make better use of existing resources to prevent crime, catch criminals and increase public safety.

    Probation Service
    Mr. Hinchliffe: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has for the future of the probation and after care service. [930]
    Ms Joyce Quin: The probation service plays a central role in our strategy for the criminal justice system and for reducing crime. We will work with the service to ensure that community sentences and punishments are a credible option when it is not necessary to send an offender to prison.
    Mr. Hinchliffe: I welcome my hon. Friend and her team to their new posts, and I hope that their appointment results in a radically different philosophy at the Home Office from that of the past 18 years—building more and more prisons for more and more crime. With that in mind, will they look in detail at the reparation and mediation schemes operated successfully by West Yorkshire

    789
    probation service, which has addressed the issue of cutting reoffending, particularly by young offenders? Will my hon. Friend consider the value of the probation service in working to develop alternatives to imprisonment for a vast number of offenders?
    Ms Quin: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words. I can give him the assurance he seeks. We are aware of the good work in West Yorkshire. We want to promote good practice in the probation service and increase awareness across the country.
    Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Will the Minister pay tribute to the probation service in Essex, which has demonstrated that a probation order is not a soft option? Does she agree that it is not necessary for a probation officer to have a degree in social work?
    Ms Quin: I am happy, although rather surprised, to endorse the hon. Gentleman's point about Essex. I further agree with his point about qualifications. We are in discussion with representatives of the probation service and others about how best to take the issue forward, given the unfortunate vacuum created by the previous Government.

    Electoral Reform
    Mr. Bayley: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the Government's proposals for considering a new voting system for parliamentary elections. [931]
    Mr. Straw: By our manifesto, the Government are committed to a referendum on the voting system for the House of Commons. The manifesto continued:
    "An independent Commission on voting systems will be appointed early to recommend a proportional alternative to the first-past-the-post system."
    Work is now in hand to establish the commission and I will make a further announcement as soon as I can.
    Mr. Bayley: My right hon. Friend's helpful reply will confound the critics who wrongly speculated that the size of the Government's majority would mean that Labour might now backpedal on its commitment to a referendum on the electoral system. Will he be a little more specific on the timetable? When does he hope the electoral commission will be established and start its work?
    Mr. Straw: I thank my hon. Friend for his opening point, although it should be no surprise that we are settling with a will to implement all our manifesto promises, and the size of our majority makes that all the more straightforward. He asks what we mean by "early"; we mean as early as possible. I hope to make an announcement during the summer.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: Will Labour Members be whipped to vote in favour of a referendum? Does the Prime Minister's position remain as it was? Is he still opposed personally to a change in our voting system?
    Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman may not have noticed, but the idea of having a referendum is so that the issue is
    790
    decided not on a whipped or free vote in the House of Commons, but by the British people. Regardless of the partisan views that some of us may hold, it is high time the matter was settled once and for all by the British people.
    Mr. Grocott: Does my right hon. Friend agree that anyone considering this issue would be well advised to look at the experience of New Zealand at its recent election, where many people who, prior to the election, thought a change to the electoral system was a good idea are not so sure having seen it in practice? Does he further agree that the first-past-the-post system—like any other system—has its disadvantages, but has many advantages as well?
    Mr. Straw: I share my hon. Friend's view on his last point. It is a personal point of view, but it was my view when we were in a minority and in opposition and it is my view now that we are in government. Of course, around the world there are many examples of proportional representation systems, which have advantages and disadvantages. That is all the more reason why they should be examined by an independent commission, which should then produce its recommendations.
    Mr. Richard Allan: Does the Secretary of State agree that reform and a fairer voting system in time for the European elections in 1999 will be an important test of faith of the Government's commitment to electoral reform in principle? Can he give us an idea of how he may introduce such changes with the necessary urgency to get there for 1999?
    Mr. Straw: No, I would not agree with the hon. Gentleman. There was no manifesto commitment to introduce proportional representation or the regional list system by the 1999 European elections. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made clear, we will take final decisions on the appropriate electoral system, which we will recommend to this House and the other place, in the next few months.

    Prisons (Illegal Drugs)
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what new proposals he has to reduce illegal drugs use in prisons. [932]
    Mr. George Howarth: My hon. Friend will be aware that the Government are very concerned about the extent to which drug abuse takes place in prison. That is why we will be seeking to build on, for example, mandatory drug testing and the availability of drug treatment programmes in the prison system. We hope to keep a good eye on the problem and to find out what else needs to be done—what needs to be done is what will be done.
    Mr. Flynn: In welcoming my hon. Friend, may I sympathise about the dreadful situation that he has inherited from the last Government, with a prison system in which illegal drug use is endemic and out of control in the great majority of British prisons? Has he observed that it has been claimed that the drug testing programme has had the perverse effect of making prisoners move from the use of soft drugs, which can easily be detected, to

    791
    hard drugs whose detection is often difficult? Is he also concerned that many prisoners have moved from the use of illegal drugs to the use of medicinal drugs? Ten times as many people are addicted to medicinal drugs as to hard drugs. Will he make the figures available to this Parliament—unlike the previous Government, who denied the figures on the use of medicinal drugs in prisons to hon. Members?
    Mr. Howarth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who raises an important point. One of the ways in which we will seek to help people in prison get off drugs is by introducing access to voluntary testing for all prisoners. In time, we hope to be able to establish that system, so that they can prove that they are living a drug-free existence.
    The statistics for drug abuse and the perverse incentive to move from cannabis to opiates are less than clear. I have asked for further information and statisticians are working on it. As soon as that information is available, I will certainly undertake to publish it if it is in a reasonable format. It is important that we take whatever steps are available to enable people who are caught up in drug abuse in prison to move away from it and to prevent drugs from getting into prisons in the first place.

    HM Prison Weare
    Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the use of HM Prison Weare, based in Portland. [933]
    Mr. Straw: As the hon. Gentleman knows I visited Her Majesty's Prison Weare on 16 May. I am pleased to be able to tell him that the health and safety concerns relating to the occupation of The Weare have now been resolved. The Health and Safety Executive, the Home
    792
    Office fire adviser, the Dorset fire service, the port authorities and the Prison Officers Association have all agreed that it is now safe to occupy a part of the accommodation before completion of the refurbishment work elsewhere in the prison. Prison population pressure makes it essential that we take into use the top landing at The Weare. I have therefore decided that up to 50 category D sentenced prisoners will occupy The Weare from 11 June. The refurbishment work on the remaining accommodation will be completed in July, allowing the prisoner population to rise to 400 in stages.
    Mr. Bruce: This is the first time I have said this: it is difficult to ask a supplementary because the main question has been so well answered by the Home Secretary. I thank him for that. Will he reiterate what I have been saying to my constituents: that no Home Secretary, including him, will allow prisoners or prison staff to go into the prison ship unless he wholly satisfied about their safety?
    Mr. Skinner: This broad church is getting broader.
    Mr. Straw: There is always space for sinners to repent, and I welcome the hon. Gentleman's endorsement of my answer. He asked about health and safety: the prison ship is not an ideal solution to the rising prison population, but it is one of the many far from ideal situations that we inherited on taking office. As he knows, I visited the ship, which is in his constituency, and went to great lengths to satisfy myself personally that it was safe to house prisoners.
    I have ensured the fullest possible scrutiny of the concerns of the Prison Officers Association, which hired a marine consultant to check the safety of the ship. We answered every one of the concerns that the association quite rightly raised, and it has written to me saying that it now endorses the opening on a phased basis of the prison ship. The cell accommodation is of a higher standard than is to be found in most land-based prisons in this country.

Breast Screening
3.30 pm
Sir Peter Emery(by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the errors in the results of breast screening scans carried out in Exeter and east Devon and give whatever assurances are possible to the many women who are extremely worried about the situation.
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Frank Dobson): I thank the right hon. Gentleman for bringing this very serious matter to the attention of the House.
I am determined that the truth should out, and the awful truth is that 12 women who were not referred for treatment after being screened for breast cancer subsequently developed breast cancer, and two of them have died.
More than 12,000 women are screened for breast cancer each year by the Royal Devon and Exeter Healthcare NHS trust and the South Devon Healthcare NHS trust. As a result of that screening, some women are identified as having breast cancer and referred for further tests and treatment; others are told that they need not return for further screening until three years have elapsed; and others are told that they do not need treatment, but should return for earlier screening. The trusts cannot tell me how many women fell into each category, but all 12 of the women to whom I referred were screened, but not referred for treatment.
In February, medical staff at the Royal Devon and Exeter trust expressed concern about women who had been screened and not treated and who subsequently developed cancer. The trust sent details of all 12 cases to the national breast screening centre in Nottingham on 1 April and asked for its advice.
The centre did not reply until 28 May, when it concluded that the 12 women concerned should have been referred for treatment, and recommended an audit of mammograms of all women scheduled for recall earlier than three years; of all women recalled in the past two years; and of all breast cancers that have occurred between screenings in the past five years. None of those audits is yet under way.
The review also recommended that the two doctors concerned should stop screening for the time being, pending further training. A special helpline was established on 5 June for women in Exeter and Devon who want advice, help or reassurance. I understand that the doctors concerned have also been carrying out screening at private hospitals in the area and that a similar helpline has been established.
Breast cancer screening, like other forms of medical screening, has two purposes to identify patients who need treatment and to reassure patients who do not. The breast cancer arrangements in Exeter and Devon have failed on both counts. They have failed to ensure the most prompt treatment for breast cancer and they have given false reassurance. I am not satisfied with the performance of East Devon breast screening service. I have asked the chief medical officer to conduct a preliminary inquiry. If I remain as dissatisfied after that as I am now, I shall exercise my statutory powers to establish an independent inquiry.
794
At the same time, I have asked the chief medical officer to review the breast screening programme nationwide. Women in England deserve a breast screening service on which they can rely to identify cancer when it is present and to give accurate reassurance when it is not. On behalf of the Government, I offer my sympathy to all the women affected by the failure and to their families. Finally, I urge women to continue to attend centres for breast cancer screening, because, whatever went wrong in the south-west, screening remains the best method of identifying breast cancer and ensuring early treatment.
Sir Peter Emery: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his statement, which is most serious and causes me perhaps even greater concern than I had had before I tabled the question. He said that he could not give the exact numbers. Can he either now or in the immediate future publish in the Official Report the number of people who have been recalled for tests; the number of people who have had reassessment carried out; the number of ladies who have had to be recalled for biopsy, which I gather is one of the likely factors; and, equally important, how many of the 36,000 ladies who would have been tested over the three years can be assured that they are not affected? How many mammogram films must be rechecked?
The second part of my question involves staffing. I gather that two doctors have been told to stay away and will be retrained, but how many staff are employed? I gather that there are very few. Inadequate staffing may mean that work will come to a standstill and that it may not be possible to carry out reassessment fully or quickly. What action will the Secretary of State take to overcome that problem?
Mr. Dobson: The right hon. Gentleman raises two points. He asked about the extent of screening, the incidence of cancer and the number of women who were recalled. Those are the very questions which I have been asking, on which the trust cannot currently give me an answer—a fact which in itself I find disturbing. On the second point, arrangements are being made for the necessary experts in assessing mammograms to be drafted in to help out in east Devon, to ensure that the service is provided and, in particular, that the reassurance that women in the area will naturally be seeking can be given.
Mrs. Linda Gilroy: Does my right hon. Friend agree that his recent welcome announcement of £10 million of additional funding to improve breast screening services, which was obtained by cutting red tape in the health service, will go a long way to ensure that such incidents, which cause such grave anxiety to women in Devon, do not recur?
Mr. Dobson: I am pleased that we were able to provide additional resources as we had promised. It remains the case that if proper standards are not being maintained by those responsible for the service, things will go wrong and women will suffer. We must ensure, both through the professions and through the national health service, that the necessary standards are reached.
Mr. Stephen Dorrell: I should like to begin by associating the Opposition with the sympathy that the right hon. Gentleman expressed to the women of the area in relation to this obvious failure of service.

795
The right hon. Gentleman said that he does not know how many cases are being recalled for further audit. Can he therefore confirm that the figure that appeared in last week's press, that 1,900 cases were being recalled for audit, is wrong? Can he further confirm that as soon as he knows how many cases are being recalled for audit, the women concerned will be the first to be told? Is it not the case that one of the most disturbing aspects of the story is that both those women and the doctors concerned first heard about the story through the newspapers? Must it not be the principle of this kind of service that first the patients and, secondly, the clinicians hear about such evidence directly from the hospital and not through the newspapers?
Can the right hon. Gentleman further confirm that it is the second time in three years that East Devon breast screening service has been subject of a review? A review was conducted in 1994 because of concern about the low rate of detection of cancer that was reported from east Devon. Can the Secretary of State tell the House whether the latest report will analyse whether the recommendations of the earlier report were implemented, or whether there are still outstanding recommendations that should have been implemented?
Mr. Dennis Skinner: The right hon. Gentleman was in power then.
Mr. Dorrell: This is a matter not of party politics, but of the health of women in east Devon.
Is it not the case that what has happened in east Devon appears to be a failure of the process of clinical audit? Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that the said procedures governing the east Devon service are reviewed? Furthermore, will he ensure that the evidence that emerges from that review is used to improve the clinical audit of other breast screening services? We welcome the right hon. Gentleman's announcement that the chief medical officer will analyse the background to what has happened in east Devon. Will he undertake to publish that report when it is available?
Mr. Dobson: I shall start with the last question. It is my intention that, once I can verify the facts rather than rely on newspaper reports, all that information is made available to the public, and in particular to people in the south-west.
As for the numbers involved, as I have already explained, the trust is not capable this afternoon of verifying that fact. As I have already said, that in itself is a matter for concern.
I must tell the right hon. Gentleman that the clinicians did know about the matter, because it was they who expressed concern in February about the incidence of cancer among women who had been screened and who had been told that they did not need immediate treatment. The clinicians have been in the picture since February.
As for the record of treatment in east Devon, it is partly because of that background that I am so determined to have a thorough inquiry into what has gone on down there in the years leading up to May this year.
Mr. Simon Hughes: First, I associate my colleagues from the south-west and elsewhere with the strong expression of concern from the Secretary of State. I thank him for his clear statement.
May I ask that the review should consider three things that are not concerned with Devon specifically, but which relate to breast screening practice in general? First, will there be resources to provide competent staff who are adequate to the task—radiographers and radiologists—as well as the equipment in all places where screening is carried out? Secondly, will the Calman recommendation be implemented so that the work of widespread screening is matched by that of a breast unit, which will carry out further diagnosis? Thirdly, an obvious point for lay people relates to those who, as in this case, present with clear symptomatic evidence of potential concern, for example, lumps. Will the Secretary of State ensure that the screening process is not the end of the exercise, and that in every case women who contact the health service who are concerned about possible breast cancer are treated and not put behind the queue of women waiting for routine screening? There should always be a second opportunity to look at anyone who presents with any sign of potential breast cancer. It would offer great reassurance if those factors could be considered.
Mr. Dobson: On resources, as a result of our decision not to go forward with the eighth wave of fundholders and the saving of £20 million in bureaucratic costs, by the end of this month, the first £10 million of that will be available to breast specialist centres throughout the country. Under the Calman/Hine proposals, which are gradually being implemented, a full range of services is available for those who suffer from cancer. It was not just a question of mammograms. Some women who were diagnosed as not needing treatment had had physical examinations, which failed to pick up evidence that should have been picked up.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. I remind hon. Members that the private notice question deals specifically with one region and one national health service trust. Therefore, it is limited and I shall call first those hon. Members whose constituents are involved.
Mrs. Angela Browning: You will be aware, Madam Speaker, that I have asked for an Adjournment debate on this subject. Notwithstanding the Minister's statement, I should still like that request to be considered, because many issues that we wish to discuss cannot be dealt with in the short time that is available today.
The Secretary of State may wish to write to me on the following matter. As Wonford hospital was not long ago identified under the Calman recommendations as a specialist cancer centre, and in view of what we have heard about the way in which women patients have been treated there, could the right hon. Gentleman make some inquiries about the analysis that was made when Wonford was put forward as a specialist cancer centre, in the context of the treatment at that time in the breast care unit there? It would be a matter of great concern if that hospital were following different practices from other hospitals,

797
because the purpose of Calman was to take best practice throughout the country and regionalise it. I share with the House the fact that I have been a patient of that unit for some years and therefore share the concern of my constituents about what has happened there in recent years.
Mr. Dobson: I appreciate that the hon. Lady's points arise from her direct experience, and that is probably as good a reason for having locally elected Members of Parliament as any that I have ever heard in the House. It is certainly the intention to try to spread best practice. However, one of the criteria for deciding where a cancer centre should be located is a good geographical spread. I do not think that we would wish to say that some hospitals should not be used as specialist cancer centres because they have had shortcomings. The object must be to make sure that there are no future shortcomings.
Mr. Gary Streeter: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery) on raising this matter, and I thank the Secretary of State for Health for the way in which he is dealing with it. In view of the anxiety in Devon on this important matter, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can answer two questions. First, can he reassure me and my constituents that the problem does not relate to women who have had breast screening at Derriford hospital in Plymouth, but relates specifically to the one in east Devon and to other private hospitals in the east of the county? Secondly, in view of that concern and in the context of the track record of this unit, will he think again about his action on the matter and consider going straight to a full, independent inquiry, so that the truth can be exposed and public confidence can be restored?
Mr. Dobson: I shall have to be careful that I do not raise concerns that do not need to be raised. To the best of my knowledge, the shortcomings have been, in the
798
national health service, in the Royal Devon and Exeter Healthcare NHS trust and the South Devon Healthcare NHS trust, and in some private hospitals across Devon. As far as I know, I am glad to say that the problem does not affect Derriford hospital.
The hon. Gentleman asks about an inquiry. As I said at the beginning of my statement, I am determined to get to the bottom of the matter, and I shall not hesitate to use my statutory powers to set up and carry through an independent inquiry if I judge that to be necessary after I have received a preliminary report from the chief medical officer. As I have said, if I am as dissatisfied after I receive that preliminary report as I am now, I shall certainly set up an independent inquiry.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: I thank my right hon. Friend for his swift action in this matter and assure him that the women covered by that trust will be very grateful indeed, as will women all over the country. However, I point out to him that there is another group of women—older women who are not on the recall cancer screen—who would be grateful if the current pilot scheme were speeded up in some way.
Mr. Dobson: I take my hon. Friend's point—she has been very active in this field, to her great credit. I hope that the chief medical officer's general review of breast cancer screening provision will take her concerns into account.
Mr. John Gunnell: My right hon. Friend spoke of the matter being referred to the centre in Nottingham on 1 April and a report coming from that centre on 28 May. Is not that an undue length of time, given the urgency of action when someone's false diagnosis is revealed?
Mr. Dobson: I do not know whether it is a customary length of time, but, as far as I am concerned, it is a wholly undue length of time and cannot possibly be tolerated any further.

Points of Order
3.50 pm
Mr. Douglas Hogg: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. At the end of last week, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food made two important policy statements, one with regard to specified ovine material and the other with regard to a possible policy of prohibiting the import into the United Kingdom of European beef. Both policy statements are wholly sensible, but the problem relates to whether they should have been the subject of a statement in the House. "Erskine May" is curiously silent as to the principles that govern the making of statements by Ministers. You, Madam Speaker, in your capacity as custodian of the rights of the House would, I feel sure, wish to say that it is important that important policy statements are made to the House by way of statement. I ask you to consider making a ruling setting out the principles that should govern the making of statements by Ministers to the House with regard to policy initiatives.
Madam Speaker: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is aware that no Speaker has authority to command a Minister to make a statement to the House; the Speaker is always told when the Government wish to make statements about policy changes. He refers to an event that took place last week. Perhaps I could remind him and the House that, although I cannot command that a statement be made, I have full authority in determining whether or not I accept or reject a private notice question. I would point out to the House that I have not yet had a private notice question from the official Opposition.
Mr. Hogg: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I would suggest that it might be helpful if, at a more leisurely moment, you could consider making a ruling setting out the principles that should govern the making of statements.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I hope that you are not going to take too much dictation from a bloke who spent his time in government over there in the Common Market cocking everything up—almost everything he touched he made a mess of and now—
Madam Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order. I listen very carefully to what is said in the House. Perhaps the subject raised by the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) is one that the new Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons could consider.

European Union
[Relevant document: The Thirteenth Report from the Select Committee on European Legislation of Session 1996–97, HC36-xiii, on the Draft Protocol on The Role of National Parliaments.]
Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
3.52 pm
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. SN 600/97 (C101), consolidated draft Treaty texts; 6946/97, on the strengthening of the surveillance and co-ordination of budgetary policies; 6947/97, on speeding up and clarifying the implementation of the excessive deficit procedure; 10867/96, on the legal framework for the introduction of the euro; 7766/97, on the Commission's recommendation for the broad guidelines of the economic policies of the Member States and the Community; 7767/97, on a progress report on the implementation of the 1996 broad economic policy guidelines; the draft Resolution on the European Council on the stability and growth pact; and the unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum submitted by HM Treasury on 30th May on a draft resolution of the European Council on the establishment of an exchange rate mechanism in the third stage of economic and monetary union; and welcomes the determination of Her Majesty's Government to focus the agenda of the European Union on policies of direct benefit to the peoples of Europe through its initiatives on employment and competitiveness, and to obtain the best deal for Britain at the Amsterdam Summit through constructive negotiations in the Intergovernmental Conference.
It is now only six months since our last debate before a European summit, but it is, of course, not those six months but the past six weeks that have transformed the nature of today's debate. It was only five weeks ago that many Conservative Members, hoping to escape the wrath of the electorate, stood not as the party opposed to new Labour, but as the party opposed to Europe. I say many, but many more tried it than are able to take their seats with us here today. One of the great newspapers in our land, whose recent change of tone requires us to speak of it with respect and veneration, published on the eve of the election a list of all those Conservative candidates in its roll of honour in the battle of Britain against Europe. It published 308 Conservative candidates' names. Two hundred and thirty-four of them were rejected the next day by the British people.
I read today that the Conservative director of communications has let out the information that the former Prime Minister
"pined during the campaign to take a more positive tone on Europe, but held back because he was afraid it would send the Euro-sceptics into orbit."
He must feel wry satisfaction that the electorate sent them into orbit much more satisfactorily than he ever did.
In the five weeks since then, the air has been heavy with the sound of pennies dropping. I am delighted to see the former Health Secretary with us today, supporting his favourite candidate for the leadership of the Conservative party. The former Health Secretary staked out his leadership bid before the general election by signalling that he was as Euro-sceptic as the rest of them. Yesterday, I read that he now supports the former Chancellor. The article appeared under the headline, "Forget Europe: back Clark".

801
I hope that the rules of the Tory leadership election allow me to mention one leadership candidate without naming them all.
The more intelligent Opposition Members have grasped the fact that they were too busy listening to their own prejudices to hear the voice of an electorate who wanted a Government who could deliver in Europe and speak with a single, clear voice in Europe. The new Labour Government are now doing that.
Sir Peter Tapsell: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, on his first meeting with the heads of the other European Governments, our Prime Minister said that he had learnt on the doorstep, as every candidate had, throughout the general election, of the visceral hostility of the British people to any further movement towards a Federal Europe?
Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman anticipates what I shall say later, because one of the things that those of us who have gone to Europe have learnt is that there is also a change of opinion in Europe. As it happens, when I first went to Europe, the first European politician I met was Lionel Jospin. In retrospect, that appears to have been a shrewd investment, because a Europe once dominated by the right is now dominated by the centre left. When we enter the Amsterdam summit, there will be nine Prime Ministers there from parties of the left and of the centre left.
I know that Conservative Members find the concept of a sister party strange; they have none, and none is queuing up to fill that role on the continent. The National Front of France is the only party on the continent that shares the Conservatives' opposition to the social chapter, repeated in today's amendment. Let me help them with that concept.
We do not share a programme with the parties of the left and of the centre left in Europe: we are different parties, in different countries, with different electorates. Unsurprisingly, therefore, we have different policies. However, we have shared values of fairness, democracy and opportunity. We have a common approach to international relations, based on co-operation rather than isolation. Above all, we have a common priority in recognising that at present, the No. 1 priority of the Governments of Europe must be to tackle the mass unemployment that has left 18 million out of work in Europe and 9 million in deep social exclusion.
Mr. Bernard Jenkin rose—
Mr. William Cash rose—
Mr. Cook: I give way to the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), because the sooner we deal with his intervention, the better.
Mr. Cash: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with Mr. Jospin about the stability pact?
Mr. Cook: Mr. Jospin has expressed a view today at ECOFIN, and the view expressed at ECOFIN on behalf of the Labour Government was a view put forward by the
802
Chancellor of the Exchequer. At that meeting, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has emphasised that ECOFIN must now put growth and employment first, and his proposal—a five-point package to put jobs at the head of ECOFIN's agenda—has this afternoon been agreed by ECOFIN and will be included in the conclusions of the Amsterdam summit.
The past few weeks have changed the colour of Europe politically, which means that the new Labour Government have allies. That successful initiative also shows that new Labour can take the opportunity to provide leadership in Europe.
I welcome the fact that the former Prime Minister will respond to this debate. May I remind him that in the last election he authorised a newspaper advertisement that lampooned Chancellor Kohl and the present Prime Minister as a ventriloquist and his dummy? We understand now that it was drafted on the back of an envelope by the former Deputy Prime Minister and is therefore of a piece with many of the last Government's policies. It will not have escaped the former Prime Minister that, last Friday, the Prime Minister met Chancellor Kohl. None of the press reports of that meeting portrayed the Prime Minister of Great Britain as a puppet. On the contrary, they all said that he spoke with at least equal authority to Chancellor Kohl and possibly with a little more confidence that he will still be around in the long run. Even the German newspapers reported the Prime Minister of Great Britain as a rival to Chancellor Kohl for leadership of Europe.
That press advertisement demeaned not just the former Prime Minister's opponent in the general election but the leader of another major European country. It was one of the lowest points of the election campaign. It was all the more irresponsible because, we learn today, by then the former Prime Minister knew that the game was up and the election was lost. I do not invite him to apologise when he rises to speak from the Dispatch Box. To demand that he apologises would be confrontational and New Labour is not into confrontation. However, I should like to tempt him, in these his swan song days, at least to admit that he would have welcomed the opportunity to speak to Chancellor Kohl with at least the same authority, without constantly being undermined by the knowledge that it would provoke division on his Back Benches.
Another change occurred in the past few weeks within Europe. It was anticipated by the hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Sir P. Tapsell) in his intervention. In the past five weeks, I have had bilateral meetings with every Foreign Minister of the other member states. I spent three days in talks with those Foreign Ministers and sat through the summit of Prime Ministers at Noordwijk.
I can report to the House that there is a deep hunger in Europe for an agenda that puts the institutions of Europe back in touch with the peoples of Europe. There is a growing impatience with an agenda dominated by tinkering with the structure of those institutions, which reflects the concerns of the top politicians of Europe rather than the people who elect them. That is why at Noordwijk my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister called for a people's Europe that addresses the worries and concerns of our electorates on jobs, the environment, crime and social exclusion.
I note that, at the weekend, the Esperanto society made another push for a single language understood by everyone throughout Europe. I am bound to say that it

803
is a more formidable undertaking than creating a single currency. My immediate worry, however, is that the European Union is now spawning a jargon about institutions, which is understood by no one outside those institutions.
One of the matters for debate at Amsterdam is whether some of the confidences in pillar 3 should jump to pillar 1. At Noordwijk, one of the European leaders complained that he had just met a constituent who had been reading about that and wanted to know how the Prime Ministers of Europe went about pillar jumping at the summits. We are dealing with a series of topics that do not connect with the lives of our people and we are discussing them in terms that they cannot understand.
The European project, built around integration for its own sake, now has only a dwindling audience. More and more, the leaders of Europe judge proposals not by the test of whether they will deliver integration of our countries but on whether they will deliver real benefits to our countries. The Prime Minister caught that mood last week in Sweden, when he said of a single currency:
"The first priority must be not to integrate the economies of Europe, but to strengthen the economies of Europe."
I know that the single currency was a source of grief to the former Prime Minister at the general election, when his wait-and-see policy was reinterpreted by 600 Conservative candidates as a say-what-you-like policy. I say that with some authority, as I read all 600 election addresses. I thought that the finest attempt to marry the private views of a candidate with the official line was that of David Shaw, formerly of Dover, who signalled the degree to which his mind was open on the single currency in the sentence:
"I shall listen very carefully to all the arguments for and against a single currency. Then I shall vote against it."
After the gyrations that Conservative Members went through during the election to fudge their policy on the single currency, it takes a touch of nerve for them to table an amendment today that refers to "fudged criteria".
I assure the former Prime Minister that we have no intention of signing up if our final conclusion is that the criteria have been fudged. We reject the choice that is emerging between a soft euro, which is unworkable, and a hard euro, which is unpopular. We have made it clear that if Britain is to join the single currency, first, that currency must be credible and, secondly, it must win the consent of the people. That is why we will take our decision on the basis of a hard-headed assessment of economic reality and we will give the people a referendum, so that they will have the final veto on whether Britain will join.
At present, we do not know whether there will be a single currency to join in 1999. There is, indeed, an interesting debate in Europe. What is valuable about that debate, and what Britain can usefully help to further, is the gathering consensus that the prime objectives of economic policy should be growth, employment and competitiveness, and that the single currency must be judged on whether it will help or hinder those objectives.
Mr. Malcolm Bruce: The Foreign Secretary has given a helpful explanation of the Government's approach. Does he recognise that businesses are faced with practical decisions about when to make investments, depending on whether or not we are in the single
804
currency? Can he tell us at what point the British Government will be able to say definitively when we would join and under what circumstances?
Mr. Cook: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is no secret. We must make a decision in time to apply by spring 1998 if we wish to be in that first wave. Therefore, as the hon. Gentleman can see, we must make a decision somewhere around the turn of the year or very early next year.
I was explaining why the Amsterdam summit comes at a creative moment in the history of the debate within Europe. New Labour goes to the Amsterdam summit in a constructive spirit of partnership, not the sterile spirit of oppositionalism, in which Conservative Members so often travel to Europe. Because of that, we will be listened to with respect. We have established Britain as one of the main players in Europe, no longer heckling from the sidelines. The Order Paper today makes it plain that Opposition Members are still firmly rooted on those sidelines. The amendment repeats their routine opposition to both the social chapter and the employment chapter.
Let us be clear about the matter. The British Government have resolved to opt into the social chapter because we believe that that is right for Britain. We did not do it, as some suggest, as some kind of concession to Chancellor Kohl. We did it for the British people, because the Government do not accept that the British people should have worse rights at work than people on the continent—often people on the continent who work for the same firms that employ people in Britain.
Mr. Christopher Gill: Will the Foreign Secretary concede that, with the Government's huge majority in Parliament, everything that he hopes will be delivered by the social chapter could have been passed by his Government? That would have been in the traditions of his party. Why does he want to abdicate responsibility for those matters to Europe?
Mr. Cook: As I said earlier, there has been a change of tone. We are no longer told that the social chapter will be damaging to Britain. The Conservatives, chastened by the experience of an electorate who want the social chapter, now suggest that we should do it ourselves. I shall return to the hon. Gentleman's comments later.
We need European legislation on some issues because we are dealing with companies that operate throughout Europe. That is why we need a European directive and European works councils. The only people who are likely to lose their jobs as a result of the social chapter are those Conservative Members of Parliament who told their electors that they would derive no benefits from the social chapter. Those Members of Parliament are free to join their former Conservative colleagues on the boards of the many British companies that have implemented the social chapter. Douglas Hurd, the former Foreign Secretary, is director of the NatWest bank.
Mr. Gill rose—
Mr. Cook: I have answered the hon. Gentleman and I must continue my speech. If he listens, he may find it interesting. The NatWest bank has a European works council under the social chapter. Lord Howe is director of

805
BICC plc, which has a European works council under the social chapter. [Interruption.] There are some objections to the examples that I am giving. What about Lord Tebbit—surely no one could query his scepticism about Europe. Yet while Lord Tebbit was a director of BT, it introduced a European works council under the social chapter.
Richard Needham, Sir Geoffrey Pattie and Lord Prior are directors of General Electric Company plc—between the three of them, they must have at least a blocking minority. However, while they served on the board of GEC, it implemented the social chapter and introduced a European works council. Why should we take the Conservatives seriously when they tell us in this place that the social chapter is bad for companies and for employment, but do not take those comments seriously when they sit in company boardrooms?
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I congratulate the Government on resisting the imposition of works councils for smaller businesses. How will the Foreign Secretary stop that occurring with qualified majority voting?
Mr. Cook: I think that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the consultation document that was released last week. It is aimed not at Governments but at the social partners. Because Britain is joining the social chapter, the Confederation of British Industry, the Institute of Directors and the Federation of Small Businesses have the opportunity to express their views. Ministers will then give their views. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we have the confidence to enter negotiations and express our views in order to achieve the desired outcome: fair rights for those in work and regulations that do not damage competitiveness.
The Opposition amendment also opposes the employment chapter. The employment chapter is a modest, sensible step, which requires the institutions of Europe to identify the employment consequences of any policy before adopting it. I am pleased to inform the House that, unlike the previous Administration, the new Labour Government have obtained an amendment to the first article of the employment chapter. It recognises the fact that, if we are to increase employment, we must improve employability and increase the flexibility of the labour market. Article 1 of the employment chapter now commits the European Union to promoting a skilled, trained and adaptable work force, and labour markets that are responsive to economic change.
Only a Conservative party that is wildly out of touch with popular opinion or the public's desperation about job insecurity could regard that modest objective as a threat to Britain's national interests. On the contrary, it meets one of the main concerns of the British people. That is why the new Labour Government will support it. Precisely because the Government are not shouting no to everything out of prejudice, we are listened to with respect when we do say no to issues that threaten Britain's national interests. This time, our fellow European leaders know that we really mean it. For that reason, we shall get a better deal at Amsterdam than the Conservatives could have done.
There are seven days of tough negotiations in front of us before the Amsterdam summit and there will be three days of hard bargaining at Amsterdam. I am confident
806
that we have every opportunity of obtaining several objectives. The first is a legal basis beyond challenge in the European Court of Justice for Britain to maintain its external border controls, which the Conservative Government never secured in 18 years.
Secondly, we can secure measures that will create tougher provisions against fraud in other member states. I cheerfully concede that the proposals that we have tabled are based on qualified majority voting, for the simple reason that if every country had a veto, no country would ever suffer a penalty for fraud against the European budget. Will the former Prime Minister defend as a matter of principle the right of every country in Europe to retain a veto against penalties for allowing fraud in that country? Does he not recognise that the issue is a clear example of majority voting being in Britain's interests?
Thirdly, I believe that we can look forward with confidence to obtaining more votes for Britain and the larger countries from the Amsterdam summit. Enlargement could create the perverse outcome of the three largest nations, with a majority of the population of Europe, not having a blocking minority in the Council of Ministers. We have every reason to believe that we shall emerge from Amsterdam with an agreement that will give Britain greater weight in the Council of Ministers.
Finally, we are confident that we can emerge from Amsterdam with a text that will retain the national veto over issues of common foreign and security policy. We can return from Amsterdam not just having done a deal, not just having done a good deal for Britain, but having obtained a better deal for Britain than the previous Government could have hoped to achieve.
Our next debate on a forthcoming European summit will be six months from now, on the eve of the next British presidency of Europe, which starts in January. The main concern of that British presidency will be to get negotiations on the enlargement of Europe off to a flying start. One of the great ironies of the truculence of Conservative Members about Europe is that every other country in Europe is queuing up to get on a bus that Conservative Members often sound as though they want to get off. It is important to remember why other countries want to get in. They want to share in the prosperity that they can obtain from access to the largest single market in the world—larger than any in north America.
Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that one of the main reasons why so many countries are determined to try to get in reflects badly on the European Community, which has deliberately tried to block all access to trade for those countries for the past four or five years? That hard stick tactic has ensured that those countries have not had a chance to negotiate for reasonable and decent access, forcing them to come in regardless of the conditions.
Mr. Cook: The anxiety of those countries to enter the European Union goes back well beyond the past four or five years. I have some sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's point about the narrow negotiations on trade access, but he should be under no illusions. Even a more liberal approach to trade access would in no way have removed the anxiety of those countries to be a full part of the single market and participate in the decisions that

807
shape that market. They want in because it is the largest single market in the world. That market is of great importance to Britain—a fact which the hon. Gentleman often overlooks.
Most of our exports go to the other member states of the European Union. Britain exports more to the Netherlands than it does to all the tiger economies of the far east. We export more to Denmark than we do to the whole of China. That is the scale of the European single market, and the countries of central Europe understand that full well even if Opposition Members do not. Secondly—
Mr. Duncan Smith: So what?
Mr. Cook: If the response to all that is, "So what?", the Conservative party has finally conceded any last claim to be a party that understands business.
Sir Peter Tapsell: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Cook: No. I have already said that I will not give way again. I have given way to the hon. Gentleman already.
Sir Peter Tapsell: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman can respond to his hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) in the Tea Room. He does not need to do so during my speech, with the greatest respect.
Sir Peter Tapsell: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Cook: No. I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman and I have already said that I now wish to conclude my speech. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will let me proceed.
The other reason why the countries of central Europe wish to join is that they want the stability that comes from the mutual confidence of membership of the European Union. We have learnt a paradox that would not have been understood by our grandfathers: if we dismantle barriers between us, if we allow the free movement of goods and if we make people free to travel and to work across those frontiers, we end up with much greater security than we ever had when we built and armed frontiers between us. Those are the reasons why those countries want to come in.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: Before those countries are given membership of the European Union, should we not seek to strengthen the role of national Parliaments and the European Parliament vis-à-vis the European Court of Justice, the Council and the Commission?
Mr. Cook: I assure my hon. Friend that we will, indeed, make proposals for greater scrutiny of European legislation by, particularly, the national Parliament of Britain. As my hon. Friend is aware, the House will shortly set up a Committee that will look at the procedures
808
of the House. It will be our intention to submit to that Committee a paper outlining ways in which we can improve our scrutiny of European business. We can take no satisfaction from the fact that European business in the House is often regarded as a specialist area, which is shunted off into Committee Rooms upstairs and not adequately surveyed. If we want to do our task properly, we must improve our procedures for better scrutiny.
I have explained why the countries of central Europe want to be members of the European Union. It is, however, important that we also remember why we want them in. We want them in because Europe can never enjoy security if it is surrounded by a zone of poverty just outside its walls. We want them in because if we wish to provide a clean environment for our people, we must tackle the pollution and emissions from our neighbours. We want them in because if we want to make our country safe from crime, we need them to help and to co-operate in curbing organised crime which knows no borders and is integrating far faster across frontiers than the European Union ever will.
The reasons why those countries want to come in and the reasons why we want them in are the same reasons why Britain should want to be a prominent member of the European Union. Together with other member states, we can do much more for our people than we ever could standing alone. I see no sign of recognition of that in the amendment tabled by the former Prime Minister and his right hon. Friends.
If new thinking is going on in the Conservative party in the wake of its defeat, it is hard to spot it on today's Order Paper. The amendment does not list a single positive opportunity that could be taken in Europe, but it comes up with a list of threats from Europe. That is the key difference that we see between ourselves and the Opposition. We see the European Union as an opportunity; they can only see it as a threat.
What I find most depressing about the Opposition's stance is what a tim'rous, nervous wee beastie is their version of nationalism—a Britain constantly in fear of the continentals coming up with something threatening and constantly clinging for comfort to a veto in case anyone proposes a change. I believe that the British people are a proud, self-confident, assertive people and that they deserve a Government who also have confidence—the confidence to offer leadership in Europe, to shape the agenda of Europe and to choose new directions for Europe. That is what the new Labour Government offer Britain and that is the spirit in which we shall go with confidence into the Amsterdam summit.
4.24 pm
Mr. John Major: I beg to move, To leave out from "union" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
"and warns Her Majesty's Government against signing up to the third stage of economic and monetary union based on fudged criteria and against proposals at the forthcoming Amsterdam summit which threaten British national interests, namely: surrendering the United Kingdom's veto in social policy, industry policy, environment policy and regional policy; signing the Social Chapter and supporting a new Treaty Chapter on Employment; and, instead, recommends that the Government adhere to the approach outlined in the White Paper 'A Partnership of Nations' (Cm 3181)."
I congratulate the Foreign Secretary on his first substantial speech at the Dispatch Box. As our debates and discussions on the European Union develop, he will

809
find that I agree with much of what he has said. However, as he gains greater experience in negotiating with our European colleagues, he will realise that some elements of his speech represent a slightly more starry-eyed approach to the process than he will take when he has been negotiating in Europe for a brief time.
In a few days' time, the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary will go to Amsterdam to negotiate a treaty on behalf of the United Kingdom. They will certainly have a great deal of negotiating capital in their pockets, because they are new and our European colleagues are always prepared to give a certain amount of leeway to a new Government, from whichever country, and because they have already given away so much, as our European partners wished, that they are bound to be well received. Those who appear with their hands up and a white flag flying are always likely to be well received.
The substantive question is what the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary will obtain for the United Kingdom and for Europe as a result of the concessions that they have already signalled in advance of the commencement of serious negotiations. In many ways, the Amsterdam treaty is unnecessary. Very few people want it and it is likely to do more harm than good; none the less, the negotiations are extremely important.
Recently, the Prime Minister asked a question that I have asked on many occasions in the past few years: is the European Union going in the right direction? He answered that question: frankly, no. I agree. That is my answer too, as it has been on many occasions in the past. In some ways, but by no means all, not only is the Community not going in the right direction; it is actively going in the wrong direction. Amsterdam could correct that or worsen it. Some of the omens, but by no means all, are not good.
This afternoon, the Foreign Secretary gave us a partial guide to the Government's position. I appreciate that, on this occasion, there has not been time for the Government to produce the customary White Paper that precedes our debates on these matters. However, I hope that in his reply to the debate the Minister will confirm that the Government intend to revert to that practice in future.
Much of the significance of the Foreign Secretary's speech lay as much in what he did not say and what was not in his speech as in what he said. There is much in the broad stance of the Government with which I agree. That is hardly surprising, because much of it seems very familiar. Some of what the Prime Minister has said in recent days and the Foreign Secretary's speech this afternoon I could have written myself. Indeed, time and again, as I flick through the speeches that I have made on the subject in the past few years, I find that I did write it. It is attractive, although perhaps somewhat surprising, to hear that echo from the present Government.
Let me touch on the proposals on which we can agree in principle with the Foreign Secretary, although there will be some caveats as to how they might be achieved and what the price might be.
The Foreign Secretary told the House that he would seek a legal basis to retain our border controls. That must be right, and he will have the support of the Opposition. However, it was not right for the Foreign Secretary—perhaps he was misreported—to hail that as the new
810
Government's first European victory. He again indicated this afternoon that it was never achieved by the previous Conservative Government. I say to the Foreign Secretary with all friendliness that that is both a contentious and a premature claim.
The claim is contentious because the principle, which is all the Foreign Secretary has thus far obtained, was conceded by the Dutch presidency to the former Government in March. It is premature because the details, which will be vital in nailing down the agreement, have yet to be settled—as does whether there is a negotiating price to be paid for what our partners will see as a concession to the United Kingdom. I shall return to that point in a moment.
I agree without reservation with the Foreign Secretary when he refers to the need for job creation across Europe. There are 18 million unemployed people. I refer him to speech after speech that I made in the European Council on precisely that point. The Government's intention is plainly sensible. The Foreign Secretary will, however, find a vast difference between agreeing that in principle with our European partners and agreeing in detail with our European partners on how that job creation is to be brought about.
Many of our partners will not agree with the flexible markets to which the Prime Minister has rather latterly become converted. I am delighted that he has so converted and that he is going to tackle obstacles to job creation and labour market flexibility. Hallelujah to that, say we all. It is a breathtaking conversion to Conservative principles. It would perhaps be grudging to remind the Government of what they said in opposition; suffice it to say that our old policy in government on flexibility and open markets now seems to be the Government's new orthodoxy. They have shed all their past beliefs and oratory.
Whether the Government change their minds on the substance may be quite a different matter. How can the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister talk of labour market flexibility with a straight face when they propose to accept the working time directive, sign the social chapter and flirt with Europe's employment policies, which have led to three decades of job losses? Their ability to say such conflicting things at the same time will strike most people with astonishment.
The Government also propose, as does the Conservative party, enlargement of the Community. Again, that must be the right proposition. The EU as at present is incomplete in size. It cannot possibly be complete until we meet what I believe are our historic obligations to countries such as Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic, and indeed others. The sooner they can be brought in and we can extend the free-market sphere—which has its own security implications further eastward across Europe—to provide greater security for future generations than their fathers and grandfathers ever dreamed of, the better it will be for everyone. The Government will have our strong support in seeking to do that. Within 10 years, as the result of the agreements previously reached, the EU should have grown to 25 or 26 members as diverse in size and international interests as Germany, France and the United Kingdom on one hand, and perhaps Cyprus on the other.
To my mind, enlargement is far more important and relevant to the livelihoods of people in this country and across all of Europe and far more worth while than

811
ambitious plans for more centralisation and communitisation, or for that matter the establishment of a single currency. It needs to be understood that enlargement will fundamentally change the very nature of the EU. It will require a flexibility in institutions, and in practice that does not exist at present.
Enlargement will compel root-and-branch reform not only of institutions, which will certainly be discussed in Amsterdam, but of some of the EU's practices—most obviously of all, the common agricultural policy. That would quite plainly be unaffordable were the EU to be extended in the way proposed. If we are serious in Europe about enlargement, we must be equally serious about a proper, fundamental reform of the common agricultural policy—although I must tell the Foreign Secretary that he will find huge resistance to that among a number of our EU partners.
The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary should make it clear in Amsterdam that they do not believe that the treaty and the proposals for enlargement can safely proceed unless we get a commitment from our European partners that they will be prepared for the upheavals that must follow enlargement if that enlargement is to be carried through successfully over the next few years.
What are our partners seeking at the Amsterdam summit? The President of the Commission, Mr. Santer, told us a few weeks ago. He confirmed that Amsterdam will be about further integration; about an end to the single-nation veto; about introducing an employment chapter based on European employment practices; and about increasing the power of the European Parliament, necessarily at the expense of national Parliaments. The summit will be about much else that is unpalatable, as well as changes that are plainly sensible.
The draft treaty also proposes a legal personality for the European Union—the Foreign Secretary did not mention that—which is a change that will move it towards becoming a state in its own right. The change will not establish a European state in its own right-I do not remotely begin to claim that—but it will be a step in that direction. I hope that the Government will oppose that idea. If they do not, the difficulties that arose following the Maastricht treaty—with the intention of having a European citizenship subsidiary to national citizenship—will be dwarfed by the difficulties that the Government will face if they accept the idea of a legal personality for the European Union. That is a thoroughly bad idea.
A legal personality for the European Union would be a bad idea for this country, but, as someone who wishes to see Europe succeed, I can tell the Foreign Secretary that it would be a bad idea for Europe also. The belief among the people of Europe—the citizenry—that the European Union is not working in their interests, as we had hoped it would work, will be magnified by the impression that they are moving closer to centralisation. I hope that the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister will firmly say no to that proposition, although I know the seductive terms in which it will be argued by so many of our European partners.
The draft treaty also proposes an extension of the role of the European Union in asylum and immigration policy. Our partners have long wished to see the free movement of persons, immigration and asylum put into the Community pillar. I am sorry if the Foreign Secretary regards that comment as an example of the Opposition's
812
negative attitude, but the answer to that request must be no. We must not accept that proposal, in whole or in part, and I hope that the Minister who winds up will confirm that the Government will not do so.
I suspect that the Government will be asked to do a deal on immigration and asylum in return for the assurances in the treaty about border controls that the Foreign Secretary mentioned earlier. Again, we should firmly reject any such link. The issues are contentious, but they must be decided in the House if we are to carry the bulk of the British people with us in the decisions that may be taken on immigration or asylum. It would be utterly unacceptable to have those issues determined by qualified majority vote in the Council of Ministers, and for disputes and appeals to be settled in the European Court of Justice.
The Foreign Secretary referred to the proposal to extend qualified majority voting in several areas. I see no proper case for that. I strongly oppose any material increase in qualified majority voting. There may be some tiddler areas in which that is worth while, but not many. Any significant extension of qualified majority voting can be made only at the expense of the authority of the British Government and of the House of Commons.
On that point, the Government have a clear policy of almost full surrender. They have conceded qualified majority voting in regional policy, social policy, environmental policy and industrial policy. They have conceded it without asking anything in return in the negotiations, and they have been offered nothing. No other Government have made such a unilateral concession. Even if the Government thought it was right to do that—I can see that they might—it was folly not to trade what they were prepared to give for what they wished to achieve in the negotiations. That would have been a much more credible and mature policy for our Government to follow, but they have not done so.
The Foreign Secretary was equivocal today—I was not sure precisely what he meant—but he has hinted in the past few days that he may be equivocal about maintaining unanimity on foreign policy. To concede that would be folly. Our policy on foreign affairs should be determined here, with the Foreign Secretary answerable to the House. Where we can work in concert with our partners, let us do so. Let us not have a narrow-minded nationalism that says, "We will not work with you." Of course not. Where we can agree, the collective voice of Europe is stronger. There are ways in which we can improve consensus-making within the EU to develop foreign policy, but to do so by QMV would be a substantial mistake for a big European country such as Britain.
The Government's justification for more QMV was partly set out by the Foreign Secretary earlier. Of course, there are some areas where an extension of QMV would be in the interests of this country, but the balance is very heavily tilted against us if we move towards an extension. That is why we should not do so. The Foreign Secretary explained his case in an interview on "The World at One" some time ago, in which he said:
"Do we want to have Britain's interests in reforming the European Union vetoed say by Slovakia?"
Why Slovakia, I do not know, but it will do as an illustration. He continued:
"And if you want reform frankly in many cases you do have to have majority voting to stop one perhaps small nation obstructing progress".

813
But what if the country whose interests were threatened was this country? What if Britain's interests were at stake? The Prime Minister once said that he would never be isolated in Europe. He then said that he was only too happy to be isolated in Europe. But what if our interests were at stake? What view would the Foreign Secretary take then? As he will discover when he has experience of negotiating in Europe, the small nations do not tend to block progress, because their interests tend not to demand it. But he will find that the interests of the United Kingdom often do demand it, and to throw that away at the outset of his period as Foreign Secretary would be a grave mistake.
Mr. Giles Radice: Does the Leader of the Opposition agree that it was Mrs. Thatcher who, at the time of the Single European Act and the creation of the single market, insisted on the extension of QMV so that the creation of the market could not be blocked by a single country? Are there not other areas where that can be done?
Mr. Major: The hon. Gentleman is entirely right, and the prize there was worth the sacrifice—the development of the single market. The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have praised that decision. But where is the comparative prize now for a further extension of QMV? There is none. If the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary could come back with something as valuable to this country as the single market—the extension of the biggest free market the world has ever seen—I would say, "Yes, by all means extend QMV." Nothing like that is on offer. What is on offer is this country surrendering more of our authority for the convenience of colleagues, with no comparative gain for the United Kingdom.
The Foreign Secretary has illuminated what he is about. He said:
"The terrific potential for a Labour victory is that not only would you have a straight majority of Prime Ministers at the EU summit from socialist sister parties"—
a point he repeated today—
"but you would also then have one of the key players in Europe on their side. With a Labour Government in Britain we could put together an alliance that would enable a different agenda at those EU summits."
Mr. Robin Cook: Very sensible.
Mr. Major: Indeed, but that does not sound like what the Prime Minister has been saying to business men—it sounds nothing remotely like what the Prime Minister has been saying anywhere. What is the "new agenda" that the Foreign Secretary has in mind? To practise socialism abroad while talking conservatism at home? That sounds like an accurate description of what the Government have been doing for the past few weeks.
If that is the case, perhaps it explains why the Government would sign the social chapter and support an employment chapter that will be either pointless if policy is left in national hands—as the Foreign Secretary implied, and as it should be—or damaging if it admits Community employment practices to the United Kingdom. It is odd that, on every measurement one uses,
814
unemployment in the United Kingdom is coming down, but is steady or rising in European countries that operate what is known as the European social model. Nor is that just a short-term phenomenon as a result of the economic cycle: if the Foreign Secretary cares to look over 25 years in the EU, he will find a relentless underlying rise in unemployment, disproportionate to that in comparable countries and in the United Kingdom.
The European Union—broadly collectively the same size as the United States—has created a quarter of the jobs created by the United States since 1950. Most of those jobs were created in the public sector and not the private sector, precisely because of policies that piled more costs on employers and discouraged employment. Against that background, signing the social chapter, aligned with the European social model, will open the door to further job destruction.
I genuinely understand why the Labour party—with its history and instincts—wishes to move in that direction, but it cannot say, "We are in favour of flexible markets," while moving in a direction that will strangle flexible markets and force people out of employment.
Mr. Robert N. Wareing: In referring to QMV, the Leader of the Opposition—I will get that right—has talked in terms of the British Labour Government "surrendering" to Europe. How does he believe the French and German Governments talk to their people? They, too, will be subject to QMV. It is a question not of surrender, but of sharing sovereignty in the belief that, if Europe is to progress, we cannot be subjected to what ancient Poland was subjected to at the time of the Liberum veto.
Mr. Major: I will explain where there is a clear distinction. The whole tradition and manner of government in the United Kingdom, and our history throughout much of this century, are almost the polar opposite of those of continental Europe. Our traditions and instincts are different. What is commonplace for those in Europe is not remotely what has been seen traditionally to be in our interests. If QMV is conceded as the Government propose, what is common practice in Europe—from which we have always turned away—will be imposed from Europe on the United Kingdom. That is the distinction. The hon. Gentleman must understand that the traditions and instincts are not the same. That is why we should co-operate, but not be compelled by qualified majority votes.
Mr. Robin Cook: Since the former Prime Minister is developing this matter as a major part of his speech, may I put to him the question that I asked during my speech and which there must be time to answer now? Would he really say to the House that he would insist that the new provisions on fraud should be decided by unanimity? Does he not recognise that, if they were, no one would ever suffer a penalty? If he accepts QMV in that area, will he concede that there are areas where qualified majority voting is in Britain's interests?
Mr. Major: If the Foreign Secretary had been listening, he would have heard me say a few moments ago that there are areas where the extension of QMV is right, but that they are outweighed by the areas that would do damage to Britain.

815
On fraud, if the provisions were patently sensible, they would be agreed by consensus. They do not have to be imposed by QMV. When the right hon. Gentleman has had experience of negotiating within the EU, he will realise that consensus can be, and is, built on policies that are sensible, week by week. That is a distinction that he may not understand now, but which he will learn once he has spent a few months negotiating with our European partners.
The Labour party is well versed in telling us that much of the social chapter at present is only words and promises, and that is true. At the moment, only two directives have thus far appeared under the social chapter. But that is not the point, and nor is it what will happen in the future. The social chapter, once signed, opens the door to a flood of future legislation. The Government know that, the unions know that and the EU knows it. Mr. Gabaglio, the general secretary of the European Trade Union Confederation, blurted out the truth in a clear fashion when he came to Britain. That is the reality. Mr. Gabaglio would like to go back to what he called, "Business as usual". I recall business as usual under Labour Governments—Employment Protection Acts that destroyed jobs, industrial policies that destroyed whole industries and regional policies that laid waste to the region. This month, what the Government will give away will give us those same disastrous policies of the 1970s, but they will be made in Brussels and imposed here by qualified majority vote. That is the reality.
Why do the Government claim that jobs are the bottom line in deciding whether they should join a single currency? Jobs do not seem to be an issue when embracing the European social model. The Government do not seem to care that that would damage jobs and competitiveness, although they surely know that it must. Perhaps the Foreign Secretary or one of his colleagues can reassure the House that, if there were a possibility of losing jobs as a result of signing the social chapter, Labour would rethink. Are jobs as important in signing that as they are in signing up to the single currency? Apparently not. Apparently, it does not matter if jobs are lost as a result of that policy.
Mr. Cash: Will my right hon. Friend tell us whether he regrets having signed the stability pact, in the light of what he has said about a single currency? In the circumstances, does he think that it would be highly desirable for the Government to repudiate that pact, in the light of the difficulties that it is causing in the rest of Europe?
Mr. Major: It is good to see that the move from being a Government Back Bencher to an Opposition Back Bencher has not changed my hon. Friend. He is as difficult now as he was then. With great respect, he is as wrong now as he was then.
I must move on to the substantive points. Perhaps the Government could also settle a paradox for us. In case their policies on the social chapter worry the business community, their spin doctors have been busy reassuring the House that Labour will pick and choose European social policies; yet the Foreign Secretary knows that much of the social chapter is under qualified majority voting, where picking and choosing is out of the question. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can confirm that he
816
understands that. He is obviously unsighted on that; perhaps his colleague will reply on that point at the end of the debate.
The only effective way to pick and choose is outside the social chapter, by producing legislation under the Government's own domestic agenda—heaven knows, they have a big enough majority. If they think that those policies are right, they should bring them to the House. If those policies work, they can claim the credit; if they do not, the House can repeal them in the interests of job creation and not be stuck with them because they have been imposed from outside. If the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister had no majority behind them, they could not do that. No doubt they could provide an early guillotine to ensure that they get the matter through the House—no doubt, it could be whisked through very speedily indeed if they chose to do so, but they would prefer not to and I think that we all know why.
There is another paradox at the core of the Government's European social policy—another example of their love affair with diametrically contradicting prose. On the one hand, we are told that European social legislation is vital for the workers of this country and that the new treaty chapter will help to create jobs. On the other hand, we—and, more especially, the business community—are assured that neither of those amount to a row of beans. They are symbolic gestures, so business leaders who are getting edgy need not worry. Which is it?
Both roads lead to disaster by different means. The first—more regulation—would hit prosperity and hurt jobs and the second would encourage the Europe of ever-increasing expectations that cannot be met. What then? An excuse for yet more European leaders to call for yet more European powers as a solution to all our ills.
The Foreign Secretary mocked the previous Government's policy on economic and monetary union in his speech seconds before restating it as his policy. Negotiate and decide, making up one's mind when one has the facts—all the buzz words. The right hon. Gentleman did not use them in that fashion, but that was exactly what he meant—wait and see what the facts and conditions are, make up one's mind at the time and do not be committed in advance. Can the right hon. Gentleman not make up his mind even now? The policy that he stated is the policy that he has been attacking month after month. It is breathtaking hypocrisy for the Government to talk to us, first, about the negotiate-and-decide policy and, secondly, about the unity of the party, to which I will return.
The fate of economic and monetary union will overshadow all the other discussions that the Foreign Secretary will have at Amsterdam. He referred to a change of tone in his party. I hope that we will hear such a change of tone as the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) or the right hon. Members for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) speak.
Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Major: Not at this moment, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me. We know his view on a single currency.
Mr. Bruce: It was the right hon. Gentleman's view that I wanted.
Mr. Major: The hon. Gentleman is just about to get it.
The single currency is approaching the point of decision and, perhaps, the point of crisis. The timetable is now unrealistic and the dangerous impact of dividing the Union into those in a single currency and those outside it is becoming daily more obvious. I have raised that matter repeatedly at European Councils and the speeches are a matter of record. The events of the past few weeks—what has happened in Germany and France and the changing circumstances across Europe—mean that economic and monetary union cannot safely proceed on 1 January 1999. Perhaps it can do so later—one can never say never, as has memorably been said—but it cannot on 1 January 1999.
If economic and monetary union goes ahead on that date, it will be not because the economic circumstances are right but because politicians throughout Europe have overcommitted themselves and cannot break away, even though the economic criteria that they set in the Maastricht treaty will not be met. On the information that has recently become available, the United Kingdom should certainly not enter in 1999. I am pleased to see the Foreign Secretary nodding assent to that.
Given the influence that the Foreign Secretary boasted of earlier, however, we should go further. First, in the interests of all of Europe—not just Britain and not just because of what some members of the Opposition might call Euro-scepticism in Britain—and because it would be a disaster if EMU went wrong, we should use the new-found influence of which the Foreign Secretary boasted to press for delay at Amsterdam. I am not asking him to press for cancellation. That will not happen. European monetary union is clearly in the interests of some of our European partners and they are not going to cancel it, so let us not have that pipe dream. Delay, however, we can most certainly press for and we should go further. We should make it clear that, if the other countries do not choose to delay, we will use the vote that we have against each and every country individually that seeks to enter such a single currency if their economies are not suitable to meet the Maastricht criteria and sustain them in later years.
I hope that the Prime Minister will indicate at Amsterdam—as I would have done had I been there—first, that we now believe that delay is in the interests of Europe, to avoid a disaster and, secondly, that if the Union chooses not to delay, we will vote against the entry of those countries that have not met the Maastricht criteria.
I fear two sorts of fudge as we approach the dates for economic and monetary union. The first is a fudge in which some of the larger European nations pretend that they have met the Maastricht criteria when they have done so only with creative accounting. The second is a different sort of fudge, in which the nations change the treaty commitment and weaken the criteria for a single currency so that not only France and Germany can enter, but perhaps Italy, Spain and other countries that desperately wish to be part of the single currency area when it is established.
If EMU takes place on weakened criteria, it will be economically fatal not merely to our European partners but to our interests and it should be opposed. The evidence is now available. The necessary economic criteria cannot be reached by 1999. At Amsterdam, I hope that the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary will
818
seek to put a brake on economic and monetary union—not a cancellation, but a brake—because, if it proceeds in the wrong circumstances, it will damage our economic interests and cost us jobs. I delayed saying no until the British interest was clear. It is now clear. We should say no and the Prime Minister should do it at Amsterdam.
Mr. Donald Anderson: The Leader of the Opposition makes an important point about creative accounting, but surely it is an absurd proposition to say that, however close to or far from the Maastricht criteria our partner countries come—even if they are broadly in line—we should veto them. Surely that is what our American friends would call influencing people without making friends. What isolation and animosity the vetoing of partner countries would create in the European Union.
Mr. Major: It is not a veto: the matter is determined by qualified majority voting. I did not mention the word veto: I said that we should cast our vote against those countries proceeding. [Interruption] It is no good the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) waving his arms; he should find out what he is talking about before standing up and saying it. I wish that he would change his oratory, because it is not a question of our trying to be beastly to the Europeans. If they proceed on the wrong criteria and things go wrong, there will be real and damaging economic effects on this country and throughout Europe.
I want Europe to succeed. I do not want much of the work of the past 30 years to be blown away by something that would make the collapse of the exchange rate mechanism look like a vicarage tea party, which is exactly what would happen if countries went into economic and monetary union and it collapsed. How many unemployed people does the hon. Member for Swansea, East want there to be in Europe? Is 18 million not enough for him? It is far too many for us, and I do not think that the risk is worth the potential reward.
A single currency may have rewards at the right time and in the right circumstances; but that is not now.
Mr. Malcolm Bruce: The Leader of the Opposition has said why he thinks that there should be delay, but can he clarify what the shadow Chancellor said this weekend and tell us whether, if monetary union were to go ahead and, in his party's view, it was in Britain's national interest to join, it would still be his party's policy to allow the British people a referendum on the issue?
Mr. Major: I set out some time ago the view that I believed that it was right to have a referendum, and I have not shifted, nor do I expect to shift, from that view. It is a decision unlike any other. It may be decided that it is right to go in. Those circumstances could well exist in the future.
It is not a question only of positive advantages; there could be a negative case in which the disadvantages, in terms of employment and economic well-being, of staying out are compelling. We cannot overlook that possibility, and I never have. That is why I have always refused to rule out entry in principle. One cannot be certain that economic conditions will not be such that entering will be the least bad option.

819
If such a change is to come about, it is a change of such magnitude that, if it is to carry conviction, it must be endorsed in a referendum on a specific question, which is why the Cabinet that I had the privilege to lead decided on that policy some time ago.
I have dwelt on the negotiations at Amsterdam, so I have not developed the theme of the many advantages that exist from our membership of the European Union. In the absence of my having dwelt on those advantages on this occasion, let no one doubt that they exist and that we are infinitely better off in the European Union, for all the disagreements and squabbles that we occasionally have with our partners, than we would be in splendid isolation outside it.
I believe that my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) was right to take this country into the European Union and I believe that the economic advantages that we have already reaped and that will be reaped in the future, unless we throw them away with foolish decisions, are huge.
We need to press to enlarge and decentralise the Union, to turn it into the economic powerhouse that it could, but has not yet, become. Its potential is almost beyond calculation if the right policies are there to follow the original dreams of the Community's founders.
Of course, we need to work with our partners to maximise Europe's influence around the world, but working with them does not mean having policies imposed on us by them, through qualified majority voting. We need to build on the opportunities that Europe has given us.
I profoundly disagree with some, not all, of the policies of the European Union. I echo again what the Prime Minister said the other day: is it going in the right direction? Frankly, no, but it is a force for good, economically and politically. We should use all our influence as a country to make it a success in the future.
That does not mean only co-operating; it means sometimes saying to our European partners, "We think this is wrong and we ought not to do it," because if we go ahead, and we prove to be right and it is indeed wrong, we could damage the whole European Union.
That is not Euro-scepticism, but a balanced judgment of what we believe is right to ensure that the European Union works. That is what I care about. I want it to work and I want us to play a proper role in it, but I do not want us to be placed in a position in which a more intrusive European Union overrides the instinctive wishes, habits and traditions of the United Kingdom in a way that many in this country have come to fear over recent years. The Prime Minister's remark is relevant in that regard as well.
In that spirit of wishing Europe to be a force for good economically and politically, we should use all our influence as a country to help to make it a success in a way that is appealing, and not unappetising, to the British instinct. In that spirit, I wish the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary well in the negotiations that they must undertake—I can certainly agree that they will be hard negotiations—and, for all our sakes, I hope that they will be wise in what they pursue and successful in what they achieve.
5.5 pm
Mr. Tony Benn: I welcome this debate, which takes place in entirely new circumstances. I got the feeling that those on both Front Benches were talking as
820
Europeans. I, too, was born a European and will die a European. It is not really a national matter: we are discussing the future of our continent as we enter the new century. The implications of the decisions that we take are profound constitutionally, politically, economically and socially.
Our cause is not best advanced by talking as though it were a matter of conflict between one nation and another. The history of Europe in this century has been a history of conflict and war arising from nationalism. As I hope to show, if we take the wrong decisions, nationalism could be reawakened.
We have had two wars and the cold war. Fifty years ago, the Marshall plan was designed to strengthen the western European economies. The American ambassador was in the Palace of Westminster the other day and pointed out that the Marshall plan was part of the beginning of globalisation. He said that it was about the containment of communism. The European Economic Community and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation were set up after the second world war to create a western Europe that would be able to perform again its function as a series of capitalist economies and to resist the onset of communism.
There are many people—I think that the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), who I am sure will be speaking later, is one—who look back at that history and say that we must build a political federation in western Europe to ensure that does not happen again. I understand that view, although I have never shared it, and the right hon. Gentleman, who as a young man went to Spain to visit those engaged in the Spanish civil war and who played a notable part in the war, is fully entitled to it.
I want to express some of my anxieties, which have been rather delicately touched on in the debate so far. First, the Europe that is on offer is a deflationary Europe. That is what the stability pact and the Maastricht criteria are all about. There has been much anxiety in local government about the standard spending assessment limiting the capacity of local authorities to spend, but I dread the day when the Chancellor comes to the House and says that a standard spending assessment has been made for Britain and that if we go beyond it we shall be fined under the provisions of the stability pact.
Unemployment in Europe, at 18 million or 20 million, is at an horrific level. It is all very well blaming the continental Governments' policies, but unemployment performs an essential function if we want to achieve what are called flexible labour markets. Without unemployment, wages cannot be brought down. Unemployment gets wages down. If wages are brought down, profits go up and imports are limited. In my opinion, the discipline of unemployment is an integral part of the policy being pursued in the European Community.
I am old enough to remember that Hitler came to power when there were 6 million unemployed in Germany. As a 10-year-old, I bought "Mein Kampf": I have it on my bookshelf still. The problem is beginning to re-emerge with Le Pen in France. With mass unemployment and despair, it is easy to find scapegoats: the Jews, the communists, the trade unionists. To read what was said by the Nazis before the war and consider how it is being echoed today must make people worry about what is in

821
effect the reimposition of the gold standard in Europe in the name of economic stability. The social price is very high.
My second anxiety is that the whole business—to call it a legal personality is only a way of describing it—involves the transfer of power from the people to Governments. That is what it is about. There is a new political class in Europe that has been accumulating, in the name of the European Union, more and more power for itself. I sat on the Council of Ministers for four years. I was president of the Council of Energy Ministers. The laws in Europe are made by a Parliament that meets in secret. When I was made president, I wrote to all the member countries saying that as we were a Parliament that passed laws, we should have it open so that everyone could hear the debates. That was vetoed; they want to meet in secret. In secret, the negotiations and deals can be made more easily. If the press had been present, as Hansard is here, a very different perspective would have been seen.
I do not draw a direct parallel, but it has sometimes occurred to me that as communism required a party central committee and commissars, Europe has a central bank and Commissioners, Both have a certain distrust of the exercise of popular power because they pursue in the one case a communist philosophy, and in the other a very ideological free-market philosophy, that require the people to be kept at bay.
We are now discussing also something as important as the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly, but these other constitutional changes that the Government are contemplating, which I wholly support, involve the transfer of power from London to Edinburgh and Cardiff at the very moment that we are also discussing the transfer of more essential powers from London to Frankfurt, Brussels and Strasbourg.
One reason why I am not in any way nationalist in my approach is that if the single currency goes ahead, power will be transferred to a central bank that will exercise all the levers of power in economic policy. It is no secret that I have some anxieties about the transfer of power to the Bank of England, but at least I have the comfort that the House of Commons can take it back again. In 1946, the Bank of England Act was passed by a majority in the House of Commons. After that, the Bank became subject to Treasury control. If it can go once, it can come back again; but hand power to Frankfurt and it cannot be retained.
If one thing is sacred for me, as I have said time and again, it is the power of the people by using a pencil on a piece of paper to remove those who made the economic policy that determined their lives. It never ceases to amaze me that people without a policeman in sight can take a pencil, put a cross on a piece of paper, pop it in a box and get rid of a Government: whether the last Government, the Callaghan Government, the Wilson Government or the Churchill Government. That is what democracy is about. Transfer the key decisions to people whom we do not elect and cannot remove and we abandon centuries of struggle by the common people to have some say in determining their future.
One last aspect was not touched on by the Foreign Secretary, but I must mention it: the lunacy of extending NATO into eastern Europe and rearming Hungary,
822
Poland and the Czech Republic. If the history of this century shows one thing, it is that we do not need rearmament in central and eastern Europe. Think of the people we have rearmed at different times for different reasons. We armed Serbia because Tito was hostile to Stalin; look at the price that was paid in the break-up of Yugoslavia. It is beyond the range of common sense when Europe's problems are so enormous, and when we need jobs and health facilities, to launch an arms drive to re-equip the Poles, Czechs and Hungarians.
I mention that because under our constitution—happily, we are looking at it; I have been interested in constitutional reform for a very long time—the power to extend NATO was taken by royal prerogative. Parliament was never consulted because all foreign relations are dealt with by the prerogative of treaty making. To put it as quietly as I can, I am worried about a deflationary Europe, a centralised Europe, an anti-democratic Europe and a rearmed Europe. Those anxieties in no way relate to Euro-scepticism because if we get it wrong, it will affect every country, not just Britain. It will take away democracy from Germany, France, Italy and the rest.
One reason why this debate is important is that it comes during the aftermath of some important elections. The British general election saw a major landslide which, dare I say it without being confrontational, rejected the policies of the previous Government. I put it no stronger than that. It appeared that those policies did not find favour with the electorate. I do not know whether to describe the French elections as an "old Labour" victory because that might get me into trouble with Excalibur. Lionel Jospin won an election on the basis of creating 750,000 new jobs and a shorter working week. In every country in Europe, people want jobs, full employment—what is wrong with that as an objective rather than a bit of modernisation of skills and training?—a living wage, homes to live in, lifelong health care and education, dignity when they are old, and peace. That is the voice of Europe that we heard on 1 May and in the French election.
We should seek a Europe in which we co-operate without coercion. I have presented to the House twice before, and may again, a Bill that would make it possible for the 47 countries in our continent to co-operate. All the arguments about pollution and the dangers of fraud could be dealt with as well by co-operation as by coercion. It is the fear of failure that concerns me. If this scheme fails, the result will be a recrudescence of nationalism. It is already beginning. The Sun had a headline, "Up Yours Delors", a typical Murdoch insult. The problem was not Delors, whom I have known for a long time, or his nationality; it was that the system was wrong. How easy for some editor to turn that into hostility to Germany, France, Spain and Italy when their people suffer from the same problems as we do.
I believe, and I have said it so many times in the House that no one will be surprised, that this is a supremely democratic question. It is about whether the people of Britain, France, Germany and Spain are to be allowed, through their domestic democracies, to get rid of the people who control them. That is not possible within the framework of a politically driven federal Europe. It is not about economics; it is politically motivated. I understand and respect that. but I know it. If that ability were lost, I believe that we would have thrown away centuries of history.

823
I recognise that these issues divide everyone. It would be a mistake to suppose that the matter could be fitted neatly into party loyalties; the evidence shows that it cannot. When we vote on the matter in the House of Commons, there will, however one puts it, be a free vote. There will then be a free vote in the referendum on the matter. I beg the House not to see the matter, as it so often has in the past, as a choice between those who are pro or anti Europe. It is about democracy or dictatorship. I do not mean dictatorship in its more elaborate and terrifying forms but the right to govern ourselves.
Julius Caesar arrived in 55 BC with a single currency; we still use it. It took Boadicea, the original iron lady, to raise the men of Essex, known then as the Iceni, to fight the seventh legion to try to contain it. That is not the approach that we should take. We should try to ensure that the people of Europe control their own future. Mistakes will be made by any Government; if we cannot correct mistakes through the ballot box, we will have thrown away everything that matters, including all the ideas that have led to the creation of this House and of our democracy in Britain.
5.19 pm
Sir Edward Heath: When the Prime Minister took over, he said that the time had come to make a fresh start in Europe. That gave me great encouragement. The Foreign Secretary gave the same indications soon after he took office. It gave me great encouragement because after 18 years the spirit in Europe between other countries and ourselves had deteriorated enormously. The feeling against us was immensely hostile. I thought that if we were now making a fresh start, we might overcome that.
I know full well that my own party has got to make a fresh start after the disastrous election result. If my party decides to go against Europe—to follow the tendencies of some of our friends—that will be the end of our party, certainly for a considerable period. I therefore hoped that my party would show that it now wanted to play a full part in Europe, which would be beneficial to all of us.
The great strength of the Six, when it first began in 1950, was that the major parties in all the countries agreed about the first European Coal and Steel Community, as it then was, and they worked together for it. All the members of the Six knew that the major parties in each country were working for the same end. That, alas, has never been the situation here.
When I made my maiden speech, I appealed to the then Labour Government at least to go into the talks on the Coal and Steel Community, but they refused. They said that it would be a nasty capitalist organisation. In that, I think that their judgment was in error. They also said that they could not take part in an organisation that might be against nationalisation. Again they were wrong; but they took no part and so we were outside—and remained thus for 22 wasted years. We suffered greatly from that, and we suffered when we got into the Community because of our earlier absence. That is what has always worried me about any future developments.
When he got to his conference, the Prime Minister said, "And we will set the agenda." That made me think seriously about what the members of other Governments of the Community would say when they heard the British Prime Minister declaring to a conference,
824
"And we British will set the agenda." That immediately brings forth all the dislike and, at times, hatred of the British because of their claim that they are going to set the agenda.
The Union is a union in which we all play a part. We cannot expect to get our own way all the time and we cannot try to get our own way all the time. That is the secret of success. That is how its members have operated.
As for the speech of my right hon. Friend the former Prime Minister, he will forgive me if I remind him—it is probably unnecessary to do so—that he once said that he wanted Britain to be at the very heart of Europe and that Maastricht was good for us, good for Europe and good for the world. There was a rather different tone in his speech today. That disappoints me because it shows that we have still not got the major parties in this country to agree about our membership of the European Union. That is the essential if we are to be successful and achieve many of our desires.
We must adopt an approach that recognises fully that others may have desires that are different from our own. We must accept them and not say, "No, we British must do our utmost to stop this." Let me recall our attempts to get our own way. Our attempt to change the voting power procedure failed disastrously. We were isolated, just left alone and all the more disliked for it. There have been other examples where we have pressed alone for change and did not get our way. The result, to put it quite bluntly, was that we were humiliated. People then took far less notice of us than they had done. That is a lesson for the current Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary about the way in which they should conduct business in the European Union.
I enjoyed, as always, the speech of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). Today, he gave his usual speech, but with one addition—his comments about the Bank of England. I share his regrets about the position of the bank, but not about the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has introduced a new organisation.
When we negotiated to join the Community finally, and were successful, we wanted and expected the Bank of England to become the central bank for the entire Community. Why did that not happen? Because of the record of the City since then, the record of the bank since then and the fact that people just did not trust the British. Figures produced in the press yesterday show that we have the next to lowest rate of trust of all the countries of the Community. They just do not trust us and therefore the first task of the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary is to get that trust restored. That means working with our partners as a union. There is no other way of getting that trust.
We have heard a great deal about the single currency. I do not want to spend a lot of time dealing with it, but I believe that it would be quite wrong to write it off at this stage. That would be absolutely wrong because the French and the Germans are determined to go ahead with it and so are some other countries in the Union. We have heard about the incident in Germany, but the Finance Minister got a vote of confidence with a majority. The President of France and its new Prime Minister have both declared their intention to have a single currency. The French Prime Minister wants it in a different form, but they are determined to have it.

825
What is happening here? We are completely ignoring the advice and wishes of our industry. It horrifies me that our party above all should ignore industry. The majority of people in the Confederation of British Industry want a single currency. That is true of industry generally, but not so much of small traders, who operate internally and are not affected greatly by it.
My right hon. Friend the former Prime Minister is right to emphasise the dangers if the single currency does not work properly. Naturally, that is so. The dangers are for us in this country as well, however, if it goes well and we are not in it. Then, the speculators will work against us and they will be successful, as they were on black Wednesday. That is the frightening side of it.
It is rather interesting to look at some of the figures for Germany. I find that the word fudge is now being used in the negotiations. That is obviously just a cover for those who never want a single currency, or even the European Union.
The present figures on gold show that the total reserves in Germany are worth $8.80 billion. In the United Kingdom they stand at $5.48 billion. Germany has almost twice the level of reserves as us. One must then consider the price that is set for gold. The total valuation for our gold is $297.8 per troy ounce. The German figure is $92.4. So, the German price is a third of our rate. Why is it a fudge for the Germans then to say that, in the circumstances, they are entitled to raise the figure at which they rate their gold reserves? They are perfectly entitled to do so. How those figures are used is a matter for the Germans to sort out between the central bank and the Government. Calling that a fudge and, similarly, criticising the French is making us untrustworthy to the rest of the Union.
Industry wants a single currency, and if we do not go in when it is created we shall be in the situation we faced when the European Coal and Steel Community was set up. We shall have no part in its development while we are outside the single currency and, whether we like it or not, we shall have to accept what exists when we go in and will not be able to alter it. That is the great danger of saying, "Put it off."
My right hon. Friend the former Prime Minister knows my views on the social chapter. We were absolutely wrong to oppose it, and we are still opposing it in the amendment. Wages councils were introduced by Churchill in 1909 and they existed under every form of Government—Liberal, coalition, Labour, Conservative, national, wartime, Labour, Conservative. Only in the last three years have they been abolished. Could it be said that they were responsible for unemployment? Not at all.
I remind my right hon. Friend that when I left office in 1974, unemployment was 580,000. Contrast that with unemployment in the 1980s and 1990s. What is the point of abolishing wages councils, which prevent the exploitation of labour? Such exploitation is going on now. Let us make no mistake about it: as a result of there being no wages councils, there is exploitation, particularly of the young. That is deplorable, and we cannot be surprised that our colleagues in the European Union do not like it at all.
I come now to the issue of tax. Of course, people asked questions on Europe during the general election. I had them from our business men, who are operating perfectly
826
well in the EU under its regulations. They say, "Why cannot we have them at home?" That is the voice of industry. Business men are horrified and say, "We are suffering in the other EU countries because of what is being said and done in Britain. Cannot you stop that?" That is what industry is finding, and it has said what it wants us to do instead of pressing ahead with other measures.
My last point is about enlargement. We have constantly emphasised that we want it and we also say that we want a change in agricultural policy. That is also said by the Government. What is the wonderful agricultural policy to which we want to move? Labour has always opposed European agricultural policy. We accepted it and our farmers do extremely well from it. What will be put in its place? Are we to go back to subsidies so that there will be a market price and the Government will provide a subsidy? I do not support such a policy and I do not think that at the moment my party could support it.
The question of an agricultural policy becomes acute when we consider the issue of enlargement. It has been said that we should take in the former Soviet territories to the east. My right hon. Friend the former Prime Minister has constantly emphasised, "Wider still and wider," to which the rest reply, "We want deeper still and deeper." What is the justification for the wider option and what are the dangers?
The economies of those former Soviet territories are nothing like those of the countries that are in the Union. I have been to Bulgaria and Romania and to other such countries and I have seen their standard of living. It is well below ours and that of people in the rest of the Union. They have vast spheres of agriculture and wages are one fifth of ours. What will happen if those countries become full members and can export to EU countries? What will happen to our economies? It makes absolutely no sense to say, "Take them in, wider still and wider."
What we must do and what the European Union has always done as a community is to say, "We want to help you and you will be associated with us." We should work out the terms of association for each country so that they suit its requirements and should then make finance and expertise available. Gradually, they would come up to the general level of the rest of the Union. We did that with Spain, Portugal and Greece, which was an associate member for 21 years. Turkey has been an associate member for 42 years and is still not a full member because the rest do not think that the problems of Turkey with its religious divisions can be assimilated into the Union.
It is sensible to say to all the territories of the former Soviet Union, "We will help you. You will be associated and as you develop and match the rest of us you will become a full member." That would make sense to everybody, but, as it is, the other members of the Union see us emphasising, "Wider still and wider," to avoid the obligations that will be discussed at the conference. That is their view of us and nobody denies it.
Those are the Union's present problems. I desperately wish that both major parties were supporting full, heartfelt membership of the European Union because that is what the Union wants. I hope that we get it.
5.36 pm
Mr. Barry Sheerman: I have participated in these debates for some years and have always been rather dismayed by the way in which they

827
seem to be dominated by the zealots on each side to whom media attention is directed. Those people seem to believe that, despite our long membership, everything about the European Union is absolutely wicked. In this debate, we have not yet heard a speech in that vein, but I was at a Yorkshire business conference on Friday and was horrified by the speech by the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) on this subject.
Over the years, I have become a convert. I listened to the speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and remembered the long-distant days of the referendum on the common market when I was on his side. I have spent some years in the House and some years pondering the question, and I have thought again about Britain's interest in Europe and the world and what we want out of Europe. As a result, I have had a significant and radical change of mind. In that respect, I am like other hon. Members. There is nothing shameful about learning and admitting, after mature reflection, that one was wrong. When I was younger, I was wrong about Europe and it is a great pleasure to follow the speech by the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), the Father of the House, who has been right on Europe for a long time.
I wish that we could take a little of the passion out of the debate and look at the central issue—that of getting back to basics and asking what is in it for our constituents. We are sent here to represent them, and I know that mine want to see a world in which there is peace and prosperity. I am something of an historian, although not a very good one, and I realise that as the great conflagrations of war recede, people become complacent about what establishes and preserves peace. There has been peace in Europe for more than 55 years, but, in the lifetime of many hon. Members, a European nation was strafing and bombing this Parliament, and European countries were strafing and bombing each other. We should be humble and think about what we have achieved over those 55 years of a peaceful Europe. The EU has played a significant part in keeping the peace in Europe and we should never underrate that. We have also had a relatively prosperous Europe and our constituents want that prosperity to be ensured for the future and for their children.
We live in a changing world. Those of us who take seriously the globalisation of the economy and of competition realise that we cannot maintain our competitive edge and provide the employment and the living standards that our constituents require if we are outside a powerful grouping in Europe. There can be no doubt about that when we look at the competition. Everyone talks about south-east Asia and the emerging Chinese economy, but I still look at the vigorous economy of the United States. One does not have to relax for long to allow a successful American business to take away one's market. All over the world, there are regional groupings that are extremely powerful and enormously competitive. We must be part of a European grouping that can identify the ways in which we can beat off outside competition and the values that we must pursue in order to modernise our economy and remain competitive. We have learnt many of those lessons from our European partners.
Like the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup, I have spoken to many business people who compete in the international environment. They have a fairly uniform view. They do not have a uniform view on the common
828
currency, but they are predominantly in favour of economic and monetary union. The strongest view that emerges is that, if we are to compete successfully, we must do nothing to destroy the European Union and everything to strengthen it. Our greatest problem is that we can get that wrong.
I am a pragmatist and one of the things I liked about the introductory speech by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary was that it smacked of what I admire about today's Labour party and the spirit with which it was imbued during the election campaign. It is a spirit that I have come to admire in my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister—a spirit of radical pragmatism. Radicalism goes back to basics and asks, what is the problem? Why do we have a taxation system? Why do we have a welfare state? It does not say that we have always had certain policies—one way of dealing with the economy, the welfare state or taxation—but asks instead, what do we want to achieve?
It is refreshing when a Government can be honest enough to say that what we want out of a taxation system is the prosperity of our nation—the successful wealth creation on which we all depend. What we want is to achieve a welfare state that delivers to the disabled, the sick and the elderly what they need and should be able to expect in a civilised society. We do not want any welfare state in Europe to be one that pays a pittance—a measly welfare payment—to people who hate the Government who give the payment and hate themselves for taking it.
What I admire most about the new approach on the Government Benches is that we turn that same radical pragmatism to Europe and ask, what do we want out of it? Of course, we want peace and prosperity, but we also want more—to be sure that we establish a democratic framework for Europe.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield spoke about losing democracy, but democracy is not like that—it is a far more finely balanced animal. I worry about the framework of Europe, as would any intelligent person, and I want to change much of it, but that is not to say that it is wrong. As a good democrat, I believe that Europe is too Executive-driven—there is far too much power in the hands of the Council of Ministers that is not publicly scrutinised and far too much in the hands of the Commission. There is far too little power in the hands of Members of the European Parliament. We must ensure that that increases. I hope that in Amsterdam positive strides are made towards giving the European Parliament codetermination and enabling organic growth in its power. That must happen.
At another level, we in the domestic Parliaments must start recognising that we are part of Europe and should participate in it. In the years that I have been a Member of Parliament, one of the things about this House that have depressed me most is the number of hon. Members who have never actually visited the institutions of Europe. They criticise, they become zealots about Europe and have great passions on the subject, but they never get involved in it or come to understand it. It is wrong to live in a modern Europe without trying to go to the institutions and talk to other European domestic parliamentarians. It is wrong not to try to do what politicians do best—plot, plan, gossip and organise.
That is the natural role of politicians, but we as domestic parliamentarians and legislators are prevented from fulfilling that role because we have no access.

829
The Opposition spokesman, the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis), knows that we have had a long tussle over that issue. He does not believe that domestic parliamentarians should have access to colleagues across Europe; he does not think it important in a democracy and he often slapped me down from the Despatch Box when I suggested that we should have access. Indeed, I remember my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks), now the Under-Secretary of State for National Heritage, saying that he felt a junket coming on when I said that we should at least have access to Brussels and Strasbourg.
A few days ago, I read a newspaper article that said that there were so many Labour Back Benchers that we should be given more opportunity to join the Royal Air Force, the Navy and the Army. I have nothing against such schemes and I know colleagues who have benefited greatly from learning how modern defence forces operate; but if we got our priorities right we would make sure that Members of Parliament, both new and not-so-new, learnt about Europe—its institutions and how they work, how the Commission operates, what happens in Strasbourg and so on.
Most colleagues do not even know how many European Union institutions there are or where they are based.
Mrs. Ann Clwyd: They should all be in one place.
Mr. Sheerman: Indeed, there should be a physical concentration.
The truth is that in this House there is an appalling level of ignorance about Europe. Some of us on the Labour Benches ran a campaign for more physical access. New Members may not know that as Members of Parliament they can get one trip a year to a European institution. If one goes to Brussels, one cannot return there or go to Strasbourg or to any other European institution for another year. In a European democracy, that is appalling and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who will be replying to the debate, will agree that Members of Parliament should be given access to European institutions.
To those who say that they feel a junket coming on, I say that those Members of Parliament who do not take an active role in knowing what the Commission does and what is available from the huge range of European policies and budgets to help their constituents are neglecting their duty. The benefits will come to their constituents and to the regions and sub-regions only if they know the system and how to work within it. It is appalling that many colleagues on both sides of the House are not aware of that. It was deeply embarrassing that when, two or three times, I met the previous Leader of the House, Tony Newton, and said, "We badly need more access", the answer was, "I am sorry, but a vast percentage of colleagues do not use the one trip that they are given." That is another indictment of the House.
We need physical access to our colleagues in Europe, starting with proper access to Brussels and Strasbourg. Let us give strong leadership in Amsterdam, urging that a centre be established in Brussels for domestic parliamentarians. Most of the business that we are interested in goes on there, but perhaps we also need such a centre in Strasbourg.
830
When domestic parliamentarians arrive in Brussels, they should not be forced to beg to use someone's telephone or try to gain access to the European Parliament; they should have a centre to go to. There they could be briefed; there could be meeting rooms and simultaneous translation facilities. If one wanted to hold a crucial meeting on energy policy, education policy or employment policy—on any of the subjects to which hon. Members have alluded—one could meet colleagues and do what comes naturally to parliamentarians—plot, plan and organise.
A greater flow of information is needed. In a technological age, an information age, surely we should have proper communication throughout Europe among the domestic politicians and parliamentarians of the Fifteen. I should have thought that it would be easily done on the net or the web. For less sophisticated Members, why not publish an old-fashioned newsletter, readily available fortnightly or monthly? It could improve communication among the 15 European states and give information about what was happening in the European Parliament.
Today's debate is important because I can feel and hear a different spirit about. Of course, we shall enter European debates, in the Council of Ministers and elsewhere, with our national interest at the forefront, but it makes one hell of a difference if, when our Prime Minister comes in, people look at him and say, "Here is a person who actually believes in the concept and vision of what Europe can achieve for our people in terms of employment and in terms of facing our increasingly competitive future."
I can feel and hear that difference in the attitude of colleagues throughout Europe. They have realised that, although Britain in the European Union is not a pushover—it will fight its corner for every bit of national interest—it starts from the basic principle that the European Union is the type of organisation that will best protect the people of Britain during the next 10, 50 or 100 years.
We must put behind us the days of the old, little nation state. Surely, in one of these debates on Europe, someone will draw attention to the fact that the nation state has not produced everything that we want in terms of the civilised life and, indeed, has given us much of the misery, poverty and unhappiness that we have experienced in the past 100 or 200 years.
I believe in a Government who are fully committed to, and who believe in, Europe. I hope that the Government and this Parliament will believe in full participation of all Members of the House in a positive Europe.
5.53 pm
Mr. Malcolm Bruce: In his opening speech, the Foreign Secretary said that the Government saw Europe as an opportunity, not a threat. From the Liberal Benches, I welcome that positive approach. I believe that, ultimately, the Government will be judged on their ability to deliver.
At the moment, it is not surprising that there are certain contradictions: conciliation is followed by telling Europeans what to do. I believe that someone was reported as saying that Tony Blair occasionally sounded like Mrs. Thatcher, telling them how he was going to sort out Europe. Nevertheless, I believe that the Government's clear indication that they intend to proceed in Europe by constructive negotiation and as participating members

831
seeking to advance our interests by negotiation and by being constructive, will yield better results than the 18 years of confrontation that have pushed us to the margins of decision making in Europe.
By contrast, the Leader of the Opposition, the former Prime Minister, appeared confused and contradictory in his speech this afternoon. I agree entirely with the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) that in that speech there was a lack of commitment to Europe and a continuing feeling that the Leader of the Opposition must somehow address the two irreconcilable wings of his party. One would have thought that the consequence of the general election might have liberated him from that stress and enabled him to tell us exactly what he thought about this issue, but I regret to say to the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup that I think the chapter of Europe is not yet closed as far as the Conservative party is concerned.
The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) made a speech that we have heard him make many times. Although he certainly does not polarise things in a national sense, he is in danger of doing so in an ideological sense. It is understandable.
The right hon. Member says that, by definition, the European Union is deflationary. I think that by "deflationary" he means that its members have set themselves the object of living within their means and operating budgetary discipline, recognising that one cannot spend money that one does not have and that it is impossible to borrow one's way out of recession indefinitely.
There is room for flexibility in such an approach, but it is not a question of a commitment to stability; it is a question of a commitment to sustainability, to achieve the climate that will secure long-term employment and prosperity by giving people confidence in the economic institutions that we are trying to create. In that context, most of my remarks, as Liberal Democrat Treasury spokesman, will be about progress towards monetary union. My hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) will address some of the wider issues.
Before I discuss monetary union, I would say that, as a lifelong Liberal and now Liberal Democrat, and admitted supporter of home rule for Scotland and the progress of the European Union, I have never understood why people find those things contradictory. Those who believe that we need to achieve a co-operative Europe that involves all the peoples of Europe must also be aware of the need to conduct decision making at the appropriate level. If people are to relate to a wider Europe, it is important that their own institutions are close to them, so that people may directly shape and influence them, too. That is my simple definition of subsidiarity.
No one is calling for a European super-state. The only people who are calling for, or threatening us with, a European super-state are those who wish to destroy the European Union by creating a bogey that does not exist, so that they can frighten people into opposing the constructive idea of a Europe that is seeking to build institutions to enable us to avoid conflict and achieve progress on a variety of fronts—which cannot be achieved unless institutions are genuinely open and accountable.
To return to the issue of monetary union and to indicate to the Government that we shall support their motion, which is basically innocuous, and not the Opposition
832
amendment, which simply expresses the deep divisions and difficulties in the Conservative party, let me say that it is important to set out some of the key issues that have arisen as a consequence of developments in France, Germany and other EU nations in the context of monetary union.
I wholly reject the Leader of the Opposition's analysis that he can determine now that monetary union at the beginning of 1999 is no longer a viable proposition. That is questionable and he is not entitled to make that assumption. It has been made only because of the convenience that it provides for his party.
The Liberal Democrats take the clear view that membership of a soundly constructed and fully converged monetary union in Europe would greatly benefit the British economy. It would reduce transaction costs for both individuals and companies, encourage trade by reducing exchange rate volatility, and help to secure low interest rates and low inflation. Ultimately, those achievements would boost jobs and incomes in the United Kingdom.
Those are real prizes to be won. In many ways, this country has as much, if not more, to gain than almost any other member of the European Union, not least because in post-war times we have not secured a credible record of stability on exchange rates, inflation rates and inflation. That is one reason why we have been unable to create the climate of sustained investment and growth that we all wish to achieve.
When I intervened on the Leader of the Opposition, I noticed that I struck a spark. Having spoken of the dangers of joining on time, he told the House even more passionately of the dangers of being left outside if monetary union went ahead and worked. We should not lose sight of that. If this country permanently rules out membership, we risk losing foreign direct investment and the City of London risks losing financial interest to other European centres, notably Frankfurt. Had the previous British Government taken a more positive attitude towards monetary union, the European Monetary Institute and the European central bank might have been located in London, not Frankfurt. If monetary union is successful, the fact that the Conservative Government sold out the opportunity for London to be the pre-eminent financial and monetary centre for the whole of an enlarged European Union will go down as one of their greatest betrayals.
We shall therefore certainly lose if we are excluded. We shall also suffer from potentially damaging exchange rate instability, affecting trade with some of our biggest markets. On Black Wednesday, when Britain was forced out of the exchange rate mechanism, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer was reported to be singing in the bath because he was freed from that constraint. Somehow or other, that was supposed to liberate a whole new economic revival. Ironically, three or so years later the exchange rate is exactly where it was the day we were driven out of the ERM. Such volatility makes it extremely difficult for businesses to plan. The removal of that factor would be one of the greatest prizes that monetary union could deliver. It simply would not be a risk that any business would have to analyse.
Mr. Andrew Tyrie: Does that mean that the hon. Gentleman thinks that we should have tried to defend the parity of the ERM rather than withdraw?
Mr. Bruce: No. It shows why the Conservative Government mishandled entry to the ERM in the first

833
place. In many speeches in the House before entry to the ERM, it was pointed out that it was in our interest to go in at the right rate. Instead of going in at the right rate, however, we went in at a politically convenient time—the day before a Conservative party conference—to secure a headline about a reduced interest rate, and we paid a heavy price for that political opportunism. As a matter of detail, one reason why the Liberal Democrats called for operational independence for the Bank of England was so that such decisions would not be taken in that way. That was not in the Labour party manifesto, but it is now in the Government's programme.
We should not underestimate the difficulties of achieving monetary union, or the enormous prize that is there to be won. We have always recognised that it is a major project which will not be achieved simply and easily. We said that we would attach conditions to underwriting its success and to British participation. A referendum of the British people on joining monetary union, should it be determined that we should go ahead, is sensible not just to secure democratic assent, although, by definition, that is the prime reason for such a referendum, but for securing market acceptability that the decision is real and unlikely to be reversed at short notice. The trouble is that Britain's posturing in Europe has damaged us so much that people do not believe that a decision taken on one day will not necessarily be reversed in the near future. The great advantage of a referendum is that it secures the decision by giving the British people and the Government consent for the act.
I was therefore somewhat surprised and disappointed that at the weekend the shadow Chancellor appeared to back away from the Conservative party's commitment to hold a referendum. For the reasons stated, we believe that such a referendum is desirable and in the best interests of democracy and long-term security of the decision. Once the Conservative leadership election is over, we may get some clarification from whoever emerges on whether it remains Conservative party policy.
We accept that the convergence criteria must mean what they say. The trouble is that few people know what the treaty says. It allows for a restricted degree of flexibility, in terms of both the criteria and the timing. The criteria should be applied within the terms of the treaty. It is extraordinary that the Leader of the Opposition has decided that he knows better than anyone else what the outcome will be in 12 months' time. At least the Foreign Secretary acknowledged that, although the decision is coming closer all the time, it cannot be clearly assessed at this stage.
The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup pointed out that, whether or not we agree that the timing of the German proposal for revaluing its bullion was entirely felicitous, German gold is worth a hell of a lot more than ours. It therefore comes a little ill from us to lecture Germany about how securely founded the German economy is to sustain strong monetary union.
We would therefore not support monetary union that was clearly in fundamental breach of the convergence criteria. I hope and believe that nobody would contemplate that. We should make it clear to our partners in Europe that the criteria should be properly addressed by those who will join and those who aspire to join. If those criteria are met, if the decision goes ahead, and if
834
Britain meets the criteria, it will certainly be in Britain's interest to be in on the ground floor. That is why it is also important to have a clear understanding of the stability pact. It is no good having a set of criteria that determine who qualifies then allowing countries to go their own way. There must be continuing disciplines to ensure good, sound economic management. They should not preclude Governments' rights to set their own tax or spending levels. They should prevent them from borrowing excessively, which is a good external discipline, but should allow countries to pursue their own policies, provided that they are within those broad economic criteria.
Having achieved the disciplines of convergence, it is essential that nations stick to the criteria. It is also essential that sovereign nations retain maximum flexibility over domestic fiscal policy, which means that there must be maximum fiscal subsidiarity. It is not necessary for the terms of monetary union to tell us how we should run our tax-and-spend policies. Countries with lower debt burdens in relation to gross domestic product should be allowed more flexibility over their annual deficits than countries such as Belgium, which have unacceptably high debt-to-GDP ratios. I hope that the Government will promote flexibility that takes account, at the point of departure, of where people started from.
There is flexibility on timing within the convergence criteria. We have always said that it is more important to get monetary union right than to get it on time. If it is not possible to meet the criteria—at this stage there is no evidence to suggest that it is not possible, but there are some obvious difficulties and concerns—a short delay would be preferable to seriously breaching the criteria or losing the entire project.
We Liberal Democrats will be working with our political allies in the other member states in the European Union to achieve a framework for monetary union that will be credible and viable, and which we could recommend that the United Kingdom should join.
It remains the Liberal Democrat view that Britain should be active in the great projects of Europe, that monetary union is one of the great projects of Europe and that we should still consider the possibility of joining on the ground floor. We should do our utmost to ensure that, whether or not we join on day one, everything that Britain does is designed to ensure the success of monetary union and our ultimate participation.
We welcome the Government's departure from a confrontational approach that has so long damaged Britain's interests. It is time to try a constructive approach. We are certain that that is entirely compatible with developing and protecting this nation's legitimate sovereign interests.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Before I call the next speaker, may I say that a large number of hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye. They are much more likely to be successful if other hon. Members will make their contributions reasonably short.
6.10 pm
Mr. Denzil Davies: I shall be as brief as possible, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The meeting at the end of this week in Amsterdam was called mainly to approve the text of the draft treaty that has come to be known as Maastricht 2—the intergovernmental

835
conference treaty. The Heads of Government have some unfinished business arising from Maastricht 1 and the stability pact. They must also approve in particular a draft instrument giving legal authority to the so-called stability pact—a somewhat bizarre and Orwellian description, if I may say so. The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) may have preferred to call it a sustainability pact, but to describe it as a growth and stability pact in Europe in the present circumstances is bizarre.
With regard to Maastricht 2, I approve and applaud the stance taken by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and the Government, in particular—this was not mentioned today, although it is set out clearly in our manifesto—the determination to maintain a veto over defence and to ensure that defence remains within NATO, the determination to maintain a veto in effect over foreign policy, and the determination to maintain the right of the United Kingdom Government to decide on immigration matters and, as the Prime Minister has said, to protect our borders. There will be no qualified majority on those issues.
By asserting those rights and powers, the Government are asserting the primacy of the nation state in those matters. They are making it clear that the governance—an inelegant but sometimes rather useful word—of defence, foreign policy, borders and immigration is to be left in the hands of a democratically elected Government and Parliament. To some people, it is an assertion of that somewhat old-fashioned and much-derided concept of sovereignty. When we defend those aspects, as I am sure my right hon. Friends do vigorously, we are defending the old-fashioned concept of sovereignty.
That is in stark contrast to what the Government are expected to do in regard to the single currency—that is, to sign the draft instrument that authorises and establishes the stability pact. I do not criticise the Government for that, as I shall make clear. The House well knows that the stability pact is required so that we can, in effect, enshrine into the treaty the 3 per cent. limit on Government borrowing, which is contained in the Maastricht treaty and is an entry requirement.
Subject to the exceptions, if a country breaches the 3 per cent. limit, there is a power under the stability pact to impose fines on that country from the centre. As I understand it from the documents, those fines will be scattered around and distributed among the good boys of the members of the single currency. That is clearly an incentive for the others to fine the recalcitrant member. As I am told and as I read in the newspapers, a deficit will have to be well below 3 per cent. normally to ensure that a Government do not transgress. In future, deficits will have to be 1 or 2 per cent. at the most.
The stability pact, together with the 3 per cent. entry requirement, the 60 per cent. debt question and the transfer of monetary policy and the control of inflation to the European central bank, are all to be enshrined and entrenched in a treaty, which can be changed only with the consent of all the members of the European Union. That means that, to a substantial extent, the economic governance of Britain and of all the states of the EU will no longer be democratically based.
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary mentioned our sister parties in Europe and the values of democracy that we in the Labour party share with them. In the governance of economic matters, most of the powers of
836
the various Governments of Europe will be placed with unelected, undemocratic institutions operating beyond the frontiers of the state and beyond the borders of Britain or any of the other countries. That is what will happen if we join the single currency.
The hon. Member for Gordon spoke about taxation. In theory, taxation will remain in the hands of the nation state, but buried in the papers before us is a request for the Heads of Government to consider signing common guidelines on taxation. I have obtained those guidelines, which are contained in a resolution made on 13 May 1997 by the European Parliament. They are set out clearly, with the aid of the Commission.
The guidelines end by stating, in one of those marvellous phrases that we get from Europe, that taxation is an example of the excess of subsidiarity, which is therefore to be whittled away. The nation state has and will still have an excess of subsidiarity, at least in theory, once we have enshrined everything else in the Maastricht treaty.
There are those who believe, or who pretend to believe, that the decision to join a single currency is merely a matter of economics—just a matter for the counting house. We have heard that again today. A single currency, apparently, is nothing more than an addendum to the single market. That may be the view of the European elite, but the peoples of the old nation states of Europe know differently. They know that the issues go to the heart of democratic government and economic governance.
The fact that the European elite are determined to take economic government out of the hands of elected Governments and entrench it in a treaty shows how out of touch they have become. They want to do that at a time when one of the real problems in Europe is the alienation of people from politics and the political classes. At such a time, the European elite in France and Germany want to take democratic power out of the people's hands. They want to do that at a time when Europe faces terrible problems.
In the next few years, France and Germany will have to adapt—as Britain has—to global competition. They will have to re-examine their social security systems and their labour markets, which will create considerable upheaval. France and Germany will need to apply every scintilla of democracy at their disposal if they are to solve those problems. At the same time, the European political classes want to eliminate democracy. There will be no safety valve. Democracy will not be allowed to solve the problems: they will be resolved by banks, treaties and the convergence criteria.
I do not expect my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State not to sign the legal instrument at Amsterdam. It has been agreed and it will be signed. Ironically, perhaps he will watch Mr. Jospin out of the corner of one eye to see what he is doing. Mr. Jospin told the French electorate that he does not like the stability pact because it is not flexible enough. However, I guarantee that Mr. Jospin will sign the stability pact because he is a paid-up member of the French political elite. That elite body will not give up merely because the people have decided something different in an election. It takes more than that to make the French political elite change their grand historical designs.
Perhaps my right hon. Friend will look at poor Chancellor Kohl out of the corner of his other eye. Chancellor Kohl is a decent and a good man, but he will

837
sign anything.will He certainly sign the stability pact. He still feels the lash of the Bundesbank on his back. The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) attempted to criticise the German bank for revaluing its gold. The bank and the German Government were entitled to do that if gold was low on the balance sheet. I am no accountant, but I found it strange that the bank had to pay a dividend from that revaluation—when it had no cash to do so—to the German Government within one year to enable them to reduce their borrowing and deficit below 3 per cent. That is the real problem.
Chancellor Kohl is caught in a vice, and he will sign anything—despite the fact that the German people are overwhelmingly hostile to the idea of giving up a currency that has secured stability and security for Germany for almost 50 years and swapping it for a currency that has never been tried or traded and over which they will have little control. Kohl, Chirac and Jospin will sign the stability pact because they are locked into the project and they cannot go back.
Mr. Cash: I do not wish to embarrass the right hon. Gentleman, but does he realise that this debate is about removing the scrutiny reserve that was imposed last December by the Select Committee on European Legislation? The effect would be to release the Government to sign the stability pact.
Mr. Davies: Those matters have been debated already. The reality is that the Government will sign the instrument for the stability pact in Amsterdam at the weekend. I am trying to explain the potential consequences of that action.
We like to use the phrase, "Think the unthinkable." Perhaps the time has come to think the unthinkable about the single currency project. We cannot expect the French and German political establishments to think the unthinkable: they are incapable of any rational thought when it comes to the single currency. Who knows? Perhaps funny old Britain, with its centuries of global experience, should start thinking the unthinkable. We talk about the global economy and the global market, but no European country has the historical global experience of Britain.
Britain has an intuitive feeling for finance and commerce. The Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Gordon, said that the central bank should be based in London—for a moment I thought that he was a little Englander. Britain's financial intuition has not always coincided with financial thinking on the continent—and we have often been proved more correct on such matters. Britain also has a healthy distrust for corporatism and for all the undemocratic institutions that follow it. Perhaps funny old Britain should start thinking the unthinkable—and perhaps the Foreign Secretary should begin that thought process on the ministerial aeroplane as he returns from Amsterdam.
6.25 pm
Sir John Stanley: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) in the debate. I hope that I do not cause him undue embarrassment when I say that I found his views on Europe distinctly more realistic than those expressed by the Foreign Secretary in opening the debate.
838
Conservative Members have expressed two alternative views as to the merits or otherwise of surrendering our opt-out from the social chapter. I addressed that subject in some detail in my speech on the Loyal Address, so I shall not repeat those points now. However, it is instructive to consider what has occurred in the intervening three weeks.
The Social Affairs Commissioner, Mr. Flynn, has proposed that the threshold for the works council directive—which is currently set at 1,000 employees—should be reduced to 50 employees. That would bring within the ambit of the existing works council directive virtually every business in this country. Mr. Flynn has also proposed imposing additional, legally binding requirements on companies, forcing them to consult before anyone is made redundant. Only last week, agreement was reached with continental trade unions regarding a whole raft of new contractual rights for those in part-time and temporary employment. That is the main subject of one of the next directives to be produced under the social chapter: the so-called atypical work directive. I believe that it will have some very real implications for labour market flexibility in those areas.
I think that the key issue is not the desirability or otherwise of those rights. We can debate the issues on the Floor of the House and consider whether those rights affect employers' willingness to hire people, and thereby impact directly on jobs. The central issue is whether legislation in this key area will remain at Westminster under our national control, or whether the legislative initiative will be surrendered to Europe. The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) said that, although he has reservations about giving extra power to the Bank of England, at least that power derives from domestic legislation that may be revoked if the Government decide that it is wrong.
The same is true of the social chapter. If the Labour party wishes to use its huge parliamentary majority to introduce more rights for British workers that compare with those of workers on the continent, it has the means to do so nationally. That does not require the surrender of our opt-out from the social chapter. I was struck by the comments of the Prime Minister on his first foray into Europe when he attended the meeting at Noordwijk. The Reuters extract of his remarks about the social chapter states:
"Mr. Blair … declared … that the Social Chapter … must not be used in order to introduce new legislation that could affect competitiveness and which could end up placing additional burdens on employment."
The Prime Minister seemed to regret the surrender of the opt-out from the social chapter before he had made the concession. If the Government are really concerned not to affect the competitiveness of our country or place additional burdens on employment, the last thing that they should do is surrender our opt-out from the social chapter, which, as has already been pointed out, is largely subject to qualified majority voting, not unanimity. We are surrendering not only our opt-out, but our veto. It is probably too late to change, but I believe that that is a thoroughly bad policy for which Britain will pay in jobs. If the Government do a U-turn and abandon that policy at Amsterdam, they will be lauded by the Conservatives.
I should like to refer to some very important aspects of the new treaty. The first is the extension of qualified majority voting. As I said during the debate on the Loyal

839
Address, the Commission has always had a major extension of QMV on its agenda for the intergovernmental conference. It published a paper in February proposing that 18 new areas of policy should be subject to QMV. It is of great concern to all Conservatives that that agenda seems to have remained largely intact. In addition, the paper proposes four new treaty competencies to be subject to QMV rather than unanimity, covering some wide areas of policy.
I agree with the comments of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition about the move away from unanimity. I accept that the Conservative Government made some moves on that, but the key argument is about where power lies. Further moves towards qualified majority voting would be irreversible. It is almost inconceivable that there would be a subsequent treaty amendment to reverse the process and return those powers. The Government are contemplating ending for all time our ability to say no to legislative proposals in wide areas of policy. I earnestly hope that in Amsterdam the Government will not surrender our existing rights of veto in key areas, including the environment and industrial policy. The long-term consequences for this country of moving to QMV on those and many other policy areas would be damaging.
I am sorry that the Foreign Secretary did not refer to subsidiarity, on which the British Government secured an important concession at Maastricht. It is vital that that concession is made more secure at Amsterdam. In particular, it must be made justiciable. When the Commission takes powers to itself or initiates legislation that could perfectly well be dealt with by national Governments, individual member states must be able to argue to the European Court of Justice that the Commission has exceeded its powers and gain a judgment that would take those powers back to member states.
The previous Conservative Government tabled proposals to that effect. It is of concern that those proposals have been severely watered down in the draft protocol on subsidiarity. The protocol is inadequate. I hope that the Minister will give us a clear assurance that he will reject the draft treaty's proposals on subsidiarity and will go back to those tabled by the previous Conservative Government.
I do not take the view that everything about the European Court of Justice is bad—indeed, quite the contrary. It is an important protection for this country. We have a good record of operating European Union legislation rigorously and fairly—a record which is not shared by all our European partners. If we are to have the ability to ensure that EU legislation is enforced fairly and rigorously throughout the EU, we must be able to go to the European Court if we believe that others have cheated at the expense of this country.
The European Court of Justice has one significant defect. Like other supreme courts in parliamentary democracies, its judgments have the immediate effect of law. However, unlike any other supreme court in the parliamentary democracies of Europe or north America, its judgments are impossible to modify. A judgment that is out of line with what the Council of Ministers wants cannot be modified unless a treaty amendment is passed unanimously—treaty amendments require unanimity—at an intergovernmental conference.
840
The previous Conservative Government did some important work on that, publishing proposals for changes and coming forward with a new procedure to enable the Council of Ministers to meet after a European Court judgment and produce a treaty amendment rapidly by qualified majority voting, to bring the legislation back into line with the majority view. Sadly, the treaty before us today makes no reference to those proposals. I hope that the Minister will assure us that the new British Government will adhere to those proposals, because they are essential to continued confidence in the operation of the European Court of Justice. We cannot have a supreme court with a law-making capacity whose decisions are impossible to modify.
The Foreign Secretary also scarcely mentioned the European Parliament. No doubt there are different views in the House on how much further the powers of the European Parliament should be extended, but I hope that we can agree on a common starting point: that the provisions in the draft treaty are the biggest single extension of the powers of the European Parliament since the creation of the European Economic Community. I believe that that is a fair statement of fact. It has long been on the agenda of those who want to move towards a federal Europe to bring about significant transfers of legislative powers from national Parliaments to the European Parliament. We are well aware, from our experience of dealing with European legislation, of how negligible our power is in this House.
The new treaty is beginning to follow the same process in relation to the Council of Ministers. As I hope all hon. Members understand, reducing or even emasculating the powers of the Council of Ministers is another indirect way in which to emasculate the powers of national Parliaments to which national Ministers are accountable.
Mr. Radice indicated dissent.
Sir John Stanley: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head in disagreement. I simply point, therefore, to the relevant section of the treaty text. I invite any and every hon. Member who has not read it already to look at pages 111 and 113, where there is a complete list of areas that, for the first time, will become subject to the co-decision process. The co-decision process is the critical process of expanding the authority and powers of the European Parliament at the expense of the Council of Ministers. A total of 23 separate areas of policy are, for the first time, to be made subject to the co-decision process. They include employment, social policy, transport, the internal market and structural funds.
The previous Conservative Government were entirely right to say that if Europe was to continue to be a partnership of nation states as opposed to a federal Europe, there was no further case for any material extension of the powers of the European Parliament. In the draft treaty, we most certainly have such an extension. Again, I ask the Minister to make clear to us the new Government's policy in that critical area.
I now come to the most crucial area of all—the boundaries of the competencies of the European Union and its institutions in relation to those of national Parliaments. I put it to the House—I hope, again, that I am speaking purely factually—that the draft treaty proposes extensions of the role of the European Union's institutions in virtually every area of policy and takes us into areas of policy that have not been included before.

841
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition rightly drew attention to the proposal for a new legal persona for the European Union in international affairs, making it capable of being a treaty signatory and giving it, in legal terms, almost the same locus and status as nation states. There are far-reaching proposals to extend the involvement of the European Union in foreign affairs and there are to be new involvements in defence. Immigration, human rights and non-discrimination are being brought in, as are a whole range of domestic policy areas. It is even proposed to extend the role of the European Union in culture, believe it or not. Those are far-reaching extensions of the competencies of the European Union.
We may debate whether the extension of the EU's powers in that way is desirable. I hope, however, that we can end the debate—having heard the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce), I am not sure that we can—on what is the basic thrust or the basic goal of the EU. Let us forget the ridiculous term super-state; that can mean anything to anyone. The choice is simply between a partnership of nations and a federal state. Some hon. Members on both sides felt that we got to the fork in that road at Maastricht. I did not take that view because I believed that at the point of Maastricht, we were still on the road of being a partnership of nation states. Five years on, however, as a result of the way in which the EU has moved and of this draft treaty, I am in no doubt about where we are. This treaty takes Europe—we can debate whether this is right or not—irreversibly into a federal structure.
This is the point where the former Labour Opposition's rhetoric and the reality collide. I listened with great care to what the present Prime Minister said during the election and to what was said in the Labour party's manifesto. Labour made it clear that it was opposed to Britain being taken into a federal Europe. The point I put to Ministers in the last few days before they go to Amsterdam is that if they really mean what they say—that they are opposed to Britain becoming part of a federal Europe—they have only one policy option in Amsterdam next week, which is to say no to this treaty.
6.45 pm
Mr. Giles Radice: The last part of the speech by the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley) was very exaggerated. I have also read the draft treaty and I have not found in it what he has described. We may or may not want a federal Europe—I personally do not—but a proposal for a federal Europe is not contained in the draft treaty. Inflated language and gross exaggeration do not help the House's perusal of the matter.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on his speech; it was very positive and extremely encouraging. The speech by the Leader of the Opposition was in two parts. There was the bit in which he was still trying to lead his party when he talked about the policy of surrender, which we would apparently come forward with at the Amsterdam summit. He grossly exaggerated, as did the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling, the issue of qualified majority voting and what is involved at Amsterdam. On the other hand,
842
he also spoke as a former Prime Minister about Britain being at the very heart of Europe, which I always find an attractive idea.
The problem for the former Prime Minister was that he was let down by hon. Members of his own party; I can see some of them here. I do not say that they did not act for highly principled reasons, but I believe that they certainly let him down. We have a new situation in this Parliament because the Labour Government are in the enviable position of having the overwhelming support of Parliament for their positive approach to Europe. In the previous Parliament, the Euro-sceptic faction had an influence out of all proportion to its numerical strength because of the previous Government's small majority and because of their weakness. In the end, that was what brought down that Government.
This Government, however, have the support of their vast majority—a majority elected on a positive European manifesto. Unlike the Conservative party, we did not all write different manifestos; one or two of us may have done, but very few did. In addition, our vast majority is buttressed by almost 50 pro-European Liberal Democrat Members and by the pro-European group in the Tory party. That group is bigger than was expected at the time of the election.
Partly because of the landslide, the proportion of pro-European Conservatives who remain is quite large. I can understand why, for tactical reasons, they may not want to put their heads above the parapet in this debate. We hope to hear from them later, depending on what happens in the coming election for the leadership of the Conservative party.
The big advantage for this Government is that, in pursuing their new, more constructive approach, they know that they do not have to look over their shoulder all the time. I think that the Government have made an excellent start. We had immediate visits to our partners by the Foreign Secretary. We had the signal that we intended to sign up to the social chapter which was a symbol of our new approach.
Frankly, that is the way to begin. We cannot start by bargaining; if we believe in something, we have to signal that we are prepared to do it. We have also signalled our support for a new employment chapter and that will show that we intend to be a positive member of the European Union.
For me, what is so refreshing about the Government is that they have abandoned the language of hyperbole and hysteria—we heard a bit of that just now and no doubt we shall hear more from Opposition Members—and have started to present the problems as they really are.
We can now see that the intergovernmental conference is not about the battle of Britain or the end of the nation state as we know it, as we heard so often from Conservative Members, but is a sober discussion of practical issues that are important for Britain and Europe. For example, as Mrs. Thatcher well understood, in certain matters it makes sense for Britain and the European Union to proceed by majority voting. She understood that in order to create a single market, one country cannot be allowed to impede progress. That is why she agreed to it. When I put that point to the Leader of the Opposition, he accepted it immediately because it was true.
As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said, that also applies to fraud, research and development, and environmental matters where it would be in Britain's

843
interest not to have a veto but to proceed by majority voting. When we talk about our veto, we sometimes forget that our veto is also somebody else's veto and that other countries can veto British policy. We have to understand that a bit better if we are to have a sensible debate about European affairs.
On the other hand, it is true that there are vital national issues such as taxation, foreign policy and, above all, defence. We certainly need a veto when it comes to sending our young men to die, and it is essential to preserve that veto. It is a matter of balance and it has to be considered soberly, carefully and from a pragmatic point of view without the hysteria that we have experienced in the past.
Of course, there are tricky problems to be faced at Amsterdam, including the weighting of voting to achieve a balance between small and large countries. I am sure that a solution will be found, but it is clearly a difficult matter between the states.
Border controls and immigration present problems, but, in my view, the other countries respect the fact that, for the moment, the United Kingdom—and, necessarily, Ireland—occupies a special position.
There is also the relationship between the Western European Union and the European Union to consider. Again, I believe that an acceptable compromise will be reached.
An acceptable agreement that is good for Britain and for Europe can be reached at Amsterdam because we do not have deep divisions between the countries that cannot be overcome. All member states, including the United Kingdom at last, want to reach agreement at Amsterdam. If, by some mischance, the Conservatives had won the election, such an agreement would have included the Conservative Government, for all their propaganda before the election.
We are likely to reach agreement at Amsterdam or soon after, and that will be in Britain's interests. That will be good for the country because it will help us to win over British public opinion after all these years of Euro-sceptic propaganda in the newspapers. It will show that a more co-operative and constructive attitude by the British pays dividends for British national interests as well as for European interests. That is extremely important.
With our presidency approaching at the beginning of 1998, it is important that Britain seizes the initiative. I agree with right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), the Father of the House, that it is not a matter of setting the agenda in the sense of ignoring other countries' interests, but it is important that we try to influence it. That is perfectly acceptable for a major European country such as Britain.
We are right to say that we need to complete the single market, because that is very much in Britain's interests. We are right to talk about the reform of the common agricultural policy. I do not share the view that it is the most perfect instrument devised by men or women. It certainly needs reforming.
We are also right to talk about enlargement. It is important that the former Soviet countries, particularly those on the borders of the European Union, have a real opportunity to join the European Union. We cannot keep them out if they want to join and if they are prepared to accept the rules, as I believe they are. Of course,
844
there will be a transition period, but it is an important objective that we should set for the European Union and I am glad that the Government are in favour of it.
The previous Government were so weak and divided—particularly after the first Danish referendum and the Maastricht vote—that they could only react negatively to proposals by other European countries. We heard echoes of that in the speech by the Leader of the Opposition. It is important that we make positive proposals and I welcome especially the Chancellor's proposal on employment which he is tabling today, or has tabled, at the ECOFIN meeting.
The history of the EU shows that countries that take a positive position are far more likely to get their way. If hon. Members doubt that, they should consider the example of Mrs. Thatcher. She believed that it was important to complete the single market. Her Government took a positive position on that issue and, as a result, we were able to get our way with the support of other countries. We had to make compromises on other issues, but that is the way in which the European Union should proceed. We need a positive agenda of our own.
Finally, let me say a word about the single currency. I shall not indulge in debate with my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies). We do that often enough and I am certain that we shall do so again. Clearly, events in France and Germany have raised questions about the timetable and the way in which monetary union is being established.
It would be easy for us to indulge in a characteristic bout of schadenfreude. I often think that that German word was invented especially for the British, as we spend most of our time indulging in it. We would be foolish indeed, because it is not in our interests for there to be instability of any kind in Europe, particularly monetary instability.
We are certainly entitled to insist on effective criteria because it is in our interests to have economic and monetary union that actually works, but, at the moment, we should be sympathetic and perhaps not say too much. If other countries want to go ahead, we should not try to stop it.
I disagree strongly with the Leader of the Opposition who was entirely wrong when he said that we should vote against monetary union at Amsterdam. That would be a stupid thing to do. If he were Prime Minister now, he would not be advocating it. It is much easier to say that as Leader of the Opposition.
Mr. Duncan Smith: He cannot vote against it.
Mr. Radice: Exactly. That is why I was surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman say it.
Mr. David Davis: He did not say it.
Mr. Radice: I thought that he did. I thought that he said that monetary union should be raised at Amsterdam

845
and that it was the most important issue to be considered there. Is the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis) saying that he wrote the speech?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. Only one hon. Member can address the House at a time.
Mr. Radice: Regardless of whatever the former Prime Minister said exactly and whenever he wanted Britain to vote against a single currency, he said that he believed that Britain should vote against a single currency.
Mr. Duncan Smith: I think that, in fact, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said that the matter should be raised, but that, when others qualify, Britain should vote under qualified majority against their joining if the criteria are fudged.
Mr. Radice: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that clarification, although it still means that there is an intention to vote against the project, which makes my essential point.
We should keep open the option of Britain joining a single currency—after a referendum, of course—if we believe it to be in our interests. Contrary to what my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli believes, I believe, as he knows, that there are strong arguments for a single currency. I also believe that it would be greatly disadvantageous for us to stay out of a single currency if one went ahead. On that point, I agree with the Leader of the Opposition, who is absolutely right to believe that.
I congratulate the Government on their excellent start. I wish them every success and luck in Amsterdam and urge them to keep up the good work.
7 pm
Mr. John D. Taylor: The debate has been like many previous debates on Europe—notable for the Euro-sceptical speeches of Government Members. That is an interesting feature, which is already developing under the new Government.
I congratulate the Government on the creation of a new atmosphere between the United Kingdom and other members of the European Union—although I know that some Opposition Members may criticise that. The Government have got off on the right foot in relations between the continent and the UK.
I was, therefore, interested to note that the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) said that one of the problems in the House was our lack of knowledge of European institutions. He accused most hon. Members of not knowing how many EU institutions there were and, even if they knew how many there were, of not knowing where they met. I think that the problem is deeper than that.
I do not dismiss hon. Members' knowledge of the EU. In fact, I think that they are very well informed. Some hon. Members present served with me in the European Parliament between 1979 and 1989. Some of the best-informed members of European institutions were those from the UK—both Labour and Conservative. They made more contributions to the work of the European
846
Parliament than many other Members from other nations. Yet—I say this as an Ulsterman and I think that the Welsh and the Scots would probably confirm it—there was a problem with the attitude of continental Members of the European Parliament towards English MEPs. Labour MEPs were always disliked in Strasbourg. That is hard to say, but it is true.
Mrs. Clwyd indicated assent.
Mr. Taylor: I see one former Labour MEP nodding in agreement. Worse still, Conservative MEPs were despised.
Mrs. Clwyd: Hear, hear.
Mr. Taylor: Yes, they were. The Ulstermen, the Scots and the Welsh were always liked. As you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will understand from your background, there is a cultural problem in relations between the United Kingdom and the continent of Europe, which we must understand. That is why I praise the Government for the steps that they have taken in the past few weeks to try to improve relations between this Parliament and EU institutions.
The hon. Member for Huddersfield also criticised his right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and said that democracy was not at risk. I come down on the side of the right hon. Gentleman when we discuss issues such as the single currency.
Mr. Duncan Smith: The right hon. Gentleman said that the relationship is warmer and better, and congratulated the Government on achieving that already. I remind him that, in 1991, he was probably tempted to say almost exactly the same thing about the then new Prime Minister and his relationship with Europe. The five subsequent years demonstrated that the special cultural differences and changes made such a position almost impossible.
Mr. Taylor: Originally, I was going to make that comment, but I decided to remove it from my speech. Time will tell. I want simply to place on the record the fact that, at this stage, one month since the Government took office, they have started off on the right foot in relations between the UK and the EU.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer is, for example, rightly saying at ECOFIN that the most important issue is the provision of more jobs in the United Kingdom and across Europe. When I first entered the European Parliament, only 12 million people were unemployed. Yet 20 years later, the figure is 50 per cent. higher. That is the "success" of European policy: a total failure—driving more and more people out of jobs. The Chancellor says that he has five means of recommending how we bring about the provision of new jobs in the EU, but we have not yet seen the detail of those five programmes. We do not know what they really are or how they will be funded.
The right hon. Member for Chesterfield is criticised for saying that democracy is at risk, but, of course, it is at risk. A central bank in Frankfurt will control interest rates and a discipline will be applied to all member nations. We will, of course, be left the right to raise taxes, as has been said, but our total public expenditure will be restricted.

847
That will mean that the people of the United Kingdom will no longer be able to set financial policy in this country through the UK's democratic system. They will be controlled from outside.
The right hon. Member for Chesterfield was right in his definition of democracy. The people have a right to make a decision and, if they do not like that decision, they have a right to reverse it later. If we set up a European bank and a single currency, however, decisions will be made in Frankfurt which the people of the United Kingdom, regardless of whether they vote Labour, Conservative or even Ulster Unionist, will not have the right to change.
Mr. Cash: Has the right hon. Gentleman not noticed a slight contradiction in his argument'? He is developing it very well in relation to the difficulties that arise from the various provisions of the treaties, such as unemployment, but does not he recognise that the troubles in France, Germany and all other countries come from the clamp of the Maastricht criteria? That is precisely why those of us who took such exception to the arrangements for the single currency agree with him on the one hand, but, on the other, disagree with him when he does not draw the right conclusions.
Mr. Taylor: I have no doubt that the criteria imposed by the Maastricht treaty have created the conditions that apply in Germany, which has massive unemployment of almost 5 million people. They have also caused the situation in France, which led to a change of Government. That is why I say that I applaud what the Chancellor of the Exchequer is trying to do.
Mr. Cash: But he cannot do it.
Mr. Taylor: Exactly. I want to hear the detail of how such provisions will be financed because I believe that there is a contradiction in the Chancellor of the Exchequer's policies. We must wait for those details to emerge.
The Ulster Unionists support the enlargement of the European Union. The Council of Europe already has many members with a common approach to human rights, individual rights and cultural activities. The Council debates foreign policy, creating a common theme throughout a wider number of nations than are members of the European Union. The Leader of the Opposition mentioned that, as we extend the European Union, we wish to welcome as quickly as possible countries such as Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic.
However, I differed with the right hon. Gentleman when he mentioned the small island of Cyprus. Much as I should like to see Cyprus become a member of the European Union, the last thing we want to do is to bring Cyprus into the EU before it has settled its internal affairs. We do not want to inherit the problems of Cyprus, because we have enough already.
The Foreign Secretary made an excellent speech in opening the debate. It was a skilful speech and I welcomed its underlying tone. The hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) may laugh, but when he reads the speech he will find that the underlying tone was somewhat sceptical. That scepticism may emerge in greater detail in the months ahead. The Government have stressed the importance of Europe to the people and I shall finish with
848
two points that affect people's lives, on which I would like some replies from the Chief Secretary to the Treasury this evening.
The first issue is the continuing ban on British beef exports to the European Union. The certified herd scheme has been before the Commission for several months. Some of us met Commissioner Fischler some three months ago in Brussels, following the submission of the scheme. He said that it was a good scheme and that Northern Ireland complied with most of the terms of the Florence agreement.
I welcomed the previous Government's submission of the certified herd scheme. I have a copy of the letter from the then Minister that accompanied the submission; one paragraph was devoted entirely to the problems of Northern Ireland. Since then, Commissioner Fischler has said that Northern Ireland complies in all respects with the European Union's requirements. I wish to know what progress the Government have made since then in regaining access for Northern Ireland's beef to the export market in the European Union.
The second issue is one on which the Conservative Government laid great stress, but I am sorry to say that the Labour Government seem not to have taken it as seriously—quota hopping and the damage that it is doing to the fishing industry. That problem has not yet been mentioned in the debate, which surprises me. The Laessen report recommended a further 40 per cent. reduction in the British fishing fleet—I should say, the United Kingdom fishing fleet, because the terms are sometimes misunderstood. Such a reduction would be disastrous for the fishing industry in Northern Ireland, especially because of the impact of quota hopping on the United Kingdom fishing industry.
For example, 46 per cent. of the United Kingdom quota for hake and 44 per cent. of our quota for plaice is already taken up by foreign quota hoppers. In other words, almost half of those two stocks are taken up by non-UK vessels. That is a serious problem which the Government must address.
I heard on the radio over the weekend that the Government hope to resolve the matter in the next 10 days. I should like a progress report this evening that would be good news for the fishing industry throughout the United Kingdom.
7.13 pm
Mr. Robert N. Wareing: Some of the speeches in this debate have looked back over the past 22 years. My hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) mentioned the fact that he had changed his attitude since the referendum in 1975. I confess to the House that I have changed my attitude, too, and I had very good reasons for doing so. In 1975, it was just conceivable, because of the nature of our manufacturing base, that Britain could operate outside the then European Community. Since then, during the Thatcher-Lawson years, our manufacturing base has been decimated.
Two other factors have arisen. Europe has changed. When we talk about the European Union, we no longer mean only six countries, but many more. The traditions of those additional countries often have much in common with the British Labour movement, and Sweden is one example. A social dimension has also been introduced.

849
Many of us argued in 1975 that we were being asked to become part of a bankers' Europe. Nobody can argue that now, because—since Jacques Delors and the social chapter—the European Union has undoubtedly acquired a social dimension and one that has been accepted by the Labour Government.
The right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) mentioned the dangers to democracy that he sees. I remind the House that democracy is not as age-old in this country as we would like to think. It is true that we have had parliamentary government for nearly 1,000 years, but it is only 165 years since the first Reform Bill was passed. All that did was give one man in 40 the right to vote. It is only in this century that working men have all had the vote on an equal basis, and women have had that right only since the 1929 election. As recently as 1945, most women did not have the right to vote in local elections because of the householder franchise. In 1948, the university seats and the business vote were abolished. We should not talk as if we have been a democracy for centuries, because we have not.
If there is a democratic deficit in Europe, the answer is not to ignore Europe but to make up the deficit. I do not share the fears that have been expressed by some hon. Members today that the European Parliament will usurp Westminster's powers. However, it is right that the European Parliament, meeting as it does in public, should be able to control the executive machinery of the European Union which meets in camera.
A breath of fresh air is blowing through our continent today. It was generated by the decisive decision of the British people on 1 May to reject a party whose leadership refused to disavow the bigots and the extreme chauvinists in its ranks. New Members are lucky indeed because they do not have to listen to the bigotry and the racialism that oozed from the mouths of David Evans and Tony Marlow. The British people turned their backs on such candidates, including the Tory candidate in Edgbaston who attacked the Labour candidate—now, I am glad to say, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart)—because of her Germanic roots. The Tory Government whipped up hatred against Europeans in general, and Germans in particular.
We remember the writings of Nicholas Ridley, and some of the speeches of Lord Tebbit. We remember also that one of the Conservative party's leadership contenders embarked on such a tirade. During this Parliament, no Minister will be heard at his party conference making fun of foreigners, as the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) once did. Those days have gone. Although there may be differences among Labour Members, these are based on politics and economics and are not borne out of racism and bigotry.
The Tory Euro-sceptics talked about protecting British sovereignty, and the interests of the people. We believe the most important people to be working people, and that is why the Government have taken early action to fulfil our manifesto commitment to sign up to the social chapter and to recognise that British workers—whether full time or part time—should not be treated as second-class European citizens.
Likewise, the Government are right to put the scourge of unemployment at the top of their European agenda. The convergence criteria for the single currency cannot
850
be properly attainable with a background of 80 million unemployed people in the EU. As the people of France have come to understand, attempting to reach the target of 3 per cent. of GDP borrowing requirement by slashing jobs and welfare is not the way to endear the concept of European unity to the mass of people. In rejecting the Gaullists, the French people decided that there had to be a better way.
I believe that if there is a single currency, we should enter it as and when we are in a position to attain the 3 per cent. target, backed by fuller employment. When those who are now unemployed become employed, they will no longer be a financial burden on the state and will pay taxes. That will help to sustain the 3 per cent. limit without damaging the social infrastructure.
I do not believe for one minute that, if the rest of Europe—certainly the core countries of the EU—accepts a single currency, it will be possible for Britain to remain aloof. For Britain to persist with the pound sterling while Germany, France, Italy and perhaps others operate a single currency would invite speculators on a large scale and would make business highly costly for the British business man, compared with his European counterparts. If Britain is to compete on an equal footing with our counterparts in the rest of Europe, there has to be acceptance sooner or later of Britain's entry to a single currency.
One aspect that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary did not mention today is human rights, but he should be congratulated on putting that at the top of his foreign policy agenda. When we talk about human rights and foreign policy, we tend to think of countries such as Indonesia, Saudi Arabia and—perhaps—Turkey, and a good reason why Turkey's application to join the EU should not be considered is that country's human rights record. There are other human rights problems within the boundaries of Europe and I wish to express some caution about the enlargement of the EU.
I fully support Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary being accepted into the EU as early as possible. In many respects, Hungary could fit in neatly tomorrow morning. Unlike the right hon. Member for Strangford, I would not allow Turkey a veto over Cyprus's application. However, we should be careful about the applications that will come from the Baltic states. This is a cautionary note that I would like to add to the debate. In Latvia, 46 per cent. of the population are Russian. Of the 1.5 million people who live in Estonia, one third are Russian. These people are being denied their human rights. Many of them have lived there for 50 years or more, but one third of the population are unlikely ever to be other than non-citizens because they—the Russian speakers—are unlikely ever to meet the linguistic requirements for Estonian citizenship.
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary undoubtedly will have difficult decisions to make in Amsterdam, but the manner in which he, the Chancellor and the Prime Minister have embarked on the European journey with the Labour Government is in stark contrast to the way in which the former Prime Minister led the Conservative Government. He said that he was ready to be at the heart of Europe, but his Back Benchers were at his heart and he lost heart. Because of that, he lost the election. I wish my right hon. Friends good luck in Amsterdam, and I feel sure that they will act on behalf of

851
all the British people and that the decisions to which they come will be true to the Labour party's internationalist traditions.
7.26 pm
Mr. William Cash: It has been intriguing listening to the schizophrenic socialist party's windmills of the mind, because there are only a few days to go before the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary go to Amsterdam. It is clear from today's speeches that they do not understand what the treaty says. There is a famous analogy; they have not read the Amsterdam treaty as one of our distinguished leadership candidates is reputed not to have read the Maastricht treaty.
The problem goes back to the Prime Minister's statement, as Leader of the Opposition, on 5 April 1995, when he made the most monumental misjudgment about the future of Europe. In a speech at Chatham House, he said that the other member states were not making strides towards a federal Europe. As I understand it from some diplomatic notes that have been leaked to me, in return for the resolution of the quota hopping issue he will give a series of concessions on the Amsterdam treaty, completely ignoring the federal character of what is being created—a federal character clearly described by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley) in an excellent speech. My right hon. Friend was, of course, criticised by Opposition Members as usual—I do not hold that against them. On balance, I agree that a deep, federal shift will take place in Amsterdam, although I depart a little from my right hon. Friend's judgment that the Maastricht treaty did not have the same effect.
In a nutshell, the real distinction between the Single European Act, which I always supported although I would like reforms to get rid of unfair subsidies, and the Maastricht treaty is that under the former there was a reaffirmation of the principle of majority voting that was already there for agriculture, industry and various other things. As I have said before, the critical point is that the Maastricht treaty was about European government whereas the Single European Act was about political co-operation and trading relationships. There is a world of difference between the two.
On the Amsterdam treaty, the idea that the European Union should be given a legal personality is a massive step in the direction of a federal Europe. It is pointless continuing to recite the mantra that we are not, to all intents and purposes, in a federal arrangement. I am more interested in identifying the functions that are being transferred as the constitutional criteria for determining the movement towards European government than in the general expression, federal or otherwise. The functions that are transferred will determine whether we reduce our democratic control over the Government of this country through this House and the accountability of that Government to the House.
I take grave exception to the legal personality and enhanced powers of the European Court of Justice, particularly the extension of its powers to cover criminal law, which we have been assured over and over again could not and would not happen. Furthermore, the chapter regarding fundamental rights and freedoms contains the most horrendous provisions which, if approved, would give the court the power to adjudicate on alleged breaches
852
of fundamental rights that will be entrenched in our legislation through the Maastricht treaty. Any breach of those rights will be visited with sanctions against the member states in question. The House has not had much of an opportunity to consider all these questions. In the time available today, hon. Members cannot touch on them in the depth that they require.
I strongly criticise the Prime Minister for utterly failing—for the first time, as far as I know since the founding Act was passed—to make a statement to the House after the Noordwijk summit and the Russia-NATO summit. For many reasons that I do not want to recite today, we have made fair accusations against the Government for their failure to treat this House with proper respect. This is yet another example. The Prime Minister's failure to make statements to the House on fundamental European matters is outrageous. The inexperienced Minister who is sitting on the Front Bench for the first time suggested that it is not a contempt of the House for the Prime Minister to refuse to come to the House to tell us about the Noordwijk summit and the Russia-NATO treaty; he is merely demonstrating his junior capacity and his inexperience.
For all the reasons that I have given, I firmly believe that we should veto the treaty in its entirety. Furthermore, unless, as I pointed out in an amendment that stands in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), there is renegotiation of monetary union by placing the single currency on the agenda for the intergovernmental conference, we should veto not merely the treaty but the entire conference. That would be in the interests not merely of the United Kingdom, but of Europe as a whole.
As we heard in the good speech by the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) and in my interventions on the Foreign Secretary and the Leader of the Opposition, the stability pact is at the heart of European politics this very day.
As I pointed out, the Government—through the arrangements that they formulated for this debate—are treating the House with contempt for the following reason: only a few months ago, the Select Committee on European Legislation tabled an unprecedented motion, criticising the previous Government. Despite the Committee's insistence, the Government ignored its request that a matter as important as the stability pact should be taken on the Floor of the House. I criticised the previous Prime Minister for that. Indeed, about 150 hon. Members on both sides of the House took the same point of view.
Among all the other papers that we are considering today is that same stability pact. The single currency, which is the most crucial question facing Europe, is buried in lines of verbiage about the various documents that we are supposed to be considering. If the Prime Minister were here, I would challenge him—indeed, I challenge the Ministers on the Front Bench—to tell us why the Government propose to allow the stability pact to go through without the full and proper debate required by the Select Committee on European Legislation. That sort of contempt is not merely a matter of disrespect, it is fundamentally undemocratic. It means that hon. Members are not being given the opportunity to form a proper judgment about what is going on in the name of this country.

853
The stability pact is about the creation of a hard core, which is what the Germans want. It is based on an attempt to ensure that they have their kind of Europe. The Leader of the Opposition called for delay on the single currency—I would call for rejection—because it would lead to a Europe that lacks equilibrium and has a new centre of gravity. As I have argued on many occasions, if we allow the measure to get through it will lead to an increasingly German Europe.
The Germans themselves are now critical of that prospect. I visited Germany recently and met many leading German figures. I had a meeting with Hans Tietmeyer in the Bundesbank not so long ago. From that conversation, I predicted what has now happened. The Bundesbank has taken exception to what the German Government are doing and the most recent figures suggest that as many as 60 per cent. of the German people do not want the single currency on those terms.
Professor Wilhelm Nolling has said that he will take the matter to the constitutional court in Germany, and Professor Wilhelm Hankel of Frankfurt has emphasised that to revalue the gold reserves and cash in a profit—a decision tied up with the ridiculous policy of the single currency and stability pact—is equivalent to printing money.
That is bringing Germany and Chancellor Kohl into disrepute and, as Professor Hankel points out, from the point of view of stability policy, it is as questionable as allowing the monetisation of debt, which the Maastricht treaty forbids for good reason. That is why the matter is being taken so incredibly seriously in Germany. I whole-heartedly endorse and encourage those Germans who are taking a position against their Government, who are putting the obsession with political union ahead of common sense and the interests of stability in Germany, the United Kingdom and the rest of Europe.
Senior German figures, such as Gerhard Schröder and Herbert Hax, Kohl's chief economic adviser, have called for a delay to economic and monetary union. I would much rather renegotiate everything, which Amsterdam provides us with the opportunity to do. Failure to do so will be an act of folly and a dereliction of responsibility, as the previous Prime Minister said.
I made an intervention concerning the stability pact during the speech of the Leader of the Opposition. I strongly criticised the pact and will continue to do so. He said that I was wrong; I stand to be judged on that in due course. I suspect that he supported it because, as I know from a reply that the Prime Minister gave me the other day, it was not only a political agreement, endorsed by the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer and backed up at Dublin by the Leader of the Opposition, but became a final agreement and is now being implemented by the former Opposition.
The pact is in my opinion a fundamental mistake; it creates a hard core and we will be deeply damaged by it regardless of whether we are in or out of monetary union. If the hard core is a weak euro, we will be damaged by the lack of growth; if we are on the outside, it will be better not to have had it at all. That was the basis of my objections to the Maastricht treaty in the first place and it is why I shall certainly abstain on the Opposition motion this evening.
854
If I was wrong about the exchange rate mechanism in my objections to it as it developed, I am glad to have been wrong. It was a vicious and bad policy, based on our 1992 manifesto, that led us into all sorts of difficulties and contributed massively, in my judgment, to our loss in the general election, because the public sector borrowing requirement went up to £50 billion and we imposed taxes such as value added tax on fuel.
I do not believe that I was precisely wrong, to put it mildly, with respect to the political obsession of Chancellor Kohl in driving for a federal Europe. I criticised the "heart of Europe" speech for good reasons, and would do so again. I am glad to note that the Leader of the Opposition has been good enough candidly to acknowledge that the exchange rate mechanism was a political mistake and to consider again the implications of the "heart of Europe" speech in an interview with Professor Anthony Selden.
The wait-and-see policy was always flawed. It remains flawed in the hands of the new Government. Is it a good idea to have a policy of wait and see as unemployment rockets and growth plummets? Is it good policy to wait and see, with all the uncertainty that that involves?
The Government do not have the guts to consider what is going on—the riots and disorder in France and Germany and the youth unemployment. The Prime Minister goes on about relieving youth unemployment with a so-called five-point plan, when the very policies that arise from the Maastricht treaty have generated youth unemployment of 28 per cent. in France and 33 per cent. in Spain.
Not one thing that I have heard today from the Foreign Secretary, nor all the glitzy presentation from the Prime Minister since the Government came into office, has given me the slightest confidence that they have the faintest idea how to run a European policy. That is why I and my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green tabled amendment (c), which says that we have absolutely no confidence in Her Majesty's Government in relation to European affairs or in their capacity to negotiate.
The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) spoke about the central bank. He is completely right to say that it is anathema to our democracy. It is ultimately an unaccountable arrangement under which the bank governors are not allowed by law, subject to the European Court of Justice, to seek or take instructions from the member states. If they are not allowed to do that, nobody controls them and they are completely unaccountable.
When things go wrong, there will be a tremendous problem, because, on the one hand, there is the possibility of the breach of law and, on the other, the impossibility of bringing anyone to account. At the very same time, this Parliament and others will be emasculated. There will be no safety valve, and that will be the breeding ground for serious disorder, leading possibly even to a more extreme form of fascism or authoritarianism throughout Europe.
That is avoidable by avoiding the full implications of the treaty. That is the danger that we face, which is why I say that all the single currency arrangements should be renegotiated at Amsterdam. They are the breeding ground for unemployment, cowardice and disorder, which will follow as surely as night follows day.
The NATO pact, which we have not properly examined, is highly dangerous, allowing the Russians far more influence in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation than is justified.

855
The problem with flexibility is best encapsulated by the disaster of monetary union and the manner in which it was described in the flexibility paper in the appalling Amsterdam treaty. In the notes, the European Commission says that economic and monetary union is the best form of flexibility yet devised.
If monetary union, which has been an unmitigated failure and the centre of so much controversy and despair throughout Europe, is to be regarded as the best form of flexibility, why on earth do not this wretched Government abandon a treaty that has flexibility right at its heart? It is all very well for the Minister with responsibility for Europe, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson), to laugh; if he persists in the policy that is being pursued at Amsterdam, the laugh will be on the other side of his face.
7.48 pm
Mr. Bill Rammell: I am grateful for the opportunity to make my maiden speech in this important debate.
To use an expression little used nowadays, I come from an ordinary working-class background, where it is not the norm to go into public life, let alone become a Member of Parliament. It is therefore with deep humility, but also with pride—for myself, for my family and for the community of Harlow that nurtured me—that I make my maiden speech.
It is customary to pay tribute to one's predecessors, which I am more than happy to do. Hon. Members new and old will have their memories of my predecessor, Jerry Hayes. I say with some admiration, and certainly with respect, that he was a politician who never shrank from an opportunity to use the media to expose his views to public scrutiny. In the context of this debate on Europe, he came from what I would call the sensible wing of the Conservative party. He rightly understood that Britain had no future outside the European Union, certainly not a prosperous one. I also learnt during the general election campaign that he was a dedicated constituency representative who earned enormous respect for his local work.
I also pay tribute to Stan Newens, who represented Harlow for 15 years. Many hon. Members know that Stan represents London, Central in the European Parliament, but he still lives in Harlow and is remembered with respect and fondness by constituents. Even if one disagrees with Stan, it is impossible not to respect the sincerity and passion of his convictions and the way in which he puts them forward.
Harlow's modern history started with the decision of the Labour Government in 1946 to create a new town there. The decision was popular and welcomed by the majority of local people. It gave rise over the following decades to opportunities for thousands of people where previously there had been none. Families moved, as mine did in the 1960s, from rundown and overcrowded accommodation in London to the green spaces, the lower-density, higher-quality housing, and the excellent comprehensive schools and community facilities offered by Harlow. It was planned and designed as a group of neighbourhood communities separated by pleasant green wedges. The stress on the concept of community and neighbourhood has continued to the present day. Harlow council is a pioneer of successful and pragmatic devolution of power and responsibility to neighbourhood forums and committees.
856
Harlow has also given rise to magnificent sporting opportunities and facilities. To this day, it boasts the largest youth recreational football league in Europe. Among the products of that excellent system is the current England football coach, Glenn Hoddle, who was a classroom contemporary of mine. I and other Harlow residents will always be happy to be associated with Glenn's achievements, but that is even more true after recent results. I am sure that next summer he and the England team will prove the accuracy of Labour's iron rule of football, that it is only under Labour Governments that England win the World cup. That is the last neo-nationalist comment that I will make in this debate.
Harlow has led the way in innovative social and community facilities: the first all-purpose health centre in 1955; one of the first holiday play schemes in the early 1960s; and one of the earliest after-school care schemes in 1979. I am pleased that the importance of those initiatives is recognised in the new Government's programme. Harlow has lost much of its traditional manufacturing industry. However, that industry is being replaced and Harlow is becoming a centre for scientific research and development. Major international companies such as SmithKline Beecham, Northern Telecom, and Merck, Sharp and Dohme and are centralising their research activities there. Local people welcome that.
I am proud to represent my constituency and I recognise the start in life that Harlow gave me. It is home to a proud working-class community. People support each other and believe in shared community life and facilities. They also aspire to get on in life and to do better for their children. I fully admit that those were the people who my party lost contact with in the 1980s: defence industry workers, council house purchasers and small business people. Labour has come home to them, and they have certainly come home to Labour. I assure hon. Members that we do not intend to lose contact again.
I understand that it is traditional to make a maiden speech on a non-controversial subject. I have therefore chosen Europe. I say that not because I have taken leave of my senses but because I believe that, over time, Europe will and must become a less controversial subject. It is too important to play party politics with. The future of Britain has never been so much at stake as it is now. I say that with particular reference to the Euro-sceptics both inside and outside the Conservative party. They try to reduce every debate to a dogmatic, obsessive tirade against Europe and all things European. They are the King Canutes of British politics. For them, the general election was a watershed. They attempted to play upon ignorance—to use the fact that people do not fully understand how the institutions of Europe work—to create prejudice and fear, and so set Britain apart from Europe. They failed in that enterprise on a massive, unprecedented scale.
I strongly believe in a deepening and growing European Union; a Europe that I am certain will, in time, develop a single currency. Of course, there must be debates and negotiations about start dates, timetables and the convergence criteria, but the idea that Britain could remain outside a single currency for a long time without enormous damage to our economy is fool's gold.
I was interested by the comment of the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) that there may be circumstances in the future where it is in Britain's interests to join a single currency. I believe that he was

857
sincere, but I do not believe that he, or any of his potential successors, could deliver the Conservative party to support such a proposition. In a party with pretensions to the national interest, that is to be regretted.
I also believe in a Europe in which, at long last, Britain has signed up to the social chapter so that, at a very basic level, our people can enjoy the same minimum standards of employment as exist elsewhere in Europe. I believe in a Europe where qualified majority voting has been extended to prevent other countries from unacceptably vetoing things that are important to us and our communities. I believe that all those measures are in Britain's interest; certainly they are in the interests of my constituents. Let me give an example of how that is already happening.
Harlow's innovative approach to training and job creation in the past year alone has brought in almost £1 million of European funds. My constituents gain real benefit from the opportunities that constructive partnership in the European Union brings. In essence, that is what the debate is about. To believe in one's country and people does not mean blindly beating the path to isolation. We have to have confidence in our country, its people, its institutions and what they stand for, and to recognise that sometimes we can achieve more for our people in combination with other nations than we can alone. That was reinforced by the general election result. Europe is our future. Our task as politicians is to make Europe succeed for all our people, to open up its institutions and to make them accessible. It is a task that I, as a new Member, will relish.
7.57 pm
Mr. Crispin Blunt: I know that I am profoundly privileged to make my maiden speech in this House. Many of us here, and many, many not so fortunate, have dreamt of the moment, perhaps for decades. I have faced an additional problem, as some of my colleagues have enjoyed pointing out. "You are going to have say something nice about George," they chortle. It must be admitted that Sir George Gardiner did not end his Conservative party career in a blaze of glory. I had the difficulty of representing the Conservative cause in Reigate against someone who had represented it for 25 year as a senior, and distinctive, Member of this House. I believe that, on cool reflection, he will regret the manner of his passing from his party, as many of his friends in the Conservative party in Reigate regretted deeply the impossible strain that he placed on loyalties divided between man and party.
Sir George was a resolute battler for the causes he believed in, and although many of us questioned his judgment at the end, no one could question the resolve with which he steered his chosen course. That quality served my constituents well for more than two decades. None did him more credit than his championing of the Tadworth Court children's hospital, now the Children's Trust, Tadworth. In 1982 it faced closure due to reorganisation at Great Ormond Street. Sir George and my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) led the campaign that saved it by both raising money and changing the policy of the Department of Health. I hope that it is a cause which Sir George feels he can continue to support in my constituency.
858
Further to that, in the primary duty of those of us sent here, no one complained and, indeed, Sir George had a fine reputation for the way in which he looked after the concerns of his individual constituents. That is a record which I can only hope to match in the time that I have the privilege to represent Reigate in the House.
Reigate is a constituency with a long parliamentary history which began as long ago as 1295 when it sent two Members to Edward I's Model Parliament at Westminster. It is said that parliamentary representation in the 14th century was regarded by boroughs such as Reigate not as a privilege but as an irksome duty, and one to be evaded whenever possible. A borough that returned Members had to find the money to pay their wages and was thus subject to a higher rate of taxation than the county. There is a lesson in that for today. If I may depart briefly from the subject of the European Union, I hope that the people of Scotland appreciate that the taxation accompanied by any Parliament can indeed become irksome. I cannot believe that the people of Scotland expect the people of England to pay for their Parliament. That would be guaranteed to be a greater cause of irritation than it was for my constituents six centuries ago.
Previous representatives of the Reigate constituency have included Charles Howard, the Lord High Admiral of the Fleet that defeated the Armada. That is not meant to be clue as to my intentions tomorrow. They also included the modestly named Julius Caesar.
Today, the constituency consists of most of the borough of Reigate and Banstead. It runs from Banstead in the north to the village of Salfords in the south. I would like to ask the boundary commissioners to have some pity on Banstead, which they have moved on every single occasion that they have had the opportunity, from one parliamentary constituency to the next. I hope that they will allow it to rest for a few decades to come in the borough in which it exists.
Chipstead is one of the most desirable parts of my constituency. My parents were lucky enough to find an Army hiring there in the 1950s. Today, Michael Reeve is one of my constituents who is fortunate enough to live in that lovely village. Unfortunately, he cannot enjoy Chipstead today or for an indefinite period because he is currently being detained in Antwerp prison by the Belgian authorities in disturbing circumstances.
Mr. Reeve has been involved in a massive reinsurance fraud. He protests his innocence. He claims that his company was the unwitting agent for two companies that were properly audited and incorporated under Belgian law, but which now seem to have been the product of organised crime.
Mr. Reeve commissioned his own private investigation and has made the report available to the Belgian authorities. His home and office have been searched by those authorities. He has twice surrendered himself voluntarily for questioning by the Belgian authorities. In the first instance, his reward was to spend Christmas and the new year in prison. When he returned in April, having been assured by his own lawyer that there were no grounds for his re-arrest, he was re-arrested and has been incarcerated since 28 April.
That spectacular fraud may take up to three years to come to trial, so why is Mr. Reeve in prison? He will not reoffend. The case is known to the whole insurance industry; no one will do business with him and his

859
company is going into liquidation. He cannot interfere with the evidence as his home and office have already been searched. Those are the grounds on which he is formally being held, but, in an unwise moment of candour, the judge of instruction, Mrs. Van Hoeylandt, told Mr. Reeve's lawyer that he was in prison because
"he was still not telling the truth."
That is clearly an outrageous use of detention to coerce a subject of investigation.
Mr. Reeve's appeal process, which has failed in Belgium, has uncovered another dubious attribute of the Belgian criminal justice system. There is a data link between the prosecuting authorities and the Appeal Court. The court's judgment was identical to the electronic text of the Attorney General's submission. That is clearly a breach of equal rights for the prosecution and the defence.
Mr. Reeve's detention is, of course, having the precise opposite effect to that desired by the investigators. Here is a man who was co-operating with the authorities, but who is now silent in prison because he refuses to be coerced. His only legal recourse is to the European Court of Human Rights.
That case and the condition of the justice systems across the European Union are of concern to all of us in the House. In the negotiations that have led up to the Amsterdam intergovernmental conference, proposals were put forward for inclusion in the treaty that would have allowed Belgian police officers to cross international frontiers to arrest the citizens of other nations in the European Union. Although those proposals were killed off in negotiations by the previous Government, and I trust that the Minister can confirm that they remain dead, the Government should be under no illusion as to the agenda that some of our European partners are working towards.
The village of Chipstead, to which I hope Mr. Reeve will shortly be able to return, is far from the only attractive and desirable part of my constituency. Reigate is part of London's green belt and the issues related to protecting the environment and sustaining my constituents' quality of life will dominate whatever period I have the privilege of representing the constituency.
Protecting the quality of life of all of our citizens should remain the responsibility of this Parliament. However, as our Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary prepare to go to Amsterdam, that responsibility is another of the policy areas that they have said that they intend to give away. They wish to make environmental policy across the European Union subject to qualified majority voting.
I hope that Ministers understand the potential consequences of extending qualified majority voting to article 130s of the Maastricht treaty. That will mean harmonisation of the planning process across the European Union. With an environment as rich as that of Reigate, that is not a power I believe that the United Kingdom should be surrendering. It could also mean the final surrendering of control of our energy policy. In the past 18 years, we have made the supply of energy much cheaper due to the increasing operation of the free market.
To quote from article 130s, I fear that we are about to agree to qualified majority voting on
"measures significantly affecting a member state's choice between different energy sources and the general structure of its energy supply."
I hope that the Minister can assure me that that is not the case.
860
Equally, the case for extending QMV to aspects of industrial, regional and social policy has not been made. It is the product of scratching around to find some seemingly innocuous concession to justify the warm embrace that Ministers have received from their colleagues in Europe. The potential consequences of those concessions are not innocuous. In industrial policy, we could find ourselves subject to the failed interventionist industrial policies of the 1960s and 1970s. There surely can be no case for exposing the United Kingdom to their possible return.
I served as a special adviser in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office during most of the run-up to the intergovernmental conference. I now find myself on the Opposition Benches and I cannot help feeling rather like this century's distinguished naval occupant of Reigate Priory, who followed in the footsteps of the victor over the Armada. Admiral, the Earl Beatty, retired to Reigate priory in 1927. Two days after leaving the Admiralty, he wrote to a friend:
"It is all over and I have left my office. My work with His Majesty's Navy has come to an end, and now I am at a loose end. This Geneva conference has kept me busy up to the last thing and I do not know what the outcome will be but I am afraid that a compromising spirit will prevail among our representatives, and they will be manoeuvred into accepting something which they shouldn't."
I sincerely hope that our new Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary, in their desire to enjoy the warm embrace of our partners in Europe, are not manoeuvred into accepting something that they should not at Amsterdam.
8.8 pm
Ms Louise Ellman: I congratulate the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) and my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell) on their excellent maiden speeches. They displayed their dedication and sincerity concerning their constituents. I look forward to hearing more from them.
I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for permitting me to make my maiden speech during this important debate. It is a subject of critical importance to my constituents. At the outset, I should like to say that I fully support the Government's commitment to full participation in Europe. That commitment, combined with our domestic policies, will be of great benefit to my constituents.
I am privileged to have been elected to represent the Riverside constituency, which is renowned for its campaigning characters. My immediate predecessor, Bob Parry, was well respected in the House and in Liverpool and beyond, and I thank him for his dedication to Riverside. Bessie Braddock is still remembered, loved and revered as a champion of the people in part of my constituency. Eleanor Rathbone was elected for my constituency in 1928. She was a suffragette and one of those who began the campaign for family allowances. Her legacy is of great benefit to the whole country.
My constituency draws great strength from its diversity and its many communities. As a Labour and Co-operative Member, I applaud the community-based regeneration that has been carried out by, for example, the Eldonians in Granby, Toxteth and Dingle. Much of that has been supported by European funding. Riverside is a major area of Irish settlement with all the richness of culture that that has brought us. It has two cathedrals, and I applaud the work of the late Archbishop Warlock and

861
Bishop David Sheppard in bringing communities together. It also has the Liverpool mosque and the historic Princes road synagogue.
Riverside is rich in arts. It has the Royal Liverpool philharmonic orchestra, theatres and the Liverpool institute of performing arts, which was so splendidly opened by Sir Paul McCartney a short time ago, and Liverpool is now the headquarters of the North-West film commission. All those features have great economic potential.
Of course, Liverpool has two excellent football teams, and they dominate the city. It is not possible to mention football in Liverpool without being aware of the shadow of Hillsborough. I shall continue the campaign until the truth of what happened is out and people know what really occurred on that dreadful day.
The economy of my constituency faces great difficulties. Long-term unemployment started when the transatlantic trade began to decline. It has the second highest level of unemployment in the country with over 27 per cent. male and more than 19.8 per cent. overall. Riverside ranks as one of the poorest areas in Europe and qualifies for objective 1 EU funding because its unemployment is 70 per cent. above the European average while its GDP is 77 per cent. below it. That is why about £630 million has been allocated by Europe for regeneration in the area. That money will generate £1.5 billion to regenerate the economy.
European assistance is critical. It was EU economic assistance and regeneration that started to target support, to intervene, to forge partnerships with the private sector and to lever in resources to consider needs and develop opportunities. That money has been used for investment and training, and has involved communities and been used to devise strategies. It has given birth to the innovative Merseyside special investment fund which has involved hard work with small and medium-sized businesses to develop the real regeneration in the economy, which is business.
I am pleased that the Government's new policy will build on what European funding has started to achieve in Riverside. Our policy for a north-west region development agency will give us the means to use those European funds even better. It will provide a focus and develop strategies to link that funding to private and public-sector funding in a better way than before. The new Ministry that has been created by the Government will enable transport, environment, training and job creation issues to be looked at as a whole to make maximum use of that vital European funding.
We have reached a critical point on European funding. The enlargement of Europe is on the agenda and that means that there is a question mark over the future of objective 1 funding for Liverpool. Although that money is already having an impact on Riverside, there is still much work to do. I am confident that the Government's attitude of full participation in Europe and stressing the importance of employment in all European policies will ensure that Merseyside in general and Riverside in particular will continue to benefit from objective 1 funding after the reassessment that is already in progress.
862
There is commitment in Riverside, and Merseyside local authorities, together with business, already have a European office in Brussels as part of a north-west presence and are working hard in Europe to bring funding here. That is important and I am confident that our Minister for Trade and Competitiveness in Europe will work hard for Riverside to ensure that it continues to get that funding.
When I stood for the constituency, I had the honour to be proposed by Margaret Simey, who is now in her 90s, and who campaigned with Eleanor Rathbone for women's suffrage. She has campaigned for social reform, has been a Liverpool councillor and chaired Merseyside policy authority in the troubled 1980s. When she supported my candidature, she spoke about her passion for justice. I share that passion, and that means that I will work for Riverside to build strong communities and to develop a strong society. That means developing our economy and ending social exclusion. The only way that we can do that is to build a strong local economy and a strong region and link them to Europe through national policies. That is the only way to secure economic regeneration and social justice.
8.17 pm
Mr. Robert Walter: I am pleased to deliver my maiden speech in this important debate on the future of our country and our continent. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) and the hon. Members for Harlow (Mr. Rammell) and for Liverpool, Riverside (Ms Ellman) on their maiden speeches. They delivered excellent speeches and I am sure that we shall hear more from them.
I should like to pay tribute to my predecessor, Sir Nicholas Baker. In view of the hurly-burly of the general election, many hon. Members may be forgiven for being unaware of the sad death of Nicholas Baker one week before the election. Although Parliament had been dissolved, I understand that, technically, he died while in the service of the House. Nicholas was elected in 1979 and was a most assiduous and diligent constituency representative. I got to know him 15 years ago, when he was the parliamentary vice-chairman of the Conservative party's foreign affairs forum. I was at that time deputy chairman of that organisation. He maintained a close interest in the forum and in foreign affairs in general right up until his death. In fact, just two months before his death, he published a pamphlet on Britain and the third world, under the auspices of the Conservative political centre.
Nicholas served in government as a parliamentary private secretary, as a well-respected whip and latterly, before being diagnosed with multiple sclerosis, as Immigration Minister at the Home Office. Sadly, his multiple sclerosis was overtaken by the onset of cancer and, in the end, his passing was a blessed relief both to Nicholas—an intensely religious man—and to his devoted wife Carol. I am sure that the whole House sends Lady Baker and Nicholas's two children the warmest good wishes for the future.
Nicholas Baker bequeathed me a constituency that must rank among the most beautiful in the country. The little Hovis delivery boy wheeling his bicycle up the hill on our television screens has a misleading Yorkshire accent, for that is Gold hill in Shaftesbury, the ancient Saxon market

863
town in the northern part of my constituency of North Dorset. Although my constituency has traditionally based its economy on agriculture, which is still important today—the market at Sturminster Newton is the largest calf market in England—North Dorset's economic base is as modern as any in Britain.
Our largest private sector employer, Cobham plc at Wimborne Minster, is a major aerospace contractor. It is currently undertaking a significant part of the rebuilding of the Royal Air Force's Nimrod fleet and constructing the Phoenix battlefield reconnaissance aircraft for the Army; and it is a world leader in fuelling and refuelling systems for military aircraft. At Blandford Forum, my largest public sector employer is the rapidly expanding headquarters of the Royal Corps of Signals—the Army's computer department, at the leading edge of modern warfare.
It is the prosperity and security of Britain's engagement with our European partners that create the economic framework for all that activity. As the Prime Minister goes to Amsterdam, he asks us in this debate to take note of many and various documents; but the message he must take from the House is that Britain is a proud and independent nation which has much to contribute and much to gain from the European Union, but that it totally rejects the concept of a centralised European super-state, a European Government or a European nation. The sort of federal solution that we created in Canada, Australia and India would be neither relevant nor beneficial in modern Europe.
Lest I am accused of shifting from long-held and positive views on Britain's role in Europe and adopting a Euro-sceptic stance, let me tell the House that I believe that there is more that unites Conservative Members on the basic principles of our European engagement than might occasionally divide us on the detail. I cannot say as much of those on the Government Benches, for, as the Prime Minister goes to Amsterdam, I fear that the prosperity of my constituency, of the people of this country and of the whole of Europe is threatened.
Our prosperity is threatened by a resurgence of dirigiste, old socialist ideology in the form of the Government's commitment to the social chapter, the proposed Amsterdam employment chapter and the whole concept of adopting the European social model in our employment practices—labour market practices which have led to uncompetitiveness in continental Europe, to ever-increasing unemployment and to a 35 per cent. increase in business failures in Germany in the past two years. One cannot wonder that inward investment in Britain has grown and unemployment fallen when one compares, for example, employers' non-wage costs: for every £100 of direct wage costs in Germany, the employer has to add £31 of social costs; in Britain that additional sum averages less than half that figure, at only £15.
Speaking to fellow socialists in Sweden last week, the Prime Minister said:
"The role of Government is not old style state intervention or heaping regulations on employers. The new way is about education, skills, new technology, developing small businesses and equipping people to survive in a completely different set of economic conditions."
Many Conservative Members could find comfort in that statement, but we immediately part company with the Government on the draft Amsterdam treaty, which
864
proposes to incorporate protocol 14 of the Maastricht treaty—the social chapter—in the treaty itself, thereby ending Britain's opt-out. That move is supported by the Government and was an election pledge, repeated today by the Foreign Secretary. We cannot envisage what employment benefit would accrue to the United Kingdom from the new employment chapter. It would create an employment committee in Brussels to consult the social partners; and it would create incentive measures, funded by the Community budget, to provide financial assistance to the unemployed—it all sounds to me like old Europe, old Labour.
The basis of Britain's success in Europe is the very competitive nature of the single market. A rigid framework of employment laws imposed right across the continent would destroy that competitive spirit, both here and elsewhere. If the Prime Minister truly believes what he said in Malmo, he can agree to neither the social chapter nor the employment chapter.
8.26 pm
Mr. Alan Simpson: I congratulate the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) on his maiden speech. It was a thoughtful speech; generous toward his predecessor and combative in relation to the issues before the House. I am sure that it will not be the last such contribution that we hear from the hon. Gentleman and I wish him well in his enjoyment of many years on the Opposition Benches.
I add my congratulations to my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary on announcing, well in advance of the summit this weekend, that they will be going to Amsterdam in order to set a new agenda for Europe. I am especially pleased that they have already spelt out that that agenda must be based on at least two of the four big issues that must be addressed: first, that in future the attention of Europe must be focused on jobs; and, second, that we cannot fiddle our way to a stable or secure future for Europe. Hon. Members may know that in the past I have got into certain difficulties for having voiced such suggestions, so I hope that I shall be allowed to enjoy this moment—long may it last.
I also want to savour the moment surrounding another event. For the past nine months, I have been privileged to be the president of the United Kingdom marches against unemployment, job insecurity and social exclusion in Europe and I want to put on record the words of credit and praise that are due to the marchers. Two legs of the marches took place in Britain—two of 18 legs that are taking place across the whole of Europe, involving marchers from 30 different countries. For me, it was the first pro-European, pan-European expression of an agenda for the future—an agenda in which the rights of ordinary working people are central.
I may well be the only non-ministerial Member of the House who will be in Amsterdam next week. I shall attend the alternative summit, and it is worth noting the issues that it will seek to address.
The agenda, worked out by workers in different parts of Europe, has not been constrained by the narrowness of divides based on nationality, religion, age, gender or geography. It has been based on a desire for a European future in which jobs in one country are not stolen from the workers of another. I hope that the leaders of our countries at the European summit will hear and heed the words that are being expressed in those European marches.

865
The marchers have rightly drawn our attention to the sense that we are fiddling our way towards a European future. Several hon. Members have already drawn attention to events in France and Germany. It is worth placing on the record some of the amazing contortions that Europe has been going through to try to squeeze within the convergence criteria demanded by the Maastricht treaty. It is not only that Germany has sought to revalue its gold and foreign currency reserves. I believe that it was right for the Bundesbank to challenge that, but it is unfair to single out Germany, because Belgium has done the same. In fact, Belgium did it first and then sold the reserves, on the principle, "If we are to pool our common reserves of gold and foreign currencies, it is best to spend ours first and then share everyone else's."
Italy has come up with by far the most imaginative scam. Italians know that their debt is twice the limit demanded by the treaty of Maastricht, so they have come up with the idea of a European solidarity tax—a 10 per cent. tax increase for next year. Knowing that it would cause contention among their people, politicians reassured them by saying, "But the year after, you can have it all back, because we need to meet the debt qualification for one year only, so we shall levy the tax this year and give it back to you the year after."
If the Italians are really clever, they will not bother to collect the tax in the first place; it will be a paper transaction. At the end of the first year, they will say, "We shall levy the tax at 10 per cent. and give it back next year. It will be bureaucratic to collect and hand back, so why not call it quits?" It is a marvellous scam, but it does not address their underlying economic weaknesses.
France did it differently. The Government of the day decided to take a hefty £4.6 billion scoop out of the pension fund for France Telecom. It is a nice little scoop for a Government in difficulty, but not much fun for a worker in France Telecom who is looking forward to the protection and security that that pension fund should give.
Such fiddles are going on across the European landscape, and it is dishonest to suggest that they are an expression of pro-European sentiment. It is an Arthur Daley Europeanism. We are being invited to try to turn the clock back on the mileage of our debt, to put retreads on the level of the deficit on our tyres or to try to superglue the leaking exhaust of failed and divisive monetarist policies which the Maastricht treaty demands of us.
There is a better agenda to be found in a European future, but not by pursuing the Maastricht convergence criteria, which can and will only divide us all from one another. To go down that path is unworthy of the present and unroadworthy for the future.
There is a new convergence. I hope that, when our leaders go to Amsterdam, they will have the sense to understand that the European convergence worth grasping is the convergence of people—the human convergence on Amsterdam, which will be the first pan-European expression of hope about the shape of a people's Europe; a Europe in which we can all find a place.
That convergence, however, needs clarity on public expectations about the shape of a people's Europe. When we use the words "a flexible labour force for the future",
866
we should remember that flexibility can come in many forms. It can come in terms of being multi-skilled, or in terms of a common desire to hold ourselves to greater account to the public we serve or to the environment we work in; but a flexible future is not the same as a future in which workers are disposable.
When we use the word "competitiveness," we need to be clear in our minds that the competition that will unite Europe is competition to raise the quality of life for us all, not one that reduces the quantity of pay for the poor. All sorts of societies have set out to raise common standards, to raise the entitlements of pensioners and to improve the infrastructure of public transport services. That is a form of competition from which we all stand to benefit; it is not competition that drives people to the bottom of the barrel.
This is the shape of a people's Europe. I am pleased that the leaders of the Labour party and of the Labour Government are saying that we must establish an agenda for a people's Europe and perhaps think the unthinkable. My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) said that we were all being encouraged to think the unthinkable; I hope that we are, because perhaps we should now address the hitherto unthinkable question of what we would do if we were to find that the unthinkable meant abandoning the unworkable.
If the single currency is to be deflationary and divisive, what shape would a pro-European agenda to succeed it take? It must be based on two remaining core principles in which I believe that we can find work and welfare for all. We should reshape European policies around two simple propositions. First, our economic policies for the next century must inevitably be shaped around the priorities of sustainability—not exploitation of the present at the cost of the future, but the sustainability of life cycles, life styles and the environment in which we live. Second, we must be willing to decide that protection of that environment takes precedence over the dogmatic, obsessive belief in the free market.
If we are to grasp the opportunities that exist within those two towering principles, it is important that we listen to the voices giving expression to them, of every one of the workers who come from different parts of Europe—each describing the destruction of their life style, community and landscape by a free market obsessed simply with consuming the present and discarding those surplus to its requirements.
As the leaders gather in Amsterdam next weekend, I hope that each one will take time, when they are talking about a people's Europe, to come out and listen to the people who have walked hundreds—in some cases, thousands—of miles to that summit to tell them what shape society should take and what place the people of Europe want in it.
8.37 pm
Mr. John Swinney: I am very grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me to make my maiden speech in this Parliament.
The hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) said that his constituency was the most beautiful in the country. I must ask him, politely, to amend the official record to make reference, possibly, to England; I shall go on to make my remarks about my constituency.

867
North Tayside was established by the boundary commission in 1983 and is, without word of a lie, the most beautiful seat in Scotland, from the ruggedness of the Rannoch moor to the agricultural abundance of Strathmore.
If the House will excuse the crude terminology, we produce the three Bs in North Tayside: beef, berries and booze—beef from the prime Aberdeen Angus herds, berries from the traditional berry areas around Blairgowrie and east Perthshire, and booze from several distilleries, including the smallest in the world at Edradour near Pitlochry. It is a privilege to represent the area, and I warmly thank the electorate for providing me with the opportunity to do so.
At different times, most of my constituency has been represented by colleagues from the Scottish National party. Mr. Douglas Crawford represented Perth and East Perthshire in the 1970s, and my hon. Friend the Member for Angus (Mr. Welsh) has represented the eastern parts of my constituency. I am, however, the first SNP Member to represent highland Perthshire, previously represented by the late Prime Minister, Sir Alec Douglas-Home. In the political history of the area, many of the Members of Parliament were leaders of the feudal structure, including the late Duchess of Atholl and, of course, Sir Alec.
Circumstances have changed, however, and at the election on 1 May the people really spoke. My immediate predecessor, Mr. Bill Walker, spoke in the House on many issues, not least the development of Europe, the subject of tonight's debate. Although we differ on that and many other issues, I pay tribute to his years of public service and wish him well.
The debate is welcome as it provides an opportunity for the House, after an important change of Government, to debate our relationship with the European Union and the issues connected with the future of the Union. Over the past 25 years, our relationship with Europe has changed from a passing interest to a position where many of the key policy areas, such as agriculture, which is vital to my constituency, are influenced more by the conduct of debate in the European institutions than they are by debate in this institution. While that process may be lamented by some, it should be recalled that it arose by voluntary agreement and collaboration among a number of member states. The common interest has been driven by a desire to move from the politics of hostility to the politics of dialogue and agreement.
It is fair to say that the approach has commanded public, although not unanimous, consent. The people recognise the advantages of collaboration in their shared interests with other people's interests. It is essential, however, that public consent to the development of the European Union is maintained, and there are grave concerns about that.
There are obviously diverging views in the United Kingdom on the importance of the European Union and how it should develop. I do not intend to devote the remainder of my speech to examining all the fault lines in Europe—I am sure that that will preoccupy members of the official Opposition over the next 24 hours and probably for some time beyond. Rather, I wish to concentrate on the fault line that has developed in the diverging interests of Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom over European policy.
868
The right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) referred specifically to agriculture and fishing. I wish to follow him closely on those issues. Much has been said about the beef crisis, the ineptitude of the announcements that were made and the failure to take swift action to arrest the problem. I wish to concentrate, however, on the previous Government's inability to secure a regional or zonal lifting of the European beef ban as a first step towards lifting the ban throughout the United Kingdom. That failure was recorded against a background of the European Union's willingness to consider such a move if only the British Government had requested it.
The root of the previous Government's failure lay in their unwillingness to confront the deficiencies of the English dairy herd, where there is a much greater incidence of BSE, and allow other herds, such as those from Scotland or Northern Ireland, to escape from the ban to a quality-assured environment.
Here we see the fault line of the policy. In the Government's European actions, Scotland's needs are being ignored. I hope that the new Government will warmly embrace the concept of a zonal lifting of the beef ban and deliver a solution to the crisis in the Scottish beef industry as an immediate priority. As an aside, I urge the Government to tread carefully before dishing out idle threats about beef wars and import bans. No one is more concerned than I am about low-quality beef imports into the UK, but last week the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food sounded remarkably like his predecessor in some of his dire threats—a record I am sure the current Minister would not wish to equal.
The previous Government also betrayed our fishing communities, repeatedly trading away the industry's interests in Europe in pursuit of other priorities. I scarcely need tell the House about the depth of the quota hopping crisis, which sees a quarter of UK tonnage under flags of convenience and more than 40 per cent. of certain quotas lost to Scotland and the UK.
The solution must come through a treaty amendment; tinkering at the edges with regulations will not be good enough. Yet the fishing industry is not even mentioned in the consolidated draft treaty. We need an assurance from the Government that they will insist on the accession of a suitable protocol, agreed with the industry, to ensure that we can bring to a halt the loss of quota and tonnage from the Scottish fleet. A Scottish Government would put that issue at the top of their agenda. Will the UK Government do the same?
The solution to those diverging interests is for Scotland to opt for the natural state of independence, with a direct voice for our country as a sovereign nation in Europe. That would give Scotland an equal and effective voice in European discussions, enabling us to assert our case and put our arguments on a par with every other state. Accountability for the articulation of Scotland's natural and national interests will be maintained by Scotland's democratic Parliament.
We need only look at small nations such as Ireland and Denmark, which, by using their influence in Europe wisely, are contributing positively to the development of Europe and the international community, and delivering economic prosperity and social progress to their people at home. The model of the small nation in Europe is positive for Scotland.

869
The Government are advancing proposals to change the constitutional arrangements for Scotland and it would be churlish of me not to concede that their proposals will be considered by the House sooner than the House will consider a demand from Scotland to proceed to independence.
I urge the Government to use the opportunity to include within that legislation a direct voice for Scotland in Europe—not quiet observer status but real teeth to allow a Scottish Parliament to influence the decisions of Europe in the best interests of Scotland and her people. In his address to the Scottish Grand Committee on 13 January this year, the present Foreign Secretary admitted that representatives of a devolved Scottish Parliament would have only observer status. I urge the Government to strengthen that weak proposal.
May I conclude by setting out some of the key points on which the Government should reflect in preparation for the intergovernmental conference? As the European Union wrestles with the controversy and uncertainty of economic and monetary union, a partnership must be created between convergence and cohesion in pursuit of further voluntary and effective collaboration. The Maastricht treaty did not deliver that partnership. It set out an agenda for convergence, but paid no attention to the consequences of meeting the convergence criteria. If economic and monetary union is to take its course—it looks in a perilous condition at present—it must not be at the expense of employment, or public confidence in the project will continue to erode.
We must ensure that, in the next stage of the process of European collaboration, the issue of public consent is to the fore. Too many ill-informed contributions to the European debate have been made. They feed public anxiety, but do not satisfy the public's appetite for information.
If the Government and their European partners can learn any lessons from the past five years, they should conclude that the model of British relations with Europe or the British debate on the future of Europe is not a model to be followed. Instead, the Government and their European partners should concentrate on establishing a partnership between economic convergence and social cohesion, and rebuilding public confidence in the process of European development.
8.47 pm
Mrs. Ann Clwyd: Like most hon. Members, I have sat here for almost five and a quarter hours. I was formerly a Member of the European Parliament. I had the privilege of being there between 1979 and 1984. An interesting aspect of the European Parliament was that we knew when we were speaking, whether we were speaking and for how long. That important facility enabled us all to plan our lives much better than we can under the present arrangements in the House of Commons. If anybody spoke longer than their allotted time, the time was taken off the other member of their political group, so it was a good restraint on us to keep our comments within a certain time. I should like to see many other facilities in the European Parliament translated to this place. I am grateful to have had an opportunity to go to the European Parliament before coming to this House.
870
My hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), said that he had changed his mind. Like me, he campaigned in 1975 against membership of the European Union and then changed his mind. I, too, changed my mind. I went in on an anti-EC ticket, but changed my mind two and a half years later. I am not ashamed of saying that. It is important to have the right to change one's mind when circumstances show the error of one's ways. I wish that more politicians would change their minds more often. We would have better politics if, every so often, people stood up and said, "I'm sorry, but I have changed my mind."
I congratulate the hon. Member for North Tayside (Mr. Swinney) on his maiden speech. He advanced some interesting ideas, some of which I agreed with and some of which I did not. One of the stoutest campaigners in the European Parliament on behalf of Scottish fishermen was a member of his party, Winifred Ewing, who made a valuable contribution to the debates.
I changed my mind because I recognised the importance of working with people from other nationalities for common interests. When we first went to the European Parliament as a small Labour group of 17 MEPs in 1979, we were extremely unpopular. We were unpopular with our socialist friends because they were disappointed that so few of us had been elected to the European Parliament. We became unpopular also because the majority of our group were opposed to membership of the European Union.
It is interesting, however, that when people of different nationalities work together from day to day, they rub corners off one another. They have to co-exist. I would advise my right hon. Friends not to go to the European Union and lecture the other member countries. They deeply resent that, particularly if one suggests that one has a better solution for the people of the EU than have other countries. Most of the other countries are after the same solutions as we are.
After all, the European Union was set up initially because countries had fought one another in two world wars. It was an attempt to co-operate for the peace and security of Europe. That is one of the main reasons why I support enlargement of the EU and more powers for the European Parliament. MEPs are elected Members, as we are, and we cannot tell elected Members that they may not have powers to do the things for which they were elected. The European Parliament cannot be expected to run a race and achieve its goals if it is hobbled.
When I was a Member of that Parliament, I thought that it might take 20 years for the European Parliament to acquire the powers that we have. I now realise that that timetable was unrealistic and that it could take 50 years to achieve the powers that that Parliament should have.
I am glad that my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have gone to Europe with a different attitude from that of the previous Government. It is interesting to see how strongly they have been welcomed by other leaders of the EU, who realise that we want to co-operate with them, that we do not want constant conflict, that we do not look down on them and that we see them as equal partners with us in the EU.
The Amsterdam conference has a limited agenda. I do not know what people are huffing and puffing about when they suggest that it will change the course of history.

871
I hope that the leadership of my party will provide the vision that was missing in the previous representation from this country. The approach was grudging, confrontational and not conducive to good working relationships with other countries. I am certain that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the rest of the team will have an entirely different attitude.
Some changes are necessary. There must be a reform of the common agricultural policy and a crackdown on fraud. Something must be done about the massive number of unemployed in Europe. I remember being at the European Parliament in 1982 with Barbara Castle, when we wore black sashes because the then Employment Secretary, now Lord Tebbit, came to the European Parliament and made a speech which we thought was totally insensitive to the needs of the unemployed in Europe. As I recall, we wore sashes with the words "8 million unemployed". Since then, of course, matters have become far worse. Only by co-operation with the other countries of Europe will we be able to tackle the problem.
I find all the talk of sovereignty nonsensical. Bernard Crick said some time ago that sovereignty was an idea dreamt up by those who wanted to retain power for themselves, to frighten the smaller nations into believing that London knew best, and that anyone who put a foot out of step was in danger of doing damage. I think that sovereignty is an outdated, 18th century Whig concept and that it is time that we moved into the real world.
Member countries should take steps to ensure that the European Parliament has one seat. It is ridiculous that the Parliament hops from place to place, and that many of the institutions are based in yet another country—Luxembourg, Strasbourg and Brussels. It is costly, there is no need for it, and it is up to the member Governments to reach a decision on a single place of work for the EC.
What is the need for the Economic and Social Committee? I know that I may be offending many people who may have placed Members on the committee, and some of my friends may sit on that committee, but what necessity is there for the Economic and Social Committee, which costs member countries £18 million a year and merely minors the work of the European Parliament? I could understand the need for it when there was no directly elected Parliament, but it seems a pointless beast now, when there is an elected Parliament. I ask our Government and the Governments of other member countries to consider whether that institution is any longer necessary.
It was a great privilege for me to serve in the European Parliament. I believe strongly in the European Union. I want to see it develop, but it is making slow progress. When the time is right, I want us to join the European monetary union. That must be the next step in the development of the EU. Again, I say that countries that fought one another in two major wars have now worked together for a long period in peace and stability. I believe that the European Union contributes to that.
8.58 pm
Dr. Jenny Tonge: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to make my maiden speech on my third attempt—I have probably clocked up about 17 hours in the Chamber waiting to be called. I appreciated the comments of the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) and I hope that someone, somewhere was listening.
872
I pay tribute to my predecessor, the last Member of Parliament for the constituency of Richmond and Barnes, who I understand was a well-loved Member of the House. He was a friendly, honest man who had a great sense of humour. I believe that he was also an excellent mimic. He gave distinguished service as a Minister in various portfolios—Northern Ireland, Defence and the Foreign Office—and as chairman of the Conservative party. I was somewhat puzzled that he did not mention his last post in his address during the election campaign. He served his constituents very well and I hope to equal his performance. In short, I was sad to defeat him in the election—although I am very glad that I did. To use his words, I am sure that he views it as an exhibition of high spirits on the part of the electorate.
The constituency of Richmond Park is a new one, comprising most of the old Richmond and Barnes constituency plus five wards of Kingston. It is part of Greater London—I will not tell hon. Members how beautiful it is, because we are all bored with beautiful constituencies—where the countryside comes to town. Kingston and Richmond have much in common. As well as the River Thames, both areas have very royal connections. Saxon kings were crowned in the centre of Kingston, the Tudor monarchs lived in Richmond, and Elizabeth I died in Richmond palace, close to Richmond green. The remnants of that palace can still be seen today. The Hanoverian kings lived, played and reared children around Kew green, where I live. Perhaps eclipsing all the great monarchs of the past, my constituency is also the home of Sir James Goldsmith—the founder of the Referendum party, who did so much to help the Conservatives in the run-up to the last election.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have worked as a doctor in the health service for 30 years, so you would expect me to mention the NHS in my maiden speech. My concerns for my constituents centre on the fate of Queen Mary's hospital in Roehampton. The hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) made an excellent speech on the subject on Friday morning, so I shall not go into detail now. However, I stress that Queen Mary's in the Richmond Park constituency is losing most of its services and that Kingston hospital is showing signs that it simply cannot cope with the extra patients. I urge the Minister of State, Department of Health to undertake a review of London hospitals as a matter of urgency. We were promised the terms of that review last week, but they have not materialised. If decisions are not made urgently, lives will be lost next winter.
The most pressing problem facing Richmond Park concerns the environment. Richmond upon Thames has a very good record in that area, having achieved the last Government's target for recycling two years ago—five years ahead of schedule. We already collect 25 per cent. of household waste. However, the problems of noise and air pollution transcend borough and national boundaries. The closure of Hammersmith bridge has added significantly to our problems, and the lack of a strategic London authority is slowing down decisions about repairing the bridge.
Another major concern in Richmond Park—which poses probably the greatest threat to our environment—is the proposed fifth terminal at Heathrow airport. The airport is a great polluter in Richmond Park, causing both noise and traffic pollution. The previous Government's aviation policy was an appalling combination of

873
protection for privatised monopolies at the expense of the environment. The imagery of the second world war was conjured up time and again when we were told that Frankfurt would become the air travellers' hub of Europe if terminal 5 did not go ahead. When terminal 4 was approved, the inspector told the public inquiry:
"Terminal 4 should be the last major expansion at Heathrow".
That was the first condition for the approval of terminal 4.
The then Under-Secretary of State for Trade, Norman Tebbit, assured everyone that the Government would not permit the construction of a fifth terminal and that the cap on flights would be enforced. That has not happened and the number of flights has increased by 50 per cent. The people of Richmond Park have no faith in capping and I urge the Government to make clear their intention to honour the undertaking that terminal 4 would be the last major expansion at the airport, which the previous Member for Brentford and Isleworth described as "the neighbour from hell".
When the Deputy Prime Minister was shadow Secretary of State for Transport, he said, in The Observer of 7 February 1993, that the then Government's aviation policy was "absurd". On their policy of expansion at Heathrow, he said:
"There will ultimately be more flights over the most congested airway in Europe, at great cost to the environment and to congestion around Heathrow."
As the Deputy Prime Minister said then, now is the time to think afresh. If he needs reminding, I ask Labour Members to ask him whether he would like to have dinner at my house in Richmond Park. A lounge suit will do—we do not always dress for dinner in Richmond. He could stay the night and enjoy the noise and air pollution that we have to suffer day in, day out, week in, week out. I moved there 25 years ago, which is a long time to learn about aircraft movement.
I urge the Government to work with our European partners at Amsterdam. In aviation, competition, verging on conflict, is accepted. Must we inflict more and more suffering on the people of my constituency just to stop France and Germany winning the air transport war? Environmental damage is of international concern and I urge the Government to put it high on the agenda at Amsterdam.
In conclusion, I place on record my constituents' determination to fight the threat of terminal 5 at Heathrow, which is a big environmental disaster for our area. If the House thinks that Swampy said it all, you ain't seen nothing yet.
9.6 pm
Mrs. Joan Humble: I am not sure about the protocol of one maiden speaker complimenting another, but I should like to compliment the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) on her maiden speech. As a student of history, I found her description of the history of her constituency fascinating. Many of us have visited it because of its historical links. I am sure that we all agree that it is beautiful.
I noted with interest the hon. Lady's comments on pollution and noise from aeroplanes. We are trying to expand Blackpool airport. We want the best mix of more airport traffic and the minimum of pollution.
874
I am grateful to be called to make my maiden speech in such an important debate which covers so many complex areas. I feel very privileged to be the first Member of Parliament for the new constituency of Blackpool, North and Fleetwood. I am grateful to the electorate for allowing me to represent them.
Although my constituency has substantially redrawn boundaries, I should like to say a few words about Harold Elletson, the previous Member for Blackpool, North. He built a reputation in the House as an expert on eastern Europe and Russia. He is a fluent Russian speaker and brought his expert knowledge to bear on the often complex issues raised by the fall of the iron curtain and the disintegration of the Russian empire. We disagreed on many other topics, but I acknowledge his expertise in certain areas of foreign policy and I certainly cannot compete with him when it comes to speaking Russian.
Maiden speeches are an opportunity to describe one's constituency. I am sure that the Blackpool part of my constituency needs little introduction. Hon. Members will have visited it to attend conferences, if not on holiday. Blackpool is the nation's favourite holiday resort, offering a wide variety of choices for visitors. It has large, internationally known hotels along the north shore and many smaller, family-run hotels and guest houses behind the promenade, offering their famous friendly service. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will acknowledge the importance of the tourism industry to this country and that he will, perhaps, in discussions with his European colleagues look at integrating a European tourism strategy with the strategy for this country. I encourage as many hon. Members as possible to come and enjoy Blackpool's wonderful facilities.
My constituency stretches from Blackpool's north pier and follows the coast beyond the boundary of Blackpool to Thornton Cleveleys. Here, visitors find a quiet residential area with a bustling centre which attracts coachloads of visitors to its thriving shops. The more adventurous visitor may, however, stay on the tram from Blackpool as it completes its journey all the way to Fleetwood.
Fleetwood has a fascinating history. It takes its name from Sir Peter Hesketh-Fleetwood whose dream it was in the early 19th century to establish a commercial port and holiday resort on his land adjoining Morecambe bay. Sir Peter modelled his new town of Fleetwood on another purpose-built seaside resort, St. Leonards on Sea near Hastings, and commissioned a renowned London architect, Decimus Burton, to design the town. He was determined that Fleetwood would be a splendid place to attract his friends from London and visitors from all over the country. He even built a new railway to link London Euston to the North Euston station in Fleetwood. Some of the original buildings still exist, although not the railway station. In 1847, Queen Victoria visited Fleetwood and many of the streets in the town were named after members of the royal family in honour of the visit.
Although the area that I represent is best known for tourism, many of my constituents work for three large local employers—the civil service, British Nuclear Fuels and British Aerospace, which was mentioned earlier in the debate. We all acknowledge the importance of the Eurofighter project to the local economy not only of Blackpool, North and Fleetwood but of the whole of Lancashire.

875
It is because of Fleetwood's role as a fishing port that I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate on Europe. To most of the people of Fleetwood, Europe means one issue—fishing quotas and the regulations that govern the lives of those who work in what is, unfortunately, a dramatically reduced fishing industry. I therefore welcome this debate and the motion, which refers to
"the determination of Her Majesty's Government to focus the agenda of the European Union on policies of direct benefit to the peoples of Europe through its initiatives on employment and competitiveness".
I ask the Foreign Secretary not to lose sight of the importance of the fishing industry to my constituents and to other fishing ports around these shores when he has discussions with his European colleagues on the general initiatives on employment. I understand that fishing is not specifically on the agenda for the forthcoming summit, but it is clearly vital to those who are interested in Europe as well as in protecting their own fishing industries.
Beyond doubt, in recent years our fishermen have faced severe and increasing difficulties in striving to operate viably and legitimately under the European common fisheries policy. Urgent solutions are required if our industry is to survive, and we should address especially the issue of quota hopping, which was mentioned earlier. Some 26 per cent. of the quota allocated by Brussels to British fishermen is caught by quota hoppers. Fleetwood has a wonderful museum outlining its fascinating past and celebrating its role as a fishing port. The trawler Jacinta is moored and preserved as a museum piece. It would be dreadful, however, if our children lived in a world where the fishing fleet existed only in museums and in history books. I share my right hon. Friends' belief in strong leadership in Europe that focuses on employment and competitiveness so that Fleetwood has a future as well as a past.
9.13 pm
Miss Anne McIntosh: I congratulate the hon. Members for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) and for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on their maiden speeches. The hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood lived up to her name. Both hon. Members will fulfil their aspirations and match the reputations of the previous Members for those constituencies.
The Foreign Secretary made great play of quoting policies of direct benefit to the peoples of Europe, particularly initiatives on employment and competitiveness. Perhaps the Government should reconsider the fact that their proposed windfall tax was designed to help young people in particular. I gather that they intend to use the proceeds to help the 250,000 young people who are out of work. They may be interested to know that fewer than 200,000 young people stand to benefit. The Government should accept that, by introducing a minimum wage, they will put 250,000 young people out of work, so they will need to introduce the windfall tax to compensate them.
The Foreign Secretary said that the concept of sister parties was unknown to the Conservatives. I remind the Government that we pioneered the concept of sister parties within the European Union, not least through our membership of the European Democratic Union and the Christian Democratic Union.
876
I wish also to bring to the Government's attention the fact that the French centre-right Government's failure to return to power was not due to their preparations for economic and monetary union; it was because they were implementing an austerity package and pursuing the same Thatcherite policies that we pursued since 1979, and that are now embraced by the Government—low inflation, low interest rates, low unemployment and privatisation of national industries.
By signing up to the social chapter, we would lose us our right to choose. The director general of the Confederation of British Industry said:
"If you sign up to the Social Chapter you can't actually be sure that you will have your way, because some directives will be covered by qualified majority voting. There is however a way to pick and choose and that is available for the Labour Party if it wants to have it as its policy. The way to pick and choose is actually not to sign up to the Social Chapter".
I invite the Government, therefore, not to sign up to the social chapter but to continue the opt-out negotiated by the previous Government.
The Foreign Secretary referred to his "modest" objective of signing up to an additional employment chapter. That is not a modest objective. I am fearful as to its consequences and how it would be interpreted: for instance, notably, the working time directive and health and safety provisions would inevitably have unhappy consequences for the United Kingdom.
May I seek in my humble capacity as a new Member to give the Cabinet some advice on which policies need to be reformed before we proceed to enlarge the European Union, as the Foreign Secretary intends? Principally, reform of the common agricultural policy should have regard not just to environmental guidelines but to rural development policy. I invite the Government to inform us tonight whether they intend to follow that course.
A number of Labour Members have spoken about the objective 1 benefits which the European social fund and the European regional development fund bring to their constituencies. Obviously, such assistance is dependent on additional government funding. Will the Chief Secretary to the Treasury inform us whether he intends to continue with that additional funding in the foreseeable future and to what extent he envisages radical reform of the European social fund and the European regional development fund and, in particular, discontinuation of the cohesion policy, which seems to be relevant only to the Mediterranean countries?
I invite the Government to revise the timetable for economic and monetary union, recognising the fact that no member state other than Luxembourg will be in a position to join by 1 January 1999. I invite them also to sign up to the fact that the best European social and employment practice is that achieved under the previous Government, and that should form the basis of any social and employment chapter.
On behalf of those of us who continue to have the pleasure of serving in the European Parliament, I invite the Government to consider that there should be less rivalry and more of a partnership between the House and the European Parliament. I should like to voice my reservations about the proposals in the Government motion and I beg the House to accept the Opposition amendment.
9.19 pm
Mr. David Davis: I should start with an apology on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. There are compelling reasons why he cannot be present for the winding-up speeches. I know that Government Front Benchers understand, as I hope does the rest of the House.
This has been an important and interesting debate. To use the words of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), I, too, speak as a European. I found that I agreed with much of what he said, and I shall return to that. It is traditional in European debates that I embarrass my namesake, the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies), by complimenting his speeches. He made a particularly penetrating speech in this debate.
A number of formidable speeches and seven very confident maiden speeches were made. I am sure that if I said that I agreed with the speeches of the hon. Members for Harlow (Mr. Rammell), for Liverpool, Riverside (Ms Ellman), for North Tayside (Mr. Swinney), for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) and for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble), I would damage their careers irrevocably, so I shall say simply that they variously gave confident, generous, amusing, articulate, earnest, and across the board, brave speeches. The European Union is an intimidating subject on which to make one's maiden speech. Since I did something similar a decade ago, I know just how they feel.
Two Conservative Members made maiden speeches in the debate. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) for paying a very nice tribute to Sir Nicholas Baker, who was in the Whips Office with me some years ago. He was a very good friend who, as my hon. Friend said, passed away during the election campaign. My hon. Friend gave a very clear, simple, insightful and thoughtful speech on the damage that the rigid framework of law would do to competitiveness in this country, a matter to which I shall return.
My hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) is a friend from his previous capacity as a special adviser at the Foreign Office. He has crafted more of my words than I care to admit. He did a rather better job of delivering his words in his maiden speech than I sometimes did on his behalf. He gave a confident, erudite, expert and incisive speech, in which he did two notable things. First, he raised the treatment of his constituent, Mr. Reeve, by the Belgian police and judicial system. I hope that the Government will take that on board and act to help his constituent. I feel that natural justice demands that. Secondly, he made some insightful points about some of the detailed effects of the extension of qualified majority voting, especially in the environmental area. That needs a little more thought than has been given to it so far.
Of the formidable speeches, the one that stands out most in my mind was that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley). He made a number of points to which I hope the Chief Secretary to the Treasury will be able to respond. He picked up a number of the points that will come up in negotiations in Amsterdam, particularly the need to make subsidiarity justiciable—a point that we drove home when we were in government. I hope that the new Government will continue to do so.
My right hon. Friend explained clearly the conundrum of the European Court of Justice—the supreme court—whose judgments can never be reversed. We had come up
878
with fairly modest proposals for dealing with that, of which I have seen little since the change of Government. I should like to hear what will be done.
My right hon. Friend raised general fears about the massive extension of powers of the European Parliament through co-decision and the implications that that has for this Parliament's powers. He also dealt with the general question of extension of competence of the European Union, which also affects our national sovereignty.
Two other matters that were raised specifically require replies. One was the legal personality of the court, which was raised by my right hon. Friends the Leader of the Opposition and the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing and by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), who was significantly concerned about it.
The final issue that I hope the Chief Secretary will cover is quota hopping, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) in her maiden speech, by the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) and others.
Several hon. Members raised the most immediate issue facing the Union—the single currency. We face a stark and simple truth. We can see it and almost every economic commentator can see it, so why cannot the Government see the simple truth about the single currency? That truth is that economic and monetary union cannot start safely on 1 January 1999. A monetary union based on fudged criteria between countries whose economies show little genuine economic convergence would be the most disastrous economic mistake that Europe has made for many decades. I may tell—I nearly said my hon. Friend—my friend the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Radice) that that is not just the Euro-sceptics' view: it is shared by many eminent people with impeccable European credentials, who are greatly concerned about the future of the European structure. On that basis, we should treat the issue seriously.
For many months, the Conservatives have pointed out that there is little chance of sufficient convergence for EMU to start on time. We were the first to call for delay. Matters have now moved on and we have made a clear assessment of the events of the past few weeks. After the fiasco of the revaluation of the German gold reserves and the upheaval of the French elections, the only sensible conclusion is that monetary union cannot start safely on 1 January 1999.
I took especial note of the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) when he said that the German revaluation was technically correct. However, as the Bundesbank itself pointed out, it was a single-year adjustment and convergence is supposed to be a permanent condition. Whichever way one looks at the revaluation, it is a case of creative accounting.
Monetary union matters to Britain. More than half of our trade in goods is with the European Union. Britain has a strong interest in a thriving European economy. British exporters will not be queuing up to thank their elected representatives if we fail to warn our European partners of the dangers of a monetary union based on fudged or inappropriate criteria. That is why we should send the clearest possible message that 1 January 1999 is no longer an option. It is all the more astonishing, therefore, that the Government continue to keep the 1 January 1999 option

879
open. I hope that in the Government's eagerness to cosy up to their new friends in Europe, they do not allow their judgment of the situation to be clouded.
When the Bundesbank exposed the German Government's plans for revaluation of the gold reserves as a fudge too far, we took its side. Where were the Government at that crucial moment? When the French elections put a further spoke in the wheel, we made it clear that the start date could no longer be safely achieved. Where were the Government? The Government claim that they will offer strong leadership. On this issue, above all others, they must start to do so. The Government should make it clear that they will oppose any country that tries to enter EMU with figures based on creative accounting.
I shall turn now to the questions raised by Amsterdam. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition mentioned several areas in which we agree with the Government's aims and objectives. For example, he spoke eloquently of the importance of enlargement and the attendant reforms that we both believe to be necessary. Because I have limited time, I will focus on the areas that divide the Government and the Opposition. I am sure that that will be a relief for the Foreign Secretary.
The Prime Minister waltzed into Europe after the election, smiling and hailing a new era. A week ago in Noordwijk, he said:
"We will be in the middle of Europe"
as a strong player playing for a
"radical shift in Europe's horizons".
At the weekend, in Malmo, he said that Europe "must modernise or die". New Labour, old slogans. What do those slogans mean? Will the Prime Minister try to prove to the Europeans that the European social model has failed? Will he persuade them overnight to lift the burdens that have damaged European industry so much in the past few years? Sadly, all the optimistic rhetoric is matched only by a gloomy reality. So far, the Government's commitments seem to be to end the British veto on industrial, regional and environmental policy and to sign up to the social chapter and the employment chapter. Their rhetoric says one thing; their actions say another.
It should come as no surprise that European socialist leaders have rejoiced at Labour's victory. Today, we are witnessing a new dawn of socialism across Europe, as the Foreign Secretary was the first to admit. Writing in the New Statesman on 6 September 1996, he said that a Labour Government would mean that, for the first time, there would be a socialist majority at the European Council, This would enable a socialist agenda to be pushed through, and he pretty much repeated that statement today. This new agenda is just the sort that many European leaders have been dreaming of—no wonder they threw a welcome party for Labour in Noordwijk last month. Now the French socialists have joined their ranks. Good news for socialists; bad news for prosperity.
Labour will sign the social chapter and is willing to give up the veto, but the incoherence of its position is demonstrated by the fact that it argues already with the social chapter's provisions. It is unsurprising that Commission officials are frustrated. They say, "If you pledge to sign the social chapter, you accept its measures," and they are right. We say, "Do not sign the social chapter and you will not have its measures forced upon you." We cannot have it both ways.
880
We need to keep the veto. In the words of one commentator, "You cannot throw away your umbrella and hope it does not rain." My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition negotiated our opt-out because it was in Britain's interests to do so. It may not have made us particularly popular in the eyes of some of our neighbours, but it was the right thing for Britain. We have reaped the vast rewards of flexibility and openness. We are not interested in saying, "We will play ball," and then complaining when the game gets too rough. That does not make sense.
We were told last month when the Prime Minister met European leaders in Holland that we could expect no new measures beyond those covered by majority voting within the social chapter. This month, we learnt of new measures just days after the Prime Minister's assurance. Last week, plans were revealed that businesses employing as few as 50 people must set up works councils to consult employees on company policy. In other words, there will be a massive extension of the already controversial works council directive, brought in under the social chapter. If implemented, the new proposals will sit heavily on the shoulders of small and medium-sized firms which already struggle with enough red tape.
How did the new Government react to the news? A Downing street spokesman confirmed that the Prime Minister would reject the proposal.
"If this does not fit in with job creation and business success we will not have it",
he said. That is all very reassuring, but inaccurate if one is acquainted with the reality. Labour is fully aware that much of the social chapter operates under qualified majority voting, but it is aware that once it signs up to it, its ability to pick and choose will be severely limited.
What is more, Labour knows full well that the European works council directive—which Commissioner Flynn now proposes to extend—was adopted under qualified majority voting, which means no Labour veto. The only way to prevent these proposals is by forming a blocking minority. Since most of the countries of Europe other than ourselves and Ireland already face the burden of similar legislation, I can see very little chance of defeating the proposal. Even if—in a fit of sympathy for a new Government—they were allowed to drop it this year, it will, like all other Commission proposals, be back on the table to be re-submitted next year and the year after that until it is written in the stone of European labour law. The measure will not be the last. We will see regulation after regulation destroying jobs in Britain, as has occurred in Europe.
Labour has long attempted to reassure nervous business men that the entrails of the social chapter are negotiable. The new Prime Minister was the first to spawn this line at the CBI conference in 1995. He said of the social chapter:
"Each piece of legislation will be judged on its merits. I have no intention whatever of agreeing to anything and everything that emerges from the EU. Proposals are just that: proposals. And they will be examined, with you, on their merit".
At the time, he was warned. My hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) quoted the response given by the director general of the Confederation of British Industry, Mr. Adair Turner, but it bears repetition. He said:
"If you sign up to the Social Chapter you can't actually be sure that you will have your way, because some directives will be covered by qualified majority voting. There is however a way to

881
pick and choose and that is available for the Labour Party if it wants to have it as its policy. The way to pick and choose is actually not to sign up to the Social Chapter".
I offer the Government a piece of advice that has been given by a number of Opposition Members. It is not too late for them to change their mind. A U-turn is a small sacrifice to pay for the sake of jobs and prosperity. If jobs mean so much to the Government—I certainly believe them when they say that they do—they will do the honourable thing. The best way to pick and choose is not to sign. Outside the social chapter, they can pick and choose to their heart's content.
Earlier, someone shouted across the Chamber, "The majority." With its majority, the Labour party can carry any new law it wants. If it wishes, it can implement every piece of law in the social chapter through this Parliament. What the Government propose, however, is to take that right away from Parliament for ever—a point made cogently by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling and implicitly by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield, in his comments on the importance of the rights of Parliament and our national decisions in our national democracies.
The social chapter is not the sole case. Every risk that applies to the social chapter also applies to giving up the veto on industrial and regional policies. It looks as though the hard-won Conservative prosperity of the 1990s is set to be buried by a new socialist agenda of red tape and regulation. In the 1970s, Labour's disastrous economic record consisted of employment protection Acts that destroyed jobs, industrial policies that destroyed industries and regional policies that laid waste Britain's industrial regions. At least in 1979 this Parliament could sweep away the disastrous policies of the socialist 1970s. No future British Parliament could unilaterally correct the consequences of giving up our sovereignty in this way.
What the Government propose to give away in Amsterdam will give us the catastrophic policies of the 1970s, but made irreversibly in Brussels. Of course, that is the Prime Minister's pay-off to the unions, as the head of the European Trades Union Congress and, indeed, the head of the British TUC have now effectively admitted. Finally, we are about to discover the true meaning of new Labour—Conservative words and socialist consequences.
The contrast between Conservative and Labour on Europe is stark and sobering. We have a clear, modern vision of Europe as a partnership of nations with Britain co-operating closely with its continental neighbours, but firmly saying no to being part of the drive towards a European state. All Conservatives, without exception, share that strong determination to preserve our independence.
Labour, by contrast, is incoherent and muddled. One day, the Prime Minister swears that he will never be isolated in Europe, the next he says that he is proud to be isolated. One day, the Prime Minister pledges to be a friend of the EU by abandoning the national veto in numerous areas, the next he or his Ministers are threatening to use it. One day, he says that the proposals on the social chapter would benefit Britain, the next he is trying to reassure business men that he will oppose such proposals, omitting to admit that he could be outvoted.
Labour does not have a policy on Europe. It has a posture on Europe—a posture that changes from audience to audience. The sad truth is that Labour has bought a
882
season ticket on the line of least resistance. It is a season ticket whose price will be paid by the people of Britain—a price that will be extremely high.
Conservative Governments have won the British budget rebate, the single currency opt-out and other brief victories by being tough, effective negotiators. By contrast, Labour is inexperienced and sometimes naive. The Prime Minister will go to Amsterdam alone among all the European Heads of Government in having already announced to the world the national surrenders that he intends to make without even a promise of anything in return.
Within six weeks of a general election victory, Labour has already proclaimed six surrenders: four surrenders of veto, submission to the social chapter and a European Union jurisdiction on employment. Once combined, those commitments will create an ever-open door for Brussels-driven labour law and over-regulation.
That is what the unions want and what has done most of the damage to jobs in Europe. It is a European employment time bomb, and it is only a matter of time before it goes off. The damage to British jobs and prosperity will be irrevocable; the damage to Britain's ability to compete will be permanent and savage; and the damage to Britain's sovereignty and standing will be for ever. No British Government should do that lightly.
9.39 pm
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Alistair Darling): That was pretty desperate stuff. The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis) certainly came out of his Euro-closet tonight; he will be in some difficulties if the next leader of his party is the shadow Chancellor. That may be the first and last speech that we hear from him on this subject.
I shall return to what the right hon. Gentleman said shortly, but, first, I should like to refer to the numerous maiden speeches made this evening. The first was from my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell), who spoke generously of his predecessor and of Stan Newens and made the important point that our party has returned to power after re-engaging itself with those natural supporters with whom it lost touch in the 1970s and 1980s. That has some relevance for Europe. It is important that Europe is re-engaged with the people whom the European institutions are supposed to serve.
The hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) spoke with some feeling about what a difficult act his predecessor was to follow. His predecessor is one of the few people in the country who would probably crawl to get here for a debate such as this—but he spoke well of him.
My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Ms Ellman) spoke about the increasing problem of social exclusion in Liverpool and in many such areas, where it is important that we act and are seen to act, in terms of both domestic and European policy.
The hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) spoke movingly of Sir Nicholas Baker; all those who knew or came into contact with him were extremely sorry and sad to learn of his death just before the election. He was a man of great integrity, who spoke his mind. Our thoughts are with his family.
The hon. Member for North Dorset said that his constituency was the most beautiful in Britain, as did the hon. Member for North Tayside (Mr. Swinney). When the

883
rain eases off in North Tayside and I am able to see it, I can corroborate his evidence, as it is indeed a beautiful constituency. He, too, spoke well of his predecessor, Bill Walker, whom we shall miss for various reasons.
We shall also miss Jeremy Hanley, of whom the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) spoke with some affection. While he was chairman of the Conservative party, we all regarded him with a great deal of affection; we were sorry when he moved on.
The hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble), who wants an airport, unlike the hon. Member for Richmond Park, spoke of the importance of the fishing industry, as did the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor). Making progress on quota hopping, in particular, is a matter to which the Government attach great importance.
Right hon. and hon. Members will have seen that the House is approving a number of documents to end the formal parliamentary scrutiny procedure. The scrutiny procedure now ends and the Government can make progress not only on the intergovernmental conference, the broad economic guidelines and the assessment of the 1996 guidelines, but on the three proposals relating to economic and monetary union, the stability and growth pact, the legal framework of the euro and the new exchange rate mechanism.
The stability pact was referred to by the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). It is important to say a word about European monetary union. The speech of the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden had a flavour of sour grapes towards everything to do with Europe. That is part of the problem of the Conservative party at the moment.
Very few Conservatives can talk about Europe without a whiff of dislike and distrust of everything European. It is no wonder that they made so little progress with our European partners. They seem blinded by prejudice, to the extent that we now hear that Helmut Kohl is a socialist. He and many others may find that difficult to believe.
It is not so long since the Leader of the Opposition had to break off the general election campaign to appeal for unity in his party. His appeal was based on the proposition that the party should not tie his hands before he went to negotiate on monetary union, yet tonight the Conservatives tell us that we should do just that and rule out the possibility of monetary union in 1999. Many Conservatives, perhaps the majority, believe that it should be ruled out completely.
Dr. Julian Lewis: Hear, hear.
Mr. Darling: The Euro-scepticism is there for all to see. No wonder the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) looks with distaste at some of those sitting next to him. As he said, if Conservatives wish to exclude themselves not only from Europe but from elsewhere, they are going about it the right way. That is a matter for them.
We believe that it is in the interests of the United Kingdom that we should keep our options open on the single currency. It is essential that there is sustainable convergence among the economies that take part. We need a national debate on the economic tests to be applied. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer set
884
them out: jobs, investment, the impact on financial services, the need for flexibility, and the impact on business cycles. Those factors must be considered against the background of the first and foremost question: what is in this country's national interest? Is it in this country's interest to join a single currency or is it not? My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and others have said that it is highly unlikely that Britain will join in the first wave, but to exclude the possibility of joining, which is at the heart of what the Conservative party believes, is not only bad for Britain's interests but is to take a blinkered view of the future.
Dr. Liam Fox: Can the Chief Secretary say what studies the Treasury has initiated into the currencies in which our trade is denominated, and how the single currency would affect them?
Mr. Darling: The Treasury and other Departments are engaged in studies of numerous matters, including those mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. When the Government have to come to a view, those discussions will take place in the House and in the country.
Dr. Fox rose—
Mr. Darling: No, I have dealt with the point. The hon. Gentleman and most Conservative Members are not interested one jot in such considerations because they have already set themselves against anything to do with Europe and, in particular, with the single currency.
Dr. Fox rose—
Mr. Darling: No, I have dealt with that point. The problem for Conservative Members, and the problem that the shadow Chancellor would face if he were elected leader of the Conservative party, is that there is a phalange of Tory Members who have a visceral dislike of everything to do with Europe. That is one of the many reasons that they were rejected by the electorate only a few weeks ago.
I want to deal briefly with the stability and growth pact. It follows that if there is to be a single currency, it is important that it should be underpinned by a pact. One of the pact's objectives is the maintenance of high and stable levels of growth and unemployment. It is committed to stability. Economic stability is one of the Government's primary objectives because only with economic stability can we get the long-term, sustainable growth that Britain needs.
The sanctions under the excessive deficits regulation could not apply to Britain; they can apply only to member states who participate in the single currency. Whether we do that is a matter still to be considered. I want to draw attention to one other regulation because it was mentioned by many people, particularly in the City of London, before the general election: the legal framework for the euro. It is important, whether we join or not, that British institutions, such as the London international financial futures and options exchange, LIFFE, can denominate sterling contracts in euros so that we can maintain London's pre-eminent position not only in Europe but in the world. The broad economic guidelines that are also before the House again emphasise the need for growth and jobs, to which I shall refer shortly.

885
New Members who have spoken tonight will come to realise, should they ever participate in a debate on Europe again, that some things never change. Indeed, there were many echoes of the Maastricht debate—some of the speeches seemed exactly the same as those made five years ago.
Mr. Cash: We were right then and we are right now.
Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman is no exception as he is the leader of the reunion of the Euro-sceptics.
I believe that the starting point of any sensible consideration of the issue must be a practical and pragmatic approach to Europe. The question we must ask ourselves about the single currency or any other policy on Europe is what is in the country's national interest. The reason that we co-operate with the rest of Europe and share sovereignty in certain cases is that it is in our interests to do so.
We live in a global economy and it is no longer possible for any country to go it alone economically. Although I appreciate what my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield said tonight, as he has done on many occasions in the past, he must accept surely that as we live in a global economy, co-operation between nations, whether in Europe or anywhere else, must continue and grow. That is extremely important.
Mr. Malcolm Bruce: The Foreign Secretary said that if Britain decides to join the first wave the evaluation will take place next spring. If the Government decide not to go ahead, does the Chief Secretary appreciate that business needs to know how long a lead time it will be given to make the necessary investment? Can he undertake that the Government will say what minimum lead time they will give for a positive decision?
Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman is quite right that business and others need time to plan. The Government will carry out an evaluation as to whether the Cabinet will recommend joining the single currency, so our decision will become known at that time. Business will then know its own precise position. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman appreciates that business is aware of the general discussions taking place, although the Government's view will be made known subsequently.
It is important to co-operate when it is in our interest to do so. It is in our interests that the single market should be expanded and made a reality, for example, in telecommunications and the financial services industry. Britain excels in those sectors by competing on quality and excellence. During our presidency, we intend to push to make that market work.
The social chapter is another example of something that is not just in the interests of those directly affected by it but in the interests of British firms. We must sign up to it because those firms are already affected by it. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary referred to many large firms that deal with the social chapter day in, day out. They want a British Government who are not only committed to the ideal behind the social chapter but argue against proposals that would affect the competitiveness of Europe and those companies in particular. We intend to do that.
886
The Leader of the Opposition asked some questions about whether qualified majority voting would apply to aspects of the social chapter. As I am sure he is well aware, it does in relation to health and safety, working conditions and information to and consultation with workers, but it does not in terms of social security, trade union rights and other areas. We have always made it clear—before, during and now after the election—that we will do nothing that adversely affects the competitive position of British firms.
As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made clear today at the ECOFIN meeting, it is important that Europe recognises that, in years to come, competition will not just be between the traditional markets of America, Japan and so on, but with emerging economies that have developed in a way that we could not have imagined in the past few years.
Mr. Michael Howard: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Darling: In a moment.
It is important that Britain and Europe remain competitive against the world. I will do the right hon. and learned Gentleman perhaps a favour as he is clearly out to impress those who sit behind him before they go to the polls tomorrow.
Mr. Howard: Surely the right hon. Gentleman would agree that if the Government sign the social chapter they can argue against measures which would imperil the competitiveness of British business and plead with our partners not to imperil it, but they cannot do anything to stop them because they will be agreed by qualified majority voting. The only way to stop that is not to join the social chapter.
Mr. Darling: I wish the right hon. and learned Gentleman every success tomorrow morning. He must accept, however, that people elected a Government to stick up for British interests, firms and individuals. We intend to do that by signing the social chapter. In other areas, it is clearly not in Britain's interest to entertain qualified majority voting. Those areas are taxation, defence and foreign policy. On issues such as fraud, increasing co-operation is clearly important.
The difference between the Government and the Conservative party, the denuded Opposition, is that the climate of opinion has changed, not just in this country but in Europe. People do not expect a British Government simply to agree with what is proposed in Europe. They are looking for a Government who are prepared to argue their corner and to be genuine partners with others in the European Union. That is why my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Foreign Secretary have laid so much weight on re-engaging the European institutions with the people that they are there to serve.
For many people, the sometimes arcane debates about institutions and changes mean absolutely nothing. They want policies that the European Union can facilitate and which will benefit them and provide opportunities for jobs and sustainable economic growth.
We have the opportunity to set out our agenda for growth, not as my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) said, an opportunity to lecture our

887
European partners; we must show a positive lead and emphasise the importance of employability as well as employment. We must import employability, help flexibility and have an adaptable labour force. Those matters are fundamental because, in a world where capital is increasingly mobile, the skills, training and motivation of the work force here and in Europe will mark us out as a place in which to invest.
Mr. Michael Fabricant: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Darling: No I will not, because the hon. Gentleman has not been here for most of the evening.
Unlike the defeated Conservative party, we recognise that while the role of Government is different from what it was in the past, we still have the key role of helping to equip individuals and companies for the future. We need to build skills and invest in infrastructure, and we must help small businesses and create the right, stable, economic basis to encourage sustainable long-term growth.
Mr. Blunt: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Darling: I will not, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind.
The modern market economy is based on knowledge and ideas, technology, creativity and adaptability. Those are what the Government and all modern Governments ought to provide, and it is the job of the European Union to foster the climate for that creation. That is the way to tackle high unemployment in Europe and the obstacles to job creation, and it will encourage employability and therefore employment. Europe must cut unnecessary bureaucracy for small firms and build to completion a single market. It must promote welfare to work opportunities and initiatives, as we are doing.
The people want a Government who are committed to serving their interests not just in Europe but throughout the world in the context of crime prevention, the environment and employment.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Darling: If the hon. Lady does not mind, I will not.
The Conservative party has learned nothing from its defeat. It seems to be increasingly determined to march out into the wilderness. It has nothing to say to the country and it certainly has nothing to say to Europe. That may be a matter of regret to the body politic, but I do not think that it is regretted by many people. By contrast, we are prepared to play a positive role in Europe. We take a practical and pragmatic approach to Europe and its institutions because it is fundamental to re-engage Europe with the people that it is supposed to represent. People must feel the real benefit of being part of the European Union. The Government have already started on that process and we are committed to that in a way that the Conservative party could never be because it is paralysed by its own divisions.
The Government will play a full part in a Europe of employment and opportunity. That is the role which people wanted their Government to play when they
888
elected the new Labour Government on 1 May. They wanted change in Britain and we have already shown how we will deliver that change. People also wanted a change in attitude to Europe. The country believed that the carping and complaining by Conservative Members were selling out the country's interests. They said that they had had enough of that and that they wanted a change.
As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has made clear, we have already started to make a change. There is a changing attitude in Europe. There are changing opinions in Europe. We intend to build on that and to show the lead for which this country has been crying out for years.
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House proceeded to a Division.
Mr. Peter L. Pike(seated and covered): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Since we returned following the general election, and the rewiring has been carried out, a number of the Division Bells no longer function. Along the Committee Corridor North, there are now no audible Bells at all, and, unless the televisions are switched to one particular channel, there is no audible sign that a Division is taking place. I am sure that you will be concerned about that, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the matter with me, and I will certainly have it checked out as soon as I leave the Chair.
The House having divided: Ayes 151, Noes 404.

Division No. 21]

[10 pm

AYES

Amess, David

Duncan, Alan

Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

Duncan Smith, Iain

Arbuthnot, James

Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Evans, Nigel

Baldry, Tony

Faber, David

Bercow, John

Fabricant, Michael

Beresford, Sir Paul

Fallon, Michael

Blunt, Crispin

Flight, Howard

Boswell, Tim

Forth, Eric

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

Fox, Dr Liam

Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

Fraser, Christopher

Brady, Graham

Gale, Roger

Brazier, Julian

Garnier, Edward

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Gibb, Nick

Browning, Mrs Angela

Gill, Christopher

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

Burns, Simon

Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

Butterfill, John

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Chapman, Sir Sydney

Gray, James

(Chipping Barnet)

Green, Damian

Chope, Christopher

Greenway, John

Clappison, James

Grieve, Dominic

Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

Gummer, Rt Hon John

Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

Hague, Rt Hon William

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth

Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

(Rushcliffe)

Hammond, Philip

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Hawkins, Nick

Collins, Tim

Hayes, John

Colvin, Michael

Heald, Oliver

Cran, James

Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David

Curry, Rt Hon David

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

Davies, Quentin

Horam, John

(Grantham & Stamford)

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Day, Stephen

Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

Hunter, Andrew

889

Jack, Rt Hon Michael

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

Jenkin, Bernard (N Essex)

Ruffley, David

Johnson Smith,

St Aubyn, Nick

Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Sayeed, Jonathan

Key, Robert

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Soames, Nicholas

Laing, Mrs Eleanor

Spelman, Mrs Caroline

Lansley, Andrew

Spicer, Sir Michael

Leigh, Edward

Spring, Richard

Letwin, Oliver

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

Steen, Anthony

Lidington, David

Streeter, Gary

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Swayne, Desmond

Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

Syms, Robert

Loughton, Tim

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Luff, Peter

Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Taylor, Sir Teddy

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Temple—Morris, Peter

MacKay, Andrew

Townend, John

Maclean, Rt Hon David

Tredinnick, David

McLoughlin, Patrick

Trend, Michael

Madel, Sir David

Tyrie, Andrew

Malins, Humfrey

Viggers, Peter

Walter, Robert

Maples, John

Wardle, Charles

Maude, Rt Hon Francis

Waterson, Nigel

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

Whitney, Sir Raymond

May, Mrs Theresa

Whittingdale, John

Merchant, Piers

Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

Moss, Malcolm

Wilkinson, John

Nicholls, Patrick

Wiletts, David

Norman, Archie

Wilshire, David

Ottaway, Richard

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Page, Richard

Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

Paice, James

Woodward, Shaun

Paterson, Owen

Yeo, Tim

Pickles, Eric

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Prior, David

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Tellers for the Ayes:

Robathan, Andrew

Mr. Bowen Wells and

Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

Mr. Peter Ainsworth.

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Boateng, Paul

Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

Borrow, David

Ainger, Nick

Bradley, Keith (Withington)

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Allan, Richard (Shef'ld Hallam)

Bradshaw, Ben

Allen, Graham (Nottingham N)

Brand, Dr Peter

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

Breed, Colin

Armstrong, Ms Hilary

Brinton, Mrs Helen

Ashton, Joe

Brown, Rt Hon Nick

Atherton, Ms Candy

(Newcastle E & Wallsend)

Baker, Norman

Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

Banks, Tony

Browne, Desmond (Kilmarnock)

Barnes, Harry

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Barron, Kevin

Buck, Ms Karen

Bayley, Hugh

Burden, Richard

Beard, Nigel

Burgon, Colin

Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

Burnett, John

Begg, Miss Anne (Aberd'n S)

Butler, Christine

Beith, Rt Hon A J

Byers, Stephen

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Bennett, Andrew F

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Benton, Joe

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Bermingham, Gerald

Campbell-Savours, Dale

Berry, Roger

Canavan, Dennis

Best, Harold

Cann, Jamie

Betts, Clive

Caplin, Ivor

Blackman, Mrs Liz

Casale, Roger

Blears, Ms Hazel

Caton, Martin

Blizzard, Robert

Cawsey, Ian

Blunkett, Rt Hon David

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

890

Chisholm, Malcolm

Foster, Michael John (Worcester)

Clapham, Michael

Foulkes, George

Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

Fyfe, Maria

Clark, Dr Lynda

Galbraith, Sam

(Edinburgh Pentlands)

Galloway, George

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Gapes, Mike

Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

Gardiner, Barry

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

George, Andrew (St Ives)

Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

George, Bruce (Walsall S)

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Gerrard, Neil

Clelland, David

Gibson, Dr Ian

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Gilroy, Mrs Linda

Coaker, Vernon

Godman, Dr Norman A

Coffey, Ms Ann

Godsiff, Roger

Cohen, Harry

Goggins, Paul

Coleman, Iain

Golding, Mrs Llin

(Hammersmith & Fulham)

Gordon, Mrs Eileen

Colman, Anthony (Putney)

Graham, Thomas

Connarty, Michael

Grant, Bernie

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Griffiths, Ms Jane (Reading E)

Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Cooper, Ms Yvette

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Corbett, Robin

Grocott, Bruce

Corbyn, Jeremy

Grogan, John

Corston, Ms Jean

Gunnell, John

Cotter, Brian

Hain, Peter

Cousins, Jim

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Cranston, Ross

Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

Crausby, David

Hancock, Mike

Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

Hanson, David

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Harris, Dr Evan

Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

Harvey, Nick

Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

Heal, Mrs Sylvia

(Copeland)

Healey, John

Curtis—Thomas, Ms Clare

Heath, David (Somerton)

Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

Darvill, Keith

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Hepburn, Stephen

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Heppell, John

Davidson, Ian

Hesford, Stephen

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Hewitt, Ms Patricia

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Hill, Keith

Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)

Hinchliffe, David

Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

Hodge, Ms Margaret

Dawson, Hilton

Hoey, Kate

Dean, Ms Janet

Home Robertson, John

Denham, John

Hood, Jimmy

Dewar, Rt Hon Donald

Hoon, Geoffrey

Dismore, Andrew

Hope, Philip

Dobbin, Jim

Hopkins, Kelvin

Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

Donohoe, Brian H

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Doran, Frank

Howells, Dr Kim

Dowd, Jim

Hoyle, Lindsay

Drew, David

Hughes, Ms Beverley

Drown, Ms Julia

(Stretford & Urmston)

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

Eagle, Ms Maria (L'pool Garston)

Humble, Mrs Joan

Edwards, Huw

Hurst, Alan

Efford, Clive

Hutton, John

Ellman, Ms Louise

Iddon, Brian

Ennis, Jeff

Illsley, Eric

Etherington, Bill

Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampst'd)

Ewing, Mrs Margaret

Jackson, Mrs Helen (Hillsborough)

Fatchett, Derek

Jamieson, David

Fearn, Ronnie

Jenkins, Brian (Tamworth)

Field, Rt Hon Frank

Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

Fisher, Mark

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Jones, Ms Fiona (Newark)

Fitzsimons, Ms Lorna

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Flint, Ms Caroline

Jones, Ms Jenny

Flynn, Paul

(Wolverh'ton SW)

Follett, Ms Barbara

Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

891

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Murphy, Dennis (Wansbeck)

Jowell, Ms Tessa

Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

Keen, Alan (Feltham)

Naysmith, Dr Doug

Keen, Mrs Ann (Brentford)

Norris, Dan

Kemp, Fraser

O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

O'Brien, William (Normanton)

Khabra, Piara S

Olner, Bill

Kidney, David

O'Neill, Martin

Kilfoyle, Peter

Opik, Lembit

King, Andy (Rugby)

Organ, Mrs Diana

King, Miss Oona (Bethnal Green)

Osborne, Mrs Sandra

Kingham, Tessa

Palmer, Dr Nick

Kirkwood, Archy

Pearson, Ian

Kumar, Dr Ashok

Pendry, Tom

Ladyman, Dr Stephen

Perham, Ms Linda

Lawrence, Ms Jackie

Pickthall, Colin

Laxton, Bob

Pike, Peter L

Lepper, David

Plaskitt, James

Leslie, Christopher

Pollard, Kerry

Levitt, Tom

Pond, Chris

Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

Pope, Greg

Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

Pound, Stephen

Liddell, Mrs Helen

Powell, Sir Raymond

Linton, Martin

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Livingstone, Ken

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

Prescott, Rt Hon John

Llwyd, Elfyn

Prosser, Gwyn

Lock, David

Purchase, Ken

Love, Andy

Quinn, Lawrie

McAllion, John

Radice, Giles

McAvoy, Thomas

Rammell, Bill

McCabe, Stephen

Rapson, Syd

McCafferty, Ms Chris

Raynsford, Nick

McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

McDonagh, Ms Siobhain

Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)

Macdonald, Calum

Rendel, David

McDonnell, John

Robertson, Rt Hon George

McFall, John

(Hamilton S)

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

Mclsaac, Ms Shona

Roche, Mrs Barbara

McKenna, Ms Rosemary

Rogers, Allan

Mackinlay, Andrew

Rooker, Jeff

McMaster, Gordon

Rooney, Terry

McNulty, Tony

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

MacShane, Denis

Rowlands, Ted

Mactaggart, Fiona

Roy, Frank

McWalter, Tony

Ruane, Chris

McWilliam, John

Ruddock, Ms Joan

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

Mallaber, Ms Judy

Ryan, Ms Joan

Mandelson, Peter

Salter, Martin

Marek, Dr John

Savidge, Malcolm

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Sawford, Phil

Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

Sedgemore, Brian

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Shaw, Jonathan

Marshall-Andrews, Robert

Sheerman, Barry

Martlew, Eric

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Maxton, John

Shipley, Ms Debra

Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

Meale, Alan

Singh, Marsha

Merron, Ms Gillian

Skinner, Dennis

Michael, Alun

Smith, Ms Angela (Basildon)

Milbum, Alan

Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

Miller, Andrew

Smith, Miss Geraldine

Mitchell, Austin

(Morecambe & Lunesdale)

Moffatt, Laura

Smith, Ms Jacqui (Redditch)

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Smith, John (Glamorgan)

Moran, Ms Margaret

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

Soley, Clive

Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

Southworth, Ms Helen

Morley, Elliot

Spellar, John

Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

Squire, Ms Rachel

Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

Starkey, Dr Phyllis

Mountford, Ms Kali

Stevenson, George

Mudie, George

Stewart, David (Inverness E)

Mullin, Chris

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

892

Stinchcombe, Paul

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Stoate, Dr Howard

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Stott, Roger

Tyler, Paul

Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

Vaz, Keith

Straw, Rt Hon Jack

Ward, Ms Claire

Stringer, Graham

Wareing, Robert N

Stuart, Mrs Gisela (Edgbaston)

Watts, David

Sutcliffe, Gerry

White, Brian

Swinney, John

Whitehead, Alan

Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

Williams, Rt Hon Alan

(Dewsbury)

(Swansea W)

Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

Williams, Dr Alan W

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

(E Carmarthen)

Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)

Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

Taylor, Matthew

Willis, Phil

(Truro & St Austell)

Wills, Michael

Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

Winnick, David

Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Timms, Stephen

Wise, Audrey

Tipping, Paddy

Wood, Mike

Todd, Mark

Woolas, Phil

Tonge, Dr Jenny

Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

Touhig, Don

Wright, Tony (Gt Yarmouth)

Trickett, Jon

Wyatt, Derek

Truswell, Paul

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Tellers for the Noes:

Turner, Desmond (Kemptown)

Mr. Jon Owen Jones and

Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

Janet Anderson.

Question accordingly negatived.
Main Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 397, Noes 145.

Division No. 22]

[10.18 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

Browne, Desmond (Kilmarnock)

Ainger, Nick

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Buck, Ms Karen

Allan, Richard (Shef'ld Hallam)

Burden, Richard

Allen, Graham (Nottingham N)

Burgon, Colin

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

Burnett, John

Armstrong, Ms Hilary

Butler, Christine

Ashton, Joe

Byers, Stephen

Atherton, Ms Candy

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Baker, Norman

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Banks, Tony

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Barnes, Harry

Campbell-Savours, Dale

Barron, Kevin

Canavan, Dennis

Bayley, Hugh

Cann, Jamie

Beard, Nigel

Caplin, Ivor

Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

Casale, Roger

Begg, Miss Anne (Aberd'n S)

Caton, Martin

Beith, Rt Hon A J

Cawsey, Ian

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Bennett, Andrew F

Chaytor, David

Benton, Joe

Chisholm, Malcolm

Bermingham, Gerald

Clapham, Michael

Berry, Roger

Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

Best, Harold

Clark, Dr Lynda

Betts, Clive

(Edinburgh Pentlands)

Blackman, Mrs Liz

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Blears, Ms Hazel

Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

Blizzard, Robert

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Boateng, Paul

Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

Borrow, David

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Bradley, Keith (Withington)

Clelland, David

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Bradshaw, Ben

Coaker, Vernon

Brand, Dr Peter

Coffey, Ms Ann

Brinton, Mrs Helen

Cohen, Harry

Brown, Rt Hon Nick

Coleman, Iain

(Newcastle E & Wallsend)

(Hammersmith & Fulham)

893

Colman, Anthony (Putney)

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Connarty, Michael

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Grocott, Bruce

Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

Grogan, John

Cooper, Ms Yvette

Gunnell, John

Corbett, Robin

Hain, Peter

Corbyn, Jeremy

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Corston, Ms Jean

Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

Cotter, Brian

Hancock, Mike

Cousins, Jim

Hanson, David

Cranston, Ross

Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

Crausby, David

Harris, Dr Evan

Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

Harvey, Nick

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Heal, Mrs Sylvia

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Healey, John

Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

Heath, David (Somerton)

Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

(Copeland)

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

Curtis—Thomas, Ms Clare

Hepburn, Stephen

Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

Heppell, John

Darvill, Keith

Hesford, Stephen

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Hewitt, Ms Patricia

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Hill, Keith

Davidson, Ian

Hinchliffe, David

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Hodge, Ms Margaret

Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)

Hoey, Kate

Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

Home Robertson, John

Dawson, Hilton

Hood, Jimmy

Dean, Ms Janet

Hoon, Geoffrey

Denham, John

Hope, Philip

Dismore, Andrew

Hopkins, Kelvin

Dobbin, Jim

Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Donohoe, Brian H

Howells, Dr Kim

Doran, Frank

Hoyle, Lindsay

Dowd, Jim

Hughes, Ms Beverley

Drew, David

(Stretford &Urmston)

Drown, Ms Julia

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Humble, Mrs Joan

Eagle, Ms Maria (L'pool Garston)

Hurst, Alan

Edwards, Huw

Hutton, John

Efford, Clive

Iddon, Brian

Ellman, Ms Louise

Illsley, Eric

Ennis, Jeff

Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampst'd)

Etherington, Bill

Jackson, Mrs Helen (Hillsborough)

Fatchett, Derek

Jamieson, David

Feam, Ronnie

Jenkins, Brian (Tamworth)

Field, Rt Hon Frank

Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

Fisher, Mark

Johnson, Ms Melanie

Fitzpatrick, Jim

(Welwyn Hatfield)

Fitzsimons, Ms Lorna

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Flint, Ms Caroline

Jones, Ms Fiona (Newark)

Flynn, Paul

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Follett, Ms Barbara

Jones, Ms Jenny

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

(Wolverh'ton SW)

Foster, Michael John (Worcester)

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Foulkes, George

Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

Fyfe, Maria

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd'S)

Galbraith, Sam

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Galloway, George

Jowell, Ms Tessa

Gapes, Mike

Keen, Alan (Feltham)

Gardiner, Barry

Keen, Mrs Ann (Brentford)

George, Andrew (St Ives)

Kemp, Fraser

George, Bruce (Walsall S)

Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

Gerrard, Neil

Khabra, Piara S

Gibson, Dr Ian

Kidney, David

Gilroy, Mrs Linda

Kilfoyle, Peter

Godman, Dr Norman A

King, Andy (Rugby)

Godsiff, Roger

King, Miss Oona (Bethnal Green)

Goggins, Paul

Kingham, Tessa

Golding, Mrs Llin

Kirkwood, Archy

Gordon, Mrs Eileen

Kumar, Dr Ashok

Graham, Thomas

Ladyman, Dr Stephen

Grant, Bernie

Lawrence, Ms Jackie

Griffiths, Ms Jane (Reading E)

Laxton, Bob

894

Lepper, David

Pond, Chris

Leslie, Christopher

Pope, Greg

Levitt, Tom

Pound, Stephen

Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

Powell, Sir Raymond

Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Liddell, Mrs Helen

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Linton, Martin

Prescott, Rt Hon John

Livingstone, Ken

Prosser, Gwyn

Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

Purchase, Ken

Lock, David

Quinn, Lawrie

Love, Andy

Radice, Giles

McAllion, John

Rammell, Bill

McAvoy, Thomas

Rapson, Syd

McCabe, Stephen

Raynsford, Nick

McCafferty, Ms Chris

Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)

McDonagh, Ms Siobhain

Rendel, David

Macdonald, Calum

Robertson, Rt Hon George

McDonnell, John

(Hamilton S)

McFall, John

Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Mclsaac, Ms Shona

Rogers, Allan

McKenna, Ms Rosemary

Rooker, Jeff

Mackinlay, Andrew

Rooney, Terry

McMaster, Gordon

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

McNulty, Tony

Rowlands, Ted

MacShane, Denis

Roy, Frank

Mactaggart, Fiona

Ruane, Chris

McWalter, Tony

Ruddock, Ms Joan

McWilliam, John

Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Ryan, Ms Joan

Mandelson, Peter

Salter, Martin

Marek, Dr John

Savidge, Malcolm

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Sawford, Phil

Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

Sedgemore, Brian

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Shaw, Jonathan

Marshall-Andrews, Robert

Sheerman, Barry

Martlew, Eric

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Maxton, John

Shipley, Ms Debra

Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

Meale, Alan

Singh, Marsha

Merron, Ms Gillian

Skinner, Dennis

Michael, Alun

Smith, Ms Angela (Basildon)

Milburn, Alan

Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

Miller, Andrew

Smith, Miss Geraldine

Mitchell, Austin

(Morecambe & Lunesdale)

Moffatt, Laura

Smith, Ms Jacqui (Redditch)

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Smith, John (Glamorgan)

Moran, Ms Margaret

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

Soley, Clive

Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

Southworth, Ms Helen

Morley, Elliot

Spellar, John

Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

Squire, Ms Rachel

Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

Starkey, Dr Phyllis

Mountford, Ms Kali

Stevenson, George

Mudie, George

Stewart, David (Inverness E)

Mullin, Chris

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Murphy, Dennis (Wansbeck)

Stinchcombe, Paul

Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

Stoate, Dr Howard

Naysmith, Dr Doug

Stott, Roger

Norris, Dan

Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

Straw, Rt Hon Jack

O'Brien, William (Normanton)

Stringer, Graham

Olner, Bill

Stuart, Mrs Gisela (Edgbaston)

O'Neill, Martin

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Opik, Lembit

Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

Organ, Mrs Diana

(Dewsbury)

Osborne, Mrs Sandra

Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

Palmer, Dr Nick

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Pearson, Ian

Taylor, Matthew

Pendry, Tom

(Truro & St Austell)

Perham, Ms Linda

Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

Pickthall, Colin

Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

Pike, Peter L

Timms, Stephen

Plaskitt, James

Tipping, Paddy

Pollard, Kerry

Todd, Mark

895

Tonge, Dr Jenny

(Swansea W)

Touhig, Don

Williams, Dr Alan W

Trickett, Jon

(E Carmarthen)

Truswell, Paul

Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Wills, Michael

Turner, Desmond (Kemptown)

Winnick, David

Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Wise, Audrey

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Wood, Mike

Tyler, Paul

Woolas, Phil

Vaz, Keith

Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

Ward, Ms Claire

Wright, Tony (Gt Yarmouth)

Wareing, Robert N

Wyatt, Derek

Watts, David

White, Brian

Tellers for the Ayes:

Whitehead, Alan

Mr. Jon Owen Jones and Janet Anderson.

Williams, Rt Hon Alan

NOES

Amess, David

Flight Howard

Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

Forth, Eric

Arbuthnot, James

Fox, Dr Liam

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Fraser, Christopher

Baldry, Tony

Gale, Roger

Bercow, John

Garnier, Edward

Beresford, Sir Paul

Gibb, Nick

Blunt, Crispin

Gill, Christopher

Boswell, Tim

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Brady, Graham

Gray, James

Brazier, Julian

Green, Damian

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Greenway, John

Browning, Mrs Angela

Grieve, Dominic

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

Gummer, Rt Hon John

Bums, Simon

Hague, Rt Hon William

Butterfill, John

Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

Cash, William

Hammond, Philip

Chapman, Sir Sydney

Hawkins, Nick

(Chipping Barnet)

Hayes, John

Chope, Christopher

Heald, Oliver

Clappison, James

Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

(Rushcliffe)

Horam, John

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Collins, Tim

Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

Colvin, Michael

Hunter, Andrew

Cran, James

Jack, Rt Hon Michael

Curry, Rt Hon David

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

Jenkin, Bernard (N Essex)

Davies, Quentin

Johnson Smith,

(Grantham & Stamford)

Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Day, Stephen

Key, Robert

Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

Duncan, Alan

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Laing, Mrs Eleanor

Evans, Nigel

Lansley, Andrew

Faber, David

Leigh, Edward

Fabricant, Michael

Letwin, Oliver

896

Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Lidington, David

Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Soames, Nicholas

Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

Spelman, Mrs Caroline

Loughton, Tim

Spring, Richard

Luff, Peter

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Steen, Anthony

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Streeter, Gary

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Swayne, Desmond

MacKay, Andrew

Syms, Robert

Maclean, Rt Hon David

Tapsell, Sir Peter

McLoughlin, Patrick

Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

Madel, Sir David

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Malins, Humfrey

Temple-Morris, Peter

Maples, John

Townend, John

Maude, Rt Hon Francis

Tredinnick, David

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

Trend, Michael

May, Mrs Theresa

Tyrie, Andrew

Merchant, Piers

Viggers, Peter

Moss, Malcolm

Walter, Robert

Nicholls, Patrick

Wardle, Charles

Waterson, Nigel

Norman, Archie

Whitney, Sir Raymond

Ottaway, Richard

Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

Paice, James

Wilkinson, John

Paterson, Owen

Willetts, David

Pickles, Eric

Wilshire, David

Prior, David

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

Robathan, Andrew

Woodward, Shaun

Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

Yeo, Tim

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

Ruffley, David

Tellers for the Noes:

St Aubyn, Nick

Mr. Bowen Wells and Mr. Peter Ainsworth.

Sayeed, Jonathan

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. SN 600/97 (C101), consolidated draft Treaty texts; 6946/97, on the strengthening of the surveillance and co-ordination of budgetary policies; 6947/97, on speeding up and clarifying the implementation of the excessive deficit procedure; 10867/96, on the legal framework for the introduction of the euro; 7766/97, on the Commission's recommendation for the broad guidelines of the economic policies of the Member States and the Community; 7767/97, on a progress report on the implementation of the 1996 broad economic policy guidelines; the draft Resolution on the European Council on the stability and growth pact; and the unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum submitted by HM Treasury on 30th May on a draft resolution of the European Council on the establishment of an exchange rate mechanism in the third stage of economic and monetary union; and welcomes the determination of Her Majesty's Government to focus the agenda of the European Union on policies of direct benefit to the peoples of Europe through its initiatives on employment and competitiveness, and to obtain the best deal for Britain at the Amsterdam Summit through constructive negotiations in the Intergovernmental Conference.

Firearms (Compensation Scheme)
10.35 pm
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Alun Michael): I beg to move,
That the draft Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 Compensation Scheme, which was laid before this House on 3rd June, be approved.
Mr. Ian Bruce: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. As you will know, the draft scheme was laid before the House last Tuesday. I understand from the Vote Office that the papers were not available until very late on Tuesday night. I have a large number of shooters in my constituency, none of whom has had the chance to let me know what he or she thinks of the measure. I wonder whether you could guide the House as to how long a draft scheme of this nature should be available before it is debated, so that our constituents can make representations to us and we can do our job in this place, rather than having the measure pushed through at short notice.
Madam Speaker: There are no guidelines as to when draft schemes should be published and when they should be debated. However, the hon. Gentleman and his constituents will understand and appreciate that the matter has been debated over a long period of time, not only in the House, but throughout the country.
Mr. Michael: I welcome the opportunity to open the debate on the Government's draft compensation scheme, which has been laid before the House under the terms of section 18 of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997.
Perhaps I can help the hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) by saying that changes were made to take into account representations from shooters and those in the trade. The fact that the changes were requested by the very people to whom the hon. Gentleman referred demonstrates the lengths to which we have gone in listening to the people involved.
Mr. Ian Bruce: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way so early in his speech. Surely that is the point of publishing the Government's proposals. We should have given people at least a fortnight to make representations.
Mr. Michael: The hon. Gentleman must realise that there has been a great deal of consultation on the implementation of the scheme, just as there was an enormous amount of debate about the Act. Our priority is to implement the Act as quickly as possible. That requires the compensation scheme to be in place. Meeting the 1 July deadline and giving people three months to hand in their weapons and ancillary equipment requires us to proceed as quickly as possible. There was a general view in the House and among the public that the Act should be implemented as quickly as possible, so that the protection afforded to the public as a result of banning the weapons should be in place without delay.
Mr. Frank Cook: Is my hon. Friend saying that the schedule to the Act cannot be changed at this stage or afterwards by addition, deletion or amendment?
Mr. Michael: I am not inviting such changes. I am simply stating that right up to the last moment, a great
898
deal of consultation has gone into preparing the schedule and the information in the scheme. That is why the details have been made available. Indeed, I made them available to the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), who will be dealing with these matters for the official Opposition, and to the Liberal Democrat spokesman, to ensure that they had the information as early as possible. We have gone to as much trouble as possible to ensure that the information is available, as well as trying to ensure that the scheme is as fair as possible to all interests concerned.
I had been tempted to say that the matter was not controversial as the Government are implementing a compensation scheme that, in effect, fulfils the promises made by the previous Government during the passage of the 1997 Act.
Compensation will be paid to firearms certificate holders and registered dealers whose high-calibre handguns become prohibited by the 1997 Act. The draft scheme offers fair compensation—and, in at least some cases, generous compensation—for the weapons that will become prohibited and the ancillary equipment used only in connection with those weapons. Subject to parliamentary approval of the scheme, the hand-in period for weapons can begin on 1 July, with appropriate payments starting to be made from that date.
I shall briefly explain how we intend the scheme to operate. Before the hand-in period begins, certificate holders and dealers will receive full details of the final scheme, together with application forms and advice on where and when to surrender their weapons. They must complete the appropriate form in respect of their weapons and equipment and hand it to the police at the time of surrender.
Individuals will have a choice of three options. They may choose to accept a flat rate of £150 for their weapon. Instead, they may choose a standard rate for their weapon from the list of published values at annex A of the scheme. That contains the majority of the most commonly held large-calibre handguns. If they do not wish to accept the flat rate payment and if their gun is either not on the list at annex A, or is markedly different from those on the list, they can choose a third option. That means submitting their claim supported by an independent valuation or other evidence corroborating the value of the items surrendered. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) will realise that the flexibility provided by those three options is considerable.
Similar arrangements will apply to dealers, and they will be able to claim under any of the three options for items that they surrender. However, they will be able to claim under the third option even though their stock may already be listed at annex A. That is because the second option reflects second-hand values, while the other stocks will be either new or second-hand and have a higher retail value. I shall say more about the detail of values in the list in a moment.
The weapons must be handed over to a designated police station, as specified by the chief constable for the force area concerned. Special arrangements will be made with dealers because of the number of weapons that they will have in stock. Similar arrangements will apply to expanding ammunition and ancillary equipment that can be used only in connection with firearms that become prohibited. The corresponding values are set out in

899
annexes B, C and D of the draft scheme. That is in accordance with the requirements of section 17 of the 1997 Act—and section 16 in respect of expanding ammunition. Although, of course, the equipment will not itself become prohibited, the Government accept that where it cannot be put to any other use, such as for rifles or other legitimate purposes, compensation should be paid.
The claim forms will initially be checked by the police, who will then send them to the firearms compensation section—the FCS, as it is imaginatively named—of the Home Office, where they will be processed as quickly as possible. The FCS has been set up to handle claims for the 160,000 high-calibre handguns that will become prohibited and to deal with the accompanying claims for ancillary equipment. Fifty staff have been recruited and trained, and the target is to deal with all the claims in 18 months.
Mr. Andrew Lansley rose—
Mr. Michael: The majority of straightforward claims under options A and B will of course be dealt with quickly. A computer system has been introduced to ensure that each claim can be dealt with thoroughly, without delay and with the minimum of paperwork.
Mr. Lansley: In respect of options A and B, under which flat payments or payments according to the schedule will be made, there is no reason why compensation should not be paid quickly. Will the Minister give an undertaking that compensation will be paid within 30 days in those cases?
Mr. Michael: I will not tie us to a specific period of days, because we do not know what decisions the House will make on other issues that might affect the speed and volume of the surrenders. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that payments will be made as quickly as possible and, as I suggested shortly after he sought to intervene, the majority of the straightforward claims under options A and B will be dealt with quickly for the reasons that he suggests. However, it would not be sensible to tie the time down to a specific period of days.
Once the claim has been settled and the claimant has no further interest in the guns or equipment, the FCS will issue disposal instructions to the police force storing the weapons and equipment, and those will then be destroyed in accordance with the local force's practice. In a few cases, some weapons or equipment may be retained by police forces for training purposes or may be taken for public display in museums.
Miss Ann Widdecombe: Before the Minister leaves the subject of surrenders at police stations, will he tell us what will happen to the weapons and ammunition that are surrendered? Will they be kept at local police stations or will big depots be created? What will the security arrangements be for those weapons, to prevent large armouries, which would be obvious targets, from being created?
Mr. Michael: The weapons will be destroyed under arrangements made locally. That procedure follows consultation with the police about the best and most
900
secure way to deal with the issue. We have had sensible discussion and agreement on the most secure way to deal with the items.
Mr. Mike Hancock: On the same point, will the Minister give an assurance that police forces will inform all those who hold firearms certificates of their rights and of the starting date of the scheme before 1 July? Will he also assure the House that police officers in police stations that will receive firearms and equipment will be familiarised with the various documents that will have to be submitted, to save problems occurring after firearms have been surrendered?
Mr. Michael: I assure the hon. Gentleman that much time and thought have been given to those arrangements. As he will be aware, several constraints apply to how we deal with the situation. Decisions first have to be taken by Parliament—that is why we are having a debate about the scheme now—before the police receive the information, to pass it on to the people who will need to surrender weapons. At the same time, we have had to give people an opportunity to make representations about the content of the scheme and to find parliamentary time for the debate.
The police will be allowed only a short time to get ready, but we decided—after consulting widely and discussing the issue with the police—that we should proceed as quickly as possible on the time scale that I suggested. To my knowledge, the police have made considerable efforts to ensure that everybody who will deal with the scheme is fully trained and aware of the arrangements. The time scale is tight, but the police have assured me that they will do all that they can to ensure that everybody is properly informed.
Time will be available after 1 July—not everything has to be done by then—and every effort will be made to ensure that the police have the information they need, if the House agrees the scheme tonight. The police will pass the information on as quickly as possible to shooters so that they can make their applications and hand in their weapons in an orderly manner. I am sure that all the Members who were involved in the earlier debates realise that the House and the public wanted the legislation to be implemented as quickly as possible once the decisions of principle had been taken.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The Minister is dealing well with this sensitive and difficult issue, and the House is grateful to him. Will he tell the House with which representative bodies and trade associations he has discussed the levels of compensation? What response has he received from those organisations about the level of compensation? I ask that because I have an important company in my constituency, which is the largest wholesaler of arms and ammunition in the country.
Mr. Michael: It would take some time to list all the organisations that were consulted. Officials have consulted widely with all the organisations that, over a long time, have expressed interest, including the sporting bodies representing shooters and business interests. There has been detailed discussion.
There are those who are concerned, of course, about the business that they will lose as a result of the scheme's implementation. Indeed, there are those who would wish

901
to take compensation further into compensating firms for loss of business. We have made it clear that we shall not go further than what has already been set out. That was the previous Government's position. Compensation is not always made available for loss of business—for example, where pharmaceuticals are removed from general availability. It would be surprising if we were satisfying everyone, especially as there are those who did not want the proposed legislation to become law.
Those who have an interest did not want to see legislation introduced and implemented. At the same time, many of those who were involved in consultations, whether in business or in sport, have sought to find a sensible outcome. That is surely the right approach.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Michael: I shall give way, but perhaps I should make some progress. Hon. Members may wish to make their own speeches.
Mr. Howarth: The Minister said that certain categories of weapon will be held by the police or for training purposes. It seems that other weapons will be placed in museums or elsewhere. I see no reference to those disposals in the scheme. Will the Minister expand on the quantity and category of weapons that he is talking about?
Mr. Michael: I am talking about very small quantities of weapons. That question applies not to compensation but to primary legislation. I understand that the point was taken up by my predecessor. We are dealing now with compensation. We must be concerned, of course, with the disposal of weapons and ancillary equipment, the majority of which will be destroyed under the arrangements that I described.
Once a claim has been settled and the claimant has no further interest in the guns and equipment, the FCS will issue disposal instructions to the police force storing the weapons and equipment, and those will be destroyed in accordance with the local force practice. That will follow discussion with the police about the best way to deal with those issues.
I move on to the detailed values in the scheme. Sections 16 and 17 of the Act make it clear that weapons and ancillary equipment must have been in the claimant's possession on or immediately before 16 October 1996, the date of the previous Government's announcement of their response to Lord Cullen's report.
The draft scheme uses the values of weapons and equipment in the period immediately before that date. The values listed in annexes A, B and D reflect the advertised prices as new in trade journals at that time minus 25 per cent. for normal depreciation. Those are notional prices that we believe individuals might have obtained had they sold their guns or equipment at that time.
As for individuals who submit independent evidence of the retail value of their guns and equipment and claim under option C, the FCS will normally pay out the retail value less 25 per cent. to reflect normal depreciation. For dealers who submit independent evidence of the value of their stock and claim under option C, the FCS will
902
normally pay out the cost price plus 25 per cent., which is a fair reflection of the return that could have been expected had the stock items been sold on.
Officials have had contact with a number of gun dealers, and the dealers' views have been taken into account during the preparation of the draft scheme, as I said. We have used published or advertised values of guns and equipment as they have appeared in trade journals and other sources, rather than the values cited by one or more of the dealers whom we have consulted. That is the best way of obtaining fair values, both for claimants and ultimately for the taxpayer, whose interest also has to be considered.
There will be some concern about the position of dealers, gun clubs and others who will suffer losses as a result of the ban coming into effect. I referred to that concern a few moments ago, in my response to the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton). That matter was debated at length in the House during the passage of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997. It was decided at the time that such losses should not fall within the terms of the Act. The draft scheme therefore enables dealers and others to be compensated only for the weapons and certain ancillary equipment that they hand in. It does not extend to business losses, or to equipment used in the manufacture of prohibited guns or ancillary equipment.
Finally, I must make the position on small-calibre pistols clear. They do not form a part of the draft scheme because they are not prohibited by the Act. The Government intend, however, that there should be a free vote in the House. If the Firearms (Amendment) Bill is passed, that category of handgun will also become prohibited. We shall debate that later this week.
With that expectation, certificate holders and dealers who own small-calibre pistols may hand in those weapons voluntarily to designated police stations at the same time as the other handguns are surrendered. They will have to complete an application form, which will be processed by the FCS, and then they will receive ex gratia payments for those weapons and for related ancillary equipment. Details of those payments are already available in the Library of the House and will be circulated to all claimants at the same time as the details of the compensation scheme. The values of the ex gratia payments have been calculated in exactly the same way as for the main lists—son the basis of the market values in the period immediately prior to last year's statement on 16 October.
If the Firearms (Amendment) Bill is passed, the ex gratia list will become a formal scheme in its own right. That will not be the subject of today's debate, but will be debated during the relevant stages of the Bill.
The arrangements that we have made are a sensible way of ensuring that people who want to hand in their weapons can do so in one fell swoop, rather than having to do it in dribs and drabs; the arrangements are intended as an encouragement, to get as many handguns as possible out of circulation.
The Government believe that the draft scheme is fair and will properly compensate legitimate owners of prohibited weapons and related equipment. I commend it to the House.
10.56 pm
Mr. David Maclean: We welcome the publication of the compensation scheme for higher-calibre handguns made illegal by the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997. I am grateful to the Minister of State for responding to my pleas during the past few days about the differences between the scheme that was originally laid and the scheme before us.
I appreciate the difficulty of drawing up the scheme and the complexity of combing through hundreds of detailed assessments of different weapons and bits and pieces of equipment. It is an area in which it is difficult to be exact.
I do not share the concern expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) that the scheme was not laid for consideration long enough. However, if there had been further consultation with the gun trade initially, it might not have been necessary to withdraw the scheme and re-lay it. That is not a serious criticism of the Government because, as I said, I appreciate the complexity.
The Minister of State will be aware, however, that there is sensitivity among shooters on the issue. When a scheme is laid before Parliament one week and withdrawn the next, there is inevitably suspicion, which I shared until I got the hon. Gentleman's assurances that there was nothing sinister in the withdrawal. I merely flag that up as one of those little points. In dealing with a subject of this nature, it is important to try to get it right first time round—consult all concerned, so that they are not unduly suspicious if a scheme has to be withdrawn suddenly.
The Opposition believe that any compensation scheme must be fair and effectively administered. I am sure that, in drafting the scheme, the Government shared those objectives. Certain questions are left unanswered, however, and I am not certain that the Minister's explanation has fully covered them. I, therefore, seek clarification on a few points.
We introduced the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 to ensure greater protection for the public. As part of that Act, all higher-calibre handguns will be taken out of circulation and destroyed. We seek assurances from the Government that they will ensure that those guns are swiftly destroyed once deposited with the police. Have the Government given serious thought to the time scale between handguns being handed in to police stations and their being destroyed? We do not want handguns lying around in storage for long periods.
The security implications of protecting such armouries from theft would be very great, as, indeed, would be the burden placed on the police, who would no doubt be responsible for keeping them safe. The Minister did not fully answer the question that was put to him on the danger of those weapons lying around too long in police armouries or elsewhere.
I do not seek any information that would identify any locations where the weapons would be kept and could make it easier for terrorists, criminals or anyone else to get their hands on them, but I think that, despite the Minister's assurances that we should not worry because the Government have had intense discussions with the police and are aware that the matter must be dealt with expeditiously and securely, we need more information on how the weapons will be kept, when they will be destroyed and in what circumstances, and whether there
904
will be armouries dotted around the country—with the weapons being passed on to the Army, for example—or one or two grand central armouries.
Mr. Frank Cook: It is refreshing to hear those expressions of concern about such a danger from the right hon. Gentleman, when the same expressions of concern made from the Opposition Benches before the general election were dismissed so easily by the Government of which he was a member.
Mr. Maclean: They were not dismissed so easily; they were not dismissed at all. We were always concerned about the severe security implications when the large number of weapons—160,000 of them—started to come in. It was always our understanding that we would need detailed discussions with the police to ensure that the security arrangements were adequate. We also anticipated that we would have to inform the House what those arrangements would be, and I suspect that we believed that we would have to give a bit more information than the Minister has been able to give tonight.
Of course, I understand that the arrangements may not yet be completed. Different police forces will have different arrangements, but, in due course, if not at the end of tonight's debate, we will need to know more about the security arrangements.
Mr. Michael: I will try to respond to the right hon. Gentleman later in the debate, but I am in a slight difficulty, because he rightly said that he did not want a mass of information that would identify the way in which the items would be dealt with and could cause dangers, but said that he wanted a little more information. I should be grateful if he could explain what additional information he would like. I should certainly be prepared to give him more information discreetly, outside the debate.
Mr. Maclean: We do not need to know addresses, locations and security codes for any of the armouries where the weapons will be stored, but the House and the country need to know whether we anticipate that the weapons will be stored in police armouries in the 43 police forces in England and Wales; whether facilities will be provided by the Ministry of Defence, for example; whether other civilian armouries of a certain security classification can be used instead; how long the Minister would expect the weapons being in the armouries before going to destruction; and what some of the general security arrangements will be, to ensure that it can be clearly certified that all the weapons handed in are destroyed under supervision.
It should be possible for the Government to give that information without revealing anything that would allow terrorists or anyone else to get their hands on those weapons or to breach security.
Mrs. Ann Winterton: In discussing how to dispose of armouries—large numbers of weapons will be involved—will my right hon. Friend join me in suggesting to the Minister that many organisations could help with disposal? Royal Ordnance at Radway Green in my constituency is well placed to do such a job efficiently and quickly. From everyone's point of view, the sooner it is done, the better.
Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend makes a valid point to which the Minister may want to respond.

905
I repeat that more than 160,000 higher-calibre handguns will be handed in to police stations when the Act comes into force. The procedure for storing and scrapping them must be slick, efficient and safe. That is no glib request. I recognise, as we always have, that this is a highly complex operation. The police are experts at a host of things that the rest of us could never dream of doing, but this is not an operation which they have done before. I am sure that they will cope wonderfully well, but, in due course, if not tonight, the House will want to know what the slick, efficient arrangements are for keeping the guns safe and ensuring their speedy disposal and destruction.
It is not clear from the scheme how long handgun owners will have to wait before they receive compensation. Gun owners are keen to hear about that. The Minister hoped that it would be 18 months at the most before all the staff were recruited for the firearms compensation scheme and compensation would be paid. I hope that it will be a lot faster than that in the majority of cases, particularly for options A and B, the straightforward schemes.
I will not at present join my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) in pressing for a 30-day deadline, but I do not see why it should not be as close to that as possible. The Minister, understandably, may not want to fix a deadline at this stage. The staff are not in post and have not been trained; it is difficult to see how things will pan out. However, to say, "Don't worry, everyone will be paid in 18 months," is not much of an assurance. I accept that, in complicated cases, if someone has a rare or speciality firearm that needs to be valued, or if someone comes in at the end of scheme, or if there is a dispute, it could take up to 18 months. For the majority of standard and flat-rate cases, I see no reason why compensation should not be paid rapidly, and close to the 30-day period suggested by my hon. Friend.
The Firearms (Amendment) Act created an exemption for trophies of war. Some handguns are of sufficient historical significance to justify increased market value, but fall outside the exemptions made for trophies of war and antique handguns. Let us say—I wish it were the case, but, unfortunately, it is not—that I owned a handgun that had been owned by a Lord Montgomery or a General de la Billiere. In other respects, it might be a standard military issue weapon such as a 9 mm Browning with nothing else special about it. Such ownership alone would be enough to increase its market value significantly without adaptations, improvements or bells and whistles.
It is not clear from the scheme where I would stand with regard to compensation. Would I come under option B or C? If I were to be compensated under the former, I would receive a sum well below the weapon's market value. There will not be many such cases, but such exceptions can be very unfair to the individuals concerned. We have tried to devise a scheme that is as fair as possible to everyone. I should be grateful if the Minister could cast light on such cases. The Government should also say whether they regard deactivated handguns as legitimate and whether their owners would receive compensation under the scheme.
Finally, I remind the House of the provisions of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997, which has given Britain gun controls which are among the toughest in the world.
906
We introduced the Act to protect the public and, as it is currently framed, I believe that it will achieve that objective. It removes all handguns from general circulation and bans all guns from being kept in the home.
The Government have now proposed that the ban on higher-calibre handguns should be extended to lower-calibre. 22 handguns. We believe that that is not only petty and vindictive, but unnecessary. It would kill the long-established Olympic sport of target shooting which is practised by thousands of law-abiding citizens and at which this country does very well. We have been better at that than at cricket for many years. It would impose a heavy burden of further compensation bills on the taxpayer. It is also possible that extending the ban could reduce public safety by driving some target shooters underground.
The 1997 Act places strict controls on the ownership of. 22 handguns, which protect the public and ensure that law-abiding citizens can still enjoy their Olympic sport. Under the Act,. 22 handguns can only be stored at registered gun clubs that meet the toughest of security criteria. It is also a criminal offence under the Act to take a. 22 handgun out of a licensed club without a police permit. They would be allowed out of a gun club only for repair or if their owner is—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. I am reluctant to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but we are talking about compensation and not about the movement of handguns.
Mr. Maclean: You are absolutely right, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I intended to conclude on compensation, but I thought it right to allude to the Government's proposals to extend the ban on handguns. That will involve massive amounts of extra compensation—much more than the bill that we are currently facing for higher-calibre handguns. On Wednesday, we will discover whether the Government have given any thought to the finance that will be required to compensate owners should the Government go ahead with a complete ban on all handguns.
We welcome the compensation scheme that has been announced by the Government, but I await the Minister's clarifying responses to the points I have raised. I hope that the scheme will ensure an effective and fair compensation settlement for all the owners of higher-calibre handguns.
11.11 pm
Mr. Frank Cook: I want to make a positive and constructive contribution. That was why I asked my hon. Friend the Minister of State whether the schedule to the Act could be changed now either by addition, deletion or amendment. I noted very carefully that he responded, "I am not inviting changes."
Consultations may have taken place until recently, but mine finished at about 8 o'clock tonight. A number of aspects of the compensation scheme still cause considerable concern not only to individual shooters but to dealers in the trade. I should like to refer to one or two of them.
The Minister has already said that a large number of guns in common usage are not listed. He has outlined the proposals to take care of those exceptions. No reference, however, has been made to a number of common factors. For example, between publication of the first draft of the

907
compensation scheme and the third, which was issued on Thursday, all mention of. 38 round-nosed lead ammunition has been removed. That constitutes a large proportion of the ammunition that is used in. 38 calibre handguns. That means that dealers with large stocks might not get compensation.
Unofficially, and under the blanket, the dealers association has been led to believe that although dealers might not get compensation for the. 38 round-nosed lead ammunition as ammunition, they might be able to claim it on the basis of components. That means that they could claim for the content of the casing, the casing itself, the primer and the bullet. I notice that they will not be able to disassemble the munitions, but will have to hand it over as finite rounds. That is because it is illegal to unmake munitions. The only way to get rid of them legally is to fire the damned things.
The irony is that if the advice given under the blanket by the Home Office to the dealers is correct, it will mean that instead of £120 per 1,000 rounds made up, the dealers will get £167 per 1,000 rounds for components that could still be made up anyway. I do not suggest for a moment that if that is true the Minister should block it, because the dealers will lose a major part of their income and will have cash flow problems. It seems that they will have to wait until individual shooters are dealt with before they are able to claim for their losses. It is an anomaly, and it shows that the consultation that the Minister has reported to the House is less than full. He may be satisfied with it, but the trade is not.
The shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) repeated the oft-made claim that 160,000 of these pistols and revolvers will need to be handed in. That figure was arrived at by the police by counting the weapons that are registered on firearms certificates. It takes no account of the weapons that are held in custody by licensed dealers who keep a record of weapons in a register and not on a certificate. Each dealer has a summary certificate and the trade estimates that between 75,000 and 80,000 weapons have not been taken into account by the Government. That means that the Government are more than 50 per cent. out on their figures so far.
Has any account been taken of health and safety regulations in connection with the handing in of weapons at police stations? Those regulations require any premises taking receipt of such commodities to be licensed as a magazine, and they also require the issue of a recipient competent authority document to each person surrendering powders, primers or mixed explosives. Those documents have to be individually signed and supplied to each person surrendering on each occasion.
Does the Minister understand the administrative and bureaucratic burden that he will place on our police service? Will we be able to conduct this exercise, not with 160,000 weapons and their accoutrements but with about 220,000 weapons—nearly quarter of a million—in the space of three months? Is that realistic? Jack the Lad will have a field day in the back streets, getting away with whatever he wants to do, because the police will be bogged down in a morass of paperwork and nonsense.
As has been said about. 38 ammunition, 9 mm full metal jacket and total metal jacket ammunition is useless without handguns, and it accounts for about 40 per cent. of the ammunition that is already stocked. What is to
908
happen to it? There is no mention of compensation in the draft scheme. Is compensation to be paid to dealers? Individual shooters will get compensation for the few rounds that they might have—a couple of hundred rounds here and there—but we are talking about many tens of thousands of rounds. Are the dealers to be compensated for them? It is not mentioned in the draft.
I see that several other hon. Members want to speak, so I shall ask one final question. Who is going to pay compensation to Manchester and the north-west of England? That may seem a strange question to pose at this stage, but let me explain my reasons for asking it. In 2002, the Commonwealth games are due to arrive in the north-west. If run successfully, they will be the source of great income and an economic surge for the country as a whole, the north-west in particular and Manchester especially.
Two of the principal disciplines in shooting in the Commonwealth games are the. 32, which has already been banished, and the. 22. If this legislation passes, we will have no one in 2002 to run those disciplines: we will not have qualified judges or referees and we will, therefore, not be able to mount those disciplines in the Commonwealth games. One of the requirements of the Commonwealth games coming to Manchester was that the full range of shooting disciplines be part of the broad competition. If we make it illegal, we shall not only render our own competitors unable to participate but put the country in grave danger of losing the Commonwealth games that we have already secured for 2002 and wiping out any prospect of getting an Olympic games in the future.
Mr. Peter Atkinson: We will have a Conservative Government by then.
Mr. Cook: I did not come here this evening to listen to third-rate comics from the back of the Gallery.
Jim Fox won the gold medal for the pentathlon, returned to the capital a hero and was feted. If we pass this legislation, the youngsters of tomorrow will have no opportunity to emulate him, because we will have banned all our young people from participating in the pentathlon at any time in the future. I repeat what I have said many times in the House: the Bill is unnecessary, it is irrational, it is unenforceable and I am frankly surprised that we should be pressing it with the same indecent haste that the Tory regime showed in respect of higher-calibre weapons.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before I call the next speaker, I emphasise that this debate is about compensation, which is a very narrow subject.
11.23 pm
Mr. Michael Colvin: I shall certainly take your advice to heart, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because although the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 which has led to this draft compensation scheme was not one of the finer pieces of legislation passed by the House, we will have the opportunity to rerun some of the arguments advanced against it on Wednesday, when we consider the next Firearms (Amendment) Bill.

909
The draft Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 compensation scheme raises almost as many questions as it answers. My first question, of which someone on the Treasury Bench might like to take note so that the Minister can answer it when he makes his winding-up speech, concerns the draft compensation scheme that was laid before Parliament on 25 May and then withdrawn. What changes have been made in the scheme since then? Why was it necessary to withdraw it? Was it just badly spelt, written or drafted, or were specific changes made in the compensation terms, which made it necessary for it to be redrafted and relaid before Parliament?
My second question concerns the scope of the scheme, which is set out on page 2 of the draft compensation document. Paragraph 4 states that the scheme
"does not deal with small-calibre pistols or ancillary equipment for such pistols."
I believe that, at the moment, under the provisions of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997, ex gratia payments are available to those who voluntarily choose to surrender small-calibre pistols. It would make much more sense if a proper compensation scheme for small-calibre pistols were included at this stage, because people who own such pistols may want to surrender them. They may receive compensation that is not nearly as fair as it might be in a later scheme.
If the Firearms (Amendment) Bill that we shall debate on Wednesday is eventually enacted, we shall be re-running all these arguments in a few months' time and drawing up a further draft Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 compensation scheme for small-calibre pistols. Surely the time to agree a proper scheme for small-calibre pistols is now.
Mr. Michael: Several contributions tempt immediate responses, but this one especially. It is proposed that we give ex gratia payments so that shooters who use high-calibre and low-calibre weapons can hand in their weapons in one fell swoop and we can get the weapons out of the way. Many shooters now think, "Let us get it over and done with; let us know where we stand." The lines of the ex gratia scheme will follow the lines of the compensation scheme that is being debated tonight as a measure consequent on the 1997 Act.
Mr. Colvin: I am grateful to the Minister for responding then—it will enable him to cut short his winding-up speech—but he has already run through the options for compensation for large-calibre handguns, setting out the details of the three different options. Is he now saying that the ex gratia payments that will be available to small-calibre pistol owners who choose to surrender them will be based on the three options that are set out in the draft document? If so, I have a further question regarding option C, which is for
"a payment based on an individual valuation of an item's full market value as at or immediately before 16 October 1996".
Will that valuation be firm, or will arbitration be permitted if the owner of the firearm is not satisfied with the decision that has been taken on its value?
The Minister's intervention raises another issue—the total cost of the scheme. Interestingly, the draft, which is the result of many discussions since the original estimate
910
was made when the Bill went to the other place on 5 December 1996, introduces a figure of £150 million as the total cost of compensation mooted under the scheme. In my submission, that estimate is based on very shaky ground.
I appreciate that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has already been obliged to postpone his Budget, which was initially proposed for tomorrow, because of the gaping black hole in his finances and the fact that he is about £;10,000 million short and the money must come from somewhere—he does not know where. Several measures that have come before the House in the past couple of weeks have shown that there are serious deficiencies in the funding arrangements that the Government propose for some of the measures that they are introducing.
Mr. Michael: If the hon. Gentleman wants to make a serious contribution to this debate about compensation, he might bear in mind the thought that the need to pay compensation is our inheritance from the previous Government, as is any black hole anywhere in the economy.
Mr. Colvin: I am not going to be tempted down that path, but the black hole exists because there is a gaping difference between the promises made by the Labour party during the general election campaign and its inheritance from the previous Government in terms of spending commitments that it has already said it will honour.
The question of the cost of the scheme is, however, very relevant. The scheme will clock up still further sums which will have to be found somewhere. It should be borne in mind that the base figure of 160,000 large-calibre pistols that will be surrendered is a Home Office estimate. I do not think that the House, which is now agreeing the terms of the scheme, has any means of assessing how accurate that figure is, and therefore I do not see any way in which we can agree that the total cost of compensation under the scheme will be the round figure of £150 million.
There is a further point that is worth making about cost which relates to the Bill that we shall discuss on Thursday. It concerns small-calibre pistols. According to a figure published by the Home Office, 40,000 such pistols will have to be surrendered. The Minister has said that ex gratia payments will be—or could be—made under the scheme, and that that cost will have to be taken into account and added to the £150 million that we believe it may already cost. How has he arrived at the number of 40,000 small-calibre pistols, and has he any idea what the additional cost of all that will be? There is an estimate of £12 million in the Bill that we are to discuss on Wednesday; once more, I suggest that that figure is hopelessly inadequate.
Paragraph 7 of the scheme gives the impression that the police will be able to lay down where and when the shooter must surrender his or her gun. The Act requires surrender at a designated place within the three-month period, but not at a specified time. The Home Office guidance to police is likely to be that the date of surrender will be by negotiation, but that should be made clear this evening; if it is not, a major question mark will remain over that aspect of surrender.
The Act says that someone who retains a prohibited gun after three months commits an offence. What happens if a person tries to surrender his or her weapon, but is

911
frustrated by the police? Surely the difficulty would be made still worse if some constabularies did not have adequate surrendering points. I would welcome further information from the Minister.
I was pleased that the Minister raised a question that I asked at Home Office questions this afternoon—on compensation for pistol clubs, apart from compensation for the value of their firearms, ammunition and ancillary equipment. A serious case can be made for compensation for the loss of their premises, business and fee income, and for all the other financial costs on top of the loss of their weapons.
I have not seen the official record, but I believe that, in replying to my question this afternoon, the Minister said that, of the 1,440 shooting clubs in England and Wales, only 49 were exclusively pistol—that is 4 per cent. of the total. I think that, by implication, the Minister was saying, "That is not very important; many of these clubs may be able to convert to rifle shooting, and may therefore be able to survive." The fact is, however, that if one club is forced out of business by the Government, that is unfair enough and should be dealt with as a problem; if 49 have to go out of business, with all their membership, the Minister should take the matter seriously, rather than brushing it to one side in the cavalier manner with which he approached my question this afternoon.
11.34 pm
Mr. Thomas Graham: I support the Government, although I believe that they have been over-generous. Some of us might have argued that the compensation should be reduced, but I shall support the Government tonight because it is a move in the right direction.
I listened to the comments of the hon. Member for Ramsey (Mr. Colvin) on compensation. I remember the debates in the House about the BSE disaster, which cost the country billions of pounds. Conservative Members rushed to support the farmers, as did I, to see that farmers received adequate compensation for the savage and tragic problems suffered by their industry. However, I did not hear many Conservative Members arguing for compensation for the workers in meat and leather factories, who survived only because they worked in the meat industry. They have lost their jobs, but they have received no compensation apart from redundancy pay. That was tragic, and the Tory Government were wrong not to compensate the workers who lost their jobs.
I will support the Tory—the Government action to give compensation [Interruption.] Sometimes the House gets like the playhouse—the comedy. It is not a comic show when one considers those in the meat industry who lost their job through no fault of their own. The Tory Government could have taken action a long time ago on mad cow disease. It finally affected the previous Government and was one of the reasons why they were rejected by such large numbers at the general election.
On a more serious note, I will support the Government with great reluctance, as I believe that £150 is far too much compensation for surrendering a weapon. Conservative Members suggested tonight that the measure would drive some shooters underground. Those folk should never have had a licence if they were prepared to break the law. We changed the law in the House of Commons and it is a serious matter to suggest that folk
912
might go underground. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will punish them as hard as he can. As a Scotsman, I remember the Dunblane disaster, which forced the measure on us tonight.
11.36 pm
Miss Ann Widdecombe: I shall be brief, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as you have made me aware that several hon. Members wish to contribute to the debate.
I shall raise two points. The first is on the issue of security, which I raised in an earlier intervention. It is true that, as the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) said, when we as a Government were asked about that issue, we said that due measures would be taken. That was reasonable then, when the scheme had yet to be worked out in detail.
Now that the scheme has been worked out in detail, it is reasonable to ask for a little more than the rather bland assurances that we were given. It is reasonable also to ask that a little more assurance is given openly in the House, although I understand well enough that an offer was made to give rather more information to my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) outside the Chamber. Some more assurances need to be given in the House tonight.
Secondly, I would not dream of detaining the House by discussing the merits of a proposal that has yet to come before it, but it is inconceivable that the very existence of that proposal will not have an impact on the compensation scheme.
We had already agreed—the present Government are following in our footsteps—that if people were surrendering their. 22s as a result of the restrictions that we had introduced, they would receive ex gratia payments, even though we were not strictly at that time obliged to pay, because we had not proposed to ban. 22s. Indeed, I hope that the Government will yet see sense.
It is extremely likely that more people will wish to surrender their. 22s in anticipation of the ban. It must also surely be the case that more clubs will close sooner, because they will not wish to upgrade their security in the knowledge that the sport will not continue. The proposals that have yet to come before us must therefore impact on the scheme in terms of not only the total value of compensation paid—to which my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey (Mr. Colvin) referred—but the administrative load placed on the police and other authorities by people seeking compensation. Has the Minister gauged the impact of his proposals on the scheme in terms of both amounts and additional administrative burdens? Those are important points, and I ask the hon. Gentleman either to address them when he responds to the debate or to write to me subsequently.
11.39 pm
Mr. Richard Allan: The view of the Liberal Democrats, even with our new high-calibre post-election format, remains as it was during the passage of the Firearms (Amendment) Bill earlier this year. We believe that the compensation scheme is okay as far as it goes. The issue is not what anyone might think about the guns themselves, but fairness and justice—concepts to which the Labour party refers constantly.

913
Two areas of compensation must be addressed, and the Minister has not convinced me that that has been done satisfactorily. The first concerns debts incurred by clubs and associations—people who quite properly and innocently took on debts to establish gun clubs several years ago and who, in a few months, may be bankrupt or seriously out of pocket through no fault of their own. The legislation should not leave people with unreasonable liabilities because of Government action.
The second issue involves compensating the gun dealers, who will remain in business after the legislation is passed and the scheme is introduced, for their reduced turnover. We have suggested reasonably that the payment of a year's profit in the affected areas of their business would compensate them for any loss of business. We believe that both the changes would be fair and just and, whatever the decision tonight, we urge the Government to consider them now before gun clubs, associations and businesses face ruinous financial consequences as a result of arbitrary Government legislation.
11.41 pm
Mr. Ian Bruce: I have several questions to which I seek replies from the Minister. The compensation scheme derives directly from the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997. Those who opposed that legislation were told during its passage that the people who would lose their weapons would continue to be able to pursue their sport because they would be compensated for the loss of their high calibre weapons and could use the money to transfer to weapons of. 22 calibre and below. That compensation may be fair for people who could make that change, but it is not fair for those who are being denied the main sporting pursuit of their lives. We must remember that many shooters are devoted to their sport.
We must also consider additional legislation that will affect compensation for high calibre weapons—particularly compensation to gun dealers. Dealers could argue that they would have been compensated for the loss of their high-calibre weapons and would then have sold many smaller-calibre weapons. We must ensure that we compensate properly those gun dealers who will be badly affected by the Government's follow-on legislation. I hope that the Minister is taking careful note of these points.
I challenged the Minister earlier to reveal Labour's position regarding rifles and shotguns. Will Labour salami-slice until it has done away with all shooting? If the Government decree that a type of handgun is too dangerous to own because it may lead to the sort of massacre that occurred in Dunblane, it is logical to assume that they will ban rifles and shotguns also. We cannot expect the owners of rifle ranges to alter their business operations now if there is a chance that the Government might do something different 12 months later. They need to know now about any new proposals. We want some assurances from the Minister that the Labour party will not take action on that.
11.44 pm
Mr. Gerald Howarth: I hope that the Minister took careful note of the speech made by the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook), because he
914
articulated many of my concerns and those of my constituents and many
others throughout the country. It is important to bear in mind the fact that the compensation scheme arises from a most draconian Act, which hit at law-abiding people, depriving them of their sport and almost rendering them criminal—indeed, the hon. Member for West Renfrewshire (Mr. Graham) almost suggested that they were. The Act does nothing to deal with people who hold weapons illegally.
We shall deal with the principle of banning weapons another time. In the meantime, we have to deal with the legislation that is already on the statute book. It has been passed by Parliament, but those who supported it must accept that due compensation should be paid to those who have been engaged in a lawful activity that Parliament has now suddenly rendered unlawful. That is the minimum that those people can expect.
We shall find that the bill is very large. My hon. Friend the Member for Romsey (Mr. Colvin) said that the current figures may well be an underestimate of the amount that will have to be paid out. How much discussion will there be on the figures in the annexes? I have not had an opportunity to see the annexes or to discuss the issue with my constituents before tonight. It would be only fair to consider further whether the figures there represent adequate compensation for depriving people of a lawful activity.
Has the Minister addressed the valuation date of 16 October? Many people in the shooting fraternity believe that that was not a reasonable date to use to arrive at a fair market value. A fair market value should properly be based on a date before the Dunblane tragedy. I should like the Minister to address that.
The Minister was kind enough to give way earlier when I raised the question of weapons that may be held by the police and others which may be placed in museums. He suggested that the issue was dealt with in the Act. I have had a quick look through the Act and I cannot find the information. The issue may be of concern to people who hold historic weapons that they are going to hand in. If they see them on display at their local museum without having been told anything, they may feel offended. The Minister should address that. I should be grateful if he could be more specific.
11.47 pm
Mr. Peter Atkinson: I should declare an interest first, because I am a consultant to the British Field Sports Society. However, handguns play no significant part in any country activity, except for the humane destruction of livestock.
I should like the Minister to expand on the issues put to him by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) about what will happen to gun clubs that will no doubt be destroyed by the Bill that we shall consider within 48 hours. There is a sense of unreality about tonight's debate, because we know perfectly well that, on Wednesday, with their large majority, the Government will force through their measure to ban all handguns, leaving many gun clubs exposed to serious financial loss.
The hon. Member for Hallam asked what would happen if a member of a club had taken bank loans or mortgages to provide facilities for the club. What would happen to the equipment that the club had bought? Annex C lists the equipment that will be compensated for at the moment,

915
but if the next stage of this sad progress goes through, the costs of equipment will be much greater. An automatic target changer can cost between £800 and £900. A club that can exist under the previous Government's proposals, by being able to use. 22s, can still survive, but when further legislation is introduced it will go out of existence. The National Small-bore Rifle Association club, for example, has 10 target changers which represent a considerable sum. We need some clarification about the Minister's thinking on compensation for such people.
Two other points have not been touched on tonight. The first is appeals. It is a moot point whether a weapon has been customised or raised above the level of the standard for sale weapon. Who will determine that? Under the scheme, the chief constable can appoint an outside assessor, but the choice of outside assessor will be solely at the discretion of the chief constable. Can the person who wishes to appeal bring in his own expert? That is a significant point.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) spoke about trophies of war. One can imagine an enormous debate about the value of a weapon that may be a trophy of war. It is wrong that the chief constable should have sole discretion to appoint an expert to determine the value of a weapon. What appeal would there be against the original valuation?
Mr. Colvin: There is a good example of what my hon. Friend refers to quite close to hand. The hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) and I took possession, on behalf of the House, of two presentation pistols at Bisley following the annual shoot against their lordships. Those pistols are in the possession of the House and they are now collectors' pieces. Under the present compensation arrangements, they will get the ordinary market value while their real value in the market at large is very much higher.
Mr. Atkinson: I agree. My hon. Friend illustrates well the problems to which I am alluding and which the Minister will, I hope, deal with in his winding-up speech.
I shall make just one further point, because we want the Minister to have an opportunity to respond fully to our questions. What compensation will there be for electronic security devices? Under the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997, gun clubs had responsibility to enhance their security, which meant not just gun safes, which are mentioned in the compensation scheme, but a lot of complex electronic equipment, some of which has already been installed. Once again, clubs whose future now looks extremely uncertain because of the debate we shall have in less than 48 hours' time face substantial bills for electronic security and surveillance equipment which will be of no value if the next stage of legislation goes through.
11.52 pm
Mr. Michael: I have taken careful note of the variety of concerns that have been expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I assure them that where time prevents me from responding fully, I shall write to them. Many questions were very general and some hon. Members questioned the Act rather than the compensation scheme. There were a number of short questions that would require a long answer. That would be not only unpopular, but impossible within the time available.
916
There were, for example, concerns about the date of base values. Any date is arbitrary to some extent, but we believe that the October date for the basic valuation is fair and reasonable because it is the date when the previous Government took the decision to legislate.
I listened to the pleas of several hon. Members who asked for compensation for business, including a specific suggestion, which included what could be a large figure, from the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan). That would involve finding extra money over and above what the previous Government allowed for in the Act. We would also be setting a precedent in compensating for loss of business and that would not be right.
Hon. Members referred to a number of wider issues that fall outside the scope of the scheme. The voluntary surrender of. 22 weapons is a practical proposition, as I made clear in my opening remarks. It is only sensible to make it possible for people to hand in. 22 weapons and be compensated for them, as well as any larger-calibre weapons, in order to meet the objective of getting as many handguns as possible out of circulation. That is what the scheme is all about.
The merit of implementing the scheme as quickly as possible and giving the new Bill a Second Reading without delay is that before people hand in guns voluntarily, consequent on the decisions that we are taking tonight, they will know the intention and the will of the House of Commons following the general election. By 1 July, when the Act comes into force, they will have had time to consider its implications.
The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) referred to the impact of the new legislation on the police as further weapons will have to be handed in. We have tried to spread the load through the voluntary scheme so that we do not suddenly switch to the handing in of. 22 weapons when the new Bill is passed by both Houses.
The hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) talked about our forcing through a vote to ban. 22 weapons because of the Government's vast majority. I am always glad to refer to our large majority, but it seems to have escaped the hon. Gentleman's notice that we have promised a free vote on the issue. I believe that the vast majority of my right hon. and hon. Friends will support our proposals, as they share the public's belief that a complete ban on handguns is right. That belief will determine the decisions later this week.
Today, we are dealing only with compensation under the existing Act, but making clear the arrangements that we are putting in place for expediting the voluntary surrender of lower calibre weapons.
It is clear that my hon. Friend the Member for West Renfrewshire (Mr. Graham) spoke for the silent majority in the House and elsewhere. Like the previous Government, we are in the business of getting rid of dangerous weapons. That is why we have produced a compensation scheme that meets the commitments that they made during the passage of the 1997 Act. We want to be fair to those who are losing the opportunity to take part in a sport that they have engaged in quite legitimately up to now, but we have no intention of going beyond providing the compensation for guns and ancillary equipment that was promised at the time.
I, too, dismiss the idea that shooters will go underground. I was surprised that the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) should raise

917
such an issue. Time and again, it has been stressed that those taking part in shooting are law-abiding citizens. In that case, they will not go underground; they will obey the law. We need to ensure that the law is clear and reflects the will of the public and the House, and that we are as fair as is reasonable in compensating people for the value of their weapons and ancillary equipment. That is why we are introducing the scheme which will provide reasonable, if not generous, compensation.
Like the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border, the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald wanted more information about the disposal of weapons. There is no secret about the general storage of weapons. Arrangements are simply best left to local police discretion. Some forces will store weapons at several locations in force areas—some forces cover a much bigger area than others—others are making facilities available under central force arrangements. Security is paramount in police planning. We discussed the issue with the police in advance of presenting the arrangements. We discussed, for example, the option of centralised arrangements rather than disposal on a more local basis. After listening to advice from the police, the general view was that it was greatly preferable and more secure to deal with disposal on a local basis.
It is impossible to say how long weapons will be stored—another question that was raised—because that will depend on how quickly the claims can be processed. Weapons and equipment can be disposed of only when the claims have been dealt with. I can, however, assure the House that the weapons will be destroyed as soon as is practicable.
There were suggestions that immense difficulties will be created for the police and that they have no precedent for such an exercise. In the 1996 amnesty, 23,000 guns were disposed of; in 1988, 48,000 guns were stored and then destroyed by the police service. To answer another question, there is no compensation for deactivated weapons, which are not covered by the Act and will not therefore be surrendered.
There was a reference to weapons that have some special value as a result of, for instance, being owned by General Sir Peter de la Billiere. Presumably they would be of additional value if he had owned them when he served as general officer commanding in Wales. There are arrangements for such weapons in the proposals. The weapons would fall under option C, under which individuals can come forward with specific valuations. They could seek exemption from prohibition under section 7 of the Act concerning firearms of historic interest if the interest in them was considerable enough to justify such exemption.
The hon. Member for Romsey (Mr. Colvin), who wanted to spend an awful lot of public money, seemed to want to limit the police's power to lay down details of the arrangements for when people can hand in weapons. Making such arrangements will of course take police time
918
and it is sensible and logical for the police to make them in relation to time and place, and for the people who are to hand in weapons to be notified. The exercise cannot simply be carried out on a total open door basis. That is especially true of rural areas, where distance as well as security may be of particular significance.
The hon. Member for Romsey asked some questions about the estimates and figures that have been bandied around. The original 200,000 estimate was based on returns from a survey of all police forces conducted in the summer of 1996. Subsequently, a sample of a limited number of forces was undertaken to identify the total. About 40,000 of those identified were small-calibre pistols.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) made a powerful speech. I understand his passion on the issue and that he is opposed to the Act altogether. We are discussing not the Act but levels of compensation. He talked about disassembling ammunition. At the beginning of the debate, I referred to the arrangements that we propose that will apply to expanding ammunition and ancillary equipment that can be used only in connection with firearms that become prohibited.
My hon. Friend referred to the possibility of claiming for components of expanding ammunition. That is not part of our proposal. That was a suggestion from the gun trade which the Home Office undertook to consider. It was not advice that the Home Office gave to the trade. My hon. Friend based his remarks on a misunderstanding of the consultation that has taken place.
We have tried to be open and clear about how we want to deal with the issues. There will be an impact on those who have legitimately taken part in a sport that will now be banned. That will affect the Commonwealth games and the bid for the Olympics, but the Secretary of State has power, under the existing firearms laws, to give special authority to allow competitions to take place involving prohibited weapons. That dispensation can be used for Commonwealth and Olympic pistol-shooting competitions. British participation in such competitions is, however, unlikely to continue, because of the impact of the bans. That is sad for those who have taken part and wish to continue to take part in those sports, but that is part of the price that has to be paid for determining that the protection of the public must come first.
The business before us tonight is agreeing to make reasonable compensation to those who will no longer be able to use—
It being one and half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 16 (Proceedings under an Act or on European Community documents).
Question agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 Compensation Scheme, which was laid before this House on 3rd June, be approved.

Public Sector Borrowing Requirement
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Jane Kennedy.]
12.5 am
Mr. Ken Livingstone: I am especially happy, so close to the Budget, to raise one or two issues about the Government's finances, which were-oddly enough—touched on in the debate on handguns. An Opposition Member pointed out that there is a black hole, as it has become known, in Government finances. We did not hear an apology from any Opposition Member for leaving us that happy legacy, but the Government face several major problems in clearing up the mess that we inherited.
We saw a tremendous burst of enthusiasm and publicity for the decision to set the Bank of England free to set interest rates. Much play was made of the fact that, in the days immediately following the decision, long-term interest rates declined. On 6 May, when the Chancellor made his announcement, long-term interest rates—by which I mean United Kingdom 10-year Government bonds—were running at 7.1 per cent. By the end of that week, they had declined to 6.95 per cent. and everybody welcomed that. It was not mentioned that by 29 May and throughout that week the rate had crept up by 0.5 per cent., which more than compensated for the initial decline.
The rate increased by 0.25 per cent. over the rate before we gave the Bank of England freedom to set interest rates. That shows that the international money markets do not judge the management of the British state's finances and our economic health by whether the Chancellor or a Central Intelligence Agency agent—I understand that such a person is one of our new appointments—makes the decision on interest rates. I did not notice in Labour's manifesto a promise to appoint former CIA agents to determine Britain's interest rates, but we all live and learn. However, that is not the issue.
What determines long-term interest rates is the assessment that the money markets make about the long-term health of the British economy. On the key indices, for all the flim-flam and nonsense during the election campaign, we have serious problems. When the money markets set long-term interest rates, they assess the balance between savings and consumption in the British economy. Part of the problem for our economy is that we have saved far too little for decades—the problem was accelerated during the Thatcher regime when tax cuts led to a further structural imbalance in public finances—and we have invested far too little. That problem was exacerbated under the previous Government.
I was struck by the then Chancellor's performance during the run-up to the election and by his constant emphasis on the golden rule. That is the idea that over an economic cycle we should not borrow. We might borrow during the downswing, but the borrowing must be repaid during the upswing. If we apply that golden rule now, we should have repaid Government debt in each of the past three years. We should see a reduction in the public sector borrowing requirement and in total Government debt. Instead, it has crept up from about 25 per cent. of gross domestic product, when the previous Prime Minister took office in 1990, nearly to the 60 per cent. limit that will cause problems with the Maastricht criteria. I do not believe that Governments can borrow their way out of recessions.
920
I expect to see the Government carry out the commitment to the golden rule, which means that we should not continue borrowing this year. There should be substantial tax increases so that we do not continue to pile up the burden of debt. At this stage in the cycle, we should have been repaying for about two to three years.
There has recently been a rather bizarre green budget from Goldman Sachs and the Institute of Fiscal Studies. There has been talk in glowing terms of Government debt reducing to about zero by the turn of the century. That, however, is wildly optimistic. So many of the assumptions in that green budget are optimistic. I hope sincerely that no one on the Government Front Bench will pay much attention to the predictions that are contained within it.
It is true that the level of Government spending has reduced—we might assume that it will reduce dramatically over the next few months given a dramatic increase in tax revenues coming to the Government as more is spent in the consumer boom that is building up—but dis-saving in the corporate sector has more than matched that improvement in Government finances.
I know that "dis-saving" is a ghastly term, meaning the reverse of saving, but let us consider the second quarter of 1996. As a proportion of gross domestic product, the dis-saving by Government was 4 per cent. By the fourth quarter of that year, only six months later, it had fallen to 1.3 per cent. Goldman Sachs and the Institute of Fiscal Studies, for example, were saying, "This is a dramatic 2.7 per cent. improvement." But that was more than matched by a worsening in the corporate sector of 2.9 per cent. Company savings over that period dramatically declined.
Once again, we are seeing a reduction in savings and an increase in consumption. It is like pressing one side of a mattress and seeing the other side rise. Until we tackle the underlying imbalance in the economy, an impact on reducing Government debt could be wiped out by a reverse effect in the corporate sector or even in personal savings.
The green budget is quite glowing about our prospects, but, in reality, total savings within the economy, as a proportion of GDP, declined from 16.4 to 16.1 per cent. How does that relate to investment? If we cannot increase the level of savings, we cannot increase the level of investment. It is especially significant and disturbing that the level of investment in the economy as a proportion of GDP is lower than it was during Mrs. Thatcher's first recession. That is stunning. In the midst of that devastating recession, the then Government presided over a higher level of investment than was achieved after five years of sustained growth in the economy.
The long-term implications are devastating. If we make a simple comparison between ourselves and Germany, we should be aware that the latest figure for the UK for the first quarter of this year is 15.2 per cent. of GDP savings while in Germany, for the last quarter of last year—the latest figure that is available—the proportion is 21 per cent. Until we close that gap, we shall continue to decline in relation to the strength of the German economy. Any question of being able to join monetary union or even re-enter the exchange rate mechanism would be extremely painful.
I shall conclude by spelling out what we should do. We need to tackle the so-called black hole in Government finances with a set of policies that improve the level of

921
investment. A clear and obvious approach would be a tax on dividends. That would immediately bring in billions of pounds to the Government, thus eliminating borrowing problems. At the same time, we would create a climate in which business would be encouraged to invest rather than to consume profits. That would put us more in the frame of mind of, for example, German and Japanese corporate leaders.
The second obvious option is the utilities tax, which the Government are committed to introducing. How much better it would be if we were to pitch the tax at a realistic level of £10 billion. I do not take that figure simply on the basis of saying that that is twice what we think that we shall get from my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is the figure which every independent City analyst of what the utilities could sustain has said is possible. If the utilities can sustain it, we should encourage them to make a major contribution to the restoration of sanity in our public finances and the increase in investment.
If either of those options were too radical, I can think of many other areas. We could have a higher rate of capital gains tax on short-term profit-taking—once more, bringing money into government, but encouraging long-term investment by British industry. Certainly, we should think in terms of halving the rate of advanced corporation tax relief from 20 to 10 per cent.
Between all those, we can get the money from the corporate sector to restore some semblance of balance. I suppose that some people would criticise that as quite a monetarist approach, but those are radical measures which need to be taken. I would not want to be divisive in these days of harmony, but it struck me as odd that the cost of keeping British troops in Germany is between £2 billion and £3 billion. Given that the Russians have gone home and could not fight their way across Chechnya, I do not think that they are going to sweep across the central European plain. It seems barmy that we are paying between £2 billion and £3 billion a year to keep British forces in Germany.
Finally, we must consider what the individual should be contributing. At a time when we have major problems with financing and under-investment, we look as though we are set for another mini consumer boom of the same sort that was orchestrated by Nigel Lawson in the 1980s, although on a smaller scale. Look at the pattern. Consumer spending is already increasing and outstripping the growth of gross domestic product—an unsustainable position. Also, £30 billion in windfalls is about to land in the pockets of people throughout the country from the flotation of insurance companies and building societies, all of which could fuel a massive consumer boom. We are already starting to see the impact of that in London and the south-east, where house prices have started to rocket again, particularly those at the top end of the market.
I see some Opposition Members nodding enthusiastically at the return to the lunacies of Lawson. The trouble is that those sort of lunacies have to be corrected by a savage recession to restore the damage—a recession of the sort that we lived through in the late 1980s and 1990s. Therefore, there would be a boom that mainly benefited the well-off in the south-east, but the
922
consequences would fall on industry and the population in general, once again wiping out a substantial proportion of our industrial base.
While we should tackle the underfinancing of the state by the corporate sector, we also need to consider what the individual should be putting in. It is clear that we cannot go back on our commitment not to raise the basic or top rate of tax, but we should remove the loopholes because they are almost exclusively used by the very well-off. We should consider a substantial increase in stamp duty for the more expensive end of the homes market. I certainly hope that we will consider eliminating mortgage tax relief—anything that removed this obsession that we have with investing in our housing, rather than in industry, would be well worth doing.
Finally, what of national insurance contributions? We were rather vague about those during the general election campaign, thank God. We have left ourselves the freedom to remove the cut-off on those contributions. I do not want to be unpleasant to anyone who is struggling on a middle income, but why not have national insurance contributions paid on all earnings over £50,000? Why not a double levy on all earnings over £100,000, so that those who have done best in the past 18 years, can make a bigger contribution now to resolving the mess that we have inherited?
I have spelt out more than enough tax increases to close the gap in Government financing. We should also restore substantially the contingency fund because I suspect that in the next year we will find that we have been left many crises by the outgoing Government, for example, in the funding of the health service and education.
If we restore the public finance and stop borrowing this year to fund revenue spending, we should create the climate and the markets in which long-term interest rates come down. My only worry is that the mindset of many people on the new Monetary Policy Committee may mean that we have to do something incredibly radical to break them out of their fixation with increased interest rates.
Perhaps when Eddie George retires and the shadow Chancellor has finally been worked over by his own party, we could do a lot worse than appoint him as Governor of the Bank of England, as he obviously had the right approach as Chancellor, of favouring the needs of industry over those of the City
12.20 am
The Paymaster General (Mr. Geoffrey Robinson): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) on securing the debate. He will be aware that he has provided me with a unique occasion on which to make my ministerial debut in front of a tense, crowded and excited House. If the debate does not entirely fulfil his expectations, he might reflect on the subject that he has chosen and its timing—the public sector borrowing requirement, a few weeks ahead of the Budget. I crave his indulgence, as I fear that I may not rise to his expectations.
The Government's central economic objective is high and stable levels of growth and employment, so that we may improve the living standards of all, and not just the few. That can be achieved only with monetary and fiscal stability, as the essential framework for reviving long-term economic performance.

923
The Chancellor's announcement of 7 May, giving the Bank of England responsibility for setting interest rates, will go some way towards providing the low inflation and stable interest rates necessary for a successful economy. My hon. Friend referred to the fact that the Chancellor showed exceptional boldness in moving within a few days of taking office to provide the Bank of England with the necessary autonomy to set interest rates, while—this is an important point that my hon. Friend did not make—retaining for the Government the essential responsibility for setting the inflation target.
My hon. Friend made light-hearted reference to the establishment of the Monetary Policy Committee, which is a further important step towards providing the stability that we need. If one thing is clear from the 18 years of Tory rule, it is that the biggest enemy of growth is the boom and bust economy that the Tories created.
We had the two deepest recessions in the post-war period, with unsustainable booms occurring intermittently between them. That is the biggest enemy of the investment in skills, infrastructure, education and industry that my hon. Friend wishes to see. That view is shared by all Labour Members. Unless we can get that stability and that long-term view of the management of economic policy, we shall not get the investment and savings that he referred to as the essential basis on which to build our economic policy.
My hon. Friend rightly made much of the mismanagement of the PSBR under the Tories. At its peak, in 1993–94, the PSBR was more than £45 billion, or 7 per cent. of gross domestic product—more than twice the Maastricht criterion to which my hon. Friend referred. The previous year, 1992–93—not coincidentally, the year of the general election—it was more than 6 per cent. of GDP. Traditionally, as we know, the Tories manage to engineer a pre-election consumer boom in an election year, and that year was no exception.
Ms Diane Abbott: If allowing the Bank of England to ratchet up interest rates untrammelled is such a good idea for industry, why have the Confederation of British Industry, the Engineering Employers Federation and other broad-based groups speaking for industry complained so bitterly about the trend in interest rates and the overvalued pound that is a consequence?
Mr. Robinson: I thank my hon.. Friend for her intervention. She overlooks the fact that the CBI welcomed the steps that we took to give the Bank of England independence, to establish the monetary committee and to separate regulation from the Bank so that it can concentrate on its core function, the delivery of the inflation target set by the Government. It is no good trying to get away from the central basis for what we need: stability and steady, sustainable growth. There is no solution other than growth to our economic problems, but growth must be sustainable, and it can be sustainable only if we get away from the stop-go economics of the past.
Of course, the Conservatives saw the error of their ways immediately after the 1992 general election and predicted in every subsequent Budget that the public finances would be put back on a sound footing with the PSBR getting back to balance "over the medium term", to quote the former Chancellor. That has not happened. The projected
924
date for balance has been pushed back year after year, and the underlying problem of public finances has not been addressed. In fact, the burden of public debt has risen, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East rightly said, by almost two thirds since 1990–91. Six years into the recovery, the Budget deficit is still high.
The Chancellor has already taken action to strengthen fiscal stability. The announcement that the conventions and assumptions underlying the current economic forecasts are to be examined by Sir John Bourn, the head of the independent National Audit Office, shows that the Government are determined to improve the credibility of the public finances. The Government's willingness to be more open and accountable in probing our fiscal projections is an impressive innovation. However, we must also have clear guidelines on how the public finances are to be managed.
Although the PSBR has fallen from the very high levels of a few years ago, we would still like significant further improvement before we can be confident that the public finances are on a sound long-term footing. To achieve that, the Government have promised to take a tough approach to the public finances. We have two clear principles on how they should be managed. First, and my hon. Friend made some telling points on this, we shall enforce the golden rule. That means that over the economic cycle, we shall borrow only to finance public investment and not current expenditure. Secondly, over the economic cycle we shall ensure that public debt as a proportion of national income is at a stable and prudent level.
To achieve those aims, the Government will need to have firm control over public spending. We have committed ourselves to existing public spending plans for 1997–98 and 1998–99. That will help to bring the public finances under control and give Departments the time that they need to undertake the comprehensive spending review announced by the Prime Minister. The review will examine how the Government's priorities can best be met within available resources and will focus on the medium term.
The Government will be a wise spender, not a big spender. The myth that spending is the solution to all problems has been well and truly dispelled by the Conservative Administrations. Under the Conservatives, spending rose and average spending was a higher proportion of national income than it was when the previous Labour Government left office. Those higher levels of spending have not succeeded in bringing about greater fairness or less poverty. The number of people of working age dependent on social security benefits has increased over the past 18 years. Almost one in five households of working age contain no one in work. Eighteen years of Tory government have shown that the overall level of public spending is neither the best, nor a particularly good, measure of the effectiveness of government in meeting the public interest.
Under this Government, public spending decisions will be guided by three principles. First, the Government do not have to act on their own in every area. The public interest can be met by the Government setting standards for the private sector—by the public sector working with the private sector to meet shared objectives. Labour pioneered the idea of public-private partnerships. Labour local authorities have done most to create such partnerships at local level. Since we took office, we have announced a review of the private finance initiative to investigate what obstacles stand in the way of bringing

925
projects to fruition and how the process can be streamlined. We have already ended universal testing, which has been a recipe for frustration and delay. We have set up the review that is being undertaken by Malcolm Bates to find out how we can further streamline the process in the centre of government, to ensure that the PFI is much more effective. We have also asked each Department to come forward with its own priorities and to have a general plan against which we can judge where we can best bring those priorities forward in the public interest.
Secondly, we believe that efficiency and value for money are of prime importance. Every penny of public spending must be justified by its objectives and efficiency.
Thirdly, public spending decisions must be based on clear priorities. The Government aim to shift public spending away from welfare arising from economic failure and towards spending on public investment, including investment in education and skills. By justifying public spending decisions with reference to those priorities, we shall ensure that public funds are put to the best use.
As with public spending, the Government have clear principles by which tax policy will be guided. Our manifesto stated:
"There will be no return to the penal tax rates that existed under both Labour and Conservative Governments in the 1970s."
926
I was pleased to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East endorse that. I did not always think that I might live to see that day after his performance in a certain other distinguished role that he played at about the same time that I was also running a different sort of organisation, but there we are.
Instead of a return to such penal tax rates, the Government will shape tax policy to encourage employment opportunities and work incentives for all and to promote savings and investment. It will also be designed to be fair and to be seen to be fair. The windfall tax comes within that framework. It also allows us to fulfil an important manifesto pledge to take 250,000 young people and long-term unemployed off benefit and give them the opportunity of work, education and training.
Those principles also lie behind the Government's intention to reduce VAT on fuel to 5 per cent. in the forthcoming Budget, and our pledge not to extend VAT to food, children's clothes, books, newspapers and public transport fares.
Those are the policies for the way forward for the current Government, to bring our borrowing down to acceptable levels, to ensure growth, and to achieve our economic objectives.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes to One o'clock.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Entry Clearance
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many people are awaiting entry clearance to join their families in the United Kingdom from Bangladesh. [1899]

  Mr. Fatchett
  On 3 June 3,733 people were awaiting entry clearance for settlement to join their families in the United Kingdom from Bangladesh.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many people from India are awaiting entry clearance to join their families in the United Kingdom. [1900]

  Mr. Fatchett
  Posts in India are in the process of collating the information required. I will write to the hon. Member when the answer is complete.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many people from Pakistan are awaiting entry clearance to join their families in the United Kingdom. [1901]

  Mr. Fatchett
  On 4 June 3,470 people from Pakistan were awaiting entry clearance for settlement to join their families in the United Kingdom.

  Amsterdam Summit
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the policy that Her Majesty's Government will adopt at Amsterdam regarding the proposed new article 6a to the treaty of the European Community. [2168]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  We support the draft article.

  Visitor's Visas (Tunisians)
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many Tunisians were(a) successful and (b) unsuccessful in obtaining a visitor's visa to enter the United Kingdom in 1996; and of those who were successful, how many were unmarried. [2186]

  Mr. Fatchett
  In 1996, 2,416 Tunisian nationals were issued visitors visas by the British Embassy in Tunis. A total of 406 visit applications were refused. The number of Tunisian applicants issued and refused visit visas worldwide and the numbers of those who were married is not readily available and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.
  292

  Nigeria
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement concerning relations between Britain and Nigeria. [2445]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Britain has a long-standing and close association with Nigeria and its people which continues. We are determined to ensure that their human rights are respected. We will need to see real progress towards the restoration of accountable, democratic government and respect for human rights, before our relations with the Nigerian regime can improve.

  St. Helena
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will name the previous five governors of St. Helena; and in each case list their subsequent two career moves. [1095]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The previous five Governors of St. Helena and their subsequent two career moves are as follows:

  (i) Geoffrey Guy CMG, CVO, OBE (1976–81). Retired from Diplomatic Service on departing St. Helena.

  (ii) John Massingham CMG (1981–85). High Commissioner Georgetown 1985–87, Consul General Johannesburg 1987–89.

  (iii) Francis Baker CBE, OBE (1984–88). Has worked in private industry since departing St. Helena.

  (iv) Robert Stimson CMG (1988–91). Retired from Diplomatic Service on departing St. Helena.

  (v) Alan Hoole OBE (1991–95). Governor of Anguilla 1995 to May 1997.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps the High Commission takes to maintain contact with, and provide information to, British passport holders resident in Zimbabwe. [1966]

  Mr. Fatchett
  Our High Commission in Harare maintains contact with British residents in Zimbabwe through its Consular offices in Harare and annual Consular surgeries in Bulawayo and elsewhere. The High Commission also has a network of Consular Correspondents and have close links with the Zimbabwe Britain Society.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what aid her Department allocates to Zimbabwe; if she will list the projects supported; and what checks her Department carries out to ensure the aid is deployed in accordance with its policy. [1965]

  Clare Short
  A Country Aid Programme Statement for Zimbabwe was issued in April 1996. I am also placing a list of current projects in the Library of the House. The projects are appraised and monitored by the Department's Development Division in Central Africa, which is based in Harare. In 1995–96 the total expenditure on the programme was £14.8 million.
  293

  Biodiversity
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what initiatives her Department will be pursuing at the United Nations General Assembly Special Session to further the work of
  the Biodiversity convention. [2218]

  Clare Short
  My Department is committed to helping developing countries to implement the Convention on Biological Diversity. We are still considering, with colleagues in Whitehall, what initiatives might be announced at the United Nations General Assembly Special Session.

  UNESCO
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what will be the Government's contribution to UNESCO once it resumes membership on 1 July. [2161]

  Clare Short
  I refer the hon. Member to the replies I gave to the hon. Member for Richmond Park, (Hansard 2 June 1997, volume 295 column 26) and to the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, (Hansard 20 May 1997, volume 294 column 37).

  Indonesia
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if it is her policy to provide aid to Indonesia for projects of general application which treat East Timor as a province of Indonesia. [2268]

  Clare Short
  No aid given by us to Indonesia implies recognition of sovereignty over East Timor. Whether any future project of general application might affect East Timor would be a matter for consideration in each case.

  Project

  Indonesian Authority

  UK Company

  Agreement Date

  Type of Agreement

  Project Completion date

  Contract value (£ million)

  ATP value (£ million)

  Sector

  Auto Industry Development Study

  Ministry of Communications

  De Monfort Management Ltd.

  7 Janaury 1991

  ATP/TC

  1991

  0.49

  0.49

  Transport

  Western Universities Equipment

  Directorate General of Higher Education

  Philip Harris International/ Gallenkamp

  14 May 1991

  Soft Loan

  12,016

  14.28

  13.67

  Misc.

  Steel Bridging II

  Ministry of Public Works

  Mabey and Johnson

  22 May 1991

  Soft Loan

  12,016

  3.83

  3.67

  Transport

  Flight Simulator

  Merpati Nusantara

  Aeronautical Systems Designers

  20 June 1991

  Soft Loan

  12,016

  4.97

  4.66

  Transport

  Bali and Medan Airport Security

  Ministry of National Development Planning

  IAL International Aeradio Ltd.

  21 August 1991

  Soft Loan

  12,016

  11.45

  10.46

  Misc.

  Jambi Power Station

  Ministry of National Development Planning

  Mirrlees Blackstone (STPT) Ltd.

  21 August 1991

  Soft Loan

  12,016

  5.74

  5.35

  Power

  Cikampek-Padalarang Toll Road

  Ministry of Communications

  Cementation

  15 October 1991

  ATP/TC

  1992

  1.7

  1.7

  Transport

  Design Study Western Universities Training Centre

  Directorate General of Higher Education

  Sunderland Engineering Education Services

  29 August 1992

  ATP/TC

  1996

  2.21

  2.21

  Education

  Flight Simulator Consultancy

  Ministry of Communications

  Civil Aviation Authority

  24 Janaury 1992

  ATP/TC

  1996

  0.39

  0.39

  Transport

  Samarinda Power Station

  Perusahaan Umum Listrik Negara

  Rolls Royce

  6 Marh 1995

  Soft Loan

  21998

  45.81

  12.57

  Power

  Samarinda Transmission Line

  Perusahaan Umum Listrik Negara

  Clough Smith

  10 May 1995

  Soft Loan

  21998

  4.24

  1.60

  Power

  294
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the(a) allocated and (b) actual expenditure on each aid-and-trade provision project in Indonesia for each of the financial years since 1993–94. [2271]

  Clare Short
  The table below shows the Aid and Trade Provision projects in Indonesia for which aid agreements have been concluded since 1993. The table also shows expenditure to date. None of these projects has yet been completed.

  Project

  Date of agreement

  ATP value (£ million)

  Expenditure to date (£ million)

  150/500Kv Substations

  10 August 1995

  15.516

  12.978

  Samarinda Power Station

  6 March 1995

  12.570

  9.844

  Samarinda Transmission Line

  10 May 1995

  1.600

  1.359

  Piston Engine Research Laboratory

  12 January 1996

  4.640

  2.335

  Science and Technology Equipment

  6 September 1996

  4.340

  2.491

  Science and Technology Equipment

  6 September 1996

  0.550

  0.035

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the aid-and-trade provision project agreements concluded with the Indonesian authorities since 1991, listing for each project(a) the date of the agreement and the expected completion date, (b) the type of agreement, (c) the contract value and ATP value, (d) the United Kingdom company and Indonesian authority involved and (e) the sector involved. [2270]

  Clare Short
  Details of all Aid and Trade projects in Indonesia on which agreements have been concluded since 1991 are set out below.
  295

  Project

  Indonesian Authority

  UK Company

  Agreement Date

  Type of Agreement

  Project Completion date

  Contract value (£ million) 46.81

  ATP value (£ million)

  Sector

  150/1500KV Substation Project

  P.T. Perusahaan Listrik Negara (Persero)

  GEC Alsthom

  10 August 1995

  Mixed Credits

  21998

  46.81

  15.52

  Power

  Piston Engines Research Laboratory

  Agency for the Assessment and Application of Technology

  G. Cussons Ltd.

  12 Janaury 1996

  Soft Loan

  21999

  14.76

  4.64

  Science and Technology

  Science and Technology Project, Java Universities

  Ministry of Education

  Phillip Harris International Ltd.

  15 March 1996

  Soft Loan

  21998

  14.13

  4.5

  Education

  Notes:

  1 These projects have been physically completed, but disbursements will continue over the length of the full loan period (25 years).

  2 These dates are provisional and final completion will depend on satisfactory progress with imnplementation.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement about the future provision of aid-and-trade provision assistance to Indonesia. [2272]

  Clare Short
  As I explained to the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby on 21 May, we will be reviewing all our expenditure programmes to ensure that we concentrate our efforts on poverty eradication. This means that we will be reviewing the Aid and trade Provision; and any review of ATP will naturally look at how it has operated in Indonesia, and whether it should continue to do so.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what training or assistance is currently being provided by her Department to the Indonesian police force; and if she will make a statement about the future provision of aid to the Indonesian police force. [2269]

  Clare Short
  Assistance to the Indonesian police force ended in March 1996. No further assistance is planned.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) what representations her Department will make at the forthcoming meeting of the Consultativie Group on Indonesia on(a) East Timor, (b) human rights and (c) good governance; [2273]

  (2) what level of aid commitment her Department plans to make at the forthcoming meeting of the Consultative Group on Indonesia; and if she will make a statement about the extent to which the aid commitment will be dependent on the improvement of human rights in Indonesia and East Timor. [2274]

  Clare Short
  We shall take every opportunity to make known to the Indonesian Government our concerns about these issues. As to future commitments this will be covered by the review I propose to undertake.Hansard, Volume 294, Col. 93 of 21 May refers.

  Military Equipment Sales
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement about the machinery which will be put in place to ensure that her Department is able to make representations to other departments on the impact on development of the sale of military equipment to developing countries(a) in general terms and (b) in respect of specific export licence applications. [2275]
  296
  Clare Short
  As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary announced on 22 May Hansard column 135, we have initiated the urgent review of the detailed criteria used in considering licence applications for the export of conventional arms. This review will include the role of all Departments involved, including my own Department. This new criteria will be made available to the House when the review is complete.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement about the steps she will take to ensure that assistance provided by her Department is not linked to the sale of military equipment to that country. [2276]

  Clare Short
  This Government will never link sales of military equipment to the provision of British development assistance, either directly or indirectly.

CABINET OFFICE

  Cabinet Committees
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio if he will list the Cabinet committees(a) of which he is a member and (b) which he chairs. [2560]

  Mr. Mandelson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given today by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Key Stage 2 Results Booklet
  Audrey Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many copies of the booklet "Primary School Performance Tables 1996 Key Stage 2 Results", were distributed to schools; and how much this cost. [2135]

  Dr. Howells
  An initial total of 1.12 million copies of the booklets were sent to primary and nursery schools in England on the date of publication at a cost of £264,000 for production and £236,000 for distribution. Schools were invited to request further copies according to their needs. Copies were also available to the public and it is not possible to separate schools' requests from those of the public.
  297

  European Convention on Human Rights (Disabled People)
  Mrs. Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the implications for disabled people of signing the European Convention on Human Rights. [2172]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  We will introduce a Bill to incorporate the main provisions of the convention into domestic law. This will enable our domestic courts to consider claims that the rights of disabled people (and others) under the convention have been violated.

  School Discipline
  Liz Blackman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what action he proposes to take in support of teachers and schools confronted by persistent poor behaviour on the part of a small number of pupils. [2181]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Following wide consultation, we will issue detailed new guidance for schools and local education authorities, including advice on good practice, to accompany implementation of the discipline provisions in the Education Act 1997. We will support locally devised projects to tackle behaviour problems under the grants for education support and training (GEST) programme, and will take more active steps to disseminate examples of good practice emerging from these projects.

  School Deficits
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment whether school deficits, actual and projected have been included in the public sector borrowing requirement calculation, for(a) 1995–96, (b) 1996–97 and (c) 1997–98. [2206]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 6 June 1997]: The public sector borrowing requirement does not take account of the net deficit or surplus of funds held by schools.

TREASURY

  Illegal Drugs
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to prevent the importation of illegal drugs into the United Kingdom. [923]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Lead responsibility for preventing the importation of illicit drugs rests with HM Customs and Excise. The department's current Management Plan, a copy of which has been placed in the Library, gives details of how it will be taking its work forward over the period to 1999–2000. Tackling drugs smuggling is the department's top anti-smuggling priority.

  In recent years the department has moved to a system of flexible, mobile controls that are carefully targeted on the areas of greatest risk. It is making increased use of intelligence to target major criminals and drug smuggling organisations, and is currently implementing a range of measures to maximise its effectiveness in depriving drug traffickers of the proceeds of their crimes. A key element in the department's approach is close co-operation with other UK agencies involved in the fight against drugs,
  298
  including the police. The department is also active in fostering co-operation with overseas law enforcement agencies and the business community. Other measures under development include improved risk assessment, further steps to optimise the deployment of resources and the provision of better information for anti-smuggling staff.

  In 1996–97 the department prevented drugs to a street value of more than £1.5 billion from entering the UK, while dismantling or significantly disrupting 100 smuggling organisations.

  Tax Returns
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of tax returns were received by the Inland Revenue more than 12 months after the date of issue. [2131]

  Dawn Primarolo
  An exercise carried out for the 1995–96 tax year indicated that the percentage of returns outstanding 12 months after issue was as follows:

  Type of individual taxpayer served with a return

  Percentage of returns still outstanding 12 months after issue

  Directors, employees and pensioners

  3

  Self employed individuals

  23

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of tax returns were received by the Inland Revenue(a) prior to 31 October, (b) between 1 November and 31 January and (c) between 1 February and 5 April following the end of the tax year. [2129]

  Dawn Primarolo
  An exercise conducted for the 1995–96 tax year indicated that the percentage of tax returns received was as follows:

  Type of individual taxpayer served with a return

  Percentage of tax returns received by Inland Revenue

  Prior to 31 October

  1 November to 31 January

  1 February to 5 April

  Directors, employees and pensioners

  86

  9

  2

  Self employed individuals

  62

  13

  2

  Price Stability
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about the requirements of the Maastricht treaty as regards price stability following monetary union. [499]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  Article 105 of the EC Treaty states:"The primary objective of the ESCB (European System of Central Banks) shall be to maintain price stability. Without prejudice to the objective of price stability, the ESCB shall support the general economic policies of the Community with a view to contributing to the achievement of the objectives of the Community as laid down in Article 2."
  299

  EU Agricultural Support
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of the EU agricultural support budget is spent in(a) Germany, (b) France and (c) Italy. [2265]

  Mr. Rooker
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Commission's provisional outturn figures for CAP expenditure in 1996 indicate the following percentages:

  Percentages

  (a) Germany

  15.5

  (b) France

  24.5

  (c) Italy

  10.8

HEALTH

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the capital projects being undertaken by NHS trusts under the PFI and their value; and if he will make a statement. [1497]

  Mr. Milburn
  The information requested has been placed in the Library.

  This information is presented in the form of two tables. The first table (Table 1) lists all National Health Service trusts with capital projects which have been approved to test for the Private Finance Initiative following the approval of an Outline Business Case (OBC) but have not yet had the final PFI proposal approved in a Full Business Case (FBC).

  The second table (Table 2) lists all those NHS trusts which have had their PFI proposal approved in the Full Business Case and are at the stages between FBC approval and completion of the project (the list includes PFI capital projects which have been completed and are fully operational).

  Both tables include only PFI projects with a capital value of £1 million or over. Information on projects with a capital value of below £1 million is not held centrally.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 22 May,Official Report, column 176, on the Private Finance Initiative (1) how many merchant banks attended the meetings between the Minister of State and the principal financiers; [1936]

  (2) how many merchant banks contacted his Department between 2 May and 20 May, apart from those which took part in the meetings between the Minister of State and the principal financiers; [1934]

  (3) if the meetings between the Minister of State and the principal financiers were held at the request of his Department. [1937]

  Mr. Milburn
  The meeting between the principal financiers involved in the Private Finance Initiative schemes at Dartford and Gravesham NHS Trust and Norfolk and Norwich Health Care NHS Trust and me and officials from the Department of Health was held at my request on 15 May. The financiers who attended the 300
  meeting were representatives from United Bank of Kuwait, Rabobank, BZW, Deutsche Morgan Grenfell, Innisfree, ABN Amro, and Midland Bank.

  Officials from the Department of Health speak on a regular basis to many potential financiers interested in PFI projects.

  Portsmouth Hospitals (NHS) Trust
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what was the purpose of his visit to Queen Alexandra Hospital, Portsmouth; who invited him; and when the visit was set up; [2398]

  (2) if he will take steps to assist Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust to recover the money from other health trusts which is currently owed for patient care; and if he will conduct an inquiry into the causes of the Trust's deficit; [2400]

  (3) what discussions he held on the budgetary problems of Portsmouth Hospitals Trust in the current financial year during the visit on 2 June; and if he will make a statement. [2399]

  Mr. Milburn
  Following an approach by my hon. Friend the member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Rapson) in whose constituency Queen Alexandra Hospital is situated, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State expressed an interest in visiting the hospital and was warmly welcomed by the Chairman and the Chief Executive of Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust on 2 June. The purpose of the visit was to tour the hospital, inspect its facilities and meet staff and patients. The arrangements were made during the week preceding the visit.

  Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust had a very small deficit at the end of the last financial year, but is not currently in deficit. No monies are owed to the trust by other NHS trusts. Discussions during the visit centred around the contracting process, the level of costs incurred by NHS trusts and the internal market.

  Methadone
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to issue new guidance for the prescribing of methadone. [2453]

  Ms Jowell
  Guidelines on clinical management of drug misuse and dependence were last revised by the Department of Health in 1991, and included information on the appropriate prescription and dispensing of methadone to drug misusers. These guidelines are currently being revised by an expert working group chaired by Professor John Strang, the Chief Medical Officer's consultant adviser on drug misuse. The new guidelines, which will include updated advice on the prescribing of methadone based on the latest research evidence, are expected to be issued to all doctors at the end of 1997.

  Children in Care (Homelessness)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children in each local authority area are currently in care because of family homelessness. [2397]
  301
  Mr. Boateng
  The latest figures for the numbers of children looked after because of homelessness, by individual social services department responsible for care, were published in "Children Looked After by Local Authorities, Year Ending 31 March 1995, England" (Table 5). The figures in this publication relate to cases where a child's family was either homeless or evicted or where a child was over sixteen and was homeless or evicted. Copies of the publication are available in the Library.

  Weighted Capitation Funding
  Mr. Burnett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to review the weighted elements of his Department's national weighted capitation formula for health funding; if evidence of population sparsity will be included in that review; and if he will make a statement. [2485]

  Mr. Milburn
  We will look at how resources are distributed across both secondary and primary care to ensure that these fully reflect local population needs and operate as fairly as possible.

  We will continue with the research which has already been commissioned to investigate the possible extra costs associated with the provision of accident and emergency and ambulance services in sparsely populated rural areas. A report is expected in the autumn and the results will be carefully considered.

  Ambulance Service (Paramedics)
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if it is his policy that there should be a trained paramedic on all accident and emergency ambulances; what targets have been set relating to the provision of paramedics in the ambulance service; and what surveys have been carried out by his Department into the extent of such provision. [2429]

  Mr. Boateng
  It is the Department's policy that there should be a trained paramedic on every front line ambulance. There are some 6,500 paramedics working for National Health Service ambulance services in England and 32 of the 37 services are able to place a paramedic on every front line ambulance.

  Hospital Services (London)
  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the names of the team that will carry out his review of London's hospital services. [2563]

  Mr. Milburn
  We will be announcing details of the review and its method of operation in due course.

  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will direct the Royal Hospitals NHS Trust to halt its plans to close St. Bartholomew's Hospital pending the outcome of his review into London hospitals; [2564]

  (2) if he has informed Sir Derek Boorman, chairman of the Royal Hospitals NHS Trust, of his decision to carry out a review of the Trust's decision to close St. Bartholomew's Hospital. [2565.]
  302
  Mr. Milburn
  We will be announcing details of the review of London's health services in due course. Its effect on individual hospitals will be made clear at that time.

PRIME MINISTER

  Windfall Tax (Pharmaceutical Industry)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will impose a windfall tax on the pharmaceutical industry. [1957]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 5 June 1997]: It would not be appropriate to comment on any possible tax changes during the run up to the Budget.

  Cabinet Committees
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will publish a list of the Ministerial Committees of the Cabinet. [2975]

  The Prime Minister
  The names and membership of the Ministerial committees which I have established to date are as follows. In addition to the members listed, other Ministers are invited to attend meetings as and when the business requires.

  Ministerial Committee on Defence and Overseas Policy (DOP)

  Composition

  Prime Minister (Chairman)

  Deputy Prime Minister

  Chancellor of the Exchequer

  Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs

  President of the Board of Trade

  Secretary of State for Defence

  The Chief of Defence Staff attends as required, as do the Chiefs of Staff when necessary. Others are invited to attend as necessary.

  Terms of reference

  "To keep under review the Government's defence and overseas policy."

  Ministerial Committee on Constitutional Reform Policy (CRP)

  Composition

  Prime Minister (Chairman)

  Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and the Regions

  Chancellor of the Exchequer

  Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs

  Lord Chancellor

  Secretary of State for the Home Department

  Secretary of State for Scotland

  President of the Council

  Secretary of State for Northern Ireland

  Secretary of State for Wales

  Lord Privy Seal

  Parliamentary Secretary, Treasury

  Minister without Portfolio

  Other Ministers may be invited to attend as necessary.

  Terms of reference

  "To consider strategic issues relating to the Government's constitutional reform policies".

  303
  Ministerial Committee on the Intelligence Services (CSI)

  Composition

  Prime Minister (Chairman)

  Deputy Prime Minister

  Chancellor of the Exchequer

  Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs

  Secretary of State for the Home Department

  Secretary of State for Defence

  Terms of reference

  "To keep under review policy on the security and intelligence service."

  Ministerial Committee on Northern Ireland (IN)

  Composition

  Prime Minister (Chairman)

  Chancellor of the Exchequer

  Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs

  Secretary of State for the Home Department

  Secretary of State for Defence

  Secretary of State for Northern Ireland

  Terms of reference

  "To oversee the Government's policy on Northern Ireland issues and relations with the Republic of Ireland on these matters."

  Ministerial Committee on Home and Social Affairs (HS)

  Composition

  Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Chairman)

  Chancellor of the Exchequer

  Lord Chancellor

  Secretary of State for the Home Department

  Secretary of State for Education and Employment

  President of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry

  Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  Secretary of State for Scotland

  Secretary of State for Health President of the Council

  Secretary of State for National Heritage

  Secretary of State for Social Security

  Secretary of State for Northern Ireland

  Secretary of State for Wales

  Lord Privy Seal

  Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster

  Minister of Transport

  Chief Secretary, Treasury

  Parliamentary Secretary, Treasury

  Minister without Portfolio

  The Attorney General, the Lord Advocate and the Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms also receive papers. They and others are invited to attend as necessary.

  Terms of reference

  "To consider issues of home and social policy."

  Ministerial Committee on the Environment (ENV)

  Composition

  Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Chairman)

  Chancellor of the Exchequer

  Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs

  304

  President of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry

  Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  Secretary of State for Scotland

  Secretary of State for Health

  President of the Council

  Secretary of State for National Heritage

  Secretary of State for Northern Ireland

  Secretary of State for Wales

  Secretary of State for International Development

  Lord Privy Seal

  Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster

  Minister of Transport

  Chief Secretary, Treasury

  Minister of State, Departments of the Environments and Transport

  Minister without Portfolio

  The Secretary of State for Social Security also receives papers.She and other Ministers are invited to attend as necessary.

  Terms of reference

  "To consider environmental policy issues."

  Ministerial Committee on Local Government (GL)

  Composition

  Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Chairman)

  Chancellor of the Exchequer

  Lord Chancellor

  Secretary of State for the Home Department

  Secretary of State for Education and Employment

  President of the Board of Trade

  Secretary of State for Scotland

  Secretary of State for Health

  President of the Council

  Secretary of State for National Heritage

  Secretary of State for Social Security

  Secretary of State for Northern Ireland

  Secretary of State for Wales

  Lord Privy Seal

  Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster

  Minister of Transport

  Chief Secretary, Treasury

  Minister of State, Departments of the Environment and Transport

  Minister without Portfolio

  Other Ministers are invited to attend for items in which they have a departmental interest.

  Terms of reference

  "To consider issues affecting local government, including the annual allocation of resources."

  Ministerial Committee on Economic Affairs (EA)

  Composition

  Chancellor of the Exchequer (Chairman)

  Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions

  Secretary of State for the Home Department

  President of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry

  Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  Secretary of State for Scotland

  Secretary of State for Health

  President of the Council

  305

  Secretary of State for National Heritage

  Secretary of State for Social Security

  Secretary of State for Northern Ireland

  Secretary of State for Wales

  Lord Privy Seal

  Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster

  Minister of Transport

  Chief Secretary, Treasury

  Minister without Portfolio

  Other Ministers are invited to attend for items in which they have a departmental interest. The Chief Scientific Adviser attends for issues relating to science and technology.

  Terms of reference

  "To consider issues relating to the Government's economic polices."

  Ministerial Committee on Public Expenditure (PX)

  Composition

  Chancellor of the Exchequer (Chairman)

  Lord Chancellor

  President of the Board of Trade

  President of the Council

  Secretary of State for Northern Ireland

  Lord Privy Seal

  Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster

  Chief Secretary, Treasury

  Minister of State, Department of Social Security

  Other Ministers are invited to attend for matters in which they have a departmental interest.

  Terms of reference

  "To review public expenditure allocations and make recommendations to the Cabinet."

  Ministerial Committee on The Queen's Speeches and Future Legislation (QFL)

  Composition

  Lord Chancellor (Chairman)

  Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions

  President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons

  Lord Privy Seal

  Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster

  Chief Secretary, Treasury Attorney General

  Lord Advocate

  Parliamentary Secretary, Treasury

  Captain of the Gentlemen at Arms

  Minister without Portfolio

  The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs is invited to attend for discussions of The Queen's Speeches.

  Terms of reference

  "To prepare and submit to the Cabinet drafts of The Queen's Speeches to Parliament and proposals for the Government's legislative programme."

  Ministerial Committee on Devolution to Scotland and Wales and the English Regions (DSWR)

  Composition

  Lord Chancellor (Chairman)

  Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions

  Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs

  Secretary of State for the Home Department

  Secretary of State for Education and Employment

  President of the Board of Trade

  306

  Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  Secretary of State for Scotland

  Secretary of State for Health

  President of the Council

  Secretary of State for National Heritage

  Secretary of State for Northern Ireland

  Secretary of State for Wales

  Lord Privy Seal

  Chief Secretary, Treasury

  Parliamentary Secretary, Treasury

  Captain of the Gentleman at Arms Attorney General

  Lord Advocate

  Other Ministers are invited for items in which they have departmental interest.

  Terms of reference

  "To consider policy and other issues arising from the Government's policies for devolution to Scotland and Wales and the regions of England and to promote and oversee progress of the relevant legislation through Parliament and its subsequent implementation."

  Ministerial Committee on Legislative (LEG)

  Composition

  President of the Council (Chair)

  Lord Chancellor

  Secretary of State for Scotland

  Secretary of State for Wales

  Lord Privy Seal

  Attorney General

  Lord Advocate

  Parliamentary Secretary, Treasury

  Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  Minister of State, Home Office

  Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service

  Financial Secretary, Treasury

  Captain of the Gentlemen at Arms

  Minister without Portfolio

  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland also receives papers and is invited to attend as necessary.

  Terms of reference

  "To examine all draft Bills; to consider the parliamentary handling of Government Bills, European Community documents and Private Members' business, and such other related matters as may be necessary; and to keep under review the Government's policy in relation to issues of Parliamentary procedures."

  Ministerial Sub-Committee on European Issues ((E)DOP)

  Composition

  Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Chairman)

  Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions

  Chancellor of the Exchequer

  Secretary of State for the Home Department

  Secretary of State for Education and Employment

  President of the Board of Trade

  Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food Secretary of State for Scotland

  Secretary of State for Defence

  President of the Council

  Secretary of State for Northern Ireland

  Secretary of State for Wales

  307

  Secretary of State for International Development

  Lord Privy Seal

  Attorney General

  Parliamentary Secretary, Treasury

  Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  Minister for Trade and Competitiveness in Europe

  Minister without Portfolio

  Other Ministers are invited to attend as the nature of the business requires.

  The United Kingdom's Permanent Representative to the European Union is also in attendance.

  Terms of reference

  "To consider questions relating to the United Kingdom's membership of the European Union and to report as necessary to the Ministerial Committee on Defence and Overseas Policy (DOP)."

  Ministerial Sub-Committee on London (GL(L))

  Composition

  Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Chairman)

  Paymaster General, Treasury

  Minister of State, Department of National Heritage

  Minister without Portfolio

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Departments of the Environment and Transport

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Departments of the Environment and Transport

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Employment

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security

  Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service

  Terms of reference

  "To co-ordinate the Government's policies on London, and report as necessary to the Ministerial Committee on Local Government (GL) and the Ministerial Committee on Devolution to Scotland, Wales and the English Regions (DSWR)."

  Ministerial Sub-Committee on Welfare to Work (EA(WW))

  Composition

  Chancellor of the Exchequer (Chairman)

  Secretary of State for Education and Employment

  Secretary of State for Scotland

  Secretary of State for Social Security

  Secretary of State for Northern Ireland

  Secretary of State for Wales

  Minister of State, Department of the Environment

  Paymaster General, Treasury

  Minister of State, Home Office

  Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment

  Minister of State, Department of Social Security

  Minister without Portfolio

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Employment

  Other Ministers are invited to attend for items in which they have a departmental interest.

  Terms of reference

  "To develop policies to get people from welfare to work and to report as necessary to the Ministerial Committee on Economic Affairs (EAR)."

  308
  Ministerial Sub-Committee on Incorporation of the European Convention of Human Rights (CRP(EC))

  Composition

  Lord Chancellor (Chairman)

  Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions

  Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs

  Secretary of State for the Home Department

  Secretary of State for Education and Employment

  Secretary of State for Scotland

  Secretary of State for Defence

  Secretary of State for Health

  President of the Council

  Secretary of State for Social Security

  Secretary of State for Northern Ireland

  Secretary of State for Wales

  Lord Privy Seal

  Chief Secretary, Treasury

  Parliamentary Secretary, Treasury

  Attorney General

  Lord Advocate

  Other Ministers are invited to attend for items in which they have a departmental interest.

  Terms of reference

  "To consider policy and other issues arising from the Government's decision to legislate for the incorporation of ECHR in UK law and to promote and oversee progress of the relevant legislation through Parliament and its subsequent implementation, reporting as necessary to the Ministerial Committee on Constitutional Reform Policy."

  Ministerial Sub-Committee on Drug Misuse (HS(D))

  Composition

  President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Chair)

  Secretary of State for International Development

  Solicitor General

  Financial Secretary, Treasury

  Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  Minister of State, Ministry of Defence

  Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Employment

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Welsh Office

  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment and Transport also receives papers and may be invited to attend as appropriate.

  Terms of reference

  "To co-ordinate the Government's national and international policies for tackling drugs misuse, and report as necessary to the Ministerial Committee on Home and Social Affairs (HS))."

  Ministerial Sub-Committee on Health Strategy (HS(H)

  Composition

  President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Chair)

  Secretary of State for Health

  Secretary of State for International Development

  Minister of State, Departments of the Environment and Transport

  Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  309

  Minister of State, Department of Health Economic Secretary, Treasury

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Departments of the Environment and Transport

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Employment

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Welsh Office

  The Chief Medical Officer is in attendance.

  Other Ministers are invited to attend for items in which they have a departmental interest.

  Terms of reference

  "To oversee the development, implementation and monitoring of the Government's health strategy; to co-ordinate the Government's policies on United Kingdom-wide issues affecting health; and to report as necessary to the Ministerial committee on Home and Social Affairs (HS)."

  Ministerial Sub-Committee on Women's Issues (HS(W))

  Composition

  Secretary of State for Social Security (Chair)

  Secretary of State for Northern Ireland

  Secretary of State for International Development

  Financial Secretary, Treasury

  Minister of State, Home Office

  Minister of State, Scottish Office

  Minister of State, Department of Health

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Departments of the Environment and Transport

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Departments of the Environment and Transport

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Employment

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Welsh Office Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Office of Public Service

  Terms of reference

  "To review and develop the Government's policy and strategy on issues of special concern to women; to oversee their implementation; and to report as necessary to the Ministerial Committee on Home and Social Affairs (HS)."

  Ministerial Group on Food Safety (MISC 1)

  Composition

  Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Chairman)

  Secretary of State for Education and Employment

  Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  Secretary of State for Scotland

  Secretary of State for Health

  President of the Council

  Secretary of State for Northern Ireland

  Secretary of State for Wales

  310

  Chief Secretary, Treasury

  Minister of State, Departments of Environment and Transport

  Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry

  Minster without Portfolio

  The Parliamentary Secretary, Treasury will also receive papers and may attend as necessary.

  Terms of reference

  "To co-ordinate Departmental consideration of issues arising from the establishment of a Food Standards Agency and other aspects of food safety, and to make recommendations to the Ministerial Committee on Home and Social Affairs".

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Minimum Wage
  Mr. Tom King
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what research has been commissioned and what estimates have been made by her Department, and what information presented to her, regarding the costs per annum to the DTI budget of the introduction of a minimum wage at(a) £3.50 an hour, (b) £4 an hour and (c) £4.40 an hour; and if she will make a statement. [2109]

  Mrs. Beckett
  We will ask the independent Low Pay Commission, before it reaches a recommendation on the level at which the national minimum wage might be set, to take into account all the economic circumstances, including its likely impact. I will not speculate about the possible effects of hypothetical levels before the Commission has had a chance to consider the issues.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Departmental Publications
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage by what means his Department makes available its publications in(a) Braille, (b) audio tape and (c) large print; and how this is publicised. [1665]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  The Department produces both Braille and large print copies of publications where a demand has been identified or where there is an obligation to inform people of their rights and entitlements.

  The Department is currently reviewing its policy on the production of accessible formats to agree a set of objective criteria for judging demand and to help develop cost-effective ways of providing information.

  Tourism
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what evidence he has of the effect on the balance of payments in tourism of changes in the real exchange rate measured in terms of export unit values; what were imports and exports of tourism in cash terms and as a percentage of gross overseas products for each year since 1983, together with the balance of payments in tourism; what estimate he has made of the extent to which the figures are affected by changes in the real exchange rate since 1994 as measured by changes in the nominal exchange rate and in the real exchange rate weighted by the percentage change in import and export unit values in
  311
  trade on manufactures with non-EC countries; and what is his estimate of the increase in output in the United Kingdom tourist industry in 1997 and 1998. [2127]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  The level of inbound and domestic tourism in the UK is affected by a number of factors such as the quality and range of hotels (and other facilities) and

  Exports of goods and services

  Imports of goods and services

  Tourism credits (£ million)

  Total export credits (£ million)

  Tourism as a percentage of all exports

  Tourism debits (£ million)

  Total debits (£ million)

  Tourism as a percentage of all imports

  Balance of payments in tourism (£ million)

  1983

  4,003

  79,880

  5.0

  4,090

  77,588

  5.3

  -87

  1984

  4,614

  91,632

  5.0

  4,663

  92,763

  5.0

  -49

  1985

  5,442

  102,041

  5.3

  4,871

  98,988

  4.9

  571

  1986

  5,553

  97,885

  5.7

  6,083

  101,221

  6.0

  -530

  1987

  6,260

  106,397

  5.9

  7,280

  111,737

  6.5

  -1,020

  1988

  6,184

  107,273

  5.8

  8,216

  124,796

  6.6

  -2,032

  1989

  6,945

  121,486

  5.7

  9,357

  142,808

  6.6

  -2,412

  1990

  7,748

  133,165

  5.8

  9,886

  148,285

  6.7

  -2,138

  1991

  7,386

  134,289

  5.5

  9,951

  141,009

  7.1

  -2,565

  1992

  7,891

  142,114

  5.6

  11,243

  150,268

  7.5

  -3,352

  1993

  9,487

  159,997

  5.9

  12,972

  167,941

  7.7

  -3,485

  1994

  9,919

  176,065

  5.6

  14,500

  182,149

  8.0

  -4,581

  1995

  12,092

  197,600

  6.1

  15,683

  203,086

  7.7

  -3,591

  19961

  12,693

  215,195

  5.9

  16,607

  220,792

  7.5

  -3,914

  1 Provisional.

  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what assessment has been made of the effect of the sale of British Rail International Ltd. on United Kingdom tourism. [2007]

  Mr. Clarke
  None. The sale of British Rail International Ltd. (BRIL) to Grandes Lignes International SA, a wholly owned subsidiary of Societe National des Chemins de fer Francais, (SNCF), the French state-owned railway was only completed on 24 March 1997 after competitive tender.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has to allow purchasers of lottery tickets to determine which causes are supported as a consequence of that purchase; and if he will make a statement. [1955]

  Mr. Banks
  [holding answer 5 June 1997]: The national lottery is the people's money and its proceeds should go to projects which the people support. To that end, the Government plan to establish a £1 billion fund for health education and other initiatives and to review the way lottery funds are distributed to the existing good causes. We will be publishing a White Paper setting out our proposals next month.

  Television Licences (Pensioners)
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) what estimate he has made of the cost of making television licences available to pensioners at a discount of(a) 75 per cent. (b) 50 per cent. and (c) 25 per cent. of the normal fee for colour and black and white sets; and if he will make a statement; [2169]

  (2) what representations he has received from pensioner groups requesting him to exempt pensioners from having to buy a television licence; and if he will make a statement; [2170]
  312
  the marketing of attractions, as well as the relative cost of the holidays in the UK and elsewhere. The Government are aware that the sterling exchange rate can affect the level of inbound and outbound tourism but do not make forecasts of the specific effects. The figures requested are shown in the following table:

  (3) what would be the annual cost of exempting all pensioners from having to buy a television licence; and if he will make a statement. [2281]

  Mr. Fisher
  The estimated annual cost, in lost licence fee revenue, of providing concessionary television licences for all pensioners would be:

  £ million

  For a 25 per cent, discount

  157

  For a 50 per cent, discount

  314

  For a 75 per cent, discount

  471

  For free licences

  628

  Department of National Heritage records do not distinguish between representations from pensioner groups and those from other organisations or individuals, nor between those calling for free television licences for pensioners and those seeking a lesser concession. Since the Election, the Government have received 56 representations about television licence fees for pensioners and the concessionary television licence scheme, 25 of them from hon. Members. We have no plans to amend the concessionary television licence scheme.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS
  ENVIRONMENT AND THE REGIONS

    Environmental Protection and Sustainability
    Mr. Dais
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the initiatives taken by the Government since 1 May in respect of environmental protection and sustainability. [2084]
    313
    Angela Eagle
    We will fulfil our Manifesto commitment to put the environment at the heart of decision-making across Government and we are considering the mechanisms which will deliver this. The framework for this was outlined in the speech my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister gave on 5 June at UNED-UK. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will reinforce our international commitments when he addresses the special session of the United Nations General Assembly at its conference on sustainable development at the end of this month. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary stressed the importance of the environment in his mission statement. The Department for International Development has announced a commitment to promoting sustainable development through its activities.

    In these first few weeks in Government it is right that we should build our policies carefully and coherently as well as imaginatively, and take time to consult widely about our future programme. But already we have begun to take steps to improve our environment. The appointment of my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister as Secretary of State for the Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, demonstrates our commitment to tackle environmental issues and sustainability in a more integrated way. We are setting up machinery to enable Departments to adopt a consistent approach to assessing the environmental consequences of policies. We are about to embark on discussions with the House authorities on a powerful new parliamentary environmental audit committee to scrutinise the sustainable development implications of policies and action across Government as promised in our Manifesto.

    Already some significant action has been taken in specific fields. At our summit on water resources and supply last month we set out a 10 point plan to help secure reliable, efficient and environmentally sustainable water supplies. This includes setting new mandatory leakage targets, doing more to help customers conserve water and reviews of the charging and abstraction systems. We have launched a fundamental transport policy review to deliver an integrated transport policy. We have set in hand work to analayse what carbon savings the main policy areas could contribute towards our Manifesto target of reducing CO, emissions by 20 per cent. by 2010. This is the beginning of our action to promote environmental protection and sustainability, delivered in just a few weeks. Much more is to follow.

    Sites of Special Scientific Interest
    Mr. Dafis
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has for legislation to strengthen the protection given to sites of special scientific interest. [2081]

    Angela Eagle
    The Government are currently considering the options for strengthening the protection of wildlife and sites of special scientific interest.

    Green Ministers
    Mr. Dafis
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many meetings of Green Ministers have taken place since 1 May; and what plans there are for further meetings. [2085]
    314
    Angela Eagle
    In fulfilling our commitment to put the environment at the heart of Government we are currently reviewing all the existing and potential machinery for effective delivery of our goal, including the network of Green Ministers that was established by the previous Administration. Final decisions have not yet been taken but one of the outputs of that review will be to ensure that every Department plays its full part and that Ministers in every Department are fully involved in the process.

    Inquiry (Merry Hill)
    Mr. Vaz
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will be in a position to decide on the inspector's recommendations relating to Merry Hill. [2162]

    Mr. Raynsford
    A decision will be issued shortly.

    Mine Planning Applications
    Mr. John Cryer
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many planning applications for new drift or deep mines have been submitted in England, Scotland and Wales in each of the past five years; which companies have submitted the applications; and what are the localities to which the applications relate. [2028]

    Mr. Raynsford
    [holding answer 6 June 1997]: The number of planning applications for new deep mines in England in each of the past five years are as shown in the table. It is not possible to separate applications for deep and drift mines. Information concerning the companies who submitted the applications is not held centrally. The information relating to Scotland and Wales are matter for my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales.

    Location

    1992

    1993

    1994

    1995

    1996

    Derbyshire

    1

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Warwickshire

    0

    0

    1

    0

    0

    Durham

    0

    0

    1

    0

    0

    North Yorkshire

    0

    0

    1

    0

    0

    Humberside

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    Totals

    1

    0

    3

    0

    1

    Council Tax
    Mr. David Heath
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many representations he has received from council tax payers in Somerset complaining about the level of the council tax levied by Somerset county council for 1997–98; and if he will make a statement. [2201]

    Mr. Raynsford
    [holding answer 6 June 1997]: None.

    Planning Application (South Yorkshire)
    Mr. Barron
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will publish his decision on whether to allow Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council to determine the planning application for a site at Catcliffe, South Yorkshire, to be called Waverley Leisure Park; and if he will make a statement. [2303]
    315
    Mr. Raynsford
    I have discussed this case with ministerial colleagues; and, as a result of these discussions, we shall be seeking from the local planning authority further information. When we have this information, we will be able to decide whether the application should be called in or left to the authority to determine.

  TRANSPORT

    Cones Hotline
    Mr. Flynn
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what was the total cost of the cones hotline; how many calls were received; how many raised issues that resulted in remedial actions; and what was the cost of each of these calls as a percentage of the total costs. [1932]

    Ms Glenda Jackson
    The cones hotline operated from June 1992 until September 1995 when it was replaced by the Highways Agency information line. The cost of establishing and running the cones hotline prior to March 1994 is not available as, until then, calls were routed through the Department of Transport's general inquiry number. In the Financial year 1994–95, the cost of the dedicated service line was approximately £5,000. Staffing costs were met from within existing establishment and budgets. In the period April to September 1995 the cost of running the cones hotline is estimated at £20,000, including staff and call charges. The total number of calls received between June 1992 and September 1995 was 19,500. Approximately half the calls concerned traffic management (although only a small proportion were about traffic cones), and half were requests for information about road works or general queries about roads, planning policy and so on. Where appropriate, the Department took steps to alter the layout of road traffic cones, improve signposting at roadworks, review diversion routes, re-paint road markings and investigate road lighting at roadworks as a result of comments and complaints from hotline callers. The cost of each of these calls as a percentage of the total costs is not available.

    Rail Services
    Mr. Beith
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he requires the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising to notify him of any instances where permission is given to train operators not to run services set out in the Passenger Services Requirement; and if he has been notified by OPRAF that such permission to withdraw services has been given to GNER in respect of the east coast main line franchise. [2428]

    Ms Glenda Jackson
    No. The Franchising Director is responsible for ensuring compliance with franchise agreements, including the conditions of Passenger Service Requirements. I understand that, in the case of GNER, no permission has been given to withdraw services specified in the PSR. I understand that the hon. Gentleman has written to the Franchising Director who will no doubt provide him with a full explanation of the position.

    Mr. Vaz
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will issue guidelines for the improvement of rail services on Sundays. [2455]
    316
    Ms Jackson
    The Government want to see improvements to rail services generally, and is particularly keen to see enhancements made to off peak services including Sunday services. The Franchising Director is currently developing Criteria for the Appraisal of Support for Passenger Rail Services which will be used to assess, among other things, proposals for new subsidised services. The criteria will assist those bringing forward initiatives to enhance services. A number of franchisees—for example, Connex Rail and M40 Trains—have introduced new Sunday services as they committed to do in their franchise plans.

    Felixstowe-Liverpool-Holyhead Rail Link
    Mrs. Brinton
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is Government Policy concerning up-grading the Felixstowe-Liverpool-Holyhead rail link. [2178]

    Ms Glenda Jackson
    I understand that Railtrack, in consultation with Freightliner, is considering options for investment which would permit greater utilisation of the cross-country route between Felixstowe and the west coast main line, primarily for the transport of container freight traffic.

    The Government have made it clear that they expect higher levels of investment in the railway network and is considering whether the current regulatory regime is strong enough to secure that.

    Emergency Towing Vessels (Falmouth)
    Ms Atherton
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has for the long term for emergency towing vessels in Falmouth. [2176]

    Ms Glenda Jackson
    I have asked the Coastguard Agency to carry out an assessment of the trials of Emergency Towing Vessels over the last three winters. These results are expected by the end of July 1997. Meanwhile, the Coastguard Agency has extended the present contracts for all three Emergency Towing Vessels to provide cover during the coming winter in the Dover Strait, North West Scotland and the Western Approaches from October 1997 to March 1998.

    Bicycle Bells
    Mr. Pike
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what are the present regulations regarding bicycle bells; what representations he has received on the subject; and if he will make a statement. [2288]

    Ms Glenda Jackson
    At present there are no requirements for bells on bicycles.

    As part of a public consultation exercise on proposals to update the Pedal Bicycles (Safety) Regulations, general views were requested on the fitment of bells on pedal cycles. Strong support was shown for the mandatory fitment of bells on pedal cycles at the point of sale, and as stated in a reply to a question in another place—Official Report, House of Lords, 21 May 1997 column 1—we are looking at the issues as a matter of priority.
    317

    Eurostar Services
    Mrs. Brinton
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is his estimate of the start dates for Eurostar services north of London. [2177]

    Ms Glenda Jackson
    I understand form Eurostar (UK) Ltd. that it plans to start running regional Eurostar services later this year.

    Rail Improvements
    Mr. Vaz
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on plans for improvements to railway signalling and tracks; and what plans he has to meet officials of Railtrack to discuss these issues. [2454]

    Ms Glenda Jackson
    Plans for improvements to track and signalling are a matter for Railtrack. We have made it clear that we expect higher levels of investment in the network and are considering whether the current regulatory regime is strong enough to secure that. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has met the chairman of Railtrack to discuss a range of issues.

    Public Transport
    Mr. Vaz
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he plans to take to promote leisure travel by public transport. [2456]

    Ms Glenda Jackson
    On 5 June my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions announced a fundamental review of transport policy—Official Report, column 226. The review will include measures to reduce car dependency and promote the use of public transport for all types of journey.

    Light Rail Schemes
    Mr. Baker
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to increase the funds available within his budget for the promotion of light rail schemes. [2405]

    Ms Glenda Jackson
    [holding answer 6 June 1997]: Bids for funding light rail systems will be considered, on their merits, as part of the allocation of resources for funding transport capital expenditure by local authorities.

    But, as my right hon. Friend The Deputy Prime Minister said recently, there needs to be a co-ordinated approach to transport infrastructure. Light rail will not work in isolation but needs to be part of an integrated package of measures to achieve our overall objectives including the reduction of car dependency.

    Railtrack
    Mr. Colvin
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he last held meetings with representatives of Railtrack plc; and if he will make a statement. [2697]

    Ms Glenda Jackson
    My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister met the chairman of Railtrack on 21 May. The Government
    have made it clear that we expect higher 318
    levels of investment in the network. We are considering whether the current regulatory regime is strong enough to secure that.

    Rail Ticket Sales
    Mrs. Dunwoody
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects the Rail Regulator to complete his report into impartial ticket sales; and whether this report will be published. [2661]

    Ms Glenda Jackson
    The Rail Regulator is still considering how and when to publish the results of his "mystery shopping" surveys on rail ticket outlets.

    Road Contracts
    Sir George Young
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he has imposed a moratorium on the letting of new road contracts. [2298]

    Ms Glenda Jackson
    [holding answer 6 June 1997]: No, but no new starts on national schemes are planned for this financial year. We are committed to a review of the roads programme, the details and scope of which will be announced shortly.

    Bristol Channel
    Mr. Cotter
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he will take to improve the monitoring and regulation of shipping movements in the Bristol channel. [2638]

    Ms Glenda Jackson
    The marine Safety Agency will continue to keep under review the need for additional routeing measures around the United Kingdom coast through its programme of maritime traffic surveys. however, the Bristol channel was not an area of concern in Lord Donaldson's report "Safer Ships, Cleaner Seas" and there are no immediate plans for a traffic survey.

    A comprehensive database—the COAST Ship Traffic Database—indicates an average of 22 merchant shipping movements daily through the Bristol channel comprising four tankers, 17 other cargo ships and one ferry. This is a low density compared to the 440 daily shipping movements in the busy Dover strait.

    Ships in the Bristol channel, as elsewhere, must navigate in accordance with the detailed Rules of the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea.

  PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

    Constitutional Bills
    Mr. Howard
    To ask the President of the Council on which previous occasion or occasions a Bill of constitutional significance has been made subject to a timetable motion before the commencement of the Committee stage. [2153]

    Mrs. Ann Taylor
    The Scotland Bill and the Wales Bill were the subject of allocation of time orders made on 16 November 1997, having been given a Second Reading on 14 and 15 November respectively.
    319

    Parliamentary Privilege
    Ms Southworth
    To ask the President of the Council what plans she has to establish a review of parliamentary privilege. [3046]

    Mrs. Ann Taylor
    The Government believe that, in the context of their initiative to modernize Parliament, the time is now ripe for a general review of parliamentary privilege. Various aspects of the relationship between Parliament and the courts have given rise to difficulties in recent years, and the boundaries between them have been redrawn without any fundamental reappraisal of the kind of legal immunities which Parliament and its Members ought to enjoy at the end of the twentieth century.

    The need for a review has become more pressing with today's announcement by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary of proposals for taking forward a general reform of the corruption statutes, which will include clarifying the law relating to bribery of Members of Parliament, as recommended by the Nolan Committee. The implications for parliamentary privilege, which would clearly be considerable, would need to be considered carefully in advance of the introduction of legislation.

    Since this is a matter for Parliament and one which affects both Houses the Government believes that such a review could be undertaken most appropriately by a Joint Committee. Consultations are taking place about setting up the committee and about the terms of reference it might have.

    The Government hope that it might be possible to complete this review by early next year.

  SCOTLAND

    Child Labour
    Mrs. Clwyd
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to ensure the enforcement of existing legislation to outlaw the illegal employment of school age children. [1540]

    Mr. Wilson
    We are considering how the existing system for protecting children who work might be improved.

    Political and Special Advisors
    Mrs. Gillan
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list(a) the name, (b) the salary, (c) the previous occupation and salary and (d) the terms and conditions of each political and special adviser in his Department; and what was the selection process used to appoint these persons. [2423]

    Mr. Dewar
    [holding answer 6 June 1997]: My Department employs 2 Special Advisers, Miss Wendy Alexander and Mr. Murray Elder. Immediately prior to appointment Miss Alexander was employed as a Senior Associate with Booz, Allen and Hamilton, International (UK) Ltd. and Mr. Elder already worked with me in an advisory capacity.

    The terms and conditions of each appointment are set out in the draft model contract, a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House.
    320
    Special Advisers are paid within a range of £24,349 to £73,484. Their salaries are negotiated individually and are confidential within this range. Details of this and of previous salary are not provided in order to protect the privacy of the individuals concerned.

    These are personal appointments made by me following consultation with the Permanent Head of my Department and the Prime Minister.

    Scottish Screen
    Ms Roseanna Cunningham
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total annual budget for Scottish Screen; and if he will provide a breakdown of the categories within that budget and the money allocated to each category. [2192]

    Mr. Galbraith
    [holding answer 6 June 1997]: The cash limit for Scottish Screen in 1997–98 is £1,975,000. Scottish Screen forecasts that it will receive additional income of £711,000 making a total budget of £2.7 million. Budgets for the 8 departments have been prepared for Board approval.

    Ms Cunningham
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the names and designations of the persons within Scottish Screen with authority to make expenditure commitments on its behalf. [2193]

    Mr. Galbraith
    [holding answer 9 June 1997]: The expenditure of Scottish Screen is the responsibility of the Chief Executive, Mr. John Archer. He delegates as appropriate to the heads of the departments of Scottish Screen.

    Ms Cunningham
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many meetings have been held by the Board of Scottish Screen since it inception. [2194]

    Mr. Galbraith
    [holding answer 6 June 1997]: One: the first meeting of the Board of Scottish Screen was held on 5 June.

    Ms Cunningham
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how may times per year the Board of Scottish Screen is expected to meet; and how many times it is scheduled to meet in 1997. [2195]

    Mr. Galbraith
    [holding answer 6 June 1997]: The Board of Scottish Screen will decide how frequently it will meet. Three further meetings are planned for 1997.

    Ms Cunningham
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what were(a) the total number of people and (b) the names of the people sent to the Cannes Film Festival at the expense of Scottish Screen; and what was the expenditure incurred by Scottish Screen in respect of representation at that festival. [2197]

    Mr. Galbraith
    [holding answer 6 June 1997]: Nine persons attended. Mr. John Archer, Ms Celia Stevenson, Mr. Eddie Dick, Ms Catherine Aitken, Mr. Oscar Van Heek, Ms Lesley Anderson, Ms Judy Anderson, Ms Emma Valentine and Ms Maxine Baker. The total includes four who were committed to attend the Festival by the organisation which employed them before April 1997. The expenditure incurred, including the launch of Scottish Screen at the Scottish film day, was approximately £20,000.
    321
    Ms Cunningham
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions took place between the Government and the Opposition with regard to the appointment of the chairman of Scottish Screen. [2199]

    Mr. Galbraith
    [holding answer 6 June 1997]: No consultation took place between the previous Administration and the then Opposition about this appointment.

    Ms Cunningham
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will provide a breakdown of the expenditure commitments made by Scottish Screen since its inception, listing the categories within the overall budget from which those commitments have been made. [2200]

    Mr. Galbraith
    [holding answer 6 June 1997]: Scottish Screen has made the following commitments since its inception:

    £

    Grant to the Edinburgh Film Festival (this is in addition to £366,000 inherited commitments for Regional Film Theatres and Festivals

    58,500

    Cataloguing the Archive (contingent on a Lottery fund application)

    41,200

    Training awards

    14,100

    Moonstone International

    17,500

    Film Development Awards

    16,250

    Total

    147,550

    Ms Cunningham
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the current status of the Scottish Arts Council inquiry into the productions assisted by the Scottish Film Production Fund, with which the chairman of Scottish Screen was associated. [2209]

    Mr. Galbraith
    [holding answer 6 June 1997]: The Scottish Arts Council is satisfied that all Lottery film awards have met the requirements of public accountability.

    Ms Cunningham
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what arrangement the Scottish Office has put in place(a) to monitor the performance of Scottish Screen and (b) to make publicly available reports on the performance of Scottish Screen. [2208]

    Mr. Galbraith
    [holding answer 6 June 1997]: The performance of Scottish Screen will be measured against the objectives set in its Corporate Plan which will be approved by Ministers each year. Scottish Screen's Annual Reports will reflect the extent to which the objectives set have been achieved.

    Registers of Scotland
    Mr. Eric Clarke
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to reconstitute the Registers of Scotland Customer Advisory Group. [2877]

    Mr. McLeish
    My right hon. Friend has decided that the Customer Advisory Group is not the best way of meeting the need for a forum in which customers can seek to influence the Agency's activities, or for a body to provide independent advice on the Agency's strategic direction and has decided to discontinue it. Registers of Scotland now has a variety of ways of ensuring that 322
    customers of the Agency are fully consulted about its services and can seek to influence its activities. As regards a body to advise on the Agency's overall direction, my right hon. Friend proposes to set up a Registers of Scotland Strategic Advisory Group (ROSSAG) with the following remit:

    "to advise the Secretary of State on the Agency's:

    strategic and corporate planning;

    its Annual Report and Accounts;

    its major business developments.

    and to provide advice to the Keeper on his forward planning".

    The chairman and the membership will be representative of the following bodies and will be announced in due course.

    The law Society of Scotland

    The Scottish Consumer Council

    Scottish Homes

    The Council of Mortgage Lenders

    The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities.

    I am arranging for a copy of a revision to the Agency Framework Document reflecting this change to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament.

    Opencast Development
    Mr. Dalyell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what communications he has received from the Harthill Armadale Blackridge Against Opencast in relation to proposed development near the M8 motorway; and what response he has sent. [1971]

    Mr. Chisholm
    My right hon. Friend has received two letters form Harthill Armadale Blackridge Against Opencast expressing concern about proposals for opencast coal mining near Harthill. Both correspondents received replies from The Scottish Office indicating that, if North Lanarkshire Council were minded to grant planning permission for the proposed development, the planning application would require to be notified to my right hon. Friend in order that he might decide whether or not he would determine the issue.

    Mr. Dalyell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has in respect of the legal costs incurred by local authorities that reject planning applications by those who wish to develop opencast sites. [1972]

    Mr. Chisholm
    It is for local authorities out of the resources available to them to make provision for any legal costs that may be incurred in the exercise of their statutory planning responsibilities. There are no proposals to make an exception to this long established practice in relation to opencast developments.

    Structural Funds
    Mrs. Ewing
    to ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has made to the European Commission in relation to the review of Objective 1 and Objective 5b structural funds. [2558]

    Mr. Chisholm
    In relation to the interim period re-assessments of the current 6 year Objective 1 and 5b programmes, the consultants' reports on the Scottish areas have all been received. They are being discussed by the Partnerships, who will produce any initial proposals for
    323
    review of the programmes. I expect to put forward proposals to the European Commission late this Summer or in early Autumn.

    The Government has not put forward detailed submissions to the Commission at this early stage of the Reform of the Structural Funds. We expect to put forward some proposals after the completion of the Inter-Governmental Conference.

    Partnership Areas
    Mr. David Marshall
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will extend the time scale for submissions on the programme for partnership area monitoring and evaluation guidance notes issued by the Scottish Office; and if he will make a statement. [2682]

    Mr. Chisholm
    I have no plans to do so. It is important for partnerships to put in place effective monitoring and evaluation systems as soon as possible, and they have accordingly been asked to submit monitoring and evaluation plans, together with annual reports, by the end of this month.

  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Urban Disturbances
    Mr. Sheerman
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to meet the Association of Chief Police Officers to discuss youth-led urban disturbances. [934]

    Mr. Michael
    Both my right hon. Friend and myself have met the Association of Chief Police Officers since taking office and have discussed offending by young people with several chief officers. My right hon. Friend has made plans to discuss youth-led urban disturbances with ACPO in the near future.

    Asylum and Immigration Act
    Mr. Baker
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to introduce changes to the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996. [936]

    Mr. Mike O'Brien
    We are reviewing the Act's provisions and will consider the options for change that best meet our Manifesto commitments.

    Violent Crime
    Mr. Stephen Twigg
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the OECD countries in which there has been a rise in violent crime equivalent to that in England and Wales in the last 10 years. [937]

    Mr. Michael
    The latest information available shows that over the period 1987–95 the number of violent crimes recorded by the police rose by 60 per cent. in England and Wales, of the 13 OECD countries for which information is available only France (71 per cent.) and New Zealand (80 per cent.) had a higher percentage increase while the lowest increase was Italy at 4 per cent.
    324

    European Convention on Human Rights
    Mr. Drew
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to incorporate the European Convention on Human Rights into domestic law. [935]

    Mr. Mike O'Brien
    We will introduce a Bill for this purpose in this Session of Parliament.

    Drink-related Crime
    Mr. Sutcliffe
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to deal with drink-related crime. [938]

    Mr. Michael
    We plan to take early action to tackle drink-related crime including placing a new duty on local authorities and the police together to develop local community safety programmes. Our plans include introducing a tougher licensing regime, encouraging firmer measures to deal with offenders and promoting greater use of programmes aimed at preventing alcohol-related crime.

    Youth Crime
    Mr. Bernard Jenkin
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he intends to take to prevent children turning to crime; and if he will make a statement. [939]

    Mr. Michael
    We are pursuing a wide ranging programme of activities to reform and speed up the youth justice system and to prevent youth crime. We will introduce child protection orders to ensure that young children are not left to roam the streets unsupervised at nights, and a new parental responsibility order to ensure that parents face up to their responsibility for their children's misbehaviour and are given the help they need to deal with it.

    Asylum Applications
    Mr. Gerrard
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to reduce the current backlog of asylum applications awaiting determination. [940]

    Mr. Mike O'Brien
    As we said in our Manifesto, the system for dealing with asylum seekers is expensive and too slow.

    We are critically evaluating all aspects of asylum law and procedures. This includes the 1996 Act. Reducing the backlog of cases which we inherited is an important element of that process.

    The taxpayer and the asylum seeker are entitled to decisions which are swift and fair.

    Prisons (Illegal Drugs)
    Ms Abbott
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to restrict the availability of illegal drugs in prisons. [941]

    Mr. George Howarth
    The Prison Service is taking a number of measures to reduce the availability of illegal drugs in prisons. These include the use in many establishments of non-contact or closed visits for prisoners known or reasonably suspected to have used
    325
    drugs, improved liaison with local police forces over the charging of visitors who attempt to smuggle drugs, and the increased use of closed circuit television in visit areas. In addition some 70 establishments have dogs trained in detecting drugs, while others have arrangements for the regular loan of such dogs.

    Police Constables
    Sir Sydney Chapman
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to increase the number of police constables in England and Wales. [942]

    Mr. Michael
    It is for individual chief constables and police authorities to determine the number of constables in each force, having regard to the resources available to them. The Government will relieve the police of unnecessary bureaucratic burdens to allow chief constables to put more officers back on the beat.

    Prison Service
    Mr. Winnick
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has for the management of the Prison Service. [943]

    Ms Joyce Quin
    We pledged in our Manifesto to take proper Ministerial responsibility for the Prison Service.

    There are no plans to end the status of the Prison Service as an executive agency within the Home Office. But I intend to examine the structure and organisation of the Prison Service and the Home Office's policy role, taking account of the Director General's organisational review which is already under way.

    Arrested Persons (Heroin Addicts)
    Mr. Corbett
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the proportion of heroin addicts among all those who are arrested. [944]

    Mr. George Howarth
    It is difficult to quantify the proportion of offenders addicted to drugs or dependent on them. The Home Office has a research programme designed to shed further light on the links between drugs and crime. It includes a study of drug use by samples of people arrested by the police in various cities. Preliminary results from this study point to a higher level of drug taking by arrestees than expected. However, the study is still incomplete; the university of Cambridge will be delivering a report to the Home Office in October, which is likely to be published around the end of the year.

    Police Authorities (Funding)
    Mr. Baldry
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to review the method by which money is allocated to police authorities. [945]

    Mr. Michael
    I intend to give careful consideration to the funding formula by which resources are allocated between police authorities, to consider what modifications might be made both for the short and the longer term.
    326

    Young Offenders
    Mrs. Anne Campbell
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his Department's plans to shorten the period between arrest and sentencing for young offenders. [946]

    Mr. Michael
    We are taking immediate action to speed up proceedings against young offenders. The Crime and Disorder Bill will include reforms to the youth justice system and we aim to halve the average time between arrest and sentencing for young offenders.

    Crime Victims (Rights)
    Mr. Wareing
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to strengthen the rights of victims of crime; and if he will make a statement. [947]

    Mr. Michael
    We are committed to helping victims of crime and to taking action to redress the balance of the criminal justice system in favour of the victim. We will ensure that all the criminal justice agencies give a high priority to treating victims with sensitivity and respect, listening to their views and improving the services they provide to victims. We will ensure that victims of crime are informed of progress in their case—if they want to be—and that, following our reorganisation of the Crown Prosecution Service, local Crown Prosecutors become more involved in informing victims of their decisions.

    We are also committed to providing greater protection for victims in rape and serious sexual offence trials and for those subject to intimidation, including witnesses. We shall be bringing forward detailed proposals on this in due course. Victims will also benefit from our proposals to tackle violence in our society and for speeding up justice.

    Alcopops
    Mr. Waterson
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will consider the banning of alcopops. [948]

    Mr. George Howarth
    The Government have make clear their concerns about underage drinking. A Ministerial Group on Alcopops has been set up and had its first meeting on 22 May. We are looking to the industry to take urgent action. If there is no satisfactory response, we shall be considering a range of options for Government action, up to and including a complete ban.

    Mr. Kirkwood
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to reduce the consumption of alcopop-type drinks by those under 18 years. [951]

    Mr. Howarth
    The Government have made clear its concern about underage drinking. A Ministerial Group on Alcopops has been set up and had its first meeting on 22 May. We are looking to the industry to take urgent action. If there is no satisfactory response, we shall be considering a range of options for Government action.
    327

    Serious Criminal Offences
    Mr. Peter Bottomley
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will estimate the number of people convicted for the first time of a serious criminal offence since 1 May. [950]

    Mr. Michael
    The information requested is not available.

    The latest figures available are for 1994 and it is estimated that some 2,300 persons were convicted for the first time of a "standard list" offence each week.

    Such offences, which include all indictable and some of the more serious summary offences, are listed in appendices 4 and 5 of "Criminal Statistics, England and Wales, 1995".

    Minimum Mandatory Sentences
    Mr. Blunt
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has in respect of minimum mandatory sentences for career burglars and dealers in hard drugs. [949]

    Mr. Michael
    We believe tough punishments are appropriate for career burglars and dealers in hard drugs.

    Crime
    Ms McDonagh
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what reports he has received regarding comparisons between the incidence of crime in England and Wales and that in other countries. [952]

    Mr. Michael
    I have recently received a draft report on key findings of the 1996 International Crime Victimisation Survey which shows that England and Wales are top of the international league for levels of burglary, car crime and violent crime. The full report of the survey is expected in July and a copy will be placed in the Library.

    Human Rights
    Mr. Lawrie Quinn
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to improve the United Kingdom's record on human rights. [953]

    Mr. Mike O'Brien
    We will incorporate the European Convention on Human Rights into domestic law. This will allow people to enforce their human rights in British courts, and will promote a greater awareness of human rights issues in society as a whole.

    Probation Service
    Mr. Viggers
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the resources available to the probation service. [928]

    Ms Joyce Quin
    We are reviewing a number of aspects of Home Office funding, including that of the probation service. We have not reached a considered view about the appropriate level of central Government provision.
    328

    European Convention on Human Rights
    Mr. Patrick Hall
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to incorporate the European convention on Human Rights into domestic law. [1062]

    Mr. Mike O'Brien
    As announced in the Gracious Speech, we will introduce a Bill for this purpose in this Session of Parliament. This will keep the commitment made in the Labour Manifesto.

    Firearms Compensation Scheme
    Mr. Maclean
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the differences between the draft Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 compensation scheme laid before the House on 3 June and the scheme laid on 22 May. [2491]

    Mr. Michael
    With two minor exceptions in the main body of the draft scheme, the changes correct factual errors in the items and values listed in the annexes. Changes have been made as a result of comments received from the industry. A few listings were wrongly included and do not relate to items covered by the 1997 Act. In other cases more general generic descriptions have been given, replacing specific brand names. These changes improve the draft scheme, incorporating some information received after the initial version of the scheme was laid.

    Referring to the numbering of the latest version of the draft Scheme the alternations are as follows:

    Main text
    Paragraph 1
    The sentence now ends more specifically with the words..…the date on which section 1 comes into force."
    Paragraph 17
    The FCS is defined as the "Home Office Firearms Compensation Section." Previously there was no specific definition.

    Annex A
    Page x
    New sub-heading "Miscellaneous."
    Value of item 1149 (Lar Griffly) is reduced from £710 to £695.
    Page xi
    New sub-heading "Pardini."
    Page xii
    New sub-heading "Safari Enforcer."

    Annex C
    Page i
    Preamble originally at top of page moved to footnotes on page ii and expanded for additional clarity.
    Value of item 3005 (Primers) reduced from £10 to £1. This was an error in the original version where the value per 1000 was given as the value per 100.

    329
    Page ii
    Value of item 3009 increased from £40 to £100.
    Value of item 3017 reduced from £10 to £5.
    Value of item 3018 increased from £25 to £30. Wording allowing any other item not specifically listed now deleted.

    Annex D
    Page iii
    Value of items 4042 (Safariland 009 Ultimato Option 1911 Holster) reduced from £125 to £110.
    Page v
    Former item 4078 (Ruger Mini 14 Series Weaver Mount—181, 182, 183, 48602) deleted. These are rifle mounts.
    Page vi
    Former items 4098–4101 (B-Square Pistol Mounts) deleted. These are also rifle mounts.
    Page xi
    Sub-heading amended to "Weaver Qwik Point Red Dot Sights."
    Page xii
    Former items 4205–4217, which mistakenly related to rifles, deleted.
    Page xiv
    Former items 4269–4277, which mistakenly related to rifles, deleted.
    Page xv
    Former items 4288–4315, which mistakenly related to rifles, deleted.
    Page xvii
    New sub-heading "Generic Magazines."
    Page xx
    Former items 4440–4441 (Ruger Magazines), which both mistakenly related to rifles, deleted.
    Page xxi
    Former items 4499–4512 (Walther Magazines) renumbered as items 4405–4418.
    New sub-heading "CZ Magazines."
    Page xxiv
    Item 4544 (Clays Belt), which mistakenly related to shotguns, deleted.
    Page xxvii
    New sub-heading "Davis Handgrip" and former item 4589 (Hogue Wood Pistol Grips Davis S and W K/L Large Grip renumbered and renamed 4530 Davis Handgrip: S&W K/L Large Grip. No change in value.
    Former items 4590, 4593, 4594 (Pachmayr Grips) deleted. These were repeating other entries which would have caused confusion.
    Page xxx
    Former items 4646–4678 (Pistol Bullet Moulds) are deleted and replaced by a single generic description under item 4583.
    Former items 4679–4719 (Hodgdon and Miscellaneous Pistol Dies) are deleted and replaced by four generic descriptions under items 4584–4587.
    Former item 4720 (Lee Precision Pistol Press) deleted and replaced by item 4588 (Dillon Square Deal Pistol Press). No change in value.
    Former items 4722, 4724, 4725 (ammunition) deleted. These were repeating other items of ammunition of the same type and value and were removed to avoid confusion.
    Value of item 4589 (9mm Luger/Para 115 FMJ ammunition) reduced from £1.50 to £1.40 and item 4590 (Para 125 FMJ ammunition) reduced from £3.20 to £1.60.
    Name of item 4592 changed from ".32 S&W Long" to ".32 S&W."
    330
    Page xxxi
    Minor amendments made to names of items 4604 (letters "FMJ" deleted) 4605 ("SWC" deleted) and 4606 ("FMJ" deleted). No changes in values.
    Pages xxxiv and xxxv
    Values of items 4809–4819 (primers) reduced by an average factor of ten. The original values were wrongly shown as per 1000.
    Pages xxxvi and xxxvii
    New sub-heading "Fire Dragon Gun Parts" and "Wilson Custom Parts" and some consequent rearrangement of the listing on these two pages.
    Former item 4871 (Tanfoglio P9, 6" Barrel) deleted.
    Value of item 4865 (Wilson Custom Parts: Para-Ordnance P12 Barrel) (formerly item 4866) increased from £160 to £165 and 4866 (Wilson Custom Parts: Para-Ordnance P13 Barrel) (formerly item 4867) increased from £160 to £165. Items 4867–4869 (Wilson Custom Parts) are new entries.
    Page xxxix-xii
    New items 4892–4916 (Thompson Barrels-Blue).

    Ethnic Minorities
    Mr. Don Foster
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has for the future of section 11 funding in the next financial year; and if he will make a statement. [2680]

    Mr. Mike O'Brien
    Existing funding is committed to projects which are due to run until August 1998. We will announce our intentions for the period after that as soon as we can.

    Mr. Foster
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the amount of section 11 funding awarded to each LEA, and in total, for(a) 1994–95, (b) 1995–96 and (c) 1996–97; and if he will make a statement. [2681]

    Mr. O'Brien
    The amounts of grant paid to, or expected to be paid to local education authorities in relation to their expenditure within each of these years are as follows:

    Section 11 Grant: LEA funding for 1994–95 to 1996–97

    LEA

    1994–95

    1995–96

    1996–97

    Avon1

    596,858

    527,013

    0

    Barking and Dagenham

    230,860

    258,362

    265,283

    Barnet

    704,622

    739,744

    785,198

    Bedfordshire

    2,223,694

    1,988,238

    2,042,915

    Berkshire

    1,012,585

    818,675

    839,709

    Bexley

    100,138

    100,848

    113,896

    Birmingham

    3,697,999

    3,324,125

    3,415,538

    Bolton

    713,642

    578,376

    594,282

    Bradford

    3,910,928

    3,612,026

    3,707,284

    Brent

    1,372,897

    1,121,660

    1,154,462

    Bristol1

    0

    0

    549,041

    Bromley

    0

    19,118

    22,671

    Buckinghamshire

    1,063,928

    761,564

    884,119

    Bury

    344,965

    300,468

    308,731

    Calderdale

    825,187

    698,055

    658,291

    Cambridgeshire

    943,296

    885,314

    910,170

    Camden

    1,087,986

    1,295,303

    1,399,822

    Cardiff

    0

    0

    353,806

    Cheshire

    73,862

    68,369

    70,249

    Cleveland1

    423,708

    408,228

    0

    Coventry

    2,108,375

    1,931,778

    2,036,693

    Croydon

    949,775

    1,082,251

    1,187,164

    Derbyshire2

    1,026,633

    944,899

    1,040,741

    Devon

    11,949

    42,249

    59,573

    Doncaster

    100,338

    86,240

    88,611

    Dorset

    0

    15,523

    20,316

    331

    Section 11 Grant: LEA funding for 1994–95 to 1996–97

    LEA

    1994–95

    1995–96

    1996–97

    Dudley

    760,100

    689,673

    764,936

    Durham

    119,090

    117,811

    121,051

    Ealing

    2,509,484

    1,153,361

    1,170,173

    East Sussex2

    139,412

    180,626

    210,224

    Enfield

    988,054

    1,148,465

    1,282,706

    Essex

    25,755

    24,258

    24,925

    Gateshead

    22,732

    21,211

    21,536

    Gloucestershire

    196,920

    201,468

    208,837

    Greenwich

    1,244,814

    845,944

    869,207

    Gwent1

    192,662

    221,407

    0

    Hackney2

    2,778,196

    2,377,959

    2,289,531

    Hammersmith and Fulham

    632,912

    369,128

    407,789

    Hampshire

    558,367

    513,435

    527,554

    Haringey

    2,460,693

    2,046,716

    2,114,106

    Harrow

    550,753

    511,042

    528,968

    Havering

    39,169

    35,875

    36,862

    Hereford and Worcester

    175,235

    154,930

    160,021

    Hertfordshire

    1,492,311

    1,365,025

    1,406,571

    Hillingdon

    266,974

    266,493

    302,925

    Hounslow

    1,157,155

    1,041,080

    1,069,711

    Hull1

    0

    0

    32,750

    Humberside1

    244,893

    232,011

    0

    Islington

    1,169,014

    1,199,552

    1,232,540

    Kensington and Chelsea

    820,563

    714,954

    734,815

    Kent

    983,921

    819,116

    827,576

    Kingston

    105,071

    83,838

    86,143

    Kirklees

    2,226,146

    1,912,360

    1,946,520

    Lambeth2

    979,980

    1,145,690

    1,167,544

    Lancashire

    4,320,913

    3,553,451

    3,777,052

    Leeds

    1,094,986

    731,034

    751,450

    Leicestershire

    2,759,321

    2,401,675

    2,480,992

    Lewisham

    1,515,585

    951,038

    978,279

    Lincolnshire

    61,319

    70,972

    72,924

    Liverpool

    130,702

    155,323

    158,872

    Manchester

    1,884,247

    1,805,380

    1,876,516

    Merton2

    438,356

    490,188

    509,289

    Middlesbrough1

    0

    0

    427,995

    Newcastle

    208,403

    209,981

    215,756

    Newham

    1,679,469

    1,330,349

    1,392,075

    Newport1

    0

    0

    244,900

    Norfolk2

    68,285

    52,246

    125,017

    North Lincolnshire1

    0

    0

    178,098

    North East Lincolnshire1

    0

    0

    27,543

    North Tyneside

    115,586

    95,879

    98,516

    North Yorkshire

    49,312

    44,675

    45,903

    Northamptonshire

    561,848

    439,464

    451,976

    Nottinghamshire

    1,239,988

    1,159,226

    1,213,544

    Oldham2

    1,543,130

    1,477,668

    1,541,970

    Oxfordshire

    667,371

    425,844

    437,555

    Redbridge

    850,258

    873,727

    970,010

    Richmond

    56,225

    47,343

    48,645

    Rochdale2

    1,091,635

    918,569

    944,401

    Rotherham

    313,826

    305,061

    318,653

    Salford

    47,498

    44,930

    45,695

    Sandwell

    1,211,738

    1,044,197

    1,072,913

    Sheffield

    1,434,076

    1,124,567

    1,152,446

    Shropshire

    84,104

    87,160

    93,768

    Somerset2

    0

    19,970

    40,201

    South Glamorgan1

    392,925

    344,337

    0

    South Tyneside

    0

    99,071

    101,795

    Southwark

    1,759,616

    598,029

    644,508

    St. Helens

    14,043

    14,571

    15,379

    Staffordshire

    896,677

    654,603

    677,458

    Stockport

    76,079

    70,839

    72,788

    Suffolk

    237,235

    206,326

    212,111

    Sunderland

    87,284

    79,456

    81,641

    Surrey

    262,375

    247,145

    253,942

    Sutton2

    46,902

    60,312

    73,755

    Swansea1,2

    0

    0

    250,937

    Tameside

    388,379

    327,957

    336,976

    Tower Hamlets

    6,392,945

    5,049,154

    5,188,006

    Trafford

    228,686

    228,795

    264,770

    Wakefield

    251,031

    210,797

    230,907

    Walsall

    1,362,482

    1,097,879

    1,116,727

    Waltham Forest

    1,480,809

    1,266,507

    1,301,336

    Wandsworth

    1,338,480

    1,112,048

    1,142,629

    Warwickshire

    764,395

    750,289

    770,922

    332

    Section 11 Grant: LEA funding for 1994–95 to 1996–97

    LEA

    1994–95

    1995–96

    1996–97

    West Glamorgan>1

    0

    224,304

    0

    West Sussex

    212,623

    192,511

    197,805

    Westminster

    1,350,477

    1,252,246

    1,340,792

    Wigan

    44,078

    55,801

    59,212

    Wiltshire

    121,565

    109,967

    112,991

    Wirral

    75,839

    0

    0

    Wolverhampton

    1,440,393

    1,145,760

    1,174,489

    Total

    89,018,102

    76,270,475

    79,368,916

    1. Where an authority's allocation of grant covered both education and non-education projects, an estimate has been given, based on the proportion of expenditure on education projects.

    2. Figures for 1996–97 reflect grant entitlement. Final payments will be made in 1997–98.

    1 Subject to local government reorganisation in 1995–96.

    2 Payments due to these authorities for the year on the basis of expenditure claimed. Some payments remain to be made.

    Deportees
    Dr. Lynne Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were deported under Immigration Act powers from the United Kingdom in(a) January, (b) February, (c) March and (d) April; and what were the nationalities of those deported. [1926]

    Mr. Mike O'Brien
    The information requested is given in the table.

    Persons removed1 from the United Kingdom under the deportation process2 3

    January

    February

    March

    April

    Albania

    —

    —

    —

    5—

    Algeria

    5—

    3

    5—

    5—

    Angola

    —

    5—

    —

    —

    Australia

    4

    5—

    5—

    5—

    Bangladesh

    4

    5

    6

    3

    Bermuda

    5—

    —

    —

    —

    Brazil

    3

    5—

    5—

    —

    Bulgaria

    5—

    —

    5—

    5—

    Cameroon

    —

    5—

    —

    —

    Canada

    —

    5—

    —

    5—

    Chile

    5—

    —

    5—

    —

    China

    5—

    —

    —

    5—

    Columbia

    3

    3

    5—

    5—

    Croatia

    5—

    3

    —

    5—

    Cyprus

    5—

    —

    4

    3

    Denmark

    —

    —

    5—5

    5—5

    Ecuador

    5—

    —

    5—

    —

    Egypt

    5—

    5—

    3

    5—

    Ethiopia

    5—

    —

    —

    5—

    Gambia

    5

    5—

    3

    5—

    Germany

    5—

    6—

    5—

    —

    Ghana

    7

    13

    12

    15

    Grenada

    —

    5—

    —

    —

    Guyana

    —

    5—

    —

    5—

    Hong Kong—BDTC(Hong Kong)

    5—

    5—

    5—

    3

    Hungary

    5—

    5—

    —

    5—

    India

    13

    10

    21

    10

    Iran

    5—

    5—

    5—

    5—

    Ireland

    —

    5—

    —

    5—

    Italy

    5—

    —

    —

    5—

    Jamaica

    12

    16

    8

    15

    Japan

    —

    —

    5—

    5—

    Kenya

    6

    5—

    5—

    —

    Lebanon

    *

    *

    —

    —

    Libya (Arab Republic)

    —

    *

    —

    *

    Lithuania

    3

    *

    4

    3

    Malaysia

    8

    5

    6

    7

    Mauritius

    *

    —

    *

    —

    Morocco

    *

    —

    *

    *

    Nepal

    —

    *

    —

    —

    333

    Persons removed1 from the United Kingdom under the deportation process2 3

    January

    February

    March

    April

    Netherlands

    *

    *

    *

    *

    New Zealand

    3

    —

    —

    —

    Nigeria

    14

    17

    15

    16

    Pakistan

    20

    13

    13

    21

    Peru

    *

    *

    *

    —

    Philippines

    *

    *

    *

    *

    Poland

    5

    8

    12

    5

    Portugal

    *

    *

    —

    —

    Romania

    *

    *

    *

    —

    Russia

    —

    *

    *

    —

    Sierra Leone

    5

    4

    *

    5

    South Africa

    4

    3

    *

    *

    South Korea

    *

    3

    —

    —

    Sri Lanka

    *

    —

    —

    —

    St. Vincent and the Grenadlines

    —

    —

    *

    *

    Tanzania

    4

    *

    *

    3

    Thailand

    —

    *

    *

    *

    Trinidad and Tobago

    —

    *

    *

    *

    Turkey

    6

    5

    3

    *

    Uganda

    *

    *

    *

    *

    Ukraine (Ukranian SSR)

    3

    3

    *

    *

    United States of America

    5

    *

    4

    4

    Venezuela

    *

    *

    —

    —

    Zambia

    5

    *

    *

    —

    Zimbabwe

    5

    3

    5

    5

    Other4

    4

    4

    6

    3

    All

    185

    166

    164

    162

    1 Including voluntary departures after deportation action had been initiated.

    2 Excluding illegal entrants removed.

    3 Provisional data.

    4 Including nationalities where there has been only one deportation during the period.

    >5 1 or 2.

    Dr. Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people who were convicted of a criminal offence in the United Kingdom, punishable by a prison sentence, were deported as part of their sentence in(a) January, (b) February and (c) March; what the (a) nationalities and (b) gender were of those deported; and from which prison establishments they were deported. [1929]

    Mr. O'Brien
    The information requested for January to March is given in the tables.

    Persons removed from the United Kingdom under the deportation process following a court recommendation1, first quarter 1997, by gender

    Number

    Male

    47

    Female

    12

    Total

    59

    1 Provisional data.

    Persons removed from the United Kingdom under the deportation process following a court recommendation first quarter 1997, by nationality

    Number

    Jamaica

    9

    Nigeria

    7

    Pakistan

    4

    Ghana

    3

    Portugal

    3

    Zambia

    3

    Angola

    2

    334

    Persons removed from the United Kingdom under the deportation process following a court recommendation1 first quarter 1997, by nationality

    Number

    Columbia

    2

    Hungary

    2

    Peru

    2

    South Africa

    2

    United States of America

    2

    Other2

    18

    Total

    59

    1Provisional data.

    2Includes nationalities where only one person is recorded as deported.

    Persons removed from the United Kingdom under the deportation process following a court recommendation,1 first quarter 1997, by month

    Number

    January

    20

    February

    24

    March

    15

    Total

    59

    1Provisional data.

    Persons removed from the United Kingdom under the deportation process following a court recommendation1 first quarter 1997, by last recorded place of detention

    Number

    HMP Holloway

    10

    HMP Rochester

    7

    HMP Highdown

    5

    HMP The Verne

    5

    HMP Wormwood Scrubs

    4

    HMP Brixton

    3

    HMP Cookham Wood

    3

    HMP Wandsworth

    3

    HMP Swaleside

    2

    HMP Wayland

    2

    Others2

    15

    Total

    59

    1Provisional data.

    2Includes nationalities where only 1 person is recorded as deported.

    Dr. Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons were detained under Immigration Act powers, in the United Kingdom during(a) Janaury, (b) February, (c) March and (d) April; what the (a) nationalities and (b) gender were of those detained; and how many were deported. [1930]

    Mr. O'Brien
    The available information on persons detained under Immigration Act powers, and on the number deported from detention, is given in the tables. The number deported does not include those who are removed as illegal entrants or under port refusal procedures.

    Table 1: Number1 of immigration detainees2 deported3 during January, February, March and April 1997

    Month

    Number deported

    January

    60

    February

    51

    335

    Table 1: Number1 of immigration detainees2 deported3 during January, February, March and April 1997

    Month

    Number deported

    March

    55

    April

    47

    Total

    213

    1Provisional figures.

    2Persons detained solely under the powers contained in Schedules 2 or 3 of the Immigration Act 1971.

    3Removed under the deportation process, including those who departed voluntarily after deportation action had been initiated.

    Table 2: Number of people recorded as being detained1 2 3 under Immigration Act powers, by nationality of detainee, as at selected dates in 1997

    Nationality

    As at 31 January4 1997

    As at 27 March 1997

    As at 30 April 1997

    Albania

    4

    7

    12

    Algeria

    88

    85

    89

    Angola

    11

    17

    14

    Bangladesh

    26

    17

    26

    Bulgaria

    4

    10

    6

    Cameroon

    5

    5

    4

    China

    52

    57

    57

    Columbia

    13

    18

    18

    Congo

    3

    3

    4

    Cyprus

    19

    13

    19

    Ecuador

    6

    7

    4

    Ethiopia

    8

    6

    8

    Gambia

    19

    16

    16

    Ghana

    40

    32

    41

    India

    109

    134

    155

    Iran

    7

    8

    6

    Iraq

    3

    4

    4

    Israel

    17

    2

    2

    Ivory Coast

    3

    3

    6

    Jamaica

    30

    39

    43

    Kenya

    8

    12

    11

    Liberia

    9

    10

    10

    Lithuania

    10

    10

    12

    Malaysia

    6

    4

    6

    Morocco

    12

    10

    11

    Nigeria

    134

    138

    126

    Pakistan

    61

    59

    64

    Poland

    13

    23

    37

    Romania

    13

    17

    18

    Russia

    9

    9

    8

    Sierra Leone

    8

    7

    6

    Somalia

    8

    3

    6

    South Africa

    4

    5

    5

    Sri Lanka

    17

    16

    17

    Sudan

    7

    6

    4

    Turkey

    29

    27

    22

    Uganda

    8

    7

    10

    Zaire

    39

    35

    38

    Others5

    63

    73

    92

    Nationality doubtful

    11

    12

    13

    Total

    936

    966

    1,050

    1Provisional figures.

    2Persons detailed solely under the powers contained in Schedules 2 or 3 of the Immigration Act 1971. In some cases the asylum application will have been lodged subsequent to the applicant being detained. The figures include both detained asylum applicants who applied at ports, and those detained in after-entry enforcement work and include those awaiting removal following refusal of asylum, as well as those whose applications were under consideration or subject to appeal.

    3Excludes non-asylum port cases in detention.

    4Illegal entrants and those subject to deportation action are as at 31 January and Port cases are as at 3 February.

    5The "others" category may include nationalities already listed.

    336

    Table 3: Number of people recorded as being detained1 2 3 under Immigration Act powers, by gender of detainee, as at selected dates in 1997

    Gender

    As at 31 January4 1997

    As at 27 March 1997

    As at 30 April 1997

    Male

    851

    884

    950

    Female

    85

    82

    100

    Total

    936

    966

    1,050

    1Provisional figures.

    2Persons detained solely under the powers contained in Schedules 2 or 3 of the Immigration Act 1971. In some cases the asylum application will have been lodged subsequent to the applicant being detained. The figures include both detained asylum applicants who applied at ports, and those detained in after-entry enforcement work and include those awaiting removal following refusal of asylum, as well as those whose applications were under consideration or subject to appeal.

    3Excludes non-asylum port cases in detention.

    4Illegal entrants and those subject to deportation action are as at 31 January and Port cases are as at 3 February.

    Dr. Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many notices of intention to deport were issued in(a) January, (b) February, (c) March and (d) April. [1935]

    Mr. O'Brien
    The information requested for January to April 1997 is given in the table.

    Persons issued, under the deportation process, with a notice of intention to deport', January to April 1997.

    Number

    January

    480

    February

    490

    March

    539

    April

    492

    1Provisional data.

    Asylum Seekers
    Mr. Corbyn
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to give asylum detainees access to the judicial process. [922]

    Mr. Mike O'Brien
    All detainees held under powers conferred by the Immigration Acts, some of whom may be asylum seekers, already have some access to the judicial process and are able to take legal advice. Posters advertising the services of organisations such as the Refugee Legal Centre, which offers advice free of charge, are prominently displayed in detention centres. The right to apply for bail to an independent adjudicator is open to most of those in detention, including asylum seekers. It is open to any asylum seeker to seek a judicial review of his or her case at any time.

    Dr. Lynne Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people in the United Kingdom(a) applied for asylum and (b) were granted asylum in (i) January, (ii) February (iii) March and (iv) April; and what were their nationalities. [1927]

    Mr. O'Brien
    The requested information is given in the following tables.
    337

    Table 1: Applications1 received for asylum in the UK, excluding dependants, and initial decisions2 3 by nationality January 1997

    Number of principal applicants

    Applications

    Decisions

    Applications

    Recognised as a regfugee and granted asylum

    Not recognised as a refugee but granted exceptional leave

    Refused asylum and exceptional leave

    Europe

    Bulgaria

    35

    —

    —

    45

    Cyprus

    65

    —

    —

    55

    Poland

    90

    —

    —

    125

    Romania

    30

    —

    —

    35

    Former

    USSR

    220

    *

    —

    20

    Turkey

    165

    5

    —

    130

    Former

    Yugoslavia

    110

    155

    40

    35

    Others

    30

    —

    —

    10

    Total

    755

    165

    40

    455

    Americas

    Colombia

    110

    *

    —

    35

    Others

    80

    *

    *

    45

    Total

    190

    5

    *

    80

    Middle East

    Iran

    35

    40

    5

    30

    Iraq

    90

    10

    25

    5

    Lebanon

    15

    *

    5

    5

    Others

    50

    5

    5

    20

    Total

    195

    60

    35

    60

    Africa

    Algeria

    55

    5

    —

    100

    Angola

    15

    5

    *

    50

    Cameroon

    20

    —

    —

    10

    Ethiopia

    10

    5

    10

    20

    Gambia

    5

    —

    —

    35

    Ghana

    20

    *

    —

    145

    Ivory Coast

    *

    5

    —

    20

    Kenya

    40

    *

    *

    70

    Liberia

    15

    —

    10

    10

    Nigeria

    60

    *

    *

    350

    Rwanda

    5

    —

    —

    *

    Sierra Leone

    *

    —

    *

    95

    Somalia

    170

    —

    240

    35

    South Africa

    *

    —

    —

    20

    Sudan

    25

    10

    *

    25

    Tanzania

    *

    —

    *

    75

    Togo

    5

    —

    —

    10

    Uganda

    10

    *

    5

    30

    Zaire

    45

    *

    10

    80

    Zimbabwe

    *

    —

    —

    10

    Others

    25

    —

    5

    30

    Total

    530

    30

    285

    1,210

    Asia

    Afghanistan

    45

    5

    55

    *

    Bangladesh

    15

    —

    —

    55

    China

    300

    *

    *

    50

    India

    50

    —

    *

    265

    Pakistan

    65

    —

    —

    190

    Sri Lanka

    95

    5

    —

    175

    Others

    25

    —

    —

    30

    Total

    595

    10

    60

    770

    Other and unknown nationalities

    10

    —

    —

    —

    Grand total

    2,275

    265

    415

    2,580

    1Figures rounded to nearest 5, with * = 1 or 2.

    2Decision figures do not necessarily relate to applications made in the same month.

    3Information is of initial determination decisions, excluding the outcome of appeals or other subsequent decisions.

    338

    Table 2: Applications1 received for asylum in the UK, excluding dependants, and initial decisions2 3 by nationality January 1997

    Number of principal applicants

    Applications

    Decisions

    Recognised as a refugee and granted asylum

    Not recognised as a refugee but granted exceptional leave

    Refused asylum and exceptional leave

    Europe

    Bulgaria

    20

    *

    —

    25

    Cyprus

    40

    —

    —

    25

    Poland

    40

    —

    —

    105

    Romania

    10

    —

    —

    15

    Former USSR

    155

    —

    —

    25

    Turkey

    125

    10

    *

    140

    Former Yugoslavia

    135

    220

    20

    40

    Others

    40

    —

    —

    15

    Total

    565

    230

    20

    390

    Americas

    Colombia

    190

    5

    —

    25

    Others

    85

    —

    *

    50

    Total

    270

    5

    *

    70

    Middle East

    Iran

    50

    20

    5

    25

    Iraq

    70

    15

    30

    10

    Lebanon

    5

    *

    5

    10

    Others

    25

    10

    5

    30

    Total

    150

    50

    45

    75

    Africa

    Algeria

    35

    5

    —

    75

    Angola

    30

    —

    *

    65

    Cameroon

    10

    —

    —

    15

    Ethiopia

    10

    *

    10

    25

    Gambia

    *

    *

    —

    30

    Ghana

    20

    —

    —

    105

    Ivory Coast

    10

    —

    —

    20

    Kenya

    40

    —

    *

    105

    Liberia

    15

    —

    10

    25

    Nigeria

    55

    *

    *

    350

    Rwanda

    10

    —

    —

    —

    Sierra Leone

    5

    —

    —

    70

    Somalia

    105

    *

    170

    25

    South Africa

    *

    —

    *

    5

    Sudan

    10

    5

    *

    20

    Tanzania

    5

    —

    —

    50

    Togo

    5

    *

    —

    5

    Uganda

    15

    *

    5

    35

    Zaire

    40

    5

    5

    70

    Zimbabwe

    *

    —

    —

    10

    Others

    30

    —

    *

    30

    Total

    455

    20

    205

    1,135

    Asia

    Afghanistan

    65

    —

    100

    5

    Bangladesh

    15

    —

    —

    55

    China

    230

    —

    —

    50

    India

    35

    *

    —

    240

    Pakistan

    70

    —

    *

    175

    Sri Lanka

    90

    *

    *

    185

    Others

    20

    —

    —

    20

    Total

    525

    *

    105

    730

    Other and unknown nationalities

    15

    —

    —

    5

    Grand total

    1,985

    305

    375

    2,410

    1Figures rounded to nearest 5, with * = 1 or 2.

    2Decision figures do not necessarily relate to applications made in the same month.

    3Information is of initial determination decisions, excluding the outcome of appeals or other subsequent decisions.

    339

    Table 3: Applications1 received for asylum in the UK, excluding dependants, and initial decisions2,3 by nationality March 1997

    Number of principal applicants

    Applications

    Decisions

    Recognised as a refugee and granted asylum

    Not recognised as a refugee but granted exceptional leave

    Refused asylum and exceptional leave

    Europe

    Bulgaria

    35

    *

    —

    20

    Cyprus

    50

    —

    —

    35

    Poland

    30

    —

    —

    80

    Romania

    15

    —

    —

    35

    Former USSR

    140

    —

    —

    40

    Turkey

    105

    *

    *

    120

    Former Yugoslavia

    65

    180

    20

    30

    Others

    60

    —

    —

    55

    Total

    505

    185

    20

    415

    Americas

    Colombia

    235

    —

    20

    Others

    115

    —

    —

    25

    Total

    350

    —

    —

    45

    Middle East

    Iran

    45

    30

    5

    15

    Iraq

    65

    25

    25

    10

    Lebanon

    10

    5

    5

    10

    Others

    30

    15

    *

    40

    Total

    150

    70

    35

    75

    Africa

    Algeria

    45

    *

    —

    95

    Angola

    20

    *

    5

    40

    Cameroon

    5

    —

    —

    20

    Ethiopia

    15

    —

    5

    30

    Gambia

    *

    —

    —

    30

    Ghana

    20

    —

    —

    150

    Ivory Coast

    5

    —

    —

    25

    Kenya

    35

    10

    *

    95

    Liberia

    15

    5

    5

    15

    Nigeria

    55

    *

    *

    335

    Rwanda

    10

    —

    *

    —

    Sierra Leone

    5

    —

    *

    75

    Somalia

    130

    5

    —

    35

    South Africa:

    *

    —

    —

    5

    Sudan

    10

    5

    *

    10

    Tanzania

    *

    —

    —

    55

    Togo

    *

    —

    *

    15

    Uganda

    15

    *

    *

    15

    Zaire

    35

    5

    5

    50

    Zimbabwe

    5

    —

    —

    5

    Others

    20

    *

    5

    25

    Total

    440

    35

    35

    1,140

    Asia

    Afghanistan

    50

    5

    50

    5

    Bangladesh

    10

    —

    —

    50

    China

    135

    *

    —

    35

    India

    20

    —

    *

    250

    Pakistan

    55

    *

    *

    200

    Sri Lanka

    85

    *

    —

    170

    Others

    15

    —

    —

    25

    Total

    365

    5

    55

    735

    Other and unknown nationalitites

    10

    —

    —

    —

    Grand total

    1,820

    295

    140

    2,410

    1Figures rounded to nearest 5, with * = 1 or 2.

    2Decision figures do not necessarily relate to applications made in the same month.

    3Information is of initial determination decisions, excluding the outcome of appeals or other subsequent decisions.

    340

    Table 4: Applications1 received for asylum in the UK, excluding dependants, and initial decisions2 3 by nationality April 1997

    Number of principal applicants

    Applications

    Decisions

    Recognised as a refugee and granted asylum

    Not recognised as a refugee but granted exceptional leave

    Refused asylum and exceptional leave

    Europe

    Bulgaria

    45

    —

    —

    20

    Cyprus

    20

    —

    —

    20

    Poland

    30

    —

    —

    130

    Romania

    50

    —

    —

    35

    Former USSR

    180

    —

    —

    40

    Turkey

    80

    5

    *

    120

    Former Yugoslavia

    155

    190

    10

    70

    Others

    85

    —

    —

    30

    Total

    640

    195

    15

    500

    Americas

    Colombia

    290

    —

    —

    35

    Others

    150

    *

    —

    40

    Total

    440

    *

    —

    75

    Middle East

    Iran

    50

    10

    *

    25

    Iraq

    75

    15

    35

    15

    Lebanon

    10

    —

    5

    10

    Others

    40

    5

    10

    25

    Total

    175

    30

    50

    70

    Africa

    Algeria

    35

    5

    —

    65

    Angola

    15

    *

    *

    60

    Cameroon

    15

    —

    —

    10

    Ethiopia

    10

    5

    *

    25

    Gambia

    5

    —

    —

    35

    Ghana

    15

    *

    —

    165

    Ivory Coast

    5

    *

    —

    20

    Kenya

    55

    —

    *

    140

    Liberia

    15

    *

    *

    15

    Nigeria

    45

    *

    5

    475

    Rwanda

    10

    —

    —

    5

    Sierra Leone

    15

    —

    —

    80

    Somalia

    165

    5

    —

    35

    South Africa

    5

    —

    —

    *

    Sudan

    20

    5

    5

    25

    Tanzania

    10

    —

    —

    65

    Togo

    5

    —

    —

    5

    Uganda

    20

    —

    5

    50

    Zaire

    50

    5

    15

    5

    Zimbabwe

    5

    *

    *

    10

    Others

    25

    *

    5

    65

    Total

    540

    30

    40

    1,345

    Asia

    Afghanistan

    75

    *

    70

    10

    Bangladesh

    15

    —

    5

    65

    China

    175

    *

    *

    100

    India

    25

    —

    —

    295

    Pakistan

    65

    —

    5

    305

    Sri Lanka

    90

    5

    *

    160

    Others

    20

    —

    *

    15

    Total

    465

    5

    80

    955

    Other and unknown nationalities

    15

    —

    —

    —

    Grand total

    2,275

    265

    185

    2,945

    1Figures rounded to nearest 5, with * = 1 or 2.

    2Decision figures do not necessarily relate to applications made in the same month.

    3Information is of initial determination decisions, excluding the outcome of appeals or other subsequent decisions.

    341
    Dr. Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers were held in detention in the United Kingdom at the end of (i) January, (ii) February, (iii) March and (iv) April; in which establishments they were held; what the(a) nationalities and (b) gender were of those detained; how many were deported; and from which establishments. [1928]

    Mr. O'Brien
    The available information on asylum seekers detained, and on the number deported from detention is given in the tables. The number deported does not include those who are removed as illegal entrants or under port refusal procedures.

    Table 1: Number of people recorded as being detained1 2 who had sought asylum at some stage, by detention location, as at selected dates in 1997

    As at 31 Janaury3 1997

    As at 27 March 1997

    As at 30 April 1997

    Prison

    HMP Armley

    3

    3

    3

    HMP Birmingham

    16

    15

    10

    HMP Bristol

    2

    2

    3

    HMP Brixton

    5

    3

    5

    HMP Greenock

    11

    14

    19

    HMP Haslar

    92

    89

    82

    HMP Holloway

    2

    2

    2

    HMP Liverpool

    4

    3

    2

    HMP Magilligan

    4

    8

    10

    HMP Manchester

    4

    3

    3

    HMP Rochester

    139

    132

    129

    HMP Wandsworth

    6

    6

    4

    HMP Wormwood Scrubs

    9

    8

    7

    Other prison4

    27

    25

    19

    Other places of detention

    Campsfield House

    159

    141

    137

    Dover Harbour

    6

    5

    5

    Harmondsworth

    88

    89

    91

    Manchester Airport

    6

    7

    8

    Meavdale Buildings

    32

    24

    36

    Police Cells

    35

    71

    84

    Queens Buildings

    12

    13

    15

    Tinsley House

    104

    111

    114

    Other place4

    2

    3

    9

    Total

    768

    777

    797

    1Provisional figures.

    2Persons detained solely under the powers contained in Schedule 2 or 3 of the Immigration Act 1971. In some cases the asylum application will have been lodged subsequent to the applicant being detained. The figures include both detained asylum applicants who applied at ports, and those detained in after-entry enforcement work and include those awaiting removal following refusal of asylum, as well as those whose applications were under consideration or subject to appeal.

    3Illegal entrants and those subject to deportation action are as at 31 January and Port cases are as at 3 February.

    4The "other" categories may include locations already listed.

    Table 2: Number of people recorded as being detained1 2 who had sought asylum at some stage, by nationality of detainee, as at selected dates in 1997

    Nationality

    As at 31 January3 1997

    As at 27 March 1997

    As at 30 April 1997

    Albania

    4

    6

    11

    Algeria

    78

    78

    75

    Angola

    11

    17

    14

    Bangladesh

    15

    13

    21

    Bulgaria

    4

    10

    6

    342

    Table 2: Number of people recorded as being detained1 2 who had sought asylum at some stage, by nationality of detainee, as at selected dates in 1997

    Nationality

    As at 31 January3 1997

    As at 27 March 1997

    As at 30 April 1997

    China

    48

    53

    53

    Columbia

    10

    18

    16

    Congo

    3

    3

    4

    Cyprus

    18

    12

    17

    Ethiopia

    7

    6

    7

    Gambia

    15

    13

    13

    Ghana

    37

    30

    28

    India

    96

    116

    129

    Iran

    7

    8

    6

    Iraq

    3

    4

    4

    Ivory Coast

    3

    3

    6

    Jamaica

    10

    9

    8

    Kenya

    7

    9

    11

    Liberia

    8

    10

    10

    Lithuania

    10

    8

    7

    Morocco

    6

    6

    5

    Nigeria

    108

    109

    101

    Pakistan

    44

    42

    49

    Poland

    7

    10

    11

    Romania

    13

    16

    13

    Russia

    8

    6

    7

    Sierra Leone

    7

    6

    5

    Sri Lanka

    16

    14

    14

    Sudan

    7

    6

    4

    Turkey

    28

    26

    21

    Uganda

    8

    7

    7

    Zaire

    38

    33

    37

    Other4

    75

    62

    70

    Nationality doubtful

    9

    8

    7

    Total

    768

    777

    797

    1Provisional figures.

    2Persons detained solely under the powers contained in Schedules 2 or 3 of the Immigration Act 1971. In some cases the asylum application will have been lodged subsequent to the applicant being detained. The figures include both detained asylum applicants who applied at ports, and those detained in after-entry enforcement work and include those awaiting removal following refusal of asylum, as well as those whose applications were under consideration or subject to appeal.

    3Illegal entrants and those subject to deportation action are as at 31 January and Port cases are as at 3 February.

    4The 'other' categories may include nationalities already listed.

    Table 3: Number of people recorded as being detained1 2 who had sought asylum at some stage, by gender of detainee, as at selected dates in 1997

    Gender

    As at 31 January3 1997

    As at 27 March 1997

    As at 30 April 1997

    Male

    698

    714

    730

    Female

    70

    63

    67

    Total

    768

    777

    797

    1Provisional figures.

    2Persons detained solely under the powers contained in Schedules 2 or 3 of the Immigration Act 1971. In some cases the asylum application will have been lodged subsequent to the applicant being detained. The figures include both detained asylum applicants who applied at ports, and those detained in after-entry enforcement work and include those awaiting removal following refusal of asylum, as well as those applications were under consideration or subject to appeal.

    3Illegal entrants and those subject to deportation action are as at 31 January and Port cases are as at 3 February.

    343

    Table 4: Number of asylum detainees1 2 recorded as being deported3, by location of detention4, January to April 1997

    Number of deported asylum detainees

    Prison

    HMP Rochester

    8

    HMP Haslar

    3

    Other prison

    7

    Other places of detention

    Tinsley House

    7

    Harmondsworth

    3

    Meadvale Buildings

    2

    Queens Building

    2

    Other

    12

    Total

    44

    1Provisional figures.

    2Persons detained solely under the powers contained in Schedules 2 or 3 of the Immigration Act 1971.

    3Removed under the deportation process, including those who departed voluntarily after deportation action had been initiated.

    4Information is of the last recorded detention location.

    Immigration
    Mr. Gerrard
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people in each of the last five years, having been given exceptional leave to remain in the United Kingdom, were refused extension of that leave(a) after one year and (b) after four years. [2097]

    Mr. Mike O'Brien
    I regret that the information requested is not held centrally.

    Essex Constabulary
    Mr. Bob Russell
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers there were in the Essex Constabulary on(a) 1 April 1979, (b) 1 April 1983, (c) 1 April 1987, (d) 1 April 1992 and (e) 1 April 1997. [2079]

    Mr. Michael
    The information available is set out in the table:

    Essex police

    Year1

    Number of police officers

    1979

    2,461

    1983

    2,641

    1987

    2,725

    1992

    2,898

    19972

    2,961

    1As at 31 March.

    2Provisional.

    WPC Yvonne Fletcher
    Mr. Mitchell
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what new evidence he has examined relating to the murder of WPC Yvonne Fletcher; and if he will make a statement. [2087]

    Mr. Straw
    The investigation of the murder of WPC Yvonne Fletcher is a matter for the police who I understand are keeping this matter under review. Anyone who has new evidence relating to this crime should pass it to them.
    344

    Immigration Officers (Heathrow)
    Mr. Vaz
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many immigration officers are employed at each of the terminals at Heathrow Airport. [2159]

    Mr. Mike O'Brien
    On 1 May 1997, the following numbers of immigration officers were employed at Heathrow airport:

    Terminal 1: 152

    Terminal 2: 165

    Terminal 3: 251

    Terminal 4: 162.

    Policing
    Mr. Todd
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the police authorities in England and Wales indicating the number of people in the area served per police officer in each case and ranking the authorities in descending order of population per officer. [2256]

    Mr. Michael
    The information requested is set out in the table:

    Police force

    Population per police officer1

    Suffolk

    557

    Thames Valley

    554

    North Yorkshire

    546

    West Mercia

    546

    Norfolk

    539

    Warwickshire

    539

    Devon and Cornwall

    538

    Derbyshire

    535

    Cambridgeshire

    533

    Dorset

    529

    Wiltshire

    512

    Lincolnshire

    512

    Northamptonshire

    509

    Essex

    509

    Hampshire

    505

    Bedfordshire

    499

    Avon and Somerset

    489

    Gloucestershire

    488

    Hertfordshire

    488

    North Wales

    481

    Surrey

    478

    Cheshire

    478

    Staffordshire

    478

    Kent

    476

    Sussex

    474

    Leicestershire

    474

    Dyfed-Powys

    472

    Gwent

    447

    Nottinghamshire

    444

    Lancashire

    439

    Humberside

    435

    Cumbria

    428

    Durham

    416

    South Yorkshire

    413

    South Wales

    412

    West Yorkshire

    404

    Northumbria

    391

    Cleveland

    383

    Greater Manchester

    372

    West Midlands

    371

    Merseyside

    337

    Metropolitan

    281

    City of London

    6

    1Based on OPCS population data as at 30 June 1995 and police force numbers as at 31 March 1997.

    345

    Closed Circuit Television
    Mr. Letwin
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to make provision for the siting of CCTV cameras in parts of rural towns where vandalism is a persistent problem. [2362]

    Mr. Michael
    I am considering the future of the closed circuit television Challenge Competition as part of our review of existing expenditure programmes. A decision on whether there will be another round of the competition in 1998–99 will be made later in the summer.

    Criminal Record Certificates
    Mr. Beith
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to implement part V of the Police Act 1997; and what plans he has to provide for the waiving or abatement of charges to volunteers for the certificates referred to in the Act. [2383]

    Mr. Michael
    We are currently considering the detailed implications of part V of the Police Act 1997. In fulfilment of the undertaking I gave to the House during the report stage we will be consulting the voluntary sector before any final decisions are reached.

    Merseyside Constabulary
    Mr. Fearn
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers there were in the Merseyside Constabulary on(a) 1 April 1979, (b) 1 April 1983, (c) 1 April 1987, (d) 1 April 1992 and (e) 1 April 1997. [2481]

    Mr. Michael
    The information available is set out in the table:

    Merseyside police

    Year1

    Number of police officers

    1979

    4,427

    1983

    4,631

    1987

    4,598

    1992

    4,621

    19972

    4,230

    1As at 31 March.

    2Provisional.

    Number of persons convicted within the Lancashire police force area for specific drug offences1, 1992–95

    Offence

    1992

    1993

    1994

    1995

    Production or being concerned in the production of a controlled drug

    25

    26

    42

    46

    Supplying or offering to supply a controlled drug

    72

    54

    73

    117

    Possession of a controlled drug with intent to supply

    92

    80

    115

    160

    Possession of a controlled drug

    444

    295

    380

    618

    1Principal offence only.

    .22 Calibre Pistols (Deaths)
    Mr. Olner
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been killed with. 22 calibre pistols in the last 10 years. [1630]

    Mr. Michael
    In the past, information on the calibre of firearms used in homicide offences has not been collected centrally in England and Wales as a matter of routine.
    346

    Radioactive Waste Disposal (Hurd Deep)
    Mr. Llew Smith
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what requests he has had from the State of Jersey Authorities to discuss the report commissioned from Professor Sir John Knill and Dr. Mike Romerill concerning the disposal of radioactive waste in the Hurd Deep which was published in May. [2676]

    Mr. Mike O'Brien
    None.

    Bribery and Corruption
    Mr. Derek Twigg
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he proposes to take to reform and consolidate the law on corruption with particular reference to bribery of hon. Members. [3047]

    Mr. Straw
    The Government are committed to tackling corruption in all areas of public and private life, including the bribery of hon. Members.

    I am publishing today a statement on reform of the corruption statutes for consultation. A copy is available in the Library. The Law Commission will be producing proposals for reform of the law in this area later in the year.

    I shall consider carefully the results of all of these exercises, together with any further recommendations which the Nolan Committee may make in relation to the criminal law.

    I expect to make a further statement on the reform of the law in this area early next year.

    Controlled Drugs (Lancashire)
    Mr. Gordon Prentice
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many convictions there were against people for(a) dealing in and (b) possessing controlled drugs in Lancashire for each year since 1992. [1635]

    Mr. Michael
    The available information is given in the table.

    However, a special exercise was conducted last year, and subsequently updated this year, to find out further information on homicides involving firearms.

    This covered the three years 1992 to 1994, and out of a total of 90 homicides involving the use of a handgun, information was available in 76 cases to show that seven persons were killed with a. 22 calibre handgun. It is not known, however, what type of. 22 cartridge was used.
    347
    For the remaining 69 cases, the calibre of the handguns involved, as reported by the police forces concerned, is as follows:

    Calibre

    Number of handguns

    9mm

    12

    .32

    20

    .38

    17

    .45

    9

    .357

    4

    .375

    1

    .445

    1

    .455

    3

    .635

    2

  WALES

    Teachers
    Mr. Barry Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the availability of full-time posts for unemployed teachers in Wales. [2002]

    Mr. Hain
    Local authorities and grant-maintained schools reported that, as at January 1997, there were 102 vacancies for full-time teachers in maintained secondary, primary and special schools in Wales. This represents less than 0.5 per cent. of teachers employed by local authorities and grant-maintained schools in Wales. It is open to any suitably qualified teacher to apply for appointment to a vacant post in Wales.

    Red Barn Development
    Mr. Edwards
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will make a statement on the decision of Gwent health authority to cancel the proposed Red Barn development; [2374]

    (2) what role the private finance initiative has played in the Red Barn proposal at Nevill Hall hospital, Abergavenny. [2376]

    Mr. Win Griffiths
    Gwent Community Health Trust sought private sector interest under the Private Finance Initiative as required by the Department. A preferred bidder was selected and negotiations had been continuing.

    Gwent Health Authority's decision was taken because costs had increased, value for money was not demonstrated sufficiently, and the proposals no longer met the demand for services. The Authority will now discuss needs with local people, local authorities and other interested parties. This is a matter for the Health Authority and they have to decide on the most cost effective way of delivering services for their communities.

    Pen y Fal Hospital
    Mr. Edwards
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what receipts accrued to his Department from the closure of Pen y Fal Hospital, Abergavenny. [2372]
    348
    Mr. Win Griffiths
    The Pen y Fal Hospital site has not yet been sold and no receipts have accrued to the department.

    Gwent Community Health Trust are at present marketing the major part of the site and interested parties have been asked to prepare a bid.

    Chepstow Community Hospital
    Mr. Edwards
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement about the proposed Chepstow community hospital. [2375]

    Mr. Win Griffiths
    Glan Hafren NHS Trust in collaboration with local GPs, and with the support of Gwent Health Authority, are working on a proposal for a new Neighbourhood Health Unit to be built on the St. Lawrence Hospital site at Chepstow. The unit will provide for a range of primary, continuing, mental health, diagnostic and acute services. The development is a Private Finance Initiative and the Trust are currently in the final stages of negotiation with the private sector consortium.

    Ovarian Cancer
    Mr. Hanson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the availability of screening programmes via NHS hospitals for ovarian cancer in Wales. [2189]

    Mr. Win Griffiths
    I have made no specific assessment of the availability of screening programmes for ovarian cancer. Professional advice is that there is currently no screening test assessed as effective which can be used on a population basis.

    Private Finance Initiative
    Mr. Edwards
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement about the future of the private
    finance initiative in relation to the national health service. [2379]

    Mr. Win Griffiths
    As my hon. Friend knows, the Government is currently undertaking an urgent review of the Private Finance Initiative. This is being led by the Paymaster General. In addition, officials in the Welsh Office Health Department are working with their colleagues in the Department of Health to determine what changes are necessary to ensure the PFI delivers the range of health care facilities which so far it has failed to do. As a first step, we have introduced the NHS (Private Finance) Bill in order to provide the necessary assurance to the private sector that Trusts can enter into PFI contracts. This should break the current logjam of projects.

    We expect all of this work to be completed quickly. The review led by my hon. Friend will report by 13 June. Officials are working to a slightly longer timetable; and if all goes well, the Bill will be enacted before the summer recess. We are determined to give the PFI a new impetus so that we can start building new health facilities to carry us through to the 21st Century.
    349

    Chepstow Bypass
    Mr. Edwards
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement about the proposed outer bypass for Chepstow. [2369]
    350
    Mr. Hain
    A proposal has been put forward by a private developer for an outer bypass for Chepstow partly funded by residential development on the English side of the border. Most of the route is in England and will require planning approval from local authorities in the area.
    351

  DEFENCE

    Navy Personnel
    Mr. Hancock
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Royal Navy personnel are currently employed ashore; and what were the equivalent figures in(a) 1981 and (b) 1988. [2395]

    Dr. John Reid
    Available statistics show that 25,252 Naval Service personnel were employed ashore at home and overseas on 1 April 1997; 44,352 on 31 March 1988; and 50,749 on 31 March 1981.

    National Service
    Ms Walley
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the impact on occupational pensions rights of interrupted employment resulting from national service; and if he will make a statement. [2141]

    Dr. John Reid
    Public Service pension schemes allow members who had their careers interrupted by national service to credit that period towards their pension. The impact of National Service on the pension rights of members of occupational schemes outside the public service will depend upon the rules of the relevant scheme and the effect of the application of Inland Revenue limits on final retirement benefits.

    European Court of Human Rights
    Mr. Sanders
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make representations to the European Court of Human Rights to bring forward the date of the appeal tribunal concerning McGinley and EEV UK. [1969]

    Dr. John Reid
    I have no plans to make representations to the European Court of Human Rights to bring forward its hearing of the case being brought by McGinley and Egan. It is, of course, open to the two applicants to do so.

    Departmental Land
    Mr. Hancock
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the acreage of land(a) owned and (b) leased by his Department; and what were the equivalent figures in (i) 1974 and (ii) 1979. [2393]

    Unit

    Establishment

    Strengths

    Surplus/deficit

    1st Battalion The Duke of Wellingtons Regiment

    519

    573

    +54

    1st Battalion The Green Howards

    625

    603

    -22

    1st Battalion The Prince of Wales's Own Regiment of Yorkshire

    519

    512

    -7

    The Light Infantry

    1st Battalion

    539

    476

    -63

    2nd Battalion

    555

    522

    -33

    The Royal Dragoon Guards

    406

    402

    -4

    The Light Dragoons

    388

    383

    -5

    1st Royal Tank Regiment

    398

    359

    -39

    352
    Mr. Spellar
    This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Estate Organisation Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.

    Letter from B. L. Hirst to Mr. Mike Hancock, dated 9 June 1997:
    I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about MOD land holdings as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Defence Estate Organisation.
    The details of the land held by the Ministry of Defence at 31 March 1974, 1979 and 1997 are as follows:

    Acres

    Date

    Freehold

    Leasehold

    Total

    31 March 1974

    593,723

    54,142

    647,865

    31 March 1979

    579,478

    41,640

    621,118

    31 March 1997

    553,317

    38,978

    592,295

    I hope this is helpful.

    Gallium Removal
    Mr. Matthew Taylor
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to undertake the removal of gallium from the military plutonium stockpile; and what assessment he has made of the discharges to the environment arising from this removal. [1785]

    Mr. Spellar
    When plutonium is returned from service use the gallium is removed in conditions designed to protect both the operators involved and the environment at large. As far as this Department is aware, there have been no discharges to the environment arising from such removal.

    Regimental Strengths
    Mr. Bayley
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was(a) the establishment and (b) the nominal strength on 1 May of (i) The Duke of Wellington's Regiment, (ii) The Green Howards, (iii) The Prince of Wales's Own Regiment of Yorkshire, (iv) The Light Infantry, (v) The Royal Dragoon Guards, (vi) The Light Dragoons and (vii) The 1 Royal Tank Regiment. [2014]

    Dr. John Reid
    The establishments and strengths are as follows:
    353

    MOD Police, Colchester
    Mr. Bob Russell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Ministry of Defence police constables on the complement were operating full time within the Colchester garrison on(a) 1 January and (b) 1 June; and what is the number planned for 1 October 1997. [2078]

    Mr. Spellar
    This is a matter for the Chief Constable and Chief Executive of the Ministry of Defence Police Agency. I have asked him to write to the hon. Member.

    Letter from M. J. A. Smallwood to Mr Bob Russell, dated 9 June 1997:
    I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about Ministry of Defence Police at Colchester Garrison, on behalf of the Chief Constable/Chief Executive of the Ministry of Defence Police Agency, as this falls into his area of responsibility. The Chief Constable/Chief Executive is away from the office at present.
    There were 30 uniformed MOD Police officers of the rank of constable deployed at Colchester Garrison on 1 January and 25 on 1 June 1997. Based on current planning assumptions we anticipate that there will be 21 MDP constables deployed in and around the Colchester Garrison area on 1 October 1997.

    Flagship Training Ltd.
    Mr. Rapson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the proposal to transfer the running of naval training to Flagship Training Ltd.; and if he will consider allowing affected employees to remain within his Department for the foreseeable future. [2005]

    Dr. John Reid
    No proposals exist to transfer the running of Royal Naval training to the private sector. The management and control of RN training will remain the responsibility of the Chief Executive of the Naval Recruiting and Training Agency (NRTA)/Flag Officer Training and Recruiting and the Commanding Officers of his shore training establishments.

    Proposals are currently being considered for the transfer of a number of, mainly support, NRTA activities to Flagship Training Ltd. which would involve the transfer of some employees under the provisions of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 (TUPE).

    All Agency employees who may be affected by these proposals have been given the opportunity to register a preference to stay within the Department. Every effort is being made to find alternative posts for those who have registered such a preference.

    I will write to the hon. Member when a final decision has been taken on the activity transfer.

    Eurofighter Project
    Mr. Jack
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his discussion with the German Minister of Defence on the future of the Eurofighter Project, if he will make a statement on the outcome of his meetings and give details of specific assurances he received about future German funding of the production investment and production phases of the project. [2493]

    Mr. Spellar
    When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence met the German Defence Minister on 4 June in Bonn he pointed out that the Government was firmly committed to the Eurofighter programme and that 354
    the UK wanted to proceed rapidly to the production phase. He confirmed that the UK was ready to sign the relevant Memoranda of Understanding now. In turn Herr Riihe made it very clear that Germany needed and wanted Eurofighter. He hoped to secure Cabinet approval to proceed to the production phase of Eurofighter on 11 July when the German Cabinet meets to consider the 1998 Federal Budget. The approval of the Bundestag Parliament will then need to be obtained as soon as possible thereafter in advance of signature of the relevant Memoranda of Understanding by the four partner nations.

    When my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister met Chancellor Kohl in Bonn on 6 June, the Chancellor made very clear his personal commitment to the Eurofighter programme and his aim to secure the German Government's commitment to the production phase in July within the framework of the draft 1998 Federal budget.

  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Broiler Chickens
    Mr. Hancock
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to review the present stocking density for table broiler chickens. [1902]

    Mr. Morley
    A maximum stocking density of 34 kg/m2 is recommended for broilers in the welfare code on domestic fowls. We will consider whether this provision needs changing in the light of(a) the results of scientific work commissioned following a recommendation from the Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC) in 1992 and (b) the further advice FAWC has undertaken to give when those scientific results are available.

    Laying Hens
    Mr. Hancock
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has for a total ban on all cage systems for laying hens throughout the EU.
    [1903]

    Mr. Morley
    The Government will be seeking substantial improvements to the EU welfare requirements for laying hens during the forthcoming review by the Council of Ministers of the battery hens directive 88/166/EEC. The detailed objectives will be determined in the light of the Farm Animal Welfare Council's report on the welfare of laying hens, which we expect to be published shortly.

    Ostriches
    Mr. Hancock
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to ban the keeping of ostriches on United Kingdom farms; and if he will make a statement. [1904]

    Mr. Morley
    I am aware of the concerns expressed about ostrich farming in this country. This Government are committed to promoting animal welfare and intend to look closely at the welfare implications of this developing industry.
    355

    Fisheries
    Mr. Letwin
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he will be taking to renew the six mile and twelve mile fisheries limits. [2293]

    Mr. Morley
    The current restrictions on foreign fishing vessels within our six and 12 mile fisheries limits will continue to apply until 31 December 2002. The Government are committed to securing their renewal after 2002 as part of the process of reviewing the Common Fisheries Policy.

    Beef Exports
    Mr. Edwards
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representation his Department has made to the European Commissioner for Agriculture about lifting the ban on the export of beef. [2526]

    Mr. Rooker
    My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food met Commissioner Fischler on 12 May and their discussions covered, amongst other matters, the way forward on lifting the export ban. It was stressed that the Government will respect the framework set by the Florence Agreement and work constructively with the Commission and through the European Parliament on making progress on this issue. However, it is for Madame Bonino, the Consumer Health and Food Safety Commissioner, whom my right hon. Friend also met in May, to arrange scientific consideration of the UK's proposals for an Export Certified Herd Scheme. The results of this scrutiny are expected later this month.

    ADAS
    Mr. Martyn Jones
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the present situation with regard to ADAS; and if he will make a statement. [2632]

    Mr. Morley
    The sale of ADAS to a management and employee buy out team was completed on 1 April 1997 and it is now trading as a private limited company. ADAS's statutory functions and work directly concerned with the payment of grants and subsidies were not included in the privatisation and are now being carried out by the Farming and Rural Conservation Agency, an executive agency of MAFF and the Welsh Office.

    Genetically Modified Organisms
    Mr. Baker
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what allergic reactions have been established as being caused by the introduction of genetically engineered material into the food chain. [1961]

    Mr. Rooker
    We have no evidence that any allergic reactions have resulted from the genetic modification of food approved for use in the UK. All such foods are fully assessed by the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes for safety, including allergic potential, before being permitted to enter the food supply.

    Mr. Baker
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the possible increase in(a) resistance to antibiotics and (b) severe immune reactions from the use of genetically engineered viruses as delivery vehicles in the generation of transgenic plants and animals. [1962]
    356
    Mr. Rooker
    None of the GMOs released into the environment in the UK have involved the use of genetically modified viruses as delivery vehicles in the generation of transgenic plants and animals. The use of antibiotic resistance markers is kept under close review by the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes.

    Mr. Baker
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his policy regarding the transfer of animal genes into plants; and what consultations his Department has held with vegetarian groups and religious groups on this issue. [1963]

    Mr. Rooker
    In 1992 the Polkinghorne Committee was set up to consider ethical issues associated with genetically modified (GM) foods. Following extensive consultation with interested parties, including religious and vegetarian groups, the Committee issued a report, a copy of which was deposited in the Library of the House.

    Any plant containing animal genes which is intended for food use would need to be approved and labelled in accordance with the EC Novel Foods Regulation (258/97) before it could be sold to the public. As part of this process a thorough safety assessment would be carried out by the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes and, if the plant was also intended to be grown in Europe, by the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment. To date no applications for plants of this type have been received.

    Mr. Baker
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his policy regarding the use in food of genetically engineered bacteria to produce the supplement tryptophan. [1964]

    Mr. Rooker
    The addition of tryptophan to food is prohibited under the Tryptophan in Food Regulations 1990.

    Mr. Baker
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his policy in respect of crops engineered to produce their own pesticides. [1967]

    Mr. Rooker
    Before any genetically modified crop can be marketed in Europe it requires a marketing consent under Directive 90/220/EEC or approval under the EC novel foods regulation 258/97 based on a detailed safety assessment. Provided that such a consent or approval is given, I cannot see any reason why the use of such crops should not be allowed.

    Mr. Baker
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to introduce a moratorium on the release of genetically modified organisms. [1968]

    Mr. Rooker
    No. The release of genetically modified organisms is only permitted following risk assessment in accordance with Directive 90/220/EEC or the EC novel foods regulation (258/97) and I am satisfied that this procedure provides a sufficient safeguard as regards public health and the environment.

    Mr. Baker
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to introduce full disclosure labelling for genetically engineered foods. [1959]
    357
    Mr. Rooker
    I am committed to ensuring that consumers are able to make an informed choice when purchasing food. I therefore intend to press at European level for the labelling of all foods that may contain ingredients which have been genetically modified.

    Mr. Baker
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on his policy in respect of genetically engineered foods. [1960]

    Mr. Rooker
    The EC novel foods and novel food ingredients regulation 258/97 lays down an EU wide pre-market approval system for novel foods and novel food ingredients including those containing or produced from genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Provided that there are no safety concerns, and they are appropriately labelled, I see no reason why these types of foods and ingredients should not be sold to the public.

    Forestry Commission (Woodlands)
    Mr. Bayley
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many acres of woodland are managed currently by the Forestry Commission in each of the standard regions of England. [2683]

    Mr. Morley
    The subject of the question relates to matters undertaken by Forest Enterprise. I have asked its Chief Executive, Dr. Bob McIntosh, to arrange for a reply to be given.

    Letter from Bob McIntosh to Mr. Hugh Bayley, dated 9 June 1997:
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has asked me to reply to your Question about the area of woodland currently managed by the Forestry Commission in England.(2683)
    The Forestry Commission's woodlands in England are divided between two Regions and the total area of land managed by each at 31 March 1996 was:-

    North and East England: 159,171 hectares

    South and West England: 106,064 hectares

    The Forestry Commission's Annual Report for 1995–96 provides greater detail, on pages 106–107, including the area managed by each Forest District together with a map of the boundaries of the administrative regions. A copy is in the library of the House.

  NORTHERN IRELAND

    Departmental Computer Systems
    Mr. Nigel Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans she has to ensure that her Department's computer systems are millennium compliant; and if she will make a statement. [1240]

    Mr. Murphy
    All Northern Ireland Departments are actively working on the millennium problem. Departments are currently identifying which systems will be liable to failure, and will initiate projects to take the necessary remedial action as a matter of priority.

    Nursing Care
    Mr. Robert McCartney
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when she will extend legislation to Northern Ireland to permit local authorities in England and Wales to pay for residential nursing care in Northern Ireland and vice versa. [1316]
    358
    Mr. Worthington
    The legislation governing the provision of residential and nursing home care, both in Northern Ireland and England and Wales, does not permit authorities to arrange to pay for placements within each other's territories. I have asked officials to consider, with the Department of Health, ways of overcoming this difficulty.

    Civil Service
    Mr. Robert McCartney
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what restrictions have been placed on Sir David Fell, the resigning head of the Northern Ireland civil service in relation to taking up commercial employment; and if he will be paid the standard retirement pension in advance of the normal civil service retirement age. [1320]

    Mr. Murphy
    Sir David Fell sought permission from the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments to take up the post of non-executive Chairman of the Northern Bank and non-executive Director in its parent, National Australia Bank (UK) Ltd. The Committee's recommendation to the previous Secretary of State was that the application should be approved, subject only to the automatic three month waiting period for Permanent Secretaries. Accordingly, there will be a three month gap between Sir David's retirement on 30 September 1997 and the commencement of his employment with the Northern Bank on 1 January 1998.

    Sir David Fell is retiring from the Northern Ireland Civil Service before normal retirement age. The terms of his pension will be strictly within the provisions of the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme.

    Tower Hill, Armagh
    Mr. John D. Taylor
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the estimated final cost of works at Tower Hill, Armagh, for the Headquarters of the Southern Area Health Board; and how many showers are provided in these buildings for(a) members of staff and (b) board members. [1291]

    Mr. Worthington
    The cost, including fees, of refurbishment work at Tower Hill, Armagh, for the headquarters of the Southern Area Health Board was £1,190,000. There is one shower provided for the use both of staff and board members.

    Incapacity Benefit
    Mr. Robert McCartney
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will review the incapacity benefit all work test and make it her policy to replace it with a work-related scheme. [1322]

    Mr. Worthington
    The Secretary of State for Social Security is considering the evidence submitted to the Social Security Select Committee's review of incapacity benefit. In keeping with the principle of parity in social security matters any changes introduced in Great Britain will be mirrored in Northern Ireland.

    Family Law Act
    Mr. Robert McCartney
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what estimate she has made of the cost of the academic inquiry into the possibility of
    359
    extending the Family Law Act 1996 to Northern Ireland; and for what reason that inquiry was commissioned. [1321]

    Mr. Murphy
    The Family Law Act 1996 contains provisions relating to domestic violence and occupation of the family home, and the grounds for divorce. After examining the practicalities of direct extension, it was considered that proceedings by way of Order in Council would produce the most coherent and easily understood provisions on domestic violence.

    As regards the ground for divorce, it was considered that most information and public debate in the way that current divorce law is used in Northern Ireland was required before a decision could be taken on the way forward. It was for this reason that a major research project into divorce practice and procedure was commissioned and Ministers will await the outcome of that research before formulating any proposals for reform of the divorce law in Northern Ireland. The total cost of the research project is estimated at £50,000.

    Stalking
    Mr. Robert McCartney
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when she plans to introduce an Order in Council bringing Northern Ireland legislation on stalking into line with the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. [1319]

    Mr. Ingram
    The Protection from Harassment (Northern Ireland) Order 1997 was made under the negative resolution procedure at Privy Council on 8 April and laid before Parliament on 14 May. Neither the Protection from Harassment Act nor the Order in Council have been commenced. It is my intention to introduce the Northern Ireland legislation simultaneously with the commencement of that for England and Wales.

    Disability
    Mr. Burstow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will make it her policy to adopt a social model of disability in framing all future and amending previous relevant legislation and guidance; and if she will make a statement. [1664]

    Mr. Worthington
    Our manifesto commits us to establishing "comprehensive, enforceable civil rights for disabled people against discrimination in society or at work, developed in partnership with all interested parties". We shall be consulting and developing our proposals in partnership with disability organisations, employers, employers' organisations and trade unions. Interested bodies in Northern Ireland will be included in the consultation. An essential issue will be the definition of disability. It is not appropriate for me to pre-empt the outcome of that consultation.

    Retail Stores
    Mr. John D. Taylor
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on what dates public hearings were held for the proposed retail stores at(a) D5 Suite Harbour Exchange, East Belfast, (b) Knocknagoney Site, East Belfast, (c) Armagh Road, Newry, (d) Beltrim Road, Lisburn and (e) Strand Road, Londonderry; and when in each case she expects decisions to be announced. [1292]
    360
    Mr. Murphy
    Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Planning Service under its Chief Executive, Mr. W. Stewart. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

    Letter from W. Reavie to Mr. John Taylor, dated 27 May 1997:
    The Secretary of State has asked Mr. Stewart to reply to your Question about public hearings into a number of proposed retail stores and the date decisions are expected. I am replying in Mr. Stewart's absence on annual leave.
    The information requested is as follows:-

    Location

    Dates of public hearing

    Current position

    D5 Site, East Belfast

    3 December 1996 to 14 January 1997

    Awaiting Planning Appeals Commission (PAC) Report

    Knocknagoney Site, East Belfast

    21 May 1996 to 18 June 1996 and 14 January 1997

    Awaiting PAC Report

    Armagh Road, Newry

    17 June 1996 to 28 June 1996

    PAC Report received. Decision expected during June 1997

    Bentrim Road, Lisburn

    16 September 1996 to 14 November 1996

    Awaiting PAC Report

    Strand Road, Londonderry

    20 February 1996 to 29 March 1996 and 16 April 1996 and 8 November 1996

    PAC Report received. Decision expected during June 1997

    I do hope this clarifies the position.

    Political and Special Advisers
    Mr. Forth
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list(a) the names, (b) the salary, (c) the previous occupation and salary and (d) the terms and conditions of each political and special adviser in her Department; and what was the selection process used to appoint these persons. [2413]

    Dr. Mowlam
    [holding answer 6 June 1997]: Subject to the approval of the Prime Minister, I propose to appoint Mr. Nigel Warner and Ms Anna Healy as my special advisers. Mr. Warner was previously my researcher in the House of Commons and Ms Healy was the senior Parliamentary Press Officer for the Labour Party before joining the Press Office of the Leader of the Opposition before the last General Election.

    The terms and conditions of the appointments are set out in the draft model contract, a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House. Special Advisers are paid within a range of £24,349 to £73,484. Their salaries are negotiated individually and are confidential within this range. Details of this and of previous salary are not provided in order to protect the privacy of the individuals concerned.

    The appointments are personal to me in consultation with my Permanent Under Secretary and the Prime Minister.

    Parades
    Mr. William Ross
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will publish a list of the meetings she has had to discuss parades in Northern Ireland,
    361
    indicating the duration of each of those meetings, with (i) concerned residents and similar groups, (ii) Right to March groups, (iii) Orange Lodges, (iv) Apprentice Boys, (v) Black institutions, (vi) Ancient Order of Hibernians, (vii) Boys' Brigade, (viii) Girls' Brigade, (ix) Boy Scouts, (x) Royal British Legion, (xi) the Chief Constable and (xii) the RUC Superintendents responsible for the possible contentious routes since she took up her present status in Northern Ireland. [2562]

    Mr. Ingram
    The Secretary of State has held the following meetings to discuss the parades issue in Northern Ireland:

    10.30 am, 21 May 1997 Garvaghy Road Residents' Association

    12.00 noon, 21 May 1997 Lower Ormeau Concerned Community

    8.30 am, 21 May 1997 Dunloy Residents

    Right to March groups

    3.45 pm, 28 May 1997 ORDER (Ormeau Residents Demand Equal Rights)/Ulster civil rights groups

    Orange Lodges

    Evening of 20 May 1997 County Armagh Grand Orange Lodge

    2.45 pm, 28 May 1997 Grand Orange Lodge

    Apprentice Boys

    12.15 pm, 28 May 1997

    Royal Black Institution

    5.00 pm, 3 June 1997

    RUC Chief Constable

    The Secretary of State has met the Chief Constable regularly to discuss a range of issues, including parades.

    All of the meetings were scheduled for 45 minutes each.

    Police Complaints Commission
    Dr. Godman
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when she will lay before Parliament the 1996 annual report of the Independent Commission for Police Complaints for Northern Ireland; and if she will make a statement. [2851]
    362
    Dr. Mowlam
    The 1996 Annual Report of the Independent Commission for Police Complaints is being laid before Parliament today.

    The Report, which follows the format of previous years, comments on the work of the Commission in 1996. It includes an introduction from the then Chairman, James Grew, and chapters on the supervision of investigation of complaints against the police and on the Commission's role in disciplinary procedures arising from those complaints. It also has the usual statistical and financial sections.

    Following 1995's reduction in the number of complaints, by 12 per cent. from the 1994 level, there was an increase of 9 per cent. in 1996. The Report states that a good deal of this increase arose from complaints made about public order policing last summer. The overall number of complaints, however, at 2,545, is similar to that seen in the early 1990s. The Commission supervised 390 cases, the highest number since its creation. The number and proportion of complaints informally resolved continue to rise, with 22.3 per cent. in 1996 compared to 18.3 per cent., 15.7 per cent. and 10 per cent. in the previous three years. The number of cases arising from the holding centres, 85, was the lowest figure since the creation of the Commission.

    I should like to thank the Members and staff of the Commission for supervising a greater number of cases than ever before, and to encourage them to keep up their excellent work. In addition, I think it appropriate to record my thanks to Jim Grew for his service to the ICPC over almost a decade. His contribution has been outstanding and I am grateful to him. I wish his successor, Paul Donnelly, who has written an insert to the Report, on the way ahead on police complaints following Dr. Hayes' review of the complaints system, every success. His first challenge will be in seeing the Commission through the changes that will result from Dr. Hayes' proposals. I look forward to working in partnership with Paul Donnelly and the other bodies directly affected by the proposals in taking forward these important changes.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Lincoln.
Several Lords—Took the Oath.

Local Authorities: Release of Capital Receipts
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
When the £5 billion capital receipts of local authorities will be made available to them, and whether they will discuss with the local authorities the phasing of the release of this money, both to assist the building of new housing units and to reduce unemployment in the building sector.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for the Environment and Transport (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, the Local Government (Supplementary Credit Approvals) Bill lays the basis for the Government's capital receipts initiative. The Government will ensure that any resources released are available to local authorities to use in support of priority schemes which represent good value for money and meet key objectives. These objectives will be set out in a consultation document which will be available shortly and will be sent to the local government associations, local authorities in England and to other interested parties.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. Is the noble Baroness aware that it satisfies some in your Lordships' House from all round the Chamber, including myself, who persistently pressed the previous Government to put such a policy into operation to enable local authorities to provide more housing for rent? Is the Minister aware that had the previous Government continued with the policy that they inherited there would have been approximately 600,000 more houses available today to let to people who are in trouble and who need low cost rented housing that is usually provided by local authorities?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am well aware of my noble friend's longstanding concern in this area which is shared by many local authority associations and individual local authorities. We are anxious to reverse a policy which caused great damage both to the construction industry and to the interests of people in this country who are living in inadequate housing.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, what are the implications for the public sector borrowing requirement of the release of these funds?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, we have always recognised that these plans had public expenditure
758
implications. We are committed to the phased release of capital receipts from council house sales, and equally to prudent economic management.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, will my noble friend clarify that reply? Is she saying that the Treasury has approved this measure and that it will not count against the public sector borrowing requirement, or that it will and the phasing will mean there will be only a small amount each year for many years?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the phasing is one of the issues on which we shall consult.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am glad to have thrilled those on the Opposition Benches. I point out to my noble friend that the manifesto commitment clearly indicated that there were public expenditure implications and therefore we would have to consider the phasing of the release of these assets. I remind my noble friend that the manifesto commitment stated that,
"capital receipts from the sale of council houses received but not spent by local councils will be reinvested in building new houses and rehabilitating old ones. This will be phased to match the capacity of the building industry and to meet the requirements of sound economic management".
Lord Ezra: My Lords, will the noble Baroness kindly confirm that when the funds are released a due proportion will be made available for the improvement of existing housing stock because at least 10 per cent. of it is in urgent need of repair? There is no way in which new houses can be found to replace these old and inadequate houses.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I very much take the noble Lord's point. We have to consider the priority areas for spending which will certainly include plans for badly needed repairs to dilapidated stock.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that the effect of this step on the public sector borrowing requirement in the immediate future will be nil; and that it will take some little time for the expenditure on wages and various other factors of cost to filter through in detail to the consumer market, by which time unemployment will have been reduced and there will be further taxation revenues exactly because of the Government's new steps?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right to point out that there is an important additional benefit as well as the housing benefit involved in the proposal; namely, it can feed into our strategy to reduce unemployment and to get a skilled workforce back to work, which in turn will generate receipts in terms of income taxation.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, can the Government explain how they can solve the basic conundrum that in general those local authorities with the most capital receipts have the least need for housing?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, it is a conundrum, but we believe that it is possible to solve it by having a

759
balanced strategy which looks at both the areas where the receipts have been generated and those with the most housing need and balances the two demands.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that she should not take lectures from the wastrels opposite about public expenditure bearing in mind that the expenditure on housing will be highly desirable expenditure whereas the party opposite used thousands of millions of pounds to no good use, not least on the BSE crisis which they brought about themselves?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I shall certainly note my noble friend's advice. I am sure that I can have plenty of lectures from this side of the House before I need to listen to that side.
Lord Bowness: My Lords, perhaps I may return to the problem to which the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, referred. How do the Government propose to overcome the problem that in general where there is the greatest need there are the least receipts and vice versa? Will the Minister confirm that her balanced strategy does not involve taking away receipts from those authorities which have generated them? In some instances the spending of those accumulated receipts will reduce the authority's income by the interest lost. If that happens, does she envisage that it will lead either to higher council tax or to greater levels of government grant to those authorities?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, we do not envisage that we shall be talking about greater levels of council tax. If noble Lords will consider the proposed enabling Bill, the mechanism is through supplementary credit approvals. They will allow us to make exactly those rational decisions about distribution between areas where the receipts were generated and those with the greatest need for housing.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am rather surprised that the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, asked the Minister to explain what effect the proposal would have on the public sector borrowing requirement. When I asked the noble Viscount a similar question from the other side, he could never answer it.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am not sure that I should intervene in private grief.
Lord Hayhoe: My Lords, will the Minister reply to the specific question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, about whether there was Treasury approval for this change; and if so, for how much?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, if noble Lords opposite think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not aware of what was in the Labour Party manifesto, they are deceiving themselves. The exact scale and timing of the expenditure has yet to be settled. In advance of that settlement, I am unable to give the precise figure to the noble Lord.

Quota-Hopping: IGC Discussions
2.46 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in his name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what they hope to achieve at the Intergovernmental Conference with regard to quota-hopping under the common fisheries policy.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, under the previous Administration, the number of quota hoppers in the UK fleet rose to 160 vessels. The last Government tabled a protocol for discussion at the Intergovernmental Conference. That proposal has met with no support from other member states. Moreover, it would not have provided any quick solution, nor removed any quota hoppers from the UK registers. This Government attach great importance to achieving progress on this issue. We are striving to secure the best possible deal before the conclusion of the IGC. This includes provision for economic links between those who use our national quota and our local fishing communities.
Although quota-hopping has attracted a lot of public attention in the run-up to the IGC negotiations, it is only one of the problems facing the UK fishing industry. We need to work with our industry, the Commission and other member states to build a long-term future for the fishing industry which both conserves fish stocks and meets the interests of the fishing communities. This Government are committed to a thorough overhaul of the common fisheries policy.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that her right honourable friend the Prime Minister said in a letter dated 28th April of this year to the Scottish Fishermen's Federation that,
"Labour has not ruled out withholding agreement at the IGC if the conclusions are unsatisfactory".
Is that still the position? Will the matter of quota-hopping be on the formal agenda for the IGC or merely discussed at the margins?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am aware of what my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said. That remains the position.

Bahrain: Human Rights
2.50 p.m.
Lord Avebury Lord Avebury asked Her Majesty's Government:
What discussions they have had at ministerial level with Bahrain, and whether their policy of encouraging democracy and human rights extends to Bahrain.
Lord Carter: My Lords, my honourable friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth

761
Affairs, Mr. Derek Fatchett, met the Bahraini ambassador on 15th May and the Bahraini minister for communications and transport on 20th May. Human rights issues were discussed. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence met the Bahraini under-secretary for defence on 28th May. As my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary made clear on 12th May in his mission statement, we will encourage the pursuit of democracy and will put human rights at the heart of our foreign policy. That policy will apply equally in our dealings with Bahrain. We will continue to have regard for the many other aspects of our long-standing relationship.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I am very glad to hear that Answer. Does the Minister recall that in 1973 a partially democratic constitution was granted by the emir providing for two-thirds of the parliament to be democratically elected but that in 1975 the emir abrogated that constitution and has ruled by decree ever since? Will the Government seek to persuade the rulers of Bahrain, with the help, if possible, of their European Union partners and the United States, that the leaders of the opposition who are now detained without trial should be released and that they should enter into discussions with a view to reintroducing the 1973 constitution after a lapse of 22 years?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am afraid I have had a rather heady cocktail of vaccinations. I apologise to the House. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, raises questions in relation to the role of the UK Government and the restoration of democratic government in Bahrain. We are discussing these matters. I do not think that any of my noble friends would dissent from the view that we should like to see the pursuit of democratic principles throughout the world, and that the same applies in Bahrain. However, we must show mutual respect for traditional forms of government. As the noble Lord will know, the shura, the consultative system, is long-established in the Arab world. It is not for us to dictate the form and time-frame for political change. However, the noble Lord may be assured that we will encourage the Bahraini Government to pursue wide-ranging consultation in determining Bahrain's political future.

Financial Services: Legislation
2.52 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In putting the Question, I declare my interests. My trade union has many members working in the financial services industry. In addition, I was until last month chairman of the PIA ombudsman council and am currently chairman of an organisation known as the Financial Services Forum, concerned with independent financial advisers.
762
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government with whom they intend to consult concerning the proposed new regulatory regime for financial services, and what timetable they have in mind.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, my noble friend's interest and expertise in financial services are well known. She will be aware that much consultation took place with practitioners and consumers during our time in opposition. Proposals emerged in favour of consolidation and integration. Work is now in hand to take those proposals forward, and there will be opportunities for all to contribute to the process. The transfer of responsibility for banking supervision to the Securities and Investments Board will be covered in the Bank of England Bill, which will be introduced this Session. The Government plan to publish a draft Bill to reform the financial services regulators for consultation in the first half of 1998.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that response. Is he aware that many people working in financial services fully support the notion that there should be a thorough review of regulatory systems, many of which are fragmented, confusing and not consumer-friendly.
The industry is very complex. The unions involved came together in a body called the Alliance for Finance and would welcome the opportunity to have some input. Will there be a White Paper, with an opportunity for this House to have some input? I am well aware that there are a number of noble Lords on all sides of the House with experience and expertise in financial services.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, no decision has yet been taken regarding a White Paper. However, there will be plenty of opportunity for consultation. Indeed, the noble Baroness may have noticed that in today's Financial Times it is reported that my right honourable friend Mrs. Ann Taylor, the Leader of the Commons, says that she is keen to allow standing committees scrutinising legislation to receive submissions from outside bodies.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, will the noble Lord kindly indicate whether it will be the intention, following on from the supplementary question asked by his noble friend Lady Turner, to simplify the new regime? Does he agree that the existing regime is far too complex? Will the Government bear in mind that the simplest way of operating control of financial services is to make a distinction between wholesale operations, which are the work of professionals, and retail operations, which involve members of the public?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, it is the Government's intention to separate retail and wholesale regulation. The purpose of the reform is to simplify and streamline the whole system of regulation so that it can be more responsive and effective in the 21st century.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, does the noble Lord accept that there is a wide-ranging argument relating to the

763
whole future of regulatory authorities in general and some fundamental issues, of which financial services are one part? Is the discussion of financial services likely to take place against the background of a general review of some of those issues and of how regulation works in modern society?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, the Government are committed to statutory regulation. They are keen that the City of London should retain its pre-eminence but that the public interest should be at the heart of regulation. Proper and clear accountability should be apparent. We do not suggest an overbearing bureaucracy but a more efficient and effective regulator to adapt for the modern financial world.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, is it proposed that the sanctions for breaching the regulations should be civil, criminal, or an amalgam of both?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, that will become apparent when the Bill is published.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that when the Financial Services Bill passed through this House, Labour's Front Bench spokesman warned the Government that its provisions would not be sufficient to achieve the objective and that that comment, like others, was totally ignored?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I was not a Member of this House at the time; however, I can well imagine that such comments were made. The Government are now setting out to put such matters right.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, it appears from the replies that a little more preparation should have been done before the Chancellor of the Exchequer made his premature announcement. Will the Minister confirm his statement that a draft Bill will be published early in 1998? Does that therefore mean that a full Bill will not be presented to Parliament until the 1998–99 Session and will therefore not appear on the statute book until 1999? Is not that length of time ridiculous? Will it not lead to the equivalent of planning blight in the regulators that already exist as their people move on to new pastures in the knowledge that, some time towards the end of the century, the shutters will come down on their current jobs?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, as I said, the banking regulation Bill will be presented to the House during this Session. The Government plan to publish the draft Bill on financial services regulation for consultation in the first half of 1998. There will be some delay in the financial services regulation. However, the Government are anxious to present their proposals. In their Plans for Business presented during the general election, their commitment to reorganising financial services
764
regulation was clearly stated and they want no misunderstanding as to the fact that they intend to proceed.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, given the proposed delay in introducing financial services regulation, are we to take it that the Government are actively engaged in the search for comprehensibility, and that they accept that comprehensibility in this field is a virtue?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, the Government are consulting with the practitioners and the public. The public are committed to having pensions and all kinds of financial services and it is difficult for them to change from firm to firm. It is for that reason that the Government are anxious to consult with the public and with the practitioners.

Privileges: Select Committee
3 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Committee for Privileges be appointed and that as proposed by the Committee of Selection the following Lords together with the Chairman of Committees and any four Lords of Appeal be named of the committee:

L. Allen of Abbeydale,

L. Campbell of Alloway,

L. Carter,

L. Cledwyn of Penrhos,

V. Cranborne,

L. Glenamara,

L. Jenkins of Hillhead,

L. Mowbray and Stourton,

L. Nathan,

L. Richard (L. Privy Seal),

L. Strabolgi,

L. Strathclyde,

L. Weatherill,

V. Whitelaw,

L. Wigoder;

That the Committee have power to appoint sub-committees and that such sub-committees have power to appoint their own chairman; and
That the Committee have power to co-opt any Lord for the purpose of serving on any sub-committee.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Procedure of the House: Select Committee
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Select Committee on Procedure of the House be appointed and that as proposed by the Committee of Selection the following Lords together with the Chairman of Committees be named of the committee:

B. Anelay of St. Johns,

L. Brougham and Vaux,

L. Browne-Wilkinson,

E. Caithness,

L. Carter,

L. Chesham,

V. Cranborne,

B. David, E. Ferrers,

L. Fraser of Carmyllie,

L. Gladwin of Clee,

B. Hamwee,

L. Harris of Greenwich,

L. Irvine of Lairg (Lord Chancellor),

B. Jay of Paddington,

L. Jenkins of Hillhead,

L. Mackay of Clashfern,

L. Richard (L. Privy Seal),

Ly. Saltoun of Abernethy,

B. Scrota,

L. Skelmersdale,

L. Strathclyde,

V. Tenby,

L. Tordoff,

L. Weatherill,

B. Young.—(The Chairman of Committees.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 Compensation Scheme
3.1 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn) rose to move, That the draft scheme laid before the House on 3rd June be approved [1st Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the draft compensation scheme which we are debating today has been laid under the terms of Section 18 of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997.
The Government accept the need to pay compensation to those firearm certificate holders and registered dealers whose high-calibre handguns become prohibited by the 1997 Act. The draft scheme which we are debating today offers fair compensation for the weapons that will become prohibited and the ancillary equipment used only in connection with those weapons. Subject to parliamentary approval of this scheme, the hand-in period for the weapons can begin on 1st July, with the appropriate payments starting to be made from that date.
I shall briefly explain how the scheme is intended to operate. Before the hand-in period begins, certificate holders and dealers will receive full details of the final scheme, together with application forms and advice on where and when to surrender their weapons. They must
766
complete the appropriate form in respect of their weapons and equipment and hand it to the police at the time of surrender. Individuals will have a choice of three options. They may choose to accept a flat rate of £150 for each weapon. Alternatively, they may choose a standard rate for their weapon from the list of published values at Annex A of the scheme, which contains the majority of the most commonly held large-calibre handguns. If they do not wish to accept the flat rate payment, and if their gun is either not on the list at Annex A or is markedly different from those that are on the list, they may choose the third option. That means submitting a claim supported by an independent valuation or other evidence corroborating the value of the items surrendered.
Similar arrangements will apply to dealers and they will be able to claim under any of the three options. However, they will be able to claim under the third option even though their stock may already be listed at Annex A. That is because the second option reflects second-hand values while dealers' stocks will either be new or second-hand and have a higher retail value. I shall say more about the details of the values in the lists in a moment.
The weapons must be handed over to a designated police station, as specified by the chief constable for the force area concerned. Special arrangements will be made with dealers because of the number of weapons they will have in stock.
Similar arrangements will apply to expanding ammunition and to ancillary equipment which can only be used in connection with firearms that become prohibited. The corresponding values are set out in Annexes B, C and D of the draft scheme. That is in accordance with the requirements of Section 17 of the 1997 Act and Section 16 in respect of expanding ammunition. The equipment will not itself become prohibited but the Government accept that where it cannot be put to any other use, such as for rifles or other legitimate uses, then compensation should be paid.
The claim forms will initially be checked by the police, who will then send them to the Firearms Compensation Section (FCS) of the Home Office, where they will be processed as quickly as possible. The FCS has been set up to handle claims for the 160,000 high-calibre handguns that will become prohibited and to deal with the claims for ancillary equipment. Fifty staff have been recruited and trained and the target is to deal with all claims within 18 months. The majority of the straightforward claims under options A and B will of course be dealt with quickly. A computer system has been introduced to ensure that each claim can be dealt with thoroughly and without delay and with the minimum of paperwork having to be created.
Once the claim has been settled and the claimant has no further interest in the guns or equipment, the FCS will issue disposal instructions to the police force storing the weapons and equipment and they will be destroyed in accordance with the local force practice. In a very few cases some weapons or equipment may be retained by police forces for training purposes or taken for public display in museums.
I now turn to the details. Sections 16 and 17 of the Act make clear that the weapons and ancillary equipment must have been in the claimants' possession on or immediately before 16th October 1996, the date of the previous Government's announcement of their response to Lord Cullen's report. The draft scheme uses the values of weapons and equipment in the period immediately before that date. The values listed in Annexes A, B and D reflect the advertised prices as new in the trade journals at that time minus 25 per cent. for normal depreciation. These are the notional prices that we believe individuals might have obtained had they sold their guns or equipment at that time.
For individuals who submit independent evidence of the retail values of their guns and equipment and claim under option C, the FCS will normally pay out the retail value less 25 per cent. to reflect normal depreciation.
For dealers who submit independent evidence of the value of their stock and claim under option C, the FCS will normally pay out the cost price plus 25 per cent., which is a fair reflection of the return which they could have expected had the stock items been sold on. My officials have had contact with a number of gun dealers whose views have been taken account of during the preparation of the draft scheme. However, we have used published or advertised values of guns and equipment as they appeared in trade journals and other sources rather than simply the values cited by one or more of the dealers consulted. I believe that that is the best way of obtaining fair values for both claimants and ultimately the taxpayer.
There will be some concern about the position of dealers, gun clubs and others who will suffer losses as a result of the ban coming into effect. This was debated at length in this House during the passage of the Bill and it was decided at that time that such losses should not fall within the terms of the Act. The draft scheme therefore enables dealers and others to be compensated only for the weapons and certain ancillary equipment which they hand in; it does not extend to business losses, nor to equipment used in the manufacture of prohibited guns or ancillary equipment.
It may be helpful if I make clear the position on small-calibre pistols. These do not form part of the draft scheme because they are not prohibited by the Act. It is the Government's intention that there be a free vote in another place and, if the firearms Bill is eventually passed, then this category of handgun will also become prohibited.
In that expectation, certificate holders and dealers who own small-calibre pistols may hand in those weapons voluntarily to designated police stations at the same time as other handguns are surrendered. They will have to complete an application form, which will be processed by the FCS, and they will receive ex gratia payments for those weapons and related ancillary equipment. Details of these payments are available in the Library of the House and will be circulated to all claimants at the same time as the details of the compensation scheme itself. The values of these ex gratia payments have been calculated in exactly the
768
same way as for the main lists—that is, on the basis of market values in the period immediately prior to last year's statement on 16th October. If the Bill is passed, the ex gratia list would become a formal scheme in its own right. That, however, is not the subject of today's debate but a matter for debate during the relevant stages of the Bill.
We believe that this draft scheme is fair and that it will properly compensate the legitimate owners of prohibited weapons and related equipment. On that basis, I commend it to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft scheme laid before the House on 3rd June be approved [1st Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
3.10 p.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I do not feel that there is an insurmountable difficulty with this compensation scheme. However, there are one or two points of concern and some assurances are required from the Minister.
We have debated the related primary legislation ad nauseam. I do not propose to repeat the arguments. However, the provisions of this legislation do not enjoy a favourable cost-benefit analysis. The Minister has already answered my written Parliamentary Question concerning records that will be kept of the compensation expenditure which will be incurred under the 1997 Act and the Bill currently going through another place. The Government may rest assured that in about 18 months' time we shall ask the Minister questions about crime with handguns and whether good value for money has been obtained for taxpayers' funds.
The scheme itself is obviously designed to ensure that the maximum number of shooters go for the A or B schemes, as so carefully described by the Minister. I am sure that, on reflection, most shooters will go for the B scheme, even if they feel the valuation to be slightly on the low side. However, they may be deterred if they think that their compensation payments will be a long time in coming. On the other hand, if they are confident that they can hand in their hardware and obtain compensation within 30 days, they will not want the anguish of the option C scheme, as it is fraught with unavoidable difficulties and delay. That will sit conveniently with the new Government's policy on late payment of invoices and the statutory right to interest. I understand that the provisions will apply equally to the Government themselves.
The Minister may claim that there may be questions of identification of weapons. He may be right. But he will be aware that a shooter who attempts to defraud the scheme will leave himself open to prosecution for serious offences and the authorities will have good quality evidence. Will the Minister give an undertaking that all option B compensation payments will be made within 30 days? If 30 days is not long enough, what will the period be?
The list of guns under the option B scheme is not so comprehensive as in the original scheme. Bearing in mind the desirability of having the maximum number of guns come under the option B scheme, why are there no

769
Luger or Webley handguns listed in the option B scheme? They are extremely common makes. Why go to the trouble of valuing each one? I should have thought that they would have been included, since the Minister has just claimed that his list included the majority of handguns. It might be helpful to the House if the Minister could provide an explanation.
There is a problem with paragraph 10 of the scheme, which reads:
"However, individuals may only claim compensation under Option C for guns, expanding ammunition or equipment which arc not listed under Option B, or for guns which arc so listed but which have been adapted or customised"—
I repeat, adapted or customised—
"in such a way as to significantly increase their value".
What happens if a collector has a handgun which is on the option B list and is not adapted or customised in any way but still has great historical value, with very good provenance?
I come to my final concern. Shooters will reluctantly accept the need for the legislation, or at least its inevitability. However, they will be very unhappy with the thought that their handguns, which they bought for perfectly legal sport, could end up being issued to a third world army. Logic suggests that there may be well over 1.000 Browning 9mm pistols. I understand that they are generally known as the Browning Hi-Power. Personally, I shall continue to use one, but noble Lords will be relieved to know that it is currently safely locked up in the armoury at the TA centre and also belongs to the Secretary of State for Defence. But I digress. Such a large quantity of handguns would be quite attractive to export.
Presumably, given that a firearms certificate is required for any pressure-bearing component of a firearm, a certificate is still required, even if the owner has sawn the handgun into two parts. If that action were taken, I do not think that any offence would have been committed. So the question is: will a shooter be able to render his handgun unusable but complete, hand it in and then receive full compensation under option B? If he could do so, it would be reassuring for the shooting community. I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply.
3.16 p.m.
Lord Swansea: My Lords, I shall be fairly brief. This is the first time that I speak from these Benches, which I occupy as a direct result of the Bill which gave birth to this scheme. I am glad to see that the Government are offering what appear to be some sensible prices for many pistols and accessories in common use, plus some others which may not be popular for target shooting. However, although the list appears at first sight to be comprehensive, it is in fact confined to pistols in current production, including replicas of earlier models. I can find no reference to earlier models, such as Luger, Mauser, Walther, etc., except for a brief mention under "Miscellaneous" of the Walther PPK—one model only. However, under "Magazines", there is a comparatively large section devoted to only a limited number of
770
Walther models and only one mention of magazines for the Luger pistol. Of other types of pistol or their magazines, there is no mention.
It may be that the list is based on the current manufacturers' prices for pistols in current production, which may be deemed to be in "as new" condition. It may be difficult to put an exact price on older pistols, as so much may depend on their condition, but it might be of help if some older models had a "bracket" of values which they might be presumed to have had.
Finally, before long we shall be faced with a further Firearms (Amendment) Bill relating to pistols of 22 calibre, which the present Government intend to prohibit altogether. Following the presumed passage of that Bill, we shall again he faced with a similar order, relating to pistols of that calibre. Your Lordships may be forgiven for thinking that that is a somewhat untidy way of doing things.
3.19 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the two previous speakers from the Back Benches dealt with the detail of this scheme. They did so extremely well and therefore I do not need to expand on their remarks. But, unlike the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, who seems to believe that this matter has been discussed ad nauseam, I do not think that such is the case. I believe that every time the matter is raised the arguments against the legislation should be made, and I shall make them. In fact, the scheme does not give scope for increasing or altering the range of compensation. That is a great pity. But, as I said, it gives the opportunity to return to the sheer injustice of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997.
I find that the public have a more balanced view of legislation as the distance in time from the awful tragedy of Dunblane increases. The Government should take that into account. The public increasingly appreciate that the Act and now this order undermine every principle of justice as it is understood by reasonable people. The Act imposes a collective punishment on tens of thousands of innocent people, guilty of no crime, for the actions of a single madman who would not have been in possession of legal firearms if a senior policeman had not failed in his judgment and duty. If that is repeating something ad nauseam, then I shall repeat it ad nauseam. That is what happened and that is what caused this grave injustice.
The Act is unjust because it kills a sport and a pastime enjoyed by decent, respectable, law-abiding taxpayers from all walks of life. It imposes fines—I shall explain why—on thousands of people who have done no wrong. They are fined because the full market value of handguns will not be paid. The full market value of handguns is the market value before 16th October and not at or after it. Many people will therefore be fined because they will receive a lesser value for their firearms than they otherwise would.
The Act takes away the livelihood of many businesses without proper compensation for loss of trade and business. This House, shooters and the traders who will be disadvantaged by the order will be interested to know that the defeated Tory MPs who voted to refuse dealers

771
and manufacturers proper compensation for loss of trade will themselves receive compensation for loss of office by means of a resettlement grant which will give them at least 50 per cent. of their final salary; indeed, many will receive 100 per cent. of their final salary of £43,000. People may care to take note of that and, indeed, that the former Secretary of State for Scotland will receive, in addition, 25 per cent. of his ministerial salary by way of severance pay.
Therefore, those who brought in this Act are receiving compensation for loss of trade, so to speak, which they denied to the people who sell and manufacture guns. The minimalist payment under this order cannot possibly compensate owners of handguns, clubs and businesses for their tangible losses, let alone for the mental anguish of being demonised and insulted. They will not easily forget the Goebbels-esque tactics used to cast them in the role of potential killers and to make them social pariahs in order to rush unjust legislation through Parliament.
There is now the prospect—we heard about it again from my noble friend, who is a decent, quiet man—of a new firearms Bill being introduced and that will compound what the existing Act has already done. There can only be anger and cynicism when we see a situation where the only men and women who can possess guns are those in blue uniforms and criminals. Who can blame law-abiding gun owners and traders for feeling embittered. I understand their feelings even if others do not. They know that they have been sacrificed on the altar of political expediency and personal political survival—which did not come off; I call that poetic justice. They also know that there is no guarantee that further massacres will not take place by whatever means and that gun criminality will not increase rather than decrease.
We have to vote for the order because it provides some sort of compensation. But I repeat: I believe that the Bill was a bad Bill; it was an unjust Bill; it was an outrageous Bill; and I look forward at some time, even in the distant future, to its repeal.
3.26 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I echo totally what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. My noble friends on the Front Bench have absolutely nothing to be proud of over this issue. They penalised a large and legitimate section of the community because they panicked and hoped to get back into office. But they panicked and failed to get back into office.
The Front Bench opposite, having got into office, should have shown some magnanimity and said, "We do not have to follow the same form of panic". But they have gone down the same road and made the matter even worse. Some of us are in the minority; some of us feel that we should stick up for minorities to enable them to follow their lawful pursuits and hobbies. There is something cloying and unattractive about the whole of the firearms Act, which was the Act of a man who attempted to despoil English habits to be sure that he was re-elected as Secretary of State for Scotland. He failed to appease; he only panicked.
772
The Bill was bad. However, I suppose we have to vote for compensation, though none of us should be anything other than ashamed of the way that Parliament behaved in its panic over minorities.
3.27 p.m.
Lord Burton: My Lords, perhaps I can ask the Minister three short questions in the light of what he said. First, he said that 50 staff had already been trained to help the police in regard to the handing in of weapons. Are those the people who will also carry out the valuations? It would be remarkable if that were so and they could be trained in such a short time. The revised list only appeared on 3rd June. If those are the people carrying out valuations of pistols, will there be any appeal? And, if so, what form will it take?
Secondly, are the police satisfied that they can implement the instructions that Parliament are about to give them in the required time? I have considerable doubts and the police themselves may have apprehensions.
Thirdly, how will those who live some distance from a central police station comply, particularly under option C? For instance, the owner of a weapon may live in the western or northern isles and it may take two or three days to reach the central police station in Inverness.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I listened to the contributions of the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, and the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, with some interest and I agree with their feelings.
Noble Lords: Order!
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I must ask them, if we had kicked the ball into touch in the last Session—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I do not believe the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, can speak again unless we re-open the debate and the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, and I are permitted to reply to the questions which the noble Earl obviously wants to ask us.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I must take some blame for the situation that has arisen. I thought that the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, asked whether, before the noble Lord sat down, he could pick up a point that had been made. My understanding has always been that one can intervene on a point if one prefaces the intervention with, "Before the noble Lord sits down".
3.30 p.m.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, it is probably for the convenience of the House if I intervene at this point as the List of Speakers indicates, not perhaps to engage in the rather fiery exchanges which we have heard but to say that I understand the strong feelings which the Firearms (Amendment) Bill originally aroused. Although I do not intend to follow the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, in going

773
through the Second Reading debate, I want to make some passing remarks about the Bill's progress through its various stages. Although I and most of my colleagues on these Benches supported the Bill and took the view that it should go further, we did so on a free vote. Experience suggests that it would have been better if the previous Government had chosen to proceed first with a White Paper and widespread consultation before publishing the Bill. But that is part of history and I would not wish to go further with that today.
My colleagues and I were deeply concerned at all stages that there should be fair and adequate compensation of all those disadvantaged by what I think was exceptional legislation. Your Lordships will remember that my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill moved an amendment at Report stage on 4th February to provide a compensation scheme for firearms dealers. The amendment received a large measure of support from all sides of the House and was indeed carried by 121 votes to 110. That decision was ultimately reversed in another place but I want to put it on record again that we felt at that time and indeed feel now, although it is not a time when we can proceed on the issue of substance, that wider compensation should properly have been paid. That view was shared on all sides of the House, including what were then the Labour Benches in opposition.
I wish to ask the Minister two questions. It may be that I either missed what he said or in one case misunderstood what he said. I do not know whether he referred in the course of his remarks—if so I missed it—to the total cost of compensation now assumed under the scheme. As the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, will recall, it was originally anticipated that the cost of the Bill in compensation would be £25 million to £50 million. But that figure was raised to £150 million in view of amendments which the Government made to the Bill in another place. Can the Minister say whether that is the present estimate of the cost of the legislation and the compensation scheme or whether some revised figure now applies?
With regard to my second point, I may have misheard what the Minister said. I do not believe for a moment that he can follow the practice sometimes followed by Ministers in the previous Government of reading out a speech prepared for another place. However, I understood him to say, in referring to the further Bill to deal with small calibre pistols, that there would be a free vote in another place. If the noble Lord did say that, are we to understand that there may not be a free vote on the Government Benches in your Lordships' House? It would be helpful to know exactly where matters stand. For our part, although this is anticipating a Bill which is not before your Lordships' House, we will propose on these Benches a free vote as we did on the previous occasion.
I very much hope that the compensation scheme, given its shortcomings in terms of breadth, will nevertheless do something to mitigate the consequences of the Bill. That having been said, I give it my blessing.
3.34 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, as is the convention of the House, we will support the scheme. But there are, nevertheless, a number of questions which have already been posed in the course of the debate and I shall add my own. I look forward to the Minister's reply to them.
Perhaps I may first express disquiet about the compensation scheme that is before us today. The first tabling of the scheme was on 22nd May. On 3rd June that was withdrawn and another scheme was laid. There was no explanatory memorandum and no indication to the Front Benches, the Cross-Benches or others that that had happened. It was impossible to see why it had changed. In fact I spent many hours with one scheme in one hand and the other scheme in the other hand literally going through them line by line to find out what had changed and why. I followed that up with telephone calls to officials and was given an explanation. However, it was my right honourable friend in another place, David Maclean, who put down a Question for Written Answer. He received a detailed Answer, of which copies were circulated this morning. That gave a run-down which was inconsistent with the explanation which I had been given by telephone. This was not satisfactory. I even understand that the copy which I was assured on Saturday was the latest copy already has a correction to it. There were many mistakes in the first edition and there were mistakes in the second edition. I understand from many of my noble friends who have not spoken today but who came to see me this morning that there are significant omissions from the scheme. It is right that we should have an explanation of that. Indeed, some noble Lords arrived today with the original 22nd May copy because they were not aware that a substitute scheme had been tabled on 3rd June.
I understand and support the encouragement of claimants to use as much as possible option A, which is the flat rate, or option B, which has listed valuations. Like my noble friend Lord Attlee, I believe that as far as possible people should be encouraged to go for the option A or B scheme. My noble friend Lord Attlee pointed to some interesting anomalies. On option C, the conditions under which one can apply are narrow and restrictive. An interesting example was drawn to my attention. I refer to a modern-day well-known general who has added to the antecedents of the ownership of a gun and added to the interest of a gun and therefore to its value on the open market. But there is no accommodation for that additional value to be considered. If the gun has not been modified or customised in any way, option C is not available to take into account any enhancement which might arise as attached to the history and/or the ownership of the gun. It would be helpful to know whether there will be flexibility for claiming under option C.
Where are the guns to be handed in? There is an issue here of distance. With regard to rural Scotland, rural Wales and parts of rural England, if the chief constable writes to the individual who has a licence for the weapon and stipulates where the weapon must be handed in, for some people there will be considerable inconvenience as considerable distances may have to be travelled. I suspect that there is no compensation for

775
that. Will there be any flexibility or will any effort be made to make it easy for people who will have to hand in their weapons?
When will those who surrender their property be paid? This point was made by my noble friend Lord Attlee. It would be helpful if we could have from the Minister an assurance that there will be a defined period—30 days is probably a reasonable period—for those where there are no complications; either a flat rate application under option A or a list rate under option B. It would be helpful to know that the administration is such that people will receive compensation in good time, and if there is any delay, that it should be paid with interest.
There is an interesting and essential point on which we must be assured and that is disposal; the methodology for that and how long the weaponry is to remain at the collection points in police stations. Are police stations physically set up to accept these small arsenals which will build up as the weapons come in? It is important that there is no scope for theft. It is not far fetched to say that there must be no scope for selling these weapons overseas. I say that because I understand that there is a fairly recent case where a policeman in receipt of weapons has been selling them. So that is a point that needs to be addressed. That scope should be eliminated by whatever method of disposal.
Storage will be important and we would like to be assured on that. I believe that my noble friend Lord Burton raised a point about administration. We are talking about 21 days' time when letters will go out and people will begin to bring in their weapons. Are we entirely satisfied that all the administration, record keeping and verification systems and everything else are in place? It would help us to know that the police are ready, happy and entirely satisfied with the arrangements that have been put in place. Can the Minister tell us what is the reaction of the police to the fact that in 21 days' time this scheme will be implemented?
I was posed an interesting technical question. I understand that some people may well have de-activated their weapons by simply slicing them in two, making sure that they cannot be fired, either for the purpose of their own conscience or to assure other people that the weapons will not be used. Can we be assured that if the weapons were de-activated for good reason and the certification and everything else are in order they will be compensated for those weapons?
I repeat the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, about costs. Is it the Government's intention to confirm the costs that were estimated by the previous Government or do they have revised estimated costs? Perhaps I may add to that by asking the Minister for his estimation of the costs of the proposed extension to this Act of Parliament when it includes a total ban on handguns.
This is an interesting question: are police stations exempt from health and safety requirements, especially in regard to the disposal of powder, primers etc.? If not, do they each hold licences for such purposes? It is my
776
understanding that health and safety regulations require that premises are licensed as a magazine. Police stations will need to issue a recipient competent authority document to each person who surrenders powder, primers or mixed explosives. Another question was posed to me, and I put it to the Minister. Why is it that 38 special round nose head lead has disappeared from the third draft that we see before us? There are no clearance kits and no pistol rests.
As regards the Bill to outlaw all handguns referred to by the Minister, I accept absolutely that this is water under the bridge and that it was a manifesto pledge for a Bill to be put before Parliament. My understanding is the same as that of the noble Lord. Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank—that there will be a free vote—and I assume that that will be the case in both Houses of Parliament. It would be helpful to have that clarified.
Even at this late stage, and especially because there is to be a free vote as opposed to a whipped vote, I ask that serious consideration be given—here I am four square with the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon—to a large number of law-abiding citizens, both able and disabled people, who have been seriously disadvantaged already by the Act of Parliament. These people will be very much disadvantaged by any extension of the ban on handguns. Disabled people particularly will have no sport to pursue at all and for many of them there is no substitute sport. Able-bodied people can pursue all kinds of other leisure activities; but many disabled people for whom shooting is a lifeline will be totally denied that sport. If the noble Lord, Lord Howell, were here, I know that he would want to make this point; namely, that in this area, as far as I can recall from the record, we achieve in this country more medals at the Commonwealth and Olympic Games than other people do in many other sports all put together. It is a serious consideration that these people, as a result of the Bill which is being brought forward by the Government, will be denied that sport.
If the questions posed in this debate cannot be answered satisfactorily, it must be for the Minister and the Government themselves to consider withdrawing the scheme for correction and/or modification. But if assurances can be given—that is what we are looking for—which will ensure a fair deal (which is what the previous Government promised) for all those who are affected by the passing of the Firearms Act, I shall invite my noble friends to support the scheme.
3.46 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful for the detail which has been put before your Lordships in examining this draft scheme. The draft is complicated and detailed because it covers payment out of public funds of something of the order of £150 million. As I observed in opening, we need to look for fair values for the guns and other items surrendered. There must be safeguards that the hand-in arrangements work smoothly. We need to make all payments legitimately as soon as possible and we have to dispose of items carefully in the interests of public safety. We believe that this scheme, properly operated by sensible people, can meet those criteria.

777
I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, for his courtesy in giving me notice of his questions. He promised me that he will be returning to this matter in 18 months' time and I have no doubt at all that he will make good his promise. I cannot assure the noble Earl that all payments will be made in 30 days. The training programme has been undertaken—I shall return to the detail in a moment or two—on the basis that payment shall be made as soon as reasonably possible. It is simply not possible to give an undertaking, and I do not, on the basis of 30 days because we simply do not know the rate of take-up of the scheme and one cannot possibly say that all arrangements will be in order and all payments made within 30 days.
The noble Earl raised the question of historical weapons. There is possibly an exception there that he might like to consider with those whom I know are as well informed as he relating to historical weapons under Section 7 of the Act. Both the noble Earl and the noble Lord, Lord Swansea, raised the question of specific weapons, in particular Lugers and Webleys. As I believe they both hinted, the scheme has been drawn up on the basis that it relates to modern guns. Lugers, Webleys and the others mentioned are no longer manufactured, and they were deliberately omitted. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Swansea, pointed out that the condition of such guns is critical. In fairness to the owners of the weapons, it is only right that such guns should be separately valued and claimed under option C. I hope that the noble Earl will consider that to be a prudent step, bearing in mind the difficulty of valuation of weapons that are not currently in production. That is the reason for the distinction in the scheme. That means that a claimant who owns a Luger, Webley or a similar weapon is allowed to get an appropriate payment for the gun that he or she is surrendering.
The noble Lord, Lord Swansea, also inquired about delay. Since they are the lawful entitlement of those who surrender weapons under the regime introduced by Parliament, the payments should be made as soon as it is sensibly possible. The earlier part of the scheme should be relatively easy to operate, and one hopes that payments can be made within a reasonable time.
As they recognised, both the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, and the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, addressed not the scheme but the principle behind the Act. Your Lordships will forgive me if I do not respond to them, except on this basis: they approach the matter—neither of them may thank me for this—perhaps on the basis of the libertarian Left and the libertarian Right. I recognise that there are arguments of principle here, but those arguments of principle have long since been disposed of in your Lordships' House. I do not take away from the value of the argument; I simply observe that what we are doing now in response to the passage of a Bill under a predecessor government is to give effect, by way of a technical scheme, to the will of both Houses.
The noble Lord, Lord Burton, raised the question of appeals. We would not expect there to be an appeals procedure. We would expect police officers to be as sensibly flexible as they can be in dealing with arrangements for those who may have to travel long distances. We know, from even the quickest scrutiny of
778
the Act, that it is a requirement of law that the mechanism of handing in weapons should take place at designated police stations. Again, I have every faith that chief officers of police will be as reasonable as they can be in meeting reasonable requests for flexibility.
I dealt with one question which the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, put to me, but he then popped a fly over my nose which was so infinitely seductive that I feel obliged to answer it. The Government's present intention is to have a free vote in your Lordships' House.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister one question. Some years ago my keeper died. His rifles were not on my certificate. The police themselves took those rifles into a firearms dealer. I was not allowed to carry them the seven miles to the firearms dealer. Will the Minister consider the point that in certain circumstances it might be better for the police to uplift the guns rather than for the person involved perhaps to have to drive a considerable distance, possibly without the right transport facilities?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am most grateful for that intervention which reaffirms and underlines a point that I made earlier—that police officers try to be of assistance to members of the public. I am sure that the noble Earl's observation and suggestion will be borne in mind by senior police officers who will see what they can reasonably do to help.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, asked a number of questions, some of which were overtaken by my earlier answers, as she acknowledged. She was particularly concerned about the scheme and how it might work in practice. As the noble Baroness will know, training for the scheme was put in hand a long time ago, in the earlier months of this year. Some parts of the scheme ought to be easy to operate, for reasons that noble Lords have indicated. The rest of the scheme depends on expert assessment. We are content that sufficient progress has been made: first, that the scheme can be up and running on the date specified and, secondly, that it will run with reasonable efficiency.
The noble Baroness specifically asked whether there had been consultations with ACPO and ACPO(S). I can reassure her that there have been full consultations and that, to the best of my knowledge, police officers in the senior ranks are content with the liaison that has been carried out between the Home Office and those senior ranks.
Lord Burton: My Lords, the Minister referred to ACPO. Does what he said relate to ACPO (Scotland) also?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Lord must have misheard me. As I was referring to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, I looked at her as I spoke and I must have dropped my voice. I said "ACPO and ACPO(S)". I am afraid that we fall into jargon too often and that I am as guilty as some. I ought to have referred to ACPO (Scotland).

779
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, asked me a distinct question about whether police stations would have to be licensed as magazines. She asked me further distinct questions, not all of the details of which I managed to catch so perhaps she will forgive me if I write to her on those detailed questions. They are not details that I am putting to one side, but your Lordships may think that those questions are of quite a fine detail of which I should be certain before giving a categorical response.
We believe that this is a fair and balanced scheme. It will not satisfy everyone. It ought to be acceptable to taxpayers, for whom we are the custodians of public funds, and it ought to be acceptable, we believe, to the majority of claimants—that is, acceptable on the financial basis, not on the basis of principle for which the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, so valiantly contends. I commend the scheme for the approval of this House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

EC Tobacco Regime: European Communities Committee Report
3.56 p.m.
Lord Reay Lord Reay rose to move, That this House take note of the Report of the European Communities Committee on The EC Tobacco Regime (13th Report, Session 1996–97, HL Paper 73).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like to start, if I may, by warmly congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, on his appointment which, so far, I have not had the opportunity to do on the Floor of the House. The noble Lord has many friends and admirers of his manifold talents in all parts of the House and I am quite confident that his new post will give him the opportunity to acquire many more, particularly if he proves to be an energetic and effective promoter of reform of the common agricultural policy.
The occasion of this report by the European Communities Committee of your Lordships' House was the publication by the Commission of its report to the Council on 18th December last on the common organisation of the market in raw tobacco. In the light of that report, which is due to be followed by implementing legislation, Sub-Committee D decided to hold an inquiry into the subject, necessarily brief because of the approaching end of the Parliament. We are grateful to all those who provided us with written evidence: to Professor Marsh of Reading University, an old friend, for his wise and expert advice, and to our Clerk, Mrs. Mary 011ard, for her excellent work on a report which I am sure noble Lords will agree is forceful and readable. I myself am most grateful also to my colleagues who served on the sub-committee.
The Commission's report gives a full and, in the view of Sub-Committee D, eventually damning description of the nature of the current tobacco regime within the EU. The European Union, with 4.6 per cent. of global production in 1994, ranks as a the world's fifth largest raw tobacco producer. This production is spread over eight member states of which Italy and Greece are by
780
far the main producer countries with, in 1995, 39 per cent. and 36 per cent. of Community production respectively. Spain and France follow with 13 per cent. and 8 per cent. respectively, and the remaining 4 per cent. is produced in decreasing order by Germany, Portugal, Belgium and Austria.
However, this tobacco is generally of poor quality and is sold for very low prices—although there are exceptions to this general rule, notably in the case of some Greek oriental varieties. The majority of it goes to countries where, in the words of the Commission,
"living standards are so low that the quality of the tobacco smoked is less important than its price".
Production therefore has to be sustained by subsidy or premium and then kept in check by quota. The cost of these subsidies to the EU's budget is about 1 billion ecu or about £ ¾billion a year. These subsidies account on average for no less than 80 per cent. of the revenue received from tobacco production by tobacco producers throughout the Community.
The rationale for the regime, as the Commission explains, is social. Tobacco is a labour-intensive crop, requiring an enormous number of hours work a year, and is typically grown in the Community on very small family holdings, the area planted to tobacco averaging no more than 1.1 hectares per farmer. There are some 135,000 tobacco farmers largely with family workforces, and in addition about 30,000 workers in tobacco-processing depend on local production. There are often few evident alternative economic opportunities in areas where tobacco is grown and without subsidy the farms would no longer be viable. The Spanish Embassy informed us that in Spain 15,000 were employed in tobacco production in disadvantaged areas where unemployment could be as high as 30 per cent.
The outlook for the future is even bleaker than the present depressing situation. Yield per hectare has hardly increased over the past ten years yet the prospects for mechanisation such as has taken place for example in the US, or indeed any investment to improve efficiency, is negligible. Holdings are too small and capital is likely to be lacking. It is also to be doubted whether the incentive to raise either quality or efficiency exists. As the commission says in its report, under the current subsidy regime a producer does best if he grows a low-quality, high yielding variety that entails the least cost and effort. Meanwhile, low wage cost competitors in Africa and Asia are expanding their production, raising quality and increasing market share. All of this leads the Commission to conclude that the European Community's subsidy-dependent tobacco sector is doomed unless the quality of tobacco produced in the Community improves.
Perhaps at this point I should say a word about health. In the eyes of many tobacco is an undesirable crop which causes damage to human health, and on those grounds alone should not be subsidised. The Commission, like many national governments, promotes anti-smoking measures. The contradiction between these policies was reflected in a widely-publicised disagreement prior to the publication of the Commission's report between the two commissioners responsible respectively for agriculture and social

781
affairs. It is nevertheless true that no one in the Community would have his access to tobacco curtailed if Community production withered or collapsed as a result of the withdrawal of subsidies. The market would simply be supplied from elsewhere, so the desirability of subsidies can be addressed as well on other grounds.
Having reached the conclusion that it should do something to meet the problems of the sector, and in particular to raise the quality of tobacco produced in the Community, the Commission proceeds to discuss what it has in mind.
Having dismissed the idea of disengagement from support altogether and various other largely dirigiste options, such as the encouragement of fruit and vegetable production or forestry, it puts forward its preferred scenario. In this the premia for tobacco would be modulated according to quality with a fixed element designed to provide a minimum income and a variable element related to the purchase price designed to encourage the production of more expensive varieties.
No change is proposed in the levels of subsidy or the volume of quota so the cost of the regime would not fall. The variable premium would be distributed through producer groups. The Commission also suggests measures to encourage farmers to leave the sector voluntarily: either the buying up of quota or the issue of saleable bonds paying an annuity, each over a seven to 10-year period. It also proposes other measures, including making the quota scheme more flexible.
MAFF suggested to us that the Commission's preferred scenario had some merit in so far as it would introduce for the first time a degree of market sensitivity into the regime. In our view, however, the measures discussed by the Commission stop a long way short of what is required. For one thing, they pay insufficient attention to likely pressures to decouple aid from production in the next World Trade Organisation round. Tobacco, with its high level of subsidy, is a particularly vulnerable sector. They also ignore the problem of how tobacco production within the countries of Central and Eastern Europe may be incorporated into the regime. Current tobacco production in Poland, Hungary and Slovakia would add about 20 per cent. to the EC total production. If and when the next WTO round starts—which I believe is due in 1999—or the countries of Central and Eastern Europe accede to the European Union, the tobacco regime will once again need to be replaced.
The Commission's proposals are also open to criticism on internal grounds. First, it is hard to see what would be achieved by encouraging producers to produce better quality tobacco, even if such efforts were successful, if producers were no more competitive and no less subsidy-dependent growing those varieties than they are today growing cheaper varieties. Secondly, the plan to pass responsibility for administering variable premia to producer organisations, while it might serve to conceal, would not mitigate the extremely bureaucratic nature of the Commission's proposals and would remove the Commission further away from a position where it could control fraud. In our view, that would constitute on the Commission's part an extremely
782
undesirable abdication of responsibility for the distribution of Community funds, for fraud has in the past bedevilled the regime.
Perhaps even more importantly, Commission efforts to encourage farmers to leave production are likely to be in vain, as they have been in the past, for the simple reason that any incentive to leave production is likely to be outweighed by the incentives which will continue to be offered to stay in production. Few, if any, funds will be available for such a programme after the subsidies have been paid for.
We would like to see tobacco subsidies and quotas phased out over a period of 10 years or so and a commitment made to do so now. This was also the position of the last Government—the previous Fisheries Minister called the regime "crazy"—and I hope to hear today that that is the position of the Government now. Money so saved could and should be used to ease the transition of those involved to a more profitable economic life. We are emphatically not saying that these communities from one moment to the next should have all public support withdrawn from them. We are very much aware of their degree of dependence on subsidy. But the Community's funds should be spent on ways to end, not perpetuate, this dependence. It is not up to the Commission either to select or reject alternative economic ways of life for these communities.
The Directorate-General of the Commission with responsibility for agriculture sometimes behaves as if it was vying to be the last bastion of the command economy left on the European continent. But local infrastructures can be improved. We saw a great deal of merit in the idea of a saleable bond with annuity attached which could provide the farmer with the means to establish himself in another economic career while providing an income in the meantime.
At the moment the prospects for reform do not look very promising. In calling for reform in the Council of Ministers the UK Government have had support only from Sweden. Tobacco-producing states actively support the regime. The Italian Embassy informed us that it was against any radical reform or any inducements to abandon production; indeed, it wanted the entry of new producers to the tobacco sector to be encouraged. It was suggested to us that other member states who were not producers feared that they might lose their own favourite support schemes under the CAP if they started to attack the tobacco regime. The Government for the time being at least can expect to find themselves in a small minority, but we hope that that will not cause them to lose heart.
Our opposition to the continuation of the EC's tobacco regime is adamant. Indeed, at one point we go as far as to describe the regime as a scandalous waste of taxpayers' money. But perhaps I should put this opposition to the EU's tobacco regime into the context of our attitude to the CAP as a whole. For as long as I have been aware of its work, Sub-Committee D has wanted further reform of the CAP to make it market oriented with a phasing out of support prices and a consequent disappearance of the need for production controls, including quotas and set-aside. The subcommittee has examined plenty of subsidised regimes

783
under the CAP, but never have we come across an example of such a large amount of taxpayers' money being used to maintain the production of a commodity so unwanted by the market. In our view, the regime represents a travesty of natural economic life, and consequently requires a remedy far more drastic than anything currently proposed by the Commission. Despite unfavourable signs in the short term, we hope that that is something it will eventually receive.
Moved, That this House take note of the Report of the European Communities Committee on The EC Tobacco Regime (13th Report, Session 1996/97, HL Paper 73)— (Lord Reay.)
4.10 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord for having introduced this short, pungent and excellently produced report. It reflects not just on the abilities and diligence of the noble Lord, here and in the European Parliament where he and I served together for some time, but also on the individual members of the committee.
When I first read the report I was amazed to find the final opinion stated in terms which might almost have come direct from me in my most moderate mood. The noble Lord paraphrased it, but I must savour the mood of the moment as I read the paragraph in detail. It states:
"In our view, the subsidy of tobacco production in the European Community is a scandalous waste of taxpayers' money. The entire system of premium payments is designed to sustain production at costs which the market is not prepared to meet. Far from solving the social and economic problems of the areas which it purports to assist, it keeps small scale tobacco growers in poverty and isolation and makes no attempt to help them discover more satisfactory employment opportunities. The tobacco sector is a hole in the ground into which money is being poured with no thought for the long-term prospects of those involved in it. The tobacco regime needs fundamental reassessment".
At my most eloquent, I could not have put that better. No reader of this brief, pungent report could reasonably come to any other conclusion.
We must decide, ab initio, how important the matter is to us. Occasionally we have to have regard to the interests of the UK. I trust that those who are fervent European citizens will pardon my regard for the UK, at any rate for the purposes of this debate. The financial aspect has been dealt with many times. Through the good offices of the Government I have been able to obtain the up-to-date figures in the preliminary draft general budget overview which has recently come into my possession.
The days are long since past when one could obtain a detailed European budget. There was a time, shortly after 15th May, when one could obtain detailed budgetary particulars of all items of expenditure. I am sure that noble Lords are aware of title B 117 of the budget.
I suggest that the financial side is of some significance. We have it on the authority of Her Majesty's new Ministers that there will be the utmost economy in expenditure; and that we shall be iron in our will to keep public expenditure within what are
784
considered to be prudent financial limits. In fact we have set limits to the expenditure that we shall countenance, and I suppose that my noble friend Lord Barnett, who unfortunately is not with us at the moment, would echo that to the last word.
At present British taxpayers—those paying tax on purchases, excise duties, customs duties and income tax—spend net through the European Communities £3.5 billion on the official structures and legislation of Europe. I hear no sharp intakes of breath at the enormity of that expenditure. In fact, that it is any burden on the British taxpayer has not even been mentioned. Apart from the expenditure of £3.5 billion being important to the British people, whatever form of direct or indirect taxes one pays, let us narrow it down and find out just how much the tobacco regime is costing UK taxpayers who derive no benefit whatever from it.
Noble Lords will be aware that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, in particular, has articulated on many occasions over the past five years about the costs being borne by UK taxpayers as a result of the wasteful expenditure of which the committee has given a just description. In case there is any illusion that the Commission has been able to improve the figure over the years, let me give extracts from budget title B 117. In 1994, wicked expenditure under this useless heading cost the European Community £994 million of which £170 million was borne by British taxpayers. In 1995, the figure was £812 million of which £122 million was borne by British taxpayers. In 1997 the figure was £760 million of which £114 million was borne by British taxpayers. For 1998, as I was able to find eventually from a detailed examination of the overview so kindly provided by the Treasury, the expenditure is due to be £746 million of which £113 million will be borne by British taxpayers.
The question for us to decide is whether this matter is important. I am well aware that in certain sections of the House—I can now see the Liberal Benches in front of me rather than to the side of me—there will be an objection that the subject should be raised at all; that to do so is somehow indelicate, anti-European, and anti-Community. Perhaps the only way to obtain the approval of our colleagues in Europe is meekly to accept all this, even to express pleasure that we should be honoured by having to bear the expenditure. Perhaps they will wish us to increase it in order to preserve good relations with Europe and to be able to have a place at the top table. Perhaps we shall be able to do that—
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will wait until the spokesman from these Benches speaks. He will then discover that I intend to say absolutely nothing of the kind and that I entirely agree with everything that he says.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I am overwhelmed with the genuineness of the support which, I am glad to say, I knew I was receiving from the Conservative Benches and, to some extent, from my own. However, to be able to conquer the Liberal Democrat Benches is a victory indeed!

785
Let us get down to the serious aspect: is it important or not? If it is important what are we going to do about it? My old chief, Aneurin Bevan, always used to say,
"Silent suffering evokes no response".
My suffering is indeed vocal and loud and I hope that it may attract some support.
The difficulty is that this report is the result of a transition period. The evidence was heard by the members of the committee in February this year, before the change of government. The report was printed in March, before the general election. But, of course, the election might have gone the other way. What is therefore interesting is to discover whether there has been a change of opinion since. Let us make no mistake, according to the committee the position of the Commission is under very severe challenge.
The report rightly deals with the Commission's dismissal of the various alternatives put to it by members of the committee as well as by Her Majesty's then Government. Presumably, they are shared by Her Majesty's present Government, although we shall hear later about that. One of the options dismissed, according to paragraph 21 of the report, is gradual disengagement from support of the tobacco sector. Another option dismissed was area aid payments. The disadvantage that the Commission identifies with the system of aid per hectare is the difficulty of checking areas. It can say that again! It has been flying helicopters about and conducting aerial surveillance, but still the damned elusive Pimpernel cannot be photographed.
Direct income support seems to be one way of converting a social need into some kind of amelioration, but the Commission rejected that. I pray your Lordships give sight to paragraph 23 of the report, which states:
"The Commission also expresses doubts about the 'social and political acceptability' of an 'extraordinary situation in which farmers would be financed by public funds provided that they did not farm'".
They are already doing it! Set-aside payments are made to other sections of the farming community, which in 1994 amounted to £612 million in the United Kingdom alone. This sudden objection in principle to aid repatriation is a little mysterious. Naturally, we would expect objections from the eight other member states named by the noble Lord, Lord Reay. The simply reason is that they are the ones getting money for nowt. They would not object, would they? Indeed, how can one amend the CAP without a unanimous vote to do so? On the face of it, that would appear to be very difficult. The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, in reply to the report on behalf of his ministry, is not very hopeful. I shall not read out the relevant passages. They are expressed in a surfeit of moderation of which he would disapprove. Nevertheless, he does not hold out much hope.
What hope would I, as a Member of your Lordships' House, wish to be made available? It is very simple. I believe that the leader of my party, the right honourable gentleman the Prime Minister, is right when he says that we should be more concerned with people than with institutions. He has the ball at his feet. If the Prime Minister goes to the general Council, as established under the treaty, or to the European Council,
786
or elsewhere, he will be in a position to exert his authority by direct talk with the people themselves over the heads of the bureaucrats in Brussels who seem to believe they can do anything they like without reference to anyone. I believe that the ball lies at the feet of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and I for one am confident that he will use it to the utmost, not only with the public at large but in the moribund meetings of the Council of Ministers whose agendas are largely dictated by the Commission and received by other Ministers with a degree of acceptance which would not find ready appreciation within any democratic society.
4.27 p.m.
Lord Harris of High Cross: My Lords, I have great pleasure in taking part in this debate on an outstanding report. In one respect, the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, was uncharacteristically modest when he quoted the cost of the European Union at £3.5 billion as the net cost. I thought that we had been taught to say that the net cost was an understatement because the gross cost, which is perhaps twice as much, includes a lot of money that we pay to the Union and it pays back to us for things that we would not think worth doing with our own money. But otherwise, the noble Lord gave a good account of himself, as usual.
I wish to take the opportunity to compare two documents: the report of our sub-committee and the report from the Commission to the Council. The contrast is one of chalk and cheese. The document from the Commission is larger and weightier. It is verbose; it is full of gobbledegook; it contains a great deal of technocratic mumbo-jumbo; and it is special pleading. Of that there is no question. As I tried to work through its pages, forwards and then backwards, I asked myself who would read this stuff if they were not paid well to do so. Would any student take this document and work his way through all the stuff about flue cured, light air cured, dark air cured, Basmas, Katerini and Koulak? The Commission has experts in tobacco—they have all this useless expertise at their fingertips to ornament this report. It is really not worth devoting time to perusing it.
Now I turn to this document by Members of your Lordships' House. I looked at who were the 11 Members. As far as I can tell, there is not a declared smoker among them. They know nothing about air cured, flue cured and Basmas tobacco. There is not even an economist among their number, as far as I know. And yet the committee has produced a report which would do credit to a Ph.D student. It is an outstanding piece of economic analysis and argumentation.
There is only one false step in the report, which comes at paragraph 39 where it states:
"Our view has not been greatly coloured by considerations of the harm done by tobacco to human health".
The last sentence of paragraph 39 states: "Nevertheless, considerable political will will be required if radical reassessment of the tobacco regime is to be achieved and sensitivity to public health arguments—no matter how ill-founded—could assist in creating it".
Therefore, there is a suggestion to play up the health issue. That is rather naughty. We did not need paragraph 39 in such a good report.

787
Unfortunately, it will not have any influence on the Greeks or Italians. The Greeks are believed to be the most heavily smoking nation in the world. I do not know whether we have the figures for China but that is the information I have from international sources. The Greeks' expectation of life is well up in the upper decile as, to a lesser extent, is the Italians', who are heavy smokers and who enjoy rather longer life expectations. I notice also that in Italy there has been a ban on the advertising of tobacco since 1962 and yet smoking rates there have continued to go up rather than down.
The Select Committee's report, in particular from paragraph 42 onwards, is devastating and does not put a foot wrong. It says that the Commission wants the Greek and Italian farmers to switch to higher grade tobacco because their low-grade tobacco fetches low prices. But the Select Committee asks why we expect them to be any better at competitively producing higher rather than lower grade tobacco? What is the point of it?
The report goes on to say that the Commission does not consider fairly the possibilities of gradual disengagement. In its wretched document, the Commission talks of disengagement as an instant process, leading to great distress and so on: therefore, it would be politically unrealistic. Paragraph 44 refers to converting the holdings from tobacco into other crops. The Commission says that the tobacco crop is important because it generates high gross profit margins per hectare. Our chaps say that is true but some 80 per cent. of the revenue of the producers is accounted for by subsidy. They ask what is the point of producing a high net revenue if the whole thing is subsidised by the taxpayers, as the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, told us.
In paragraph 45, the report states that the Commission rejects the disengagement of the Community because the Community market organisation in tobacco might be replaced by national organisation. Our chaps say that that is a jolly good idea and can see great merit in such a development. Of course, we should repatriate those so-called regimes. I do not like this being described as a tobacco regime. "Regime" is a perfectly reputable word. There are health regimes and financial regimes and so on. But we should talk about the tobacco racket and not the tobacco regime. Let it be repatriated and let the countries indulge their liking for tobacco-growing with their own national moneys.
Paragraph 46 states that,
"the Commission acknowledges that solutions to the socio-economic problems …will need to be found outside agriculture. But this is not followed by any consideration of what those solutions might be".
Our chaps say that the serious weakness of the Commission's report arises from the rigidity of the structure in the Commission and that that,
"is a serious impediment to rational policy-making."
If we are being rather harsh, the key issue here is that those indulgences cannot continue indefinitely. They cannot continue because new members will be joining us from Eastern Europe and they include a good many tobacco growers. Moreover, the World Trade
788
Organisation, which took over from GATT, is very much opposed to those schemes which support production in that way.
A basic tenet of economic rationality, which I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, would acknowledge, is that it is not efficient to give subsidies attached to output, thereby encouraging the continuation of a production which is not justified by being able to find its own market. If you are concerned with social, cultural and other considerations, then you are entitled to give subsidies to individuals and to actual people and to do that in a way which will lead them away from their wrong-headedness and misguided efforts to paths of virtue.
Therefore, terminable subsidies to individuals is one idea. It is a great principle of economics that we acknowledge legitimate expectations. Those wretched farmers, about whom we can work up a great deal of animus, are victims of a system which has led them to believe that they can continue doing what they have been doing for generations with their families at someone else's expense. To snatch the subsidies away from them would be unjust and upsetting. But perhaps we could say, "We will continue paying you for five years", possibly on a reducing scale. Then it is more likely that the farmers will discover for themselves more profitable outlets for their talents. They will find other crops for production which the Commission has mentioned are available. The Commission argues that there are those other prospects to which the farmers could turn but, in the meantime, the Commission continues to pay them subsidies to produce tobacco. The only way in which to concentrate the mind on finding more productive, fruitful and marketable production is to set a term to the subsidies.
Our committee talks about a 10-year period. I believe that five years is sufficient not to frustrate legitimate expectations. I hope to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, with his great academic expertise, will go even further than the last Government in treating that kind of activity with the scorn and discouragement which we believe it deserves.
4.39 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, this has been a very useful debate because it has underlined what is one of the most astonishing situations with which your Lordships' House has been confronted. It is accepted now by all responsible opinion that smoking is dangerous to health and that the more people smoke the more sickness of one kind or another is produced. At the same time, it has emerged that the production of this dangerous commodity has been and is being heavily subsidised at the expense of the taxpayer. How quickly that situation can be reversed is a matter of judgment. However, that it is a situation which it should be the aim of all responsible legislators to reverse surely is beyond dispute. If we are to go on producing something permanently dangerous to health, surely at least we should do so only for a short time and we should make it quite clear that we propose to phase out all subsidy for its production.
4.40 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, prior to the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, I was about to say how pleased I was to follow the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, and to find myself—for the first time ever, I think—in almost complete agreement with everything he said. He was speaking as the champion of the free market. However, we should remember that he is also the chairman or the president of Forest.
Lord Harris of High Cross: My Lords, I am the chairman.
Lord Rea: My Lords, as the chairman of Forest, he also finds this regime insupportable.
With 10 other speakers discussing this short report I shall add only a little from an outsider's point of view. I was not a member of the Select Committee. But as a doctor and as a member of the British Medical Association I do have a particular position on the regime. Considering the short time available, the Select Committee, under the able chairmanship of my namesake, spelt with a y, the noble Lord, Lord Reay, produced a cogent even trenchant report but one that is also constructive. It is not simply a "hatchet job"; it is a careful demolition which considers the structure that is to replace the building whose foundations the committee shows to be so shaky.
I am asked by the British Medical Association to express its support for the Select Committee's report. The association would probably agree with the truth of paragraph 39—which was quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross—that cutting Community production,
"would not affect levels of consumption …since demand would simply be met by suppliers from elsewhere".
However, I believe the association would go further than the final sentence of that paragraph which states that,
"political will will be required …and sensitivity to the public health arguments—no matter how ill-founded—could assist in creating it".
I agree with the noble Lord that that statement about ill-founded public health arguments is unfair.
While little of European Union tobacco production is consumed in Europe nearly all of it is eventually consumed in the developing world. To say that ending Community production would lead to its replacement "from elsewhere" avoids acknowledging the actual situation in which strong, bad quality tobacco from Europe is currently contributing to the rapidly growing epidemic of tobacco related sickness and death in the less developed world. Not only are we supplying them with a dangerous addictive substance; they also have to pay hard currency for it, although admittedly far less than it costs us in subsidising its production.
As all three noble Lords who have spoken so far said, the report on the regime contrasts with other Commission reports. The noble Lord, Lord Reay, referred to the well known argument between two branches of the European Commission. One talks of ways of reducing tobacco consumption and another talks of ways of propping it up within Europe—not to mention Her Majesty's Government's position where
790
the banning of tobacco advertising is only one of a series of measures which will be taken to reduce consumption of cigarettes and other tobacco products. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, is right to say that banning tobacco advertising in itself does not have much effect; it has to be combined with other measures which the Government will bring in.
It is possible, with a slight stretch of the imagination, to compare European Union tobacco production with South American cocaine production or Asian opiate or heroin production. The production of crops of all these addictive substances persists despite the strong opposition of their governments because of the high price which the products command in relation to alternative crops. Efforts to persuade Thai hill farmers or Colombian peasants to grow other crops tend to fail because even if they are subsidised they bring in much less income. The price of the dangerous controlled addictive drugs is artificially high largely because of their illegality and their subsequent scarcity. In the case of European tobacco, which of course is a perfectly legal product, the reward to farmers is artificially high solely because of the regime which is funded by the taxpayer.
It is completely clear to the Select Committee—and to other noble Lords who have spoken this afternoon—that the solution should be to divert the subsidies going to tobacco production to other products or other ways of encouraging alternative economic activity. Unfortunately, however, that is not the way that eight out of 15 European states see it. We are informed that to divert subsidies to growing fruit or vegetables would upset other areas of the CAP. Fruit and vegetables for instance, have their own regime and there is a problem already with surplus production. To give higher subsidies to tobacco growers to divert production to fruit or vegetables would seem unfair to existing farmers who oppose any measures to increase overall European production of vegetables or fruit. However, I suggest—and the Select Committee also suggested—that the answer may well lie in that sort of direction.
As many noble Lords will know, it is interesting that fruit and vegetables are now recognised as not merely pleasant to eat but also, in contrast to tobacco, are highly beneficial in the prevention of cancer and coronary heart disease. If any group of products deserves a subsidy—I know that many noble Lords do not agree with subsidies—or other means of encouragement to consumers, it is fruit and vegetables. I might also add olive oil and some of the other seed based oils which have health giving effects. Olive groves might well flourish in some, although not all, of this difficult terrain. However, that would be a long-term project. Of course, other transformations of land use, with the growth of small industries and the amalgamation of plots that are too small to be viable, would be logical progress.
The Select Committee has put forward its view as to how small farmers who grow tobacco should be gradually weaned onto other occupations. However, all that is some way ahead. The important task at present—and one which the Select Committee report tackles well—is to persuade more European Union states that

791
the current situation is illogical and deeply flawed. As two noble Lords have already said, the report states that it is,
"a scandalous waste of taxpayers' money".
The recommendations of the European Commission were effectively demolished by the noble Lord, Lord Harris. They are weak; they do not go far enough. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will continue to try to persuade at least all the non-tobacco producing states, and eventually some of the tobacco producing states too, to join with the United Kingdom and Sweden to move for a rapid scaling down and replacement of the regime.
4.50 p.m.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: My Lords, I have the privilege to be one of the members of Sub-Committee D. I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Reay for chairing our investigation into the tobacco regime and for the excellent way in which he presented our report. I am delighted that he has persuaded all noble Lords who have spoken of the excellence of the report and how important it is that we take the issue extremely seriously and encourage the Government to seek to persuade other members who will sit at the table in Europe to do something about it.
Noble Lords have spoken sufficiently about the problems regarding the tobacco regime and the enormous cost both to the European taxpayer and the individual British taxpayer to persuade us that something should be done. It will be more difficult for the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, to persuade the other member states that something should be done. With the tobacco regime we are confronted with an issue which lies at the heart of some of the problems with the CAP. The policy has been used by individual countries to deal with social problems and problems of backwardness in rural areas. That was neither the basic nor the prime purpose of the CAP.
I shall refer to some issues which are not necessarily set out in detail in the report although we discussed how they might be addressed. The British Government now have to put forward positive proposals to their colleagues—who will not take kindly to any change—which will be just as effective in dealing with the long-term economic problems of those rural areas rather than continuing with a system which does not work. The tragedy of most of the CAP subsidy systems is that they hold those rural economic areas in a poor, dependent state rather than lifting them out of it and progressing to more wealth. The system does the opposite of what everyone believes that it will achieve. That applies not only to the tobacco regime but to the fruit and vegetable regime. The noble Lord, Lord Rea, stated that he would rather have more fruit and vegetables than tobacco. However, the fruit and vegetable regime pays for more fruit which is destroyed than is eaten. Clearly that is as ineffective as a method for producing fruit as it is for producing wealth for the people involved with it.
In this country we have some interesting examples of how we have sought to deal with the issue. Possibly the situation is not as bad. Our Rural Development
792
Commission, although not referred to by the European Commission, is an example of how we have been able to tackle specific rural economic problems. The Welsh Development Agency has done tremendously good work in identifying some of the issues which need to be addressed in rural areas, establishing systems of training and re-education. They will be important in developing those economies.
Parts of Italy, Spain and Greece which grow tobacco are extremely poor areas. Many families live together in one house. They share their work; they share the ownership of the land. It goes back to a feudal system. The worst thing we can do is to develop a regime which holds them into that system and does not encourage them to use their own native initiative and entrepreneurship to move out of the system. It will be important to teach them some of the basic principles that we practise in this country. I would rather see our taxpayers' money going into training and the development of new technology than into the production of a crop that no one wants.
The basic problem is that throughout Europe there are pockets of rural areas where there is a lack of a rural economic policy to stimulate growth of the economy rather than supporting a product for which there is no further market. That should be the cornerstone of any proposals which the British Government put to the Commission. We need a positive rural economic policy. Not only shall we be confronted with the problem in Europe as it exists now; we shall be confronted with further serious economic problems within pockets of rural areas if the Community is enlarged. We have to consider infrastructure investment, the development of new technology, and better communications in rural areas, teaching the opportunities provided by a proper education system. If we have a policy which deals with those aspects of the rural communities, we shall have one on which we can build inward investment proposals which can bring finance into those areas.
Another key element is land ownership. Many rural areas of Europe are stuck with land ownership problems which make it difficult to develop the larger units which will be the key to economic success. That issue needs to be considered not only in the context of the tobacco regime but also many other problems.
I believe that the right way ahead is to establish the bond scheme, as the report proposes, and to look closely at the bond scheme's capacity not just to deal with tobacco but many other problems related to the CAP. The bond scheme would give the financial opportunity to bring about the end of the tobacco growing system. I would not be against the five year period put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington. If people's minds are concentrated on the fact that the tobacco regime will stop, the more quickly they will consider other alternatives. Having been brought up in the agricultural community in this country, I am well aware how quick we are to adapt to changes once we know that they have to take place. If someone cuts off a tap on one side, by God! you work hard to ensure you can open a tap somewhere else which will keep body and soul together. The incentive of a period during which people know that the regime will stop, with a floating

793
off period, will make the measure more effective. At the same time we should put forward specific proposals on the basis of the Rural Development Commission and the Welsh Development Agency to develop a rural economic infrastructure which can ultimately attract new investment and encourage new entrepreneurship.
I believe that in this country we have a great opportunity to look more sensibly at alternative crops. I must declare an interest, being involved with Horticultural Research International at Wellesbourne. That organisation can bring tremendous expertise to bear in finding solutions in regard to crops and rotational systems which can maintain the economy of the area without continuing to absorb vast amounts of money.
I am delighted that noble Lords welcome the report. If the Government will act on it, it will be of benefit to a great many people.
4.59 p.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, first, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Reay, for an excellent introduction to the report and analysis of it. I thought that he did it brilliantly, if I may say so. I should like to thank him, too, for chairing the committee so well and getting the report produced in a remarkably short space of time with, it seems to me, a full account of all that we heard and talked about while we were in committee. I also congratulate my noble friend Lord Donoughue on his first appearance in the debate as a Minister in the Ministry of Agriculture.
It has become abundantly clear from the debate that the Commission's proposals are considered totally inadequate to reform the tobacco regime in any substantial or satisfactory way. There was condemnation of that regime by the previous Government. Mr. Baldry, then Minister of State, described current arrangements as,
"a crazy regime and a crazy way to spend taxpayers' money";
and went on,
"there must be a phased ending of the subsidised provision of tobacco".
The response of this Government to the report came only last week. They complimented the committee on its well-presented report—which it certainly is; shared our concern that the Commission's proposals fall far short of what is required; and agreed that if changes of the kind proposed are agreed, further substantial reforms will soon be needed. The Commission makes no provision for future likely pressures from the WTO for the decoupling of subsidies, and seems to ignore the implications for the CAP of the likely enlargement of the Community. Poland, Hungary and Slovakia all grow large quantities of tobacco—a total of 61,000 tonnes, which would be a substantial addition to the 333,000 tonnes which was the harvest in the EU in 1995.
So why is the Commission so timid? The pressure of course comes from the Mediterranean countries which are the big producers—Italy with 39 per cent.; Greece, 36 per cent.; Spain, 13 per cent.; and France, 8 per cent. So it is not surprising that the UK had so little support
794
for more radical reforms. Only Sweden was in favour of disengagement from the sector; other member states were apathetic.
It was suggested by MAFF that the non-producer countries like Ireland might be influenced by an interest in the continuation of CAP support in other sectors on comparable social grounds to those applicable to tobacco, and that is no doubt true for other countries too. Another reason was that the tobacco regime is wholly funded from the guarantee section of the European farm guidance and guarantee fund, whereas any structural measures which might provide equivalent social support would require a degree of national funding. So we can look on the Commission's decision as political. It knows that the chances of getting radical reform through at the moment are minimal and therefore funk it. Our committee had very much the same experience when we reported on the fruit and vegetable regime in 1995—another scandalous regime crying out for reform but with very inadequate proposals from the Commission, for much the same reasons.
Of course we appreciate the socio-economic problems that the producing countries have. The noble Lord, Lord Wade, explained that very well. The Commission points out that the reconversion to other forms of employment of 200,000 jobs is not feasible without an extremely high social cost. The fact that so many farms where tobacco is grown are very small and run mostly by the family, often the whole family being dependent on the crop, does not make planning easier. What I still do not fully understand is why, as the tobacco crop has to be rotated, some of the crops grown in the intervening years could not be developed—although I do understand that the alternative crops could be fruit and vegetables, and, as I said, that regime has been condemned by us as scandalous and prone to fraud. We know that a great amount of fruit and vegetables are grown merely to be thrown away, as the noble Lord, Lord Wade, said.
The possibilities of fraud in the tobacco regime were decreased by the 1992 reforms when intervention and export refunds were abolished, premia were limited to provision within a quota and the number of premium rates reduced from 34 to eight, thus simplifying administration and reducing scope for fraud. But there is no doubt fraud still exists. It is significant that neither Italy nor Greece, the biggest producers, have yet, five years later, set up the national supervisory agencies provided for in the 1992 reforms.
What we have discovered in the course of a good many reports is that two commissioners (or even more) do not have a united front and work in harmony—sometimes they do not even seem to know very much about what is going on in the area of the other one—and communication seems minimal. In this case, we have Commissioner Fischler with responsibility for agriculture and rural development, and Commissioner Flynn, with responsibility for employment and health, where Commissioner Flynn argued that subsidies for tobacco production undermined the credibility of the Commission's measures to discourage smoking on public health grounds. The report we are discussing acknowledges the harmful effects of smoking on human

795
health and the apparent contradiction between supporting tobacco production on the one hand and promoting anti-smoking measures on the other. But the report concludes that,
"aid to tobacco growers has no impact on the level of tobacco consumption".
I am sceptical. I was reminded of a pamphlet I received the other day from the tobacco industry claiming that tobacco advertising had no effect on teenage smokers. Why, I wonder, do they go on doing it?
It seems a disgrace and brings the Community into disrepute that we should be subsidising to the extent of £800 million a year a crop which has little market value, and spend just £1.2 million on smoking prevention. The Court of Auditors in a special report in March 1994 concluded that, if direct income aid were to be paid to all tobacco farmers equivalent to their annual net revenue based on the 1988–90 average, approximately half the EU budget could be saved. I have heard suggestions which go further. If all the tobacco farmers were bought out and direct aid given to the farmer then in possession for his lifetime and no more, that would be a better, healthier and final solution and end the scandal. I fear this will not happen, but I join in the condemnation of these weak proposals and hope that something better and more radical can be put in their place. I hope that we shall hear that from my noble friend at the end of this debate.
5.6 p.m.
Lord Brain: My Lords, like the other two members of the committee who spoke, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Reay, on his chairmanship and on his excellent introduction to our report. The members who spoke dealt with the report very well. I should be repeating a great deal of what they said were I to make a long speech about the report. However, when the BBC has the opportunity of a headline to the effect that the subsidy of tobacco production is a scandalous waste of taxpayers' money, it makes an effort to find somebody to express comments on behalf of the committee.
I happened to be at home, and therefore available on the telephone, the evening before the report was published. So shortly after seven o'clock the following morning I took part in the "Today" programme. In order to present some opposition to the report, the BBC found a Mr. Fernández, a Spanish MEP who has served on the agricultural committee of the European Parliament. I thought it might help the House if I were to report some of the remarks that he made to me and to John Humphrys—and even when I was supposed to reply to John Humphrys!—about the topics. I shall also comment on remarks made by one or two other noble Lords as I do so.
First, Mr. Fernández agreed, as we have said, that this is a social issue. He made no bones about it being an agricultural issue. He said the problem is that 170,000 people rely on the tobacco subsidy to stay on the land in those European states with their families and have no other major means of income. The noble Lord, Lord Rea, mentioned fruit and vegetables. If I were to mention olive trees again, I might hear the noble Lord,
796
Lord Bruce of Donington, saying that there is yet again a regime riddled with fraud. There is a problem related to keeping people on the land.
The MEP thought that we as a committee were merely saying, "Pay them for doing nothing", and asking how are they to occupy themselves if we merely pay them? He tried to compare the issue with that of set-aside. I had to tell him that set-aside represents only 15 per cent. of a normal farmer's income, or possibly less, whereas tobacco producers receive 80 per cent. in subsidy.
He also made a comment about our suggestion that the regime would have to be changed when the next World Trade Organisation round took place. He said in effect that the WTO was an American-biased organisation whose aim appeared to be to allow one of the major American manufacturers to buy tobacco of the same quality as that produced in Europe at a much reduced price. I just let that one ride.
However, I would mention this to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, concerning a point that he made—though I do not accept what he said. He said that the tobacco experts in the Commission knew nothing about the quality of tobacco. I think that that is probably false, but it is a point that he made. They think that it is wrong.
He made another point which I believe is important, and it concerns the large number of smallholdings. The noble Lord, Lord Reay, mentioned, as we mentioned in our report, that the average size of holding on which tobacco is grown is no larger than 10 hectares (25 acres), of which two-and-a-half to three acres is all that is down to tobacco. The noble Baroness, Lady David, mentioned the question of rotation. The Spanish MEP said that this was a result of the Napoleonic Code on land inheritance. I believe that that raises a major problem, which the noble Lord, Lord Wade, raised but in a slightly different way. In this report and earlier reports we have suggested that it may be possible to buy out the farmer. The problem is that the farmer may be farming quite a lot of land within that 10 hectares which belongs to the extended family as a result of the Napoleonic Code. We are in the position of buying out one generation without there necessarily being the means to transfer the money.
I know from having lived and worked in France how family ownership of land causes family problems. Opposite to where I lived for about six years there was a field of some five acres. It was never sold for building—although it was perfectly viable to be built on and was sold 10 years later—because, of the family of about 25 members, none could agree on the price or how to sell it. I could see this problem arising if one were trying to buy with a bond or whatever.
I would draw the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, to this matter. I wonder whether there might be a case at some stage for one of the committees of this House to look at the implications of the Napoleonic Code and land inheritance for the development of the common agricultural policy.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, perhaps I may briefly interrupt. What the noble Lord says is absolutely

797
fascinating. He produced the number of 170,000 people; he went on to speak about children and relations; and he then went on to talk about the Napoleonic Code, about which I understand. How many people are involved? Is 170,000 the gross figure or the net figure?
Lord Brain: My Lords, the noble Lord has me in a slight quandary. When we were taking our evidence we had to use a judgment. That was a figure given to me by a Spanish MEP. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Reay, in introducing this debate said that we knew there were about 130,000 farmers and 30,000 to 35,000 in the processing industry. We discovered that a farmer rarely employs any labour and that it is the extended family—the wife, the daughters and the sons—who gain from this. Yes, it may be 350,000 or it may be 500,000 people who obtain some employment, but perhaps for only four weeks a year. I was not going to go into the technical detail, but we received quite a lot of evidence that one of the problems is that tobacco cannot be mechanically harvested, partly because of the way it is grown. Therefore they go along the rows, rather like picking grapes in the old days, picking off certain ripe leaves which they then transport, possibly in a pannier on their backs.
I am afraid that I have digressed from the point I was trying to make, which is that we have never studied the Napoleonic Code with reference to land when we talk about bonds, insurance schemes and getting people off the land.
I have spoken long enough. I believe that this is a very good report and, like others who have spoken, I shall be most interested to hear the Government's reply.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Grantchester: My Lords, I am grateful that time has been allocated by the House for a debate on this report. On the face of it, a debate might seem unnecessary given what appears to be virtual unanimity of opinion on all sides of the House on the tobacco regime. Notwithstanding that, it is important for us to underline the degree of dissatisfaction over this regime and the half-hearted reforms being proposed by the Commission.
This dissatisfaction is evidenced by the fact that the committee declared unanimously in paragraph 37 the following view. I am happy to underline it by repeating the quotation:
"the subsidy of tobacco production in the European Community is a scandalous waste of taxpayers' money …The tobacco sector is a hole in the ground into which money is being poured with no thought for the long-term prospects of those involved in it".
Indeed, the tobacco regime would make an interesting chapter in Gulliver's Travels. The European Union pays large sums of money (£760 million this year) to grow a poor quality product of no usefulness, for which there is very little demand and whose effects on health cause us to spend even more money to counteract them. Tobacco attracts the highest subsidy of any commodity in the EU. Even the previous Government described the arrangements as:
"A crazy regime and a crazy way of spending taxpayers' money".
798
It is encouraging that my noble friend Lord Donoughue responded to our report on behalf of the new Government, agreeing in principle that we should decouple support from production. We need to persuade our European partners to start the process of disengagement.
It is important to note that three-quarters of European tobacco production comes from just two member states, Greece and Italy. However, up till now the British Government have been able to gain the support only of Sweden and, to a lesser extent, Denmark. It is indicative of the previous Government's isolation in Europe that they could not attract more allies on this issue. Now, thankfully, with the Labour Government, who have immediately begun to improve relations with the EU, there is a prospect for reform. It is a not a practical proposition to end the tobacco regime completely and immediately, but we are now at least in a better position to encourage our partners to disengage gradually.
Negotiations on this issue will not be easy, as there are several other states, notably Ireland, which have an interest in maintaining common agricultural policy support for other crops on the social grounds which apply to tobacco. Not surprisingly, therefore, the status quo has its attractions for some.
We must resist calls for the status quo to be maintained. Tobacco is one of the few subsidised crops which is not eaten and which is uniquely recognised as injurious to health. Smoking is the greatest cause of avoidable death and in the UK alone kills 120,000 people each year. It is disappointing, therefore, to reflect on the possibilities of reform in other areas when so little seems possible so far as tobacco is concerned.
As regards practical proposals, I believe that the introduction of saleable bonds could be effective. They should be flexible in their payment scheduling to allow individual farmers to find their own solutions to restructuring their businesses. This need not require that farmers remain in agriculture. Of course, further resources would need to be put into regional development. Guidance would also need to be given on alternative enterprises within what are essentially objective 1 areas.
Solutions demand diverse responses and any scheme must, therefore, be able to accommodate alternative routes out of the problem. If premiums and quotas remain at existing levels, there will be little cash for bonds and local development plans. If reforms are to achieve long-term change, they must be coupled with gradual reductions in premiums. One cannot simply pull the plug.
The added advantage of bonds is that savings could be made by reducing the bureaucracy which comes with the administration of quotas. Perhaps the Minister could give the House an indication of the potential cost savings from quota administration and fraud control. If only more limited reforms are undertaken, quotas could be made saleable and a buy-up scheme implemented. Saleability would result in the less efficient producers moving out of tobacco, thus encouraging departure from the regime. New entrants to the sector would have to be

799
barred from purchasing the bonds, which, make no bones about it, is difficult to achieve in an open society, where farmers like to pass on their "inheritance".
The committee's deliberations on this subject were unavoidably constrained by the fact that they took place toward the end of the previous Parliament. With more time, we could have conducted a more detailed investigation. That would not have undermined the case for reform; rather, it would have reinforced it.
The new Government have brought a new credibility to our relations with the European Union. Let us hope that one of its fruits will be the ending of this scheme, which wastes our money and our health. I commend the report to the House.
5.22 p.m.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, the 13th report of the European Economic Communities' Committee on the tobacco regime makes depressing reading. Although it has already been said by the noble Baroness, Lady David, I should like to quote one sentence from page 17 of the report:
"The figures speak for themselves—we currently spend £1.2 million on smoking prevention and £800 million on subsidising a crop which has little market value".
In this country we have decided to ban tobacco advertising in sports activities—yet I should have thought that sport was one activity that would have discouraged smoking. But be that as it may.
Perhaps I may speak as a smoker, a farmer and a forester. As a farmer, there is no earthly point in my growing a crop that I cannot sell. If I cannot sell a crop, I shall not grow it. Agricultural crops are zero-rated for VAT. Forestry, on the other hand, is rated for VAT. That is unfair because trees should be regarded as a crop. Tobacco is bad for us—I accept that, as a smoker—and so why not add on VAT in respect of its production? If a tobacco plant can be grown, so can a tree. I should like to put forward some constructive suggestions.
But, first, let me ask this country to think again. I have always been fascinated when we have tree planting days. With great respect, any fool can dig a hole in the ground and stick in a tree. But unless that tree is looked after carefully for the first 16 years of its life, its chances of survival are extremely slim. At the end of about 16 years one may start to obtain some return from thinnings. Today, however, one will obtain only about £1.50 per tonne and it goes to make chipboard. It is not until perhaps the tree is about 30 years old that one can achieve any kind of return. I am also fascinated by local authority tree preservation orders. Nothing lives for ever and trees die just as we do. If we allow the old trees to carry on living, we risk spreading a disease which will destroy many other trees. If the legislation had been worded so as to have a tree management order, it would have been very much more productive.
Where crops other than tobacco cannot be grown, I suggest that forestry should be established. It is labour-intensive. But it should not be done as the
800
Forestry Commission has done it so often, with large areas which contain only one or two species of trees. There, there is a risk of disease and also all the trees mature at the same time. We should have a wide variety of trees of all types, if necessary even to the extent that the land is terraced, as might be necessary in parts of Italy and Greece. We should make woodlands zero-rated for VAT and forestry should be treated as an agricultural crop. Europe imports a great deal of timber. We should grow our own. Even coppicing for baskets or charcoal might be a possibility.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, rightly pointed out that the Government should subsidise or support people, not industries. The noble Lord, Lord Brain, said that the Napoleonic land tenure arrangements may make forestry difficult. But if forestry can be regarded as a crop, there may be more possibilities.
5.27 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, we have had a good debate on a good report. I offer my thanks, along with those of other noble Lords, to members of the sub-committee and its chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Reay, who so ably mixes the blood of the aristocracy from at least three European countries, thus making him a very suitable chairman for this particular operation. I very much look forward to the reply of the Minister whom I welcome to his post. Let me say, however, that I shall greatly miss the noble Lord, Lord Carter, who has been banished to the slightly less rewarding office of the Whips.
The Commission has dismissed gradual disengagement. That is wrong and indefensible, as the committee points out. It was very ably said by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, that there could be few bodies which would continue to provide heavy subsidies for harmful substances of admittedly poor quality. I understand why the committee did not take particularly into consideration the health issue. Apart from anything else, by doing so it managed to earn the well deserved acknowledgement and praise of the noble Lord. Lord Harris. But I do not believe that the health issue should be dismissed. The argument that if we do not grow tobacco other people will do so is morally contemptible and on an intellectual par with similar arguments about, say, landmines. Before anyone misquotes me or takes me up, let me say that I am not comparing tobacco with landmines. I am merely comparing the intellectual arguments used in both cases.
The evidence of rural communities must be supported and I would willingly spend a considerable part of your Lordships' time saying how that should happen. However, this has been a full debate; we have covered a lot of ground. The noble Lord, Lord Wade, covered that issue well and the House will no doubt appreciate it if I keep my remarks short, which I intend to do.
Of course rural communities must be supported and there are interesting suggestions as to how that should be done in paragraph 4.4 of written evidence. However, it seems to me that we are quite clear that this is not the way in which rural communities should be supported. An interesting point was raised by the last speaker and

801
by my noble friend Lady Robson in the questioning in written evidence in relation to the World Trade Organisation.
I do not often defend the World Trade Organisation. However, it is useful that that body is visualised as bringing an end to this particularly ridiculous and corrupt regime at some time in the near future. If that is so—it appears to be so—it is short-sighted for the Community not to start thinking now about the way forward. As one noble Lord said, the British farming community is very good at thinking of alternative uses when it is told that certain crops are no longer needed. I have no reason to believe that European farmers will be any less efficient. The sooner all the regimes, including the Italian and Greek governments, turn their attention to that and stop merely blocking it, the better.
This is a thoroughly good report on a thoroughly bad European document. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, will be able to give us some hope that the Government will be able to see their way forward to doing something about it.
5.33 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I too congratulate my noble friend Lord Reay on this excellent report, which I am sure would have gained just the plaudits from us had we continued in government as it will no doubt receive from the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, and justly deserves. Also, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, on finding himself in the position which I was happy to occupy so recently. I am sure he will fill it with great ability, to which I certainly cannot lay claim.
This is also perhaps an opportunity to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, who I find on this occasion so converted to the cause that he is wearing the Swedish flag in his lapel, on representing the only other member of the Community who supports us in our endeavour.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, the noble Lord is mistaken. It is National Carers' Week and these are the colours of carers.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, nonetheless, it is always a pleasure to discover a member of the Liberal Democrat Party at one with us and at one with reality. It is not often that we encounter those two happy conditions.
Most noble Lords who have spoken today pointed out that this debate concerns a social subsidy. We could be subsidising anything. It has nothing to do with tobacco, and I shall not therefore stray into the areas of anti-smoking and tobacco quality which others covered. Nor—I hope not too much to their disappointment—shall I follow the noble Lord, Lord Brain, down the route of the "Code Napoléon" or my noble friend Lord Balfour into forestry.
I was fascinated by the little vignettes that today's debate provided; its ability to hold a magnifying glass over this particular vignette at work and its characteristics and foibles. It is fascinating to see what a bureaucracy is like when it has no proper political
802
control. It is comforting for a politician to see that we do have a function in this world. The Commission possesses all that supreme intelligence and so little common sense. It has so little ability to indulge in radical self-criticism and radical change. It seems to believe that if one changes something radically, everything is lost and all is chaos. Politicians live by change. We live for what we can change in the world, and the combination of the two is the way the system should work. An organisation that is so biased towards a bureaucracy has some fundamental faults which are hard to eradicate and which appear throughout its work.
The Commission has an attachment to stability at all costs, even when it comes to keeping people in poverty because that is the way things are and that is the direction in which they are set, even to the extent of running a system to a point where, in the end, change has been ignored for so long that when it comes it is catastrophic and calamitous.
What really astonished me about the report was the sheer mendacity of the Commission. I find it difficult not to characterise what it says as anything other than outright and deliberate lies. When there are politicians around, the bureaucrats have other people to do that for them and I am sure that they are grateful for that.
The report also gives a little vignette of European politics and the way in which countries fight over what is "our" share of the cake. To the Greeks and the Italians the tobacco subsidy is their share of it, and they fight not out of any rationale but because other countries have other subsidies which is "their" share. The trade-off works because the rationality and the possibility of reform become crippled by the inability to deal with individual subjects on their own. One can only deal with the tobacco subsidy when one is dealing with all other sets of regimes at the same time. Therefore, if the Greeks and Italians are to suffer from these changes, then in some way they can make the Brits suffer.
One can see the clash of the old and the new socialist cultures; the belief that is still common in Europe in relation to subsidy—that is, subsidy at its most extreme. In some cases 99 per cent. is represented by subsidy. We are almost inventing jobs for people to do. Indeed, we see in France some more of that to come—350,000 jobs to be created in the public sector. To do what? To add what to the economy? That is the sort of feature of socialism which I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, recognises from his youth in the Labour movement. It is a characteristic of the cause which he once so ably espoused, and perhaps still does, in which case he may enjoy seeing it come to fruition in the European Community.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, made a valid point when he said that we should not look at the net expenditure on the European Commission; it is gross expenditure. The money that comes back to us is not spent as efficiently and wisely as we would spend it or indeed, if we were to leave it to the individual members of our nation to spend wisely. We cannot equate money with money; outgoings with incomings. It is a large amount of worth and value which we invest in the European Community.

803
Several solutions were proposed to the problems that the tobacco regime represents—and a number of good ones. It was said that the subsidy should be directed at the real problem for which it is supposed to exist. If there are social problems, let them be dealt with directly. Trying to deal with them through a different method is fundamentally unsatisfactory and leads to all kinds of distortions.
The World Trade Organisation will clearly have some effect on the future of the subsidy. If the European Community wishes to keep it the way it is, perhaps it should redirect it into something which is economically neutral. Perhaps we should pay the Greeks to grow wild flowers in their fields and to sit outside their front doors playing the bouzouki. It would scarcely cost more and would produce many benefits for the rest of us, even perhaps for the Greeks themselves.
On the question of subsidiarity, as my noble friend Lord Reay said, why should the European Commission tell these individual countries how they should live? Why should it be the Commission's business to keep Greek peasants doing what they have always done—living in poverty, growing tobacco? Why should this not be a matter for the Greek Government to choose? Yes, we agree that we as a Community will give money to Greece and will give money to the poorer areas of the Community to help them prosper. But why should we be limited to the imagination of the Commission to deal with this matter? Why should we not, as my noble friend Lord Wade of Chorlton so ably said, draw on the kind of experience we have in this country of how to revive and revitalise rural communities? These things are much better done by individual countries than done in a regimented way by
the Commission. We are much better placed to respond to the individual problems that we have and to deal with the particular problems which come from the Code Napoleon. If money is needed to solve that kind of problem, why should it not be applied to solving that kind of problem? That is fundamental to the difficulties these rural areas find themselves in. Why should it be restricted to subsidising the growth of tobacco? If we are to supply subsidy, subsidising new businesses, infrastructure, the ability to market and transport produce and communications of all kinds are what rural areas need and not money to spend on a totally useless activity.
I look forward with great interest to hearing what the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, will say in reply to the report. I shall put one particular emphasis on it. I shall listen carefully to the answers that he proposes Europe should adopt and I shall imagine him trying to apply those same answers to our own little tobacco regime in miniature—the hill livestock compensatory allowance. There we are, facing the same problem of looking after rural communities which are no longer viable. There is no way in which those rural communities, as farming communities, can pay their way without subsidy. How are we to deal with that problem within our own shores? Will we adopt the recipes which we suggest for others?
5.42 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Donoughue): My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Reay, for initiating the debate. I agree with virtually all he said and I do not propose this evening to defend the indefensible. I thank him for the kind words he said about me personally and assure him that I am very committed to the reform of the CAP. However, I should warn him that I do not expect to achieve all of that before Ascot—not before the first day of Ascot anyway!
I thank my noble friend Lady David for her characteristically kind words. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley. I can tell him that during the first few weeks of this job I totally shared his regret at the banishment of my noble friend Lord Carter away from agriculture. But it is beginning to feel better. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. He was modest. I say that with the hindsight of my present experience I look back on his performance in this job with growing retrospective admiration and sympathy. I shall look carefully at what he said about hill livestock.
As a government, we welcome the committee's excellent report. It is a well organised analysis of the position and is commendably frank in some of its justified criticisms. As stated in the Government's response to the report, we agree with most of the points made by the committee. I certainly agree with a good many of the comments made in today's debate, in particular with the comments of my noble friend Lady David on the Brussels contradictions and with the belief of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, that such nonsense cannot survive enlargement and what is to happen in the World Trade Organisation.
The House will be aware that the European tobacco regime has attracted criticism wider than here. It has attracted this criticism for a number of years not least because of the great expenditure involved and the health implications. There has also been widely reported criticism—it has occurred this afternoon and even within the Commission—of the illogicality of supporting production at the same time as encouraging anti-smoking measures. The House of Lords report, commendable in almost every way, is, if anything, a little gentle on that aspect. My noble friend Lord Rea spoke with great medical expertise, especially with regard to his concern for health in the less developed world. I noted, too, the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, in that regard.
The ban on advertising is fairly oblique with regard to this debate but perhaps I may say that the Government believe that the ban will be most effective if introduced as part of a package. Next month the Minister of State for Public Health is holding a summit of experts on ways to reduce smoking. We are also looking carefully at how best to remove tobacco sports sponsorship without putting at risk particular events in the UK. It involves a number of sports, particularly horse racing. National heritage Ministers will be consulting the sports concerned and legislation will include a transitional period.

805
Coming back to the central concern of the debate, we must ask what are the chances of reform. We have to concede to the Commission—even critics must concede—that the 1992 reform was a significant step in the right direction. It reduced the scope for fraud and it cut overall expenditure. Costs on the regime are now down 23 per cent. from the 1991 peak. Fraud has been reduced. There are now no intervention and export refunds, which were the areas most prone to fraud. The aided categories have been simplified—cut from 34 to eight—and monitoring strengthened. We note that the Greek and Italian tobacco agencies have not been set up and that the Commission at least is reasonably satisfied that other crop control agencies now being used for tobacco control have good effect. We believe that the Community now needs to take the opportunity to build on those reforms.
Looking at what is proposed, we are pleased that the Commission accepts that maintenance of the status quo is not an option. The fact is, as often mentioned in the debate, that the regime supports production of tobacco—nearly 5 per cent. of world production—of a very low quality and that the product would barely be grown in the European Union without subsidy. The Commission report says that the quality could improve. There is a long way to go. That is reflected in the fact that Europe imports most of the tobacco it consumes and exports 80 per cent. of its own production to those less privileged—mainly north Africa and eastern Europe—as my noble friend pointed out.
The Commission examined and rejected the option to disengage, which is attractive in many ways. We, like the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, whose anti-political correctness status I always find engaging, were very disappointed by that conclusion. We pressed hard for decoupling from production, but it was the Council of Ministers who insisted that that should not happen. It preferred the proposal to reform the existing system, the key elements of which are modifications to encourage quality and measures to enable growers to move out of tobacco with a voluntary buy-out scheme and flexibility to transfer into varieties in demand.
Broadly, we welcome the Commission's proposals in so far as they go because they are a modest improvement, but one of our main concerns is that the Commission's ideas fall far short of what is required. It is our view that further reform will soon be needed.
The Commission's preferred options for improving the regime raise questions of effectiveness and control as well as of health. One can argue that the more quality is improved then there are more tobacco and health questions. Those issues will need to be fully explored when the detailed proposals are made available. We shall be probing those issues.
The Commission's report focuses on making more effective use of funds to secure better quality production while maintaining broadly the current level of support. This approach seems certain to be reflected in any formal proposals eventually put forward. The Commission is waiting for the European Parliament's opinion on its report before issuing its detailed proposals. We regret this, but it is expected to take until the autumn.
806
The cost of the regime is over one billion ecu paid on a maximum quota of 350,600 tonnes. That makes tobacco the eighth most costly CAP regime and accounts for about 2.5 per cent. of CAP expenditure. It is the most costly CAP regime in terms of support per hectare. We agree with many noble Lords, including my noble friend Lady David and my noble friend Lord Grantchester, in that we do not consider that financial support for tobacco production is an effective way of spending Community money. We have strongly argued that the cost of the regime should be reduced. At this point I say to my noble friend Lord Bruce that many of his views on EU expenditure are not entirely unfamiliar to me, but on his general point I agree that CAP imposes a big burden on both taxpayers and consumers. We point out that the percentage of the EU budget has been reduced from two-thirds in 1988 to under one-half now, but it is still too high. The Government are pressing the Commission to come forward with further proposals.
A point made by a number of noble Lords, which is central, is that the problem is really a social one; it is not a commodity issue. Tobacco tends to be grown in remote rural areas on very small plots with an average size, as mentioned, of about three acres. It also involves Napoleonic or Continental land ownership issues. There are great difficulties in changing land use, which the noble Lord, Lord Brain, mentioned. It is an intensive crop and the social problem is that in some areas it is a, or the, major employer and important local source of income. The question of the numbers of people involved was raised. It involves 170,000 full-time jobs including 135,000 growers and in addition 30,000 processing jobs. I say to the House that we do not dismiss that as a social problem. It is a significant number of people. We sympathise with the attempt to help to deal with that problem, but our position is that what is proposed is not the best way to do it. It is a difficult problem. The farms often have no irrigation and there are no real alternative crops which would make such small farms economically viable. Switching to other crops runs the risk of upsetting the balance in those sectors and the European Union has placed quantitative restrictions on support for some of them.
We are disappointed that the Commission did not look closer at non-agricultural alternatives. There is also the wider question of rural policy raised by the noble Lords, Lord Wade and Lord Lucas, and the argument that we need a positive rural policy in Europe as here. I wholly agree. My right honourable friend the Minister is looking at ways to alter the balance in our own ministry towards a wider rural policy, away from the concept of just supporting agricultural production. We propose to advocate that change in Europe, but one would be foolish to pretend that it can happen overnight.
Our central, particular approach is that any measures introduced in this area should be aimed at reorientating growers towards other activities. Our view of the ideal solution would be a Europe-wide commitment to an eventual phasing out of the regime. I note that the committee suggests 10 years and I wholly agree. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Reay, that the large amounts of money involved would be much better spent phasing out the industry and not perpetuating it.

807
As regards the tobacco regime, we are critical. We agree with all the criticism so pungently expressed by my noble friend Lady David. We encourage voluntary departure from the regime so long as it leads to permanent reductions in quota. We do not believe that the quota obtained through a voluntary buy-up scheme should be redistributed nor do we wish to see new entrants encouraged. The Government support the Commission's ideas for premia modulated according to quality, in so far as they go, but we much prefer to see lower premia to expose producers more to the market.
Looking at the political practicalities of achieving what we believe in, we have to state the unfortunate fact, as the noble Lord, Lord Reay so excellently said, that few other member states support our views on reform. No fewer than eight countries have producer interests which they are not prepared to set to one side. So far—and I stress this—most other non-producers have had little to say. Given that and the system of qualified majority voting in the Council, the chances of our being able to bring about a radical change are limited unless and until external forces such as the World Trade Organisation talks and enlargement pressures force it. In the context of enlargement, we note that current production in Poland and Hungary alone would increase the European Union quota by 17 per cent.
In conclusion, it would be foolish to promise the rapid reforms in which we strongly believe, but I assure the House and members of the Select Committee that when the Commission's proposals come forward this Government will press for the greatest possible degree of reform, and, bearing in mind what my noble friend Lord Grantchester said, we shall also try, unlike our predecessors, to build a coalition of support for our rational position among our European partners.
6 p.m.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I am extremely pleased that so many noble Lords have participated in the debate, and particularly that so many have done so who are not members of Sub-Committee D. All too often, members of sub-committees tend to end up talking to themselves on occasions such as this, but that has very much not been the case today.
I should like to refer briefly to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross. I value highly the support that he gave to the report. The noble Lord had a criticism of the last sentence of paragraph 39 in which we say how public health arguments, even if ill founded, could nevertheless help to create the will to change the regime. I can see why a campaigning smoker like the noble Lord could be offended by the apparent lack of scruple in that observation. However, I take the sentence to which he objects more in the nature of an objective and passive observation than as an incitement to indulge in anti-smoking propaganda. I hope that others will do the same. However, that was the noble Lord's only small criticism among all his other highly complimentary remarks about the report, for which I am truly grateful.
808
I have detected hardly any other criticisms of the report during this debate and I am grateful for the degree of support which it has received. Indeed, familiar antagonisms in your Lordships' House disappeared in the cloud of unanimous agreement which the report received. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, found nothing with which to disagree in what the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, had to say. My all but namesake, the noble Lord, Lord Rea, found nothing with which to disagree in anything said by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. What else is there to live for?
I am also grateful to all members of the sub-committee who have spoken, including my noble friend Lord Wade, the noble Lords, Lord Brain and Lord Grantchester, and the noble Baroness, Lady David. I thank them particularly for the kind things that they said about me. I also thank the noble Lord. Lord Beaumont of Whitley, for the same reason.
I listened at the time to the early morning interview of the noble Lord, Lord Brain, on Radio 4—and very good it was too. The noble Lord told us about the Portuguese MEP who asked, "What about set-aside?". As my noble friend Lord Lucas correctly pointed out, we must not forget that there are regimes under the common agricultural policy which benefit producers in this country. My noble friend mentioned one which is of particular interest to us. I refer to the hill farmers' scheme. We cannot say, hand on heart, that none of those would or should have happened if the CAP did not exist or if it were to be in some way repatriated. We must always bear that point in mind.
I am grateful to the Minister for the way in which he has received the report. I am sure that what he has said will bear close study. But it gives me confidence to believe that the Government will continue to strive for reform in the Council, which is what we all wish to see. I commend the report to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Prison and Probation Services
6.4 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are yet in a position to reconsider plans for cutting the prison and probation services in view of the prospective large increase in the number of prisoners.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, like other speakers, I am confined to 11 minutes, but tomorrow is another day, as is the day after that and the day after that, so the House will no doubt wish to consider these matters much more closely on a future occasion.
I am happy that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, is to reply to the debate. I am told by an expert friend of his that the noble Lord's heart is in the right place, whatever that may mean. I only hope that the Minister will allow his tongue to wag freely in the interests of his heart. I am also pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, is to speak. Apart from myself—I am not exactly sure of the

809
competition—no one has visited more prisons than the noble Lord, Lord Graham, who thus speaks with much authority on these matters.
In the short time available I shall speak very crudely and almost in shorthand. The choice is simple now: are we to return to the procedures that led to a steady improvement in the lot of prisoners and to a more humane treatment of them (which progress was presided over in later years by six Conservative Home Secretaries), or are we to continue with what I am afraid I have had to call "Howardism"? I never kick a man when he is down—
Noble Lords: Go on!
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, no. I am too timid and I may get kicked back. I do not want to risk anything. I never kick a man when he is down—although I have called the previous Home Secretary "The Prince of Darkness" and I offer him the consolation that Satan is generally regarded as the real hero of Paradise Lost. I hope that that will be some consolation to him in these difficult times.
As I have said, the choice is simple: are we to return to that more humane, kinder and more constructive treatment, which led to improvements in the living standards of prisoners, or are we to continue with the practices of the past four years and with the philosophy of "prison works" and that it works all the better if prisons are made nastier for prisoners?
What are the facts today? We understand from official figures that the prison population has increased from about 40,000 to about 60,000 in the past few years. If present policies were pursued—I hope, of course, that they will not be—the prison population would reach 74,500 according to official estimates. Other estimates put the figure much higher. At any rate, that is an enormous increase in the number of prisoners. What are the Government doing about it? They are cutting the provision per prisoner. There is to be a total reduction of 25 per cent. in the Probation Service's budget in the next few years. I know that we shall be told that the total amount that is spent on prisons will increase. Well, one would expect that given that vast increase in the number of prisoners, but in terms of the provision for the effective treatment of prisoners, there are to be cuts. Those cuts are bitterly resented in every prison that I have visited—and I visit two a week. That is the situation today.
In the time available I cannot quote all the various organisations that have expressed their horror to me. However, the Prisons Affairs Consortium has expressed its concern about the "cuts", as it calls them. Likewise, the Probation Service and the Prison Officers' Association have expressed similar concerns. The noble Lord, Lord Graham, may well speak for those bodies and will do so with great authority. An unprecedented burden is being placed on prison officers.
As I have said, there is a simple choice. I am not asking the Government to come up with a dramatic announcement today after only a few weeks in office. The most that I can hope for is that the Government will
810
show some sign that they are aware of the problems created by "Howardism" and that they are leaning in the direction of better things.
I hope that I have never suggested in this place that prison reform is a party question. The roll of honour contains names like Sir Winston Churchill, who became the greatest Conservative Prime Minister, but was a Liberal before the First World War, Lord Templewood and the former Home Secretary, Lord Butler, on the Conservative side. On the Labour side one had Baroness Wootton, Lord Gardner and the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, who was a Labour Home Secretary. Since then he has been the leader of at least two other parties. Therefore, credit for so-called prison reform has been widely spread.
Today we face with equanimity—perhaps others face it with alarm—quite a few years of Labour rule. I address myself particularly to the Labour Government that is to preside over us for a few years yet. During the debate on the Address I said that I drew encouragement from the fact that eight—I believe I said six—members of the present Cabinet were members of the Christian Socialist Organisation. That must mean something; it cannot mean nothing. They gain nothing in their own lives from that except spiritual advantage. Therefore, there are eight Cabinet Ministers who are Christian socialists. They include the Prime Minister and, most relevantly, Mr. Jack Straw, the Home Secretary. What are we to expect of him?
A recent article in the Howard League magazine contained the heading "From Longford to Straw". The only relevance of that was that in 1964 I chaired a committee set up by the then Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Harold Wilson, to draw up plans for penal reform, most of which were carried out later. They included the introduction of parole and the abolition of capital punishment. That was the so-called Longford Committee of 1964. I do not believe that the Howard League magazine was trying to be complimentary to Mr. Straw by the use of the words "From Longford to Straw", but I draw a different conclusion. I think of St. John the Baptist who said,
"I must decrease and He must increase".
I must decrease almost to the point of invisibility, and I hope that Mr. Straw will go on from strength to strength, always remembering that he comes before us as a Christian. I hope that he will never forget one of the key passages in the Gospels that the Son of Man has come to seek and to save those who are lost.
6.12 p.m.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, some 10 years ago when I was a shy, retiring, self-effacing and recently appointed Lord of Appeal in Ordinary I was seduced by my noble and learned friend Lord Brightman to take part in debates on sentencing. He did so because he told me that judges were constantly being attacked and there was no one to defend them. He was quite right. That was the tone of that particular era. It was exacerbated by misleading reports in the newspapers from time to time as to exactly what judges had done.

811
I recall a case some years ago that gave rise to extensive headlines which condemned a High Court judge for sentencing to 20 years' "imprisonment" a boy of 16 for "mugging" a middle aged man in Birmingham. Such was the violence of the criticism in the press that there were demands in the Commons for the judge's resignation or dismissal. The boy had not been sentenced to 20 years' imprisonment, or any period of imprisonment; he had been sentenced by reason of his age to detention. The period of 20 years was fixed pursuant to Section 53(2) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 and provided merely for the maximum period of his detention. The place in which and the period for which the sentence had to be served were matters at the discretion of the Home Secretary.
The boy had not been sentenced for mugging but for attempted murder. Indeed, he had pleaded guilty to that crime. He and two or three other youths had at night knocked down a man in a dark passageway, robbed him and left him lying on the ground. The boy thus sentenced had gone back not once but twice and had sought to finish off the man with a brick. He had very nearly succeeded. The victim was unconscious for 10 days and spent seven weeks in hospital. He was discharged with permanent damage to his brain, hearing and one eye. The Court of Appeal upheld and commended the sentence. The boy was a dangerous psychopath who might need years of treatment before he could be safely discharged from detention. Needless to say, the publicity that the Court of Appeal's decision received was in comparison minuscule.
Following on these criticisms, eventually the Government in 1990 issued the White Paper Crime, Justice and Protecting the Public. The Government were anxious to promote punishment in the community. It was said in the White Paper:
"It was once believed that prison, properly used, could encourage a high proportion of offenders to start an honest life on their release. Nobody now regards imprisonment, in itself, as an effective means of reform for most prisoners …For most offenders, imprisonment has to be justified in terms of public protection, denunciation and retribution. Otherwise, it can be an expensive way of making bad people worse. The prospects of reforming offenders are usually much better if they are in the community provided the public are properly protected".
It was on the basis of that White Paper that the Criminal Justice Act 1991 came into being.
It is clear from the terms of that Act, in particular Section 1, that imprisonment was to be the punishment of last resort. The seeds for turning in a contrary direction were sown by the then Home Secretary in a speech to the party faithful in 1993. He said then:
"More convictions and longer sentences, more people will go to prison. I do not flinch from that. No longer shall we judge our system of justice by a fall in the prison population. Let's be clear: prison works".
Those words produced a much harsher climate. As a result, the prison population has increased by 50 per cent., from 40,000 to 60,000. There was an earlier forecast that by the year 2005 the prison population would reach 59,900. We have surpassed that with seven years to spare.
812
I listened to the secretary-general of the Prison Governors Association address a committee in this House last week. He said that the weekly prison population was increasing by 250 to 300. Your Lordships will recall the publicity that surrounded the prison ship imported from America at vast expense. To my recollection, that was able to house 500 prisoners. Based on the present weekly increase in prisoners, we shall require two prison ships a month. Very soon no doubt a flotilla of prison ships will ring the south coast.
The population has caused the prisons to reach saturation point. According to the secretary-general, obviously it has impacted upon the system's ability to provide the necessary facilities for rehabilitation.
How are we to get back to a saner, more sober and balanced view of our penal policy, which for the moment is in a mess? In the short term we must persuade the public that their protection is far better achieved by a more efficient use of limited resources: first, more effective policing—the risks of detection are accepted to be the best deterrence; and, secondly, more effective rehabilitation means being provided in prison—better education and training so that the prisoner returns with a good prospect of successfully entering the labour market.
The most important input the Government should seek at the moment is the views of the prison governors. They have an intimate knowledge of those who in their view would be better off being treated in the community and those who for reasons of persistency or danger should be locked up. They will have views upon whether the present system has any real deterrent value, which is considerably doubted, and whether the rehabilitative prospects are being cut down by the overcrowding and the reduction in money spent on prisons. They will be able to give the Government a clear view of the ways in which the rehabilitative process can be improved.
In the long term provision must be made for a comprehensive reassessment of a rational penal policy. Some two years ago a letter was sent to The Times with the impressive signatures of Professor Seán McConville. Sir Louis Blom-Cooper, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, Professor Anthony Bottoms, Lord Callaghan, Sir Ralph Gibson, John Harding, Lord Hunt, Professor Terence Morris, Brendan O'Friel and Lord Runcie. The letter was sent on the 100th anniversary of the report of the Gladstone Committee on Prisons. It stated:
"Tomorrow (10 April) [1995] marks the centenary of the submission to the Home Secretary Herbert Asquith of the Gladstone Committee's Report on Prisons. This Committee propagated the twin philosophies of deterrence and rehabilitation, which greatly influenced penal affairs for much of the twentieth century. In recent years, however, both the question of rehabilitation and the issue of deterrence have become highly problematic, as has their relationship. The use of punishment by society needs careful consideration, as does the value of imprisonment".
It went on to say:
"We think the time is ripe for an overview, on the scale of the Gladstone inquiry, to propound a sound and authoritative penal philosophy for the twenty-first century".
The letter's authors went on to suggest that that could be done by a royal commission. That might be looked upon as having a number of advantages. I suggest that

813
the Advisory Council on the Penal System which was set up in 1966 be set up again. For over 10 years it made a significant contribution to the formulation of policy and was a valuable instrument for identifying and suggesting changes in penal policy and practice. I have already said that penal policy is at the moment in a mess. Urgent action should be taken to rectify it.
6.25 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Lincoln: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Longford, for initiating this short debate. There is no need to rehearse the facts about the pressure in the prison system from a numbers point of view. Alongside the increase in numbers of those being detained, equally devastating is the need for constant efficiency savings, as required by the Treasury—some 5 to 6 per cent. is looked for over the next three years.
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, said, prison governors find themselves under enormous pressure merely in managing the system as it is. My experience as Bishop to Prisons visiting chaplains in various establishments up and down the country indicates that the soft targets for much of that efficiency saving are education and probation—actually working with inmates.
Despite the difficulties, over recent years the Prison Service has worked hard to put money back into the system to reopen and develop workshops, to cover incentive payments for prisoners demonstrating good behaviour and to finance drug and sex offender programmes. The Prison Service in recent years has made its first systematic attempt to introduce programmes concerned with the real reduction of offending.
Most people acknowledge that prisons work best where prisoners get up and know that they are going to work. The work ethic is important in the prison world. If all that comes under threat with the pressures of overcrowding, when prisoners are continually moved between different establishments, it of course demoralises prison staff working with inmates.
The Prison Service desperately needs a period of calm and stability. The issue that comes across to me is whether the Prison Service is to be allowed to work with prisoners. We must not let that go in the name of overcrowding or efficiency savings and concentrate merely upon the business of warehousing inmates. What I hope will come out of the debate is a commitment by the Government to look again at the pressures on the system, which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner and the noble Earl, Lord Longford, have mentioned, and at the difficulty of the efficiency cuts.
If we turn out from prisons those who are still embittered, those who have not come to terms with their offences and often with themselves, we serve our society badly. The real hope in the Prison Service is to build upon the dedication and commitment of prison staff, particularly those in education and probation who are working effectively with prisoners to address their problems, so that they go out much better than they went in. I hope that the Government will look again at their own targets and allow the Prison Service to manage its own service and commitment.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I rise to speak in the debate having been in Parliament for 23 years. Twenty years were served in Whips' offices in both Houses. I feel somewhat like a prisoner on release; I feel liberated. The freedom of the Back Benches gives me an opportunity, without deep commitment, to express views that I have held for a long time. The first that I wish to put on record is the indebtedness of this House to the noble Earl, Lord Longford. He has a reputation for and a lifetime of service in not only trying to improve the penal estate to make it more humane and sincere but in seeking to rehabilitate prisoners and to improve their lives, those of their families and society. We owe a great debt to him.
Those who work in the prison service do society's dirty work. They face potentially dangerous men and women every minute of every working day. Even in Northern Ireland and beyond, they deserve far more support and understanding. I have high hopes that we shall receive that from this Government and from my noble friend. I speak from a former close contact with the Prison Officers' Association. That body of men and women is often much maligned, yet it has a proud record of public service which I have often witnessed. For the life of me, I fail to understand how prison officers can do their job when the tools with which to do it—workshops, education, sports facilities and social life—are reduced while prison numbers rise.
I believe that regimes in prisons are being damaged due to the highest prisoner population on record. It is a combination of more prisoners, budget cuts and fewer staff which will exacerbate the fragile nature of the service. In my view, a delicate balance is involved in the exercise of sympathetic control which can easily go out of kilter. No one should underestimate the potential for disruption. More urgently, there is a need for a strategy to reduce the prisoner population. That is an essential requirement. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, referred to that, saying that in his view there is a need not only to rethink but to reassess exactly what we are doing.
This House has debated alternative strategies on a number of occasions. I believe that there are at least four ways in which we can help to make prison life easier not only for prison officers but for prisoners. There is an urgent requirement to examine the remand prisoner population. That would be a useful first step. The Government should consider introducing the 110-day rule, as exists in Scotland. The removal of fine defaulters is a crying urgency, as is an examination of the mentally ill and their transfer out of the penal system and examining the mentally disturbed with a view to their transfer into community care. Briefly, within those four areas alone there is tremendous potential to reduce the prison population significantly. Such an enduring reduction would provide permanent relief to the prison service and its beleaguered staff.
The financial savings would be enormous and would enable the service and the Government to focus more critically on the needs of the prison service. I see sitting on the Front Bench beside my noble friend the Minister

815
the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, who I know worked tirelessly in another place on behalf of the Prison Officers' Association. Therefore, those in the prison service—whether governors, officers, probation officers or educationists—are not alone, without friends in either House. I very much hope that tonight the Minister can give the House some hope.
6.34 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilion: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for bringing to your Lordships' House today this very important and complex question. I have at the moment the privilege of chairing for the Howard League an inquiry about young girls aged 15 to 17 years in prison. The members of the committee have visited the establishments where these girls are. I have recently been to several prisons. The inquiry will report later this year. I hope that the Minister will be able to give some good news this evening. I am sure that what I found in most of the prisons visited can be echoed throughout the country in both male and female establishments.
The prison population is around 65,380, rising all the time. The courts go on sending people to prison without knowing that the prisons are full. The system runs from crisis to crisis, with governors and staff getting bogged down with paper work and not being able to be around and about the prisons keeping a close eye on everything that goes on. Many prisons lock up the prisoners from 5 p.m. to 8 a.m. With prison work, one has to have hope; hope that the prisoners will be treated with humanity and become useful, law-abiding citizens. This cannot happen if services are continually being cut.
In prisons there are many violent offenders—about 63 per cent.—and persistent offenders. But about 37 per cent. are not violent. Should not these prisoners perhaps be doing community service? Drugs and drug-related crime have become a scourge and a problem of society. About 65 per cent. of prisoners have some form of drug involvement. There are and have been some very helpful and worthwhile drug rehabilitation projects in some prisons. One prisoner who has been through treatment and is now a counsellor frequently writes to me from prison with progress reports. He is now an expert, having studied and worked hard, and is helping others to help themselves in avoiding addiction.
Those services are very important and should continue and develop. Detoxification services are patchy throughout the country. Last week at the All-party Penal Affairs Group a prison governor told us that when prisoners with a drug problem ask, "Please help me", and all he can say is, "I have no resources", he feels impotent. What hope is there in that kind of situation? Drugs also seem to have increased the bullying in prisons. In busy prisons, with prisoners coming in and going out and with staff morale low, the naïve first-offender prisoner who is not street wise is very much at risk.
The kind of services most likely to be cut are those which are contracted out, such as education and probation. Many of the young offenders are drop-outs
816
from school. They need extra classes, such as good parenting, catering and life skills, as well as the three Rs. Many of these young people have not had such skills given to them by their parents. Many come from problem backgrounds. Many come from care and, sadly, were abused before and while in so-called care. The tragedy is that if there had been more welfare provision in schools picking up vulnerable children before they dropped out and turned to crime there might not be such a problem now.
When visiting prisons, I felt concerned that probation officers were working with reduced person power. In some prisons, relationships with prison officers and probation officers were good but in others there seemed to be little co-operation and communication. There was not a good team approach. Perhaps that is due to the different way in which prisoners are regarded.
The Probation Service is so important with the through-care which it provides. That is vital if prisoners are to be resettled in the community and stay out of trouble. In December 1995, there were 639 probation officers working in prisons. In December 1996, the number had been cut to 543. That seems very unwise in view of the increase in the number of prisoners. I am sure that your Lordships will listen with particular interest when the Minister tells us what are the plans for the Probation Service.
I have two specific questions for the Minister. If he cannot answer them this evening, perhaps he will write to me. At New Hall Prison, near Wakefield, there is a farm attached to the prison where prisoners work. Farm and horticultural work can be extremely therapeutic. Because of their work on that farm, several prisoners have been able to obtain work. It was rumoured that the farm may have to close. That would be a pity because it would do away with a healthy occupation which can help to rehabilitate prisoners and help them to find work.
The other concern I have is in relation to the prison health service. Will the Government look into that? There are many prisoners with serious health conditions; increasing numbers have mental health problems. They are being dumped in prison as no one else wants them. Would the prison health service not be better as part of the National Health Service? This year, I spent my birthday visiting Holloway Prison. It was an interesting day. I found that there are not adequate facilities to cope with prisoners who have personality disorders.
I have been amazed by the number of young children involved in prison life: either babies within the prisons or older children who are visiting their parents. Some prisons are doing the best they can but visiting facilities are extremely crowded. It could be said that some prisons are bursting at the seams. There are very positive and dedicated people giving their time and energy to the prisons, both in statutory and voluntary work. But it would be a very serious and retrograde step if no attempt made to improve services and an insufficient number of probation officers were employed to cope with the ever-increasing through care. Also, we must be able to develop more initiatives in the community.

817
I hope that the Minister will give your Lordships hope this evening so that morale is raised. That would help with the escalating problems to be found in our prisons. I hope also that he will put crime prevention high on the agenda.
6.44 p.m.
Lord Acton: My Lords, as there are some minutes to spare, I should like, with the leave of the House, to say a few words in the gap. Perhaps I may ask the Minister whether the Government have any plans to give one person responsibility for women prisoners. That was the case in the 1950s and early 1960s, when an assistant prison commissioner had responsibility for women prisoners and Borstal girls. I suggest that it would be a very good plan to restore such a position.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, perhaps I may associate myself in particular with the tribute paid by the noble Lord, Lord Graham, to the noble Earl, Lord Longford. I tried to think of the word which best described him and I came up with the word "irrepressible". He is irrepressible both in terms of his energy at his age and more particularly in the persistence and commitment which he brings to the issues that we are discussing this evening. He has the added quality that he is right at least nine times out of 10. That is a far better average than most of us can ever hope to achieve. Therefore, I am very grateful, as are other noble Lords, to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, for enabling us to debate these matters this evening.
I am pleased also that it has given the opportunity to the noble Lord, Lord Graham, to break his silence. I have heard him (or not heard him) for many of the 23 distinguished years that he has spent in one House or another. I hope that now he is released from some of the obligations of the past, we shall hear from him more frequently.
This is very early in the life of the new Home Secretary and, as the noble Earl, Lord Longford, said, we cannot expect any dramatic announcement by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, on the Home Secretary's behalf. It is too soon to hear from the Home Secretary a considered view of all his duties. But I hope that he will soon be able to put on record—and put on record first in Parliament—at least a statement of the principles which will inform many of the decisions which he will be required to make during his period in office.
This evening, we approach this debate in a spirit of gentle probing and a friendly airing of anxieties. But a period of grace for any Home Secretary does not last long. Towards the end of this year we may return rather more critically to some of the issues which we are discussing this evening.
Many noble Lords have referred already to the extent to which the catchphrase "Prison Works" is proved not to be the case at all. The noble Earl, Lord Longford, was right to add the corollary as regards the previous Home Secretary, who seemed to think that prison worked especially if you made it nastier. All the evidence is that,
818
if prison is made even nastier, it will work even less well. That has been the spirit of much that has been said on all sides of the House, including by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln.
I was struck recently by the remarks of the Penal Affairs Consortium, when it said:
"Reducing reoffending by the effective rehabilitation of offenders should be seen as a central part of a comprehensive strategy to reduce crime".
We return again to that old word "rehabilitation", which was referred to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. I believe that that word itself deserves to be rehabilitated. It has been out of fashion but nothing better expresses what our penal system should be about. I hope that when in due course the Home Secretary makes a speech to reflect the spirit of his period in office, he will incorporate the idea of rehabilitation in what he says.
I was delighted that the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, made some passing remarks about the Probation Service because I thought it might be neglected in this debate. But as your Lordships will remember, we had a most important debate on 5th April 1995, introduced by the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, about the Government's proposals on education and training of probation officers, and we returned to the matter on 5th December 1995 on a Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale. I remind the Minister that that Motion was carried by 108 votes to 85 and it would have been 107 votes if the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, had not voted for the Motion.
I have no need to remind him of what the Motion said but it made a very important point about the form that the training and education of probation officers should take, despite the Probation (Amendment) Rules 1995, which had not found general favour with the House.
I shall not ask the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, to say "Yes" to the following points that I make this evening but I hope that he will bear them in mind and pass on the message. First, I believe that the Home Secretary should call a halt to the changes which have been introduced following the unsatisfactory Dews report. Secondly, I hope that he will implement the spirit of our debate on 5th December on that Motion, which was nevertheless compatible with the order which was passed by your Lordships' House. Thirdly, will he urgently review the whole question of education and training? I hope he will conclude that it is time for a new and different approach than was embodied in decisions of the Government of that time, or that at least he will institute a review to discover whether that is the case.
On the question of prisons, a number of your Lordships have referred to the acute crisis—that is what it is—that is being caused by the growth in the prison population. In the debate on the Address, I gave the figure for the prison population on the previous Friday as 60,431. We are debating the Prison Service three weeks precisely after that debate on the Address and the figure for last Friday is 60,855; in other words, there has been an increase of 424 in three weeks. The prison

819
population is growing by 140 a week. That is fewer than the figure referred to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, as the figure given by the director general of the Prison Service. However, I am happy to rest on the figure as we have found it to be in the past three weeks. I know that the noble Earl has in mind the suggestion that the prison population will rise to 74,500 by the year 2005. That is the official estimate. However, on the growth in the prison population in the past three weeks, we shall reach that figure in precisely two years' time. That adds strength to the vivid expression of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, that we shall need a flotilla of prison ships to deal with such growth in the prison population.
That is one of the issues with which the Home Secretary must deal urgently. However, I ask him also to look urgently at the whole question of the relationship of the Home Secretary with the Prison Service. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln referred to the service requiring a period of calm and stability. I do not disagree with that but a period of calm and stability depends on the view the Home Secretary takes of his relationship with the Prison Service. In an interview he gave to the Independent newspaper 10 days after his appointment, the Home Secretary is reported as saying—he has not denied this—that,
"he would take full responsibility for the prisons—no more Howard-like ducking and weaving about what is policy and what is operational".
What does that mean? Does it mean the Home Secretary is now responsible for all operational decisions? Is he prepared to answer to the House of Commons on everything at Question Time? If that is the case, I think it is madness. We shall find ourselves calling for his resignation at least half a dozen times a year. That will be no reflection on the present Home Secretary but on the nature of his relationship with the Prison Service and on the sort of problems that every Home Secretary has to deal with. There is no point in having an executive agency if the Home Secretary is to take full responsibility for the Prison Service—as, apparently, he claims to do—and if there is to be no more confusion about what is policy and what is operational.
I do not deny that this is a difficult question. However, we need a full and early statement from the Home Secretary about the precise relationship he envisages with the Prison Service. I suggest that he makes that statement to Parliament so that Parliament can give its implicit approval to the new relationship and there will be less argument in the future about what that relationship is.
If the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, has not yet looked at the annual report of the Home Office for 1997 that was published in March—I would not blame him if he has not—I suggest that he looks at it and the figures that it contains. I believe that in this and many other matters the Chancellor of the Exchequer was foolish to endorse the previous Government's expenditure plans. How do the Government intend to fund the growth in the prison population when the report that was published only in March indicates that £80 million more will be needed in the current financial
820
year to meet the growth in the prison population now envisaged on present trends? I also ask the Minister to reflect on the fact that, given the growth in the prison population, we shall need 5,000 more places in certified accommodation to meet the growth in the population which is now anticipated. The figures do not add up. Therefore, either we shall have to spend more despite what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said, or there will have to be shifts in the spending under the Home Office heading.
A catastrophe is in the making. The growth in the prison population will have grave consequences for security in prisons. We shall see an explosion of Strangeways proportions. It will have a severe effect on prison staff, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln and the noble Lord, Lord Graham, have said. We shall see a minimum of education and training. We shall have a more dangerous and crime ridden country, not one that is less so. I hope that the Home Secretary will look immediately at these issues, because the noble Earl, Lord Longford, is right; we are facing the most critical situation in penal history. Something must be done.
6.56 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, referred to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, as irrepressible. I certainly go along with that description. However, I say affectionately to the noble Earl that I would use the word "incorrigible". I have been at the receiving end of such Questions as these for some years now. The noble Earl is greatly committed to this cause. I warn the Minister that the noble Earl, Lord Longford, will not go away on this matter.
This is, of course, a Question for the Government and not for me. It is an interesting Question in view of the reference I made to the present Home Secretary when responding to the Queen's Speech. I referred to him as someone who throughout the election campaign—which was successful for him—was running for the prize of "out-toughing" the Tories. That is all very well, as are warm words about what needs to be done, and putting some meat on the bones as regards the criticism of the previous Government. However, the Chancellor has said there is no more money over and above the expenditure plans of the previous Government. Already we have heard promises of more money for education, social services, regional government, devolution, added bureaucracies, the environment, and, only today at Question Time, housing. Something will have to give. The Minister will no doubt talk about things that need to be done but how will they be paid for?
I must refer briefly to the Probation Service. I was proud to hold the portfolio for that service as a member of the previous Government. I note the question that was raised in that regard by the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank. I had a personal commitment to the training of probation officers. Much progress has been made. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, shared that concern and he has told me that he was pleased with the progress that was being made. Is that work to be undone, stopped, curtailed in some

821
way or not proceeded with? I hope that it will be proceeded with. I was also proud to belong to a government who put in place national standards for the Probation Service which were welcomed. Progress is being made on meeting those standards.
No doubt in the course of the winding-up speech by the Minister we shall be told that crime doubled under the previous Government. Therefore perhaps noble Lords will allow me to give the history of recorded crime since the 1950s. I use Home Office figures. For the purposes of the statistics, I exclude crime damage below £20. Recorded crime in the 1950s rose by 57 per cent., an average in each year of the 1950s of 4.62 per cent. In the 1960s it rose by 107 per cent., an average in each year of that decade of 7.57 per cent. In the 1970s, it rose by 59 per cent., an average in each year of that decade of 4.72 per cent. In the 1980s it rose by 56 per cent., an average in that decade of 4.54 per cent.; and in the 1990s, there was the lowest increase of all, 31 per cent., an average in each of the years in that decade of 3.97 per cent. The previous Government presided over a reduction in crime in the past four years of 10 per cent.; and that was due to the effective work of the police, community partnerships, and the introduction of technology.
No doubt we shall also be told that what really matters is detection. It is argued that the criminal is deterred by the fear of being caught. I wish that that were true. Too many people who walk into court and are found guilty walk out not terribly afeared by what has happened to them in court. I am afraid that too many people regard the punishment as not really worth worrying about when committing the next crime. The reconviction rates are testament to that.
There is another aspect to the story. If getting caught acts as a deterrent, it is true, and again thanks to the police, that the detection rates for violent crime—although such crime is on the increase even in that overall reduction—are very high. The detection rates for violent crime are some of the best. They are in the seventies and eighties, and in some forces even higher. But that crime is on the increase. Therefore it does not follow that somehow detection is the only answer. What is needed is to catch, convict and punish criminals.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, what about rehabilitating them?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, if I may, I shall come to rehabilitation.
There are many ways of ensuring that we do not have so many people going to prison or on to community sentences. I pose the question to the Minister. The Narey Report—it is an important report which was welcomed—said a great deal about ways of reducing delays and the number of people who end up on remand in the system. The Narey Report made 33 recommendations to speed up the criminal justice system and reduce delay. By reducing delay in the criminal justice system, time spent on remand would also be reduced. The recommendations in the report would mean that almost all defendants appeared in court the next working day after they were charged; and that
822
about 50 per cent. of those defendants, possibly more, would be convicted the day after they were charged, compared with 3 per cent. at present. That kind of recommendation can only be a good thing.
At one time the previous Government had a trial issues group, again doing important work. The trial issues group sought to identify reasons why cases do not meet time guidelines, particular attention being paid to the impact of the time guidelines on custody cases; to look at opportunities for further categorisation of cases for fast-tracking and/or special treatment some of which would include custody cases; to spearhead a drive to enable prosecution files to be prepared more swiftly by simplifying the requirements for their preparation; and to improve the efficiency of the prosecution process by improving the co-operation between the police and the Crown Prosecution Service. The Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 also contained provisions which would assist in that regard.
The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, referred to rehabilitation. It is an important point. I refer to unemployment courses, job clubs, and recreational classes. In 1995–96 17,309 NVQs were gained by prisoners, which was a 25 per cent. increase over the previous year. I refer to rehabilitation courses on drugs, alcohol, household management, child care, debt counselling and basic education and skills. As the Minister visits prisons and prison establishments, I hope that he will be as impressed as I am with much of the very good work that is being done in our prisons. Perhaps I may say this to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln. I saw some of that impressive work. Young people are working. About 8,000 prisoners are working in prison industries producing goods and services worth about £345 million. Lincoln Prison is one such prison.
Perhaps I may refer again to the achievements of the previous Government which will help towards detection and keeping people out of prison. They are better technology, fingerprint schemes, the Phoenix computerised database of criminal records, rapid search facilities, the QUEST system, and the DNA database which will be enormously important. I refer to closed-circuit television, and faster justice. I referred to the Narey Report and delays in the system, and proposals to cut the time in bringing young people to court. There is closer liaison between police and the CPS. As regards Action on Juveniles, local child crime teams identify vulnerable young people. There are parental control orders and secure training centres to deal with persistent young offenders. What does the Minister intend to do about that? Questions have been posed about curfew orders for 10 to 15 year-olds; minimum sentences and new prison places.
Crime prevention schemes include Neighbourhood Watch; special constables; civilian posts, many in order to release operational policemen; victim support schemes; the National Crime Squad; the National Criminal Intelligence Service, and so on. There are many ways of improving the system.
Just how tough and how effective will the new Home Secretary be? As regards repeat violent or sexual offenders, we had a celebrated case this weekend. The

823
police pleaded for something to do with prisoners who have to be released from prison when everyone in the system—prison officers, the Probation Service and the police—know that the person is dangerous. But the Minister will know that the Government have turned their face against our proposals to deal with repeat violent offenders. If our policy was not good enough, what will the Government do about persistent burglars? What will happen about persistent traffickers in hard drugs?
Much has been said about overcrowding. A great deal was achieved by the previous Government. I hope that that will be recognised. Three prisoners to a cell has been eliminated; slopping-out is a thing of the past; two to a cell built for one has been very substantially reduced. There is an almost infinitesimal number of fine defaulters in prison now. A huge reduction in fine defaulters in prison was achieved by the previous Government. But alternatives to prison were not supported by noble Lords opposite. I refer to electronic tagging, curfew orders, tougher community sentences, more effective and tougher community sentences and parental control orders. Do the present Government support the previous Government's prison building programme, the refurbishment programme and the programme of extension to provide extra places? What is the future of the ship that is moored off Portland?
Much has been said about the care and resettlement of criminals. That is important. However, I pay tribute to the previous Government for putting the concerns of the victims of crime and their shattered families at the centre of policy-making. Not a word has been said in the debate so far about victims of crime.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, perhaps I may finish. My time is very tight. This is my last sentence. Letting criminals off and letting them out is not a policy that I and my noble friends on this side will support.
7.10 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Earl began this debate, for which we are all indebted to him, with a critique of "Howardism". He did not define it. Perhaps he thought it had certain aspects of being unthinking, uncooperative, mulish, uninquiring, willing to parrot formulae rather than to listen to informed argument and—almost the worst in this new brutalism—totally ignoring of other people's views, such as those of the judges, prison governors, prison staff and probation officers. If that is what the noble Earl had in mind by "Howardism", I join him in rejecting and condemning it. It was not just Howardism I heard on one occasion, but perhaps Bourbonism—"I have learned nothing and I have forgotten nothing". The history of the Bourbons after Waterloo was not entirely impressive.
What I can say in the presence of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, and in the regretted absence of the former Lord Chief Justice, is that this is a
824
Government and a Home Secretary who will restore and publicly underline and reaffirm a decent regard for the judiciary. That alone would be worth a long journey.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, invited us to pay careful attention to the views of those who administer the system, whether it be the criminal justice system and service or the prison system and service. We shall do that. We now have a Home Secretary who believes in listening to other people's views. He wishes to see the informed, organic development and improvement of the Prison Service and the criminal justice system. It will not be done over night. We have inherited what we have inherited.
I entirely endorse the thrust of the remarks of the right reverend Prelate, added to one or two remarks—to move ahead in time—of the noble Baroness when she spoke of "chronicles of lost youth and wasted life". My noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton, who has had to be silent now for a very long time, made some extremely important and valuable points. Not least, he raised the question of remand delays, many of which come about as a result of abuse of the system. They clog up prison accommodation, distort the proper operation of the courts and, not least, wound additionally those who are victims. I do not need any lessons about proper regard for victims; nor do I believe that previous speakers need them either.
The noble Baroness asked me specific questions. With her invariable courtesy, she invited me to write to her, which is prudent since I wish to be as precise and helpful as I can. Perhaps I may adopt the same course with the noble Lord, Lord Acton. At least two of the issues mentioned by the noble Baroness and the noble Lord are very much in our minds. I discussed them, as one is expected, and rightly ought, to do with Mr. Tilt only this morning. However, I need to write definitively to the noble Baroness and the noble Lord.
I very much welcome on behalf of the Government the constructive approach taken by the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank. As he and I are agreed—although in the past we have had shades of difference as to nuance—this is not a matter to be kicked about the gutters of party political warfare. The noble Lord has never adopted that approach, as I hope I have not in my dealings with him. Many of his questions are of extreme importance: education and training; a halt to changes with the weathercock wind for short-term advantage; and questions about the quality of the educational system in prison. Quite a number of us in this Chamber have experience of the prison system in one way or another. A large component of people in prison have to be there for reasons of public security. A significant component are being let out worse than they went in. They are unskilled, untrained and uneducated, and therefore can be properly described as a danger to the public and a menace to themselves.
The situation is not good in terms of projected figures. Since December 1992 the prison population has risen by 19,974—that is, 49 per cent. The projections are extremely gloomy. My information is that the long-term projections suggested are: a rise in 1999 of 2,000 to an annual prison population of 65,800. If present trends

825
continue, that is likely to be a substantial underestimate. The population could rise to 62,000 in October this year; 63,700 in March next year; and 68,400 in March 1999. I believe that that simply confirms the pattern to which the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, referred.
Funding is not being cut. That is a misapprehension. Current expenditure is set to increase this year and the following two years by an average of 7 per cent. a year compared to the forecast out-turn for last year. There will not be any more money available. We must therefore look for increasing efficiency. We have to look to the proper, scrupulous, considered allocation of resources. Even if there were unlimited resources available—and there are not—we could not reverse overnight the historic trends to which I referred.
The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, said that he will return to this matter at the end of the year. I dare say that he will chide me (generously, I hope) that I still do not have perfect answers to all the questions that he will put. However, I repeat that I recognise the fact that the noble Lord has recognised publicly that the present Home Secretary has substantial mountains to climb and that it will take a long time. We believe in co-operation. We believe in the full involvement of staff and hope to demonstrate that that will be a characteristic of the new Home Office under the present Home Secretary.
I do not seek to enter into any bandying about of figures. As was pointed out in a debate on the Queen's Speech, the election is over and we need to administer the Home Office, its duties and priorities in a constructive way. It is true, as the noble Baroness
826
said, that "slopping-out" has gone, as has "trebling"—the holding of three prisoners in a cell designed for one. How are we to deal with those problems? Partly by an attack on delay; partly by an attack on remand; partly by a necessary use of the new prison ship, which will come into commission on a partial basis on Wednesday this week; and partly as a result of the present provision made, so that over the next 12 months or so 5,000 additional places will become available for use—1,600 new places at existing prisons; 1,900 places at the new prisons, Bridgend, Fazerkley and Lowdham Grange. Refurbished wings will come back into use at Leeds, Brixton and Pentonville, which will provide a further 1,500 places. I have already mentioned the prison vessel, HM Prison-Weare.
It may well be said by the noble Earl that simply providing more accommodation is not a conclusive answer to the problem. I agree. There are serious questions that should be seriously addressed as to what we want prison to do, what we expect the Prison Service to provide and how it is to liaise appropriately with the criminal justice system. When people leave prison, what do we hope to have achieved for them? In other words, what do we hope they will do better and differently? Those are the philosophical and moral questions that the new Home Secretary must address. He has made a good start. However, he knows perfectly well—at least, on reading Hansard tomorrow he will—that he is on probation and that this House will carry out its proper duties of scrutiny, which I welcome.
House adjourned at twenty minutes past seven o'clock.

  Corruption in Public Life
  Corruption in Public Life
  BSE: Additional Controls
  BSE: Additional Controls
  Beef Production Subsidies: Readjustment
  Beef Production Subsidies: Readjustment
  British Library
  British Library
  Nuclear Reprocessing
  Nuclear Reprocessing
  Prion Homologues
  Prion Homologues
  Investigating Accountants: Impartiality
  Investigating Accountants: Impartiality
  Parliamentary Privilege
  Parliamentary Privilege
  Ministerial Committees: Membership
  Ministerial Committees: Membership
  Ministerial Committee on Defence and Overseas Policy (DOP)
  Ministerial Committee on Defence and Overseas Policy (DOP)