Sitting of 12 March 1998

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  TREASURY
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked—
  TREASURY

    Windfall Levy
    Mr. Heppell: What estimate he has made of the number of women who will benefit as a result of the windfall levy. [32493]
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): It is estimated that 500,000 women will benefit from the child care initiative that is partially financed from the windfall levy. In addition, every young woman unemployed for more than six months will, from April, be offered the chance of work and training. Soon, lone parents with school-age children will be offered advice, help and information about work. Others with school-age children will also benefit from the £1.3 million invested from the windfall tax in the new schools capital programme.
    Mr. Heppell: I thank my right hon. Friend for his response. Does he agree that the level of child care available in the past 18 years has restricted employment opportunities for many women? Will he guarantee that, when he considers Treasury policy decisions, he will take the needs of women into account—as he has done with child care policy—so that they are part of the main stream and not an afterthought, as they have been for the past 18 years?
    Mr. Brown: That is exactly the Government's position. We will take into account the needs of women in every area of economic policy. Our child care policy has three aims. We want to make child care accessible, which is why we have announced an initiative of £300 million for 1 million after-school places to help young children. We also want high-quality child care, which is why we have announced with the windfall levy an initiative to train child carers that will cost £100 million. To make child care more accessible, we increased and improved the child care disregard in our first Budget. For the first time, this country has a national child care strategy.
    Mr. Gibb: If the Chancellor of the Exchequer claims that increasing the cost of employment through a
    732
    minimum wage will not reduce the number of jobs, how can he claim that reducing the cost of employment will increase the number of jobs?
    Mr. Brown: I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman has raised the minimum wage, because the Conservative Government, by abolishing the wages councils, penalised hundreds of thousands of women. The hon. Gentleman should consider the experience of America, which not only has a minimum wage but has been able to raise it without any adverse effect on jobs. It is the Conservative party that wants us to return to the dark ages.
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: Many women in my constituency and throughout the United Kingdom will welcome the moves that my right hon. Friend has made, especially to increase the amount of out-of-school child care. Will he also ensure good-quality and affordable child care for under-fives? Many women with young children would like to go back to work but are unable to do so, because of the high cost of good quality child care.
    Mr. Brown: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. From April, for the first time, new money will be available for the child care initiative that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment is launching. My hon. Friend rightly emphasises the importance that we attach to high quality child care. We want a new generation of young people and others to become properly trained child carers in registered facilities so that we can guarantee to every mother—indeed, every parent—that their children will be safe in the new provision of child care.

    Domestic Savings
    Mr. Lansley: What estimate he has made of the domestic savings ratio in (a) 1997 and (b) 1998. [32494]
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Alistair Darling): The pre-Budget report gave the latest projections. The Government's policy is to encourage savings for investment in the future and that means, among other things, creating the conditions of economic stability and low inflation. That is what we are doing.
    Mr. Lansley: I thank the Chief Secretary for his reply. If his policy is to encourage savings, his tax on savings will do the reverse and contribute to a reduction in personal savings in 1998 compared with 1997. Will he see the error of his ways and abolish the tax on savings above £50,000 and thereby contribute to an increase in savings instead of a diminution?
    Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman should bear two things in mind. First, during the 1980s, when the Government he supported were in power, the savings ratio dropped dramatically, and was negative for a number of years. This Government are determined to encourage savings, which is why we are putting in place the long-term economic stability that is an essential precondition of giving people the confidence they need to save. The Government are introducing measures that will help people to save in future.
    Mr. Winnick: Will not one group of people have a great deal of money to save—those who have benefited

    733
    substantially from the privatisation of the railways carried out by the previous Government? Bearing in mind how much the taxpayer has lost—billions of pounds—would it not be fair to apply a windfall tax to those who have benefited in such a way? The sooner that windfall tax is introduced, the fairer it will be for the country as a whole.
    Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend is right in the sense that the way in which the Conservative Government sold off many of the former nationalised industries at knock-down prices, enabling many people to benefit in a way that could not have been imagined, was scandalous. We introduced the windfall tax on the privatised utilities, the nature and scope of which was made clear at the time. The windfall tax that we imposed has been widely supported, not least because the money has been taken away from those who obtained gains without earning them and is now being applied to the new deal, which is giving new hope to thousands of people throughout the country.
    Mr. Fallon: Why did the Chief Secretary originally tell the Investors Chronicle that a Labour Government would not tamper with existing PEPs and TESSAs? Will he apologise for breaking that promise, or will he consider attaching to next week's Budget bundle a series of numbered apologies for each of the new taxes and broken promises since 1 May?
    Mr. Darling: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman cannot bring himself to mention 22 tax rises, which of course he knows all about. Our manifesto was clear and we have kept to it. I say to the hon. Gentleman and to the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), who I now discover misquoted me on Monday, that they should be careful about taking words out of context.

    Monetary and Economic Policy
    Mr. Boswell: When he last met the Governor of the Bank of England to discuss the interaction of monetary and economic policy. [32495]
    Mr. Darling: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has many meetings with the Governor to discuss a range of matters.
    Mr. Boswell: Now that the minutes of the Monetary Policy Committee have revealed that its members are split equally between the inflation nutters and the doves and that we might as well have stayed with the Gordon and Eddie show, will the Minister tell the House whether his sympathies would have been with them if they had increased interest rates for the sixth time since the general election, thereby paving the way for tax reductions in the Budget, or whether he is relieved that they have kept rates as they are to give him a measure of cover for the tax increases that we expect?
    Mr. Darling: First, the fact that the Monetary Policy Committee's proceedings are open and published shows the value of allowing a range of people to consider the inflationary pressures on the economy and to come to a considered view. Secondly, long-term interest rates are
    734
    now the lowest they have been for 33 years. The last time they were this low, I was in primary school and Harold Wilson was in No. 10.
    Mr. Sheldon rose—
    Hon. Members: And where was the right hon. Gentleman?
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: He was there, on the Treasury Bench.
    Mr. Sheldon: I am looking forward.
    As the euro is to be widely used by companies in this country, not least those in the retail trade, will my right hon. Friend consider whether it would be advantageous to shadow it at some stage? If he agrees that we should, how would he suggest doing it?
    Mr. Darling: I do not think that it would be appropriate to do that, but my right hon. Friend is right in the sense that this country has to prepare for the introduction of economic and monetary union in Europe. It also has to prepare itself for the possibility that we shall join that currency at some point, perhaps at the beginning of the next Parliament. He will know that the Government are putting in hand the necessary preparations so that this country can make that choice—preparations that were never made by the previous Government, because they were so hopelessly split on the issue.
    Mr. Wigley: The Minister will have noticed that as, in the past two days, there was further talk of a higher interest rate, the pound strengthened again against other currencies. Does he accept that the pound is far too strong, causing chaos for manufacturing industry and for agriculture? Is it an objective of the Government to get the pound down to a saner parity?
    Mr. Darling: The latest predictions are that exports are expected to continue to rise, but let me make an important point. Industry—even people who are worried about what is happening to the exchange rate—accepts the fact that it is necessary for the Government to ensure that we get long-term stability. The last thing anyone wants is a return to the boom and bust or the high levels of inflation that we experienced in the past.
    I believe that the right hon. Gentleman is aware that other factors, apart from interest rate rises, have led to the appreciation of sterling. I repeat that it was necessary for the Bank of England to take the appropriate steps to counter inflationary pressures because the previous Government had ignored the warning signals in the months leading to the general election. That will not—indeed, cannot—happen under the new, more open and transparent procedures that we have set up, which will benefit industry and the whole country.
    Mr. MacShane: I invite my right hon. Friend to cast his mind back to 12 months ago, when interest rates, inflation and sterling were bobbing up and down like a yo-yo, as they had done in the previous five years. No business man could plan more than six months ahead because of the Tories' irresponsible stewardship of the economy. May I invite my right hon. Friend, despite the

    735
    difficulties that the level of sterling is causing exporters, to maintain the new policy of having a Monetary Policy Committee and to take every measure to ensure stability? Every business leader I meet welcomes the new policy, and wants no return to the instability of the Tory years.
    Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend is right, in that every business wants stability more than anything else. Many business leaders said to us when we were in opposition—and say to us now that we are in government—that if the Government do nothing else but deliver stability and low inflation, that will benefit their business. Of course, we have also done other things to help business. For example, we introduced the current rate of corporation tax—the lowest ever.
    Mr. Lilley: In their pre-Budget discussions with the Governor of the Bank of England, have the Chief Secretary or the Chancellor discussed any plans to raise taxes that were not included in the Labour party manifesto before the most recent general election? Does the Chief Secretary recall the speech made by the Chancellor before the election, in which he said:
    "At the general election we will spell out clearly our tax plans so that the British people know what we intend to do"—
    no confusion, no deceits—and that
    "Apart from the windfall tax our plans do not require any extra taxes"?
    Has he honoured those pledges?
    Mr. Darling: The right hon. Gentleman is ill placed to criticise us on the subject of election promises, because people will remember very well that the prospectus on which the Conservatives fought the 1992 general election was abandoned in every subsequent year. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] The answer is that we made an explicit promise not to increase the top and basic rates of income tax, that we kept that promise in my right hon. Friend's first Budget last year, and that we shall keep that promise for the rest of this Parliament—as we told the British people.
    Mr. Lilley: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that his answer tacitly recognised that he betrayed the pledges that he made to the British people? When did he, or the Chancellor, spell out clearly to people with pensions that they proposed a £5 billion tax on their pension funds? When did he spell out to students that they planned a tax on higher education? When did he spell out to rural motorists that they planned three increases in motor taxation in 16 months? And when did he plan to spell out clearly to home owners that they intended to impose the biggest ever council tax increases?
    Mr. Darling: The right hon. Gentleman should be a little more careful, because the Government in which he served introduced the fuel escalator and cut mortgage tax relief when they said they would not. The right hon. Gentleman will also remember that, just before the general election, he proposed pension changes that would have resulted in a huge increase in expenditure for ordinary people. We have kept every promise that we made in our election manifesto. That is the clear difference between the Labour party and the Conservative Opposition.

    Third World Debt
    Mr. Purchase: What plans he has to reduce the debt burden of the poorest countries. [32496]
    Mr. Timms: What discussions he has had with Church leaders about the problems of highly indebted developing countries. [32510]
    Mr. Gordon Brown: Since my Mauritius mandate statement to Commonwealth Finance Ministers last September, I have held a number of meetings with religious leaders, including the Archbishop of Canterbury, Cardinal Hume, the Moderator of the Church of Scotland and many others. The United Kingdom firmly supports debt relief for the poorest, most indebted countries and is seeking an early solution to many of the problems experienced by them—which includes finding a solution to the debt problems of Mozambique. The Government take their responsibilities in international debt reduction seriously.
    Mr. Purchase: That is a very welcome statement that illustrates the clear difference between the approach of Labour, with its proper ethical policies, and the policies of the Conservatives, which have contributed considerably to the problems experienced by developing countries. I am sure that the Chancellor will recognise that it is equally important that we persist with policies that support continued and sustainable development. We must recognise that, historically, inappropriate technology has been applied in developing countries for the purpose of extracting profit, especially in agriculture. Cash cropping has drained many such economies. We must have world policies—to which I know my right hon. Friend will contribute and on which he will lead the charge—to avoid the continuing problem of mounting debt in those countries.
    Madam Speaker: I did not hear a question. I remind the hon. Gentleman to ask a question in future.
    Mr. Brown: I agree with my hon. Friend's comments. The Government established the Department for International Development, the first act of which was to make a shift in the budget towards poverty relief for Africa. The Government have introduced export credits conditional on not selling arms and taken a millennium initiative to ensure that countries are in the process of debt relief by 2000. The Government will work with other countries to ensure that there is effective debt reduction, particularly in Africa.
    Mr. Timms: I am pleased to hear from my right hon. Friend that the Government are supporting the campaign, which has been backed by Church leaders and others, for a millennium-linked initiative on debt under the banner of the Jubilee 2000 campaign. Can my right hon. Friend tell the House what support he has gathered from other Governments for the welcome lead that he has taken on this issue?
    Mr. Brown: I am pleased to say that, at the Commonwealth Finance Ministers conference last year, all countries in the Commonwealth supported our initiative. The G7 statement, issued only a few weeks ago

    737
    following discussions in London, expressed support for the idea that countries should be in the process of debt reduction by 2000.
    I am grateful to religious leaders and to the Churches, not just in Britain but worldwide, for leading the campaign for action on this great moral issue by the millennium. I urge all right hon. and hon. Members to work with the Churches in their areas to ensure that there is strong public opinion in favour of action, which is already making a difference internationally and will help us to secure the necessary debt reductions.
    Mr. Edward Davey: As more than 95 per cent. of debt owed by third-world countries to the United Kingdom is export credit debt, what plans does the Chancellor have to reduce it? Since 1 May, the Government have issued a military export licence to a company selling arms to Mozambique. How can the Government claim to support education, health and economic development in Mozambique when they encourage such exports?
    Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that, at the September Commonwealth Finance Ministers conference, we made it very clear—via a statement from me and my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for International Development and the President of the Board of Trade—that future export credits to the highly indebted countries will be conditional on exports not being arms. We have managed to secure that very big change in policy over the past few months. Bilaterally, about £1.2 billion in debt has been waived in the past 25 years. Britain has taken an important initiative over many years on that issue.
    I hope that the Conservative Opposition will support the Churches in their efforts, instead of standing apart from them. We need international support for our efforts and we are seeking to gain it. Mozambique is the latest country that should be securing debt reduction—20 per cent. of its money is going in interest payments and only 4 per cent. is going on education and health—and I believe that we can make progress there in the next few weeks. As my hon. Friend may know, Britain has already put down its share of money to secure that debt reduction in the next few weeks.

    Petrol Duty
    Mr. Amess: What representations he has received on the use of petrol duty rates as a mechanism for achieving environmental objectives. [32497]
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Dawn Primarolo): The Chancellor has received a number of representations which will be taken into account in reaching decisions for his Budget on 17 March.
    Mr. Amess: Will the hon. Lady clarify the Government's policy on duty on fuel, as the Government seem to be giving different messages to different audiences? Is it the Government's intention to continue to increase duty on fuel to meet environmental concerns and reduce the number of people who drive cars, or are they the motorist's friend and the friend of the oil industry—although that was certainly not the case three weeks ago when I attended the annual oil industry dinner?
    Dawn Primarolo: I am sure that that meeting was not in Basildon, which is only a short drive from Southend—which I understand the hon. Gentleman did at some speed.
    738
    The Government have a clear commitment to reduce CO2 emissions, which are directly linked to fuel consumption. I remind the hon. Gentleman that it was the previous Government who introduced the escalator at 5 per cent.
    Mr. Pike: My hon. Friend will recall that the changeover to lead-free petrol was greatly assisted by increasing the differential and reducing the price of that fuel. Is there not a case, on environmental grounds, for encouraging vehicles powered by liquid petroleum gas by reducing duty on that fuel?
    Dawn Primarolo: As my hon. Friend will know, there is considerable discussion about clean fuels, building on the excellent record of the previous Government in favouring unleaded fuels over leaded ones. Mechanisms are already in place to assist the shift, especially to clean diesel, to deal with particulate emissions. The Government are constantly reviewing the development of clean fuels—an item that needs consideration in the interests of environmental protection.
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Does the Financial Secretary agree that it might be more acceptable to motorists, especially those in rural areas who are suffering from the escalating increase in petrol, if there were some compensating reduction in, for example, vehicle excise duty on fuel-efficient cars, as proposed by the Liberal Democrats? Will she confirm that she promised last July that the Government would produce a Green Book to be published alongside the Red Book at the time of the Budget? Is that still the Government's intention? Will it be published with the Red Book on Budget day?
    Mr. Skinner: The Liberals have a policy for emptying toilets and wiping their backsides.
    Dawn Primarolo: But is it a green policy?
    The hon. Gentleman asks about rural motorists. As he will know, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister is working on the transport White Paper which will examine transport as a whole and the development of an integrated transport strategy in particular—something the previous Government did not have when, for example, they deregulated the buses and removed millions of bus routes from rural communities.
    With regard to green policies in the Budget, it has been made clear in the House that the Government will include statements on their environmental policies.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The Chancellor of the Exchequer has already announced his intention of increasing the duty on fuel by at least 27p per gallon in next week's Budget. Does the Minister agree that that will be the third such increase in 16 months? The Government have a policy of tax early, tax often. Does the hon. Lady agree also that this scale of increase raises the price of transport for everyone and imposes an especially heavy burden on the rural motorist, for whom a car is a necessity and not a luxury? Does the hon. Lady agree that these increases are being imposed not for environmental reasons but simply to raise more revenue? Will she and her colleagues have a rethink before next Tuesday's Budget?
    Dawn Primarolo: That is rich, coming from the right hon. Gentleman, who was a member of the Government

    739
    who introduced the 5 per cent. fuel escalator. Unlike the Conservative Government, the Labour Government are committed to reaching our CO2 targets. We shall abide by the international agreement arising from Kyoto. The 5 per cent. escalator donates 2½ tonnes towards that target for the year 2010.
    Mr. Geraint Davies: Is my hon. Friend aware that there are 1 million cars, vans and trucks powered by liquid petroleum gas in Italy, and only 2,000 in Britain? Will she and her colleagues continue positively to examine fiscal measures to encourage the use of more environmentally sensitive fuels?
    Dawn Primarolo: I was not aware of the situation in Italy. I assure my hon. Friend that we shall continue to examine these important matters.

    Tax and Expenditure
    Mr. Brady: If he will make a statement on the distribution of the tax burden and public expenditure between different income groups. [32498]
    Mr. Darling: An annual article is published by the Office for National Statistics in "Economic Trends" which describes the effects of taxes and benefits on household income. The last one was published in March 1997.
    Mr. Brady: I look forward to reading that interesting article and future editions of the publication. Does the Minister understand that the Labour party won last year's general election only because it persuaded the electorate that a Labour Government would not increase taxes on middle England? Does he accept that abolishing PEPs and TESSAs, or putting tax on child benefit, would be an increase in tax on middle England? Will he now rule out any such taxes?
    Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman should recall that we won in middle England and everywhere else as well. The hon. Gentleman would understand why we won and the Conservative party lost if he read the annual report to which I referred, which shows that inequality increased throughout the 1980s.
    Mr. Brady: That is not true. Everyone was better off.
    Mr. Darling: It most certainly is true. The rate at which inequality increased in the United Kingdom in the 1980s was faster than in any other industrialised country except New Zealand.
    The Labour Government are beginning to reverse that trend. We have reduced value added tax on fuel, for example, and that has helped poor people especially. We have introduced the new deal, which will help many young people and the long-term unemployed. It will give them hope and give them a job—something the previous Government would never have done. Our spending review will ensure that Government help and spending are focused so as to ensure that the people who lost during the Tory years gain during the term of this Labour Government.
    Mr. Davidson: My right hon. Friend, like me, comes from middle Scotland. Does he agree that, if the
    740
    Government reduced tax in some directions, that would be immensely popular electorally? I think especially of introducing a policy of free beer for all the workers. If he were to cut duty on beer, would he ensure that the brewers and licensees were obliged to introduce lined glasses to ensure that the full measure was pulled for those who purchased drink? Of course, if the beer were free, people would not be so worried about lined glasses.
    Mr. Darling: I am glad to hear that my hon. Friend now agrees that Glasgow is middle Scotland. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will have heard his plea on behalf of beer drinkers. My hon. Friend will appreciate that he might have to wait a little longer before he receives a fuller answer to his question.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: May I tell the Chief Secretary that the Labour party did not quite win in Macclesfield? There is quite a lot of countryside in Macclesfield, and the countryside is an important part of the environment. Does the Chief Secretary accept that if he continues with his intention dramatically to increase the duty and tax on hydrocarbon oils—[HON. MEMBERS: "It is the wrong question."] No, it is not the wrong question.
    Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is entirely in order. I know what he is getting at.
    Mr. Winterton: I am immensely grateful, Madam Speaker.
    Is the Chief Secretary aware that he is discriminating against people who live in the countryside, many of whom are on low incomes, and that the policy of increasing the tax burden on fuel will depopulate the countryside and make the position of farmers even more difficult—and perhaps close village pubs as well? Will he review the Government's discrimination against rural communities?
    Mr. Darling: I agree that the Labour party did not win Macclesfield, although many people believe that the Conservatives did not win it, either. I am pleased to see the hon. Gentleman back in his place, and hope that he keeps up his good work in the Conservative party.
    I shall make a number of points on the countryside. The first point, which the hon. Gentleman will not forget, I am sure, is that it was the Government he supported—or supported most of the time—who introduced the 5 per cent. fuel escalator. I do not remember many Conservative Members saying anything about it at the time. During their 18 years in power, the Conservatives did much to undermine the strength of rural communities: I am thinking of school closures, the threatened closure of post offices and the deregulation of buses, which had a devastating effect on public transport. I remind the hon. Gentleman—he knows this full well—that the tax burden increased during the previous Parliament, despite the promises on which the party that he sometimes supported fought the election.

    Public Sector Borrowing Requirement
    Dr. Gibson: What plans he has to restructure the public sector borrowing requirement in relation to European monetary policy. [32499]
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mrs. Helen Liddell): The Government have no plans

    741
    to restructure the public sector borrowing requirement in relation to European monetary policy. The Government's deficit reduction plan is in Britain's interest whether or not we participate in economic and monetary union.
    Dr. Gibson: I thank the Minister for that answer, but does she accept that many of my constituents consider it wrong that investment in Norwich City airport suffers and is curtailed as a result of the local government capital control legislation, whereas Stansted is not disadvantaged? Does she think it is time to review that, and that the European budgetary union conventions are a way forward?
    Mrs. Liddell: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the concern that he has consistently expressed about his local airport. I am happy to write to him on the specific matter relating to Norwich City airport.
    However, any borrowing has to be paid for at some time, and the previous Government allowed public expenditure to get out of control. We now spend more on paying our debts than on our education system. When the Chancellor introduced his Budget last July, he made it plain that we will seek to reduce our deficit, with a view to moving into surplus in the medium term.
    Sir Michael Spicer: Never mind European monetary policy; does the hon. Lady agree that it is the Government's duty to apply policies that are in the interests of this country? Having established that the overriding objective of the Bank of England is 2.5 per cent. inflation, will she confirm that the PSBR, fiscal policy and all other economic policies will comply with that overriding policy?
    Mrs. Liddell: Fiscal policy is the responsibility of the Government, as the hon. Gentleman should realise. It is interesting that he says, "Never mind European monetary policy." He should take into account the fact that the Labour Government have taken measures since we were elected last May to improve this country's finances. Indeed, as my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary pointed out, the moves that we made in relation to the Monetary Policy Committee have resulted in the lowest long-term interest rates for 33 years, and, if I may say so, I was still in primary school 33 years ago as well.

    Exchange Rates
    Mr. Mitchell: If he will seek to achieve a more competitive exchange rate level. [32501]
    Mrs. Liddell: The Government want a stable and competitive pound over the medium term, consistent with the objective of price stability. The only sure path to long-term exchange rate stability is through sound macro-economic policies.
    Mr. Mitchell: Yet is it not obvious to everyone, except four blind academics and ex-academics on the Monetary Policy Committee who have no contact with the real world, that the pound is substantially overvalued as a result of high short-term interest rates here, the deliberate depreciation of the deutschmark and the devaluation of Asian currencies? Does my hon. Friend agree that a 25 per cent. loss of competitiveness for manufacturing, which
    742
    provides 60 per cent. of our exports is, over a short term, not stability but instability that will lead to depression and deflation later this year?
    Mrs. Liddell: As I told my hon. Friend on 17 February when I wrote to him on the matter, more jobs are lost as a consequence of instability. I in no way minimise the concern of British exporters over the strength of the pound, but the strength of the pound is a consequence of a variety of different factors. I return to the point that I have made previously to my hon. Friends—that it is important that Britain has economic stability so that companies can develop policies that make them truly competitive across the board.
    Mr. Ian Taylor: One of the factors that will influence the exchange rate is the fiscal management of the UK economy. Does the Minister accept that one of the key factors is how credible our entry into the European monetary union will be at some point in the future? Will she urge the Chancellor, in his Budget next week, to set out a much clearer timetable, with an unequivocal commitment to entering monetary union, to allow the markets to prepare—and British industry to prepare so that it does not lose competitive advantage to a currency that will be used in 80 per cent. of our EU home market?
    Mrs. Liddell: That is an interesting question from the hon. Gentleman. I see that he is not wearing his European presidency tie today, which is perhaps unfortunate. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor made perfectly clear the five key tests that should be applied to ensure that if we decide to enter a single currency, we do so when that would be in Britain's best interests. The Government's present priority is to ensure that British industry prepares for 1 January 1999, because it looks as though there will be a euro zone and, because of the laxness of the Conservative Government who made the single currency the subject that dare not speak its name, we now have a job to do to ensure that British companies do not lose competitive advantage.
    Mr. Skinner: Does my hon. Friend agree that, during the past 18 years, Britain lost 40 per cent. of its manufacturing base, and that hardly any of that could be attributed to the high pound? Most of it was due to the fact that the Tory Government deliberately set about reducing the manufacturing base by closing down the shipyards, the pits and the steel industry. It is nonsense for those industrialists to say that they cannot make the profits they want, first, because they are paying the workers too much—and they are against the minimum wage—and, secondly, because of the high pound.
    Most manufacturers, but not all, also benefit from buying cheap imports as a result of the value of the pound. Hardly any British manufacturer does not gather in imports. It is all about swings and roundabouts. The simplistic argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) and some Conservative Members that devaluing the pound will solve everything, or words to that effect, is the biggest load of nonsense ever.
    Mrs. Liddell: Needless to say, I agree with my hon. Friend. The attitude of Conservative Members the other night to the national minimum wage, to which my

    743
    hon. Friend refers, was interesting. The Government's policies are about stability and allowing companies, families and households to plan for the long term in a way that was denied to them during 18 years of Conservative government.

    Value Added Tax (Continence Products)
    Mr. Burstow: What plans he has to compensate the national health service for the additional costs arising from the removal of VAT zero rating for home delivered continence products. [32502]
    Dawn Primarolo: The NHS is already fully funded for its VAT costs.
    Mr. Burstow: Will the Minister explain why a written answer that I received recently from the Department of Health clearly stated that the cost of additional VAT being imposed by the Government on the health service is £9 million a year? In a press release before the general election, the Labour party rightly criticised the imposition of VAT on continence products. Why are the Government now only too willing to impose such a tax and, as a consequence, cause great difficulty to the NHS and to elderly and disabled people?
    Dawn Primarolo: The hon. Gentleman simply has it wrong. There was no imposition of VAT on the national health service. The NHS is fully funded for its VAT costs. Since the general election, the Government have given the NHS an additional £1.5 billion. The hon. Gentleman is referring to an order that closed an avoidance mechanism being used by private hospitals, which took considerable resources out of the Exchequer. No patient will suffer extra VAT costs as a result of that order, because there are none. Incontinence pads are being treated as part of the provision of health care, so there is no extra burden on the NHS. Some hospitals were using an avoidance mechanism and were therefore being funded twice by the Exchequer. That mechanism was removed.

    Value Added Tax (Fuel)
    Ms Stuart: What representations he has received from pensioners' organisations on his reduction in VAT on fuel. [32503]
    The Paymaster General (Mr. Geoffrey Robinson): We said in our election manifesto that we would reduce VAT on domestic fuel to 5 per cent. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor introduced that measure in his July Budget. It is another example of the Labour Government fulfilling their promises.
    Ms Stuart: I welcome my right hon. Friend's action to reduce VAT to the lowest level possible, from which some 18,000 pensioners have benefited in my constituency alone. Does my hon. Friend agree that pensioners are the most vulnerable group and the greatest victims of the previous Administration's imposition of VAT on fuel?
    Mr. Robinson: My hon. Friend is correct on all those points, and the measure will have been welcomed by pensioners in her constituency as it was by pensioners
    744
    throughout the country. It is worth bearing in mind the fact that, when the Conservative party was in Government, it introduced VAT on fuel. Together with the Liberal Democrats, we prevented them from increasing VAT to 17.5 per cent. and, in line with our manifesto commitment, we reduced it to 5 per cent. Pensioner households spend approximately 50 per cent. more of their income on fuel than ordinary households and they therefore benefit most from the measure—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) is disrupting the proceedings.
    Mr. Evans: Is the Minister aware that Age Concern backed my private Member's Bill on the wind chill factor, which would have given extra support to the poorest pensioners on income support in the coldest parts of the country? Will the Minister ensure that his Department makes provision for next year—it is now too late for this year—and backs my Bill so that those pensioners get the support that they deserve? Originally, it was not my Bill but that of a Labour Member, who tried to push the Bill through the House before the general election. Is it not a case of telling pensioners one thing before the general election and letting them down badly afterwards?
    Mr. Robinson: The whole House will welcome the hon. Gentleman's belated concern in these matters. He will remember voting for VAT on fuel when his party was in government. This Government have introduced winter fuel payments of £20 for ordinary pensioners and £50 for pensioners on income support. That goes further than the recommendations to which the hon. Gentleman refers. Taken together, the measures that we have introduced—on the abolition of the gas levy, the reduction in VAT and the winter fuel payments—mean that pensioners are £100 better off on average, and £130 better off where they are on income support.

    Duty Free
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: What the reasons are for proceeding with the abolition of duty free within the European Union in 1999 in advance of harmonisation or equalisation of taxation rates in member states. [32504]
    Dawn Primarolo: The Council of Finance Ministers decided unanimously in 1991 to abolish duty-free sales for travellers within the European Union because it saw them as an anomaly within the concept of a single market. However, because of the effects of immediate abolition, and to give operators time to adjust, the Council decided to allow duty-free sales to continue after 1 January 1993, until 30 June 1999. The harmonisation of duties and taxes was not a factor in that decision.
    Mr. Prentice: Will not millions of holidaymakers be mystified that duty free is to be abolished in July 1999, given the huge differences in duty within the member states and the fact that proceeding with the abolition could cost 100,000 jobs across the European Union? In this country, 30 million people use duty-free shops annually. I urge my hon. Friend not to be neutral, but to use the presidency of the European Union to argue forcefully for

    745
    the measure to be postponed until there is full harmonisation of duty across the EU, which I suspect will not happen for many years.
    Dawn Primarolo: As my hon. Friend knows, the Government do not object to a study into the impact of the abolition of duties being undertaken, particularly if it examines the nature of the successor regime. Any postponement requires unanimity, however, and there is no suggestion that unanimity of action exists among the 15 member states.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Might not Her Majesty's Government at least try to secure a postponement, now that they hold the presidency of the European Union and, supposedly, have such great influence over their EU counterparts? Do they take pride in the fact that the measure will cost hundreds of jobs in a number of companies in air transport, shipping and retailing that are already experiencing extreme competitive pressures. How will the British travelling public benefit from abolition of duty-free sales? Surely it will lead to increased fares.
    Dawn Primarolo: I take no pride in the decisions that the Conservative Government made, or their commitment on the phasing out of duty-free. The Government will not stand in the way of a study being conducted into the likely impact on jobs of abolition, but there is no unanimity on the matter at the moment. The hon. Gentleman should direct himself to the question why Conservative Ministers agreed to abolition in the first place.

    Individual Savings Account
    Mr. Laurence Robertson: What he estimates will be the cost to holders of personal equity plans to transfer them to ISAs. [32505]
    Mr. Darling: The costs will depend on the final shape of the scheme.
    Mr. Robertson: I thank the Chief Secretary for that illuminating reply. Other policyholders will be affected if costs are passed on to them. The uncertainty about extra charges that may be levied if people transfer from PEPs to ISAs is preventing them from investing in PEPs in the first place. That uncertainty is causing many problems: should people invest and expect a second charge for their policies, or are they expected to depend on blind trust?
    Mr. Darling: I shall be more illuminating. If the hon. Gentleman sticks around a little longer, he might receive the answer he wants.

    Economic Cycle
    Mr. Alan W. Williams: What assessment he has made of the correlation between the boom and bust phases in the economic cycle and the value of the pound, and the time lag involved. [32506]
    Mr. Darling: There is no simple relationship between the economic cycle and the exchange rate. The
    746
    Government's policies are designed to end the cycle of boom and bust, and to create conditions for sustained growth and high employment.
    Mr. Williams: My hon. Friend and the Treasury team keep telling us of the importance of stability in bringing about an end to boom and bust cycles, but such stability will be impossible given the current high exchange rates, because manufacturing industry is being crippled by the high value of the pound. Does he agree that part of the Treasury's job is to create an economic climate in which interest rates could fall to 3 per cent., like those of our European partners, and the pound could fall in value to DM2.60 or DM2.70, so that in five years it would be possible to join the single currency?
    Mr. Darling: I understand my hon. Friend's point, but as I told the House earlier, the most important thing for the Government is to ensure that we have the right economic conditions for a stable economic platform on which to build and so that we will achieve low inflation. That is what manufacturing industry—and everyone in the country—wants. As I said earlier, there are already encouraging signs that, because of our reforms—not just the measures in my right hon. Friend's Budget last year but as a result of a general feeling of confidence in the Government's commitment to stability and the reforms that we have made to the Bank of England—long-term rates are now falling. I repeat—they are the lowest they have been for 33 years. I believe that the path on which the Government have embarked is the right path, and the only path in the long-term interests of this country.
    Dr. Cable: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that it was concern about economic stability that led 11 countries to prepare themselves for first-wave entry into EMU? Does he welcome the fact that as many as 11 countries are now ready? Will he tell us what economic policy decisions those 11 countries will be party to as members of the euro X committee to which Britain will not be a party?
    Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman is aware that the decision about who will join EMU will be made during April and May. As my right hon. Friends the Chancellor and the Prime Minister have made clear, we want to ensure that if monetary union goes ahead, it is a success, because that must be in the interests of the whole of Europe and this country. Whether we are in or out, what happens in EMU will affect us. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor made clear, we are beginning to put in place the necessary steps to ensure that this country can make a genuine and real choice about whether we join at the appropriate time.
    Sir Peter Tapsell: Has the right hon. Gentleman noted that, even after two centuries of theorising and libraries packed with books on economics, Governments still have remarkably little influence on the trade cycle? The one thing that does seem to be indicated by history is that, if one gets into difficulties, it is easier to get out of them with a floating currency rather than a fixed currency.
    Mr. Darling: I remember sitting more or less where the hon. Gentleman is sitting some years ago listening to

    747
    a 45-minute speech from him on that very point. I am well aware of the hon. Gentleman's views, and I note them with great interest.
    Dr. Lynne Jones: Does my right hon. Friend agree that raising interest rates is not the only way to deal with inflationary pressures in the economy? Will he assure the House that other methods will be sought in the forthcoming Budget?
    Mr. Darling: All sorts of pressures lead to inflation, including wages and general economic conditions. I shall repeat an important point; it is in the interests of this country—every single one of us, whether in industry or not—to ensure that we have low inflation and that we get away from the damaging cycle of boom and bust that has bedevilled this country for most years since the war. We are determined to avoid that, and everything we do will be geared towards that end.

    Tax Equalisation
    Rev. Martin Smyth: What steps he has taken to achieve equalisation of taxes in the European Union. [32507]
    Dawn Primarolo: This Government have taken no steps towards equalising direct tax rates in the EU. The Government believe that fair tax competition is positive and helps to maintain Europe's external competitiveness. The UK has already persuaded other member states of this and the benefits of fair tax competition are explicitly recognised in the code of conduct agreed by ECOFIN on 1 December 1997.
    There is already a significant degree of harmonisation or approximation of indirect taxes. The last Government were responsible for much of this: they agreed minimum rates for VAT and excise duties.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: Early-day motion 949 deals with the increase in tobacco taxes. Does the Minister accept
    748
    that that is having an adverse effect on our people and on their jobs without helping people's health? Also, about £1 billion a year is being lost to the Treasury through smuggling.
    Dawn Primarolo: As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the report produced by the European Union on excise duties, particularly with regard to tobacco, is now considerably overdue. The Government are pressing hard to obtain publication of the report. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the Government take very seriously the problems of smoking and smuggling.
    Mr. Townend: I am grateful to have the opportunity to ask the hon. Lady a question, as she does not have the courtesy to sign her replies to me.
    The House knows of my lifelong experience in the drinks industry. I was interested when the hon. Lady talked about a level playing field. Does she accept that smuggling into this country is growing dramatically and that the big danger is not only that the Government are losing revenue, but that organised crime is progressively taking over the smuggling? We have had recent incidents at Dover in which firearms have been used. Does she agree that the only way to solve the problem is to have more harmonisation, and will the Government start to move towards that in this year's Budget?
    Dawn Primarolo: I find it incredible that Conservative Members who supported a Government who for 18 years did nothing about smuggling now try to saddle this Government with solving the problem immediately. As the hon. Gentleman well knows, we take smuggling and excise fraud seriously. It was this Government who set up with the industry the review on tobacco and alcohol smuggling and fraud. The report before us will inform the Chancellor's judgments in his Budget next week.

Business of the House
3.30 pm
Mrs. Gillian Shephard: May I ask the Leader of the House to make a statement on the business for next week?
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Ann Taylor): The business for next week is as follows:
MONDAY 16 MARCH—Second Reading of the Teaching and Higher Education Bill [Lords].
Remaining stages of the Nuclear Explosions (Prohibition and Inspections) Bill [Lords].
TUESDAY 17 MARCH—My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will open his Budget statement.
WEDNESDAY 18 MARCH—Until 2 pm, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Continuation of the Budget debate.
THURSDAY 19 MARCH—Continuation of the Budget debate.
FRIDAY 20 MARCH—Private Members' Bills.
The provisional business for the following week is as follows:
MONDAY 23 MARCH—Conclusion of the Budget debate.
TUESDAY 24 MARCH—Conclusion of remaining stages of the School Standards and Framework Bill.
WEDNESDAY 25 MARCH—Until 12.30 pm, debate on the second to fifth reports from the Select Committee on Health on children's health, followed by a debate on the third report from the Select Committee on Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs on the proposed strategic rail authority and railway regulation, followed by debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Progress on remaining stages of the Government of Wales Bill (First Day).
THURSDAY 26 MARCH—Conclusion of remaining stages of the Government of Wales Bill (Second Day).
FRIDAY 27 MARCH—Private Members' Bills.
The House will also wish to know that on Wednesday 25 March there will be a debate on bananas in European Standing Committee A, and a debate on aid to shipbuilding in European Standing Committee B.
Details of the relevant documents will be given in the Official Report.
[Wednesday 25 March:
European Standing Committee A—Relevant European Community Document: 5357/98, Bananas. Relevant European Legislation Committee Report: HC 155-xvi (1997–98).
European Standing Committee B—Relevant European Community Documents: 11165/97 and 11167/97, Aid to Shipbuilding. Relevant European Legislation Committee Report: HC 155-ix (1997–98).]
Mrs. Shephard: I thank the Leader of the House for giving the House two weeks' business, as is becoming her habit and practice.
750
I wonder whether the right hon. Lady is able to give the House any information about the possible dates for the Easter recess. I understand, because she explained them last week, that there are problems in knowing exactly how the pattern of legislation will pan out, but, as I pointed out two weeks ago, The House Magazine printed a start date for the recess and she discreetly neither confirmed nor denied it on the day. It is possible that she may be able to tell us something today.
Once again, I make my weekly request for a debate in Government time on the national health service. The right hon. Lady has announced for Wednesday 25 March a debate on the second to fifth reports of the Health Committee on children's health. That is extremely welcome, but I must remind her and the House that the Government have not provided time for a single debate on the national health service since 1 May. It is no good the right hon. Lady stating in the Government's defence that there have been seven statements on the national health service since 1 May—we know that, but, because there have been so many statements, and because the Government have introduced so many changes to the national health service, it is time for a debate on those and wider issues relating to the national health service. I do not understand the Government's reluctance in that respect.
May we have an early debate on the Government's policy on human rights in China? Yesterday, in Prime Minister's Question Time, it was clear that the Prime Minister had a rather shaky grasp of the issues. It might be helpful if we could have a debate led by the Foreign Secretary on those and other features of the Government's ethical approach to foreign policy.
I congratulate the right hon. Lady on her chairmanship of the Modernisation Committee and on the third and fourth reports that came out earlier this week. The reports are welcome, as they propose sensible reforms to make the proceedings of the House more comprehensible and effective. Has the right hon. Lady detected any misgivings among hon. Members about the proposals? If she has, what reassurances has she been able to provide?
Mrs. Taylor: The right hon. Lady asked me about the Easter recess. Early in January, I gave an indication of when I expected the Easter recess to be. I cannot yet confirm the precise dates, but I expect that the Easter recess will be the week of Easter Monday and that the House will return on the following Monday, but I am not yet in a position to confirm that. I hope also, in the not too distant future, to give some indication in respect of the Whitsun recess, but that is rather more difficult, as we have to consider the progress of business.
The right hon. Lady asked me again for a debate on health. I stress that there is no reluctance on our part to have such a debate. Indeed, we would be happy to discuss the extra £1.5 billion that we have found for the health service. We have a very heavy legislative programme and, at the moment, there are no slots available. I should point out, however, that, in the past 10 days, the Opposition chose the topics of four debates, and on all those occasions they avoided discussing health matters, so perhaps it is they who are running scared.
As for human rights issues in China, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister pointed out yesterday that we believe that the European Union's policy of dialogue with

751
China, supported by practical assistance, is more likely to bring about real improvement in respect of the rights of ordinary people. We should like to find more time for foreign affairs debates, but that will not be possible in the near future.
I thank the right hon. Lady for her remarks about the Modernisation Committee. I also thank all members of the Committee for the consensus that we were able to develop in respect of the changes that we recommend to the House. The reactions to our reports so far—of course, it is early days—have been entirely positive, and I am very pleased indeed with the way in which they have been received by hon. Members.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Will my right hon. Friend find time to look at the questions—and their answers—that I asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security about a major problem with the computer system in her Department? Will she find time very soon for the House to debate a number of problems that are arising in the public sector in respect of massive computer systems that are probably not capable of performing the tasks that are being asked of them? It would be very dangerous if the House were to continue to pour money into machinery that was not capable of working efficiently and which would leave many important functions of government in considerable disarray if they failed.
Mrs. Taylor: I shall look at the questions tabled by my hon. Friend. I am aware of the possible difficulties in that particular area, not least because it was a massive IT project involving a great number of systems, and I understand that it was always expected that early plans would need to be tested and reviewed as the programme moved forward. That is what is happening. Obviously, we have to be careful that the systems we introduce work. If my hon. Friend has specific points she wishes to raise, I am afraid that I cannot find time for a debate, but it is questions to the relevant Department a week on Monday.
Mr. Matthew Taylor: Following our representations, has the Leader of the House had any success in getting earlier answers to ministerial letters and parliamentary questions?
On the subject of railways and the takeover of Great Western Trains, what has happened to the right hon. Lady's assurances given last week in response to representations on that subject from my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler)? Is it not time that there was a statement from Ministers on the shenanigans within rail companies and the huge profits being made by individuals at taxpayers' expense?
Finally, will the right hon. Lady comment on the fact that, with a statutory instrument today on Scottish water charges, the Government appear to have decided to follow the precedent set by the previous Conservative Government of subsidising water charges in Scotland, but refusing to do so for areas in England such as the south-west, which has water charges that are 40 per cent. higher than those in Scotland, yet we are told that there is no taxpayers' money available? Is it not time that Ministers explained that in the House?
Mrs. Taylor: On the hon. Gentleman's last point, if he wishes to have an SI discussed, he knows the procedure and the discussions that can go on through the usual channels.
752
We alluded to rail problems last week, and I think that everyone is very concerned about what is happening in some parts of the rail industry. I announced that there would be a debate that includes rail regulation a week on Wednesday, when the hon. Gentleman may be fortunate enough to catch your eye, Madam Speaker.
Ministerial correspondence has been raised by several hon. Members, including some of the hon. Gentleman's colleagues. I have been looking at the issue in some detail. The picture is an extremely mixed one, with some Departments performing better since the general election than previously and others having difficulties because of the huge increase in the number of letters received; we have clear evidence to back that up. That is not to say that I do not think that things can be improved: I am writing to all Cabinet colleagues on that matter to seek improvements, and the Cabinet Office is also taking it up at official level.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that tomorrow may well be the last day for debate on the private Member's Bill to abolish fox hunting? Is she aware that, on our side this week, many hon. Members got excited about the prospect of sitting all night to get the National Minimum Wage Bill through? They would quite happily not call for Government time, but sit after 10 o'clock for, say, two or three nights to complete the Bill and frustrate the wishes of that minority opposite. Then we could send the Bill to the House of Lords, and if those hereditary peers—the fox hunters and the Tories—turned up in large numbers to thwart the Bill's progress, that would give us a perfect excuse to get rid of the lot of them.
Mrs. Taylor: I will be here again tomorrow, as will many of my colleagues, to vote on that Bill. The responsibility for the Bill's fate rests with the Conservative Members who seem determined to flout the overwhelming will of the House and the British people. I know that that causes a great deal of concern, and I hope that those who are worried about the issue will make their views known to Conservative Members.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the provision of local justice? Is she aware that, in my constituency, people are concerned about the threat hanging over the magistrates courts in Ashbourne, Bakewell and Matlock? We see this as yet another attack on the countryside, depriving rural areas of services—something the Government allege they are not trying to do. However, we see the proposed closure of these courts as another service being taken from the countryside.
Mrs. Taylor: That is not a new issue, and I do not recall the hon. Gentleman protesting about these matters when his party was in government. If he has specific points he wishes to raise, questions to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Lord Chancellor's Department take place on, I think, Tuesday. [HON. MEMBERS: "Monday."] It says Tuesday here. He will be able to raise these issues, but I will pass his concerns on to the Minister.
Mr. Dennis Canavan: May we have a statement next week from the Secretary of State for Scotland about the funding for the millennium link to

753
reunite the Forth and Clyde canal and the Union canal? Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is still a shortfall of about £7.8 million, and, unless sufficient funding is found by next Friday, the project may have to be abandoned, which would mean the loss of a great opportunity to create 4,000 permanent jobs and 1,500 construction jobs, plus an annual injection of £55 million into the economy of central Scotland?
Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend has made a strong point, and I am sure that he will wish to pursue it further with Ministers. There will not be time for a debate, but perhaps he can raise the matter at Question Time on Tuesday.
Mr. Eric Forth: May we have an early debate on the allegations that are made concerning Secretaries of State and conflicts of interest in terms of their constituencies, families or whatever? Does the Leader of the House think it is somewhat bizarre for a Secretary of State to instruct a permanent secretary to conduct an investigation into such matters? Does she believe that to expect an impartial inquiry under those conditions is somewhat optimistic? Does she agree that some sort of independent review mechanism would be preferable in getting to the bottom of the allegations?
Mrs. Taylor: I am surprised that a former Minister should cast doubt on the independence of a permanent secretary.
Ms Beverley Hughes: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the recent comments by Steven Norris, the former Tory Minister, that the previous Government should be ashamed of their record on state education? Is she further aware of the report of the Audit Commission today, which outlines just how much all schools—including those in well-off areas—have been failed by the previous Government's policies'? Will she arrange for an urgent debate so that the House can assess how far state education was undermined by the previous Government?
Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend makes a strong point. We welcome the Audit Commission's work, which has highlighted the need to focus on the differences in standards produced by LEAs, even if they are working in similar circumstances. I cannot promise a debate on that specific point, but she will be aware that education matters will be debated in the House in the near future, and there may be opportunities to discuss the report.
Mr. John Wilkinson: Is the Leader of the House aware that the erstwhile leader of her party, the Euro Transport Commissioner Mr. Kinnock, is seeking to sue Her Majesty's Government if they pursue bilateral negotiations with the United States—as is their sovereign right—over air service agreements across the north Atlantic? In view of that, can the Minister for Transport come to the House at the earliest possible date to make a statement, or, preferably, can we have a proper
754
debate on civil air transport, which could take in the proposed abolition of duty free shopping and the reduction in capital allowances for airliners?
Mrs. Taylor: I do not think that there will be an opportunity for such a debate in the near future. If the hon. Gentleman wants to pursue specific points, it is tabling day for questions to that Department on Tuesday.
Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Has my right hon. Friend, like me, read in the newspapers today that the protector of the Camelot interest in the lottery has not only been dismissed for not doing his job, but will be compensated for not doing his job? To make matters worse—and this is a bit rich—the money will come from the lottery's good causes fund. Can she ensure that someone will come to the House to explain what on earth is going on? Has not the time come for a debate on whether it is time that someone else ran the lottery?
Mrs. Taylor: I do not think that my hon. Friend is technically correct—I do not think that the man was dismissed; I think that he resigned to ensure that there was full confidence in the lottery. If my hon. Friend wants to raise the issue, he must either apply for an Adjournment debate or try to be called at Question Time on Monday.
Mr. Edward Leigh: Will the Leader of the House consider a debate on greater public access to the Palace of Westminster? In view of the justified public expenditure on its magnificent refurbishments, will she consider putting the Lord Chancellor's apartment on the line of route, so that, in the manner of aristocrats welcoming American tourists to their homes, the Lord Chancellor—one of our greatest ornaments—could give tea to visiting Americans?
Mrs. Taylor: I understand that plans to allow access to the Lord Chancellor's apartment are complete and will be implemented—there will be access. Shortly after becoming Leader of the House, I made inquiries about whether we could increase public access to the whole building at weekends and in the recess. Work is now under way to examine the feasibility of that idea.
Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe: As the Government have delivered on devolution for Scotland and Wales and are developing a strong regional policy, will my right hon. Friend consider the prospects for allowing our debates to have regional dimensions? I understand that time has been given to regional debates in the past.
Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend raises an important point. Many hon. Members, representing different parts of the country, might find such debates extremely valuable. However, he will be aware of the pressure on time, so I do not think that he would give such debates priority over our legislative programme. Nevertheless, I shall bear his request in mind when time permits.
Mr. Donald Gorrie: Will the Leader of the House consider inviting to her excellent Modernisation Committee the people who run the radio programme "Just a Minute", so that they could suggest better ways in which to enforce the rules of no deviation

755
and no repetition? The Committee could then, perhaps produce better rules to strengthen your position, Madam Speaker and that of your colleagues.
Mrs. Taylor: The Modernisation Committee has not suggested a rewriting of Standing Orders along the lines of the rules of "Just a Minute". I recommend that the hon. Gentleman reads the Committee's report—I believe that hon. Members will agree that it suggests ways forward.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: May I return to the subject that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)? Does my right hon. Friend recall telling me that time would not be the enemy of the fox hunting Bill if hon. Members—I think that she had in mind Conservative Members—behaved themselves? After last Friday, is not it as plain as a pikestaff that Conservative Members want to torpedo the Bill? I urge my right hon. Friend to ensure that the relevant Minister makes a statement to the House next week, saying, I hope, that time will be made available in this Parliament to ban blood sports.
Mrs. Taylor: I think that I will be in danger of repetition if I remind my hon. Friend of what I said on Monday—that time is not the enemy. As I said earlier, the responsibility for the fate of the Bill rests with those Conservative Members who seem determined to flout the overwhelming will of the House. It is not the case that, if the Government gave extra time, that would be the end of any problems associated with the Bill. I think that most people understand exactly what is happening.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The Leader of the House is being very agreeable today. Bearing in mind her long-standing interest in education, will she arrange for a Minister from the Department for Education and Employment to make a statement on the decision that has been made by several county council local education authorities to abolish free school transport for 16 to 18-year-olds in full-time secondary education? While I accept that, once secondary education is completed, people or their families should start to pay, that decision is a dramatic change and is causing grave anxiety to people in my constituency's rural villages and to the All Hallows Catholic high school in Macclesfield, which does a wonderful job providing excellent education to youngsters from a wide area of east Cheshire.
Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman is an experienced Member of the House, and if he cannot weave that issue into one of the debates on the education Bills before the House, I will be surprised. He knows that, if that is not possible, his best option is to apply for an Adjournment debate.
Caroline Flint: Will my right hon. Friend consider finding time for a debate on the regeneration of the former RAF Finningley site in my constituency? The site has already benefited from considerable public investment and has one of the longest runways in Britain. As it is in an area formerly dominated by the coal mining industry, it is seen by businesses and communities as key to the development of jobs and industries in South Yorkshire. I would welcome time for a debate on the subject.
Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend knows that I have said on several occasions today that the Government's legislative
756
programme is heavy and it is difficult to find time to debate all the issues that we want to, so I cannot give the assurance she wants. I understand that the Ministry of Defence is considering the bids that have been received for her local RAF station and is closely consulting other Government Departments, because it recognises the local sensitivity of the issue. I assure her that transport, planning and all other issues will be fully taken into account before a decision is made.
Mr. David Rendel: The incredibly damning report produced by the Public Accounts Committee on the Child Support Agency includes the sentence:
"Unless firm action is taken, the work of the Child Support Agency will continue to bring unnecessary hardship and suffering to thousands of our fellow citizens."
Will the Leader of the House ensure that time is made available for a debate, so that the Government can explain whether they intend to take such firm action to get rid of the ghastly traumas being suffered, not only by the parents but by the children involved?
Mrs. Taylor: We made it clear when the Conservatives introduced the child support legislation that—while we supported it in principle—we had grave concerns about the detail. It is clear to everybody in the House that the previous Government's Child Support Agency scheme is failing to deliver what was hoped. We have had two debates on the issue so far, and my right hon. and hon. Friends have listened carefully to the issues that have been raised. We aim to produce by the summer a consultation document containing our proposals for improvement; it is important that as many hon. Members as possible are involved in the consultation, because we all have examples of problems caused by the CSA.
Mr. Paul Flynn: When can we debate the dire consequences of the previous Government's pension policy and, in particular, the comment made by the then Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, almost exactly eight years ago, on 15 March 1990, when she told me that she "totally rejected"—her words—my premise that 1 million people could be mis-sold personal pensions? Now we know the awful truth—that up to £6 billion and possibly £10 billion has to be found to compensate those millions of people who face poverty in their retirement years. Is not the lesson from that awful experience that we can never trust the pensions market to the private firms again and that pensions must be based on the state earnings-related pension scheme—a good-value state scheme, with a great record?
Mrs. Taylor: I am sure that my hon. Friend will welcome the robust action that my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury has taken to deal with the problem. It is true that the Conservative Government created the problem, the Conservative Government ignored the problem and the Conservative party has never apologised for it. Owing to Government pressure, particularly the action of my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary, two thirds of the priority cases have now been resolved; previously, hardly any had been resolved. It is clearly a difficult, on-going problem, and my hon. Friend is perfectly right to lay the blame at the door of the

757
previous Conservative Government. However, even though it is tempting to have a debate, I am afraid that we cannot find time in the near future.
Mr. Nicholas Soames: Does the right hon. Lady accept that, while we understand that the Government's bad management of their own programme has led to a legislative backlog, that is no reason to deny the House of Commons the chance to debate the major issues of the day? Does she agree that Britain has a major interest in events in Kosovo, where a large number of women, children and old men were murdered on the direct orders of the war criminal Milosevic, and in the former Yugoslavia, where more that 8,000 British service men of all arms are stationed? Those events need to be debated in the House so that hon. Members have a chance to put their views to the Foreign Secretary, not least to see whether Milosevic should be indicted as a war criminal. Will the right hon. Lady see what she can do to fit such a debate into the Government's programme?
Mrs. Taylor: First, there is no legislative backlog; we are very much on target, although some days have been taken up, by agreement, with Bills that Conservative Members wanted to debate on the Floor of the House.
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that an important statement on Kosovo was made on Tuesday—unusually, it was made on an Opposition day because of the importance of the subject. It will not be possible in the very near future to find Government time for a debate, but it may be possible for the hon. Gentleman or others to secure an Adjournment debate, which has often happened on similar issues.
Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Does the Leader of the House agree that it is high time that we had a debate on the way in which the Opposition Front-Bench team uses the research assistance provided to it out of public funds? In business questions a fortnight ago, the shadow Leader of the House claimed that I had criticised my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health for allegedly packing NHS trusts with political appointments, when I had said no such thing. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there seems to be a problem, in that either the shadow Front-Bench team research assistants cannot read newspaper articles with words of more than one syllable or the shadow Front-Bench team cannot?
Mrs. Taylor: I am glad that my hon. Friend has had the chance, without a debate, to set the record straight. On occasions, we need a full session geared into the weekly programme so that we can set the record straight about some of the allegations made by Conservative Members.
Mr. Andrew Robathan: Eight weeks ago today, at Treasury questions, a Minister quoted pension return figures that I considered erroneous. I tabled a question, but I have not yet received a substantive answer. If the figures exist, I should have thought that it would be easy to provide an answer. Will the right hon. Lady find time next week for a debate on the length of time that Ministers take to respond to questions and on their inefficiency in doing so, so that I can raise the question of those figures, which I believe to be erroneous?
Mrs. Taylor: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman did not have an opportunity to raise that matter in the
758
debate on pensions that the Conservatives organised the other day. There are many opportunities to question Treasury Ministers—indeed, there were opportunities today.
Mr. John McDonnell: Given that the subject of human rights was raised in the Chamber today, may we have an early debate on the calibre of candidates chosen by the Conservative party to stand in local government elections? It has come to the attention of my constituents that my Tory predecessor, the racist Terry Dicks, has been selected in Runnymede to stand for local government. Hon. Members will recall that that creature went on a paid trip to Baghdad, at Saddam Hussein's expense, returned to the House and tried to justify Iraq's statement that the Kurds were not gassed in Halaji. He then supported the hanging of the Observer journalist Fazal Barzoft by Saddam Hussein. I would welcome an early debate to expose that character, who has yet again been selected by the Tory party.
Mr. John M. Taylor: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Gentleman to refer to my former colleague Terry Dicks as a racist? It sounds to me a most unparliamentary word to use.
Madam Speaker: Members are responsible for the comments that they make. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) referred to an individual who is not a Member of the House. I do believe that, when we make comments on anyone, whether they are a Member or whether they are outside, we should be very careful in what we say, and that we should be able to say those words outside this House and substantiate them. I cautioned Members on these matters only yesterday.
Mrs. Taylor: There is no ministerial responsibility for Conservative candidates in local elections.
Mr. Nick Gibb: As everyone knows, the decision making on the site of the new Welsh assembly has been a complete shambles, and the Secretary of State for Wales is even dithering about when and how to make the announcement. Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Secretary of State for Wales, when he finally reaches a decision, instead of making that announcement in a written answer or in a press conference outside the House, to come to the House to make a statement, so that all Back Benchers have an opportunity to question him?
Mrs. Taylor: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will keep the House informed. The manner in which he does so must be for his judgment.
Mr. Christopher Leslie: May I echo the call by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) for us to hold a debate very soon about the way in which the Tories ripped off so many pensioners? I should like to refer specifically to the National Audit Office report published yesterday, which showed that when the water companies were privatised, all the choice, best bits of the pension funds went to private firms, and they left the taxpayer with a bill of £400 million to prop up the ailing pensions for workers in the previously nationalised water service.
Mrs. Taylor: I am tempted to arrange a debate on that matter, because the National Audit Office report shows

759
the ridiculous, outrageous waste of taxpayers' money by the previous, Conservative Government in their rush, driven by dogma, to sell off the water industry. However, as I have said on other occasions, although there is much for which we would want to expose the previous Government, we cannot always find time to debate all those issues.
Mr. Nigel Evans: Has the Leader of the House seen early-day motion 914 signed by many hon. Members on both sides of the House?
[That this House is concerned about the unwelcome proposals to change BBC networked parliamentary programmes and views with great concern the proposals to cut back political coverage in the regions; greatly values the contribution to informed political debate by the BBC's regional weekly political programmes; urges the Corporation to retain and enhance these as a vital link between honourable Members and their constituents; and further urges the BBC to retain its regional reporting presence at Westminster.]
I believe that the BBC would be wrong to implement its proposals to cut regional political programmes, especially the political reviews that usually take place at the weekend, which are an important link between Members of Parliament at Westminster and their regions, showing what we do in the House and the importance of that work to the regions.
Although I support the BBC's plans for 24-hour news programming, it would be a mistake if that sucked away money that would usually be spent on political programmes for the regions. A debate in the House might show how much backing regional political programmes have from hon. Members.
Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman has raised an issue of concern to hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber. He knows that the chairman of the BBC has been in the House today to discuss those issues and the broadcasting of such programmes as "Today in Parliament" with hon. Members who have an interest.
I understand that my hon. Friends are always pleased to see the hon. Gentleman on his own regional television programme, and I am sure that his comments will be noted by those in the BBC.
Dr. Desmond Turner: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the recently published report of the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs entitled "Sewage Treatment and Disposal"? I agree that that is not the most obviously sexy topic, but it is of extreme interest to those who, like me, represent coastal constituencies, where sewage disposal is a matter of great public concern and an important public health issue. Therefore, it would be very helpful if we could debate the report at the earliest possible opportunity. Can the Leader of the House offer any assistance in that regard?
Mrs. Taylor: For the reasons I gave earlier, I do not think that I can hold out the prospect of an early debate in Government time. My hon. Friend will be aware that two Select Committee reports will be debated a week on Wednesday. The reports are chosen by the Liaison
760
Committee, so perhaps my hon. Friend would like to make representations to that Committee about the topics for future debates in that slot.
Mr. Mike Hancock: I should be grateful if the Leader of the House would prevail on her Cabinet colleague the Secretary of State for Health to hold an early debate in the House on nurse training, particularly in Portsmouth and south-east Hampshire. If the Leader of the House is not prepared to allow such a debate, I ask that the Secretary of State be prompted to investigate the way in which nurse training in Portsmouth and south-east Hampshire has been conducted and how it will be dealt with in future.
Mrs. Taylor: I cannot promise a debate, but I will ensure that my right hon. Friend is made aware of the hon. Gentleman's interest in the matter.
Mr. Derek Twigg: I am sure that the Leader of the House welcomes the fact that our right hon. Friend the Home Secretary met representatives of the Hillsborough families last Saturday and has agreed to a further meeting. However, my right hon. Friend will be aware of the keen interest in Merseyside and beyond about when a debate will take place on Lord Justice Stuart-Smith's scrutiny of evidence report. It is obviously important that that should occur as soon as possible. Is she in a position today to confirm that a debate will take place, and say when that might be?
Mrs. Taylor: That important topic has been raised several times during business questions. I have explained to my hon. Friends and others the difficulty of providing time for an early debate. I hope that, in the not too distant future, I shall be able to give an idea of what may be possible. However, I do not wish to hold out the prospect of an early debate on this matter, for the reasons that I gave earlier.
Mr. Tom Brake: Can the Leader of the House say when the Modernisation Committee will consider private Members' Bills, particularly the Road Traffic Reduction (United Kingdom Targets) Bill? What should happen when two Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen cannot agree their party line on an issue, leading one Conservative Member to ask, "At what point does a short speech become a long bore"?
Madam Speaker: Order. I do not think that that is a question for the Leader of the House to answer. We are discussing next week's business.
Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: Following the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan), will the Leader of the House talk to Ministers about the time it takes to provide answers to written questions and about the quality of the answers provided? I tabled a question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer more than a month ago, and I have just collected yesterday's Hansard in order to confirm the inadequacy of that delayed response. I put down a written question because it concerned a technical matter that was better suited to a civil service reply than an oral answer.
It deserved a proper response. If the Leader of the House looks at column 208 of yesterday's Hansard, she will see the inadequacy of the Chancellor's answer.
Mrs. Taylor: I cannot, and do not intend to, have a debate on that matter. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was present when I said earlier that I would be writing to my colleagues about the difficulties experienced with delays in answering letters from Members. Variations on that complaint, including points about questions, have been drawn to people's attention. I have made it clear that I take that issue seriously—as I have during business questions on other occasions—and I explained earlier what I shall do about it.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. During business questions, the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell)—who has now left the Chamber—referred to my former hon. Friend Mr. Terry Dicks. Unfortunately, I have not been able to notify the hon. Gentleman of my point of order, but I think it right to put the matter on the record very quickly. The hon. Gentleman has paid Terry Dicks some £15,000 in damages and £52,000 in costs. Therefore, it appears that this afternoon we have witnessed a personal vendetta, using the protection of parliamentary procedure. I hope that you will examine this matter, Madam Speaker, and perhaps study the accusations that were made.
Madam Speaker: The point of order gives me an opportunity once again to deplore the personal attacks that are unfortunately being made with increasing frequency, not only on hon. Members but on individuals outside the House. I remind everyone here that one of our most cherished privileges is the freedom of speech, but that privilege, as I said only this week, has to be tempered with responsibility. Personal attacks enhance neither the quality of our debate nor the reputation of the House. Hon. Members should always bear in mind "Erskine May" which states:
762
"Good temper and moderation are the characteristics of parliamentary language."
I think that those words are as appropriate today as they were when they were written.
Although the House is not full, I hope that those responsible will see that my words are brought to the attention of every hon. Member.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. The problem arises on both sides of the House. For example, last week, the shadow Chancellor said that I had £356,000 in a pension fund. I went to the Fees Office the following morning to ask whether I could get hold of that money. I said that if I could get the cash, I could leave. The lady there said, "I'm awfully sorry, Mr. Skinner. If you retired today, you'd get something over £20,000." However, only the day before, the shadow Chancellor had told the House an untruth. Two newspapers printed the story, and I had to seek the services of a lawyer in order to get corrections.
I did not come to you, Madam Speaker, to whinge and whine, but it ought to be made abundantly clear that members of the Tory Front Bench are at it just as much as any Labour Back Benchers.
Madam Speaker: The words that I used were carefully chosen. They apply to all Members, whether or not they are Privy Councillors and on whichever Front Bench they might sit.
I was here when the exchange to which the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) refers took place, and I read the newspaper reports afterwards. I am delighted that his pension is not what was suggested; otherwise he might have taken his cards and gone home, and we would rather have him here than in Bolsover.
Mr. Skinner: I could have taken a world cruise.
Madam Speaker: I hope you would take me with you.

Orders of the Day
  European Parliamentary Elections Bill
  As amended in the Committee, considered.
  European Parliamentary Elections Bill
    New clause 4

      REVIEW OF ALTERNATIVE VOTING SYSTEMS
      '.—(1) The Secretary of State shall establish an independent review of the advantages and disadvantages of the electoral system established under this Act, as compared to (a) an open list system and (b) the first past the post system, but excluding any consideration of party political advantage.

      (2) The review shall commence no sooner than 12 months after the election date for the 1999 European Elections and shall report no later than two years after the said election date.

      (3) The review shall be conducted under the auspices of a Speaker's Conference.

      (4) The review shall be required to seek evidence from the public.

      (5) "Independent" in subsection (1) means not subject to control by any political party.'.—[Mr. Clappison.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      4.16 pm
      Mr. James Clappison: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 10, in clause 1, page 2, line 1, leave out from 'cast' to end of line 2 and insert—
      'in one of the following ways—

      (a) for a registered party;

      (b) for a candidate listed as a member of a registered party; or

      (c) for an individual candidate not listed as a member of a registered party.'.

      No. 9, in page 2, line 2, after 'candidate', insert
      ',whether or not the candidate is a member of a registered party,'.
      No. 11, in page 2, line 4, after 'candidate', insert
      'not listed as a member of a registered party'.
      No. 12, in page 2, line 4, at end insert
      ',with votes for candidates listed as members of a registered party counting towards the total vote of that party.'.
      No. 13, in page 2, line 16, leave out from 'filled' to end of line 18 and insert—
      'as follows:

      (a) a quota for each party shall be determined which is equal to the total number of votes cast for the party divided by the number of seats to be allocated, plus one;

      (b) votes cast for the candidate at the top of the party list shall be compared with the number of votes cast for the registered party to which that candidate belongs;

      (c) where the candidate has more votes than the quota, that candidate is elected without transferring any surplus votes;

      (d) where the candidate has fewer votes than the quota, the votes for that candidate shall be added to until the quota is reached, the candidate is elected, and the number of votes cast for the party is reduced accordingly;

      (e) this process continues until all seats have been allocated for each candidate in the order in which they appear on the list until the number of votes cast for the party is
      764
      zero, except where there are insufficient votes in the number of votes cast for the party to bring a candidate up to the quota, in which case those votes are allocated to the next person on the list with sufficient votes;

      (f) if it is not possible to bring another candidate up to the quota required for election, the candidate with the highest vote who has not been elected shall be elected;

      (g) where there is one seat to be filled and two candidates have the same number of votes, the candidate placed higher on the list shall be elected.'.

      Mr. Clappison: The new clause and amendment No. 9 reflect our belief that the first-past-the-post system, which we currently use for European elections, has many advantages, and is certainly far better than the system that the Government propose in the Bill. We know that we have many allies in this, and we think that we may have some of whom we were not aware earlier but who may not be prepared to reveal themselves to us. However, we know that there is a widespread feeling that the first-past-the-post system has served the House well, and that it also serves the country well for the European elections.
      The more we learn about the Bill, and the more we see of the Government's approach to it, the more we think that a review will eventually be called for and that it will be beneficial. It will prove that the first-past-the-post system does indeed have significant advantages over that which the Government are putting in place, not least because of what has happened with regard to closed and open lists. These are one of the least desirable features of the Bill, although it has many undesirable features.
      When the Government first unveiled their proposals last October, there was widespread criticism of their adoption of the model with closed lists, whereby electors would not have the opportunity to express a preference between individual candidates of different parties—something which happens in some other systems which use a regional list.
      I shall quote one of those comments, which I think puts the matter rather well. The Times stated:
      "This is bad for democracy and will be bad, eventually, for the parties too. The Government plans to introduce the worst possible kind of PR for the European elections." Its 'closed list' system allows voters no say over which candidate they want: they can merely vote for a party, which will then appoint its own placemen to the Parliament."
      The proposal for a closed list earned few friends when it was debated on Second Reading in November. It was seen as a system whereby the Government were not prepared to allow electors to make a choice between different candidates, any more than they were prepared to allow their own party members the chance to decide the order of candidates themselves, which is something else to emerge during our consideration of the Bill.
      We were not entirely surprised, given the criticism of and lack of support for the closed list system, when on Second Reading the Home Secretary indicated a willingness to listen to arguments for adopting a different system. The right hon. Gentleman chose to highlight a Belgian system. To be fair to him, he gave no guarantees at that stage; he said that he had an open mind. He put a paper on the Belgian electoral system in the Library.

      765
      The Home Secretary may now regret some of his comments.
      The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): No.
      Mr. Clappison: The right hon. Gentleman says that he does not, but he will recollect that he chose to advance his consultation in a rather partisan way. If I remember correctly, he said that his was a party and a Government who were prepared to listen, including listening to the arguments. Perhaps that was not entirely wise. That seems to be so, given what has taken place since he made those remarks.
      The Home Secretary might care to address the question why he chose the Belgian system out of all the systems that are available. A debate on that issue took place in part when the Bill was considered in Committee. The Home Secretary mentioned the Belgian system together with the Danish system. We would like to hear a little more from the right hon. Gentleman about why he chose the Belgian system rather than the Danish.
      The Home Secretary said that he would be prepared to listen to learn how Members on both sides of the House perceived the Belgian system. I can assist him, because every Opposition Member, including probably the Liberal Democrats, thinks that the closed-list system is wretched and rotten. I would be surprised if many voices were raised in support of it on the Government Benches. When the right hon. Gentleman responds to the debate, perhaps he will tell us how many representations he received in favour of the closed list.
      We apprehend that not even Labour Back Benchers had much of an appetite for a system so alien to our traditions in this country. It is a system that would deprive the electorate of the chance to vote for an individual candidate of a party.
      We know that some Labour Back Benchers tabled an amendment in Committee. These were the hon. Members for Stroud (Mr. Drew) and for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Twigg).
      Mr. John Greenway: Where are they?
      Mr. Clappison: That is a matter for them.
      The hon. Members for Stroud and for Southgate tabled an amendment, and argued in favour of it.
      Mr. Robert Syms: It is interesting that the little rebellion that took place on the Government Back Benches to promote an open list seems to have disappeared now that the Home Secretary has made up his mind.
      Mr. Clappison: My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. We know that some Labour Back Benchers originally wanted the Government to think again, and they tabled an amendment to enable the Government to do so. Were the Government listening to them, we wonder. How much weight did the Government give to Labour Members' representations? We suspect that the answer is, not a lot, and we take that view on some rather good grounds.
      766
      We now learn that, at more or less the same time, when Labour Back Benchers were tabling an amendment to enable the Government to think again about the closed list system and to think instead of having an open list system, the Government were not listening to them, but instead had commissioned a focus group to give them some ideas for the voting process. It is interesting that the group carried out its work at some time around 20 February, according to the documents that the Home Secretary placed in the Library, and reported on 28 February. The mechanics of how the group came about is a matter for the Home Secretary.
      The Home Secretary looks perplexed. The focus group reported to him on 28 February, and carried out its field work between 20 and 23 February. We do not know why it took place at that time. We wonder whether it was a last-ditch effort by the Government to justify the course they were taking. We shall listen with interest to the Home Secretary telling us about the representations he received in favour of the closed list system.
      The Government did not listen to their Back Benchers, but chose instead to listen to the focus group. I suggest that, if Labour Members—I know that several of them are deeply interested in electoral reform—want to influence their Government, it is no use tabling amendments for the Home Secretary to answer in debate. They should write to Phoenix Fieldwork Ltd., 71-73 High street, Barnet, Herts, and ask whether they can become part of a focus group. However, I advise them that they had better be careful when they make their application.
      I have looked at the way in which the people in the focus group were selected—it was helpful of the Home Secretary to place this document in the Library. They were carefully screened, and, when interviewed, were asked whether they were a member of a political party, Charter 88, the Electoral Reform Society, and whether they were a local councillor, union representative or chairman of a professional organisation. The document says:
      "If yes to any of the above—close interview".
      There is not much chance of them being listened to in the focus group, so they had better be careful what they say when they try to participate in it.
      Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: Who paid for the focus group?
      Mr. Clappison: That is a good question. To be fair to the present Government, the previous Government sometimes commissioned focus groups to get responses on particular issues, but this is the first time that I have seen answers given to a focus group being cited as a reason for the Government to pursue a policy. The Home Secretary might correct me on that. The research was carried out at a late stage, and the Government were determined, apparently, to ignore their supporters.
      This is a Government who set great store by the views of the focus group. The written answer that the Home Secretary placed in the Library shows that he and the Government relied on the group as a reason for continuing with the closed list system. His reply clearly shows that he was relying on its findings. He said:
      "the NOP study demonstrated most people vote for parties rather than individuals."

      767
      I am not an expert on focus groups or electoral research, but, as I read the group's document, I began to doubt whether that was the view of the focus group. Time and again, it seemed that the people who were approached by Phoenix Fieldwork Ltd., who did not include anybody who might possibly have any interest in or knowledge of the subject, wanted a choice. When the systems were explained, the members of the focus group—there were only 48 at most—wanted a say over individual candidates.
      There were difficulties. I read with some bemusement, in view of earlier debates, the comments of the focus group. It said:
      "Voters are generally unable to appreciate the implementation of the d'Hondt divisor unless a graphic example is demonstrated to them. With a textual description voters struggle."
      Many hon. Members will say, amen to that. Someone plucked off the street in the west midlands or Surrey, which is where the survey was conducted, and told about the d'Hondt divisor would think that the questioner had taken leave of his senses.
      4.30 pm
      Notwithstanding the difficulties the focus group evidently had, I was struck by the fact that, time and again, it was in favour of being given a choice. I do not want to be partisan about this, and I am not an expert in focus groups, so the Home Secretary will be pleased to know that I consulted Professor Ian Maclean of Oxford university. I hope the Home Secretary will not mind, but I took the step of sending him a copy of the focus group document for his views as someone learned in these matters.
      I asked Professor Maclean whether he shared my surprise at the Government's conclusions, and whether he thought that the Government were right in their assertion that the NOP study demonstrated that most people vote for parties rather than individuals. He said:
      "I cannot see that it demonstrated that, as it was not designed to demonstrate that one way or the other. The quoted remarks of focus group members include some on each side of that question. As it was a qualitative, not a quantitative, survey, adding up the responses on each side and taking the side which received more to be the majority would be an unsound procedure."
      He went on:
      "The NOP study was designed to test which of the two systems focus group members preferred. It showed that they preferred the Belgium system to the closed list system."
      That left me even more perplexed. I await the Home Secretary's considered views on the matter.
      I do not know which is worse—a Government who are so arrogant that they trust exclusively the views of focus groups rather than the House of Commons, or a Government who are so incompetent that they get the views of the focus group wrong. The Government do not understand their own focus group, so heaven help us.
      Mr. Richard Allan: Does the hon. Gentleman share my impression of the outcome of that survey, which is that a significant number of people wish to vote for a party, but that those who get involved with a system want to vote for individuals, and the Belgian system will satisfy both groups because it gives the option of party or individual?
      Mr. Clappison: I hope that I will not disappoint the hon. Gentleman too much when I give him our standard
      768
      health warning, which is that we think that the first-past-the-post system is the best. We said that at the beginning. From the rest of the systems, the Government have chosen the worst, without any reason or justification in logic.
      The Home Secretary's logic is no better than his maths. His reason for not wanting the Belgian system is that it does not necessarily translate preferences for individual candidates into electoral success. It is somewhat strange that he should think that not necessarily translating preferences into electoral success is a defect when the system he proposes will never, by definition, translate individual preferences into electoral success, because it will be impossible to express any individual preferences. We should like to hear the Home Secretary's justification for that logic.
      We would also like the Home Secretary to justify the exercise that he has been carrying out, which he described as consultation. If we strip away the NOP survey, there is precious little else in the way of justification for the course taken by the Government. The Home Secretary's written answer refers to what he describes as the "incurable weakness" of the Belgian system, which I have just described. However, he knew full well about that on Second Reading, and he told the House so. The Home Secretary looks puzzled, but I have here his comments on Second Reading. He made it abundantly clear that he was fully aware of that feature of the system.
      Discussing voter preferences, the right hon. Gentleman said:
      "On the other hand, that is marginally more complex than the present simple system that we propose, and it is possible for a candidate low down on a party list to receive many personal votes—perhaps more than those of his or her party colleagues—yet still not be elected, because the weight of party votes helps those higher up the list."—[Official Report, 25 November 1997; Vol. 301, c. 814.]
      That is the self-same reason that the Home Secretary gave, in his written answer last Monday, for not adopting this system, yet he knew that all along, and told the House about it on Second Reading.
      The Home Secretary has engaged in a consultation, and it seems that nobody wants the system he was consulting on. I am certainly aware of no expert opinion or surveys of public opinion in favour of it, and no such opinion has been expressed in this House. We wonder about opinion among Labour Back Benchers. Not even the Government's focus group wants the system he has prepared, so to whom has the Home Secretary been listening during the consultation period?
      We appreciate the Home Secretary's good intentions, but the longer we look at this matter, the less wise we think the partisan comments about consultation were that the Home Secretary made on Second Reading. He might now wish to reconsider those comments, because the consultation has produced nothing in the way of change or additional justification for the steps that the Government are taking. Just for once, the Government should eat a little humble pie, if they can manage to do so.
      I say that with some sadness, because, after the wild goose chase on which the Home Secretary has embarked, we have ended up with a system that is unique in Europe because of the power that it gives to the central party machine. The Home Secretary looks puzzled. I made the same assertion in an earlier debate and explained that no other country in the European Union uses such a system

      769
      because it involves the use of a closed list system at a regional level. Having made inquiries about that, the Home Secretary will have found that no other European country has such a system.
      The centralised party control that such a system gives is the feature that matters most to the Government. From beginning to end, in every conceivable way, the Government's real priority has been to put power in the hands of the party machine. We regret the fact that they have abandoned a good system that worked well—that of individual candidates and constituencies. That is alien to our traditions.
      For the first time, when voters cast their votes they will be confronted with a ballot paper containing just a party name. The individuals who will represent them regionally will be back-room people chosen as party placemen. We shall have a uniquely bad system of party control. It is well worth voting for the new clause, which will give the House an opportunity to reconsider that thoroughly bad and centralised party system at a later date.
      Mr. Robert Maclennan: The speech of the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison), to which the House has just listened with interest, was not compelling in its advocacy, and was personally abusive of the Home Secretary. He suggested that the consultative exercise in which the Home Secretary engaged was a sham. That conclusion is not justified. I confess to being disappointed with the Home Secretary's conclusions on this matter, which is why I tabled amendments Nos. 10 to 13.
      The system proposed in our amendments, to which the Home Secretary has undoubtedly given some thought, avoids the less attractive aspects of the system proposed in the Bill, which would prevent voters from voting for a candidate on a party list. However, the electoral system proposed in the Bill is immeasurably preferable to the current system, and the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) was speaking out of both sides of his mouth in attacking a closed list system, for we currently have a closed list system of one, with no voter choice at all. He is not in the best position to argue for the kind of changes that we have advocated.
      Mr. Sayeed: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain whether he is saying that the present system, under which a local party's election candidate is chosen from a group of candidates by its paid-up members, is a one choice system?
      Mr. Maclennan: I am saying exactly that. Internal party democracy may apply to the selection of a single candidate, but the electorate at large have to accept the activists' choice. Partly for that reason, we enthusiastically endorse a list system which would allow greater choice. Still greater choice would be allowed if the Government accepted an open list system, in particular the one that we advocate: the Belgian system, which is semi-open and allows choice of party or of individual.
      The Home Secretary said on Second Reading on 25 November that he would consider arguments for adopting the Belgian system, and I have no doubt that he has given the matter careful attention, in good faith. Many
      770
      representations, from my hon. Friends and from others, have been made about that system, but we know from the written answer given by the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), on 5 March to my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell) that no representations were made in favour of closed lists.
      It is incumbent on the Government to say why they came down so heavily against the weight of those representations. Evidence in support of open lists was submitted by Charter 88 and the Electoral Reform Society, and by a number of other respected organisations. Between Second Reading and the recent announcement of the Home Secretary's decision, polls and focus group studies have been carried out to assess public attitude to the open list system.
      The hon. Member for Hertsmere referred to a focus group study commissioned by the Home Secretary. The largest survey was carried out by Professor Patrick Dunleavy of the London School of Economics, who questioned 1,130 people. It concluded:
      "it is likely that a clear majority of voters in the 1999 elections would prefer to see an open list."
      The McDougall Trust commissioned National Opinion Polls to run eight focus groups in January, and it concluded:
      "although voters claim to vote on the basis of a party, they react strongly to the removal of the right to select a candidate for themselves".
      The NOP survey for the Home Office found:
      "voters can react strongly to the removal of the right to select a candidate for themselves, even if they tend to vote on the basis of party".
      The Home Office and McDougall Trust studies state that voters
      "react strongly to the removal of the right to select a candidate for themselves".
      That is important, because voter turnout is a significant consideration. Turnout at the 1994 European elections was about a third of those eligible to vote. If the finding that voters "react strongly" implies reduced voter turnout, there is a risk that turnout will be less than a third in the elections next year. It is our duty to do all we can to ensure a greater turnout, and it is our view that some voter choice in the election of candidates is one way of achieving that.
      Mr. Christopher Gill: Is it the right hon. Gentleman's understanding, as it is mine, that the Government justify the Bill by saying that it will lead to greater voter participation than does the current system?
      4.45 pm
      Mr. Maclennan: The Minister will no doubt explain his thinking, but that is one of the arguments that moved my party to advocate a change of electoral system. There is a serious risk of that benefit being eroded, and the hon. Gentleman obviously agrees with me.
      In a written answer, the Home Secretary stated that the Belgian system
      "suffers from a fundamental and incurable weakness, in that voters' preferences for individual candidates are not necessarily translated into electoral success."—[Official Report, 9 March 1998; Vol. 308, c. 17–18.]

      771
      That is true, and it was known last November, when the right hon. Gentleman agreed to consider the Belgian system. However, voters' preferences can lead to a change in the candidates who are elected. That would not happen in every case, but the system provides for voters to overturn the decision of a political party.
      Other systems are available. The Home Secretary knows that we prefer the single transferable vote system, but he said on Second Reading that he would consider only the Belgian system, which allows limited voter choice. An open list system with candidates listed alphabetically or randomly would be preferable, and would overcome what he described as a "fundamental and incurable weakness".
      The Home Secretary also justifies his decision by saying that the NOP study shows that most people vote for parties rather than for individuals. Whether or not that is true, it is not supported by the work carried out by NOP, and I agree with the hon. Member for Hertsmere on this point. NOP concluded that voters can
      "react strongly to the removal of the right to select a candidate for themselves, even if they tend to vote on the basis of party".
      The NOP study also concluded that,
      "when understood, the Belgian system is considered fairer, but ensuring it is understood is likely to be more difficult".
      That is a fair point, and I want to be utterly fair to the Home Secretary in my arguments. However, Professor Dunleavy's report found that 80 per cent. of people were able to fill in the Belgian-style ballot paper immediately, and without explanation. We hope that an explanation will be provided, although the Government have not given their views on that.
      The Home Secretary also says in his written answer that the system in the Bill is used by the majority of European Union citizens to elect MEPs. It is true that closed lists are used in Germany, France, Spain, Greece and Portugal, but in all those countries the regions used are far larger than in the United Kingdom, and have at least 25 Members—it is up to 99 members in Germany.
      The system in the Bill provides for between four and 11 Members per region. A closed list system might be more appropriate in Germany because it would not be reasonable to expect voters to know the candidates when they are electing from 99 members. In most European countries where regions are small, as in the United Kingdom, or where national delegations are small, some form of open list is used.
      The arguments in support of open lists are overwhelming, and is confirmed by the polling and focus group research. That is why I urge hon. Members to support amendments Nos. 10 to 13, to allow voters an opportunity to influence the election of candidates to represent them.
      This is not the final stage of the Bill's consideration by Parliament, and I profoundly hope that the arguments we are deploying will be considered carefully by the Government, not only this afternoon but between now and the Bill's later stages. I hope that the Government will, as hitherto, approach this with an open mind. I hope that they do not firmly close the door to all the representations that have been made and seek to justify something that appears to have no parentage—an argument for closed lists—and which no one other but they appears to be prepared to support.
      Mr. Sayeed: I remember the current Home Secretary during the late 1960s and early 1970s. He was a firebrand
      772
      for democracy. He constantly asserted the rights of the individual, and complained about the arrogance of Government. Despite his political allegiance, then and now, I sometimes find myself in agreement with him. Let me say to him publicly what I have said to him privately; in the face of his recent personal difficulties, I believe that he has acted with considerable dignity. Anything that I say later in my speech is not said out of any personal animosity.
      It is said that in the youth one can see the man. The Home Secretary's decision to opt for a closed list makes me doubt that truism. No one who has held true to their beliefs in democracy or who believes in the rights of the individual would be proposing a system so pernicious, undemocratic and contemptuous of the people. It allows the party machine, and only the party machine, to decide who is selected, the precedence of that selection, and, consequently, who is elected to represent the people of our country.
      No amount of bluster, which we heard a great deal of on Second Reading, no amount of statistics, which were used a great deal in Committee, no examples from foreign lands, more of which we will probably hear today, and no bombardment of partial statistics, which we have had throughout the Bill's consideration, can deny one central point—that the closed list system reduces the individual voter to mere voting fodder. It is Tammany Hall writ large.
      There is no need for a Member of the European Parliament elected under the closed list system to consider the wishes of their constituents, and there will be no need for them to attempt to inform or persuade the electorate. The only thing an MEP elected under that system need do is keep the party manager sweet. That means toeing the party line. It means that anyone who does not toe the party line will be relegated to a low place on the list, and consigned to electoral oblivion.
      I must tell Labour Members—I am sorry that there are not more democrats in their places today—that anyone who contemplates rebelling or becoming a member of the awkward squad had better beware. What the Government intend to do today for European parliamentary elections may happen tomorrow for Westminster elections. Those who believe that dissent, debate, discussion and argument are essential ingredients of democracy will not be able to argue against a closed list system for Westminster elections if they have supported the closed list system for European elections.
      Some of our greatest legislators were, at times, members of the awkward squad, including Wilberforce on the slave trade, Shaftesbury on philanthropic causes, Disraeli on the corn laws, Peel and Burke on Catholic emancipation, Churchill and Eden over appeasement, Macmillan on economic policy, and even Kinnock, Crossman, Bevan and Thorneycroft. Had they been subject to this form of legislation, they would never have been re-elected.
      The decision to break the constituency link and divide our nation into 11 enormous regions, with the absurdity of an individual being elected to represent 5 million constituents, is bound to damage the bond between the elector and their representative. I believe that, before the general election, no one would have believed that a Government of any political persuasion would be so crass

      773
      and arrogant as to change government for the people, by the people into government by the party clone, for the party machine.
      Perhaps as depressing as anything else is the craven and slovenly attitude of the fourth estate, which seems to take no notice of what is happening in this country. I remember my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) contemptuously saying that those in the Press Gallery were like the hallelujah chorus because of their parroting of the Government's praises. I wish that my hon. Friend was present today, because I could tell him that at least they used to use their own words. Now they seem to regurgitate the Labour party's spun doctrine.
      Cannot the fourth estate understand the damage that is being done to our constitution—the one-sided settlement in Scotland, the lack of support in Wales, the decision to change the upper House without proposing anything that might be better, and now the decision on the closed list system, which is a denial of democracy? The press seem to be almost drunk on the nectar of Government patronage, and have forgotten that they have a responsibility to educate, inform and explain to the people of this country that they are losing rights that they have cherished and protections that they have enjoyed.
      Mr. Richard Burden: There are many views on both sides of the House about the open and closed list systems. If the hon. Gentleman is so interested in democracy, will he explain how, under the present system, in the last European election over 4 million people, accounting for about 27 per cent. of the total vote, managed to elect between them 2 per cent. of the MEPs?
      Mr. Sayeed: I think that I need notice of that question to answer it properly. As I believe in giving clear answers to proper questions, I am sorry that I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman's question. What I am clear about is that the first-past-the-post system is better than the system that is being proposed.
      I issue a warning to the Labour Government. They had better beware, because what is done by them may at some stage be done to them. The arrogance that they are displaying with their proposals may come back to haunt them, because they will, at some stage—I hope sooner rather than later—lose an election. This denial of democracy, contempt for people's views and arrogant assumption that any form of dissent is wrong, will be used against them by others who equally disdain democracy.
      Other hon. Members have mentioned that only one third of the electorate voted in the last European election. If voters are convinced, as they will be by this measure, that they are only voting fodder, used to endorse the yes men of a party system that they dislike, that figure will fall even further. To refuse to allow every voter a choice of which individual to support is wrong. It diminishes the value of their vote and reduces their respect for parliamentary democracy. The closed list system puts the party first. Anyone who believes in the dictum, "My country first, my constituency second, my party third," must oppose this anti-democratic measure.
      5 pm
      Mr. Gill: I support new clause 4. As I said in an intervention on the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan), my understanding is that the Government are justifying the Bill not least on the basis that it will generate greater interest and greater public participation in European elections and in the European Parliament. Of course, it has to be said that, in the three European elections since direct elections to the European Parliament began, public participation has left much to be desired. As has already been mentioned, the prospect is that participation in the forthcoming European election will be even less.
      That is a serious consideration. If participation in next year's European election is less than in the previous European election—I predict that it will be, an opinion that seems to be shared by other hon. Members—there must be an opportunity to conduct a review after that election of the workings of the Bill, which will almost certainly reach the statute book because of the Government's enormous majority in this place.
      After the election in 1999, there must be an opportunity to seek the public's views, not least on the erosion or destruction of the geographical link between a Member of the European Parliament and the area he represents. We need to give the public an opportunity to tell us how that has worked in practice—what the practical effects of destroying that link have been.
      We also need to consult the public on the removal of an MEP who, post the election in June 1999, proves, for whatever reason, to be unsatisfactory. That person, who is elected by this arcane system, may turn out to be thoroughly unsuitable and perhaps even corrupt. The public's view should be taken about a system that effectively takes away from them the right, which they have had for hundreds of years, personally to remove an unsatisfactory representative in their Parliament.
      In the light of those two features that I have mentioned—the ending of the geographical link and the Government's failure to answer the question of how the electorate get rid of an unsatisfactory MEP—after next year's election we have to be prepared to give the public an opportunity to comment on how the MEPs perform under the new system. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) has said, we are creating a regime that is unique in the degree of power that it gives to centralised party control. That is totally alien to all our traditions, another point that was made by my hon. Friend. It allows the MEPs, who will have been elected by this system of proportional representation, to treat the electors—the people who put them there—with total indifference.
      Labour Members may feel that they can condone that situation or that it need not concern the House, but the Government are making a terribly anti-democratic step. The removal of the electors' right to select candidates themselves and to hold those people, whom they ultimately select and elect, to account is a departure from this country's traditions of democracy. I genuinely believe that we shall come to regret the removal of that right. It displays an extraordinary arrogance on the part of Government and contempt on the part of politicians who promote and are in favour of the Bill, and who clearly put themselves above the people. They are contemptuous of the people who elected them to Parliament.

      775
      My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) made many good common-sense points, and I endorse them all. I hope that the House listened to what he said, because it was correct. I can relate it to my experience. I hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you will bear with me if I relate that personal experience, because it demonstrates the way in which the link between a Member of Parliament and a constituency, and the relationship between Parliament, the Member and the people he represents, are all-important.
      In November 1994, the party Whip was withdrawn from me and seven of my colleagues. We were without it for six months. What happened was not what the Government had anticipated. They had, I am sure, anticipated that those eight Conservative Members would disappear without trace and never be heard of again, but what happened—I want the whole House to hear this, because it is important and relates directly to the question of democracy—is that my constituents and those of the other seven Members made it clear that they supported the people they had elected to this Parliament, and not the Government. Therefore, those eight Members of Parliament were sustained by the electorate who had put them there in the first place.
      The relationship between a Member of Parliament, the people who elect him and his duties and responsibilities in Parliament are finely balanced. If we take out of the equation any one aspect of that, we destroy the democratic process that we have known for so long. The Bill is taking out of the equation the most important factor—the right of electors to select their candidates.
      Mr. Martin Linton: If the hon. Gentleman believes that his position was sustained by the electorate of Ludlow, can he explain how it was that Labour and the Liberal Democrats won 55 per cent. of the vote and he won only 42 per cent.?
      Mr. Gill: That is the British system of parliamentary democracy. I do not know whether you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would allow me to answer that question without ruling me out of order, as it takes us into a different argument—that between proportional representation and the first-past-the-post system. I am quite content to argue that point, but I am trying to confine my remarks to new clause 4, which proposes that a review procedure should be written into the Bill to allow us to revisit the matter after the next European elections in June 1999, when we shall have an opportunity to review the outcome of those elections.
      I am not alone in believing that the turnout at those elections will be even lower than in previous European elections. New clause 4 would also provide a chance to look at other aspects of the system. Will it be apparent at that stage whether MEPs are becoming indifferent to the people who elect them? Will the new system of being answerable only to the party—the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire—rather than the electorate lead, as I believe it will, to corruption in politics on a scale that we have never known before?
      In spite of what the general public might be led to believe by the less responsible organs of the press, British politics is very incorrupt. We have a very honest system of government. We have honest politics because we are all answerable to the people who put us here, and they
      776
      hold us to account. If the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) were here this evening, I am sure that he would agree with that. My colleagues and I rail against the fact that the Bill removes the direct link by which an MEP is answerable to his electorate. As in the instance I gave earlier, on occasion a Member of Parliament is sustained by the electors if he goes against the Government or takes a stand on a matter of principle or an issue that he considers vital to the country and which must come before his constituency and even his party.
      New clause 4 should be included in the Bill as a guarantee that the Government will provide an opportunity to re-examine the way in which the Bill works in practice.
      Mr. Allan: I support the amendments referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan), which seek to include in the Bill the concept of an open list.
      The Liberal Democrats seek two broad objectives from any electoral system. First, it should be generally proportional, as that is essential for the democratic process, and non-proportional systems can never achieve our democratic goal. Secondly, it should seek to maximise voter choice. The proposed system goes a long way towards our first objective of increased proportionality, and for that reason we support it. However, if the Government do not accept the amendments in respect of an open list, they will have failed to take an important step towards increasing voter choice.
      The best system to achieve both our objectives is the single transferable vote, and we remain committed to that, wherever possible, but clearly it was not to be included in the Bill. The crucial point is that the proposed system does not take us further away from voter choice than the first-past-the-post system. Although it makes no progress, it is not a step backwards.
      The hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) condemned the pernicious nature of the proposed system, but I would challenge him to say that the current first-past-the-post system is not equally pernicious. Once a group of party members have selected a candidate, if voters wish to vote for a Conservative, Labour or Liberal Democrat member, they have only one choice. Many decent, honourable Conservative Members lost their seats because of swings that were identical to those against other hon. Members who may have been slightly less popular.
      5.15 pm
      Mr. Sayeed: The hon. Gentleman should have listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill), whose position was sustained by local support. Hundreds of people select one representative from a group. I stood for selection for the seat of Mid-Bedfordshire against the former Attorney-General, so I was probably not my party's first choice, but the decision was made by hundreds of local people. The problem with the proposed system is that it would be not the people, but the party managers who chose the candidate.
      Mr. Allan: The hon. Gentleman seems slightly confused about his own party's selection procedure. It is my understanding that only members of the Conservative party selected a candidate for the election. The Liberal

      777
      Democrats follow an identical system. It is not the electors who choose the candidate, as we have no system of primaries. However, that brings me to my next point—how parties select their candidates.
      My understanding is that the new Conservative party—or the newCs—are following the example of the Liberal Democrats and moving towards the one member, one vote system and that you will select your candidates on that basis. It is certainly acceptable for all the Conservatives in a region to continue electing a rebel or a particularly difficult character. Under your system, as under ours, party managers will not be able to prevent local party members from making a selection, so we will be no worse off than we are under the current system.
      It will remain for local party members to decide whether they want people who toady and toe the line, or whether they want people who are slightly more independent. In our party and, I think, in yours—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. The hon. Gentleman keeps using the words "you" and "yours". He should try to use the correct parliamentary language.
      Mr. Allan: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for reminding me of the correct terms.
      The Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats like candidates to show some independence. I would expect that to continue. We shall return to the issue of selection, and I would be interested to hear how the Labour party intends to select its candidates for the list.
      As political parties have a democratic system for selection to the lists, the closed list system does not take us backwards. The source of regret for the Liberal Democrats is that the Government failed to take the opportunity to move us forward towards greater voter choice in the electoral process. We hope that the Home Secretary and his team will return to the issue as the Bill proceeds through Parliament, give further consideration to the objective of maximising voter choice, and, having listened to the arguments so eloquently made by hon. Members on both sides of the House, produce an open list system that will at least enact the spirit of our amendments, if they cannot accept them today.
      Mr. Syms: I support new clause 4, which is a good clause that I commend to the House. Like all Conservative Members who have spoken today, I start with the usual health warning that I support the first-past-the-post system. The speeches by my hon. Friends the Members for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) and for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) clearly showed the advantages of having a geographical base. In many respects, it sustains in this place independent Members of Parliament—perhaps those who are out of favour with their party—and enables them to speak their minds. In the political process, that is sometimes a very important thing. We in this country have a tradition that we elect individuals with party labels; indeed, it is worth reflecting on the fact that party labels did not appear on the ballot until about 1970, so even that is a relatively recent development. Therefore, what is proposed is alien to the British political tradition.
      I am not saying that all facets of first past the post are good. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) pointed out one of the deficiencies, which
      778
      is that those in second or third place in many seats tend to get less representation. The hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) also made a good point, but, accepting the swings and roundabouts of the system, first past the post delivers effective government and effective representation at local level.
      Most of us have been through selections, when the first question asked is, "Will you live in the constituency?" at which we all beam and reply, "Yes." That answer would be totally meaningless in constituencies of the size proposed; for example, the South West area will stretch from the Isles of Scilly to Tewkesbury and Bournemouth. The local candidate preference would go under the proposed system.
      We have used in European parliamentary elections a system based on first past the post for nearly 20 years, and it has worked—not perfectly, but reasonably well, given the size of the seats. It has allowed the MEP to deal with a limited number of local authorities, county National Farmers Union representatives and other organisations. By and large, I do not get the impression that people want to change the system. There is some argument that the size of seats is too large, but the Government's arguments in favour of creating vast regional areas go the wrong way.
      Several of my hon. Friends have spoken about the open list and closed list systems, but I have some sympathy with the Home Secretary, in that that question cannot be considered in isolation; the size of the regions must be considered as well. Unfortunately, the regions chosen are too large for the electorate to have full information in terms of choosing candidates. In the South East area, there are 11 seats and in the North East, 10. Those areas are far too large: it would have been sensible to accept amendments tabled by the Conservatives at an earlier stage which tried to reduce the size of constituencies. An open list system would have been more sensible with a much more limited size of seat. However, there is a general feeling among hon. Members that open list systems are better. A system in which people vote for a political party and which is based purely on a list so that people have no local discretion is not a particularly good thing.
      New clause 4 is important, as it would place a duty on the Government to review the system after the election. That is fair. It would insist that the Government commence the review within 12 months of the election, so that they could find out how people felt when they went into the polling booths and how they felt about the whole process. Such a review, carried out under the auspices of a Speaker's conference, would not be unreasonable. A party list system is very much an alien concept, and it would be the first time that people on the mainland had used it, so some feedback from the electorate is important.
      As my hon. Friends have said, there are several tests one will want to apply to the new system—for example, turnout is critical. It is fair to say that if turnout were no higher or if it were lower, that should be a material factor in deciding what to do for the succeeding election. There are several points that should be discussed after the election is over and it would be sensible to have a thorough review—one that takes the temperature of the public and perhaps takes into account the views of the political parties that have to operate the new system. If, after the review, people feel that

      779
      first past the post—despite its deficiencies in terms of the size of constituencies—is preferable, that should be a realistic option for consideration. That is what is suggested in new clause 4, which is why I support it.
      I do not like the proposed system. It will upset many people when they see how it operates in terms of party and in terms of the way they vote. It is important that if, as we anticipate, the Government get their way tonight—or tomorrow, or whenever—and the Bill is passed, they are subject to a duty to give full consideration to reviewing the process and perhaps reporting back to the House. Many claims have been made for the system, and a review process would be a useful tool in good government.
      Mr. Donald Gorrie: I rise to support the amendments in the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends. I have only three points to make.
      First, the Home Secretary must accept that there is little support for a closed system. My right hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) and my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) made excellent speeches, and Conservative Members have made some good points in arguing against a closed system. It is easy enough to rebut them by saying, "Your system is worse"—we are all better at attacking than at explaining our own policies—but the fact that the Conservatives support a bad system does not invalidate their arguments against a closed system, which is a not-quite-so-bad system. There were strong points made that the Home Secretary should address. A closed system will lose much of the potential popularity that an open proportional system might gain.
      Secondly, as I understand it, my right hon. and hon. Friends initially proposed the Belgian open list system because discussions had suggested that it was the most likely to be acceptable to the Government. It is by no means the best open system in that it does not necessarily put more popular candidates higher up the list. If the Home Secretary thinks that that is a vital argument against the Belgian system, there are many other open systems that either number people one, two, three, four, or put an X opposite one name in a random or alphabetical list and so give the voter more choice. If the objection to the Belgian system is that it is less effectual, the answer is not to scrub all open systems, but to go for a more effectual open system.
      Thirdly, I should like to support the line taken by my hon. Friend the Member for Hallam. If the Government insist on having a closed system, would it be possible to put on the face of the Bill that parties had to elect their list in a democratic fashion? That might be considered frightfully wicked, but I find the procedures of this House far more difficult to understand than electoral systems. I might be quite wrong—if I am, I am sure that someone will tell me—but I believe that it would satisfy the public to some extent if an element of democracy was introduced, and if it was put on the face of the Bill that the internal party mechanism that applied in our party, in the Conservative party and, I hope, in the nationalist
      780
      parties and others, would ensure that candidates were responsible to local party members and not just to the big bad brothers in London.
      Mr. Straw: I shall deal first with the precise points raised by new clause 4 and then cover the wider issues relating to the other amendments, which touch on the Belgian question.
      New clause 4 would require the Government to establish a major inquiry into the conduct of the 1999 European parliamentary elections. I should explain—I hope it will reassure hon. Members who support the new clause—that successive Governments have regularly reviewed electoral practices following both Westminster elections and other elections, and we intend to continue that practice.
      The House may know that the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), is chairing a working group which is reviewing all aspects of electoral procedure in the light of the 1997 general election. That working party involves hon. Members drawn from all the main political parties, including the Liberal Democrats and the Conservative party. We want the review to be as inclusive as possible.
      The reviews are not undertaken under statutory authority, and I do not believe that there would be merit—indeed, there are a lot of disadvantages—in tying ourselves to the proposals in new clause 4. It would be sensible—particularly as we are using a new electoral system—not to make decisions about the precise form in which a review should take place until after the election, so we can take account of the experience of holding the election.
      5.30 pm
      I give an undertaking that there will be a review into the conduct of elections. I do not give an undertaking as to the precise form of that review, but we will consult the other parties. It will be for the Government to make proposals for the review and to conduct it, but we shall consult the other parties before proceeding. We shall seek, so far as possible, to gain agreement.
      Mr. Burden: My right hon. Friend will be aware that there is wide support among Labour Members for a review after the election, as concerns have been expressed about the closed list system. May I draw to his attention the fact that much of the support for a more open system has come from Labour and Opposition Members who are in favour of the principle of proportional representation—not just for European elections, but for other legislatures such as the House of Commons, where there is no substantial support for a list system as the basis for any proportional system?
      Mr. Straw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and it will be for us to decide in the light of experience, but we will take account of his points.
      New clause 4(3) states:
      "The review shall be conducted under the auspices of a Speaker's Conference."
      This is an old saw, and there are occasions when Speakers' Conferences are suggested as some kind of magic process by which agreement can be achieved.

      781
      I have a list of the occasions when Speaker's Conferences have been held this century; 1908–10, 1917, 1930, 1943–44, 1965–68, 1972–74 and 1977–78. Scanning the list of dates, I am not aware of these Speaker's Conferences producing any significant change in the electoral system of this country. I can think of no legislation on elections—except the European Assembly Elections Act 1977—that coincided with any of those Speaker's Conferences. I happen to know that the 1977 Bill was not prompted by a Speaker's Conference.
      Mr. Maclennan: I served on two of those Speaker's Conferences, and I can fully fortify the Home Secretary's argument that they did not lead to significant changes. Indeed, the Speaker's Conference which concluded its deliberations in 1968 recommended votes at 20 for young people, but the Government of the day decided simply to ignore that and to proceed with votes for young people at the age of 18.
      Mr. Straw: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and I were speculating earlier about the right hon. Gentleman's secret of eternal youth. He has sat in this House continuously since 1966, and he looks little older than I remember him 30 years ago. He wears his age very well.
      I thought that there was a sting in the tail when the right hon. Gentleman talked about the Labour Government in the 1960s ignoring the decision of the Speaker's Conference to go for a voting age of 20, but he omitted to mention the fact that the committee under Mr. Justice Latey, which reported in 1968, recommended a voting age of 18. As I recall, that was the reason why the then Labour Government chose it.
      Mr. Maclennan rose—
      Mr. Straw: I am going to be corrected again.
      Mr. Maclennan: There was no sting in the tail of my previous intervention, but there might be in this, for I was also on the Latey committee. The committee did not have it within its terms of reference to recommend anything about public rights—it was entirely devoted to private rights, and the age of majority for civil purposes.
      Mr. Straw: I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, and I shall be careful before mentioning any other committee in case he has sat on it.
      Mr. Linton: There is a sting in the tail in the suggestion from the Opposition of a Speaker's Conference, which is that such a conference can proceed only on the basis of consensus. As the Opposition have said that they are committed to the first-past-the-post system, the new clause would clearly have the effect of a wrecking amendment.
      Mr. Straw: Whether it would be wrecking or not, there is a great deal of sense in what my hon. Friend says. I ask the Opposition to think again. A Speaker's Conference would be an unwieldy piece of machinery. I have given an undertaking about a review and the Opposition will be
      782
      consulted. They are certainly involved in the current review, and I hope that the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) will take that as a statement of good faith.
      I now come to the issue for which the British public have been waiting—they talk of little else at my open-air meetings in Blackburn—whether this House should go for the simple, British-manufactured list system, or the Belgian list system. I wish to refer to two preliminary matters raised by the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill), and a separate one raised by the hon. Member for Hertsmere about the system proposed by the Bill.
      The hon. Member for Ludlow made important points about the independence of Members of Parliament and their freedom to speak out and vote according to their conscience, and how that independence derives from our system of election and, above all, from our connection with our constituencies. I agree with the hon. Gentleman—I hope that that is not too much of a shock for him.
      The hon. Member for Ludlow was in the Chamber on 25 November for the Second Reading debate, where I set out at some length my belief about the way in which the Commons operates, and how
      "one of the enormous strengths of our system is that, however high and mighty we think we may be, the fact that we have to go back to our constituency on a Friday evening, sit in a community centre and receive representations from our constituents, gives us a direct link to our constituents in a way that it is impossible to replicate under a system of multi-Member proportional representation."—[Official Report, 25 November 1997; Vol. 301, c. 804.]
      I believe that passionately, as does the hon. Member for Ludlow. The view is widely shared in the House. However, the hon. Gentleman was advancing an argument about this Chamber—a legislative Chamber which sustains a Government. That is not what we are talking about in respect of the European Parliament, and that is why it causes me no difficulty—notwithstanding my views about the importance of the way in which the representation of the Chamber is rooted in our communities—to propose the Bill.
      The difference is that the European Parliament is not a legislature. It is a representative body. It does not sustain a Government and, moreover, the constituencies with which we have ended up are very large—so large, in my view, as to lead to an artificial and distant relationship between the Member and the elector. It follows that, as the function of a Member of the European Parliament is primarily representative, we need to move to a more representative electoral system.
      Miss Anne McIntosh: Does the Home Secretary agree that the European Parliament now has a legislative role, which the Labour party has consistently—well, certainly for two years—supported? The Single European Act 1985, the enactment of the Maastricht treaty and the legislation to implement the Amsterdam treaty, which the Prime Minister steered through the House, have given legislative powers to the European Parliament, where the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Ms Quin), served with great distinction. The real comparison is between the European Parliament and Congress in the United States—there is a similar system of checks and balances, and a

      783
      similar constituency size in terms of electors' and MEPs have forged links with their constituents as strongly as Congressmen.
      Mr. Straw: I accept that the three Acts to which the hon. Lady referred—two of which were passed under the Conservative Government—have given the European Parliament legislative functions, but those functions are limited and they are shared with the Council of Ministers and the Commission. I do not want to go down this path in any detail—that would not be in order—but I point out that sovereignty rests with the Westminster Parliament. Parliament can, at any time in the future, decide that the United Kingdom should not be a member of the European Union. That remains the case for each of the other member states. That is what makes the profound difference.
      Mr. Gill: I accept that there is a difference between the Westminster Parliament and the European Parliament—indeed, many of us feel that the European Parliament is not so much a Parliament as an assembly. I hope that the Home Secretary will recognise the fears among Conservative Members that the Bill represents the thin end of the wedge, and that it will encourage Labour Members to bring forward another Bill to introduce proportional representation to elections to the Westminster Parliament, which would be entirely inappropriate.
      Mr. Straw: I do not think that the Bill is the thin end of the wedge—it deals with a very different institution. I have always taken the view that, on voting systems, there must be horses for courses. Under the Labour Government—we made this absolutely clear in our manifesto—there can be no change in the voting system for the House of Commons without the explicit approval of the British people in a referendum.
      I have one set of views, which I have expressed. One of the reasons why I have supported the proposal for a referendum is that I believe that it is time for the argument about the electoral system that applies to the House of Commons to be brought to a conclusion. Either the British people will give the current system new legitimacy and approval or they will vote for a change. I shall not speculate about what will happen, but I say that as an undertaking to the hon. Gentleman.
      Mr. William Cash: The right hon. Gentleman misleads himself, if not others, if he seriously thinks that, under the co-decision procedure and the system of majority voting in the Council of Ministers, the House of Commons is not bound by the decisions that are taken. The further that we move towards European government, the worse the situation becomes—it is bound to affect the votes in the ballot box of people making a free choice.
      In practice, the right hon. Gentleman is trying to make a distinction that cannot be made. On the question of individual choice in the ballot box, there is no real difference—especially given the increasingly grand functions that are conferred in the European arena—between what is decided in the House of Commons and what is decided in the European institutions, which are increasingly seen as a superior sphere of law.
      Mr. Straw: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern about the issue, but I repeat that it is ultimately a matter
      784
      for the Westminster Parliament whether we accede or remain subject to any treaty. If we accede to a treaty, we are bound by its obligations for as long as we accept them, but ultimately sovereignty rests with Parliament.
      The hon. Member for Hertsmere claimed that the simple list system that is proposed in the Bill would be unique in Europe in terms of the amount of power that would be placed in the hands of the party machine. I tried to persuade him that that was incorrect.
      Mr. Clappison: I am grateful to the Home Secretary for giving way on that point, as I want him fully to understand my argument. The evil of a proposal for such a concentration of power lies in the fact that there will be a closed list system at a regional level. As far as I know, no other such system exists in Europe—in the European Union, at least; I do not know about eastern Europe—but I should be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman could tell us if he thinks otherwise. I have been unable to discover a system that so concentrates power at such a level within the party machinery.
      5.45 pm
      Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman makes my next point for me. He has accepted, by implication, that there are a number of other countries that operate closed or simple lists—they include France, Germany, Greece, Portugal and Spain, which contain more than half the voters of the European Union. The system is far from unique.
      Which is more democratic, a regional list or a national list? The system in France, where each party centrally determines all the 87 members on a list, must be subject to greater central control than the system that we are proposing, whereby the component parts of the parties—in Scotland, Wales and the English regions—will determine who will be on the lists. I do not accept the conclusion of the hon. Member for Hertsmere—indeed, the reverse of what he says is true.
      I shall now deal with the Belgian system, which is central to the issues raised in the new clause and the amendments. The hon. Member for Hertsmere was good enough to remind the House what I said on Second Reading, when I spelled out our support for the simple list system. I said:
      "it has been suggested, both by the constitutional group Charter 88 and by the Liberal Democrats, that we could introduce an electoral system of the kind that operates in Belgium and Denmark, whereby voters can vote either for a party as a whole or for an individual candidate from the party list—or, of course"—
      as is common to all those systems—
      "for an independent candidate."
      I discussed the merits and demerits, and said:
      "I am prepared to listen to the arguments for adopting a Belgian-type system and to give them careful consideration."—[Official Report, 25 November 1997; Vol. 301, c. 813–14.]
      As the hon. Member for Hertsmere was good enough to accept, I did not suggest that we were committed to going down the Belgian route—as things have turned out, that has certainly been the case.
      I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) for accepting that I have acted in good faith. I have listened to the arguments carefully, and I have also studied the system with greater care than I was able to before Second Reading on 25 November.

      785
      On Second Reading—I pick up a point made by the hon. Member for Hertsmere—I mentioned some of the obvious differences between the Belgian and the simple list systems. The key difference—voter choice may operate in such a way that a candidate may receive more personal votes but still not be elected to the list—was certainly known, and I acknowledged it in my speech. However, none of us had then had the opportunity—I certainly had not—to go into further detail about exactly how that factor would work out; nor were we able to determine what weight should be given to the various advantages and disadvantages of the systems. That is what I have sought to do in the three months since the debate on 25 November. I have also sought to assist right hon. and hon. Members in assessing the system by placing in the Library an explanation of its operation and, more recently, some examples of how it sometimes, in my judgment, operates capriciously by implying that candidates with the highest number of personal votes have won when they have not.
      In addition, in December we decided that it would be sensible to commission some research into what is a complicated matter and we retained NOP. The results were passed to Opposition spokespeople and placed in the Library as soon as we received them. The hon. Member for Hertsmere chided me about the time that that took, but I chided NOP, because the delay was frustrating and we might have been able to make decisions earlier had the information been available. The difficulty first arose in finding a research house that was able to do the work, which then had to establish its focus groups.
      Mr. Sayeed: The Home Secretary is now talking about the mechanics of the system, but he has not yet dealt with the principle. The principle of a closed list system is that the party organisation makes the decisions—albeit slightly devolved in some cases. The Home Secretary knows that many valuable Members, on both sides of the House, belong to the awkward squad. Do not his proposals for the European Parliament mean that any Labour member of the awkward squad would never get high enough on the list to be elected?
      Mr. Straw: Exactly the same factors apply to Westminster. Within living memory, the Conservative party was the most centrally controlled party of all, and Conservative central office's writ was strong. That period coincided with a time of strong Conservative Government. The party then entered an anarchist phase and we have seen the results in the past four years, as the Tory party fell apart and all sorts of people who were born with two left feet caused huge trouble to the party whip. The result was that the Conservative party fell to the biggest defeat in its electoral history.
      Mr. Cash: But we won the argument.
      Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman makes my point, because he is still part of the anarchist tendency and obviously enjoys it. If a party contains two irreconcilable groups, it must have a loose system of discipline to try to keep them together. The Labour party went through an anarchist phase, with equally disastrous consequences, and we have now chosen to introduce some discipline.
      786
      I make no apologies for that. I can tell the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) that even 30 years ago, when I occupied a different position, I recognised the importance of discipline, as one or two hon. Members can testify.
      Mr. Gill rose—
      Mr. Straw: I will not give way, because I must get on, and I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman.
      I wish to deal with the questions raised about the Belgian system. In balancing the Belgian system against the closed list system, we must give great weight to the need for simplicity. We are moving to a new system and, although such systems are well understood abroad, they are not necessarily well understood in this country. Every hon. Member who has read the NOP report will agree that British electors are remarkably ignorant about the European Parliament and what Members of the European Parliament do. We hope to see an increase in interest following the change in the electoral system, but the new system must be simple.
      NOP had problems—which were one reason for the delay—in setting up focus groups. It tried to create groups at least half of whose members had definitely voted in the previous European parliamentary elections, but that proved impossible. Instead it had to make do with people who were assumed to have voted in those elections, because they claimed always to vote. That may be regrettable, but it is something that we cannot ignore. We need an electoral system that, while meeting the basic goal of proportionality, is as simple as possible and does nothing to discourage people from voting. In my judgment, the Belgian system does not deliver that.
      The overriding problem with the Belgian system is that apparent preferences do not translate into electoral success. As I said when I announced the Government's decision, it is not necessarily the candidates with the most personal votes who are elected. It has taken me some time to assess the weight that should be given to that factor, but I have placed in the Library several examples of what could happen under different patterns of voting, comparing votes for a party list and for individuals on a list.
      Even when as many as 40 per cent. of voters express a personal preference for an individual candidate—which is unlikely to happen—in almost all cases the first three candidates on the party list are elected. For those hon. Members who have a copy of the report before them, that is shown in example I. Votes can be cast for candidates in inverse weight to the order of the list, so that candidates at the bottom of the list get the most personal votes and those at the top the fewest, but the candidates at the top of the list are still elected. Therefore, while one can see the attractions of the system before the election because it might seem to offer voters an extra element of choice, we might find that after the election we would reap a whirlwind—[Interruption.]
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not know which hon. Member is responsible for that electronic noise, but Madam Speaker takes a serious view of such happenings.
      Mr. Straw: Unfortunately, some of the Whips are unable to communicate by words, so they have to rely on other means.
      Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Some of them cannot read, either.
      Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend should know, because she was once a Whip.
      Mrs. Dunwoody: As my right hon. Friend has mentioned me, will he give way?
      Mr. Straw: Yes, I will.
      Mrs. Dunwoody: As a fully paid-up member of the awkward squad, I assure my right hon. Friend that my affection for him will remain undiminished, but why does he assume that less control will be exerted over a regional list than over a central list? Is he aware that, under the German system, candidates can be defeated by the electorate but still return on the list? If that is not anti-democratic, I do not know what is.
      Mr. Straw: I believe that there is potential for more democratic control by parties regionally rather than locally. The argument runs that there is most democratic control by the party at local level, as the smallest unit, and the least at a national level. The regional level is in between. I am happy to explain that point in more detail to my hon. Friend later.
      Mr. Gerald Howarth: The Home Secretary will know that the Conservative party has decided that its members in the regions will be able to select the candidates for nomination. I understand that the Labour party will choose its candidates for every region centrally in London.
      Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman is ill informed about our system, as he is about his party's system. According to a speech made in the House recently, the Conservative party proposes to hold a mass meeting in each region of all Conservative party members to choose the candidates for the list, and rank them in order by some sort of open outcry system. Some serious objections were raised to that procedure by a Conservative Member because it would be difficult to get members from the south-east region, which ranges from Berkshire to Gravesham, in a single hall to conduct that process. Plenty of halls are small enough, but that is another point. I fancy that, if the Conservative party wants to put up a coherent list of candidates, it will have to take some lessons, from the Liberal Democrats and perhaps from the Labour party, about how to run parties by an internal democratic system.
      6 pm
      Opinions about the report differ and it is fair to say that it came to no firm conclusion either way. But it exposed electors' concern about the way in which the Belgian system could operate. One member of the public said:
      "Candidate F could still poll more than the top candidate, and still not get in."
      Another member of the public said:
      "I don't think it's fair. The person at the top might have less votes. The person at the bottom might have a lot more votes but if they haven't got the quota they haven't got any chance".
      Another person said:
      "That's not a fair system".
      As I have explained, one of the points that I considered was how often the result would fail to reflect voters' personal preferences for candidates. Those who support
      788
      the Belgian system argue that that happens very rarely and that, in three successive elections in Belgium, the Belgian voter has sought to overturn the party' s list on only three occasions out of 75. The argument is that, in practice, the result of the Belgian system will be little different from that of the closed list system, but the Belgian system looks better.
      Superficially, I understand the nature of that argument, but I believe that it rests on dangerous foundations. The foundation of the argument is that the British voter will behave in the same way as the Belgian voter. I know of no basis for such a proposition. We do not know what proportion of voters would choose to vote for a candidate down the list rather than for the party or the candidate at the head of the list. We do know that, on a wide range of possible voting patterns, voters may end up with a strong sense in some cases of almost being cheated. That will happen when they see a candidate with the fewest personal votes being elected and a candidate with the most personal votes not being elected.
      Mr. Clappison: May I press the Home Secretary on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth)? Will an individual member of the Labour party have an opportunity to determine the order of candidates that his party will be putting to the electorate?
      Mr. Straw: There will be ballots within our party, and party members will be able to express preferences about which candidates should go on to the list for further consideration.
      Mr. Maclennan: We must regard as the nub of his argument the proposition that the British voter would be disposed to be different from other voters. No one would accuse the right hon. Gentleman of being insular, but he seems to be embracing some sort of curious national stereotype. The only significant evidence that we have is that of actual elections—as well as the conclusions of the focus groups, which, looked at not anecdotally, as he has done, but in the round, showed a clear propensity of view favouring open lists.
      Mr. Straw: I was not making a chauvinist point, but I was, by implication, making a point about the nature of Belgian politics, which is very different from politics in many other countries in Europe, because the Belgian nature is split between the Flemings and the Walloons. That affects their politics in a way that outside, Northern Ireland, our politics, thankfully, is not affected.
      Mr. Syms: Will the Home Secretary give way?
      Mr. Straw: I shall not give way, as I have given way many times and I want to conclude my remarks.
      I believe that this is a fair and balanced system that will produce a representative outcome. I hope that Opposition Members will weigh the words
      "I believe that this is a fair and balanced system that will produce a representative outcome"
      with great care, because they were not my words or those of any Labour or Liberal Democrat Member, but those of the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) when he was Prime Minister and he was advancing the

      789
      case for this system for use in the Northern Ireland peace forum elections. They are recorded in Hansard, 21 March 1996, volume 274, column 498.
      I have to say to the hon. Member for Hertsmere that the simple closed list system using the d'Hondt divisor that he described an hour or so ago as a rotten and wretched system is precisely the system that he, as a member of the Government, supported when it was introduced with the broad consent of the House by his right hon. Friend the then Prime Minister. Were that system rotten and wretched, and the worst possible system, as the hon. Gentleman now proclaims, it would not have been used by him or by his right hon. Friend for any election for any sort of institution. But it was used for the elections to the Northern Ireland peace forum, which was an important part of the peace process, because what was sought was a system which was proportional and produced a representative outcome.
      In our judgment, that is what is needed for elections to the European Parliament—a system that is proportional and simple, and that produces a representative outcome. That system was good enough for the previous Prime Minister; we also believe that it has every merit for the European elections. I ask the House to oppose the new clause.
      Mr. Cash: I wish to register my deep objection to any sort of proportional representation. Listening to the Secretary of State ducking and weaving in and out of the policies that have been prescribed for him by No. 10 is astonishing. He knows perfectly well that he prefers the first-past-the-post system, but he has been given his instructions and is carrying them out to the letter.
      I strongly recommend that the Home Secretary reads Burke's "A Letter to a Noble Lord" in which the cleric, the Abbé Sieyès, is described as having come up with a range of different constitutions. I heard the Home Secretary refer to patterns, the bottom and the top, and helping everything to look better. I recommend that he reads the description of the constitutional contortions of the Abbé Sieyès. He will then discover that many lessons were learned many years ago about the way to run a proper democracy. The direction in which the Government are taking the British people is directly contrary to the principles and traditions on which free votes have been held for generations and should continue to be held.
      Mr. Gerald Howarth: I apologise to the Home Secretary and to my hon. Friends on the Front Bench for not being present at the beginning of the debate. I was dealing with a constituency matter, but I took advantage of the television cameras—against which I voted when the House decided on their introduction—and was able to observe the debate.
      I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me, because the measure is one of a series of measures that will introduce huge constitutional changes to our country, sweep away Britain's constitutional landscape and create a wholly new and alien one in the same way as did the hurricane that swept through the south of England in 1987.
      I recognise that Labour Members feel that they have a mandate for the changes, but they are not being debated out there among the British people, because newspapers,
      790
      even the broadsheet newspapers, are not interested. They are interested only when Mr. Murdoch feels that his reporters' ability to pry into the lives of public citizens is threatened and that part of the Government's legislative programme might create, through the back door, a privacy law that would impair his ability to play his newspapers in the way that he wants. We are debating only one of the measures, but it is part of a pattern, which is why I support new clause 4. It is essential that the system should be reviewed within 12 months of its coming into operation.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) made a strong case for a Member of Parliament or a member of the European Parliament having direct association with those who returned him to this place or to the European Parliament. The Home Secretary—[Interruption.] I hope that the Home Secretary will be kind enough to listen to me for a minute. He made a good point in response to the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow: he entirely agreed with him regarding elections to this place. The only point of departure was that he felt that the European Parliament does not sustain a Government.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) pointed out, it is the contention of those of us who oppose the drift towards federalism that the European Parliament and European Commission are taking powers away from the House, and that therefore they are assuming the role of a Government. The Home Secretary knows as well as I do that our continental partners want a single European state, a single Government and a single Parliament, and he is creating a voting system that could, in theory, apply to a European Government of the future.
      I urge the Home Secretary to think again about what he is creating. I hope it will not damage him when I say that I have no doubt that he is sincere in his view that the pattern that he proposes for European elections will not be extended into elections for this place, but I do not believe that his colleagues on the Benches behind him are all of the same view. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow, I disagree with the Home Secretary: I think that it will be the thin end of the wedge. In the south-east, we shall have a constituency of 5.5 million electors. It is bad enough at the moment, with a constituency of 500,000 electors. At least Graham Mather, who represents me in the European Parliament, is an excellent Member of the European Parliament. He is a Tory—I am not sure how many others there are—
      Miss McIntosh: Excuse me.
      Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend, of course, is a Tory Member of the European Parliament, but she does not represent me and she is a very much prettier Tory than Mr. Mather. His constituents know that, if they have a problem, they can turn to him for help. Incidentally, the people of his constituency and my constituents have increasing problems because the House is losing its powers to determine legislation; increasingly, decisions are taken on the continent. Mr. Mather's constituents know where to turn. Where will they turn if the system that the Government propose is introduced?
      It is absolutely right and proper that we should be accountable to our constituents individually, and in this Parliament my hon. Friends the Members for Ludlow

      791
      and for Stone (Mr. Cash)—formerly the Member for Stafford—and the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) are proving the value of being able to speak out and knowing that they are accountable not to the apparatchiks of their parties, but to those who returned them to this place.
      The Labour party is already demonstrating a very unattractive, Stalinist approach to all this. Ken Coates and Hugh Kerr were drummed out of the Labour party merely for disagreeing with the Government's policy on the electoral system. The Bill will give more power to the party apparatchiks and, although some of the party apparatchiks in my party are some of my best friends, I nevertheless believe that they would agree that their power should be contained.
      I am proud to be a Conservative, and part of the essence of being a Conservative is that one believes that a thing should be changed only when necessary; otherwise, one should conserve what is good. The Home Secretary and the Government are sweeping away some of the pillars of the United Kingdom constitution, and some of those things for which this country is the envy of the world. That is why I shall stand here to fight for what I believe should be conserved. I will not defer to anyone in that.
      If the Home Secretary can make a case to justify the change that he is proposing, let him make it. He has a duty to make a case that change is needed. Instead of making that case, he has proved the point that the new electoral procedure that he proposes for the European elections will be deeply damaging, because it will remove the connection between the elected Member and those who elect him or her.
      The only case that the Home Secretary might make is that there is little public interest in the European election. I do not believe that the Bill will increase public interest in European elections. Indeed, I believe that, because it will be even more remote, there will be even less interest in future than there is at the moment.
      I conclude by urging the Home Secretary to take on board the significance of the responsibility that rests with him and his Cabinet colleagues. They must not—they have no right to—inflict on the British people the destruction of some of the traditions that we hold dear in this country, which the public are not aware are under threat from the Government. It is the duty of those of us who do not believe that this is the right way to go, to warn the Government of the whirlwind that they will reap with the Bill and the raft of other measures that they propose.
      6.15 pm
      Mr. Clappison: I have listened carefully to the debate. I welcome what the Home Secretary said at the start of his speech about consultation, and I welcome the spirit in which he said it. Before I discuss the substance of his other comments, which I am afraid did not assuage my concerns, I pay tribute to some of the excellent speeches that we have heard, especially from the Conservative Benches, by my hon. Friends the Members for Poole (Mr. Syms), for Ludlow (Mr. Gill), for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed), for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) and for Stone (Mr. Cash)—formerly for Stafford.
      792
      My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire spoke feelingly, in a very thoughtful speech; my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow made a speech which his record entitled him to make; and my hon. Friend the Member for Poole made a typically well-informed speech.
      I hope that the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) will not mind my saying that I was perplexed by his speech, because he attacked my speech and then agreed with all my arguments. I suppose that that is another example of the Liberals not being prepared to press their convictions. Apparently they will do almost anything to curry favour with the Government and will not raise a peep of protest even when they have been given a humiliating rebuff—which they have been by the Government's refusal to listen to a word that they have said about the Bill and about open lists.
      The Home Secretary's comments reveal that he has not fully grasped my argument about the uniqueness of the system that he proposes. The unique feature is the use of a closed list at a regional level. The closed list discriminates against individual candidates. It is impossible for the electorate to express a preference for an individual party candidate, and, at a regional level, it makes it much more difficult for a small party—or individuals who wish to form a small party—to get elected. The system is a double whammy for the party machine, and the most centralised form of party control in Europe. No other country has such a system.
      It does not help the Home Secretary's case for him to talk about the selection of candidates, because he is on somewhat dodgy ground there. He did not give a complete answer to the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot, although he was pressed on the subject.
      The method of selecting candidates is not the only important issue. The crucial aspect, in a list system, is the order of candidates on the list. I say that without making a party concession. It will not avail anyone greatly to be No. 10 on the Conservative list in the north-west or No. 4 on the Conservative list in the north-east. What is important—[Laughter.] I contested Bootle for the Conservative party, so I believe that I am entitled to say that. What is important is the order of the names—who appears high in the list, for all parties in different parts of the country.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. George Howarth)indicated assent.
      Mr. Clappison: The Under-Secretary has grasped that point.
      It is significant that the Labour party, for its own internal reasons, is not prepared to give individual party members the opportunity to put the candidates in order under the list system. Individual members are deprived of that opportunity, which members of the Conservative party will have. In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) made a good speech, complaining about the ridiculous size of the regions; we say amen to every word of that.
      Although I welcome what the Home Secretary said about consultation, I do not have great confidence in his comments, given the background of the way in which consultation proceeded. The Home Secretary told us that

      793
      he had seen no new evidence in support of the course that he wishes to take with closed lists. He had heard no new representations or new arguments. Apparently, it turned out that, although he chose the Belgian system from those available, the Belgian people have characteristics that make them different from people in the United Kingdom.
      It remains a bit of a mystery why the Home Secretary chose the Belgian system when he could have selected any one of a number of other systems. It shows that the Government are unwilling to consult and to listen. They have chosen not only a bad system—we think that first past the post is much better—but a bad system of the worst form. They are not prepared to listen to argument; it is another example of the way in which power has gone to the Government's head. That is why we shall press new clause 4 to the vote.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 103, Noes 290.

      Division No. 202]

      [6.19 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Arbuthnot, James

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Leigh, Edward

      Baldry, Tony

      Letwin, Oliver

      Boswell, Tim

      Lidington, David

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Lilley,Rt Hon Peter

      Brady, Graham

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Brazier, Julian

      Luff, Peter

      Burns, Simon

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Butterfill, John

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Cash, William

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      MacKay, Andrew

      Clappison, James

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

      Madel, Sir David

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Malins, Humfrey

      Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      Colvin, Michael

      Moss, Malcolm

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      Norman, Archie

      Day, Stephen

      Ottaway, Richard

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      Page, Richard

      Duncan, Alan

      Paterson, Owen

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      Pickles, Eric

      Evans, Nigel

      Prior, David

      Faber, David

      Randall, John

      Fallon, Michael

      Robathan, Andrew

      Flight, Howard

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Garnier, Edward

      Ruffley, David

      Gibb, Nick

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Gill, Christopher

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Gray, James

      Soames, Nicholas

      Greenway, John

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Grieve, Dominic

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Gummer, Rt Hon John

      Spring, Richard

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Streeter, Gary

      Hammond, Philip

      Swayne, Desmond

      Hawkins, Nick

      Syms, Robert

      Heald, Oliver

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David

      Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

      Horam, John

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Hunter, Andrew

      Townend, John

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Trend, Michael

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Viggers, Peter

      794

      Wells, Bowen

      Woodward, Shaun

      Whittingdale, John

      Yeo, Tim

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Willetts, David

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Mr. Nigel Waterson and

      Mr. James Cran.

      NOES

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Ainger, Nick

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Darvill, Keith

      Alexander, Douglas

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Allan, Richard

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      Armstrong, Ms Hilary

      Dawson, Hilton

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Dobbin, Jim

      Ashton, Joe

      Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Dowd, Jim

      Austin, John

      Drew, David

      Baker, Norman

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Ballard, Mrs Jackie

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Banks, Tony

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Battle, John

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Beard, Nigel

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Ennis, Jeff

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      Benton, Joe

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Flint, Caroline

      Berry, Roger

      Flynn, Paul

      Best, Harold

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Betts, Clive

      Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

      Blackman, Liz

      Foulkes, George

      Blizzard, Bob

      Fyfe, Maria

      Boateng, Paul

      Gapes, Mike

      Borrow, David

      Gardiner, Barry

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Bradshaw, Ben

      George, Bruce (Walsall S)

      Breed, Colin

      Gerrard, Neil

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      Browne, Desmond

      Godsiff, Roger

      Burden, Richard

      Goggins, Paul

      Burstow, Paul

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Gorrie, Donald

      Byers, Stephen

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Cable, Dr Vincent

      Grocott, Bruce

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

      Hancock, Mike

      Canavan, Dennis

      Harvey, Nick

      Caplin, Ivor

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Casale, Roger

      Healey, John

      Caton, Martin

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Cawsey, Ian

      Heppell, John

      Chaytor, David

      Hesford, Stephen

      Chidgey, David

      Hewitt, Ms Patricia

      Church, Ms Judith

      Hill, Keith

      Clapham, Michael

      Hinchliffe, David

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Hoey, Kate

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Home Robertson, John

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Hope, Phil

      Coaker, Vernon

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

      Cohen, Harry

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Coleman, Iain

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Colman, Tony

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Corbett, Robin

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Cotter, Brian

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Cox, Tom

      Hutton, John

      Cranston, Ross

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Crausby, David

      Ingram, Adam

      Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

      795

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Pearson, Ian

      Jenkins, Brian

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Pike, Peter L

      Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

      Plaskitt, James

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Pond, Chris

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Pound, Stephen

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Kelly, Ms Ruth

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Purchase, Ken

      Khabra, Piara S

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Quinn, Lawrie

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Radice, Giles

      Kingham, Ms Tess

      Rammell, Bill

      Lawrence, Ms Jackie

      Rapson, Syd

      Laxton, Bob

      Raynsford, Nick

      Leslie, Christopher

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      Levitt, Tom

      Rendel, David

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)

      Linton, Martin

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Rooker, Jeff

      Lock, David

      Rooney, Terry

      Love, Andrew

      Ruane, Chris

      McAllion, John

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      McCabe, Steve

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      McCafferty, Ms Chris

      Sanders, Adrian

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Savidge, Malcolm

      McDonnell, John

      Sawford, Phil

      McFall, John

      Sedgemore, Brian

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Shaw, Jonathan

      McIsaac, Shona

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

      Singh, Marsha

      McNamara, Kevin

      Skinner, Dennis

      MacShane, Denis

      Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      McWalter, Tony

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      McWilliam, John

      Soley, Clive

      Mallaber, Judy

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Spellar, John

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Martlew, Eric

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Merron, Gillian

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Michael, Alun

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Milburn, Alan

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Miller, Andrew

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Mitchell, Austin

      Straw, Rt Hon Jack

      Moffatt, Laura

      Stringer, Graham

      Moore, Michael

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Morley, Elliot

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

      Tipping, Paddy

      Mountford, Kali

      Todd, Mark

      Mudie, George

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Mullin, Chris

      Touhig, Don

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Truswell, Paul

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Norris, Dan

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Oaten, Mark

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Vaz, Keith

      O'Hara, Eddie

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Olner, Bill

      Walley, Ms Joan

      O'Neill, Martin

      Wareing, Robert N

      Öpik, Lembit

      Watts, David

      Organ, Mrs Diana

      White, Brian

      Osborne, Ms Sandra

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      796

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Worthington, Tony

      Wills, Michael

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Winnick, David

      Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Wood, Mike

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Woolas, Phil

      Mr. David Clelland and

      Mr. David Jamieson.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Mr. Nigel Evans: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. A written question tabled by the hon. Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas) relating to the siting of the Welsh assembly was due to be answered today. However, the Library has made it clear that it has not been answered today, but is likely to be answered tomorrow. We have been told that Opposition spokesmen will be telephoned before the announcement of the siting of the assembly, but no Conservative spokesman on Welsh affairs has been contacted. A Welsh journalist has told me that the announcement is expected tomorrow and that it will be made from the Welsh Office in Cardiff.
      Has the Secretary of State for Wales told you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that he wishes to make a statement first to the House of Commons on the siting of the Welsh assembly—which is one of the most important announcements that he is likely to make to the House—so that hon. Members of all parties can question him on his decision? If he has not, is not this yet another backward step and proof of the Government sidelining the House on an important issue?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have no knowledge of any statement that might be made on the matter.

    Clause 1

      NUMBER OF MEPs, ELECTORAL REGIONS AND ELECTORAL SYSTEM
      Mr. Clappison: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 1, line 15, after '(4)', insert
      'Subject to subsection (4A) below,'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 20, at end insert—
      '(4A) As soon as possible after 16th February in each pre-election year the Boundary Commission shall—

      (a) ascertain whether the ratio of registered electors to MEPs is as nearly as possible the same for England, Scotland and Wales, and

      (b) make by order such modifications to any of the number of MEPs specified in subsection (4)(a), (b) or (c) as may be necessary to ensure that result.'.

      Mr. Clappison: The amendments are designed to explore the future distribution of seats between England, Scotland and Wales. The Bill contains a mechanism for redistributing seats between the 11 regions in England, but there is no such mechanism for redistributing seats between England, Scotland and Wales. That feature of the Bill has attracted some comment and led to questions in some quarters about whether it was an oversight by the Government. If it is not an oversight, and if there is a reason for the difference, perhaps the Minister will tell us what it is.

      797
      Many people who have examined the Bill have wondered why the Government have chosen to deal with the distribution of seats in the way they have. We want to hear about the Government's approach, against the background of fairness and equity, in the Bill and in all such legislation affecting the redistribution of seats. We look forward to hearing the Government's explanation.
      Mr. George Howarth: The amendments would require the boundary commission to perform a calculation to determine whether the division of seats between England, Scotland and Wales ensured that the ratio of MEPs to electors across Britain was, as nearly as possible, the same, and, if not, to make an order to make the necessary adjustment. Clause 1 sets out the number of MEPs that each part of the UK will return: England has 71, Scotland eight, Wales five, and Northern Ireland three.
      I listened carefully to the brief speech that the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) made in support of the amendments, but he has not made much of a case for them. They would require the boundary commission to perform the calculation to which I have referred. There is nothing to be added to what has already been said on that subject.
      For some reason, the hon. Gentleman has left out Northern Ireland. I do not know whether that was an oversight or whether there was a specific reason for his doing so. In any event, that would create difficulties, because Northern Ireland forms part of the whole.
      I know that there has been some concern about the division of MEPs between the component parts of the UK. Indeed, that point was debated in different ways at earlier stages of our deliberations. Let me put the record straight on one very important fact: the Bill does not change the allocation of MEPs between the constituent parts of the UK. The European Parliamentary Elections Act 1978, in its current form, has on its face exactly the division of MEPs for which clause 1 of this Bill provides. Let me enlighten the House about how that division came about.
      In the early 1990s, as a consequence of German reunification, the number of MEPs to which the UK was entitled was increased from 81 to 87. The then Conservative Government brought forward a Bill to provide for an allocation of 71 MEPs for England, eight for Scotland and five for Wales. That Bill became the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1993, and it is those numbers that this Bill replicates.
      It is worth noting that since the very first direct elections to the European Parliament, the number of MEPs that each part of the United Kingdom will return has always been set out on the face of the statute. We see no reason to depart from this tradition. Dividing up Members between the parts of the United Kingdom is Parliament's prerogative, and we believe that it should remain so. Indeed, the importance of that was demonstrated in the discussion following a contribution earlier in the Bill's proceedings by the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) who tried to persuade us that Scotland should have an extra MEP.
      798
      In the light of what I have said, and because the Bill follows the precedent, I invite the hon. Member for Hertsmere—
      Mr. Sayeed: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Howarth: I will give way, but only briefly as I want the hon. Member for Hertsmere to respond to my comments.
      Mr. Sayeed: Can the Minister tell the House the highest and lowest ratios of electors per MEP that currently appertain?
      Mr. Howarth: No, not without spending five minutes looking it up. However, the hon. Gentleman knows that, under the current system, the ratio is about 500,000 electors per MEP. There is some variation, in the tens of thousands, each side of that figure. Clearly, as we are having a regional list system, that will vary considerably.
      I return to my earlier point. In the light of what I have said, I hope that the hon. Member for Hertsmere will consider withdrawing the amendment.
      Mr. Syms: This is an important issue. Apportionment between countries goes back partly to the 1944 Speaker's conference, when certain guidance was given on the distribution of seats between Scotland, Wales and England. Under the first-past-the-post system, account can be taken of some degree of sparsity of population and geographic conditions. That is, in effect, the basis of the present system.
      I have been present for most stages of the Bill's consideration and I have heard words such as "proportional", "fair" and "inclusive". However, we end up with a Bill where England has 83.3 per cent. of the electorate of the United Kingdom but only 81.6 per cent. of the UK's MEPs. The reality is that England is 1.7 MEPs under quota. If there were ever an opportunity to equalise the electorate across the United Kingdom, or certainly Great Britain, as the amendment would, it is before us. No one has yet explained to me why England does not have fair representation.
      I accept that when we subdivide 87 seats, we do not end up with a perfect quota. The figures do not emerge perfectly. However, there is certainly a claim for one additional seat in England, and possibly two. It is odd that a Bill that is built on fair votes, proportionality, inclusiveness and fairness to everybody succeeds in producing arrangements based on 83.3 per cent. of the electorate having only 81.6 per cent. of the votes.
      Sir Brian Mawhinney: My hon. Friend is making an important point. In an attempt to try to find some middle ground between the two Front Benches, the Opposition, have not challenged the number of seats in the 1999 election, although a case could be made for England to have another seat, as my hon. Friend is showing with great eloquence. We are seeking to put in place a fair and impartial mechanism for the future so that, when there are transitions of people, it will be possible for an independent organisation to make representations and give advice to the House about future numbers, rather than our challenging the numbers for next year.
      Mr. Syms: My right hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. However, there is concern that if we do not

      799
      have fair distribution now, precedents might be set, with the result that future redistributions, future votes and future allocations of seats may be based on an unfair formula between England, Scotland and Wales—the main countries of Great Britain. That would be our concern.
      That is particularly so because we know, given the terms of the Bill, that the redistribution of seats between regions will be decided by the Home Secretary and not by an independent boundary commission. That being so, the issue is very much in the political domain.
      As I have said, England has 83.3 per cent. of the UK electorate, but it will have only 81.6 per cent. of the seats. It is worth making it known to the Government that that is of great concern to us.
      The Minister talked about Northern Ireland, which is excluded from the amendment. Northern Ireland has a quota of 2.7 per cent., which means that there would be some doubt about a third seat. However, we all appreciate that there is a special circumstance for the Province. From a political perspective, three seats would, in effect, allow two Protestant seats and one Catholic to have representation within the European Parliament. That is a somewhat crude division, but the withdrawal of one seat, even in the absence of qualification for quota, might lead to political problems in Northern Ireland. In the context of what is good for the United Kingdom, we all might agree that there could be a persuasive argument for a third seat for Northern Ireland.
      There is certainly not fair distribution. If the Bill means anything, it is about equality of votes. As a supporter of the first-past-the-post system, I stress that it would not be my overwhelming argument, but I have heard Ministers say that the Bill is about fairness of votes, inclusivity and proportionality. Yet we do not have proportional distribution.
      What has gone wrong? As we said earlier, the Government have allocated seats on the basis of an English quota and have then added the seats of Wales and Scotland. No United Kingdom quota has been put forward, so there is not a fair allocation of seats within the countries of the Union.
      I do not wish to pursue the point. I wish only to emphasise that there will not be a fair allocation. I stress also that our concerns are for the future. There will come a stage when shifts of population will mean that seats have to be reallocated. When the new system takes effect at the first election, we do not want proportionality for everyone except the English.
      6.45 pm
      Mr. Sayeed: When debating the Scottish Parliament, many of us have complained about over-representation by Scottish Members in this Parliament. We asked the Government to reduce that representation so that there would be a balance with English Members. The Government refused to do that. They said, "You will have to wait for the regular report of the boundary commission." They did not explain why we would have to wait for it. Equally, they did not explain why a report could not be produced earlier. We shall have to wait, and we all know that that could mean that there will not be even representation between English and Scottish Members for about 12 or 15 years.
      Why should we be asked to trust the Government on this issue? The amendment is fairly simple; it is asking only for equity. I heard what my right hon. Friend
      800
      the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) said. I recognise that we did not over-press our position and that perhaps we started off from the wrong position, which means that England is almost two seats under-represented. Perhaps my right hon. Friend will explain to me later why we did not push the matter a bit harder. However, the decision has been made.
      The two simple amendments before us are designed to try to produce a system of equity. That is all. They are designed to increase representation so that it is up to date, and to keep it up to date. We all know that demographic changes take place in the United Kingdom or Great Britain. People move from one area to another. Given the enormous areas that have been suggested by the Government—regions—the problems of depopulated areas no longer apply. Therefore, there is no reason for there not to be an even balance with an equal number of electors per MEP under the new arrangement.
      Earlier, there might have been a reason, because of depopulated areas, to have slight imbalance and favouritism towards, for example, depopulated areas in Wales and Scotland. However, under the enormous regional areas for electing MEPs, there is no reason for that approach. In equity and fairness, the Government should accept the amendments, because they are fair. They say, "Let us have the same number of electors per MEP throughout Great Britain."
      Mr. Clappison: I have listened carefully to the debate, including the response from the Under-Secretary of State. Well-informed contributions have been made by my hon. Friends the Members for Poole (Mr. Syms) and for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed).
      The Opposition wanted to know why the redistributive mechanism should be different in England, Scotland and Wales. The question has been raised by many others who have considered the proposed legislation. We wanted an answer. We wanted to know how the Government proposed to deal, as the Bill stands, with future population changes, in whatever direction, between Scotland, Wales and England.
      I was not entirely satisfied with the Minister's response. We were justified in asking whether the Government were responsible for an oversight. We are still pondering why they have chosen to make a distinction within the redistributive mechanism for future population changes.
      We are still concerned, but, bearing in mind the lateness of the hour and the need to make progress, I do not intend to press the amendment to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Sir Brian Mawhinney: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 3, line 41, after 'State', insert
      ', save that the day appointed by the Secretary of State shall not be a day of the week or a date of special religious significance on which the holding of an election would be incompatible with the historic teaching and practices of any Christian or other principal religious tradition represented in Great Britain'.
      I welcome the assurance given by the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Ms Quin), in an earlier debate, that there was no prospect of the 1999 election being held on a Sunday. That was a positive comment. She accused me of being

      801
      churlish—or some synonym—in my response, so let me start by welcoming unequivocally the fact that there will be no election on a Sunday next year. Having said that, we want to come back to this issue, for it raises longer-term issues.
      There is no legal requirement for elections in this country to be held on a Thursday. No doubt somebody, on behalf of the Minister, has looked at history to see when elections started to be held on that day. It seems that it became the practice in the 1930s, and it has served us well for 60 to 65 years. I can only speculate that it might have had something to do with early closing day, or some other matter, in the 1930s and 1940s. Whatever the reason, it has become established.
      One can approach the issue another way and say that it is clear why elections were not held on other days. It is a matter of regret to many—but we are not here to make moral judgments—that the influence of religious belief in society 50 or 60 years ago was unquestionably stronger than it is today, so the idea of holding an election on a Sunday would never have crossed the minds of my grandfather's generation. Similarly, there was at that time a strong Jewish community in this country, so it would not have crossed the minds of many that it would be a good idea to hold an election on a Saturday.
      The truth is that we live in a different world, up to a point. We live much more flexible and mobile lives than people lived then. People now are as busy at weekends as during the week. Members of Parliament are not the only ones affected in that regard. Indeed, as a result of the nation's increased prosperity, far more people are able to enjoy the weekends in a variety of ways, with various activities, and to enjoy them further from home than my grandfather's, or, indeed, my father's, generation could have.
      The prima facie assumptions that turnout would be higher if we voted on a weekend, that it would be more convenient for people to vote then or that people would have more time to walk to the local school to vote seemed perfectly fair ones for the Government to make, but those are aspirations. They are a reflection of political will, rather than of real life.
      I return to the sensitivity of people's religious beliefs, as it is at the heart of the issue. I am grateful to the Minister for not calling into question my sincerity, even if we did not have a meeting of minds on this issue.
      I think that the Minister without Portfolio said that there are six major religions in this country and that the beliefs of all of them will be reflected in the millennium dome. I shall choose three of those religions. I went to the "Larousse Dictionary of Beliefs and Religions", because, if I can convince the Government that this is not some personal quirk and that I am reflecting a well established tradition among three of the six major religions, that might be a more persuasive argument than my oratory.
      I looked up Islam. Under the heading "Friday Prayer In Islam"—those are not my words, and I am not attributing Friday to that great religion—the dictionary says:
      "Taking part in prayer…five times daily is a fundamental responsibility for Muslims. The five daily prayers take place at sunrise, noon, late afternoon, sunset, and after dark. The Friday noon
      802
      prayer is of special significance. It is performed in a large mosque in the presence of a congregation of 40 or more. During the Friday Prayer an Imam or other competent preacher delivers an address lasting about 15 to 30 minutes. Attendance at the Friday Prayer is considered a duty for Muslim believers if they are free at that time, and business during this hour is forbidden, although it may be conducted at other times during the day. Friday is the Muslim day of assembly".
      There has never been an argument that those who have strong religious beliefs and convictions spend all day, from morning to evening, in prayer, worship and contemplation, so that, by definition, they are not free to do anything else. The argument has always been that beliefs and religious convictions for all the major religions are focused on one day a week that is special. Friday is clearly that day for Muslims.
      I then looked up the Jewish faith, and the heading "Sabbath". The dictionary says:
      "The seventh day of the week, which in Jewish belief is designated a day of rest and cessation from labour, beginning just before sunset on Fridays and lasting until nightfall on Saturday, when candles are lit to signify the end of a holy time. The laws of Sabbath observance derive from a short ban found in the Pentateuch"—
      Exodus 20 and 31 for those want to check my source of reference—
      "and from God's own rest in the Genesis creation account."
      Even
      "in more liberal Reform Judaism the Sabbath is mainly a day of worship."
      Therefore, the Jewish religious day starts on Friday evening and goes through to Saturday evening, and it is considered to be a holy time.
      I then turned to the paragraph headed "Sunday". It states:
      "The day of the week set aside by the Christian religion for divine worship mainly in commemoration of Christ's resurrection. As early as New Testament times it replaced the Jewish Sabbath, when Paul and the Christians of Troas gathered on the first day of the week to `break bread' (Acts 20), and it is called 'the Lord's day' (Rev 1)."
      This is not meant to be, nor will it become, a sermon or a theological treatise.
      Mr. Malcolm Savidge: It could become a bore.
      7 pm
      Sir Brian Mawhinney: Only for hon. Members with minds like the hon. Gentleman's. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman's constituents will not take quite so kindly to his insensitivity to their religious beliefs as others in the House.
      Britain has a tradition which has stood us in good stead for 60 odd years in that major elections are held on a Thursday. Britain has an even more important tradition, which is that people have freedom of religion and freedom to practise their religion, and around that has grown a sensitivity to the religious beliefs of others even when we may not ourselves share those beliefs. I am at a loss to understand why a Government who rightly—I have no difficulty with the Government's position—talk about acting appropriately in a multicultural society, which is also a multi-faith society, have so much difficulty in recognising the sensitivities of millions of people on this issue.
      Mr. Allan: Can the right hon. Gentleman advise us—I ask that in a genuine spirit of inquiry, because Liberal Democrats hope for a free vote on the matter—on the meaning, in amendment No. 3, of the phrase
      "a date of special religious significance"?
      I understand the points that he has made about Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays, but what does that phrase encompass?
      Sir Brian Mawhinney: I have tried to set the matter out not in my words but in those of a more independent and scholarly framework, to remove from the debate any element of partisanship. The hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) thought that I had been less than generous and gracious in my response to the Minister on the last occasion. Her comments came as something of a surprise, so I have made a determined effort this time not to create any sense of partisanship. We are talking about the need to be sensitive to one of the most fundamental rights and privileges that the House is established to preserve.
      Mr. Maclennan: It was in a genuine spirit of inquiry that my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) put his question. The right hon. Gentleman has used in the amendment, not a term of art but a form of words that covers a wide range of possibilities, and its lack of precision is one of the difficulties that we face. To take a brief example, the Roman Catholic Church has a number of holy days of obligation, which are undoubtedly days of religious significance, and special. They do not happen necessarily to fall on Fridays, Saturdays or Sundays. Is it the right hon. Gentleman's submission that such a day would be ruled out, and would he wish it to be ruled out? If so, we will have to consider with great care the practices and beliefs of many other religions. The matter is much more complex than the right hon. Gentleman may have acknowledged.
      Sir Brian Mawhinney: I think that I can help the right hon. Gentleman. When the elections fall is not for the House to decide. The right hon. Gentleman will know that, as part of our membership of the EU, the week in which elections are to be held is uniform throughout the EU. I shall not use the technical word, but flexibility was given so that countries could choose the appropriate days within—I think that I am right in saying—the second part of the designated week.
      The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Had the House had flexibility to decide when an election should be held, we would have had to be more precise in the wording of our amendment to take account of the right hon. Gentleman's legitimate points. We do not have that freedom. The week is set, and 15 countries have to decide whether to have elections on a Thursday, Friday, Saturday or Sunday. A number, including us, have them on a Thursday, and a number have them on a Sunday. I say that openly, because it is a matter of record which everyone understands.
      Some may ask whether I am suggesting that there is less sensitivity to religious beliefs in other European countries. I am happy to say that that is not an issue for which we have any responsibility. People have their different traditions, and those traditions have built up. I am not being critical of anyone else: we are talking about Britain, our traditions and practices and our sensitivities to the religious beliefs of others.
      804
      Therefore, I want to try one last time to persuade the Minister to accept that this is a genuine issue. I am perfectly happy to concede that the world will not stop and the country will not necessarily go any faster to heaven or hell as a result of what the Government ultimately decide should be the election day in Britain. However, I want to impress on the Minister the fact that, in shifting from a Thursday, which affects none of the major sensitivities that the other three days do, he is running the risk of causing genuine offence to people whose religious beliefs will be held to account by that change. It is in that spirit that I ask him one last time to consider stating in the Bill that elections will be on Thursdays.
      Mr. George Howarth: The right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) raised two points which are slightly off the main point but are of significance. I appreciate the thoughtful and non-partisan way in which he introduced this potentially sensitive subject. He mentioned the tradition of Thursday voting. To my knowledge, it is pre-war. I would not like to say when it started, but I can remember some local government elections as late as the 1960s being held on different weekdays. In Huyton, where I lived, voting was on a Thursday, but in Liverpool it was on a Wednesday. I am not sure what the origins of that were, but certainly there were some variations at local government level as late as the 1960s.
      The amendment would bar elections from being held on a day of the week or date of religious significance, although it does not define which religions it would cover. It would in effect guarantee that European parliamentary elections continue to be held on a Thursday, and I shall explain why in a minute.
      We discussed the appropriate day of the week earlier in our proceedings, and the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire referred to the debate that he had with the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Ms Quin). Many of the arguments have therefore been fully covered. The amendment is unnecessary, because it is almost impossible to find a better day than Thursday, and I shall repeat some of the reasons that the right hon. Gentleman gave.
      The right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) said that the wording of the amendment lacked precision. I suspect that the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire deliberately worded the amendment in that way because of his sensitivity to various faiths. If we take his argument to its logical conclusion, we must point out that certain religious festivals fall on a Thursday. If we are too precise, we might end up in difficulty. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman, in his recent journey through the faiths, is aware that the feast of Corpus Christi falls on a Thursday generally in the first half of June. I suspect that that would not be considered to bar Roman Catholics from voting, but it could be construed to be sensitive, because it is an important religious festival.
      In addition to the significance of Fridays and Saturdays for Muslims and Jews, and Sundays for Christians, there is the Jewish festival of Shavuot, which can also fall in the first half of June. For all I know, there may be other

      805
      such festivals that are significant to other faiths, so we may find it difficult to pursue the argument to the nth degree.
      Sir Brian Mawhinney: I am encouraged, at least thus far, by the Minister's tone. If all that prevents him from accepting the amendment is its drafting, as the Bill will have to return to another place so that the Government amendments are dealt with, the Government could obviate that problem by helping with the redrafting of this amendment.
      Mr. Howarth: I hope to convince the right hon. Gentleman that the amendment is unnecessary. If it were passed, we could find ourselves unable to hold an election at any time within the period agreed by the Council. Whatever position the right hon. Gentleman takes on Europe, I am sure that he would not want us to end up in that difficulty.
      I repeat a commitment that my hon. Friend the Minister of State made earlier in our proceedings. She said that there was no way in which the 1999 European elections would not be held on a Thursday. The right hon. Gentleman may rest assured that, for the purposes of the next European elections, we shall not consider an alternative day of the week.
      Mr. Sayeed: Before the Minister finally confirms that he has no intention of introducing an alternative amendment in the other place at some future date to deal with the problem that my right hon. Friend has outlined, will he consider the fact that, in Christianity, Judaism and Islam, some sects are not allowed to work or travel at any time during a holy day? All three of those major religions are well represented in this country. The definition of "work" includes voting, so unless the three holy days are excluded, which leaves only Thursday, a sect of a major religion will automatically be disfranchised.
      7.15 pm
      Mr. Howarth: I recognise the point that the hon. Gentleman makes, and, by referring to the scriptures of many faiths, the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire made that point effectively. I agree that that would create difficulties. The hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) discussed the problems that some of her constituents would face if we had Sunday voting. I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman made that point, because it is important, but my hon. Friend the Minister of State has guaranteed that we have no intention—
      Sir Brian Mawhinney: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Howarth: If the right hon. Gentleman will let me proceed for a moment—
      Sir Brian Mawhinney: I wish to be helpful.
      Mr. Howarth: The right hon. Gentleman is always helpful.
      Sir Brian Mawhinney: I am grateful to the Minister. I wanted to intervene now because what I am about to
      806
      ask may take a moment or two to consider, or the Minister may just rule it out. The Home Secretary is in the Chamber listening to this debate. If the Minister, with the Home Secretary's agreement, were to assure the House that, during this Government's term in office—he will understand that it will last for only one Parliament—they will not shift from a Thursday, I would be happy to settle for that and not push the amendment to a vote.
      Mr. Howarth: The right hon. Gentleman made an aside that this Government would be in power for only one Parliament. I am sure that he is right, because my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is bound to have a reshuffle in the next Parliament. [Interruption.] If Conservative Members are left long enough, they find anything amusing.
      I cannot, give the right hon. Gentleman that absolute guarantee, because I do not know what discussions we shall have or what pressures will come along. The right hon. Gentleman has been in government and knows that it is not always possible to give such guarantees on the hoof. However, I shall offer him an option, which is better than guaranteeing what will happen in another place or in the lifetime of this Parliament.
      The right hon. Gentleman is aware that I chair a working party on electoral procedures. The Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties are represented on that working party, which also consists of a wide range of experts who take advice from many sources. When the working party's findings are published, they will be the subject of wider consultation. We are looking at the possibility of Sunday voting. As part of our serious review of electoral procedures—there is no partisan slant to our work—I undertake to ensure that the right hon. Gentleman's arguments are given the fullest possible consideration and that they form a part of our considerations, so that, before we come up with our final recommendations, all those points are considered. The legitimate concerns about the days of the week that are important to those major faiths will thus be fully taken into account.
      I hope that the right hon. Gentleman finds that helpful, because it is intended in a helpful spirit to deal with his point.
      Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I have been unable to contribute to the debate, because I have almost lost my voice.
      Will the review consider phasing elections over several days, perhaps from Thursday to Sunday, or has that been ruled out? We must take account of various groups' views, about which hon. Members have spoken with great respect.
      Mr. Howarth: Nothing has been ruled in or out at this stage. The working party's terms of reference are wide enough to enable us to consider almost anything, but I am sensitive to the anxieties expressed by the hon. Lady and the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire. I hope that my assurance that the working party will give due weight to the arguments will enable him to withdraw his amendment.
      Mr. Maclennan: This has been a good, comprehensive debate. I welcome the Minister's open-mindedness

      807
      on these sensitive issues, which are matters of conscience for some hon. Members. However, when the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) remarked that changing to weekend voting would not produce a higher turnout, I thought of the university lecturer who objected to lecturing on Wednesdays because that interfered with two weekends. I hope that we will not be too sensitive to speculation that the British weekend might rule out voting for some people.
      My guess is that weekend voting would help turnout, and that it is better not to hold the election on a working day. The Government should consider weekend voting in their review, but I would not advocate change without the fullest consultation with the Churches. People will take different views about the nature of religious obligation: for some people, attending a church or a place of worship may be sufficient to discharge their obligation and recognise the specialness of the Sabbath or of a particular religious day, whereas for others, voting may be incompatible with observing a particular holy day.
      However, citizens have civic obligations, and they should be rendered, in this case by exercising their vote. We should make that as easy as possible. The Christian religion's injunction
      "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's"
      allows many Christians to discharge their civic and religious duties without conflict, but that is not a universal view, even within the Christian faiths.
      I hope that the Minister will solicit information from people who may be touched adversely in their spiritual devotions by a change in the law, and will keep an open mind until the evidence is before him.
      Mr. Edward Leigh: I listened carefully to the Minister. I am anxious that, although he said that he would listen to people's views, he did not go a step further and say that people's religious sensitivities could raise insuperable barriers to changing the day of voting to Sunday.
      Elections are held on Sundays in many other countries in the European Union, and they are no less or more religious than this country. But such countries have a tradition of voting on Sunday: people may go to mass in the morning and have a cup of coffee before they vote. The traditions here are different, and many Protestant communities in this country, especially the evangelical communities, think that the specialness of Sunday is slipping away following the passing of the Sunday Trading Act 1994. They are sensitive about the issue, which the Minister understands, and I am sure that the Government will take those sensitivities into account in the review.
      Sir Brian Mawhinney: We have had a good debate, and I am grateful to the Minister for the tone of his response to my points. The right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) is right about rendering unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and unto God that which is God's. But that is not a prima facie case for making it as difficult as possible for people to fulfil both those obligations. I was slightly surprised that the right hon. Gentleman, given the
      808
      tradition from which he comes and which he represents in the House, was open to making that more difficult. Maintaining the status quo would make it less difficult.
      I genuinely tried to help the Minister. I sat on the Government Front Bench for several years, and understand that he may be loth to enshrine a proposal in statute at this stage because arguments are being put to him and the review is under way. With that in mind, I thought that an interim non-statutory agreement could have been reached. An assurance from the Minister, backed by the Home Secretary, on such an agreement would, in the tradition of the House, have been accepted as binding. That would have seen us through the next few years, and created space for him to conduct his review without presumptions being made about it.
      However, the Minister did not find that acceptable. Of course I am grateful for his willingness to reflect on the views that have been expressed, and to ensure that they are taken into account in any preliminary consultation document. However, his unwillingness to reach a statutory or non-statutory agreement will make many people, rightly or wrongly, assume that the Government have an alternative agenda.
      I face a dilemma. When I highlighted disagreements between the Front Benches in a previous debate on this matter, I was accused of being ungracious, so I say as graciously as I can that we do not agree with the Minister, because this is a matter of principle. I seldom use those words in my political life, because they tend to get people into trouble. One of the most fundamental tasks of this House is the defence of the rights of minorities. If this House does not defend their rights, who will?
      Mrs. Ewing: I accused the right hon. Gentleman of being ungracious. Does he accept that the 1999 European elections will be held on a Thursday, and that thereafter the matter should be discussed and decided on by the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh assembly and Westminster?
      Sir Brian Mawhinney: The answer to the first part of the hon. Lady's question is yes, because that is how I started my speech when I moved the amendment. It is tempting, but I will not go down the road of the interrelationships between the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and this place, not least because I do not wish to embarrass the Minister, who I am sure has no idea what those interrelationships will be.
      This issue is easy to dismiss. It may be that an overwhelming majority of right hon. and hon. Members have religious convictions and beliefs but would not find a change in the voting day to be of religious offence. It is probably true of most of us, but it is not true of some in the Muslim faith, some in the Jewish faith or some in the Christian faith. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) said, it is a cause of particular concern to those in the Christian faith from the evangelical tradition, from which my hon. Friend knows I spring.
      It is with regret and as much grace as I can muster that I say to the Minister that this is a matter of genuine significance. It is a matter of sensitivity and of this House defending the rights of minorities. For all those reasons, and given the Minister's response, I fear that we will press the amendment to a Division.
      7.30 pm
      Mr. George Howarth: We have been treated to the great conviction of the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney). I am not trying to belittle it, and I accept that he considers this a matter of principle. However, I am a little concerned that, during the past 18 years of Conservative Government, in which the right hon. Gentleman served in various capacities, I cannot remember this great matter of principle ever being raised or legislated upon.
      Leaving that aside, from his reading the right hon. Gentleman is aware of the difficulties that different days of the week cause for different faiths, and he knows that there is no simple solution. The irony is that the logic of his amendment would lead us right back to Thursday voting. I accept that that is the case. However, if we take that logic further and take into account various religious feast days and so on, it might make it impossible to hold elections on a Thursday.
      The right hon. Gentleman said that, because of the way in which some people want to celebrate the day they consider to be the day of rest or the holy day, voting on such days would be impossible for them. That is why we have ended up with Thursdays. The difficulty is that not everybody feels the same way. I voted against Sunday shopping, but, being honest, although I go to services at my local parish church most Sundays, I sometimes then go shopping with my wife, because that may be the only opportunity I get to go shopping with her.
      The right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire described the life-style differences very well. He said that society has changed and that there is greater flexibility in the way that people live their lives. Those facts have to be taken into account when we consider this matter. I will consider this in the working party on electoral procedures, but I believe that, in pursuing the amendment, the right hon. Gentleman is making a gesture. It would not have any effect even if it were passed. For that reason, I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to oppose the amendment.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 96, Noes 222.

      Division No. 203]

      [7.33 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Faber, David

      Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

      Fallon, Michael

      Arbuthnot, James

      Flight, Howard

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Garnier, Edward

      Beggs, Roy

      Gibb, Nick

      Boswell, Tim

      Gill, Christopher

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Gray, James

      Brady, Graham

      Greenway, John

      Brazier, Julian

      Grieve, Dominic

      Burns, Simon

      Gummer, Rt Hon John

      Cash, William

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Hammond, Philip

      Clappison, James

      Hawkins, Nick

      Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

      Heald, Oliver

      Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey

      Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David

      Colvin, Michael

      Horam, John

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Day, Stephen

      Hunter, Andrew

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Duncan, Alan

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Evans, Nigel

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      810

      Leigh, Edward

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Soames, Nicholas

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Luff, Peter

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Spring, Richard

      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)

      Maginnis, Ken

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Matins, Humfrey

      Trend, Michael

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Moss, Malcolm

      Viggers, Peter

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Wardle, Charles

      Norman, Archie

      Wells, Bowen

      Ottaway, Richard

      Whittingdale, John

      Page, Richard

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      Paterson, Owen

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Pickles, Eric

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Prior, David

      Woodward, Shaun

      Randall, John

      Yeo, Tim

      Robathan, Andrew

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Ruffley, David

      Mr. James Cran and

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Mr. Nigel Waterson.

      NOES

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Cohen, Harry

      Ainger, Nick

      Coleman, Iain

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Colman, Tony

      Allan, Richard

      Corbett, Robin

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Cotter, Brian

      Austin, John

      Cranston, Ross

      Baker, Norman

      Cummings, John

      Ballard, Mrs Jackie

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Banks, Tony

      Darvill, Keith

      Beard, Nigel

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

      Dawson, Hilton

      Benton, Joe

      Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Dowd, Jim

      Berry, Roger

      Drew, David

      Betts, Clive

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Blizzard, Bob

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      Boateng, Paul

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Borrow, David

      Flint, Caroline

      Breed, Colin

      Flynn, Paul

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

      Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

      Burden, Richard

      Fyfe, Maria

      Burnett, John

      Gapes, Mike

      Burstow, Paul

      Gardiner, Barry

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      George, Bruce (Walsall S)

      Byers, Stephen

      Gerrard, Neil

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

      Godsiff, Roger

      Caplin, Ivor

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      Casale, Roger

      Gorrie, Donald

      Cawsey, Ian

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Chidgey, David

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Church, Ms Judith

      Hancock, Mike

      Clapham, Michael

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Heppell, John

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Hewitt, Ms Patricia

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Hill, Keith

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Hoey, Kate

      Coaker, Vernon

      Home Robertson, John

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Hope, Phil

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      811

      Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

      Organ, Mrs Diana

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Pearson, Ian

      Hutton, John

      Pickthall, Colin

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Pike, Peter L

      Ingram, Adam

      Plaskitt, James

      Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Pond, Chris

      Jamieson, David

      Pound, Stephen

      Jenkins, Brian

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      Purchase, Ken

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Radice, Giles

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Rammell, Bill

      Jowell, Ms Tessa

      Rapson, Syd

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Rendel, David

      Kelly, Ms Ruth

      Rooker, Jeff

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

      Rooney, Terry

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Ruane, Chris

      Khabra, Piara S

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Sanders, Adrian

      Kingham, Ms Tess

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Laxton, Bob

      Sawford, Phil

      Leslie, Christopher

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Levitt, Tom

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Linton, Martin

      Skinner, Dennis

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Lock, David

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      McCabe, Steve

      Spellar, John

      McCafferty, Ms Chris

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      McDonnell, John

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      McFall, John

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      McIsaac, Shona

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      McNamara, Kevin

      Straw, Rt Hon Jack

      MacShane, Denis

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      McWalter, Tony

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      McWilliam, John

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Mallaber, Judy

      Timms, Stephen

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Tipping, Paddy

      Marshall—Andrews, Robert

      Todd, Mark

      Martlew, Eric

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Merron, Gillian

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Michael, Alun

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Vaz, Keith

      Milburn, Alan

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Miller, Andrew

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Moffatt, Laura

      Wareing, Robert N

      Moore, Michael

      Watts, David

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      White, Brian

      Morley, Elliot

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Wills, Michael

      Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

      Winnick, David

      Mountford, Kali

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Mudie, George

      Worthington, Tony

      Norris, Dan

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

      O'Hara, Eddie

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Olner, Bill

      Ms Bridget Prentice and

      Öpik, Lembit

      Janet Anderson.

      Question accordingly negatived.

    Schedule 1

      NEW SCHEDULE 2 TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS ACT 1978
      7.45 pm
      Mr. Greenway: I beg to move amendment No. 8, in page 5, line 24, at end insert
      ', but no such order shall be made until the Secretary of State has submitted a report to both Houses of Parliament giving details of the calculations carried out in the course of the procedure mentioned in sub-paragraph (1)(a) above.'.
      The amendment has two clear and vital objectives. One is to achieve greater openness in future decisions about arrangements for European elections, and the second is to ensure greater accuracy in the apportionment of Members of the European Parliament between electoral regions. I am sure that the House will agree that both those aims are essential to our fundamental democratic process.
      Throughout the Committee stage, Conservative Members sought to draw attention to the serious deficiencies in the procedures leading to the Bill's publication. The Bill is being imposed on the country without any prior discussion, either within Parliament or outside. The Government failed to publish a White Paper outlining their plans. As a consequence, there was no public consultation. As we have heard, there was a focus group involving a maximum of 48 people, but that hardly rates as a public consultation.
      Despite the Prime Minister's professed faith in the parliamentary boundary commission, it was not consulted, thus denying the public any opportunity to express a view on the arrangements by which their MEPs will be elected. Therefore, the Government have no way of knowing whether voters are satisfied that the allocation of MEPs to electoral regions is fair, and whether the process has been both open and accountable. Clearly, it has not been open and accountable, because the Government have simply imposed their preferred solution and, in so doing, have shown contempt for both the House and the public at large.
      What of the future? The schedule provides the only mechanism in the Bill for any review of the arrangements. Notwithstanding the Home Secretary's commitment to review the experience of the election next year under this Bill, the fact remains that this is the only provision in the Bill that we can be certain provides an arrangement for such a review. However, that arrangement lies entirely within the gift of the Home Secretary. He will consider whether the ratio of electors to MEPs requires adjustment, and he will make, by order, such amendments to the distribution of seats as he considers necessary.
      We say that, before the Home Secretary does any such thing, he should at least submit a report to both Houses of Parliament giving details of his calculations. Such a report would not only ensure greater openness, which we think is essential, but allow the House the opportunity to seek a proper explanation of his calculations because we need to test their accuracy.
      Why should that be necessary? As we have seen, in introducing the Bill to the House, the Home Secretary has already shown that maths is not his best subject. As he admitted in Committee, he made an error in his explanation of the divisors used in the seat allocation and, by consequence, misled the House. Let me say straight

      813
      away that we fully accept that it was unintentional, but that rather makes our point. It is not that the Home Secretary knew that he got it wrong, but the fact that he did not know that he had got it wrong. How can anyone have any confidence that he or a future Home Secretary, doubtless with access to the same advice, can be relied upon to reach the right decision?
      There is rather more to it than meets the eye. During the debate in Committee on 26 February, the Home Secretary argued that the eminent Professor Ian Maclean, head of politics at Nuffield college, Oxford, to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) referred earlier, had got it wrong in suggesting that the Government had used a divisor in the process of seat allocation. He insisted:
      "It is a very simple system that does not need divisors."—[Official Report, 26 February 1998; Vol. 306, c. 549.]
      That is not what the eminent Professor believes. Indeed, since that debate, Professor Maclean has written to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere. The House would do well to take note of what he says.
      Mr. George Howarth: The hon. Gentleman referred to it earlier.
      Mr. Greenway: No. It is an entirely different matter and I suspect that it is even more important.
      After challenging what the Home Secretary said at column 549, Professor Maclean writes:
      "The procedure he then outlines in his next paragraph, as he did in a letter to me, is that he takes a dividend, (the electorate of England), divides it by a divisor (71) and gets a quotient (just over 521,000 electors per MEP). He then assigns these quotients to the regions. Each region, of course, is exactly entitled to a whole number plus a fraction of MEPs. So how does the Secretary of State proceed 'in such a way as to ensure that the sum of divergencies in each of the nine regions—ignoring plus or minus signs—was as low as possible'?"
      The professor continues:
      "I think he thinks that, as he and his officials presumably did this by hand, they were not using a divisor. But they were really speaking prose. To guarantee that you get the result of this calculation right, you must use one of three divisors. In the American literature they are the Dean, Huntington and Webster divisors."
      We have had d'Hondt and Sainte-Lague; now we have the Dean, Huntington and Webster divisors.
      The professor continues:
      "On different interpretations of making 'the ratio of registered electors to MEPs the same', each one of these is the only correct divisor to use."
      This is the crunch:
      "Webster is another name for Sainte-Lague. So Sainte-Lague is one of the three divisors that the language of the Schedule mandates him to use."
      So there we have it. There is a divisor, and it is clearly a political decision which divisor is used.
      For now, the public appear disinterested in the Government's meddling with our democratic process—as my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) said in an earlier debate, they were unaware of what was happening. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) referred to the disinterest of
      814
      the fourth estate, and I agree with him too, but, in spite of the sea of disinterest, the position may change come the election next year. However, that does not mean that the issues are unimportant and do not matter—far from it. The House should require the Government to agree on a procedure that will help the Home Secretary to make a better fist of it next time. I am not seeking to personalise the debate, but in embarking on a system of proportional representation, we have ventured into uncharted waters.
      We have been asked to accept that the allocation of MEPs is fair, yet few people have the knowledge or experience to know whether it is the best that it could be and entirely accurate. The fact that we appear to have little choice but to accept it for now is no excuse for failing to put on the face of the Bill a mechanism to give everyone the chance of doing a better job next time.
      Parliament has a right to be taken seriously, and its views and opinions cannot simply be brushed aside out of political expediency. I am glad that the Home Secretary is to reply to the debate. The fact that he did not fully grasp what he was doing should be a warning to the House of the perils of accepting anything at face value.
      I look forward to hearing the Secretary of State's explanation of why he might think it wrong to require a future Home Secretary to publish a report on the calculations on which he has based any future changes on the allocation of MEPs between the regions, as that is our simple proposition. It would not delay matters unnecessarily, but it would ensure greater openness and allow the House the opportunity to test for itself the accuracy on which any future changes are based. That is our fundamental democratic right: therefore, I commend the amendment to the House.
      Mr. Straw: As I hope the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) will accept, I do indeed take Parliament seriously, and believe that Ministers should be held properly to account, particularly for such decisions. Although I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman, I shall not pick him up too much on whether or not a system of calculating the allocation of MEPs to each of the regions follows the Sainte-Lague or Webster divisors, or a different system.
      I did not say that we did not use divisors to achieve the result—of course we had to do so, as I explained at column 549 on 26 February. However, the Sainte-Lague and d'Hondt divisors use an advancing series of numbers by which various other numbers are then subject to division. D'Hondt uses the series one, two, three, four, five and Sainte-Lague uses one, three, five, seven, nine. As the House now famously knows, Sainte-Lague modified begins with 1.4, which is the square root of two, and then follows the sequence three, five, seven, nine.
      I am happy for the ombudsman to examine all the files in the Home Office. It may be, as Professor Maclean is claiming, that we reached a similar result to Sainte-Lague, but we did not use that system. We used a system of ascertaining the lowest sum of the divergencies, as I have explained.
      What is important, and goes to the heart of the hon. Gentleman's argument, is that the public and Parliament should be satisfied that the system being used to allocate the number of MEPs to each region is entirely fair and transparent, and that people can see how it operates so that any error or worse can be exposed.

      815
      It is not true that the arrangement for settling the allocation of MEPs between each region is, to use the hon. Gentleman's words, in the gift of the Secretary of State. Any Secretary of State, whether myself or a successor, will be bound by the provisions of schedule 1(4), which requires the Secretary of State in the year preceding any election to
      "consider whether the ratio of registered electors to MEPs is as nearly as possible the same for every electoral region in England and…make by order such amendments of (3) of the Table as he considers necessary"—
      not desirable, but necessary—
      "to ensure that result"
      That gives the Secretary of State virtually no discretion whatsoever, except to apply the rules of arithmetic accurately. If he fails to do that, he may be subject to account in Parliament and, as this is subordinate legislation, to judicial review in the courts.
      8 pm
      I hope to reassure the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway). In the amendment, he calls for an order-making power by which a report is made to Parliament before the Secretary of State makes a decision. The Secretary of State can have a decision brought into effect only by order made to the House under the negative resolution procedure, as set out in paragraph (7). No changes come into force unless they have received the approval of Parliament. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that.
      Then there is the question whether Parliament should be informed of the changes that the Secretary of State has in mind and whether the arithmetic should be laid on the Table of the House in advance of any order being made. That is the point of the hon. Gentleman's amendment. I agree with him, and I give an undertaking to the House that the detail of the arithmetic and all the calculations made under that paragraph will be put before the House by way of a written answer as soon as they are made, and well in advance of any order being made. In the light of that, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not feel it necessary to press his amendment to a vote.
      Mr. Greenway: I am most grateful to the Home Secretary for his response and for the reassurance he has given to the House. Clearly what we wanted—a report to the House before any order is laid—is precisely what he has in mind, and we are grateful to him for that. As a consequence, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Schedule 2

      MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS OF SCHEDULE 1 TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS ACT 1978
      Mr. Greenway: I beg to move amendment No. 7, in page 9, leave out lines 15 to 28.
      Let me say at the outset that this is a probing amendment. The fact that at this late stage in our consideration of the Bill, the last amendment to be considered on Report is a probing amendment says something about the nature of the Bill and its lack of clarity. A parliamentary election based on huge electoral
      816
      regions under a proportional representation system will be a wholly new experience for the people of Great Britain. More to the point, it will be a wholly new experience for the people charged with the conduct of the election. It is the lack of any detail on the face of the Bill about how the election will be conducted that prompts us to seek clarification of some of that detail through the amendment and the short debate on it.
      New paragraph 4 of schedule 1 to the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1978 says that there will be returning officers for each electoral region, but gives no indication of who they will be and how they will be chosen. That has considerable relevance, given the size of the European electoral regions, so perhaps the Minister can tell us how the Secretary of State intends to select the returning officers for such huge electoral regions. The lines that our amendment would delete confirm that, by regulations that the House has not had the opportunity to approve—as far as I am aware, they have not seen the light of day—functions will be conferred on the returning officers and acting returning officers. What are those functions, and what powers will the returning officer or acting returning officer have at his disposal to fulfil them? Will the functions include training, and, if so, how long will that training last? In these days of financial stringency for local government, who will pay for it?
      New paragraph 4(3) requires local authorities to place the services of their officers at the disposal of the returning officers. Does that mean every local authority within an electoral region? Why are councils given no ability to exclude certain people to whom a summons from the returning officer to take part in the conduct of the election may be both inconvenient and against the public interest? What happens if, for example, the returning officer summons a planning officer who is involved in a public inquiry, or a social services officer involved in a case of child abuse, or an education officer handling an appeal by a parent over school admissions? What of the finance officers working day and night to prepare budgets?
      Ministers may well say that there is nothing new in that. Acting returning officers have to take account of the other duties of the staff on whom they wish to rely in conducting parliamentary elections now, so what is the difference? The difference is that the acting returning officer in a Westminster constituency is calling on his own colleagues, and he knows full well exactly what their duties and other responsibilities are when assessing to whom he will turn for help with the election; but, with this Bill, we are dealing with electoral regions so vast that they embrace eight or nine counties.
      Mrs. Ewing: Is that a criticism of the conduct of the returning officer for the referendum in Scotland on 11 September?
      Mr. Greenway: It certainly is not. My comments are addressed directly to the Bill before us, not to any other Bill. However, the hon. Lady has drawn attention to the fact that the whole of Scotland will be one electoral region. In London, we have 33 London boroughs, so the arrangements are a wholly new departure from anything that anyone running elections—the Scottish referendum was not an election—has previously experienced.
      The House was entitled to a far better explanation of how the arrangements would work before being asked to approve the Bill. Who is going to pay for the time and

      817
      travelling costs of all those officers? What impact will there be on the conduct of local government, both in the run-up to and during the elections? Can the Minister tell us what consultations there have been with local authority associations? It would have been better if Ministers had given the House some indication of what they intend to put in the regulations and explained why the whole process appears to be so open-ended.
      One point on which we can be clear and on which the Government ought to have been more candid is that the conduct of the electoral arrangements set out in the Bill will place a huge administrative burden on the shoulders of local government. Will the Minister tell us how advanced the discussions are with local government officers? Will he tell us what the Government expect of them and how they are to organise an efficient election in which the public, candidates and political parties can have full confidence?
      The track record to date is hardly inspiring. It has taken three and a half months—from November, when we had Second Reading, until this week—for the Government to make up their minds on one of the most essential features of the proposals: whether to have an open or a closed list. The Minister owes the House some answers to the important questions I have posed, because this is our last opportunity to debate the arrangements. I hope that in doing so, he can give some reassurance that the conduct of the European elections will not be the administrative nightmare that many of us fear.
      Mr. Allan: We are pleased to hear that the Conservatives are still probing, even at this late stage. We originally took the amendment at face value to mean that council officers and the existing election staff should not be involved in the election. That was a cause for concern.
      In Committee, there was widespread agreement that our electoral staff do an excellent job, and my party feels perfectly confident in their abilities. We do not envisage the apocalyptic scenario that has once again been painted—a major meltdown of the electoral process—materialising. The vast bulk of the duties that those officers will carry out—getting the ballot boxes out, getting the ballot papers in and counting them—are identical to those that they would have to perform for any European election. The only significant change is in the method of counting, and we believe that that is a small proportion of their total duties. My party does not see the necessity for too much probing, and we hope that we can dispense with the issue and place our confidence in our acting returning officers and their staff.
      Mr. Syms: In an earlier amendment, we referred to publishing the ground rules for the running of the election. With our existing system, people by and large know how it will operate. One of the difficulties with the new system is that no one has mentioned anything about how the electoral returning officers will interrelate with the party professionals and the volunteers, who have an important role in scrutinising the count.
      Under the first-past-the-post system, it is straightforward—scrutineers have a sheet saying what they need to do. We will have a count for the south-east region of perhaps 1 million votes, with divisions and
      818
      divisors. The terms under which returning officers are employed and their conduct of the elections are an important feature. The amendment may tease out the Government's view.
      The electoral returning officers must interact with the party professionals so that they can tell their workers how the system will work and when the count will occur, and even explain technical problems. For example, at what stage is an announcement of an election of a Member of the European Parliament made? Is it when the subdivision is done, and one person jumps up to become the candidate, or is it done at the end of the count? Those are the little technical problems which the Minister should address.
      Some £4 million is budgeted to be spent on training the EROS. We have good EROS, and I have the highest opinion of them. I am sure they will do a splendid job, but there has been little neutrality up to now in terms of how they will interrelate with the party structures which, under the Bill, are very important. On a constituency basis, what normally happens is that the ERO knows all the parties and has a relationship with them. Practical matters can be discussed.
      Given the size of the regions, we may need some formalised structure for the returning officers to deal with the parties who deal with the workers who turn up with their rosettes to the count. They ought to know what is going on, what will happen when and how the system will work. I would be interested to hear the Minister say more about how the EROs will interrelate with party agents, professionals and volunteers.
      Mr. George Howarth: I am glad that the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) let us know that this was intended as a probing amendment, because I was a little surprised that he had tabled it. I have two reasons for saying that. First, the parts of schedule 2 to the Bill which the amendment would remove are not in any sense new. Virtually identical provisions exist already in the current schedule 1 to the European Assembly Elections Act 1978, the legislation under which elections have been conducted in the past.
      The only reason why they are being replaced is that the existing schedule refers to "constituencies", whereas in future we will need to refer to "regions". No one has ever thought to remove the relevant provisions from the existing legislation, and I fail to see—and, in truth, the hon. Member for Ryedale must fail to see—what objection there can be to re-applying the provisions in the Bill. In Committee, I undertook to write to the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) on two points that the hon. Gentleman raised today. I still intend to do that, and, if he will forgive me, I shall reply in detail in due course.
      The second reason why I was surprised is that the provisions which the amendment seems to seek are so obviously unnecessary. There can surely be no doubt that each region will have a returning officer, and I am glad that the hon. Member for Ryedale is not seeking to delete that provision. Equally importantly, because of the sizes of the regions proposed by the Bill, the returning officer will need support and assistance, as he will agree.
      The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) made the point very well that the obvious people to provide support are those with experience—electoral

      819
      registration officers and acting returning officers, who are by and large local government employees. They are responsible for electoral registration, the maintenance of the register and postal and proxy votes, and they have experience of the distribution of poll cards and the administration of polling stations. Clearly, they are the right people to assist. The parts of schedule 2 that the amendment would delete would make sure that those with the necessary skills and experience are available to assist the returning officer in conducting the election. Schedule 2 simply reaffirms the status quo, and is designed to ensure the efficient conduct of European parliamentary elections.
      The hon. Member for Ryedale referred to the understandability of counts. I do not want to speak for his party, but I am sure that my party's agents and professionals will find out how the system works and will make sure that the party workers know how it works.
      These are existing, well known and tried and tested procedures, but they will be slightly amended to take in the regional dimension. In light of those assurances, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
      Mr. Greenway: As I said, this was a probing amendment, and we do not intend to press it to a vote. The Minister is right—it would leave a hole in the Bill. However, I am not entirely sure that the Minister has answered all our questions. There is a world of difference between the European constituencies we have been used to and the proposed huge electoral regions. Given that the Minister said that he would write to me and to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) in response to the points we have made, I am content to let the matter rest at this juncture. I look forward to receiving the Minister's letters and the explanation to which we are entitled. With that sentiment, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Order for Third Reading read.
      8.17 pm
      Mr. Straw: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      We have had many hours of debate—appropriately, on the Floor of the House, as this is a constitutional measure. I explained earlier to the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill), and to the House in November, that I have always subscribed to the view that there is no single perfect electoral system for all purposes. When we consider which voting system to introduce to any particular institution, we need to consider the nature of the powers and functions of the body concerned.
      The European Parliament is a representative body, and not a Parliament from which a Government are drawn. The United Kingdom can only return 87 Members to it, which means inevitably that Members of the European Parliament can never enjoy the same close links with those who elect them as Members of this Parliament do with their constituents. Moreover—regardless of whether people endorse it—the European Union already works at a regional, as well as at a national, level.
      Those considerations led a committee, which was chaired by my noble Friend Lord Plant of Highfield, to propose to the Labour party that the most appropriate
      820
      system for electing MEPs was a regional one, which placed a premium on proportionality. That proposal was endorsed by the Labour party at its conference in 1993; it became a commitment in our manifesto, which was endorsed by the British people on 1 May last year.
      The change will enable future British elections to the European Parliament to be conducted using a simple proportionally-based regional list system. I am pleased that it will be in place—subject to the decisions of the other place—in time for the next election to the European Parliament in 1999.
      As I explained to the House, the system that we are proposing is very similar to, and shares the concept with, the one already used by France, Germany, Spain, Portugal and Greece for electing their MEPs—the majority of voters in Europe use this system to elect their MEPs.
      I am grateful to those hon. Members from all parties who have taken part in the debates on the Bill—given the complexity of the subject, many more hon. Members than I had expected participated. I have greatly enjoyed the debates and the stimulation not least to my arithmetical skills—or otherwise—that they have provided.
      We have covered the composition of regions, by-elections and the role of the Boundary Commission, and we have provided another answer—as I said on Second Reading—to that inevitable but very difficult quiz question at Christmas: name 10 famous Belgians.
      Mr. John M. Taylor: Can you name six famous Canadians?
      Mr. Straw: Naming six famous Canadians is a question of which I would prefer to be given notice.
      The system used in Belgium has dominated our discussions. It would allow voters to plump for one candidate on each list, unlike the system on which we have finally decided—the simple or closed list system. I shall not repeat the arguments about that.
      The questions raised by the Bill have been examined in very great detail. The Government had a clear manifesto commitment to introduce the Bill, and I am glad that the Liberal Democrats have joined us in supporting it. I commend the Bill to the House.
      8.22 pm
      Sir Brian Mawhinney: We have had a long and serious debate about the issues raised by the Bill. I agree with the Home Secretary that the debate was rightly and properly conducted on the Floor of the House, as the Bill is one of the most important constitutional matters that the House has dealt with in a long time.
      Eschewing any bias, I think that I can say that the Opposition have rigorously examined the issues that the Bill raises. We have sought to do so constructively and positively. I am well aware that the Patronage Secretary and those who spend most of their time around him were nervous; they wanted the proceedings to be completed in a quarter of the time—but that is part of what they are paid for. Hon. Members have conducted themselves constructively. We have moved the issues forward, using up an appropriate, but not disproportionate, amount of time.
      Conservative Members remain of the view that the Bill is bad. It is a leap in the dark, and it contravenes an approach on which, in other circumstances, the Home

      821
      Secretary and I would agree—"if it ain't broke, don't fix it". One of the most compelling aspects of the debates has been the Government's inability to explain what was so wrong with a system that had stood us in good stead since 1979 that it had to be changed. The Home Secretary rightly said that the Bill resulted from a manifesto commitment. I do not question his right to bring forward the legislation, but I do not think that the case has been made for its argument and logic.
      The Bill is bad because so much of it remains to be determined. Clause by clause, we have been promised order after order. Whole chunks of secondary legislation still have to be drawn up before the Bill will make any sense. We have no idea what a registered party is, how it will be defined or how it will be implemented. It is not good law-making to leave so much undecided when primary legislation is being scrutinised. Moreover, that is not good for the democratic process. Although the Home Secretary will introduce orders, they will be unamendable and debatable only for an hour and a half, which will preclude them from the in-depth discussion that legislation of such constitutional significance deserves.
      On Second Reading, the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) blew the most important hole in the Bill. She said that the current system had one enormous advantage over the one envisaged in the Bill—
      "the connection between elected Members and their constituencies."—[Official Report, 25 November 1997; Vol. 301, c. 804.]
      That connection has been at the heart of British democracy for generations, and for 20 years even in terms of the European Parliament. All of us feel a sense of significance as we walk through our constituencies, knowing that the people belong to us and that we belong to them, regardless of whether they voted for us. We think, "This is my patch. These are my people. I serve them whatever they may have done on election day. All of them have a right to look to me." That has been part of the bedrock of our democracy, but the Government are tearing it apart, destroying what has worked so well for such a long time.
      I understand that there are conventions in the House whereby Back Benchers will not say what they think—they do not want to embarrass the Government. That was true, for the most part, in previous Parliaments. The Home Secretary should not think, however, that Labour Members have not approached Conservative Front Benchers in the past few weeks to make it clear how unhappy they are that that fundamental link is being broken.
      For that reason alone, the Bill deserves to be opposed, but there is worse. The Bill introduces another phenomenon new to British democracy. In future, electors will not be asked to vote for individuals; they will be asked to vote for parties. The link between voter and a person—with personality, gifts and disadvantages—is also to be broken. Given the tenor of our debates, it seems that Labour Front Benchers are prepared to break the link with almost simplistic ease.
      We have a clearer understanding of why that is than we did before the debate. The Government are pre-eminently concerned about control, and the list system will give them control. It will give the party control, and it will give control to the manipulators.
      822
      I pay tribute—I do not do so often—to the Liberal Democrats, because they will employ a democratic system to determine the candidates and the order for their lists. The Conservative party has made it clear that we will also follow a democratic principle and allow our members in the regions—if we can find halls big enough to accommodate them all—to decide the order of our lists. However, the Labour party will go into a smoke-filled back room, with a few manipulators and control freaks, the Minister without Portfolio and a few trade union leaders, and they will decide.
      The people who lecture us about the people's party will not let their members, never mind the people, decide who will go to Brussels. Lest there should be a smidgen of a thought among Labour Members that I exaggerate, I remind them that three serving Labour Members of the European Parliament have already been expelled from the party, because they would not kow-tow to the control freaks who will organise the operation.
      We do not need to look into a crystal ball, because we know already what to expect from the Labour party. Whether the Bill is good for the Labour party does not concern me—well, only a little, because if it is not good for the Labour party that is an advantage. My concern this evening is that the Bill is not good for the country, although that will not bother the Government.
      Although it introduces a fundamental change, the Bill gives no information to voters. I pay tribute to the Home Secretary for trying to persuade the Deputy Prime Minister that they were heading for the rocks unless £20 million was spent on helping the people to understand what was about to befall them. However, he lost the argument. No rationale will be revealed and no defence made of the change. Constituencies will have 4 million, 5 million, 6 million or 7 million people, with no sense of identity and no sense of ownership of the process.
      The Liberals love the Bill. They want it. We understand why, and we are not fooled by high arguments of principle about the common good or what is best for the people. The Liberals want it because it will give them an opportunity to win a few seats that otherwise they could not win. It will be good for third parties.
      The Home Secretary has told us before, and he has repeated it in debates on the Bill, that he is against PR.
      Mr. Straw: For Westminster.
      Sir Brian Mawhinney: Well, I have noted newspaper reports that the Home Secretary may be hedging his position. He is now briefing the press that he might be willing to accept an alternative vote system. It is being put about on his behalf that the reason is that it at least retains the constituency link. I pay tribute to the Home Secretary, because I believe that he is genuinely sincere in attaching importance to the constituency link. However, he has failed to explain why it is so important to him at Westminster, but is not important to him for another parliamentary system, another democratic expression.
      Why did the Home Secretary introduce the Bill? Was he pushed to do so by the left wing of his party? He was not, because the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) told us on Second Reading that the whole idea was political suicide. Was the Home Secretary pushed to do so by the Prime Minister, who—whatever else he is—is not the ringleader of the left wing of the

      823
      Labour party? Well, as Magnus Magnusson might have said, "I've started, so I'll finish with the same view." As I reminded the House on Second Reading, the current Prime Minister said, in 1994—interestingly, after the Labour party conference had adopted the Plant recommendations, as the Home Secretary has just reminded us—
      "I have not been persuaded that under PR"
      one does not
      "end up with a disproportionate power being wielded by small parties. There is no perfect electoral system. Each has its problems and I simply do not believe that the problems"
      one gets
      "with PR are less than those"
      one gets
      "with the existing system.''"'—[0fficial Report, 25 November 1997; Vol. 301, c. 818.]
      The Bill drives forward a political agenda for the Government and for the Liberal Democrats: it does not drive forward a democratic agenda for the nation. The Bill will become law, imperfect though it is. When there is democratic uproar next year, we will be able to point out that it was the Conservative party that argued the people's case and voted against the Bill.
      8.35 pm
      Mr. Allan: I welcome the Third Reading of the Bill. The Liberal Democrats take as our starting point the fundamental imbalance that was caused by the 1994 European elections—an imbalance in British representation that meant that our constituents were not represented proportionally and also caused an imbalance in the European Parliament itself. We recognise that, in many ways, the Labour Government have been brave to introduce a Bill which appears to damage them in comparison with the current electoral situation.
      I am sad that the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) is so uncharacteristically cynical about our motives. We engage with several million people in this country who wish their Liberal voice to be heard in all the bodies of power. It is our duty to ensure that that voice is heard. We engage with people who are frustrated at having spent their lives voting for parties and never being represented. Many of those people are members and supporters of other parties who end up—legitimately—voting tactically for us because their vote for their first party of choice will never count. Many of those people will also welcome the introduction of the Bill.
      We have had fascinating debates throughout the Bill's progress. I never thought that I would hear so many Conservative Members appear so familiar with the terms of proportional representation systems, such as the various divisors. I hope that the experiences that they have had in our debates will lead them to an understanding of why those systems are fairer, and of the way forward. We have all learnt from the experience, and I hope that we will continue on the journey to constitutional reform, which is most welcome to the Liberal Democrats.
      824
      The Bill still has features about which we are not 100 per cent. happy, and they have been thoroughly rehearsed in the debates. I thank the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire for his recognition of the fact that we have instituted a democratic process in our party to do our best to cope with the unfairness and possible problems that the closed list system may cause. However, we do not believe that the Bill is a backward step: it is a missed opportunity to move forward. We hope that the Labour party will also introduce measures to try to redress some of the democratic deficit, because the electors will have a problem if all the parties do not behave fairly.
      The Bill is an enormous step forward. We hope that it will be part of a process that introduces fair voting. It started in Northern Ireland, with the fair voting systems that it has had for years. It will take us through the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh assembly, on to Europe and, eventually, to local government and Westminster. While I recognise that the Home Secretary and others in his party hope that the Bill is so far and no further, we hope that it is the thin end of wedge, and that the days of the first-past-the-post system are numbered in this country.
      The Liberal Democrats will vote joyfully and willingly for the Bill and we look forward to going to our party conference, which starts this weekend in Southport, and telling our members that next time they vote in a European election every vote will count towards electing a Member of the European Parliament—the first time that they will have been able to say that about a UK-wide election in the history of this country.
      8.39 pm
      Mr. Sayeed: I am not normally given to violent language in any debate. When I disagree with something, I normally debate more in sorrow than in anger, but the proposals are so partisan and undemocratic that the Labour party should be ashamed of them. We were promised a White Paper, but we have never had it.
      Mr. Straw: The House was not promised a White Paper, but a Bill.
      Mr. Sayeed: By "we" I meant the country. Before the election, we as a country were promised that there would be a White Paper, but there was not. A White Paper would have allowed the whole country to discuss and consider the measures, but because we have had a Bill that has been bulldozed through the House by a Labour Government with an enormous majority, we have not had that opportunity.
      Parts of the Bill are clearly unpopular, not just with Conservative Members, but with Labour Members. I have had a number of discussions with Labour Members who clearly do not like parts of the Bill. I doubt whether they will vote against it; they will probably just abstain if they feel strongly enough. There is no doubt that parts of the Bill are so undemocratic that a large section of the Labour party dislikes them intensely. I hope that they will convey those feelings to their supporters in their constituencies.
      I am not sure whether even the Home Secretary likes the Bill very much, as I noticed that he seemed to giggle his way through a great deal of the Second Reading

      825
      debate, and I understand that that even happened in Committee. I wonder whether he is comfortable with the Bill. I am sure that the Labour party machine likes the Bill because it gives it enormous power.
      I accept that parts of the Bill were contained in the Labour party manifesto; it contained proportional representation—I think that that was a deal cooked up with the Liberal party. I think that it may well be the precursor, as the Liberals want, to PR for the Westminster Parliament, which I profoundly regret.
      Mr. Mike Hancock: I should be interested to hear the hon. Gentleman's interpretation of the democratic process. The hon. Gentleman's colleague, the Conservative Member of the European Parliament who represents the part of Hampshire in which I live, Mr. Roy Perry, is complaining that his constituents and party members who might want to vote for him on the list system have to come to London to cast their vote. They are not even allowed to have a postal vote. What is democratic about that process?
      Mr. Sayeed: I shall explain it clearly to the hon. Gentleman. The problem is that we have been forced into a difficult position because the regions are so large that they are unmanageable—[Interruption.] I was asked a question and I shall answer the hon. Gentleman. Because the regions are so large, people have to travel long distances to listen to every one of the candidates and then make their decision. That is what is called democracy; that is the democracy that we have got to have because we have been forced to have the regions—[Interruption.]
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. There are many conversations taking place in the Chamber, but I can listen to only one speaker.
      Mr. Sayeed: From a sedentary position, I heard the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) ask, "What about the highlands and islands?" I agree with the hon. Lady, who has a good point. It is because we have been forced to have enormous regions that people will have to travel long distances if they are to hear the various candidates who want to be selected and elected as Members of the European Parliament.
      Mrs. Ewing: Is it not the responsibility of the candidate to go to the people?
      Mr. Sayeed: Of course it is the responsibility of the candidates to go to the people, and no doubt they will do so, but in a democratic process there has to be a selection conference. The Labour party is not going to have a selection conference as we understand it; they are going to have a—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman is dwelling on the subject of the selection of candidates, which is a matter for political parties. The Bill is not about the selection of candidates; it is about enabling people to stand for the European Parliament. The subject of the selection of candidates is outwith the scope of the Bill.
      Mr. Sayeed: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your advice. I was trying to explain the dangers of a closed list system.
      826
      We know that the enormous regions will break the constituency link, which I regret; I think that many hon. Members regret it. The aspect of the Bill that makes me so angry is that the closed list system was not contained in the Labour party's manifesto. Instead of having government by the people and for the people, we are going to have government by the placemen and for the party machine. That is not democratic, which is why I have the greatest pleasure in opposing this awful Bill.
      8.45 pm
      Miss McIntosh: I am grateful to have been called to contribute to the Third Reading debate.
      I should like to start by saying why I think the present system is satisfactory. Along with distinguished Ministers, I have experienced the present system, and I know that it has provided a direct constituency link. It gives an identifiable elected Member the right to take up cases and push legislation through on behalf of his or her constituents. It provides a clear, identifiable accountable link between the Member of the European Parliament and the elector, and it allows voters to express their choice of candidate.
      The Home Secretary was clearly right to say that the European Parliament does not form a Government, but it does play a greater legislative role than the original unelected Assembly that existed prior to the direct elections of 1979. Those powers were vested in the European Parliament through the European Single Act, the Maastricht treaty and the Amsterdam treaty.
      The European Parliament plays a similar role to Congress in the United States. I think that the Home Secretary must accept that the size of the Euro-constituency is similar to that of a congressional seat—half a million people. The European Parliament imposes a similar system of checks and balances on the Commission and the Council of Ministers. Perhaps the Government fear that system of checks and balances being played against the Government as President in office of the Council.
      I also have great reservations about the system proposed in the form of a closed list. It is profoundly undemocratic and leaves Members of the European Parliament unaccountable to their electors.
      Earlier this evening, the Home Secretary said that he would do nothing to discourage people from voting in the European elections. It is the fervent wish of Conservatives to encourage people to vote in the European elections.
      Does the Home Secretary accept that several different systems for elections will fall within the two months of May and June next year? There will be one system of proportional representation operating for the European parliamentary elections in Northern Ireland; under the present proposals—if they are adopted—a different system will operate for the European elections in England, Wales and Scotland; a different system is envisaged for election to the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly; and the normal first-past-the-post system will apply for local elections in May.
      I invite the Home Secretary to stick to the original agreement, which was formally agreed between the Labour party and the Liberal party, to introduce a system of proportional representation that would be valid for all forms of election, but not the European parliamentary

      827
      elections before the year 2004. Is it not profoundly wrong of the Government to try to introduce what we Conservatives have described as a bad Bill, which has not been thought out properly due to lack of time?
      If the proposed system of proportional representation is so good, why is it not being chosen for all the elections in the two-month period May to June 1999? Will not the system confuse electors—especially first-time electors, and perhaps older electors—so much that they will be put off casting their vote?
      The Home Secretary said that he would oppose any weakening of the sovereignty of the House. Are not the Government proposing to weaken it, with the creation of a federal state? They are already committed to introducing a Scottish Parliament and a Welsh assembly, and the Deputy Prime Minister has said that we will have directly elected members of regional assemblies in due course.
      The Bill would introduce a list system of party-controlled lists without any democratic link or any accountability of the elected MEP to his or her constituents. I wish it to be noted tonight that Conservatives want to preserve democracy and the direct link between the elected Member and the voter, whereas the Bill makes it clear that Labour wants to create the federalist socialist super-state that Conservative Members have consistently opposed.
      It gives me great pleasure to oppose the Third Reading of the Bill.
      8.50 pm
      Mr. Gill: Many motives have been ascribed to the Government for introducing this sad and unfortunate Bill, but in tonight's debate no one has mentioned the fact that the terms of the treaty of Maastricht oblige the Government to introduce proportional representation. Once again, Europe is driving the agenda.
      I oppose the Bill. My principal objections to it are that, as many colleagues have said, it ends the direct link between Members and their constituencies, and puts parties before people. Moreover, I believe that, if the electoral system is changed, we shall witness in the European Parliament—I fear that, if we get proportional representation in this Parliament, it will occur in this place, too—the emergence of party apparatchiks instead of those people who, over the years, have truly and consistently represented the interests of the people who put us in this place.
      The Bill stands democracy on its head. It removes people's right to select their own candidates. It destroys the delicate balance between Parliament, the parties and the people that they represent. It eliminates all the essential checks and balances that have stood democracy in this country in good stead for so long. It is a bad Bill, with little or no democratic justification. There is no disguising the greater party patronage and the greater central control that will result from the Bill, and there is no denying the scope it creates for dishonest politics and corrupt politicians.
      Finally, I very much regret the fact that an opportunity has been missed to enfranchise 18,000 people living in Gibraltar. That is very sad. The people of Gibraltar cannot understand it, and nor can I. The Government continually tell the House that they are altering our constitution to make it more democratic, and to make it more accountable
      828
      to the people. The Bill provided the Government with an opportunity to put their words into action. They have missed it, and that will not be easily forgotten in Gibraltar.
      8.52 pm
      Mr. Syms: I shall be brief, because I know that hon. Members wish to get away after a long week.
      The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) said that he hoped that we had learnt something about proportional representation. The more we learn, the less we like it. I am sure that, as the British electorate appreciate what they will have to deal with at the next European election—
      Mr. Hancock: They will come to love it.
      Mr. Syms: As a defender of the first-past-the-post system, I believe that the experience of the new system will be a great ally to us, because, when the electorate see how the new system works, they will start to appreciate the representative democracy that they have had for so many years.
      We have heard much about proportionality. There are advantages in a proportional system, but some very proportional systems in use in Europe produce answers that are not always the ones that sensible, moderate politicians want.
      The Front National in France benefited greatly from its national list, which gave it a boost domestically. We have heard a great deal about Belgian politics. Anyone who visits Antwerp sees the influence of Vlaams Blok, which often wins a fifth of the vote and has an influence. It is somewhat nasty to immigrants and has a political pedigree that none of us would want to see reflected in the British political system. We should be wary. Proportional systems can throw up people with whom hon. Members would not especially like to share a platform.
      I finish by remarking on the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney). We have seen part of the pudding in the Bill. We have not seen the registration of political parties, which will be key to the way in which the Bill works. At the start of this process, the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) asked several very sensible questions about lists. What happens under a list system when an MEP switches party? What happens when there is a list that is to continue for five years, until the next election, and a candidate switches party and inherits a seat?
      All those key issues will be debated on the Floor of the House. Conservative Members will make constructive comments, but also stand up for what we believe to be right, in terms of representative democracy and the rights of individual electors.
      Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 198, Noes 87.

      Division No. 204]

      [8.55 pm

      AYES

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Baker, Norman

      Ainger, Nick

      Ballard, Mrs Jackie

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Banks, Tony

      Allan, Richard

      Beard, Nigel

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Austin, John

      Begg, Miss Anne

      829

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Berry, Roger

      Ingram, Adam

      Betts, Clive

      Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

      Boateng, Paul

      Jenkins, Brian

      Breed, Colin

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

      Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

      Burden, Richard

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Burstow, Paul

      Jowell, Ms Tessa

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Kelly, Ms Ruth

      Caplin, Ivor

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

      Casale, Roger

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Cawsey, Ian

      Khabra, Piara S

      Chidgey, David

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Church, Ms Judith

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Clapham, Michael

      Laxton, Bob

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Levitt, Tom

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Linton, Martin

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Lock, David

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      McCabe, Steve

      Coaker, Vernon

      McCafferty, Ms Chris

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Cohen, Harry

      McIsaac, Shona

      Coleman, Iain

      Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

      Colman, Tony

      McNamara, Kevin

      Corbett, Robin

      MacShane, Denis

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Cotter, Brian

      McWalter, Tony

      Cranston, Ross

      McWilliam, John

      Cummings, John

      Mallaber, Judy

      Darvill, Keith

      Marshall—Andrews, Robert

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Martlew, Eric

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      Merron, Gillian

      Dawson, Hilton

      Michael, Alun

      Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Dowd, Jim

      Milburn, Alan

      Drew, David

      Miller, Andrew

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Moffatt, Laura

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      Moore, Michael

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Flint, Caroline

      Morley, Elliot

      Flynn, Paul

      Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Mountford, Kali

      Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

      Mudie, George

      Fyfe, Maria

      Norris, Dan

      Gapes, Mike

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Gardiner, Barry

      Olner, Bill

      George, Bruce (Walsall S)

      Öpik, Lembit

      Gerrard, Neil

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Pearson, Ian

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      Pickthall, Colin

      Godsiff, Roger

      Pike, Peter L

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      Plaskitt, James

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Pond, Chris

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Pound, Stephen

      Hancock, Mike

      Prescott, Rt Hon John

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Purchase, Ken

      Heppell, John

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Hewitt, Ms Patricia

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Hoey, Kate

      Rammell, Bill

      Home Robertson, John

      Rapson, Syd

      Hope, Phil

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Rendel, David

      Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

      Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Ruane, Chris

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      Hutton, John

      830

      Sanders, Adrian

      Tipping, Paddy

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Todd, Mark

      Sawford, Phil

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Spellar, John

      Wareing, Robert N

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Watts, David

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      White, Brian

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Wills, Michael

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Worthington, Tony

      Straw, Rt Hon Jack

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Timms, Stephen

      Ms Bridget Prentice and

      Janet Anderson.

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      MacKay, Andrew

      Arbuthnot, James

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Atkinson, Peter(Hexham)

      Madel, Sir David

      Boswell, Tim

      Maginnis, Ken

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Malins, Humfrey

      Brady, Graham

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      Brazier, Julian

      Moss, Malcolm

      Burns, Simon

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Cash, William

      Norman, Archie

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Ottaway, Richard

      Clappison, James

      Page, Richard

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Paterson, Owen

      Colvin, Michael

      Pickles, Eric

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      Prior, David

      Day, Stephen

      Randall, John

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      Robathan, Andrew

      Duncan, Alan

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Evans, Nigel

      Ruffley, David

      Faber, David

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Fallon, Michael

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Flight, Howard

      Soames, Nicholas

      Garnier, Edward

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Gibb, Nick

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Gill, Christopher

      Spring, Richard

      Gray, James

      Streeter, Gary

      Greenway, John

      Swayne, Desmond

      Grieve, Dominic

      Syms, Robert

      Gummer, Rt Hon John

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Hammond, Philip

      Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

      Hawkins, Nick

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Heald, Oliver

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David

      Trend, Michael

      Horam, John

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Viggers, Peter

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Wardle, Charles

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Wells, Bowen

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Leigh, Edward

      Woodward, Shaun

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Yeo, Tim

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Luff, Peter

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Tellers for the Noes:

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Mr. James Cran and

      Mr. Nigel Waterson.

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Bill read the Third time, and passed.
      Mr. John McDonnell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Earlier today during business questions, I requested a debate on the human rights record of my predecessor, Mr. Terry Dicks, who had visited Iraq and subsequently supported the hanging of Fazal Barzoft, a journalist with The Observer. He also cast aspersions on the veracity of the gassing of Kurds in the village of Halaji.
      While I was out of the Chamber, meeting constituents involved in a dispute at a local factory, I believe that a Conservative Member returned to the matter, on the basis that I was repeating a libel which I settled out of court.
      I raised the matter, not to repeat any libel but on the basis of information contained on the record in Hansard of the previous Member for Hayes and Harlington. He said that the Conservative Government, without any evidence being available at all, were quick to condemn the Iraqi Government for "allegedly" gassing the Kurds living in the north of Iraq. That comment followed an Amnesty International report confirming the gassing.
      In a newspaper article, which has been supplied by the Library, he went on to support the hanging of Fazal Barzoft—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman, but I cannot let him continue, because that is not a point of order. These are personal matters and personal views. They are not matters for me.
      Mr. McDonnell rose—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is it another point of order?
      Mr. McDonnell: I seek to put the record straight on the accuracy of the statement that—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Points of order should not be used to put the record straight.
      Mr. McDonnell: I am much obliged.

    DELEGATED LEGISLATION
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

    NORTHERN IRELAND
    That the draft Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997 (Amnesty Period) Order 1998, which was laid before this House on 2nd March, be approved.—[Ms Bridget Prentice.]
    Question agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

    TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT
    That the draft Employment Rights (Increase of Limits) Order 1998, which was laid before this House on 18th February, be approved.—[Ms Bridget Prentice.]
    Question agreed to.

  Sierra Leone
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Ms Bridget Prentice.]
  9.9 pm
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I am grateful for Madam Speaker's choice of tonight's subject on the Adjournment, which is the situation in Sierra Leone. I first sought a debate on the subject some weeks ago. It is of great encouragement to me that, since I first started seeking this opportunity, things have improved considerably in Sierra Leone. Although it is taking events in somewhat the wrong order, we meet tonight in the context of the liberation of Sierra Leone from its military junta and at the beginning of what I hope—like, I am sure, all colleagues in the House—will be a hugely positive and constructive new chapter, with a democratic Government installed, supported and made secure.
  My first reflection is that, instead of having the debate that I feared we would have—one critical of a military regime and setting out the horrors that were inflicted a couple of weeks ago, in one of the poorest countries in the world—there is now a substantial shaft of light.
  Secondly, I have used the opportunity of tonight's debate to gather together some people who know much more about events in Sierra Leone than I do. It is clear that the general view is that the British Government—especially the new Government—have signalled their intention to be a strong and renewed supporter of the Commonwealth. It is clear also that they have wanted to be helpful and supportive—supportive of the President in exile, supportive of our mission in exile with him and intensely keen to try to bring about a satisfactory resolution.
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), and his colleagues have the respect of the Sierra Leonean community, both there and here. I therefore hope, that we can all contribute constructively and positively to the debate, as I know the Minister personally and his colleagues have sought to do. I think that I am right in saying that the Minister has plans—he will probably tell us more formally—to go to Sierra Leone in the near future. That visit will be greatly welcomed.
  My third introductory comment is that I come to the debate entirely ill equipped, in a way, to be introducing it. 1 love Africa greatly and I have been there relatively often, but I have never been to Sierra Leone. My interest does not spring from my experience of the country in either its peacetime or its wartime. It comes instead from friendships with and the interests of my constituents, who form part of the significant Sierra Leonean community in this country.
  I do not know the accurate figures, but I have read that there are about 180,000 Sierra Leoneans here. Parliamentary colleagues from Hull, north London, including the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), and others, like me, represent significant numbers of people who have come from Sierra Leone. Many of them have been in this country for a long time in settled communities. Others have been here for a short time; those people have come because they could not stay at home.

  833
  One of the issues on which I shall touch is that, together with the Minister of State and his Department, there is a Home Office interest in the debate. Last year, as a result of the coup and the situation in Sierra Leone, the Home Office declared that Sierra Leone was a country whose nationals in this country would not in any circumstances be sent back, because it would be unsafe for them to return. I welcomed that decision. My constituents who are from Sierra Leone also welcomed it greatly.
  Within days of the beginning of the restoration of democratic government, questions arose concerning when, how and in what way it would be appropriate to change that process. Clearly that is of great concern to Sierra Leoneans in This country.
  Before I knew that Madam Speaker had selected this subject for debate, one of the first unsolicited letters that I received at the beginning of the new year was from an organisation that I had not heard of before. It may have written to other colleagues—certainly to Ministers. The letter was from a small group of people based in this country who call themselves the Movement for Peace in Sierra Leone. I shall read the beginning of the letter, as it sets the scene for the situation in Sierra Leone at the turn of the year:
  "I am writing to you about the lack of public awareness of the deteriorating events in Sierra Leone and the distressing plight of its refugees as a result of a prolonged seven year civil war culminating in the recent military coup of 25 May 1997.
  Words are extremely difficult to find to describe the carnage which has resulted from this military coup. Sierra Leone now lies in ruins and is ungovernable. With a population of 4.5 million of which 150,000 or more have been killed in the civil war: the exodus of Sierra Leoneans to the relative safety of neighbouring countries has reached epic proportions, estimated at around 750,000. This has created a humanitarian crisis along the west coast of Africa and beyond and the litany of suffering, destitution and degradation encountered by Sierra Leonean refugees would bring tears to your eyes…we were impelled to do something on their behalf."
  The organisation was impelled to write to colleagues and to me.
  That message at the beginning of the year made me think that I should do something. I know that such a thought has always been in the mind of Government, and in the minds of colleagues, many of whom have asked questions in the House and in the other place.
  Those who do not represent Sierra Leone or who have not worked or lived there, or who have not been involved directly with the agencies or previous missions to Sierra Leone, may wonder whether this is a big issue on the world stage, because we have not heard about it in the same way as we have heard of Rwanda and Burundi—we have not had pictures on our news in the same way—but occasionally the tragedies of the lack of a democracy in such countries impact here.
  Colleagues and others who later read or hear our debates may remember a true-life story which was reported in this country: that of a little girl from Makeni, north of Freetown, who came to this country from a children's home, where she could not get the treatment she needed after a bullet was shot into her head, between her eye and her brain. She came here, to Norwich hospital, two years ago, for her life to be saved. Tenneh Cole, "the girl with the bullet in her head", encapsulated for a moment the tragedies that occur when the democratic
  834
  structure of countries such as Sierra Leone is completely overturned. Only weeks ago, it was reported that everybody from the home from which that little girl came had gone missing. It had been looted and it was not known whether any of the children were alive or dead. Mercifully, later reports confirmed that the children had escaped into the bush.
  We are talking about a country that has been ripped apart and ravaged, where the most indescribable things have happened to the most vulnerable in the most vulnerable of places. The least we can do is reflect on that and get the maximum agreement and support from the Government to bring help, succour and consolation.
  I shall not spend a long time tracing the history of what has happened; nor will I spend long getting involved in the debate—although it has merit—about how the forces of liberation came to the rescue in recent days. I shall do that summarily.
  After the military coup, attempts were made by the EU, within the United Nations and by Governments in west Africa, to bring about, by means of sanctions, diplomacy and so on, a peaceful resolution and an end to the military regime. That did not succeed; therefore, ECOMOG—the military observer group of the Economic Community of West African States—intervened.
  I think that it is widely accepted that, technically, ECOMOG intervened outside the remit of the United Nations. That is not something that we would usually sanction, and I am not seeking to do so now. All I can say to the Minister, as I am sure he has been told, is that the first response in Sierra Leone was that the Nigerian-led troops were welcome. They have allowed the President to return. Whatever we may think about the regime in Nigeria, and whatever we may wish for that country, it would be wrong to be distracted tonight by those issues when, thank God, things have moved on and that intervention has taken place.
  The implications of the way in which the President has been allowed to return, and the deputy commissioner and now our high commissioner have gone back, are matters for us. There are two sorts of issue which I hope will concern the House. I shall illustrate those, ask a few questions and leave the House with a few reflections which have been picked up from Sierra Leonean citizens who have lived and worked there and which they have been good enough to share with me.
  There are two principal areas in which we can assist, and I speak to the Minister as he is wearing both his British Government hat and his European Union presidency hat, which he has for six months. First, we need to consolidate, bolster and secure democracy, civil liberty and the rule of law in Sierra Leone. Since independence, it has had two military regimes and it does not want any more. It wants to continue in a democratic tradition. Therefore, we must go about building that democracy.
  It emerged clearly from a meeting that we had not many minutes ago that local government is one of the respects in which Britain may be able to help. I have a practical example which relates well to other experiences that I have had in other African countries.
  If, for example, one is seeking to distribute aid or organise other matters locally, it is far more likely that an elected local government structure, rather than appointed or self-appointed local organisations, will have the

  835
  confidence of the people. If we are seeking to build a regime of security, supporting the Government and people of Sierra Leone, there are various ways in which to proceed.
  We need to give support to the United Nations to regularise the position of any external forces which may remain in the country. It is important that what has happened is put right, made legitimate and then made secure within a United Nations context.
  It is clear that, if people feel insecure, there cannot be a democratic regime and the fair chance of a beginning of prosperity. Most important, the country's borders and, in particular, its border with Liberia, must be secure. The frontiers must be known to be secure and there must be protection against the risks that many believe triggered the initial civil war—the spilling over into Sierra Leone of issues that originated in Liberia. External and internal security go together. If one is not secure, both may fail.
  We must ensure that human, political and civil rights, as well as economic and social rights, are looked after. In a study on wealth carried out about 10 years ago, Sierra Leone came 186th out of 186 or 187 in the world league table. One destabilising factor, which is more tragic when it occurs in a poor country, is the great injustice that remains between the affluent and the poor. Economic injustice results in economic and social imbalance, which detracts from a stable political, civil and social community.
  As we think about how we can proceed in terms of securing a political and democratic regime, I want to make a specific suggestion. Given that the Commonwealth secretariat is based in this country, as soon as is practicable in Sierra Leone an organisation such as the Westminster Foundation for Democracy could seek to facilitate a constitutional and civic discussion so that the ideas of people of experience who remain in Sierra Leone or have been exiled can be taken into account and used in the rebuilding process. The Westminster Foundation for Democracy has done good work in South Africa and elsewhere in Africa, so perhaps it, as well as other organisations, could be used.
  Secondly, practical assistance is desperately needed to build up a country that is on its knees. I refer to humanitarian aid in the first place, but a reconstruction programme is also needed. Earlier today, I was listening to friends and colleagues in a Committee Room speak of their experiences. If I were a Sierra Leonean, I would want the world to help with a sort of Marshall plan for my country. That is the level of investment and commitment that is needed. A country of 4.5 million people is not an insignificant one to rebuild.
  Sierra Leone has one or two crucial industries. If it is to have a diamond industry that produces wealth for all, not just for the few, it must be incorporated into a reconstruction programme. In many areas, agriculture has been devastated and the infrastructure is non-existent. Although it is a small country, there have been repeated pleas for a decent rail system. Pleas are heard in all countries, but they are all the more crucial in a country that has suffered both civil war and then a repressive and cruel regime. Hardware is needed to allow agriculture to take off quickly. The land for growing rice exists, but without tractors and tools, the rice cannot be grown, so people are not as self-sufficient as they would like to be.
  836
  I hope that the Government will draw up a list of the practical humanitarian measures that they can take and co-ordinate a response. It would be helpful if the Minister will not just say that the United Kingdom Government will continue to respond and be keen to help, but mobilise our colleagues in the European Union and the Commonwealth to respond appropriately, too. If this Parliament has noticed how unsatisfactory and oppressive the regimes in Sierra Leone and Nigeria have been, we must respond with speedy action when the chance comes for those regimes to end.
  Measures are needed that go beyond the immediate and short terms. In response to what our Sierra Leonean partners tell us, we could help to co-ordinate training, support and back-up for their education and teaching, judicial and local government systems. "Training" is one of the words I hear most when people are asked what is needed in Sierra Leone.
  Sierra Leonean voluntary sector organisations, some based in this country and some based in Sierra Leone, already have the appropriate people who are willing and able to work, and they should be supported. People from Sierra Leone who are based in Britain need help to enable them to go back and contribute to the rebuilding of their country, because they face complicated problems. The Government must consider also how they can respond sensitively and appropriately to the problems of those who are so unsettled, upset, physically hurt and bereaved that they are not ready or able to go back home in the near future.
  All I can do is hint at the enormity of the task facing us. Britain was the colonial power, and since 1961 has been regarded as the principal non-African friend of Sierra Leone. If ever there was a time for us to do our post-colonial duty, it is now; if ever there was a time for the Government to respond generously and win the sympathy and support of all hon. Members, it is now.
  On behalf of a community that has suffered far more than any community has ever deserved to suffer, I say to the Minister that there is an opportunity to rebuild. The President and the Government want to get on with the job, and the people of Sierra Leone are looking to us to respond. I hope that tonight's debate shows that we are ready to listen, and to respond most generously.
  9.32 pm
  Mr. Kevin McNamara: I congratulate the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) on his good fortune in securing the debate.
  The city that I represent is twinned with Freetown in Sierra Leone, and that is particularly important to us. Twinnings between cities are often occasions for junkets, with a little education and a few visits thrown in, but, because of the city's connections with William Wilberforce and his connections with Sierra Leone and the abolition of slavery, we deliberately chose to twin with Freetown to draw our citizens' attention to responsibilities outwith Europe.
  Our relationship with Freetown has been tenuous, not because of any lack of good will among the people of Freetown or the citizens of Hull, but because of the unhappiness that has hit Sierra Leone and the reaction of previous British Governments to the issues of trade, aid and assistance. We welcome the return of democracy to Sierra Leone and hope to see the country prosper.

  837
  I want to put two points to my hon. Friend the Minister, and if my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, West and Hessle (Mr. Johnson) catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he may go into further detail. First, I shall take up the point about training in local government made by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). Representatives from Freetown's town clerk's department have frequently worked in our town clerk's department. In turn, we have sent administrators to Freetown. Much could be achieved by Her Majesty's Government if they examined the small and narrow, but fundamental, issue of training. Helping people works two ways: we learnt a great deal from the Sierra Leoneans who worked with us in Hull. That is something that can be built on at relatively little cost. It provides important infrastructure for a decent and civilised life. We should look at that.
  Secondly, we should make more use of our voluntary organisations in this country and the voluntary organisations in Sierra Leone which have contacts and relationships with one another. It might be through CAFOD—the Catholic Fund for Overseas Development—War on Want or some other organisation.
  That country is facing terrible devastation as it recovers from the ravages of the terrible civil war. At grass roots level, help can be provided with small projects, small sums of money and limited but important ambitions to rebuild the local economy, and to help people regain the ability to sustain themselves and provide something for a cash crop to maintain the economy. Despite the civil war, the invasion and the restoration of democracy, the voluntary organisations have maintained specific and deliberate connections. Throughout that time, money has been going to Sierra Leone to buy things that are desperately needed. Above all, those voluntary organisations have the confidence of local people. In many cases, it is local people who are administering the work and assistance.
  I would like to think that the Foreign Office and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development will look at ways in which to help. Great sums of money and great schemes will not do anything immediately, but we should concentrate our attention on myriad small schemes, deliberately targeted on the agencies and the people who know how to achieve the regeneration of the countryside.
  9.37 pm
  Mr. Alan Johnson: I, too, pay tribute to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) for initiating the debate and for allowing us to participate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) has said, Hull has a long association with Sierra Leone and we are twinned with Freetown. Our constituents have watched with concern the events of the past decade. According to the United Nations, 30,000 people have been killed in Sierra Leone since 1991, and 350,000 people have been made refugees.
  There was optimism in February 1996 when the elections produced a mandate for the Sierra Leone People's Party and for the presidency of Ahmed Tejan Kabbah. That turned quickly to despair. The Minister will
  838
  recall that my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North and I wrote to him on 10 December last year drawing his attention to an Amnesty International report on the abuse of civil rights and the collapse of the rule of law following the military coup which took place in May last year. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North said, hopefully the reign of terror is over, but the scorched earth policy of the fleeing terrorists is causing great suffering to people who have already suffered so much.
  I know that the Government will do everything they can to ensure that the fledgling democracy survives. I should like to quote from a report sent to us in Hull by a very brave man, Father Peter Konteh, who is based at the Sacred Heart cathedral in Freetown. He wrote to us recently via the local press saying:
  "How do people feel about the future? People are generally optimistic; Sierra Leone seems to have a lot of confidence in President Tejan Kabbah. This is partly due to the fact that before the May 25th obstruction, there were evident signs that the economy of the country was on the mend. People believe that with his reinstatement things may continue for the better. Others feel that life will continue to be difficult for a while, because the AFRC have done so much damage to the economy and the infrastructural basis of this nation, but none the less they believe that Tejan Kabbah is well capable to rebuild this country."
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North and I are here because we believe that Ahmed Tejan Kabbah cannot do it alone and that the people of Sierra Leone need assistance. In Hull, we are doing our best to provide what help we can to our friends in Sierra Leone because we recognise the suffering that its people have endured and the immense courage of those who have stayed to struggle for the restoration of democracy in that beautiful country.
  9.39 pm
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I congratulate the Speaker on choosing this subject for today's debate, the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) on the way in which he has introduced it, and my hon. Friends the Members for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) and for Hull, West and Hessle (Mr. Johnson) on the excellent work by Kingston upon Hull council as part of a real twinning arrangement.
  Like the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey, a considerable number of people from Sierra Leone live in my constituency and in nearby areas of north London. The reality for them of a conflict that has gone on for a long time is the horror and fear of trying to find out what has happened to their families: whether they have been killed, where they have been forced into exile, and which place has granted them refuge or which has not.
  To try to put it into context, the civil war in Sierra Leone has gone on almost as long as this country's population endured the second world war. That is the reality of life for Sierra Leone's people. Thirty per cent. of the population have been displaced and well over 15,000—possibly as many as 50,000 people—have been killed during the war. The loss is tremendous and horrific, and it tends to be of the most able sections of the population during fighting. The problems of economic redevelopment and reconstruction of the whole country are further hampered by the loss of so many able, fit and skilled people. As a result, the damage is even greater.
  The number of people who have sought refuge in this country has been considerable. Although the Home Office has not removed anyone to Sierra Leone and, as far as I

  839
  know, has no plans to do so, I would be pleased to hear from the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), that he will pass on to Home Office Ministers concerns that many of us have that, although—I hope—the war is behind us and a period of peace and stability is ahead, it has not all happened yet. We hope that there will be no removals back to Sierra Leone in the foreseeable future, and that we shall instead have some sympathy for the people concerned.
  I have in front of me a sobering booklet called "The armed conflict in the world today: a country by country review". I do not propose to read it all because it would take a long time. The booklet is, in part, sponsored by the all-party group on human rights, of which I am one of the vice-chairs. In the section on Sierra Leone, it outlines the problems, conflicts and losses, and the hope that, following the accords that were signed after hostilities ended—which we understand is the case—some Government of national unity will be installed. I hope that that Government are successful and able to achieve the national unity that is required for reconstruction to take place.
  Although I recognise everything that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey said on that point, the question of the UN's role in this conflict and, indeed, in others needs to be examined closely. The UN takes a high-profile role in certain places. At times, it almost looks as though CNN is following the UN, or the UN is following CNN; I am not sure which way round it is. This conflict never quite reached the proportions of Kate Adie being parachuted in to report it to us. As a result of the almost complete media ignorance of the events there, the Nigerian army was acting—or believed it was acting—on behalf of the UN in both Liberia and Sierra Leone.
  Do not get me wrong. I am glad that the conflict is over in Sierra Leone, but I do not believe that it is right to allow armies from countries that, in no sense, can be described as democratic or respecting human rights in their societies, to act, in effect, under a UN mandate. I would rather that the UN had a much more hands-on involvement in tackling the problems of west Africa. A conflict, be it in Bosnia, Iran, Iraq or West Africa, results in thousands of deaths. If the UN is to mean anything, it has to be properly involved. I hope that the House will return to the issue of what the UN does.
  I conclude on a point that I find quite horrifying. It is possible to find out very quickly what is happening all around the world. Worldwide web sites and other technology mean that we can get day-by-day accounts of the starvation and destruction that is taking place. All that technology makes it possible for us to sit at home in our front rooms, tap into a computer and find out exactly what is going on, but tragically, we cannot get food, aid or help there in time; we can only get the information back.
  I hope that the Government recognise that the massive refugee surges from Sierra Leone, Liberia and Nigeria will have to be dealt with and that unless food aid is got there quickly and agricultural aid and infrastructural help shortly afterwards, the conditions that led to the war in the first place and resulted in the coup and all the corruption that went with it will be repeated. We have to get help there very quickly. I hope that the Government and the EU will play their part in that, but above all, I
  840
  hope that the United Nations will show real determination to get involved in that part of the world, and support movements that bring about long-term peace.
  There are vast natural resources all along the West African coast. It was plundered by the Europeans as part of the slave trade in the 18th and 19th centuries. It is now being plundered again by international mining companies that are not necessarily concerned about democracy, the rule of law and human rights; all they want is a stable environment from which they can extract enormous wealth.
  I wish the new Government of Sierra Leone well as there are enormous problems ahead of them. We can help them overcome some of those problems by sending aid from the west to develop a sustainable and democratic society. I fear that, if we fail to do that, the same disasters will recur in 10 years' time. I do not want that to happen—nobody does—but there is responsibility on western countries that have the knowledge, power and money to do something about it and quickly.
  9.46 pm
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr.Tony Lloyd): I join in congratulating the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) on introducing tonight's important debate. I am delighted that he chose to debate Sierra Leone. Britain and the rest of the world have to take account of the tragedy that took place there, and its changed circumstances.
  I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks about the role that the British Government have consistently tried to play since the coup in Sierra Leone last year. I am acutely aware of the fact that Britain's ties with Sierra Leone go back over a considerable period. I also have many West Africans, particularly from Sierra Leone, living in my constituency, including a former lord mayor of Manchester, Councillor Yomi Mambu, with whom I have been in constant touch, along with many other constituents from Sierra Leone who were frightened beyond reason by the uncertainty of the plight of their families and friends while the junta was in control of the country.
  Last October, I was privileged to address a seminar in London with President Tejan Kabbah, who was still in exile, entitled "Restoring Sierra Leone to Democracy". I expressed our clear wish to see the people of Sierra Leone free to determine their own Government and future. The return of President Kabbah to Freetown on 10 March—just two days ago—is a vital step in that direction, and we warmly welcome his return.
  The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey talked about tragedy turning into joy, referring to the case of Tenneh Cole, and saying that she had gone into the bush. She is now back, and, although traumatised, she is at least safe, and hopefully secure.
  It is equally a matter of fact that the tragedy that unfolded on the streets of Freetown and throughout Sierra Leone turned to joy a few days ago when President Kabbah returned to Freetown. I am told that about 500,000 people were on the streets of Freetown to welcome him on his triumphal journey to the stadium, where 50,000 people had waited from the early morning and through the heat of the day until his arrival to hear his speech. Quite rightly, a hero's welcome was bestowed on him.

  841
  My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) asked about the position of the Home Office. The best I can do is to pass on the remarks that hon. Members have made tonight to Home Office Ministers. However, I put on record my belief that the reign of tenor is now over. In his address on his arrival in Freetown, President Kabbah spoke of the need for reconciliation and to establish a broad-based Government. Despite his own suffering—his house was destroyed by the junta in an act of petty-minded nastiness—he said, speaking of the tragedy:
  "our image as a civilised nation will be greatly enhanced if we are seen to be promoting reconciliation."
  It is that tone of reconciliation that is so important.
  President Kabbah continued:
  "Also of great concern to me is the spate of revenge killing and other forms of violence that followed our liberation. I am aware that people were hurt and are still being hurt in other parts of the country by the atrocities of the RUF rebels and the remnants of the junta. However this negative era in Sierra Leone's history can be used as a redefining moment for our country as we move towards the millennium."
  With that sort of spirit, which demands of himself and works with his people for reconciliation, Sierra Leone can look forward to a different era.
  The priority now is for the whole of the international community to work with President Kabbah, the Economic Community of West African States and the people of Sierra Leone to underline the fact that a long-term peaceful future can be assured only through that reconciliatory and inclusive approach. That approach formed the basis of the Abidjan peace accords and the Conakry agreement, and it remains as valid today as when they were drawn up.
  In his speech, President Kabbah was kind enough to pay tribute to the role the British Government played in bringing about his return. He said:
  "The British Prime Minister and his Government also deserve our special thanks for their support and assistance in every respect, and for the generous hospitality accorded to me and my delegation during the recent meeting of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers and Heads of Government."
  We appreciate those words.
  Let me take this opportunity to set out our position and record in this respect. We have been committed to working for the restoration of President Kabbah's Government because we regarded them as the only legitimate Government available to the people of Sierra Leone. We were instrumental in drawing up the UN Security Council resolution 1132, which imposed sanctions on the military junta. Through the Department for International Development, we provided support for the Government exiled in Conakry, to enable them to draw up a programme for the reconstruction of their country following their return to office. That 90-day programme includes specific reference to local government, and President Kabbah has made it clear that he still intends to implement it.
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister personally invited President Kabbah to the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting—uniquely, given that he was not actually in situ as the working Head of Government. We recognised that the situation in Sierra Leone was unique,
  842
  so inviting President Kabbah was the right act, and it sent a strong signal. In January, the Foreign Secretary appointed Mr. John Flynn—a former ambassador—to act as his special representative on Sierra Leone to galvanise international support for the restoration of democracy there.
  Since February, the position has changed following the intervention of the ECOMOG forces. Let me make it clear to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North that, while we welcome the fact that the rule of the military junta had been brought to an end, we were unable wholeheartedly to endorse the ECOMOG action. We believe that any use of force should be based in international law. It is important to place on record our recognition of the sacrifice made by the ECOMOG forces, which saw young lives sacrificed in the cause of restoring democracy. Co-operation is needed by all those who have the interests of Sierra Leone at heart.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North talked about the need for a process of reconstruction to prevent a return to the situation which allowed the coup to take place, and he is right. In that vein, our immediate priority had to be to assist in providing humanitarian relief to the people of Freetown and other cities in Sierra Leone that had seen fighting.
  To help with that immediate assistance, HMS Cornwall arrived in Freetown on 1 March, and will remain until 20 March. HMS Cornwall has played an invaluable role, delivering food and medical supplies to cities in Sierra Leone which were unreachable by other means. Her crew are providing emergency assistance to hospitals, schools and other institutions and people in Freetown. Cornwall's efforts are being co-ordinated through the UN humanitarian office with the efforts of the Sierra Leone Government, aid agencies and non-governmental organisations on the ground.
  In addition to the role played by HMS Cornwall, we have provided a donation of £2 million to the UN trust fund for Sierra Leone; I shall return to the trust fund later. The DFID has funded a humanitarian adviser, who is now in Freetown working with the Government, UN agencies and NGOs to assess how best to help those who need it. I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North about the need to look at the small schemes, which are so important.
  The DFID has already sent supplies worth £1 million, together with logistical and technical support, to the task force established in Freetown to restore civilian government to Sierra Leone. DFID has provided another £1 million in addition to the £1 million given in November last year to enable the International Committee of the Red Cross to continue its humanitarian work and protection and human rights activities. That is where the initial focus has been. Clearly, all hon. Members who have spoken referred to the need for long-term reconstruction. We want normal economic activity to return, and there is a role for the EU, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, West and Hessle (Mr. Johnson) said.
  In that context, President Kabbah said:
  "we shall adopt means to safeguard our fishing industry and stop the smuggling of our diamonds."
  He referred to corruption, which was part of the tragedy which befell the nation. We very much welcome his statement:
  "But you should each be a vigilante for good government and the elimination of corruption in our society."

  843
  That is part of the rebuilding process.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: There are two other pieces of the longer-term economic picture that the Minister might look at. He should try to make sure that the IMF and world financial agencies do not go in heavily—as they sometimes have done in African countries recently—to try to get the regime balanced more quickly than is practically possible. Secondly, if ever there were a case for debt wipe-out in the context of Jubilee 2000 and the role we can play, Sierra Leone must be it. Perhaps the Minister will reflect, now or later, on whether one of the signal things that we could do is to wipe out the international debt of that country, and to negotiate for that internationally.
  Mr. Lloyd: I cannot give an easy answer to that, except to point out that the World bank has recently changed considerably—the culture has changed enormously—and it is now seen to be playing a much more constructive role. Moreover, the British Government are playing a key role in trying to ensure debt write-off throughout the whole of sub-Saharan Africa. I recognise what the hon. Gentleman says, and I hope that he will allow me to reflect on that, rather than give a glib answer now.
  On the internationalisation of the process, hon. Members have referred to the role of the United Nations. We have made it clear that we believe that the United Nations—
  It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Mudie.]
  Mr. Lloyd: That is the first time that I have ever had to give way to the occupant of the Chair for the 10 o'clock motion, but this has been a week of many firsts for me, including having to respond to two Adjournment debates.
  As I was saying, we believe that the United Nations has a vital role to play in underpinning the return to democracy in Sierra Leone. On 13 March, which is tomorrow, the Secretary-General will report on UN deployment. I cannot anticipate what the report will say, but we believe that future peacekeeping by ECOMOG forces—this relates to points that have been made—should be brought under UN auspices through a new Security Council resolution, which will authorise the deployment of UN military liaison officers to assist ECOMOG in the disarmament and demobilisation of all armed groups, including local militia. Inevitably, the UN will have a key role in helping to develop the country.
  Mr. Corbyn: I was making a wider point about ECOMOG as a whole. Will my hon. Friend's concerns apply also to the operation of ECOMOG forces in Liberia, and perhaps in any other country in the region? Clearly, the report of the Secretary-General must cover the whole region—one cannot deal with Sierra Leone in isolation.
  Mr. Lloyd: I was going to put my hon. Friend's point into the context of the overall security situation. Inevitably, we have to take a wider view of the security of Sierra Leone in the region. We need to debate what that means specifically, but we believe that the legal
  844
  authority of the UN is needed both to ensure an adequate mandate for all those involved and to allow for long-term security internally and in the region as a whole.
  As a permanent member of the Security Council, Britain is actively involved in the promotion of the UN trust fund, which we strongly support. I believe that the fund is the Marshall plan for Sierra Leone that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey requested. We have started the fund with a contribution of £2 million, and we intend to use every device available to us to encourage the international community to be generous. The fund is designed to support the rehabilitation and development programme in the longer term. We shall play a full and active role in achieving those objectives.
  I also believe that the Commonwealth has a key role to play relating to the democracy agenda. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey was kind enough to mention the Government's support for the Commonwealth. We believe that the Commonwealth is reinventing itself, and that it can play a vital role in upholding standards of respect for human rights and of support for democracy. We believe that the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth, and the Commonwealth as an institution, have an important role to play in the context of Sierra Leone.
  I had the privilege of representing the British Government when Sierra Leone was discussed at the Commonwealth ministerial action group in London on 2 and 3 March. In the concluding statement, we welcomed the fact that the rule of the junta had been brought to an end. We commended the role played by ECOWAS and, at the time, we looked forward to President Kabbah's return and called for humanitarian assistance for the people of Sierra Leone.
  We also agreed to send a ministerial-level mission to Sierra Leone as soon as possible to explore ways in which the Commonwealth could assist in the reconstruction of the country. Constitutional arguments were advanced by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey, and by my hon. Friends who contributed to the debate, about the need to rebuild a civil society. The Commonwealth can make a genuine contribution, because we have experience of institutional systems that overlap with those that Sierra Leone had in the past and will enjoy in the future. I am pleased to confirm that the mission plans to visit Sierra Leone on 30 and 31 March, and I look forward to being a member of the mission and examining the situation in the country.
  I wish to defend the Government and one of Britain's representatives against an ill-informed and scurrilous article that appeared in The Observer on Sunday. Indeed, I am slightly surprised that no one has referred to it. It talked about Britain's talks with hired killers, and about the Foreign Office admitting our ambassador's link to notorious mercenaries plotting against the Sierra Leone Government. Ironically, that was wrong, because the Sierra Leone Government referred to was the illegal junta. That is a bizarre situation for The Observer, but perhaps accuracy was not its main intention.
  The suggestion that Britain was conspiring with hired killers is wrong, and I wish to make that clear on behalf of the Government. As a result of the article, the high commissioner, Mr. Peter Penfold, has confirmed that on no occasion did he attend any meetings at which

  845
  Sandline—the company mentioned—and President Kabbah were present together. I reject the insinuations in the article except in one regard—the high commissioner and President Kabbah became close to each other when they were in exile together in Conakry.
  We do not regard the fact that the high commissioner did his job and offered tangible and practical support to President Kabbah as something for which he should be criticised. The opposite is true, because we believe that he played an important role, and President Kabbah agrees. We reject the nonsense in that article, and it is a pity that the journalist did not take the trouble to talk to me directly.
  Sierra Leone now has a new opportunity and a new future. If that future is an improvement on the past, we can only rejoice. If anyone is in any doubt about the nature of the junta, its activities in the past weeks have revealed the full horror of its rule. The stories that have come out since the junta took over have been horrendous. The stories of brutality meted out to innocent people have been daily fare.
  As the junta retreated, it systematically looted villages, and mutilated and murdered innocent civilians. It left a legacy of misery behind it that will traumatise Sierra Leone for years to come. It has been reported that 500 people in the town of Bo, one of the last strongholds of the junta, were slaughtered. We do not know when that happened, and we can only record the outrage and note that it is justification for the condemnation of the junta and rejoicing that it has now gone. It is time to draw a line under that sad chapter in the history of Sierra Leone, and to work together to support the efforts of the new Government and the people to rebuild their country.
  If I have missed any of the points that have been raised by hon. Members, I apologise, and I shall reflect on them and return to them.
  I conclude by setting out what we see as the priorities for Sierra Leone. The first and most immediate is the provision of humanitarian assistance to the population and to make a start on long-term economic reform and development. It is for President Kabbah to re-establish immediately an autonomous, democratic Sierra Leone Government based in Freetown. It is for future peacekeeping by ECOMOG forces to be brought under the United Nation's auspices through a new Security Council resolution authorising the deployment of UN military liaison officers to assist ECOMOG in the disarmament and demobilisation of all armed groups in the country, including the local militia.
  It is for the international community to begin to work with President Kabbah, with ECOWAS and the people of Sierra Leone to reinforce the view that a long-term peaceful future can be assured only through the process of reconciliation, as envisaged in the Abidjan peace accords and the Conakry agreement. The United Nations will play a crucial role, but I believe that President Kabbah will also do so. The words that he has spoken in Freetown over the past few days are an important signal of his intent, and of the possibilities for the people of Sierra Leone.
  President Kabbah and the people of Sierra Leone face a daunting task in the rebuilding of their shattered country. It is one that will require the support of the international
  846
  community. The pledge that Britain makes, has made in the past and will make in future is that we stand ready to play our full part to ensure that Sierra Leone achieves that aim and that dream.
  10.11 pm
  Mr. Bowen Wells: I should like to say how much I endorse the Government's approach to the return of democracy to Sierra Leone, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) on introducing the debate. What we have been discussing is vital, not just to Sierra Leone, but to the whole of west Africa, and even east Africa.
  The United Nations' reaction to the situation has been less than satisfactory, and we must find a way to boost its activity in Africa, particularly west Africa. It is ironic that Nigeria, which has been suspended from the Commonwealth because it has not conducted itself in a democratic way—in fact, it is a military dictatorship—has restored democracy in Sierra Leone. We cannot avoid that curious turn of events; I am delighted by it, because I think that Nigeria is fundamentally a democracy and that the people of west Africa—indeed, of all Africa—acknowledge the ideas of democracy that respect the ordinary person's need to live his life with dignity, to earn his own living and to vote, and to control and bring his Government to account. That is an African as well as a European position.
  We are right to support what has happened in Sierra Leone, which will need even more support than the Minister has suggested. I do not think that we have the capacity in Britain alone to support the new President in Sierra Leone; it must be an international effort. The effort must involve the United Nations, the European Union and the United States of America, and all donors, including the many excellent donors in the individual countries of Europe and elsewhere, such as the European development bank, the World bank and the International Monetary Fund. I agree that the conditions that have to be applied to Sierra Leone in terms of the international financial institutions must be tailored to Sierra Leone's needs.
  I do not endorse the cry of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey for total debt forgiveness in Sierra Leone, because we must enhance and support a return of confidence in that country. We want not just international organisations but Sierra Leone people who are considering returning with their money to know that, if they invest in the country's future, their investment will not be wiped out but will be respected by the new democratic Government and repaid on time, with interest.
  One cannot reassure people by simply writing off all the old debt. None the less, we must reorganise and negotiate to achieve something that has not been achieved in many countries. Undoubtedly some debt must be written off. We must enable the country to have a sustainable debt profile, which it can handle. That will induce confidence in the people in Sierra Leone, and encourage people living outside Sierra Leone, in many constituencies in this country, to return and invest their money.
  We want them, with other groups of people, to set up businesses and start training, and thereby enhance and start to rebuild the economy. That will increase the

  847
  capacity of Sierra Leone to look after the poor, to educate, and to improve women and children's health. That will start to rebuild the vibrant society that we know Sierra Leone to be perfectly capable of achieving.
  We must be careful how we tackle these problems. I know that the Minister knows these things. I have spoken to him and worked with him in many capacities, and I have confidence in him.[Interruption.] I give way to the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). I nearly said "my hon. Friend", because we are fellow warriors in this matter.
  Mr. McNamara: On past occasions, when we shared a great common interest in overseas development, I was flattered to be addressed in that manner by the hon. Gentleman.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) that the western world should make a sustained effort to wipe out debt for most sub-Saharan countries, as a mark of the millennium, of the jubilee, of a new start for countries that have been especially exploited. That would be especially appropriate in the case of Sierra Leone, after the traumas that it has been through.
  We should not expect a country of that size, with a population of 4.5 million people, to contemplate continuing a debt for which many of the people were not responsible, to carry forward something that would be an increasing burden on them. It is right and proper, if aid and help is given, if loans are made, that provision should be made for repayment and so on.
  However, surely the hon. Gentleman would agree that part of the problem was that money was lent, and money was given in circumstances when no—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order.
  Mr. McNamara: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker. No sensible lender would have given that money in those circumstances, and the present population should not suffer for that. It is far better to start with a clean slate.
  Mr. Wells: The hon. Gentleman's sentiments are entirely my own, but I want to sound a note of caution
  848
  about total write-off of debt, because I want confidence in Sierra Leone to be restored, by whatever method. We must stop those policies.
  Mr. McNamara: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that more—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps this is an opportune time for me to intervene. Adjournment debates are an opportunity for Back Benchers to raise a matter with the Minister, and the Minister gives a reply. I know of the keen and long-standing interest of the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) in the question of overseas development, and I have allowed him to speak, but 1 thought that he would do so briefly, because the Minister has spoken; and the hon. Gentleman should have caught my eye before the Minister rose to reply to the debate.
  With that in mind, I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman would perhaps wind up his remarks. I am sorry to do this, but, had he caught my eye before the Minister, I would have allowed him to make his case.
  Mr. Wells: I do not think that you could have put that point more courteously and kindly, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You are absolutely right, and I shall certainly conclude my remarks in the manner that you suggest. I understood that the debate could continue until 10.30 pm, and I thought that it would be beneficial to use that time discussing this matter. However, I certainly respect your judgment, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Members for Hull, North and for Southwark, North and Bermondsey and I shall have to find another occasion to discuss the complications and difficulties of resolving debt.
  In conclusion, the whole House has expressed its concern to support the return of democracy to Sierra Leone. I welcome that very much. I hope that we can continue to express our concern and find tangible means in the immediate future—which the Minister outlined to the House—and even more ways in the medium and longer term, through the Commonwealth and through our international connections, to support the new democracy of Sierra Leone.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty minutes past Ten o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Drinking Water
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will enable the Drinking Water Inspectorate to seek authorisation for a wider range of remedial works before a failure occurs. [33034]

  Angela Eagle
  Water companies have a duty to supply drinking water which is wholesome and it is for each company to decide how to maintain their assets to avoid future breaches of the standards. If water fails to meet quality standards, the Drinking Water Inspectorate will take enforcement action against the company, or prosecute them for supplying water unfit for human consumption.

  Government Car Service
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the cost of leasing the Jaguar 4.0i LWB for the use of the Deputy Prime Minister from the Government Car Service. [32992]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 5 March 1998]: The current weekly cost to the Department of leasing the car and a full-time driver from the Government Car Service is £1,185. The car is not provided for the exclusive use of the Deputy Prime Minister but undertakes other activities, such as the delivery of urgent papers and Ministerial boxes. The basis on which the leasing costs are determined are the same as those which applied to the previous Administration and apply similarly to the current arrangements under which the Government Car Service provides a car for the use of the Leader of the Opposition.

  Science, Engineering and Technology Week
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what contribution his Department plans to make to the Government's National Week of Science, Engineering and Technology on 13 to 22 March, in respect of environmental and clean-technology research. [33028]

  Angela Eagle
  Research teams and scientists currently working under contract to the Department's Research Programmes will be taking part on their own initiatives but with the encouragement of the Department, in National Science, Engineering and Technology Week events. The Foresight Vehicle programme, to which the Department contributes support, is one clean-technology project that will be on display.

  Publications
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list those European Commission(a) newsletters, (b) magazines and (c) occasional publications to which his Department subscribes. [33658]

  Angela Eagle
  The Department including its Executive Agencies subscribes to a range of titles; currently the main ones are:(a) Newsletters

  EUR-OP News

  (b) Magazines

  Bulletin of the European Union, including supplements

  European Court Reports

  Official Journal—C Series Paper and CD Rom Version

  Official Journal—L Series Paper and CD Rom Version

  Official Journal—S Series Paper and CD Rom Version

  (c) Occasional Publications

  Basic Statistics of the Community

  Demographic Statistics

  Energy Yearly Statistics

  Europe in Figures

  General Report on the Activities of the European Union

  Interinstitutional Directory of the European Union

  National Accounts, main Aggregates and Detailed Tables

  Operation of Nuclear Power Stations

  Report on Competition Activity

  Research and Development Annual Statistics.

  Household Projections
  Mr. Tom King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will review how the migration assumptions used in the sub-national population and household projections are calculated, in respect of the emphasis laid on forecasts of future regional and sub-regional economic activity rather than past trends. [33827]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The 1996-based sub-national population projections are due to be published in the autumn of this year. Production of the household projections will follow some months later. As in the past, local authorities will be consulted on the migration assumptions within the population projections. At a consultation meeting last December, local government and academic representatives supported the view that both the population and household projections should be based on past trends. It should be noted that regional economic factors are taken into account alongside the household projections when deciding on appropriate housing figures for Regional Planning Guidance.

  Mr. Tom King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he intends that regional planning conferences should start producing the annual reports on indicators relevant to housing provision proposed in paragraph 31 of Planning for the Communities of the Future (Cm 3885). [33822]

  Mr. Raynsford
  As explained in paragraphs 33 and 34 of the document, the Government wish to implement the new arrangements as quickly as possible. When RPG is already under review the Government office will discuss with the Regional Planning Conferences the scope for
  263
  adopting the new approach in completing those reviews. Arrangements for monitoring would be a feature of those discussions. Additionally, the Department intends shortly to publish advice on monitoring indicators.

  Mr. Tom King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he is taking to make chairmen of county structure plan examinations in public, who have not yet finalised their reports, aware of the policy and priority changes proposed in "Planning for the Communities of the Future" (Cm 3885). [33823]

  Mr. Raynsford
  As a matter of Departmental policy, all those who serve as Chairmen of structure plan Examinations in Public are sent copies of new national planning policy statements and guidance when they are published. This includes copies of "Planning for the Communities of the Future", though it should be noted that some elements of that document are, or will be, the subject of public consultation before being finalised.

  Mr. Tom King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will define local ownership of the housing figures as referred to in paragraph 25 of "Planning for the Communities of the Future" (Cm 3885). [33828]

  Mr. Raynsford
  As explained in "Planning for the Communities of the Future" the new system will make local authorities more responsible for assessing their housing requirements, in partnership with the Government Offices, and more accountable for the results. This should increase their sense of ownership of the resulting housing figures.

  Mr. Tom King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proposals he has to implement the provisions of(a) paragraph 76, in respect of low density greenfield development and (b) paragraph 86, in respect of a mix of size of housing units to reflect increasing demand by small households, of "Planning for the Communities of the Future" (Cm 3885). [33821]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Current planning policy guidance (PPG3) already enables local planning authorities to seek a reasonable mix and balance of house types and sizes to cater for a range of housing needs. Nevertheless, as the policy document "Planning for the Communities of the Future" indicates, PPG3 needs to be revised to bring it up to date. The Government's policies on housing density issues will also be considered as part of that review. We hope to issue a draft PPG3 for consultation by the summer recess.

  Mr. Tom King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he intends to publish detailed advice and requirements on how the sustainability appraisal of draft regional planning guidance on housing projections, proposed in paragraph 28 of "Planning for the Communities of the Future" (Cm 3885) will be implemented. [33826]

  Mr. Raynsford
  As indicated in the consultation paper on the future of Regional Planning Guidance (RPG), published on 15 January, when copies were placed in the Library, the intention is that future reviews of RPG will be subject to a full environmental appraisal. However, it goes on to say that we are also considering the scope to 264
  move towards a more broadly based "sustainability appraisal" of RPG. We will be letting a research project in May to determine how best to undertake a sustainability appraisal of RPG and produce good practice guidance on undertaking such an appraisal. It is intended to publish the results of the research in March 1999.

  Mr. Tom King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proposals he has for a public information campaign on the issues involved in the projections for and planning of new homes; and how much he plans to spend on this in(a) the current year and (b) subsequently. [33824]

  Mr. Raynsford
  These issues continue to be well-aired in public debate. In addition, my right hon. and hon. Friends and I will be making speeches, and my Department will be organising meetings, over the coming months, in connection with the recently published policy document, "Planning for the Communities of the Future" (Cm 3885). We do not, at this stage, see a need for a paid public information campaign.

  Rail Freight
  Sir Raymond Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions he has held with Railtrack on the(a) sale of land and (b) retention of land for future rail freight terminals. [33672]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  My right hon. Friend has met Railtrack on a number of occasions to discuss a variety of railway issues, including the sale of land and the need to encourage the development of the rail freight market. We are considering what measures are necessary to safeguard and further develop future rail freight opportunities as part of our integrated transport strategy.

  Sir Raymond Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what obligations have been imposed on Railtrack to encourage rail freight. [33700]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Railtrack's obligations to its freight customers are contained in track access contracts which are approved by the Rail Regulator.

  Fishing Industry
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George) of 3 March 1998,Official Report, column 546, on the fishing industry, what estimate he has made of the costs of implementing the EC Directives on health and safety; and if he will list the directives concerned. [33889]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I have asked the Chief Executive of the Marine Safety Agency, Mr. Robin Bradley, to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from R. M. Bradley to Sir Richard Body, dated 12 March 1998:
  The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions has asked me to reply to your question about the costs of implementing the EC Directives on health and safety for fishing vessels. I attach a complete list of the EC directives on occupational health and safety, all of which apply to fishing vessels although some will have minimal effect.

  265
  The Merchant Shipping and Fishing Vessels (Health and Safety at Work) Regulations 1997 (S.I. 1997/2962), which come into force on 31 march, implement three EC directives:

  Council Directive 89/391/EC—the "Framework directive";

  Council Directive 91/383/EC—the "temporary workers directive"; and

  Council Directive 92/85/EC—the "pregnant workers directive".

  A Compliance Cost Assessment (CCA) was published with the draft regulations at public consultation stage, as is standard procedure for new regulations which have cost implications for businesses, charities or voluntary organisations. A copy has been placed in the House of Commons library. The CCA shows estimated set up costs between £400 and £1,000 per vessel, and ongoing costs of between £300 and £800 per vessel per year—this however is considered to be very much a worst case estimate.
  Work is in progress to implement three further daughter directives:

  Council Directive 93/103—the "fishing vessels" directive;

  Council Directive 90/269—the "manual handling" directive; and

  Council Directive 94/33/EC—the "young workers" directive.

  Fishing Vessels Directive

  In order to implement the fishing vessels directive, amendments are due to be made to:

  Fishing Vessel (Safety Provisions) Rules 1975

  Fishing Vessel (Life Saving Appliances) Regulations 1988

  Merchant Shipping (Fishing Vessel) Crew Accommodation Regulations 1975.

  Many of the provisions of the directive are already required by existing domestic regulations for vessels of 24m and over. The amendments will extend those provisions to new vessels of 15m and over with immediate effect and to existing vessels of 18m and over from November 2002. Currently there are some 850 existing vessels of 18m and over. A CCA was published at public consultation stage. This gives a worst case estimate for set up costs of £15,400 per new vessel and £11,700 per existing vessel, with recurring costs of £2,500 per vessel.
  Manual Handling Directive
  Public consultation is now in progress on regulations to implement the manual handling directive. Our initial view is that there will be no compliance costs additional to those already identified for the framework directive.
  Young Workers Directive
  Draft regulations are being prepared to implement the young workers directive and we are seeking advice from industry on the likely compliance costs of those provisions which apply to fishing vessels.
  Work on implementing the remaining daughter directives, which in each case will include consideration of the compliance costs in consultation with industry, will proceed in due course.
  EC OHS Directives:

  89/391/EEC Framework Directive

  The daughter directives

  89/655/EEC Use of Work Equipment

  89/656/EEC Personal Protective Equipment

  90/269/EEC Manual Handling

  90/394/EEC Carcinogens

  90/679/EEC Biological Agents

  91/383/EEC Temporary Workers

  92/58/EEC Safety Signs

  92/85/EEC Pregnant Workers

  93/103/EEC Fishing Vessels

  94/33/EEC Young Persons.

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will estimate the Government's liability under the rules governing the Private Finance Initiative in respect of London and Continental Railways Channel Tunnel Rail Link. [33905]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  London and Continental Railways raised some £430 million of debt to fund the Development of the CTRL and Eurostar operations for the period up to the main fund raising for construction. If LCR were to fail then the Eurostar business, along with all of its assets and liabilities including this debt, would transfer back into public ownership. The funding agreements with the lending banks provide for the debt to be repaid from Eurostar revenues.

  Fertilisers
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is his policy on the imposition of taxes on fertilisers. [33738]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 10 March 1998]: The Government issued a discussion paper 'Economics Instruments for Water Pollution' in November 1997. This included consideration of some possible uses of economic instruments to help reduce the environmental impact of nutrients, including a charge on chemical fertilisers. We are currently considering the responses to the paper.

  European Documents
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will arrange for European(a) Commission and (b) Parliament documents, due to be discussed by Ministerial Council meetings during the United Kingdom presidency, which have environmental implications, to be placed in the Library 10 working days before the appropriate Ministerial Council meeting. [33974]

  Angela Eagle
  In accordance with House of Commons Standing Order 143 which governs the operation of the Select Committee on European Legislation, a range of European Community documents is deposited in Parliament for consideration by that committee. This includes European Commission proposals for Council legislation and other policy documents, such as Commission communications, reports and consultation papers submitted to the Council of Ministers. These are available from the Vote Office and the Library of the House; and the vast majority are deposited at least 10 working days before they are considered by the Council of Ministers. The Government provide an explanatory memorandum on all these documents, commenting on the policy implications including environmental implications.

  Roads Review
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will place in the Library the new appraisal criteria to be used in respect of the proposals currently being submitted from regional offices to the Roads Review. [33880]
  267
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The new appraisal framework which we are developing to help us determine the new trunk road investment programme uses our previously published criteria of integration, accessibility, safety, economy and environmental impact. We expect to publish further details with the report of the Roads Review later this year.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Butterfill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list those parliamentary questions he has taken eight weeks or more to answer since 1 May 1997. [32708]

  Angela Eagle
  None.

  Anglia Railways
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if he will make a statement on the value of the rolling stock leased by Anglia Railways which was supplied by Eversholt, Angel Train Contracts and Porterbrook; [34035]

  (2) how much public money Anglia Railways spent on leasing rolling stock from Eversholt, Angel Train Contracts and Porterbrook. [34036]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Anglia Railways receives fixed subsidy from the Franchising Director of £35.9 million in the 1997/98 financial year, progressively declining to £6.3 million in 2003/04. What costs they incur in meeting their service obligations under their franchise agreement and how these costs are met are matters for the Company. The value of the relevant rolling stock is a matter for the owners.

  Single Regeneration Budget Bids
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received regarding Round IV SRB bids. [33401]

  Angela Eagle
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has received several representations in support of Single Regeneration Budget (SRB) Challenge Fund Round 4 bids.

  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to make announcements regarding Single Regeneration Budget Round IV bids. [33400]

  Angela Eagle
  We expect to announce the successful Round 4 bids shortly.

  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he has taken to ensure that bids from non-conurbation localities which have areas of multiple deprivation comparable with conurbation areas can compete on equal terms in respect of SRB Challenge Fund. [33402]

  Angela Eagle
  The Government's supplementary guidance for Round 4 of the Single Regeneration Budget Challenge Fund issued in July 1997 stated:"Although the emphasis should be on tackling need which is substantial in scale and intensity, the Government recognises that isolated pockets of severe need may require action."
  268
  This guidance has, on initial analysis, been reflected in the final bids submitted under Round 4.

  Accidents (Unqualified Electricians)
  Mr. Kemp
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many accidents resulting from faulty work by non-qualified electricians have been recorded by the Health and Safety Executive in the last three years. [33513]

  Angela Eagle
  Accurate, comprehensive information in the form requested is not available. HSE publishes general figures for electrical accidents in its annual publication Health and Safety Statistics 1996–97. The figures for the last 3 years are:

  Injuries involving contact with electricity or an electrical discharge 1994–95 to 1996–971

  Year

  Fatal

  Major

  Over 3 day

  Total

  1994–95

  14

  296

  614

  924

  1995–96

  17

  305

  608

  930

  1996–971

  16

  224

  582

  822

  Provisional.

  Notes:

  1. As reported to all health and safety enforcing authorities.

  2. 1996–97 injury figures, except fatalities, cannot be directly compared to previous years as they were reported under the new RIDDOR 95 regulations.

  Cardiff Bay Barrage
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what estimate he has made of the percentage of the United Kingdom(a) dunlin and (b) redshank over-wintering population covered by conservation agreements in connection with the agreements signed with the European Commission Environmental Protection Directorate at the time of approval for the Cardiff Bay Barrage; and if he will make a statement; [34173]

  (2) what was the timetable agreed in undertakings given to the Environmental Protection Directorate of the European Commission at the time of the approval for the Cardiff Bay Barrage for the establishment of conservation agreements for habitats of (a) dunlin and (b) redshank expressed as a percentage of the over-wintering populations in any one year. [34174]

  Angela Eagle
  When the UK Government agreed compensatory measures for the loss of Cardiff Bay with the European Commission, it was estimated that some 80 per cent. of dunlin and 85 per cent. of redshank wintering populations would be covered by the eventual UK network of Special Protection Areas (SPAs) classified under the EU Birds Directive. There was no agreed timetable. We now know that the original population estimates, which were calculated using the total of the peak mean counts for the major sites identified in the UK's preliminary list of potential SPAs, as a percentage of the UK total wintering populations for both species, were too high. According to the most recent count data available (January 1996), 58 per cent. of all counted dunlin and 42 per cent. of counted redshank were on classified SPAs. Revised figures show that the completed SPA network will eventually cover 63 per cent. of the
  269
  wintering dunlin and 48 per cent. of the wintering redshank populations. The European Commission has been informed of these revised figures.

  Planning Procedures
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to review the Outline Planning Permission procedure and system; and if he will make a statement. [34092]

  Mr. Raynsford
  We have no plans to review the system for making and determining applications for outline planning permission.

  Traffic Congestion (South Devon)
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received regarding traffic congestion in the Kingskerswell area of South Devon; and if he will make a statement. [34034]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  During the consultation on the Roads Review, my Department received seven representations, including ones from Devon County Council and Torbay Borough Council in favour of a Kingskerswell Bypass. We have also recently received three representations from organisations representing local business interests, supporting the project.

  Following the decision in November 1996 to withdraw the scheme from the trunk road programme, Devon County Council has been looking at how it can take forward a bypass as a local road scheme under the Private Finance Initiative. On 17 November Devon County Council submitted a summary report outlining a private finance project to include the Kingskerswell Bypass.

  Green Belt
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 3 March 1998,Official Report, column 559, on planning consents in the green belt, if he will list the Parliamentary constituencies in which the 573 dwellings are located and the number in each. [33747]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The answer from my hon. Friend the Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning to the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling of 3 March refers to 373 dwellings in the Green Belt which have received planning consent on appeal since 1 May 1997. Information from the Planning Inspectorate received since reveals a total of 382 dwellings. Information on the location of these dwellings is not collected by reference to Parliamentary Constituency in which these consents were granted. The following table sets out the location of these dwellings by local authority area.

  Local planning authority

  Number of dwellings

  Ashfield

  1

  Barnet

  1

  Bassetlaw

  2

  Brentwood

  6

  Bridgnorth

  1

  Bromley

  6

  270

  Local planning authority

  Number of dwellings

  Bromsgrove

  2

  Broxbourne

  1

  Broxtowe

  1

  Calderdale

  2

  Chiltern

  9

  Croydon

  1

  Elmbridge

  1

  Epping Forest

  4

  Guildford

  5

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  4

  Harrogate District Council

  3

  Harrow

  1

  High Peak outside Peak District National Park

  1

  Hillingdon

  8

  Kirklees outside Peak District National Park

  1

  Leeds

  2

  Macclesfield

  4

  New Forest

  3

  Newark and Sherwood

  1

  North East Derbyshire outside Peak District National Park

  1

  Northavon

  11

  Reigate and Banstead

  1

  Rochford

  2

  Rotherham

  4

  Rugby

  1

  Runnymede

  2

  Sevenoaks

  7

  South Bedfordshire

  2

  South Buckinghamshire

  8

  South Gloucestershire District Council

  1

  South Ribble

  1

  South Staffordshire

  1

  Stafford

  1

  Tandridge

  171

  Tewkesbury

  1

  Thamesdown Council

  2

  Trafford

  2

  Tunbridge Wells

  1

  Vale of White Horse

  1

  Vale Royal

  1

  Waverley

  5

  West Lancashire

  3

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  14

  Wychavon

  66

  Wycombe

  1

  Source:

  PINS.

  Thameslink 2000
  Mr. Hopkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he has decided whether a public inquiry is to be held into Railtrack's application for an order under the Transport and Works Act 1992 in respect of the Thameslink 2000 project. [34676]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Secretary of State has decided to defer until 25 September the date by which he must reach a decision on whether to hold a public inquiry into Thameslink 2000 (the "operative date"). This does not mean that there will necessarily be a further delay of 6 months in taking forward this application; the decision could be taken at any time up to 25 September.

  MV Derbyshire
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will
  271
  publish the Assessors' report into their survey of the "Derbyshire"; if he will order the reopening of the formal investigation into the loss of the vessel; and if he will make a statement. [34677]

  Mr. Prescott
  The Assessors' report into the survey of the Derbyshire, commissioned by my predecessor and the European Transport Commissioner is published today. Copies of the full Report and its Summary have been placed in the Library of the House.

  As the Assessors' Report, and the survey material on which it is based, represents new and important evidence which could not be produced at the original investigation, I shall order the reopening of the Formal Investigation into the loss of the Derbyshire. Before I do so I am inviting interested parties to submit written representations within twelve weeks on whether the Formal Investigation should be reopened in whole or in part, on what questions it should address, and on whether the rehearing should be held by a wreck Commissioner or by the High Court.

  Arrangements are being made to allow interested parties to examine the survey material collected by the Assessors.

MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO

  Millennium Exhibition (Sponsorship)
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio how many firms have pledged to provide sponsorship for the Millennium Exhibition. [31197]

  Mr. Mandelson
  I refer the right hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) on 24 February 1998,Official Report, column 204.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Surveys
  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list each information, promotional, marketing and opinion survey contract, with its value, concluded by his Department and its agencies for the years(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99, (c) 1999–2000, (d) 2000–2001 and (e) 2001–2002. [32017]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  For this answer my Department includes the Prime Minister's Office and the Central Office of Information.

  The survey contracts or contracts that have included surveys that my Department has that extend across or expire in the years in the question are as follows:

  A survey to establish the level of customer satisfaction in the Property Advisers to the Civil Estate (PACE); value—£21,800; duration 1996–97 to 1997–98.

  A framework arrangement to consult members of the public on public services; the value depends on how often the arrangement is used (expenditure to date—£52,845); October 1996 to October 1998.

  272

  Advice on options for the provision of accommodation for the use of the Civil Service College including an assessment of private sector interest; value—£25,000; October 1997 to January 1998.

  A survey to assess the extent to which citizens and small business in the UK would use electronically delivered public services; value—£440,000; October 1997 to July 1998.

  A marketing survey to assist the Government Care and Despatch Agency formulating a new marketing strategy; value—£22,600; January to March 1998.

  A framework arrangement to facilitate consultation with members of the public about the delivery of public services; value depends on how often the framework arrangement is used over its life; February 1998 to January 2001.

  A survey of civil servants' views and experiences on lifelong learning; value—£54,788; March to July 1998.

  Civil Service
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what percentage of the administration trainees who joined the Civil Service in the last available year(a) were arts graduates, (b) were graduates of Oxford or Cambridge and (c) attended public schools. [33042]

  Dr. David Clark
  [holding answer 6 March 1998]: In the 1997 General Fast Stream competition, 170 candidates were recommended by the Final Selection Board for appointment to the Fast Stream Development Programme of the Civil Service. Of these: (a) 66.5% were graduates in arts-related subjects; (b) 43.5% were graduates of Oxford or Cambridge; and (c) of the 82% of candidates where the information is available, 50% attended independent schools.

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement about the future of the Next Steps policy of management reform in the civil service and about the 1997 Next Steps report. [34414]

  Dr. David Clark
  The Government have today published the 1997 Next Steps Report, CM-3889, which has been laid in both Houses. This report brings together performance and trend data on 138 executive agencies and four departments operating on Next Steps lines. It is now 10 years since the Next Steps policy was launched. As the report makes clear, the percentage of civil servants working in Next Steps agencies or in departments organised on Next Steps lines last year passed the target of 75 per cent. set during the early days of the project. This is a considerable milestone in a project which, with cross-party support, has brought improvements in efficiency and customer focus across a wide range of services provided by government.

  The Government believe that the benefits from this change to civil service organisation can be developed further. Analysis of agency performance data shows that the need for continuous improvement has not always been given sufficient attention, in part because it has been overshadowed by the emphasis on agency creation. The Government are therefore marking a change in priorities by moving on from the agency creation phase of the Next Steps policy, and launching a new phase with the focus on performance. While agencies will continue to be created, the primary focus will be on further improving the quality, efficiency and convenience to users of agency services.
  273
  Ministers will be concerned to ensure that agency targets set out sufficiently clearly the level and direction of achievement required. Agencies will be encouraged to share best practice, including harnessing the full potential of IT and cooperating with other bodies beyond the agency boundaries. These themes will be further developed in the Better Government White Paper to be published later in the Spring. Building on the sound principles of Next Steps, it is our intention to see that the agencies of government are among the world leaders in delivering high quality, efficient and effective public services for the new Millennium.

  Freedom of Information
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many(a) individuals, (b) companies, (c) campaign groups, (d) hon. Members of either House, (e) Members of the European Parliament and (f) government departments or agencies had responded to his consultation paper on freedom of information by the end of the consultation period; what proportions of each category responded by e-mail or participated in his on-line discussion forum; and if he will place in the Library (i) a list of respondents and (ii) copies of submissions not requesting confidentiality. [33118]

  Dr. David Clark
  By 10 March nearly 550 responses had been received to the consultation on the White Paper Your Right to Know, the Government's proposals for a Freedom of Information Act. The exact breakdown requested is not available but responses can be broken down as follows:

  Total number of responses

  Responses by e-mail

  On-line discussion

  (a) individuals

  159

  102

  38

  (b) businesses

  65

  11

  2

  (c) media

  6

  1

  0

  (d) academics

  59

  14

  0

  (e) charities, lobby groups and campaign groups

  79

  20

  4

  (f) hon. Members of either House

  4

  0

  0

  (g) public authorities

  145

  15

  1

  (h) Members of the European Parliament

  0

  0

  0

  (i) others

  26

  7

  3

  Total

  543

  170

  48

  This table broadly covers categories (a) to (e) in the question. As far as category (f) is concerned the White Paper "Your Right to Know" contains the Government's collectively agreed proposals for a Freedom of Information Act. The consultation on the White Paper was therefore designed for members of the public and other outside interests, not Government departments or agencies, to submit their views on the proposals.

  I will be placing a list of all respondees and copies of all submissions not requesting confidentiality in the Library shortly.

  Public Bodies (Reports)
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the bodies within the responsibility of his Department currently required by legislation to lay a report before Parliament. [33550]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  [holding answer 9 March 1998]: The bodies that fall within the responsibility of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster's Department (the Office of Public Service) and which are required to lay a report before Parliament are:

  The Civil Service College

  Security Facilities Executive

  The Buying Agency.

  The Central Office of Information is an executive agency and a separate Department within the responsibility of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. It is also required to lay a report before Parliament.

  All are covered by Treasury Accounts Directions and are therefore required by legislation to have their annual reports and accounts laid before Parliament.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Butterfill
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list those parliamentary questions he has taken eight weeks or more to answer since 1 May 1997. [32702]

  Dr. David Clark
  No parliamentary question tabled to my Department since 1 May 1997 has taken more than eight weeks to answer.

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Butterfill
  To ask the President of the Council if she will list those parliamentary questions she has taken eight weeks or more to answer since 1 May 1997. [32701]

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  None.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Ministerial Transport
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the engagements he undertook in the United Kingdom in the course of his duties during January indicating in each case which were accessed by(a) car, (b) train, (c) aeroplane and car, (d) aeroplane and train and (e) other means. [28934]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  [holding answer 10 February 1998]: My UK engagements in January were all within central London or Chevening and were accessed by car, except for two visits to my constituency which also required domestic scheduled flights. I also attended engagements in Washington, Ottawa, Beijing, Hong Kong, Strasbourg and Brussels, which were accessed by aeroplane and car.

  Millennium Compliance
  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to discuss his Department's progress towards millennium compliance. [32664]

  Mr. Fatchett
  [holding answer 3 March 1998]: Officials from this department maintain regular contact with the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster's officials.

  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what advice has been given to British embassies and consulates overseas concerning the need to achieve millennium computer compliance; and what funds he will make available for this purpose. [32670]

  Mr. Fatchett
  [holding answer 3 March 1998]: All Strategic IT systems used in Embassies and Consulates (Posts) are supplied and maintained from the UK and compliance is addressed through our Millennium Programme. Regular Advice and progress reports are sent to Posts. No additional funds will be made available to Posts to address millennium issues.

  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will estimate the cost to his Department of(a) consultants and (b) contractors engaged by his Department to address millennium computer compliance problems; and if he will list them. [32665]

  Mr. Fatchett
  [holding answer 3 March 1998]: Details of specific Year 2000 Consultants and Contractors are in the following list.

  Estimated total cost of consultants: £25,000

  Estimated total cost of contractors: £550,000

  Consultants to date

  Firmin Jack: £2,750

  Mott Macdonald: £1,500

  Provision for future expenditure: £20,750

  Contractors to date

  Lorien Computing: £40,000

  Lorien Computing: £80,000

  Satchwell: £5,000

  Provision for future expenditure: £425,000.

  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs from which budgetary sub-head the costs of millennium compliance will be met by his Department. [32663]

  Mr. Fatchett
  [holding answer 3 March 1998]: Costs will be met from the Running Costs and Capital Expenditure sub-heads of Vote 1 (Overseas Representation).

  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many officials or individuals working within his Department on millennium compliance have(a) given notice of their intention to leave and (b) left his Department within the last six months. [32667]

  Mr. Fatchett
  [holding answer 3 March 1998]: (a) None; (b) none.
  276
  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when all testing on year 2000 computer compliance will be completed within his Department. [32666]

  Mr. Fatchett
  [holding answer 3 March 1998]: All year 2000 testing of key IT systems in the FCO will be complete by December 1998.

  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if his Department will be fully millennium compliant by September 1999. [32669]

  Mr. Fatchett
  [holding answer 3 March 1998]: The FCO's plan is to have all of its key IT systems millennium compliant by the end of September 1999. We are on schedule to achieve that.

  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his estimate of the cost to his Department of his Department achieving millennium compliance. [32668]

  Mr. Fatchett
  [holding answer 3 March 1998]: The current estimate of the cost to the FCO of achieving millennium compliance is £2,342,000.

  Indonesia
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the Indonesian Government's recent application of Indonesia's Criminal Code, Law 5/1969. [32987]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We continue to monitor the situation.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Indonesian Government's use of armed forces during recent riots. [32983]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We have urged the Indonesian authorities to respond to civil unrest with restraint.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to alleviate the current economic crisis in Indonesia. [32982]

  Mr. Fatchett
  In conjunction with G7 and EU colleagues we are encouraging Indonesia to adhere to the IMF programme for Indonesia. I made this point directly to President Soeharto last week.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to support a system of plural nominations in the forthcoming Indonesian presidential elections. [33008]

  Mr. Fatchett
  President Soeharto's reappointment took place in accordance with the Indonesian constitution. We support democracy, including free and fair elections, in all countries.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will impose an immediate moratorium on all defence equipment being sold to the Indonesian Government; and if he will make representations to other EU states to act in the same manner. [32986]

  Mr. Fatchett
  No. We consider all export licence applications case by case against the criteria published in July 1997.
  277
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the(a) system of elections, (b) freedom of assembly or association, (c) freedom of speech and (d) establishment of non-governmental organisations in Indonesia. [32981]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We watch the Indonesian political scene closely. We encourage all countries to follow the highest standard of governance.

  Caribbean (Nuclear Waste)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 24 February 1998,Official Report, column 191, on the basis of what advice he was able to give reassurances over the safety and liability of nuclear waste shipped through the Caribbean; if he will make a statement on the comments he made on this matter at a press conference in Nassau; and if he will place in the Library a copy of the Communiqué of the Caribbean-UK ministerial meeting. [33131]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The International Maritime Organisation and the International Atomic Energy Agency set extremely high standards for shipments of nuclear waste. My right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary was able to assure Caribbean Ministers that the ships that BNFL use for such cargoes fully meet or exceed these standards. The casks containing the waste are massive steel structures designed to withstand collision, fire and submersion. The waste itself is in a solid glass-like form which could not cause widespread contamination in any credible accident scenario. These are regular commercial shipments; the companies involved are substantial and are required to carry liability insurance. I have placed copies of the Statements issued at the end of the UK/Caribbean Forum in the Libraries of both Houses.

  European Community Legislation
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proportion of draft European Community legislation in 1997 was not subject to discussion at the College of Commissioners prior to submission to the Council of Ministers; what proportion of legislation the Council of Ministers was not required to approve before enactment; and what assessment he has made of the procedures in respect of such legislation. [33884]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  All Commission proposals for legislation to be adopted by the Council of Ministers are first approved by the College of Commissioners.

  In addition, the Commission has the power to make legislation under powers which are delegated in specific cases under primary legislation approved by the Council of Ministers. Such measures constitute more than
  278
  90 per cent. of Community legislative acts, the majority being detailed market management measures. They are normally subject to scrutiny by a committee of Member States' representatives, and may in some cases be referred to the Council of Ministers.

  A review of the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission is envisaged in Declaration No. 31 attached to the Final Act of the Amsterdam Treaty.

  Qualified Majority Voting
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 3 March 1998,Official Report, column 511, on qualified majority voting, if he will define matters other than the approximation of laws; which body will determine if a measure falls into this category; and what measures are planned to be implemented under this provision. [33919]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Under Article 34(2)(c) of the Treaty on European Union as introduced by the Treaty of Amsterdam, the Council may adopt decisions for any purposes consistent with the objectives of Title VI (provisions on police and judicial co-operation in criminal matters) which do not involve approximation of the laws and regulations of the Member States. These might include decisions concerning measures of practical co-operation or expenditure programmes in the police and judicial field, but it is too soon to anticipate what measures might be adopted under this provision.

  It will be for the Council to determine whether measures will fall into this category.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Butterfill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those parliamentary questions he has taken eight weeks or more to answer since 1 May 1997. [32709]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  None.

  Chile
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if representatives of the British Embassy in Santiago, Chile will attend the swearing in of General Pinochet as a senator for life; and if he will make a statement. [34093]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  No member of the British Embassy in Santiago attended this ceremony.

  Visa Applications
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when a decision will be made on the visa application by Adul Rehman, Islamabad reference IMM/E2002. [34161]
  279
  Mr. Fatchett
  Our High Commission in Islamabad have referred the application to the Home Office and await their decision on the application. My noble friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs will write to my hon. Friend within one week of Islamabad receiving those instructions.

  Partners in Europe
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received on the distribution of the Partners in Europe information pack. [33013]

  Dr. Howells
  I have been asked to reply.

  The DfEE has received widespread positive feedback from those receiving the pack: teachers in particular have indicated that they have found it helpful for their curriculum work. The pack has also prompted nearly 600 entries for the "Celebrating Europe" competition. We have received 8 complaints about the pack relating to its cost or relevance.

PRIME MINISTER

  Overseas Visits
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Prime Minister how many overseas visits have been made by his political advisers at public expense since 1 May. [25140]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 23 January 1998]: My Chief of Staff and Chief Press Secretary have usually accompanied me on visits overseas. Apart from them, I have been accompanied by special advisers on five overseas visits.

  Royal Prerogative
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to increase democratic involvement and accountability in matters currently dealt with under the Royal Prerogative. [33645]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 10 March 1998]: The Government are committed to the renewal of democracy in the United Kingdom and have already begun a programme of constitutional reform to this end. There are no plans at present to legislate on matters dealt with under the Royal Prerogative.

  Bloody Sunday
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Prime Minister to which parts of the Government's archives, relating to the events in Derry on Bloody Sunday, the 75 year rule will apply. [33980]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 11 March 1998]: Following the completion of the public inquiry into the events of 30 January 1972 in Londonderry (the Widgery Tribunal) the inquiry papers and evidence were transferred to the Public Record Office where they are open for public inspection. Only one piece, HO219/56, remains closed for 75 years, until 2048, for reasons of personal sensitivity.
  280
  A number of Government Departments may still have papers relating to the events of Bloody Sunday, but these will not yet have been reviewed under normal 30 year rule procedures.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Barristers
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Attorney-General, pursuant to his answer of 3 March 1998,Official Report, column 539, if he will make it his policy to collect information on the numbers of barristers from the ethnic minorities on the panels he uses for common law and chancery work. [33376]

  The Attorney-General
  I have set up a working party to review how appointments of counsel concerned with the Crown's civil work are made, to consider monitoring of the use of counsel once appointed and to make recommendations to me. The working party, which is being chaired by the Solicitor-General and includes two representatives of the General Council of the Bar of England and Wales, will consider specifically whether a formal data collection mechanism should be established. After the working party has reported to me, I shall consider their recommendations and I shall announce any changes in policy which I propose to implement.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Butterfill
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will list those parliamentary questions he has taken eight weeks or more to answer since 1 May 1997. [32703]

  The Attorney-General
  I have not had any parliamentary questions since 1 May 1997 that have taken eight or more weeks to answer.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Market Research
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what expenditure has been incurred by his Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies(a) in 1996–97 and (b) since 1 May 1997 on (i) opinion polling, (ii) focus groups and (iii) other forms of market research; if he will list the surveys commissioned and the purpose of each; and if he will make a statement. [26681]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 5 February 1998]: The Government are committed to consulting and involving the public in order to help inform both policy formulation and the delivery of quality public services, and to ensure that we receive the best value for money from our publicity spend.

  Details of expenditure incurred by the Department, through the Central Office of Information, on (i) opinion polling, (ii) focus groups and (iii) other forms of market research are shown in the following table.

  Information about market research commissioned by the Department's agencies and non-departmental public bodies is not held centrally.
  281

  Description of research contract

  Date

  Type

  Value (£)

  (a) 1996-97

  Free your potential campaign development research

  June 1996

  Qualitative

  10,667

  Primary school performance tables development research

  July 1996

  Qualitative

  5,441

  Free your potential creative development research

  July 1996

  Qualitative

  10,667

  Jobcentres campaign development research

  August 1996

  Qualitative

  18,812

  Nursery voucher scheme campaign creative development research

  September 1996

  Qualitative

  14,359

  Adult learners week awareness research

  September 1996

  Quantitative

  19,139

  Career development loans campaign evaluation research

  September 1996

  Quantitative

  26,579

  Disability Discrimination Act consultation research

  September 1996

  Qualitative

  19,799

  National traineeships development research

  September 1996

  Qualitative

  22,173

  Nursery voucher scheme pre-campaign evaluation research

  October 1996

  Quantitative

  51,148

  1996 Secondary schools performance tables pre- and post-campaign evaluation research

  November 1996/

  January 1997

  Quantitative

  52,617

  Assisted places scheme creative development research

  November 1996

  Qualitative

  4,818

  Grant-maintained schools tracking research

  November 1996

  Quantitative

  9,272

  Nursery voucher scheme tracking research among parents

  November 1996

  Quantitative

  15,064

  Nursery voucher scheme providers' pack survey

  November 1996

  Quantitative

  17,354

  Analysis of response to action special broadcasting initiative

  November 1996

  Quantitative

  9,248

  Nursery voucher scheme information line research

  December 1996

  Quantitative

  19,176

  National traineeships development research

  December 1996

  Qualitative

  19,905

  Nursery vouchers scheme tracking research among parents

  February 1997

  Quantitative

  17,061

  Nursery voucher scheme research among non registered providers

  February 1997

  Quantitative

  11,186

  Research into the information needs of parents with school age children

  February 1997

  Qualitative

  5,510

  Disability discrimination act tracking research among employers

  February 1997

  Quantitative

  30,351

  Primary school performance tables pre-campaign evaluation research

  February/March 1997

  Quantitative

  32,148

  Evaluation of Schools Update Newsletter

  March 1997

  Qualitative

  5,946

  Nursery vouchers scheme post-campaign evaluation research

  March 1997

  Quantitative

  22,000

  Career development loans creative development research

  March 1997

  Qualitative

  21,720

  Disability booklet development research

  March 1997

  Qualitative

  18,037

  Career development loans response campaign

  March 1997

  Quantitative

  14,247

  (b) Since 1 May 1997

  Evaluation of Schools Update Newsletter

  May/June 1997

  Qualitative

  22,407

  Research into design and content of the national record of achievement

  June 1997

  Qualitative

  35,720

  Analysis of the responses to the Excellence in schools white paper consultation

  July 1997

  Quantitative

  31,150

  Secondary schools performance tables development research

  September/

  November 1997

  Desk Research

  4,460

  Research into jobcentre corporate identity

  September 1997

  Desk Research

  4,200

  Research into new jobcentre corporate identity

  September 1997

  Qualitative

  43,908

  Learning entitlement development research

  October 1997

  Qualitative

  13,137

  Research to explore the reactions of unemployed and jobcentre staff and managers to the new deal

  November 1997

  Qualitative

  43,152

  Research to explore reactions to the new deal among partners

  November 1997

  Qualitative

  21,004

  Student support advertising campaign awareness

  December 1997

  Quantitative

  15,969

  Research among students and employers to the Government's proposals for 16–19 qualifications

  December 1997

  Qualitative

  32,736

  Employment service values staff survey

  December 1997

  Data Processing

  13,484

  Career development loans direct mail research

  December 1997

  Qualitative

  16,650

  New deal campaign development research

  December 1997

  Qualitative

  26,003

  Analysis of the responses to the consultation on the Government's proposals for 16–19 qualifications

  January 1998

  Quantitative

  27,262

  Research among mature students to the Government's proposed changes to tuition fees

  January 1998

  Quantitative

  9,336

  Research into levels of awareness of the national training organisations among employers, partners, and TECs

  January 1998

  Qualitative

  19,693

  New deal leaflet creative development research

  January 1998

  Qualitative

  20,898

  Careers service corporate identity research

  January 1998

  Qualitative

  17,590

  DfEE Website evaluation

  February/March 1998

  Qualitative

  37,530

  Disability discrimination act small employers consultation analysis

  February/March 1998

  Quantitative

  19,881

  Disability discrimination act creative development research

  February 1998

  Qualitative

  14,335

  Disability discrimination act research among general public

  February 1998

  Quantitative

  17,202

  Research among potential target audience into perceived need for individual learning accounts

  February 1998

  Qualitative

  17,496

  National traineeships creative development research

  February 1998

  Qualitative

  14,300

  Disability discrimination act information line research

  March 1998

  Quantitative

  16,685

  Careers service publications research

  March 1998

  Qualitative

  34,463

  Career development loans campaign response research

  March 1998

  Quantitative

  12,500

  Career development loans awareness research

  March 1998

  Quantitative

  12,500

  University Applications
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the impact of the announcement of the introduction of tuition fees on applications for university places in 1998. [29977]

  Dr. Howells
  The latest figures from the University and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS) show that the fall in applicant numbers by 15 December was—at some 4 per cent.—even lower than the figure it announced before Christmas (6 per cent.); and by 5 February the fall in applicant numbers compared with the same date last year was down to just under 3 per cent. It is still too early to use these figures as a definitive guide to final applicant or entrant numbers. Last year, applicant numbers as at 15 December represented about 75 per cent. of the final number received. However, they are a welcome sign that many prospective students and their parents now understand the fairness of the Government's proposals.

  Music Teachers
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what minimum qualifications are required to allow a person to teach pupils to play musical instruments in schools. [33364]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Musical instrument tuition is usually given by peripatetic instructors. It is the responsibility of schools and LEAs to decide if instructors are adequately qualified. No minimum qualification requirements are laid down nationally. If, however, such instruction in a state funded school is given by a person who is employed as a teacher, it is a condition of their employment that they should normally hold qualified teacher status.

  PGCE Courses
  Mr. Alan Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to remove the upper age limit for entrants to PGCE courses. [33792]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The Department's requirements for courses of initial training do not stipulate age limits for entry to PGCE or other initial training courses. Providers, who are responsible for the selection of candidates, are expected to use their discretion to ensure that all trainees who successfully complete a course will be employable.

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many classes at KS1 in each LEA had more than 30 pupils in(a) January 1996 and (b)January 1997. [33836]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 10 March 1998]: The available information on number of classes at key stage 1
  284
  of more than 30 pupils taught by one teacher in maintained primary schools is shown in the table.

  Number of classes at key stage 1 of more than 30 pupils taught by one teacher in maintained primary schools by local education authority area

  January

  1996

  1997

  England

  13,502

  14,584

  North East

  643

  725

  Cleveland

  92

  1—

  Hartlepool

  1—

  32

  Middlesbrough

  1—

  27

  Redcar and Cleveland

  1—

  33

  Stockton-on-Tees

  1—

  31

  Durham

  181

  229

  Northumberland

  121

  112

  Gateshead

  22

  19

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  79

  90

  North Tyneside

  69

  67

  South Tyneside

  40

  40

  Sunderland

  39

  45

  North West and Merseyside

  2,580

  2,761

  North West

  2,119

  2,277

  Cheshire

  308

  329

  Cumbria

  138

  117

  Bolton

  143

  142

  Bury

  88

  88

  Manchester

  93

  105

  Oldham

  105

  120

  Rochdale

  93

  104

  Salford

  89

  96

  Stockport

  95

  129

  Tameside

  131

  132

  Trafford

  95

  106

  Wigan

  131

  140

  Lancashire

  610

  669

  Merseyside

  461

  484

  Knowsley

  49

  69

  Liverpool

  139

  160

  St. Helens

  64

  73

  Sefton

  137

  115

  Wirral

  72

  67

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  1,455

  1,699

  Humberside

  272

  1—

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  1—

  95

  City of Kingston-upon-Hull

  1—

  107

  North East Lincolnshire

  1—

  71

  North Lincolnshire

  1—

  53

  North Yorkshire pre April 1996

  142

  1—

  York

  1—

  33

  North Yorkshire post April 1996

  1—

  148

  Barnsley

  70

  98

  Doncaster

  108

  118

  Rotherham

  45

  77

  Sheffield

  97

  92

  Bradford

  165

  202

  Calderdale

  76

  74

  Kirklees

  134

  164

  Leeds

  264

  240

  Wakefield

  82

  127

  East Midlands

  1,019

  1,154

  Derbyshire

  363

  408

  Leicestershire

  184

  215

  Lincolnshire

  126

  126

  Northamptonshire

  149

  160

  Nottinghamshire

  197

  245

  285

  Number of classes at key stage 1 of more than 30 pupils taught by one teacher in maintained primary schools by local education authority area

  January

  1996

  1997

  West Midlands

  1,778

  1,763

  Hereford and Worcester

  137

  137

  Shropshire

  111

  109

  Staffordshire

  374

  338

  Warwickshire

  214

  203

  Birmingham

  329

  342

  Coventry

  109

  100

  Dudley

  88

  95

  Sandwell

  130

  134

  Solihull

  117

  115

  Walsall

  73

  77

  Wolverhampton

  96

  113

  Eastern

  1,130

  1,273

  Bedfordshire

  174

  156

  Cambridgeshire

  164

  223

  Essex

  311

  332

  Hertfordshire

  261

  352

  Norfolk

  127

  110

  Suffolk

  93

  100

  London

  1,472

  1,555

  Inner London

  189

  218

  City of London

  0

  0

  Camden

  4

  7

  Hackney

  13

  17

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  10

  17

  Haringey

  18

  17

  Islington

  14

  10

  Kensington and Chelsea

  2

  3

  Lambeth

  12

  15

  Lewisham

  18

  15

  Newham

  23

  40

  Southwark

  22

  25

  Tower Hamlets

  11

  15

  Wandsworth

  35

  31

  Westminster

  7

  6

  Outer London

  1,283

  1,337

  Barking and Dagenham

  23

  28

  Barnet

  23

  39

  Bexley

  123

  126

  Brent

  24

  23

  Bromley

  159

  187

  Croydon

  109

  116

  Ealing

  78

  83

  Enfield

  113

  135

  Greenwich

  15

  25

  Harrow

  60

  44

  Havering

  76

  77

  Hillingdon

  43

  49

  Hounslow

  72

  63

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  100

  88

  Merton

  58

  53

  Redbridge

  99

  70

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  44

  51

  Sutton

  32

  51

  Waltham Forest

  32

  29

  South East

  2,077

  2,260

  Berkshire

  151

  151

  Buckinghamshire

  220

  228

  East Sussex

  277

  315

  Hampshire

  532

  586

  Isle of Wight

  28

  23

  Kent

  461

  524

  Oxfordshire

  72

  87

  Surrey

  213

  230

  West Sussex

  123

  116

  286

  Number of classes at key stage 1 of more than 30 pupils taught by one teacher in maintained primary schools by local education authority area

  January

  1996

  1997

  South West

  1,348

  1,394

  Avon

  312

  1—

  Bath and NE Somerset

  1—

  29

  City of Bristol

  1—

  115

  North Somerset

  1—

  51

  South Gloucestershire

  1—

  114

  Cornwall

  135

  144

  Isle of Scilly

  0

  0

  Devon

  233

  241

  Dorset

  253

  284

  Gloucestershire

  157

  153

  Somerset

  132

  152

  Wiltshire

  126

  111

  1 Not applicable.

  County Music Services
  Mrs. Organ
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many county councils have music services; how many local education authorities support and finance county music centres; and how many county councils and local education authorities finance youth orchestras and boards. [33746]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Mrs. Organ
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what measures the Government are taking to enable county councils and local education authorities to ensure a secure financial basis for music services. [33745]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  It is for local education authorities and governing bodies to decide what proportion of their budget to spend on central music services. The Government are currently considering ways in which it might be possible to increase opportunities for children to have equitable access to high quality musical instrument tuition.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Butterfill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list those parliamentary questions he has taken eight weeks or more to answer since 1 May 1997. [32707]

  Dr. Howells
  Two thousand, five hundred and seventy six Parliamentary Questions have been tabled to the Department between 1 May 1997 and 12 March 1998. All have been answered within eight weeks of being tabled.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Sports Funding
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much National Lottery money was received by the governing bodies of sport and recreation in(a) 1996–97 and (b) 1997–98. [33306]
  287
  Mr. Banks
  Most applications are made by local organisations. Awards made by the English Sports Council from the National Lottery Sports Fund to the governing bodies of sport themselves are as follows:

  £000

  1996–97

  1997–98

  Capital awards1

  93

  2,703

  Revenue awards1

  >—

  223,448

  Total

  93

  26,151

  1Includes awards made to English and UK/GB governing bodies of sport.

  2Includes £8.9 million subsistence costs awarded direct to athletes in response to applications from governing bodies of sport.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list the total grant-in-aid awarded to the national governing bodies of sport and recreation in(a) 1996–97, (b) 1997–98 and (c) 1998–99. [33304]

  Mr. Banks
  The total grant-in-aid awarded by the United Kingdom and the English Sports Councils for the years in question is set out in the table. Many governing bodies also benefit from a number of services and programmes provided by the Sports Councils or organisations funded by them, and from the use of facilities and services provided by the six National Sports Centres. My Department provides grant-in-aid directly to the British Chess Federation.

  £000

  1996–97

  1997–981

  1998–992

  UK Sports Council grants

  31,616

  5,481

  5,203

  English Sports Council grants

  31,574

  4,782

  5,535

  GB Sports Council grants

  48,126

  —

  —

  British Chess Federation

  49

  49

  49

  Total

  11,365

  10,312

  10,787

  1Forecast outturn.

  2Budget figure.

  3The United Kingdom and the English Sports Councils became fully operational on 1 January 1997, when they took over the responsibilities and functions of the GB Sports Council. The figure, therefore, covers the period 1 January 1997–31 March 1997.

  4The figure covers the period 1 April 1996–31 December 1996.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list the amount of grant-in-aid to(a) the United Kingdom Sports Council and (b) the English Sports Council for the years (i) 1996–97, (ii) 1997–98 and (iii) 1998–99. [33305]

  Mr. Banks
  The amount of grant-in-aid to the United Kingdom Sports Council and the English Sports Council for the years in question is set out in the table.

  £000

  1996–97

  1997–981

  1998–992

  UK Sports Council

  34,047

  11,824

  11,600

  English Sports Council

  315,679

  33,725

  33,289

  Total

  19,726

  45,549

  44,889

  1Forecast outturn.

  2Provision.

  3The United Kingdom and the English Sports Councils became fully operational on 1 January 1997, when they took over the responsibilities and functions of the GB Sports Council. The figure, therefore, covers the period 01/01/97–31/03/97. The GB Sports Council received £27.676 million in grant-in-aid during the period 01/04/96–31/12/96.

  Concessionary Television Licences
  Mr. Wills
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, pursuant to his oral answer to the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Crausby) of 16 February 1998,Official Report, column 747, what was the basis of the calculation of the figure of £450 million a year with reference to the cost of extending the concessionary television licence scheme. [33502]

  Mr. Fisher
  The figure of £450 million a year referred to in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Crausby) relates to the estimated cost in lost television licence fee revenue of providing concessionary television licences for all pensioner-only households. These costs are estimated at £463 million in the case of free licences and £437 million for £5 licences.

  Mr. Wills
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what would be the cost of introducing a concession of 50 per cent. on television licences for all pensioner households; [33468]

  (2) what would be the cost of extending the present entitlement to concessionary television licences to all pensioners over (a) 75 and (b) 80 years of age. [33469]

  Mr. Fisher
  To provide a 50% reduction in the licence fee for all pensioner-only households would cost approximately £232 million annually in lost television licence fee revenue. To extend the existing £5 concessionary television licence scheme to households where all members are aged 75 or over would cost an estimated £153 million a year; to extend the scheme to households where all members are aged 80 or over would cost approximately £79 million a year.

  Out-of-school Clubs
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how the proposed out-of-school clubs are to be funded; and if he will specify the percentage of funding coming from each source. [34170]

  Mr. Banks
  Subject to the passing of the National Lottery Bill, the New Opportunities Fund will allocate £400 million from the new Lottery good causes to the out-of-school hours activities initiative. Of this, £180 million will be directed towards out-of-school hours learning activities and £220 million will support out-of-school child care, including £20 million for integrated childcare and education schemes. The New Opportunities Fund, like other Lottery distributors, will seek a partnership contribution from applicants for projects, but this will be flexible and will take account of applicants' ability to obtain such support.

  The Government are, separately, making available an additional £80 million for child care from Exchequer sources: £30 million from receipts from the windfall tax and £50 million from the Out-of-School Child care initiative1.
  1In England only.

SCOTLAND

  Contaminated Land
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the number of hectares of contaminated land in each of the last 12 years in each county and region. [33036]

  Mr. Macdonald
  Information on contaminated land in each of the last 12 years is not available centrally. However, the Scottish Vacant and Derelict Land Survey 1996 provides some information on contamination. Of the 8,482 hectares (2,546 sites) of derelict land recorded in the survey, 1,672 ha (279 sites) are suspected to be contaminated and 1,490 ha (181 sites) are known to be contaminated. The known contamination of derelict land by local authority area is as follows:

  Known contaminated derelict land by council area 1996

  Council

  Area(ha)

  Number of sites

  Aberdeenshire

  2

  1

  Angus

  9

  4

  Argyll and Bute

  8

  3

  West Dunbartonshire

  4

  3

  Dumfries and Galloway

  129

  2

  East Dunbartonshire

  14

  3

  East Lothian

  2

  2

  East Renfrewshire

  16

  1

  Falkirk

  34

  4

  Fife

  428

  12

  Glasgow

  161

  19

  Highland

  107

  8

  Inverclyde

  0

  1

  Midlothian

  66

  8

  North Ayrshire

  224

  77

  North Lanarkshire

  151

  16

  Perthshire and Kinross

  3

  1

  South Ayrshire

  3

  1

  South Lanarkshire

  60

  11

  Stirling

  33

  1

  West Lothian

  39

  3

  Scotland

  1,490

  181

  Notes:

  1. Figures may not sum due to rounding.

  2. Unlisted Councils report no known contaminated land.

  Copies of the full report on the Scottish Vacant and Derelict Land Survey are available in the House of Commons Library.

  History Teaching
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to ensure that all pupils leaving Scottish schools have studied some Scottish, British and other history. [33386]

  Mr. Wilson
  A number of opportunities already exist for pupils to study a wide range of history in Scottish schools. The National Guidelines on Environmental Studies 5–14 for pupils between those ages recommend that historical studies are drawn from 5 periods and include Scottish, British and other (European and World) contexts. Standard Grade courses for pupils aged 14–16 provide opportunities to study history in Scottish, British and other wider contexts. Further opportunities for the study of Scottish, British and other areas of history are provided in the current Revised Higher and Certificate of Sixth Year Studies courses. Provision for the post-16 age 290
  group will be enhanced following the introduction of Higher Still in 1999. Courses and units will be available at 5 levels. Students undertaking the new History courses at Intermediate 1, Intermediate 2 or Higher levels will study at least one Scottish/British topic and at least one European/World topic.

  Public Bodies (Reports)
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the bodies within the responsibility of his Department currently required by legislation to lay a report before Parliament. [33549]

  Mr. Dewar
  [holding answer 9 March 1998]: The information is as follows:

  Accounts Commission for Scotland

  Ancient Monuments Board for Scotland

  Crofters' Commission

  Deer Commission for Scotland

  East of Scotland Water Authority

  Forestry Commission

  Gaelic Broadcasting Committee

  General Register Office for Scotland

  Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd.

  Highlands and Islands Enterprise

  Historic Buildings Council for Scotland

  National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting for Scotland

  National Galleries of Scotland

  National Museums of Scotland

  North of Scotland Water Authority

  Parliamentary Boundary Commission for Scotland

  Parole Board for Scotland

  Registers of Scotland

  Royal Botanic Garden

  Scottish Children's Reporter Administration

  Scottish Conveyancing and Executry Services Board

  Scottish Enterprise

  Scottish Environment Protection Agency

  Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency

  Scottish Higher Education Funding Council

  Scottish Homes

  Scottish Hospital Trust

  Scottish Hospital Endowment Research Trust

  Scottish Industrial Development Advisory Board

  Scottish Land Court

  Scottish Law Commission

  Scottish Legal Aid Board

  Scottish Legal Services Ombudsman

  Scottish Natural Heritage

  Scottish Office Pension Agency

  Scottish Prison Service

  Scottish Qualifications Authority

  Scottish Record Office

  Scottish Sports Council

  Scottish Tourist Board

  Scottish Transport Group

  Student Awards Agency for Scotland

  West of Scotland Water Authority.

  291
  Notes:

  1. Reports have been taken as including Accounts, where these are produced separately.

  2. The list includes bodies which lay a report before Parliament by virtue of foundational requirements other than primary legislation.

  3. In some cases the reports are required to be submitted in the first instance to the Secretary of State who is responsible for laying them before Parliament.

  Regional Selective Assistance
  Dr. Ladyman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list, for each offer of regional selective assistance made during 1997, the percentage of the project's capital cost represented by the grant offered; and if he will indicate, for each offer, if it related to an area of full or intermediate assisted area status. [33704]

  Mr. Wilson
  Each year there are more than 200 offers of Regional Selective Assistance in Scotland. Information about the capital costs of individual projects is commercially confidential. The percentages of grant to capital costs for the total of RSA offers in 1997 in the Scottish Development Areas range from a minimum of 2.8 per cent. to a maximum of 29 per cent., and 2.8 per cent. to 14.9 per cent. respectively in Intermediate Areas. These figures are calculated on the basis of Net Grant Equivalent, which is expressed as the discounted value of grant, net of tax, as a proportion of the discounted fixed capital costs. These vary widely according to the type of project and reflect the selective nature of the RSA scheme whereby projects are secured for the minimum necessary costs.

  Creagan Bridge
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when work on the construction of the Creagan Bridge will begin; and what is the forecast date for its completion. [33682]

  Mr. McLeish
  The contract will be awarded later this month with construction work expected to commence in late April. The anticipated completion date for the contract is Spring 1999.

  Cairngorm Funicular Railway
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what conditions he has placed on the Highland and Island Enterprise's expenditure on the proposed funicular railway on Cairngorm. [33608]

  Mr. Wilson
  The approval of my right hon. Friend to the financial contribution of Highlands and Islands Enterprise to the Cairngorm funicular railway project was made subject to the following conditions:

  1. that the project succeeded in securing the remaining capital funding needed to carry it out;

  2. that there should be no further financial contribution to the project from Highlands and Islands Enterprise or from any other source funded by the Secretary of State; and

  292

  3. that Moray, Badenoch and Strathspey Enterprise, the local enterprise company for the area, should exercise its right to appoint a director to the Board of the Cairngorm Chairlift Company.

  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if his economic evaluation prior to his decision to agree to Highland and Islands Enterprise's expenditure on the proposed funicular railway on Cairngorm included estimates of the likely impact on the(a) summer and (b) winter business of other Scottish ski centres; [33676]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the number of summer visitors to the proposed funicular railway on Cairngorm; and if he will make a statement on the basis for this prediction; [33609]

  (3) if he will publish the economic evaluation he conducted prior to his decision to agree to Highlands and Island Enterprise's expenditure on the proposed funicular railway on Cairngorm. [33602]

  Mr. Wilson
  My right hon. Friend has not undertaken any separate economic evaluation of the proposed Cairngorm funicular railway. The economics appraisal of the project was an operational matter for the Highlands and Islands Enterprise network. I have asked the Chairman of that organisation to write to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what is the estimated increase in turnover of the Cairngorm ski area following the introduction of the proposed funicular railway; how many new full-time equivalent jobs are predicted to be created; and what the average rate of pay is likely to be for those jobs; [33607]

  (2) what aspects of the original scheme for a funicular railway on Cairngorm have been dropped under recent proposals to reduce the projected cost; and what estimate has been made of the impact of these changes on the projected number of summer visitors. [33671]

  Mr. Wilson
  These aspects of the appraisal of the Cairngorm funicular railway project are an operational matter for the Highlands and Islands Enterprise network which conducted that appraisal. I will ask the Chairman of that organisation to write to the hon. Member.

  Tourism
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the percentage of(a) domestic holiday makers and (b) overseas visitors to the United Kingdom who spend their holiday in Scotland. [33817]

  Mr. Wilson
  In 1996, the latest year for which figures are available, 9.9% of domestic holiday trips were made to Scotland, while 10.4% of overseas holiday trips to the UK included Scotland.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what tourism initiatives he is undertaking in respect of(a) accommodation schemes and quality standards, (b) promoting Scotland, (c) trade communication, (d) market and product intelligence and research, (e) training and (f) market access and information. [33813]
  293
  Mr. Wilson
  A new quality assurance scheme for accommodation providers and for visitor attractions has been introduced by the Scottish Tourist Board.

  Promotional activity for tourism in Scotland will benefit from the Government's decision to allocate £19.3 million to the Scottish Tourist Board in 1998–99, an increase of £1 million over the planned provision by the previous Administration.

  The Scottish Tourist Board, with assistance from the Department of Trade and Industry sector challenge fund, is implementing an information technology strategy for the industry. This will enable tourists to access information and make bookings more easily. Trade communication has benefited from the work of the Scottish Tourism Forum, an industry representative body established by The Scottish Office.

  I announced in October 1997 the establishment of a group to consider and advise on how the tourism industry in Scotland can maximise its performance as we enter the new Millennium. The group will be chaired by Lord Gordon of Strathblane, the new Chairman of the Scottish Tourist Board, and will report to the Scottish Tourism Co-ordinating Group, which I chair.

  I am announcing later this month further action designed to promote tourism training and tourism as a career.

  Further details about these and other initiatives are set out in the "Scottish Tourism Strategic Plan Progress Report 1998", which I will publish next week. I shall ensure that the hon. Member receives a copy, and that copies are placed in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Butterfill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list those parliamentary questions he has taken eight weeks or more to answer since 1 May 1997. [32715]

  Mr. Dewar
  Regrettably this information is currently not held centrally. However, arrangements have been made to ensure that it will be recorded from 1 March onwards.

  Police Housing
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the police forces in Scotland which have not followed the guidance of the Police Advisory Board for Scotland to provide serving officers with the opportunity to purchase a police house they inhabit at terms comparable with those available under the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987. [33991]

  Mr. McLeish
  Police houses are the property of the police authorities who have discretion to decide whether or not to dispose of particular houses and whether a discount should be offered in such cases on terms comparable with those available under the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987. Information about the terms of sale of police houses is not held centrally.

  Schools
  Mr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the proportion of schools in(a) the Strathclyde area and (b) Scotland as a whole, which do not have school boards; and if he will make a statement. [33691]

  Mr. Wilson
  The information held centrally is given in the table. It is taken from statistical returns by education authorities to The Scottish Office on the results of the biennial elections in 1995–96.

  Education authority primary, secondary and special schools: May 1996

  Schools with no board

  Number of eligible schools1

  Number

  Percentage2

  Scotland

  2,828

  671

  23.7

  Ex Strathclyde

  1,124

  189

  16.8

  Argyll and Bute

  98

  3

  3.1

  East Ayrshire

  66

  3

  4.5

  East Dunbartonshire

  47

  0

  —

  East Renfrewshire

  32

  0

  —

  City of Glasgow

  280

  98

  35.0

  Inverclyde

  42

  4

  9.5

  North Ayrshire

  67

  6

  9.0

  North Lanarkshire

  170

  34

  20.0

  Renfrewshire

  69

  2

  2.9

  South Ayrshire

  54

  6

  11.1

  South Lanarkshire

  153

  24

  15.7

  West Dunbartonshire

  46

  9

  19.6

  1Twenty-five schools in Scotland, including nine in the former Strathclyde area were not required to form a School Board because of their small roll.

  2Percentage of eligible schools.

  Police Statistics
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the(a) population served, (b) geographical area covered and (c) strength of each police force in Scotland and the ratio of (c) in each force area to (a) and (b); and what is the ratio of police officers (i) per head of population and (ii) to geographical area in Scotland as a whole. [33327]

  Mr. McLeish
  The information requested is set out in the tables.

  Force

  police Strength (31.12.97)

  population

  Ratio of Police strength to Population served

  Central

  693

  274,600

  1:396

  Dumfries and Galloway

  441

  147,600

  1:335

  Fife

  852

  349,300

  1:410

  Grampian

  1,195

  531,200

  1:445

  Lothian and Borders

  2,699

  873,900

  1:324

  Northern

  645

  280,400

  1:435

  Strathclyde

  7,377

  2,277,400

  1:309

  Tayside

  1,148

  393,600

  1:343

  Total

  15,050

  5,128,000

  1:341

  295

  Force

  Police strength (31.12.97)

  Geographical area covered (sq km)

  Ratio of police strength to geographical area covered

  Central

  693

  2,652

  1:3.83

  Dumfries and Galloway

  441

  6,439

  1:14.6

  Fife

  852

  1,323

  1:1.55

  Grampian

  1,195

  8,742

  1:7.32

  Lothian and Borders

  2,699

  6,455

  1:2.39

  Northern

  645

  31,348

  1:48.6

  Strathclyde

  7,377

  13,617

  1:1.85

  Tayside

  1,148

  7,558

  1:6.58

  Total

  15,050

  78,134

  1:5.19

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Tourism
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what tourism initiatives she is undertaking in respect of(a) accommodation schemes and quality standards, (b) promoting Northern Ireland, (c) trade communication, (d) market and product intelligence and research, (e) training and (f) market access and information. [33814]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Northern Ireland Tourist Board (NITB) has recently published 'A Strategy for the Development of Tourism in Northern Ireland' which contains proposals and recommendations for the future of Northern Ireland's tourism industry.

  (a) NITB operates a number of programmes of selective financial assistance for developing tourist accommodation, subject to published priorities. All accommodation for sale to tourists in Northern Ireland must be certified by the Northern Ireland Tourist Board.

  (b) During 1998–99, NITB will invest in excess of £3.3 million in the promotion of tourism. This will be supplemented by private sector marketing investment and benefits derived from joint promotional campaigns with the Irish Tourist Board.

  (c) In recognition of the importance of effective trade communication, NITB has established a Marketing Advisory Group involving partners deriving tourism benefits from both the public and private sector.

  (d) NITB's Research Department continually monitors key economic indicators in connection with the performance of the Northern Ireland tourism industry. It also conducts specific evaluations appropriate to the needs of industry.

  (e) NITB co-ordinates a training initiative "Welcome Host" which recognises the importance of excellence in customer service not only in the core tourism industry, but in all sectors that benefit from tourism.

  (f) NITB continues to work with air and sea carriers to encourage them to improve direct gateway access to Northern Ireland.
  296
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will make a statement on the percentage of(a) domestic holiday makers and (b) overseas visitors to the United Kingdom who spend their holiday in Northern Ireland. [33818]

  Mr. Ingram
  In 1996, it is estimated that 1.5 per cent. of all domestic holiday trips taken by UK residents were taken in Northern Ireland, and that 1.9 per cent. of all overseas holiday visitors to the UK visited Northern Ireland.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Butterfill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list those parliamentary questions she has taken eight weeks or more to answer since 1 May 1997. [32712]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  Between 1 May 1997 and 1 March 1998 this Department failed to answer one question, UIN number 10273, from the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney), concerning the purchasing of electoral voting and non voting lists covering the 1996 Forum elections, within 8 weeks of the date it was due for answer.

  Royal Ulster Constabulary
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list the(a) population and (b) geographical area served by the RUC; and what is the ratio of police officers (i) per head of population and (ii) to geographical area in Northern Ireland. [33989]

  Mr. Ingram
  The population of Northern Ireland, based on the last census, is 1,547,300; the geographical area is 3,495,255 acres. The ratio of police officers, including full and part-time Reserve Officers, per head of population is 1:115 and the ratio to geographical area is 1:260 acres.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Butterfill
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list those parliamentary questions she has taken eight weeks or more to answer since 1 May 1997. [32713]

  Clare Short
  No parliamentary questions to my Department since 1 May 1997 have taken eight weeks or more to answer.

  Bhutanese Refugees
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what financial assistance the United Kingdom is providing to the Bhutanese Refugee Assistance programme. [33748]

  Clare Short
  The Department for International Development (DFID) is currently providing assistance to the Bhutanese refugees in Nepal through support for a Save the Children project. The project covers disease control, disability/community based rehabilitation,
  297
  vocational training for income generation, refugee managed community health training, and a children's play programme.

  The amounts of the grants provided to this Save the Children project over the last 3 years are shown in the table.

  £

  Amount

  1995–96

  100,000

  1996–97

  75,800

  1997–98

  85,849

  Iraq
  Ms Stuart
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what measures she is taking to alleviate the suffering of people living in Baghdad-controlled Iraq. [34609]

  Clare Short
  Britain co-sponsored the UN Security Council Resolution passed on 20 February, which increased the oil-for-food provision to $5.256 billion over 180 days, and is sponsoring a meeting to work with the UN to improve implementation of Security Council Resolution 1153.

  I am pleased to announce that we are also starting a new bilateral programme worth about £7 million to relieve the suffering inflicted on the ordinary people in Iraq, particularly the children, by Saddam Hussein.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will provide support to the Baghdad office of the World Health Organisation in its planned research into the health effects on people in southern Iraq of the dispersal of depleted uranium dust. [33975]

  Clare Short
  We have no information that the World Health Organisation is seeking assistance for such a study.

  Centre for International Briefing
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans she has to visit the Centre for International Briefing at Farnham; and if she will make a statement. [33920]

  Clare Short
  I have no plans to visit the Centre for International Briefing at Farnham. However, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State plans to visit the Centre on 15 July 1998.

  Chechnya
  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assistance her Department is currently providing in Chechnya. [33894]

  Clare Short
  The Department for International Development is not providing bilateral assistance to Chechnya at present. But the Department is contributing to multilateral agencies such as the United Nations High Commission for Refugees and the International Committee of the Red Cross, who have programmes in the region.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Ministerial Transport
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his estimate of the cost of(a) Ministerial cars and drivers and (b) the Department's bill for taxis in (i) 1995–96, (ii) 1996–97, (iii) 1997–98 to date and (iv) 1997–98 full year. [27771]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 5 February 1998]: The cost of Ministerial cars is as follows:

  £

  1995–96

  233,261.56

  1996–97

  230,849.91

  1997–98 to date

  223,822.87

  1997–98 full year

  228,350 (forecast)

  The information relating to the expenditure on taxis could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Casualty Stock
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the impact of(a) ending subsidies and (b) banning hunting on the (i) problems and (ii) expense to livestock farmers who need to dispose of casualty stock. [33004]

  Mr. Rooker
  The objective of the support to the rendering industry was to avoid the disorderly collapse of the meat chain in the immediate aftermath of the BSE crisis. This was achieved. A wide range of industry bodies and representatives were involved in drawing up the Schemes, which were always intended to cover only the financial years 1996/97 and 1997/98, and to provide reduced support in the second year to allow the meat chain to adjust to the post BSE economic and regulatory realities.

  The Government are neutral on the issue of hunting. They have made no specific assessment of how a hunting ban would affect livestock farmers who dispose of casualty stock. The Government are, however, fully aware of the current difficulties faced by farmers in the disposal of fallen stock and the important role played by hunt kennels in the disposal chain. Officials are liaising with farming representatives to consider how fanners should, in future, dispose of fallen stock and to encourage the industry to put suitable arrangements in place.

  Public Appointments
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many of the appointments to public bodies which he has made since 1 May 1997 have been from the Public Appointments Unit list. [33250]

  Mr. Morley
  Of the 147 appointments made since 1 May 1997, 13 have been from the Public Appointments Unit List.

  Nominations of candidates for MAFF public appointments come from a wide range of sources, including the Public Appointments Unit and advertising, to ensure that there is the widest possible dissemination of information about vacancies.

  Dietary Supplements
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if his proposed regulations on the retail sale of vitamin B6 have been passed for approval to the European Commission; if he will identify the EC Directive under which such approval must be obtained; if he will indicate the procedures and timetables through which a company in another member state may raise a formal objection to t he proposals under the provisions of that Directive; and if he will make a statement. [33515]

  Mr. Rooker
  The draft regulations which will implement the Government's proposed restriction on the levels of vitamin B6 in food supplements will shortly be notified to the European Commission under Directive 83/189 (the technical Standards Directive) and Directive 79/112 (the Food Labelling Directive). The Technical Standards Directive requires that there shall be a three-month standstill period from the date of notification. During this period, the Commission and other member states have the opportunity to comment on the proposed regulations. It is a matter for individual member states whether, and on what basis, they choose to consult outside interests about measures notified under these procedures.

  Public Bodies (Reports)
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the bodies within the responsibility of his Department currently required by legislation to lay a report before Parliament. [33555]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 9 March 1998]: The following bodies, for which my right hon. Friend has responsibility, are currently required by legislation to lay a report before Parliament:
  Department and Executive Agency

  Intervention Board

  Executive Agencies

  Central Science Laboratory

  Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science

  Farming and Rural Conservation Agency

  Meat Hygiene Service

  Pesticides Safety Directorate

  Veterinary Laboratory Agency

  Veterinary Medicines Directorate

  Executive Non-Departmental Public Bodies

  Apple and Pear Research Council

  Home-Grown Cereals Authority

  Horticultural Development Council

  Meat and Livestock Commission

  Milk Development Council

  Potato Industry Development Council

  Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew

  Public Corporation

  Covent Garden Market Authority.

  Previously, the Department has advised that the Veterinary Products Committee had a statutory requirement to publish an annual report and to lay the report before Parliament. It has now been established that this is not the case.

  Publications
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list those European Commission(a) newsletters, (b) magazines and (c) occasional publications to which his Department subscribes. [33653]

  Mr. Morley
  The Department subscribes to a range of publications to support its work. A central list of those supplied by the European Commission could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Public Engagements
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the public engagements arranged by his Department which were carried out by the Parliamentary Secretary in the House of Lords since 1 June on Fridays and Saturdays. [33673]

  Mr. Morley
  My noble Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has undertaken the following public engagements since 1 June on Fridays and Saturdays.

  Date

  Visit

  6 June

  Farm visit

  11 July

  Regional visit

  18 July

  Regional visit

  12 September

  Overseas visit—Eastern Europe

  20 September

  Regional visit

  26 September

  Regional visit

  10 October

  Speaking engagement—London

  18 October

  Overseas visit—Indonesia

  24–25 October

  Overseas visit—Indonesia

  7 November

  Speaking engagement—London

  19 December

  Regional visit

  16 January

  Speaking engagement—London

  Pet Passports
  Ms Moran
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the RSPCA report, "Passport for Pets and Vets in Support of Change". [33958]

  Mr. Rooker
  I have read the recommendations in the Quarantine Reform Campaign's report 'The case for change' with interest. I agree with the final recommendation in the report that"decisions in this area must be based on science and not emotion".

  This is why we have asked the Advisory Group on Quarantine, under the chairmanship of Professor Kennedy, to carry out an independent scientific assessment of quarantine and alternatives to quarantine.

  Forestry Commission Land Sales
  Mrs. Organ
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what percentage of Forestry Commission land which has been sold in England(a) since 1981 and (b) since 1 May 1997 has a public access agreement in place. [33742]

  Mr. Morley
  The subject of the question relates to matters undertaken by Forest Enterprise. I have asked its Chief Executive, Dr. Bob McIntosh, to reply to my hon. Friend direct.
  301
  Letter from Bob McIntosh to Mrs. Diana Organ, dated 12 March 1998:
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has asked me to reply to your Question about the percentage of Forestry Commission land sold in England with access agreements.
  The Commission's disposal policy originates from 1981 but the arrangements for the protection of public access were only introduced in 1991. I have, therefore, limited my answer to the period since 1991, up to 31 December 1997, the latest date for which figures are available on public access agreements.
  For the period 1 April 1991 to 31 December 1997 the Forestry Commission sold 10,155 hectares of forest land in England of which 5% (533 hectares) were sold with an agreement to protect public access. For the period 1 May 1997 to 31 December 1997 the respective figures are 860 hectares sold, with 8% (65 hectares) subject to an agreement.
  In addition during the whole period 248 hectares of the forest land sold had access protected through a sale to a Local Authority or other benevolent purchaser such as the Woodland Trust.
  Finally, the Commission does notify Local Authorities of all forest land sales but in many cases is prevented from formally offering or entering into an agreement because of title constraints and third party rights.

  Central Science Laboratory
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 3 March 1998,Official Report, column 596, if he will list the figures for the number of non-scientific staff employed at Sand Hutton, York, for 1996–97 and projected for 1997–98;[34411]

  (2) what were the annual overhead costs of the Central Science Laboratory site at Sand Hutton, York, for 1996–97 and projected for 1997–98.[34412]

  Mr. Rooker
  In respect of the information requested for 1997–98, I refer my hon. Friend to the replies given to him on 11 March 1998,Official Report, column 256. Information for the period 1996–97 is not available solely in relation to the Sand Hutton, York site, to which the Central Science Laboratory moved over a period of months from sites at Slough, Worplesdon, Harpenden and a number of other sites, beginning in the autumn of 1996.

  BSE
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many cases of BSE have been confirmed in live dairy stock imported from EU countries.[33878]

  Mr. Rooker
  We have confirmed BSE in five dairy animals imported from other Member States. These animals are classified by the type of herd in which they resided at the time the disease was reported. It is possible that all five animals were infected with BSE in the UK.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Butterfill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list those parliamentary questions he has taken eight weeks or more to answer since 1 May 1997.[32705]

  Mr. Morley
  Since 1 May 1997, two parliamentary questions took more than eight weeks to answer. One question from the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) was answered on 27 January 1998,Official Report,
  302
  column 205 and a question from the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) was answered on 11 February 1998, Official Report, column 276.

  Dutch Ware Potatoes
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment has been made of the benefits of further restricting imports of Dutch ware potatoes through(a) clinical testing and (b) a ban; what assessment he has made of the (i) risks associated with the spread of and (ii) difficulties in eradicating brown rot; and if he will make a statement.[33988]

  Mr. Rooker
  Measures against potato brown rot are kept under review, in the light of findings in the UK and other Member States and the results of research. Since the Netherlands announced a number of outbreaks in 1995, the Department has increased the number of inspections and laboratory tests on Dutch ware potatoes, but has not confirmed any findings of brown rot. In these circumstances, a ban would not be justified. There is evidence that, although in certain conditions brown rot could cause significant damage to UK crops, localised outbreaks can be eradicated. The Department is discussing with interested parties plans for eradicating the bacterium from infected watercourses, where it could present a risk of further spread.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Magistrates (South Yorkshire)
  Mr. Ennis
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many magistrates sit on the Barnsley magistrates' bench; and how many of those magistrates reside in the Barnsley, East and Mexborough constituency. [33208]

  Mr. Hoon
  There are currently 123 active magistrates on the Barnsley Bench of whom 14 reside within the constituency of Barnsley, East and Mexborough.

  Mr. Ennis
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many magistrates sit on the Doncaster Magistrates' bench; and how many of those magistrates reside in the Barnsley, East and Mexborough constituency.[33261]

  Mr. Hoon
  There are currently 190 magistrates on the Doncaster Bench, of whom 18 magistrates reside in the Barnsley, East and Mexborough constituency.

  Public Appointments
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many of the appointments to public bodies which he has made since 1 May 1997 have been from the Public Appointments Unit list.[33254]

  Mr. Hoon
  None of the appointments made by the Lord Chancellor to his public bodies has been from the Public Appointments Unit list, although we have consulted them. The Department has increasingly been using advertising to identify candidates for the Lord Chancellor's more significant advisory bodies. However, in terms of numbers most of the appointments
  303
  are to the locally based Advisory Committees on Justices of the Peace or General Commissioners of Income Tax, where the appointment is made on local recommendation.

  Amsterdam Treaty
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list those paragraphs of Articles 1,2 and 3 of the Treaty of Amsterdam which relate to aspects of judicial proceedings in the United Kingdom and in each case the person, persons, or bodies who will be responsible for their implementation in the United Kingdom; and what consultation Her Majesty's Government had with them prior to 14 June 1997. [33210]

  Mr. Hoon
  The relevant provisions are to be found in:

  (a) Paragraph 11 of Article 1 of the Treaty of Amsterdam, in particular new Article K.3 of the Treaty on European Union, which relates to judicial co-operation in criminal matters; and

  (b) Paragraph 15 of Article 2, in particular new Article 73(m) of the EC Treaty, which relates to civil judicial co-operation and which is subject to the Protocol excluding the United Kingdom from the operation of measures in that field unless the United Kingdom indicates that it wishes to take part in any such measure.

  The Government themselves are responsible for the implementation of these provisions in the United Kingdom.

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department for what reasons he has assessed the granting of legal aid to be inappropriate in claims for compensation.[33144]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Government's reasons for beginning to remove money and damages claims from legal aid to be financed through conditional fees are set out fully in the Consultation Paper Access to Justice with Conditional Fees, a copy of which I have sent to the hon. Gentleman.

TREASURY

  South-east Asia
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what further discussions he has held with the International Monetary Fund concerning the problems faced by south-east Asian economies. [32500]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  I had useful recent discussions with IMF Managing Director Michel Camdessus on the current financial problems in Asia, at both the ECOFIN meeting of EU Finance Ministers on 16 February and at the meeting of G7 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors on 21 February. In addition, I have been keeping in close and regular touch with the UK's Executive Director to the IMF in Washington. I am encouraged that confidence is beginning to return in those countries where reforms are being implemented with vigour. But the situation in Indonesia remains of serious concern, and renewed commitment to the IMF programme will be vital if financial stability is to be restored.

  Individual Savings Account
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what submissions he has received opposing his ISA proposals. [32508]

  Mr. Darling
  We have received a large number of submissions in response to the proposals in the ISA consultative document. Our objective of encouraging more people to save has been widely welcomed. A variety of comments have been made on our specific proposals and we are considering them all carefully.

  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many representations he has received on his proposals for the individual savings account; and when he expects to make progress on extending the opportunity for tax-exempt savings to the smaller saver. [32523]

  Mr. Darling
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has received many helpful and constructive comments for which he is grateful. A fuller announcement will be made.

  Windfall Levy
  Mr. Derek Twigg
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the current level of receipts from the windfall levy for spending on the welfare-to-work programme. [32509]

  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  The first tranche of the windfall tax was paid on time and in line with our forecast of some £2.6 billion, on 1 December. We are grateful to the companies for their co-operation.

  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has had with his European Union counterparts on his policy to spend the windfall levy on a welfare-to-work programme. [32527]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  I have discussed the Government's Welfare to Work programme on many occasions with other European Union Finance Ministers, including at ECOFIN. My Ministerial counterparts have been very interested to learn about how the Government is turning its plans into action. I will continue to use the UK's Presidency of the EU to advocate policies such as the Welfare to Work programme which ensure that all young people across the Community are equipped with the skills they need to find and keep work.

  Income Tax
  Mr. McCabe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what consultations he has had about the number of tax bands in the income tax structure. [32511]

  Mr. Darling
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor receives a wide range of representations every year, on all aspects of the income tax system.

  Public Expenditure
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will assess the advantages of increasing public expenditure in the forthcoming financial year. [32512]

  Mr. Darling
  We have always made it clear that we intend to stick to the spending totals we inherited for the first two years of the Parliament, 1997–98 and 1998–99, while we undertake a Comprehensive Spending Review
  305
  to set the plans for the medium term. But we have also made a significant difference in the short term through measures to reallocate spending within and between departments to reflect our key priorities including education, employment and the health service.

  Balance of Payments
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact of recent trends in manufactured exports on the balance of payments. [32513]

  Mrs. Liddell
  During 1997 as whole, UK exporters performed well in difficult circumstances and export volumes of goods grew by around 8 per cent. Export growth is likely to slow in 1998, and the current account balance is forecast to move into deficit. But the deficit is expected to remain small by historical standards.

  Indebted Countries
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has had from Church leaders concerning the problem of international debt. [32514]

  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from Church leaders about Government policy to reduce third world debt. [32517]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  Since my Mauritius Mandate statement to Commonwealth Finance Ministers last September, I have held a number of meetings with religious leaders, including the Archbishop of Canterbury, Cardinal Hume, the Moderator of the Church of Scotland and many others. The UK firmly supports debt relief for the poorest, most indebted countries and is seeking an early solution to many of the problems experienced by them, not least at the moment in finding a solution to the debt problems of Mozambique. The Government take seriously their responsibilities to debt reduction internationally.

  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has had with his European Union counterparts on the Mauritius mandate. [32518]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  In September, I wrote to all EU Finance Ministers with the text of my Mauritius Mandate speech, and again in January following the seminar on debt issues that I held at No. 11 Downing Street in December with religious leaders and Non Governmental Organisations' directors. I discussed debt issues with three of my EU colleagues at the G7 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors meeting last month.

  Mr. McNulty
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his policy on reducing the debt burden of the poorest countries. [32519]

  Kali Mountford
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his policy on reducing the debt burden of the poorest countries. [32529]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  The Government are fully committed to the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC)306
  initiative that was launched by the IMF and World Bank in September 1996. In my speech to Commonwealth Finance Ministers in Mauritius last year, I called on the international community to commit itself to dealing with the problem of unsustainable debt burdens faced by the world's poorest countries once and for all. I urged creditors and debtors to undertake concrete action in order to ensure that at least three-quarters of the twenty countries, initially identified by the World Bank and IMF as probably needing debt relief under the HIPC initiative, have had decisions on the size and timing of their relief by the year 2000. I also encouraged all countries identified under the initiative to embark on the process of securing debt relief by the millennium. The Government propose to continue their efforts to ensure that these targets are met.

  In the IMF and World Bank Executive Boards, we have actively supported debt relief under the HIPC initiative for the four countries that have so far had decisions—Uganda, Bolivia, Burkina Faso and Guyana. The Government have also taken a lead in pressing for action to help another indebted country, Mozambique. We have offered to provide up to $10 million to help Mozambique achieve debt sustainability on top of the debt relief and assistance that the UK has already committed.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received on his policy to reduce the debt burden of the poorest countries. [32520]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  I have received support for the targets that I set out for dealing with the unsustainable debt burdens of the world's poorest countries in the Mauritius Mandate from a number of sources, including the President of the World Bank, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Cardinal Basil Hume and other religious leaders.

  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total debt owed to (i) the Government and (ii) Export Credits Guarantee Department, by developing countries, excluding Eastern European countries and the countries of the former Soviet Union. [33202]

  Mrs. Liddell
  (i) The total debt owed to the government at the end of 1997, by all low income countries (excluding Eastern European countries and the countries of the former Soviet Union), as listed in the World Bank Book Global Development Finance, is £4.71 billion.

  (ii) ECGD is owed £4.69 billion of this money. The rest is owed to DFID.

  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list for each developing country the total stock of its outstanding debt owed to the United Kingdom on 31 December 1997. [33205]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The debt stock owed to ECGD at the end of 1997, by each of the low income countries (excluding Eastern European countries and the countries of the former Soviet Union), as listed in the World Bank Book Global Development Finance, is as follows:
  307

  £

  Country

  Debt owed to ECGD

  Afghanistan

  nil

  Albania

  nil

  Angola

  91.2 million

  Bangladesh

  nil

  Benin

  2.7 million

  Bhutan

  nil

  Bolivia

  17.5 million

  Burkina Faso

  1 million

  Burundi

  nil

  Cambodia

  nil

  Cameroon

  61.5 million

  C.A.R.

  0.5 million

  Chad

  nil

  China

  nil

  Comoros

  0.04 million

  Congo-Brazzaville

  123 million

  Cote d'lvoire

  30.5 million

  DR Congo (ex Zaire)

  129.4 million

  Equitorial Guinea

  nil

  Eritrea

  nil

  Ethiopia

  11.7 million

  Gambia

  nil

  Ghana

  3.5 million

  Guinea

  5.1 million

  Guinea Bissau

  nil

  Guyana

  44.2 million

  Haiti

  nil

  Honduras

  0.36 million

  India

  1.6 million

  Kenya

  43.5 million

  Lao PDR

  1400

  Liberia

  14.5 million

  Madagascar

  27 million

  Malawi

  0.7 million

  Mali

  4.1 million

  Mauritania

  7.1 million

  Mongolia

  nil

  Mozambique

  86.3 million

  Myanmar

  25 million

  Nepal

  nil

  Nicaragua

  1 million

  Niger

  10.8 million

  Nigeria

  3,100 million

  Pakistan

  0.68 million

  Rwanda

  nil

  Sao Tome et Principe

  nil

  Senegal

  2.9 million

  Sierra Leone

  3.5 million

  Somalia

  27.5 million

  Sri Lanka

  4000

  Sudan

  404.8 million

  Tanzania

  125.7 million

  Togo

  14.2 million

  Uganda

  14 million

  Vietnam

  10.4 million

  Yemen

  6.2 million

  Zambia

  234.1 million

  Zimbabwe

  0.1 million

  Public Sector Borrowing Requirement
  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received on his policy to ensure economic stability through greater control of the public sector borrowing requirement. [32515]
  308
  Mr. Darling
  My right hon. Friend has received a number of representations in advance of his Budget later this month.

  Small and Medium Businesses
  Mr. Caplin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his policy to ensure economic stability for the small and medium business sector. [32516]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Government are seeking to promote the economic stability that will give all sectors of the economy, including small and medium sized business, the confidence to plan and invest for the future.

  Bank of England
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the reduction in staffing at the Bank of England following the establishment of the proposed European central bank. [32521]

  Mrs. Liddell
  In view of the fact that the United Kingdom has opted not to join EMU at the outset, the Bank expects the establishment of the European Central Bank will have no implications for the staffing of the Bank of England.

  Tax and National Insurance
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what research he has evaluated into the advantage of equalising lower earnings levels at which tax and national insurance are first paid. [32522]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government keep the tax and NIC systems under constant review.

  European Union Contribution
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the net cost to HM Treasury of the United Kingdom's contribution to the EU under the next quinquennial financial perspective. [32524]

  Mrs. Liddell
  In July 1997 the European Commission issued outline proposals for the next Financial Perspective, which they proposed should run from 2000 to 2006. These formed part of the Commission's Agenda 2000 communication, which also dealt with the enlargement of the Union to Cyprus and the states of central and eastern Europe, and the reform of its main policies.

  Enlargement of the EU will deliver substantial economic benefits, as well as reinforcing freedom and democracy throughout the continent. This is the context for the Commission's financial proposals, which would imply a significant increase in net contributions, or reduction in net receipts, for all existing member states.

  It would be premature to issue estimates of the amounts involved in advance of the Commission's more detailed proposals, which are expected shortly. In any case any assessment could reflect only the views of the Commission rather than the actual outcome, which will

  309
  depend on negotiation between member states of the final Agenda 2000 package. The UK will, of course, argue in those negotiations for an approach to the EU's finances which matches the discipline which member states are applying to their domestic budgets.

  European Single Currency
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the steps currently being taken by his Department to prepare for the single European currency. [32525]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  I have set up a Euro Preparations Unit (EPU) in the Treasury to play a coordinating role in helping both British business and the public sector prepare for the single currency. The Unit will look at the implications of the introduction of the euro on 1 January 1999 as well as how we would join and introduce the single currency in the United Kingdom if we decided to do so.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will press for Greek membership of the Euro. [33806]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Decisions on which countries meet the necessary conditions to go forward to Stage III of Economic and Monetary Union will be taken by Heads of Government in May.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if the British Government will support the triangulation method for currency conversion between member states; [34087]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the measures which British companies will be required to take in order to prepare their accounts in euros under the triangulation method. [34089]

  Mrs. Liddell
  After the launch of the euro on 1 January 1999. the national currencies of participating countries will continue to exist as national currency denominations (or units) of the euro during a transitional period of three years. Conversion from one of these national denominations to another national denomination will need to be effected via a conversion to the euro unit, or by another process producing the same result, to ensure that mathematical discrepancies do not arise. This process is described as triangulation and is set out in Council Regulation (EC) No 1103/97 on certain provisions relating to the introduction of the euro, adopted on 17 June 1997. Given that it applies to conversion between national currency units of participating countries and not the euro unit itself, its use will not arise for the calculation and presentation of accounts in euro.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what role the Bank of England will have in assisting the European system of central banks to support the value of the currencies participating in monetary union after 2 May. [34090]

  Mrs. Liddell
  There can be no presumption that such support will be necessary, but in any event the Bank of England will have no formal obligations to assist the 310
  ESCB to support the value of currencies participating in monetary union after 2 May. The Bank will continue to stand ready to assist other central banks in their operations from time to time.

  Tobacco and Alcohol
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress he is making at ECOFIN in persuading European Union Finance Ministers to increase excise duty on tobacco and alcohol. [32526]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The issue of excise duty rates on tobacco and alcohol has not been raised in ECOFIN so far during the UK Presidency. We await the commission's report on their reviews of the minimum rates of duty on tobacco and alcohol.

  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from associations representing tobacco retailers and/or manufacturers concerning illegal resale of tobacco imported from Belgium. [32532]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The tobacco trade associations have made a number of written representations concerning the illegal re-sale of tobacco imported from Belgium. In addition I met with the Tobacco Manufacturers' Association on 4 March 1998.

  Business Cycles
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the extent to which the British and continental European business cycles are becoming more synchronised; and if he will make a statement. [32528]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Chancellor set out the Government's views on the convergence of the British and continental European business cycles in his statement on EMU on 27 October 1997. In addition the Government published the Treasury's assessment "UK Membership of the Single Currency: an Assessment of the Five Economic Tests" which also discussed this subject.

  Local Authority Expenditure
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of total local authority expenditure is met by(a) central Government funds, (b) business rate payers and (c) council tax payers. [32530]

  Mr. Darling
  In 1995–96, across Great Britain as a whole, central government funds to local authorities had a value of 61 per cent. of total local authority expenditure, business rates payments 18 per cent., and council tax 15 per cent.

  Interest Rates
  Ms Keeble
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to promote long-term stability in interest rates. [32531]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  The Government have put in place a credible monetary and fiscal policy framework that will deliver consistently low and stable inflation over
  311
  the long term. These measures should help promote interest rate stability in the long run, improving the environment for long-term investment.

  Company Taxes (Euro)
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer who will bear the exchange costs relating to company taxes paid in euros. [33119]

  Mrs. Liddell
  A working group, which will report in April, is looking at steps that the Government might take to help businesses that choose to use the euro from 1 January 1999 and the associated implications for departments.

  Included in this work is an analysis of the implications of meeting the Government's commitment to allow certain taxes to be paid in euro.

  Taxation (Professional Businesses)
  Sir Nicholas Lyell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received as to the legality of the Government's proposals to withdraw the cash basis practice for the taxation of professional businesses, with particular reference to the provisions of the Equal Treatment Directive (76/207). [33030]

  Dawn Primarolo
  A large number of representations and comments were received, including some referring to the provisions of the Equal Treatment Directive. We are now in the process of reviewing the comments received. The outcome of that review will not be announced before my right hon. Friend's Budget.

  Sir Nicholas Lyell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received on the double taxation effect of the proposed catch up charge contained in the proposals to withdraw the cash basis of taxation for professional businesses. [33032]

  Dawn Primarolo
  We have received a large number of comments and representations on the proposal to withdraw the cash basis practices. A few of these suggested that there was a double taxation effect of the proposed catch up charge, but we do not accept that there is. The catch up charge brings into account, only once, the receipts which would have been included had the business always been taxed on the accruals basis, and which would otherwise escape tax altogether on moving to that basis, because they were earned in an earlier period.

  Sir Nicholas Lyell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Ms Lawrence) of 22 December 1997,Official Report, column 471, on business profits, in what way the imposition of the catch up charge proposed in the Government's proposals to withdraw the cash basis of taxation for professional businesses (a) corrects an anomaly and (b) creates a level playing field for all businesses. [33200]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The normal way in which those carrying on a business compute profits for tax is on the `earnings' or 'accruals' concept under which items are brought into account not as money is received or paid, but 312
  as receipts are 'earned' or expenses 'incurred'. However, the Inland Revenue had long-standing published practices under which self-employed people carrying on a business which counts as a 'profession or vocation' may choose a special basis for computing their tax profits, often called a 'cash' basis. Professionals on a cash basis can, subject to certain conditions, compute their tax profits by bringing into account money only as it is received or paid out. Many professional businesses do not adopt a cash basis, but the tax profits of those that do are generally lower than they would be if they were computed on an earnings or accruals basis.

  The idea of withdrawal of the cash basis was to level the playing field for all businesses. The catching up charge is necessary to ensure that the transition from cash to accruals basis does not leave out tax receipts, less any expenses, which have not yet been included in their tax returns, but which would have been included if the accruals basis had always applied.

  Sir Nicholas Lyell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the tax liability of a barrister(a) under the current practice and (b) under the potential future practice under the Government's proposals to withdraw the cash basis of taxation from professional businesses whose earnings correspond with each of the two examples given at Appendix B of the Bar Council's response dated 12 February. [33029]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The proposal to withdraw the cash basis practices available to professionals was the subject of a consultation process which was started by the issue of an Inland Revenue Press Release on 22 December 1997. Comments were invited by 14 February 1998. Now we are in the process of reviewing the many comments received. The outcome of that review will not be announced before my right hon. Friend's Budget. A barrister's liability under the potential future practice will of course depend on the final shape of the proposal yet to be announced. A comparison at this stage is not therefore possible.

  Sir Nicholas Lyell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received as to the effect on the taxation of partnerships of the Government's proposals to withdraw the cash basis practice for the taxation of professional businesses. [33031]

  Dawn Primarolo
  We have received a large number of comments and representations on the proposal to withdraw the cash basis practices. Many of these raised issues about the effect of the proposal on partnerships. Now we are in the process of reviewing the comments received. The outcome of that review will not be announced before my hon. Friend's Budget.

  Public Appointments
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many of the appointments to public bodies which he has made since 1 May 1997 have been from the Public Appointments Unit list. [33256]
  313
  Mrs. Liddell
  Treasury Ministers use a wide range of sources, including the Public Appointments Unit, to identify candidates for public appointments. Of those appointments made since 1 May 1997, one has been identified as having been as a direct result of the PAU list. However there may be other appointees, identified from other sources, who are also on the PAU list.

  Housing (VAT Rates)
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 24 February 1998,Official Report, column 132, if he will place in the Library copies of the requests for advice sent to the European Commission as to which government policy measures qualify for a lower rate of VAT because they are defined as the supply, construction, renovation and altering of housing as part of social policy under Annex H of the Sixth VAT Directive and copies of the advice which he received from the European Commission. [33362]

  Dawn Primarolo
  No. Publication of this correspondence is inappropriate under the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Millennium Compliance
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on progress to date towards(a) millennium compliance and (b) single currency compliance, of the computer systems involved in the introduction of European Monetary Union in the central Governments of each EU member state. [33361]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Government have a full programme for ensuring that its computer systems are millennium compliant. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster reports progress to the House regularly. The programme covers all government computer systems including any which relate to the introduction of the euro. Departments that have dealings in foreign currencies are also carrying out work to ensure that they are able to accommodate the introduction of the euro.

  The millennium compliance and euro compliance of IT systems involved in the introduction of the single currency in other member states is a matter for the Governments concerned.

  Tenants (Tax Liability)
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make the tax liability of tenants for improvement of their property applied to(a) tied cottages and (b) Church of England clergy, the same as that applied to accommodation provided on the basis of being wholly necessary for the discharge of an individual's employment. [33805]
  314
  Dawn Primarolo
  All employees who are provided with living accommodation by reason of their employment are already subject to the same tax rules in respect of the benefit arising from the provision of that accommodation.

  Resuscitation Training Models
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received on the treatment of resuscitation training models as items of medical equipment for tax purposes. [33793]

  Dawn Primarolo
  In recent months Treasury Ministers have received representations on the VAT liability of resuscitation training models from St. John Ambulance through nine letters from MPs and a further letter enclosing correspondence from the Royal Free Hospital. In the last year Customs have also received representations from the Charities Tax Reform Group and a number of charities. This matter is now the subject of an appeal to the VAT and Duties Tribunal, which is the proper forum for resolving questions of liability.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what factors underlay the decision by Customs and Excise to withdraw relief from VAT for St. John Ambulance's Resuscitation Training Models under notice 701/6 in March 1997. [33604]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The supply of training equipment, such as resuscitation training models, has always been subject to VAT. The position was made clear in March 1997 in an updated Public Notice.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what factors underlay the decision to term St. John Ambulance's Resuscitation Training Models as not being items of medical equipment. [33603]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Customs interpret medical equipment as covering articles required for the purpose of diagnosing or treating injury or illness or the preservation of health.

  Duty-free Sales
  Dr. Ladyman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his policy in respect of the duty regime which will apply following the planned abolition of duty free sales in the EU. [33923]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Operators currently dealing in intra-EU duty free sales will, following abolition, be required to account for duty and tax on the sales they make in accordance with the principles laid down in the relevant EC directives. Customs and Excise are in discussion with UK trade interests to explore the practicalities of implementing this duty paid regime.

  Dr. Ladyman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress has been made towards tax harmonisation in the EU; and what account will be taken of that progress in any decision to abolish duty free in the EU in 1999. [33924]
  315
  Dawn Primarolo
  The mechanism for progressing harmonisation of excise duty rates on alcohol and tobacco is through the Commission's biennial reviews of the minimum rates of excise duty. Their current reports are overdue.

  The decision to end intra-EU duty-free sales has already been taken by the Council of Finance Minister, in 1991. The harmonisation of duties and taxes was not a factor in that decision.

  Dr. Ladyman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the current position of each member state of the EU in respect of commissioning an impact assessment of the effect on employment of abolishing duty free sales in the EU.[33925]

  Dawn Primarolo
  There was a brief discussion of the matter among Economic and Finance Ministers on 9 March, but I regret that the information in the form sought by my hon. Friend is not available.

  Brewing Industry
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people are employed(a) directly and (b) indirectly in the United Kingdom brewing industry. [33913]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Chief Executive of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Lindsay Hoyle, dated 12 March 1998:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your parliamentary question on employment in the brewing industry.
  Information from the Annual Employment Survey (AES) shows that at September 1996 there were 24,000 employees in the manufacture of cider and other fruit wines, beer and malt, and 410,000 employees in bars and the retail sale of alcoholic and other beverages. This information is for Great Britain and not the United Kingdom as Northern Ireland estimates are not available at this level of detail.

  Pensions Mis-selling
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress has been made towards resolving cases of personal pensions mis-selling; and what further action will be taken to see that all those missold a personal pension receive redress. [34007]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I have today placed in the Library a table showing what further progress has been made in the period up to 28 February 1998 by the 41 firms the Government have been monitoring.

  Continuing the trend established in recent months, the table shows that the firms have made further progress during the month, and that about 65 per cent. of the cases identified for review are now completed.

  The general trend hides a wide range of different performances. A few firms—8 in all—have yet to complete even half their cases. One is still some way short
  316
  of the 10 per cent. mark. At the other end of the scale seven of the 41 firms I am monitoring have now completed over three quarters of their cases identified for review.

  In previous announcements, I have underlined the importance that both the Government and the regulators attach to all firms, including small firms, taking all possible steps to complete their reviews. I have also made it clear that firms will not escape sanction if they fail to act. That was not an empty threat. Two days ago, the Personal Investment Authority (PIA) announced it was investigating apparent failures to meet the regulator's targets for completing the most urgent case reviews in respect of about 600 small firms, with a view to taking disciplinary action. The firms concerned should have completed at least 90 per cent. of the top priority cases—which include people who are already retired or have died—by the end of December 1997. Far too many small firms appear to have failed to tackle even these most pressing cases. This is simply not acceptable, and PIA's action is to be commended.

  As noted above, a number of large firms have resolved over three quarters of their cases. Some of these firms are now getting close to the point where they will have completed their priority cases. This is welcome news. However it highlights the importance of looking forward beyond the first phase of the review of pensions mis-selling. The first step has rightly been to address the more pressing categories of cases, for example the cases of those who are most likely to have lost out and those either in or close to retirement. But they are not the only victims of pensions mis-selling and it is now important to look ahead at how to address the less pressing cases, which have in the past been referred to as "non-priority" cases.

  The regulators—Financial Services Authority (FSA) and the PIA—have today issued a consultation document setting out proposals for taking forward the review of personal pensions mis-selling into its second phase. Copies have been placed in the Library. The Government welcome this step forward, which reflects the outcome of research on the extent of the problem.

  The document sets out the regulators' proposed approach for firms to tackle the second phase of the review, building on experience of the first phase. It is important to note that this policy is not yet finalised. The way forward must be practicable. It must work. That is why the regulators have chosen to consult.

  This is particularly important given that initial research commissioned by the FSA suggests that it will be a large task—potentially involving as many as 1.8 million cases. Whatever the final figures turn out to be, it is clear that the scale is such that it is in everyone's interests that the process adopted is the right one. To that end I urge everyone that is involved or has an interest to participate in the consultation—including investors, occupational pension schemes and of course the firms themselves. In doing that I hope that everyone will make constructive contributions. That is the only way to see that the final policy that the regulators adopt is the best way forward, in the interests of investors and ultimately in the interests of the industry.
  317

  Progress by pensions firms in completing reviews of personal pensions mis-selling in the period to the end of February 1998

  A

  B

  C

  D

  E

  F

  G

  H

  Under 25% of cases resolved

  DBS

  2506

  37

  199

  64

  135

  72

  3

  7

  25–50% of cases resolved Gan

  Gan

  11,111

  802

  3,719

  482

  3,237

  2,328

  21

  33

  Lincoln National

  13,239

  1,358

  4,148

  1,015

  3,133

  2,164

  16

  34

  Financial Options

  339

  100

  32

  18

  14

  11

  3

  38

  Burns Anderson

  1,035

  247

  164

  96

  68

  53

  5

  38

  Countrywide

  4,684

  1,594

  252

  159

  93

  74

  2

  39

  Windsor Life

  9,451

  2,559

  1,706

  264

  1,442

  1,179

  12

  42

  Abbey Life

  17,251

  4,107

  6,288

  889

  5,399

  3,272

  19

  48

  50–75% of cases resolved

  Friends Provident

  6,831

  932

  2,791

  418

  2,373

  2,069

  30

  50

  Canada Life

  5,498

  280

  2,961

  520

  2,441

  1,953

  36

  50

  Standard Life

  6,899

  593

  3,028

  967

  2,061

  1,898

  28

  50

  Colonial

  8,167

  2,118

  2,832

  339

  2,493

  1,737

  21

  51

  CIS

  42,536

  3,402

  20,969

  12,683

  8,286

  6,355

  15

  53

  London and Manchester

  8,182

  1,045

  3,802

  483

  3,319

  2,875

  35

  54

  Royal & Sun Alliance

  15,672

  2,146

  7,399

  906

  6,493

  5,513

  35

  55

  Hill Samuel

  5,987

  760

  2,894

  586

  2,308

  1,962

  33

  55

  IFA Network

  251

  40

  104

  75

  29

  26

  10

  56

  Sun Life of Canada

  26,660

  7,046

  9,546

  1,836

  7,710

  6,312

  24

  57

  Britannic

  18,722

  4,413

  9,664

  2,547

  7,117

  3,824

  20

  58

  United Assurance

  12,793

  900

  7,879

  1,855

  6,024

  4,810

  38

  59

  NatWest

  14,450

  3,988

  5,743

  981

  4,762

  3,646

  25

  60

  Allied Dunbar

  18,689

  3,139

  9,677

  3,005

  6,672

  5,195

  28

  61

  Albany Life

  2,913

  567

  1,662

  148

  1,514

  1,169

  40

  65

  Godwins

  1,478

  100

  941

  355

  586

  507

  34

  65

  Equitable Life

  7,303

  1,563

  3,482

  1,422

  2,060

  1,806

  25

  66

  Guardian

  8,884

  1,097

  5,738

  882

  4,856

  4,075

  46

  68

  Commercial Union

  7,678

  1,192

  4,705

  751

  3,954

  3,434

  45

  70

  Sedgwick

  15,487

  7,702

  3,456

  1,322

  2,134

  1,904

  12

  71

  Berkeley Independent

  126

  73

  17

  14

  3

  2

  2

  71

  Lloyd's TSB

  48,853

  10,100

  27,292

  5,952

  21,340

  18,503

  38

  71

  Legal & General

  36,480

  14,441

  14,856

  1,537

  13,319

  10,504

  29

  73

  M&E Network

  290

  159

  58

  22

  36

  31

  11

  73

  Royal London

  12,075

  1,082

  8,891

  1,369

  7,522

  6,439

  53

  74

  Norwich Union

  7,344

  2,189

  3,702

  661

  3,041

  2,633

  36

  75

  Over 75% of cases resolved

  Pearl

  45,927

  3,080

  37,302

  5,557

  31,745

  26,562

  58

  77

  Wesleyan

  4,156

  247

  3,164

  918

  2,246

  2,031

  49

  77

  Prudential

  72,580

  18,970

  50,412

  3,779

  46,633

  35,884

  49

  81

  Midland

  4,828

  384

  3,956

  570

  3,386

  3,033

  63

  83

  AXA Equity and Law

  3,925

  718

  2,736

  617

  2,119

  1,950

  50

  84

  Hogg Robinson

  2,039

  795

  1,018

  357

  661

  556

  27

  84

  Barclays

  16,924

  6,147

  8,985

  2,091

  6,894

  5,942

  35

  84

  A: cases identified as requiring review.

  B: of A, cases where investor was informed that information gained during assessment excluded cases from review.

  C: number of assessments completed.

  D: cases where the investor has been informed that no redress is due.

  E: cases where redress has been offered.

  F: cases where redress has been accepted.

  G: cases where redress has been accepted as a percentage of cases identified for review ((F/Ax 100).

  H: cases completed, including exclusions, as a percentage of cases identified for review (((B+D+F)/A)x 100).

  GDP Calculation
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the implications of the proposed change in the calculation of the main figure for GDP from factor cost to market prices. [34001]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Chief Executive of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.
  318
  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Tony Colman, dated 12 March 1988:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your parliamentary question on the implications of the proposed changes in the calculation of the main figure for GDP.
  From September 1998 the UK will implement the new European System of Accounts (ESA95), both for UK publication and for data provided to Eurostat and other international organisations. As part of this process, GDP at market prices would become the main figure reported for GDP. This is one of a number of changes being considered which would affect the presentation of the UK national

  319
  accounts. The change to market prices would bring UK practice into line with most other countries and hence help to make international comparisons more meaningful.
  The ONS has been consulting users about these changes and intends to announce the outcome of the consultation in a News Release during April.

  ECOFIN
  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the Council Meeting of the Economic and Finance Ministers of the European Union held on 9 March. [34326]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  I chaired the Economic and Finance Council—ECOFIN—of the European Union in Brussels on 9 March. The Economic Secretary represented the UK.

  The Council began by discussing its recommendation to the Parliament that they discharge the Budget for 1996. Prof. Friedmann, President of the European Court of Auditors (ECA), gave a full presentation of the key findings from his report on the implementation of the 1996 Budget. Both Commissioner Liikanen and other colleagues responded. Although I was able to congratulate Prof. Friedmann on an excellent and thorough report, and Commissioner Liikanen on the significant steps forward in financial management, I also noted the Council's disappointment that the ECA was again unable to provide us with a positive Statement of Assurance on the implementation of the Budget.

  I also drew colleagues' attention to my intention to use the 19 May ECOFIN for a wide-ranging discussion of Community financing issues, including follow-up to the criticisms made in the ECA report, the next Preliminary Draft Budget (for 1999), and the future financing of the Community (on the basis of the Commission's Agenda 2000 proposals).

  The Council next considered the follow-up to the code of conduct for business taxation agreed at the 1 December ECOFIN. We agreed the setting up of the assessment group provided for in the code. Commissioner Monti presented his draft directive regarding the taxation of interest and royalty payments between associated companies in different states.

  The Council considered a memorandum on a coordinated European response to the challenges posed by the development of electronic commerce. After some contributions from Commissioner Monti and other colleagues, I noted that this was a matter of some interest to ECOFIN, and that we should return to it.

  Under the preparation of Stage 3 of EMU, the Council received information from the Presidency, Commission, and Council Secretariat on the timetable for the EMU decision-making process. I also took the opportunity to remind colleagues of the importance of ensuring that national legislation, including the statutes of national central banks, is made compatible with the Treaty requirements for EMU.

  On the basis of a presentation from Commissioner de Silguy, and a response from Sir Brian Unwin (President of the European Investment Bank), the Council discussed the principle of the Community guaranteeing EIB lending to Bosnia-Herzegovina. After some discussion, I concluded that there was a broad consensus that the
  320
  Commission should bring forward a proposal, and noted particularly that some Member States had asked the Commission to keep budget discipline in mind when doing so.

  Employment Statistics
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to produce employment and unemployment statistics which can be directly compared with those of the UK's EU partners. [34185]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Chief Executive of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Barry Sheerman, dated 12 March 1998:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your parliamentary question on producing employment and unemployment statistics which can be directly compared with those of the UK's EU partners.
  The ONS recently announced major improvements to UK labour market statistics. In recognition of the increasing complexity of the labour market in the United Kingdom, the new ONS presentation will focus on employment, unemployment and inactivity (out of work but not unemployed) as being equally important in describing the changing labour market.
  From April 1998, the ONS's assessment will give more weight to the Labour Force Survey, which in future will be published twelve times a year for an average of each three month period. Existing internationally agreed definitions as recommended by the International Labour Organisation (ILO) will continue to be used. Each EU member state is required to carry out a Labour Force Survey on the ILO definitions and the survey results can therefore be directly compared.
  A new regulation is due to be adopted by the EU Council of Ministers that will lead to improved harmonisation of employment and unemployment statistics across EU countries on the basis of quarterly Labour Force Surveys.

  Women
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the number and the percentage of women who have (i) a dependent child aged (1) 0–4, (2) 5–10 and (3) 11–15 years and (ii) no dependent children who are(a) working full time, (b) working part-time, (c) registered unemployed and (d) economically inactive, indicating separately the numbers of women in each group who are (A) married or living with another person and (B) not married or living with another person. [34002]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Chief Executive of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Denis MacShane, dated 12 March 1998:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your parliamentary question asking for a breakdown of women by economic and marital status and age of youngest dependent child.
  This information is shown in the attached table using estimates available from the Labour Force Survey (LFS). The ONS measure of unemployment, derived from the LFS, is defined on a consistent and internationally recognised basis set out by the International

  321
  Labour Organisation (ILO) and counts as unemployed people who are: a) without a paid job; b) available to start work within the next two weeks and c) have either looked for work in the last four weeks

  Women aged 16–59 by economic and marital status and age of youngest dependent child Summer 1997 (not seasonally adjusted)

  United Kingdom

  Age of youngest dependent child

  All women

  0–15

  0–4

  5–10

  11–15

  No dependent children under 16

  Thousands:

  All persons

  All women aged 16–59

  17,033

  6,800

  3,067

  2,203

  1,530

  10,233

  Economically active

  12,310

  4,408

  1,684

  1,553

  1,171

  7,902

  In employment1

  11,511

  4,119

  1,563

  1,448

  1,108

  7,393

  Full time2

  6,545

  1,579

  562

  507

  510

  4,966

  Part time2

  4,962

  2,538

  1,000

  940

  597

  2,424

  ILO unemployed

  799

  289

  121

  105

  63

  509

  Economically inactive

  4,723

  2,392

  1,383

  650

  359

  2,331

  Married/cohabiting

  All women aged 16–59

  10,978

  5,275

  2,425

  1,648

  1,202

  5,703

  Economically active

  8,070

  3,658

  1,468

  1,243

  948

  4,412

  In employment1

  7,767

  3,496

  1,392

  1,188

  916

  4,271

  Full time2

  4,082

  1,313

  502

  401

  411

  2,769

  Part time2

  3,683

  2,182

  890

  787

  505

  1,501

  ILO unemployed

  303

  162

  76

  54

  32

  141

  Economically inactive

  2,908

  1,617

  957

  405

  255

  1,291

  Non-married

  All women aged 16–59

  6,055

  1,525

  642

  555

  327

  4,530

  Economically active

  4,240

  750

  216

  311

  223

  3,490

  In employment1

  3,744

  623

  171

  260

  192

  3,122

  Full time2

  2,463

  266

  61

  106

  100

  2,197

  Part time2

  1,279

  356

  110

  154

  92

  923

  ILO unemployed

  496

  127

  45

  51

  32

  368

  Economically inactive

  1,815

  775

  426

  245

  104

  1,040

  Per cent.:

  All persons

  All women aged 16–59

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  Economically active

  72

  65

  55

  70

  77

  77

  In employment1

  68

  61

  51

  66

  72

  72

  Full time2

  38

  23

  18

  23

  33

  49

  Part time2

  29

  37

  33

  43

  39

  24

  ILO unemployed

  5

  4

  4

  5

  4

  5

  Economically inactive

  28

  35

  45

  30

  23

  23

  Married/cohabiting

  All women aged 16–59

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  Economically active

  74

  69

  61

  75

  79

  77

  In employment1

  71

  66

  57

  72

  76

  75

  Full time2

  37

  25

  21

  24

  34

  49

  Part time2

  34

  41

  37

  48

  42

  26

  ILO unemployed

  3

  3

  3

  3

  3

  2

  Economically inactive

  26

  31

  39

  25

  21

  23

  Non-married

  All women aged 16–59

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  Economically active

  70

  49

  34

  56

  68

  77

  In employment1

  62

  41

  27

  47

  59

  69

  Full time2

  41

  17

  9

  19

  30

  48

  Part time2

  21

  23

  17

  28

  28

  20

  ILO unemployed

  8

  8

  7

  9

  10

  8

  Economically inactive

  30

  51

  66

  44

  32

  23

  1Includes those who did not state whether they worked full or part-time.

  2Full/part-time classification is based on respondents self-assessment.

  Note:

  Less than 10,000 in cell: figure too small for reliable estimate.

  Source:

  Labour Force Survey.
  322 or are waiting to start a job already obtained. The ILO measure of unemployment has been used in this reply instead of "registered unemployed" for consistency with the rest of the table.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Butterfill
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list those parliamentary questions he has taken eight weeks or more to answer since 1 May 1997. [32704]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The eight questions listed did not receive answers within eight weeks of the due date for answer. This represents 0.36 per cent. of the 2,215 written questions tabled to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the present Session.

  Member

  Table Office serial number

  Tim Boswell

  15967

  Malcolm Bruce

  20683

  Jim Cousins

  23034

  Nick Gibb

  19771

  John Horam

  20952

  Peter Lilley

  19704

  Austin Mitchell

  12339

  John Redwood

  20894

  EU Code of Conduct Group
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the aims and objects of the EU Code of Conduct Group established by ECOFIN. [34031]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The purpose of the Code of Conduct Group is to assess harmful tax measures which may fall within the scope of the Code of Conduct. The Code itself, which covers business taxation, is designed to curb harmful direct tax measures which may affect in a significant way the location of business in the European Community.

  Ecu Bonds
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the Government propose to provide for the compulsory conversion of Ecu bonds into Euro bonds by 1 January 1999. [34088]

  Mrs. Liddell
  All Ecu bonds issued by the UK Government will automatically become denominated in euro at the start of Stage 3 under European Council Regulation No. (EC)1103/97.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the hon. Member for Walsall, North will receive a reply to his letter of 22 January, reference: 0603/15. [34032]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury responded on 11 March.

DEFENCE

  Gulf (Inoculations)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what arrangements have been made to inoculate British forces and medical auxiliaries currently dispatched to the Gulf against(a) anthrax, (b) botulism and
  324
  (c) chemical weapon agents; what range of insecticides have been sent; and if serving personnel have been given an option not to receive inoculations. [30830]

  Dr. Reid
  A programme of immunisation against anthrax is currently being offered to UK Service personnel and MOD civilians in the Gulf region. Details of this programme, which whilst strongly recommended is not compulsory were given in the reply by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence to the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) on 3 March 1998,Official Report, column 535. UK forces currently deployed in the Gulf region have been equipped with a range of medical countermeasures against chemical and biological warfare agents. However, no other prophylactic medical countermeasures are currently being used by these forces.

  Up to three types of pesticide from Service stocks are available for use by UK forces in the Gulf region, according to their location. These are pyrethroid-based insecticides for general insect control, a bendiocarb-based insecticide cockroach control and difenacoum-based rodenticides.

  Riot Control Agents
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what stockpile his Department holds of CR; and for what purpose the material is held; [31274]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the United Kingdom's obligations under the Chemical Weapons Convention in his policy on the use of CR; [31269]

  (3) where his Department's stockpile of CR is held; and what is the estimated annual cost of storage. [31270]

  Dr. Reid
  CR gas is a riot control agent designed to cause temporary irritation. The Ministry of Defence currently holds stocks of approximately 260kg for use if necessary by those units responsible for maintaining an effective counter terrorist response capability. This policy is consistent with the Chemical Weapons Convention, which permits the use of certain toxic chemicals for law enforcement purposes. Stocks of CR are held at the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency's Chemical and Biological Defence sector at Porton Down and at the relevant unit level. Figures for the annual cost of storing CR cannot separately be identified.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what stocks of riot control agents are held by his Department; what quantities of each agent are held by his Department; what is the intended purpose of each agent; and where the stocks are held. [33888]

  Dr. Reid
  CS irritant is the only riot control agent held by my Department. Its purpose is for Nuclear Biological and Chemical Defence training and as a contingency in case the armed forces should ever be asked to support the civil power in riot control. The quantity of CS held is currently under review, although at present it stands at:

  1.5 inch Cartridges: 7,209 (+ 14,541 obsolete variants awaiting disposal).

  Hand Thrown Grenades: 12,799 (+ 640 obsolete variants or shelf life expired grenades awaiting disposal).

  Discharged Grenades: 19,152 (+ 250 shelf life expired grenades awaiting disposal).

  A further quantity of 2,500 kilogrammes of CS.

  325
  The locations of the agent are being withheld under Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Casualties (Training Exercises)
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many British soldiers have been (i) injured and (ii) killed during training exercises in the United Kingdom in each year since 1992 to date. [31740]

  Dr. Reid
  Figures for the number of deaths and injuries to Army Officers and Soldiers during training exercises for each year since 1992 are provided in the table.

  Year

  Deaths

  Injuries

  1992

  2

  367

  1993

  1

  333

  1994

  2

  494

  1995

  1

  377

  1996

  0

  462

  1997

  1

  325

  1998 (to 27 February 1998)

  1

  0

  Note:

  The figures for 1997 and 1998 are provisional as specific details of some incidents remain to be verified.

  MOD Sites (Wales)
  Sir Raymond Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many MoD sites in Wales have been disposed of (i) since 1 May and (ii) between November 1996 and May 1997; and to which bodies. [33697]

  Mr. Spellar
  The properties in Wales which have been sold and the date are shown in the table. With the exception of the sales of St. David's airfield (January 1997), the sites have been sold to private individuals or companies the details of which are withheld under exemption of 14 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  MOD sites in Wales: disposals

  Date

  Site

  Purchaser

  (i) Since 1 May 1997

  May 1997

  Part of St. David's Airfield

  Private Individual

  Sept 1997

  No. 3 Scarborough Road, Newport

  Private Individual

  Sept 1997

  2/3 Church Cottages, Beachley

  Private Individual

  Oct 1997

  12 Ellis Avenue, Haverfordwest

  Private Individual

  Nov 1997

  1 Church Cottages, Beachley

  Private Individual

  Dec 1997

  6 Duke's Meadow, Pendine

  Private Individual

  Dec 1997

  14 Ellis Avenue, Haverforewest

  Private Individual

  Jan 1998

  Area of RNAD Trecwn, Pembroke

  Private Consortium

  (ii) Between Nov 1996 and May 1997

  Dec 1996

  22 Woodend, Pendine

  Private Individual

  Dec 1996

  Land adjoining Cawder Bks, Brawdy

  Private Individual

  Jan 1997

  Rinston Farm, Beachley

  Private Individual

  Jan 1997

  Part of St. David's Airfield

  Pembrokeshire Coast National Park

  Jan 1997

  2 Duke's Meadow, Pendine

  Private Individual

  Feb 1997

  7 Duke's Meadow, Pendine

  Private Sale

  Feb 1997

  Land at Vauxhall Camp, Monmouth

  Private Individual

  Feb 1997

  Berrybush Aerial Site, Brawdy

  Private Individual

  Feb 1997

  4 Scarborough Road, Newport

  Private Individual

  326

  MOD in Wales: disposals

  Date

  Site

  Purchaser

  Mar 1997

  Part of St. David's Airfield

  Private Individual

  Mar 1997

  Beachley House, Chepstow

  Private Individual

  Apr 1997

  Part of St. David's Airfield

  Private Individual

  Apr 1997

  Part of St. David's Airfield

  Private Individual

  Note:

  This does not include the sale of 263 Married Quarters to Annington Homes Limited in November 1996 which were part of a national transaction.

  Porton Down
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many times since 1990 the Chemical Defence Establishment at Porton Down has supplied information about former volunteers to the War Pensions Agency when those volunteers have submitted a claim to the Agency. [33803]

  Dr. Reid
  Since 1990 the Chemical and Biological Defence sector (CBD) of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) has responded to approximately eighty requests from the War Pensions Agency for information relating to former volunteers. CBD also responds to requests received from individual volunteers, their representatives and the Army Historical Branch.

  CBD responds to each request for information with all available details from the surviving records and as full an explanation as possible concerning the trials in which the volunteer participated.

  Defence Council Instructions
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library a list of the titles and subject matter of the unclassified Defence Council Instructions which were issued between 1 September 1997 and 30 November 1997. [33847]

  Mr. Spellar
  Yes. I am placing a list today.

  NATO Working Papers
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library the NATO working papers agreed at the NATO summit in November 1997. [33677]

  Mr. George Robertson
  The last NATO Summit took place in Madrid on 8-9 July 1997. The last meetings of NATO Defence Ministers and NATO Foreign Ministers took place in Brussels on 2 and 16 December 1997 respectively. The working papers presented at such meetings are classified documents. Copies of the "Madrid Declaration on Euro-Atlantic Security and Cooperation" issued at the Madrid Summit, and the communiques of the latest meetings of NATO Defence and Foreign Ministers, have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Butterfill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list those parliamentary questions he has taken eight weeks or more to answer since 1 May 1997. [32706]
  327
  Dr. Reid
  There has been one such question. I answered a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) on 17 February 1998,Official Report, column 562. The information he requested was not held centrally and significant effort over a period, including the Christmas break, was required to collate the information that was readily available.

WALES

  Training
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much was spent from public funds on training how many people(a) in Wales and (b) in connection with LG companies in 1996–97; and if he will estimate expenditure and numbers in respect of (a) and (b) in (i) 1997–98 and (ii) 1998–99. [33285]

  Mr. Hain
  Welsh Office expenditure on the main youth and adult training programmes delivered via Training and Enterprise Councils in 1996–97 amounted to £83.2 million and covered 37,734 starts by people on the programmes. Comparable provision in the current financial year amounts to £386.1 million and it is estimated that, by the outturn, there will have been some 31,540 starts. For 1998–99, the equivalent figures are £77 million and 29,000 starts, although target activity and funding levels are subject to on-going contractual negotiations with the TECs. These figures do not include training linked to TEC funding from their Business Growth and Start-Up budget and Local Initiative Fund, or training under the New Deal.

  No public funds were spent on training in connection with LG companies in 1996–97. The above figures for 1997–98 and 1998–99 include 32 Modern Apprentices in training linked to LG companies, supported by Welsh Office funding of £50,000 in 1997–98 and £125,000 in 1998–99. In addition, in 1997–98, Gwent TEC has been allocated £2 million for the training of 547 people from LG companies. The equivalent figures for 1998–99 are £6 million for 1,660 people. Finally, LG (Electronics) has free occupancy of a Welsh Development Agency building to use as a training centre for 3 years. The value of this is estimated at some £206,000 a year for 1997–98 and 1998–99. The costs of training at the Centre are being met by LG (Electronics), drawing on the funding assistance noted above.

  Contaminated Land
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the number of hectares of contaminated land in each of the last 12 years in each county by region. [33037]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him by the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) on Friday 6 March 1998,Official Report, columns 812–13

  Schools
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has made of the number of schoolchildren from England receiving education in Welsh schools. [33280]
  328
  Mr. Hain
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Transport Links
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how he proposes to upgrade(a) road, (b) rail and (c) air links in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [33533]

  Mr. Hain
  The role that all transport modes should play in improving transport links is being considered as part of our plans to develop an integrated transport policy. The consultation exercise launched last August will lead to a UK-wide White Paper on transport later this year. At around the same time, a Welsh Transport Policy Statement will be published drawing out those issues of particular relevance and importance to Wales. I am meanwhile conducting a series of consultations on air and rail links between North and South Wales.

  Coal Industry
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the future of the coal industry in Wales. [33527]

  Mr. Hain
  The Government are currently undertaking a full review of energy policy including the position of coal within it. The future of the Welsh coal industry depends on a number of factors, including the ability to compete and the availability of markets. These issues were considered at the Coal Workshop in Cardiff last December, the report of which will be issued for comment shortly.

  Empty Housing
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many vacant dwellings there are in each local housing authority in Wales. [33526]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) on 2 March 1998,Official Report, column 4.

  Long-term Unemployed
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many long-term unemployed people there are in Wales, by each Parliamentary constituency. [33535]

  Mr. Hain
  The information requested is given in the table, and is available from the NOMIS database, which can be accessed by the staff of the Library of the House.

  Long-term unemployed (claimant count), January 19981

  Constituency

  Male

  Female

  Total

  Aberavon

  233

  33

  266

  Alyn and Deeside

  278

  40

  318

  Blaenau Gwent

  694

  99

  793

  Brecon and Radnorshire

  199

  52

  251

  Bridgend

  320

  73

  393

  Caernarfon

  631

  96

  727

  Caerphilly

  522

  91

  613

  Cardiff, Central

  563

  109

  672

  Cardiff, North

  183

  27

  210

  Cardiff, South and Penarth

  772

  116

  888

  Cardiff, West

  722

  104

  826

  Carmarthen, East and Dinefwr

  280

  66

  346

  329

  Long-term unemployed (claimant count), January 19981

  Constituency

  Male

  Female

  Total

  Carmarthen, West and South Pembrokeshire

  562

  110

  672

  Ceredigion

  285

  61

  346

  Clwyd, South

  214

  41

  255

  Clwyd, West

  302

  63

  365

  Conwy

  541

  107

  648

  Cynon Valley

  381

  60

  441

  Delyn

  237

  42

  279

  Gower

  207

  35

  242

  Islwyn

  173

  34

  207

  Llanelli

  518

  79

  597

  Meirionnydd Nant Conwy

  308

  79

  387

  Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney

  394

  73

  467

  Monmouth

  267

  48

  315

  Montgomeryshire

  89

  18

  107

  Neath

  286

  48

  334

  Newport, East

  444

  86

  530

  Newport, West

  537

  98

  635

  Ogmore

  313

  55

  368

  Pontypridd

  372

  59

  431

  Preseli Pembrokeshire

  572

  117

  689

  Rhondda

  475

  79

  554

  Swansea, East

  367

  39

  406

  Swansea, West

  408

  68

  476

  Torfaen

  323

  45

  368

  Vale of Clwyd

  328

  54

  382

  Vale of Glamorgan

  453

  94

  547

  Wrexham

  275

  64

  339

  Ynys Mon

  795

  172

  967

  Total

  15,823

  2,834

  18,657

  1Claimant unemployed for over 52 weeks. These figures are not seasonally adjusted.

  Source:

  Office for National Statistics.

  Tourism
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what tourism initiatives he is undertaking in respect of(a) accommodation schemes and quality standards, (b) promoting Wales, (c) trade communication, (d) market and product intelligence and research, (e) training and (f) market access and information. [33812]

  Mr. Hain
  The Wales Tourist Board is responsible for a range of initiatives under its "Tourism 2000" strategy which are aimed at these areas. The Board is in the process of reviewing and updating its strategy to ensure that it continues to meet the needs of the industry into the future.

  Housing Department
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he will announce the outcome of his consultation on the new housing department within the Welsh Office. [34539]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  We have sought powers in the Government of Wales Bill to wind up Tai Cymru and transfer its functions to the Secretary of State for Wales. We intend to transfer these functions to the Assembly when it is established.

  In my written reply to my hon. Friend of 4 December 1997, Official Report, column 306, I announced the setting up of a new Housing Department of the Welsh Office to combine all of the existing functions of Tai Cymru and the Welsh Office Housing Division. I also
  330
  announced the issue of a consultation paper on the organisation and role of the Housing Department and its relations with other bodies including an enhanced role for local authorities in planning the provision of housing in their areas. Copies of the consultation paper "Streamlined, Efficient, Accountable: A New Housing department for Wales" were placed in the Library of the House.

  Consultation ended on 23 January. There were 52 responses. Our proposals were widely supported. My right hon. Friend and I have therefore decided to confirm the proposals set out in the paper.

  A number of the responses raised particular points about the way in which the new Department will operate and its relations with other bodies. We shall bear these in mind as we are putting the new organisation together.

  A list of respondents has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Butterfill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list those parliamentary questions he has taken eight weeks or more to answer since 1 May 1997. [32718]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  There are no parliamentary questions that my Department has taken eight weeks or more to answer since 1 May 1998.

  Elective Surgery (Bro Taf)
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the Chairman of the Bro Taf Health Authority in relation to the suspension of major elective surgery for the remainder of the 1997–98 financial year. [34172]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  None. Contractual issues are management responsibilities for health authorities and their provider hospitals.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Exports (Kenya)
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many licence applications have been granted in the past five years for the export of tear gas and plastic bullets to Kenya. [24331]

  Mrs. Roche
  These goods, and others, are controlled under different entries in Part 1 of Schedule III to the Export of Goods (Control) Order which are known as the ratings for these goods: tear gas under entry ML7; and plastic bullets under entries ML3 or PL5021.

  The Export Control Organisation's computer databases have been interrogated, and the following results were obtained. Between 1 January 1992 and 12 January 1998, 73 standard individual export licences were issued for the export to end users or consignees in Kenya of goods with these ratings. 61 of these licences covered goods rated ML3 and 12 covered goods rated PL5021; none covered goods rated ML7. Between 1 January 1994 and 12 January 1998, one Open Individual Export Licence was issued for the export to end users or consignees in Kenya of goods rated ML3 and none covering goods rated

  331
  ML7 or PL5021. The paper record of this case has been examined and the licence did not cover tear gas or plastic bullets.

  This information should be considered in light of the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) on 30 October 1997, Official Report, columns 870–71.

  Information on Open Individual Export Licences issued before 1 January 1994 could be provided only at disproportionate cost. It would also entail disproportionate cost to determine which, if any, of the standard individual export licences set out above covered the specified goods.

  Goods with the relevant ratings may also have been exported to Kenya under the following Open General Export licences: OGEL (export after repair: military goods) and OGEL (export after exhibition: military goods), both of which were first issued on 1 March 1994.

  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what licences have been granted for the export of tear gas, plastic bullets and other security equipment to Kenya; and to which units in Kenya these transfers were destined. [28839]

  Mrs. Roche
  The entry in the legislation under which the export of goods is controlled is known as their rating. The export of tear gas is controlled under entry ML7 of Part III of Schedule 1 to the Export of Goods (Control) Order (the so-called "Military List"), and that of plastic bullets under entries ML3 or PL5021. Certain security and paramilitary police goods are specified under entry PL5001, but other goods with possible security uses may be controlled under various other entries in the Military List.

  The Export Control Organisation's computer databases have been interrogated and the results are as follows. Between 1 January 1992 and 12 January 1998, 380 standard individual licences were issued for the export to end users or consignees in Kenya of goods described on the Military List. Between 1 January 1994 and 12 January 1998, 49 Open Individual Export Licences were issued for such exports. None of these licences covered goods rated ML7. Individual export licences can cover a range of goods, controlled under several entries in the legislation. Where this is so the licence is included in the Table in the total shown against each of the relevant ratings.

  Rating

  Number of standard individual export licences1

  Number of open individual export licences2

  ML1

  175

  1

  ML2

  5

  2

  ML3

  61

  1

  ML4

  12

  5

  ML5

  6

  8

  ML6

  17

  3

  ML8

  0

  2

  ML9

  5

  2

  ML10

  15

  22

  ML11

  33

  7

  ML13

  6

  5

  ML14

  0

  2

  ML15

  2

  3

  ML18

  1

  3

  332

  Rating

  Number of standard individual export licences1

  Number of open individual export licences2

  ML21

  0

  1

  ML22

  0

  4

  PL5001

  1

  2

  PL5002

  1

  1

  PL5009

  4

  0

  PL5017

  1

  3

  PL5018

  45

  0

  PL5021

  12

  0

  PL5027

  0

  1

  1Issued between 1 January 1992 and 12 January 1998 covering the export to Kenya of goods with this rating.

  2Issued between 1 January 1994 and 12 January 1998 covering the export to Kenya of goods with this rating.

  In addition, 48 Media OIELs were issued during the period. Media OIELs are a special category of Open Individual Export Licence authorising the export to any destination of protective clothing, mainly for the protection of aid agency workers and journalists when working in areas of conflict.

  This information should be considered in light of the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) on 30 October 1997, Official Report, columns 870–71.

  It would entail disproportionate cost to determine which, if any of the licences set out in the table covered the specified goods, or to identify the end users in each case.

  Goods with the relevant ratings may also have been exported to Kenya under the following Open General Export licences: OGEL (export after repair: military goods) and OGEL (export after exhibition: military goods), both of which were first issued on 1 March 1994.

  Officials (Telephone Calls)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what departmental guidelines are issued regarding her officials returning telephone calls from members of the public. [31956]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  The DTI is committed to providing a high quality of service to all its contacts. Staff are expected to deal with telephone calls in an efficient, effective and courteous manner, and this includes ensuring that calls from members of the public are returned. Tailored training is available for staff to help them meet this requirement. Consideration will also be given to introducing guidelines on call handling as part of the induction process for new staff.

  Arms Exports (Indonesia)
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many applications for licences for the export of military equipment to Indonesia have been(a) granted, (b) refused and (c) revoked since 13 November 1997. [32848]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Export Control Organisation's computer databases have been interrogated and the results are as follows for the period between 13 November 1997 and 6 February 1998 in respect of applications for individual licences to export to endusers or consignees in
  333
  Indonesia goods controlled by Part III of Schedule 1 to the Export of Goods (Control) Order (the so-called "Military List").

  Licences issued

  Licenses revoked

  Applications refused in full

  Standard Individual Export Licences

  26

  0

  2

  Open Individual Export Licences

  0

  0

  0

  This information should be considered in light of my answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) on 30 October 1997, Official Report, columns 870–71.

  Two of the standard individual export licences included in the table were issued on 13 November, and so are also included in the table in my answer to the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), on 2 December 1997, Official Report, columns 124–26.

  Arms Sales
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make it her policy to disaggregate figures for ECGD guarantees relating to the export of lethal weapons from other defence-related business in statistics for future years. [32816]

  Mrs. Roche
  ECGD already provides a disaggregation in its annual report of new guarantees in respect of defence-related equipment between military aircraft, vehicles, naval vessels, communications and ancillary equipment.

  Environmental Protection and Waste Management Technology
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assistance her Department provided to British firms to help them participate in the ENVITEC Environmental Protection and Waste Management Technology Trade Fair held in Dusseldorf in March. [33027]

  Mrs. Roche
  The industry put in a very late bid for support which was considered carefully by the DTI. On balance, a decision was taken not to accept it. However, we expect to support nine other environmental events in the coming year.

  Pharmaceuticals
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the impact of the loss of resale price maintenance on over-the-counter medicines on the pharmacy sector. [33489]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  The Director General of Fair Trading has published details in his January 1998 report "Material Changes in the Medicaments Market since 1970", a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House.

  The report shows that branded over-the-counter medicines are estimated to account for up to 8 per cent. of chemists' turnover in 1995, compared with up to
  334
  13 per cent. in 1970, and that the proportion of turnover accounted for by regulated NHS business has increased from 35 per cent. to 45 per cent. in 1970 to around 70 per cent. in 1995.

  Heinz (Wigan)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations she has received on the negotiating right of the MSF union at Heinz factory, Wigan; and if she will make a statement. [33968]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  I have received no representations on this matter.

  Market Access (Taiwan)
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on the outcome of the recent EU Taiwan market access negotiations. [33882]

  Mrs. Roche
  The 12th round of market access negotiations between the European Union and Taiwan relating to Taiwan's accession to the World Trade Organisation was held between 24–26 February in Taipei. The European Commission will formally report back on the talks to Member States in Brussels on 13 March. Our understanding from initial reports is that good progress was reached in a wide range of areas but that agreement has still to be reached on a number of issues, notably on Taiwan's taxation of alcoholic spirits and in particular of Scotch Whisky where the UK has a strong interest. UK officials will continue to keep in close contact with the European Commission on this issue and to work hard towards a mutually acceptable solution.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Butterfill
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will list those parliamentary questions she has taken eight weeks or more to answer since 1 May 1997. [32717]

  Mrs. Beckett
  Since the State Opening of Parliament on 14 May, three questions have received answers eight weeks or more after the due date. These were question 1117 from the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), 31 July 1997,Official Report column 630; question 12695 from the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor), 22 December 1997, Official Report, column 517; question 13042 from the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), 12 February 1998, Official Report, column 393.

  Foreign Shareholdings
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement about the requests from British Aerospace plc and Rolls-Royce plc for changes to their foreign shareholding limits. [34678]

  Mr. Battle
  The Government as holders of the special shares in British Aerospace plc and Rolls-Royce plc, have today agreed to the changes requested by these two companies.

  When British Aerospace and Rolls-Royce were privatised, a limit was imposed on total foreign shareholdings in each company, in order to maintain UK control of these companies because of their strategic

  335
  importance to the UK's defence interests. These limits can be varied only with the consent of the Government, under the powers of the special share which it holds in each company. These foreign shareholding limits are currently set at 29.5 per cent. and the companies have now proposed that these limits be increased to 49.5 per cent., together with a new limit of 15 per cent. on any individual foreign shareholder. These revised limits will take effect only if they are also approved by the shareholders of the two companies. I understand that resolutions to make these changes will now be put to the forthcoming Annual General Meetings of the respective shareholders of both companies.

  These changes are designed to promote the competitiveness of these companies, by increasing their freedom to operate commercially in world markets.

  Mauritius
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to her answer of 6 March 1998,Official Report, column 808, for what reason the visit to Mauritius by one of her junior ministers has been cancelled. [34187]

  Mrs. Roche
  I was planning to visit Mauritius in April. Unfortunately an ACP/EU Parliamentary meeting was re-scheduled which coincided with the dates of this visit. Given that the Mauritian authorities would inevitably be fully engaged in hosting this important meeting which will be attended by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development, it was decided that it was best to postpone my visit. I hope to be able to visit at a later date.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Millennium Compliance
  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he or his Ministers last met a Treasury Minister to discuss the costs of millennium compliance in his Department. [32296]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 3 March 1998]: Neither I nor my Ministerial colleagues have met a Treasury Minister to discuss the costs of Year 2000 compliance in my Department.

  A Ministerial grozup is chaired by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to drive action across the public and private sector. Her Majesty's Treasury are represented on this group and my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) represents my Department.

  Hunting
  Mr. Caplin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received on the implications of the Wild Mammals (Hunting with Dogs) Bill for the UK's adherence to the European Convention on Human Rights; if he will place copies of such representations in the Library; and if he will make a statement. [33474]

  Mr. George Howarth
  I will write to my hon. Friend

  Prisons (Foreign Nationals)
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many foreign nationals who received a prison sentence were deported on completion of their sentence, in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [33680]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Regrettably, the information requested is available only at disproportionate cost through the examination of individual case files.

  The available information relates to persons removed from the United Kingdom under the deportation process following a court recommendation, or on grounds conducive to the public good having been convicted of a criminal offence, and is set out in the table. The data may include cases where no prison sentence was served. Removals under illegal entry and port refusal procedures are excluded.

  Persons removed12 from the United Kingdom under the deportation process following a court recommendation, or on grounds conducive to the public good having been convicted of a criminal offence3, 1994 to 19974

  Number of persons5

  1994

  1995

  1996

  19971

  Court recommendation

  225

  225

  272

  245

  Conducive to the public good—criminal conviction3

  99

  81

  101

  114

  1Includes voluntary departures after deportation action had been initiated.

  2 Excludes removals under illegal entry and port procedures.

  3Where the court did not make a recommendation for deportation.

  41997 data are provisional.

  5May include persons who did not serve a custodial sentence.

  Restorative Justice
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the impact of measures contained in the Crime and Disorder Bill [Lords] on restorative justice initiatives being undertaken at present. [33678]

  Mr. Michael
  The Government believe that offenders—especially young offenders—should be made to face up to the impact of their offences on other people. We are following closely the development of restorative justice both in this country and abroad and recognise that, in appropriate circumstances, this approach may well be able to provide a useful tool for addressing law and order problems, particularly where young people are involved. We welcome the work to develop these ideas, such as that undertaken by the Thames Valley Police and the Northamptonshire Diversion Scheme.

  We plan to reflect existing best practice in guidance to support the implementation of the new Final Warning Scheme introduced by the Bill. The new Reparation Order also introduced by the Bill and our proposals for reform of the youth court, set out in the White Paper "No More Excuses", are likewise consistent with the principles of restorative justice.

  Birmingham Six
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the outstanding issues relating to the compensation payments to the men wrongly convicted of
  337
  the Birmingham pub bombings have been resolved; when his officials last met representatives of the men to discuss compensation; what interim payments have been made to date to them; and what factors underlie the length of time taken to finalise the compensation. [33597]

  Mr. Michael
  Final assessments of the amount of compensation payable were made some time ago by the independent assessor; in March 1995 in the cases of five of the men, and in the sixth case in July 1996. These have not been accepted. Significant interim payments have been made in all six cases, but it is not the practice to disclose the amount of such payments in individual cases. The assessor has considered further representations on behalf of all six men: the outcome of his consideration of the most recent representations in the cases of five of the men was communicated to their representatives last August and we await their response. The assessor has just completed his consideration of representations on behalf of the sixth man, and my officials will write to his representatives shortly. My officials have not met representatives of the six men to discuss compensation; nor would such a meeting be appropriate as the assessment of the amount of compensation payable is solely a matter for the independent assessor.

  Publications
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list those European Commission(a) newsletters, (b) magazines and (c) occasional publications to which his Department subscribes. [33661]

  Mr. Straw
  The titles of magazines, newsletters and occasional publications published by the Commission of the European Communities and subscribed to by the Home Office are listed.
  (a) Magazines

  Women in Europe

  (b) Newsletters

  Bulletin of the European Union Commission of the European Union: Briefing Official Journal of the European Communities: Information and Notices (C series)

  Official Journal of the European Communities:

  Legislation (L Series)

  Supplement to the Official Journal (S Series)

  The week in Europe

  Occasional Publications

  Basic Statistics of the Community

  Directory of Community Legislation in Force

  European Parliament: List of Members

  Eurostat Yearbook

  General Report on the Activities of the European Union

  Guide to the Council of the European Union

  Interinstitutional Directory of the European Union

  Labour Force Survey.

  Immigration Service
  Mr. Goggins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the total cost in the current year of the UK Immigration Service. [33875]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Immigration Service consists of the Ports Directorate and the Enforcement Directorate within the Immigration and Nationality Directorate. Their 338
  expected expenditure out-turn for 1997–98 is £92.3 million (gross) and £42.4 million respectively. Additional expenditure on some support costs is met centrally.

  Criminal Cases Review Commission
  Mr. Plaskitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases have been completed by the Criminal Cases Review Commission to date; how many cases are (i) currently under investigation and (ii) have been referred and are still pending; what has been the average length of time taken to complete each case; and in how many cases investigated to date the person originally convicted had died prior to the Commission taking up the case. [33598]

  Mr. Michael
  At the end of February, the Criminal Cases Review Commission had completed 288 cases, was substantively reviewing 215 cases, and had done preliminary work on a further 749. In 222 of the 288, the Commission had determined that the applicant did not meet the eligibility criteria laid down by the Criminal Appeal Act 1995. Of the remaining 66, the Commission had decided to refer 12 to an appeal court, of which two have so far been heard. The average length of time taken to complete the 66 cases was 108 days. In three completed cases, and two cases currently being reviewed, the person originally convicted had died before the Commission took up the case.

  Political Publicity
  Mr. Plaskitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions have been brought under section 2A of the Local Government Act 1986 to date. [33623]

  Mr. Michael
  The Court Proceedings database, held centrally, does not separately identify proceedings under section 2A of the Local Government Act 1986, as amended by section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988. However, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions advise that they are not aware of any prosecutions brought under section 28.

  Speeding Offences
  Mr. Plaskitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many convictions in respect of offences of speeding on the motorway network have been secured in each of the last four years. [33624]

  Mr. Michael
  The information requested is not separately identifiable in the statistics collected centrally.

  All Ports Warning System
  Mr. Goggins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his policy towards the use of the All Ports Warning System to detect the departure from the United Kingdom of people included in that system. [34167]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The All Ports Warning System has had only limited success as a means of detecting departing passengers who are included in that system. I believe that
  339
  there is potential for operating the system much more efficiently and effectively and this is something which my officials are currently examining.

  Illegal Immigrants
  Mr. Goggins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the contribution of immigration checks to the detection of illegal immigrants. [34168]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Experience has shown that it is highly ineffective and wasteful of resources to use such checks as a means of pursuing inquiries in individual cases. For many years now, and to much greater effect, enforcement inquiries have been intelligence based.

  Passenger Checks
  Mr. Goggins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what obligations carriers have to check the documents of passengers departing from the United Kingdom. [34169]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Convention on International Civil Aviation requires airlines to ensure that embarking passengers have the correct documenttation—passports, visas etc—for their journey.

  Seat Belts
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many prosecutions have been successfully brought against those persons who have failed to ensure that children are wearing suitable restraints or seat belts in cars, in each of the past 10 years; [34148]

  (2) how many successful prosecutions have been brought against adults who have failed to wear seat belts as (a) drivers and (b) passengers in each of the past 10 years. [34147]

  Mr. Michael
  It is not possible, in the statistics held centrally, to distinguish between passengers and drivers prosecuted for not wearing seat belts, or whether children are involved.

  The table gives the available information. As the majority of seat belt offences are dealt with by the issue of a fixed penalty notice, these are also included in the table, although the numbers of fixed penalties paid for these particular offences are not available centrally (around 65 per cent. of all fixed penalties issued where the driver is present are paid).

  Driving or riding in a motor vehicle while not wearing a seat belt England and Wales, 1987–1996

  Year

  Number of convictions

  Number of fixed penalties issued

  1987

  7,504

  n/a

  1988

  6,837

  n/a

  1989

  7,275

  n/a

  1990

  8,466

  n/a

  1991

  9,856

  n/a

  1992

  8,503

  102,322

  1993

  7,083

  106,153

  1994

  6.597

  114,712

  1995

  6,577

  126,251

  1996 (provisional)

  6,676

  154,345

  Police Discipline Appels
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions the holder of his office has been successfully challenged over the last five years over a ruling which he has given in a police disciplinary case. [34095]

  Mr. Michael
  There have been 295 police discipline appeals determined during the last five years. Eleven applications for judicial review have arisen from these decisions of which two were successful and one is still proceeding.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions in the last five years the holder of his office has overruled the recommendations of tribunals in police discipline cases. [34094]

  Mr. Michael
  Since April 1994, which is as far back as reliable statistics are available, the Home Secretary has not accepted the recommendations of tribunals appointed to consider police discipline appeals in 27 out of 169 cases (approximately 1 in 6). The figures for each year are shown.

  Against tribunal

  Total dealt with by tribunal

  Total appeal cases determined

  1994–95

  3

  35

  48

  1995–96

  8

  56

  81

  1996–97

  7

  52

  66

  1997–981

  9

  26

  40

  1Until 11 March 1998.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Butterfill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list those parliamentary questions he has taken eight weeks or more to answer since 1 May 1997. [32711]

  Mr. Straw
  There have been no parliamentary questions which we have taken eight weeks or more to answer since 1 May 1997.

  European Elections
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 9 March 1998,Official Report, columns 17–18, to the hon. Member for Basildon (Angela Smith), what evidence he had estimated in support of his statement concerning the failure of voter preferences for individual candidates to be translated into electoral success under the Belgium electoral system prior to his comments on the Belgian electoral system on 25 November. [34189]

  Mr. George Howarth
  As my right hon. Friend said during the Second Reading debate on the European Parliamentary Elections Bill on 25 November 1997,Official Report, columns 803–17, he had looked at the operation of the Belgian electoral system. He recognised that, by the very nature of the way the system operates, those candidates who gained the most personal votes would not necessarily be elected.
  341
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 9 March 1998,Official Report, columns 17–18, to the hon. Member for Basildon (Angela Smith), (a) when the numerical examples he has placed in the Library were worked out and (b) when he received them. [34188]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The numerical examples were worked out by Home Office officials on 6 March and received by my right hon. Friend on the same day.

  Immigration Detainees
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) suicides and (b) attempted suicides have been recorded amongst immigration detainees in each year since 1992; and if he will make a statement. [33749]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  There have been no suicides in immigration detention centres since 1992. One immigration detainee committed suicide in Her Majesty's Prison Norwich on 25 August 1995, where he had completed a prison sentence and was awaiting deportation.

  Information concerning those who may have attempted suicide is not available in the form requested. However, statistics concerning incidents of self-harm in immigration detention accommodation are reproduced in the table. It is not possible to say how many, if any, of the incidents can be regarded as attempted suicide.

  Information concerning incidents of self-harm in relation to immigration detainees held in Prison Service accommodation is available only at disproportionate cost.

  Year

  Immigration Detention

  1992

  10

  1993

  16

  1994

  15

  1995

  14

  1996

  14

  1997

  10

  1Statistical information incomplete.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions have taken place between officials of the Immigration Service and Group 4 concerning treatment of detainees; and what specialist training is given to staff involved with detainees. [33842]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Discussions between the Immigration Service and Group 4 about the management of Detention Centres are routine and regular. Immigration Service staff based at centres provide routine monitoring of performance against contracts and, in the case of Campsfield House, there is thorough external monitoring under the provisions of the IS 9002 quality assurance programme. In addition, senior staff pay regular visits to Detention Centres and have discussions with local managers and company directors.
  342
  All personnel employed by Group 4 [Total Security] Limited are required to undergo a training programme which includes duty of care, health and safety, suicide prevention, security management, race relations, cultural and ethnic considerations and first aid.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the dates on which disturbances took place at Campsfield House between January 1993 and July 1997 and in each case the numbers of detainees involved, the action taken by security staff, police and immigration officials and the subsequent Ministerial action. [33843]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Campsfield House immigration detention centre opened on 29 November 1993. Up until July 1997, there had been 4 incidents best described as disturbances.

  Dates

  Nature of incident

  Number of detainees

  24 December 1993

  Concerted indiscipline

  40–50

  5–6 June 1994

  Concerted indiscipline

  60–70

  29 November 1996

  Rooftop protest

  1

  21 May 1997

  Rooftop protest

  16

  The incidents of concerted indiscipline which occurred in 1993 and 1994 required the presence of officers from Thames Valley Police to restore order. As a result of these incidents, the then Chief Inspector of Prisons, Judge Stephen Tumim, was invited by the former Home Secretary to inspect Campsfield House. His report, which was published on 21 April 1995, included a number of recommendations which were implemented at Campsfield House.

  The remaining disturbances did not necessitate a large scale police presence and were successfully resolved by the centre contractors, Group 4 Total Security Limited.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what were the detention costs per head of each immigration detention centre for each of the last three years; and what was the average cost of (i) prison and (ii) police station detention per head for the same period.[33750]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The information requested is in the table. Costs are per person per week, and include headquarters overheads. Costs for the 1997–98 financial year are based on estimated outturns.

  £

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  Harmondsworth

  511

  532

  532

  Campsfield House

  490

  504

  735

  Meadvale Buildings (closed May 1997)

  580

  532

  546

  Tinsley House (opened May 1996)

  —

  658

  546

  Prisons (average cost per prisoner place)

  464

  476

  1—

  Police stations

  2,086

  2,849

  2,800

  1Not yet available.

  343
  The costs for Meadvale Buildings (a temporary facility near Gatwick Airport) in 1995/96 and Tinsley House in 1996/97 reflect the start-up costs and phased build-up of these centres.

  The sharp rise in unit costs at Campsfield House in 1997/98 is a result of reduced capacity, to about half, and increased security costs resulting from the disturbances there in August 1997. Once the centre is operating at full capacity, unit costs there will fall in line with previous years.

  The figure for detention in police cells is a weighted average across all forces. Detention of people under Immigration Act powers in police cells is limited to a maximum of five days, or seven if removal directions have been given.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what date the review of asylum and immigration detention was announced; from whom submissions were sought; if he will list the organisations and individuals that have responded; and when he plans to make a statement on future policy. [33841]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The review of detention was commissioned in May 1997. At the beginning of September, I wrote to 12 non-governmental organisations inviting their comments on the major policy areas covered by the review. Submissions were received from the following groups:

  United Nations High Commission for Refugees

  Amnesty International

  Immigration Advisory Service

  The Law Society

  The Refugee Council

  Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants

  Churches Commission for Racial Justice

  Refugee Legal Centre

  Charter 87

  Immigration Law Practitioners Association

  The Medical Foundation

  Justice.

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

  The findings of the review are currently being considered and I expect to announce the results in due course.

  Gambling
  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to raise the minimum age for playing slot machines and scratchcards to 18 years. [34155]

  Mr. George Howarth
  There is already a minimum age of 18 for £10 all-cash amusement-with-prizes machines in amusement arcades.

  There are no current plans to extend this limit to machine gambling generally or to raise the age limit for scratchcards. However, the Government keep the age limits under review.
  344
  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what evidence he has evaluated in respect of the numbers of people under the age of 18 years playing Pronto. [34160]

  Mr. George Howarth
  None.

  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what evidence he has evaluated concerning under age gambling on slot machines in public houses; and what action he proposes to take as a result. [34154]

  Mr. George Howarth
  There is no minimum legal age for machine gambling in public houses.

  Dr. Sue Fisher's report for OFLOT on young people's gambling, published last month, was based on a survey last summer of 9,774 schoolchildren aged 12–15 years.

  Thirty per cent. said they had played amusementwith-prizes machines (commonly known as fruit machines) in the past week, 19 per cent. with their own money. Of the 19 per cent., 44 per cent. had played machines in public houses.

  Four per cent. of the total were identified as problem fruit machine gamblers.

  We are carefully considering the implications of Dr. Fisher's study and whether we should take any action as a result.

  Lotteries (Frequent Draws) Bill
  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the likely financial impact on the voluntary sector of his Draft Lotteries (Frequent Draws) Bill. [34156]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The likely effect of the draft Bill on the voluntary sector's fundraising capacity is one of the factors we will consider in evaluating the response to the consultation on it.

  We aim to report the outcome of the consultation shortly.

  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is still receiving submissions in respect of his Draft Lotteries (Frequent Draws) Bill; when the last submission was received; and if those received after 13 February will be considered. [34157]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The last submission was received on 4 March. All submissions received to date will be taken into account.

  Police Statistics
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the(a) population served, (b) geographical area served and (c) strength of each police force in England and Wales and the ratio of (c) in each force area to (a) and (b); and what is the ratio of police offices (i) per head of the population and (ii) to geographical area in (1) England and (2) Wales. [33990]

  Mr. Michael
  The information requested is set out in the table.
  345

  Force

  Population mid 19961 (million)

  Hectares2

  Strength as at 30.09.97

  Police/population ratio

  Police/hectares ratio

  Avon and Somerset

  1.467

  480,340

  2,973

  1:493

  1:162

  Bedfordshire

  0.549

  123,470

  1,081

  1:508

  1:114

  Cambridgeshire

  0.703

  340,900

  1,292

  1:544

  1:264

  Cheshire

  0.980

  233,280

  2,029

  1:483

  1:115

  Cleveland

  0.558

  58,280

  1,481

  1:377

  1:39

  City of London

  0.005

  320

  836

  1:6

  1:04

  Cumbria

  0.491

  680.990

  1,62

  1:423

  1:586

  Derbyshire

  0.962

  262,800

  1,757

  1:548

  1:150

  Devon and Cornwall

  1.543

  1,024,090

  2,910

  1:530

  1:352

  Dorset

  0.682

  265,260

  1,279

  1:533

  1:207

  Durham

  0.608

  243,400

  1,479

  1:411

  1:165

  Dyfed-Powys

  0.477

  1,094,380

  1,008

  1:473

  1:1086

  Essex

  1.514

  359,420

  2,944

  1:514

  1:122

  Gloucestershire

  0.556

  265,500

  1,107

  1:502

  1:240

  Greater Manchester

  2.576

  129,480

  6,908

  1:373

  1:19

  Gwent

  0.556

  155,600

  1,229

  1:452

  1:127

  Hampshire

  1.753

  416,100

  3,481

  1:503

  1:120

  Hertfordshire

  0.863

  148,730

  1,738

  1:497

  1:86

  Humberside

  0.887

  350,790

  2,030

  1:437

  1:173

  Kent

  1.557

  373,190

  3,301

  1:472

  1:113

  Lancashire

  1.425

  305,510

  3,281

  1:434

  1:93

  Leicestershire

  0.927

  255,280

  1,958

  1:473

  1:130

  Lincolnshire

  0.616

  591,750

  1,189

  1:518

  1:498

  Merseyside

  1.420

  64,750

  4,223

  1:336

  1:15

  Metropolitan Police

  7.564

  200,990

  26,391

  1:287

  1:8

  Norfolk

  0.777

  538,500

  1,440

  1:540

  1:374

  North Wales

  0.656

  629,220

  1,371

  1:478

  1:459

  North Yorkshire

  0.735

  831,210

  1,383

  1:531

  1:601

  Northamptonshire

  0.604

  236,730

  1,181

  1:511

  1:200

  Northumbria

  1.435

  556,440

  3,689

  1:389

  1:151

  Nottinghamshire

  1.032

  220,880

  2,317

  1:445

  1:95

  South Wales

  1.232

  207,190

  2,990

  1:412

  1:69

  South Yorkshire

  1.305

  156,050

  3,158

  1:413

  1:49

  Staffordshire

  1.056

  271,610

  2,230

  1:474

  1:122

  Suffolk

  0.662

  379,480

  1,198

  1:553

  1:93

  Surrey

  0.777

  149,940

  1,608

  1:483

  1:124

  Sussex

  1.472

  378,470

  3,040

  1:484

  1:124

  Thames Valley

  2.066

  574,850

  3,705

  1:558

  1:155

  Warwickshire

  0.501

  197,890

  914

  1:548

  1:217

  West Mercia

  1.118

  742,900

  2,031

  1:550

  1:366

  West Midlands

  2.642

  89,920

  7,079

  1:373

  1:13

  West Yorkshire

  2.109

  201,460

  5250

  1:402

  1:38

  Wiltshire

  0.593

  347,600

  1,167

  1:508

  1:298

  England

  49.089

  13,048,530

  98,424

  1:499

  1:133

  Wales

  2,921

  2,086,390

  6,598

  1:443

  1:316

  England and Wales

  52.010

  15,134,920

  124,815

  1:417

  1:121

  1Source if the Office for National Statistics. Population figures form mid 1996 are the latest available.

  2Source is the Annual Statistical Return to Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary for 1996–97.

HEALTH

  UN Convention on the Rights of the Child
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to withdraw or alter the reservations and declaration by the United Kingdom Government regarding the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. [24344]

  Mr. Boateng
  During 1998 the Government will be preparing the Second United Kingdom Report to the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child in accordance with the requirements of Article 44 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989. That process will also allow a review of the original reasons for the UK's reservations to the Convention made in 1991 and to what extent they remain valid in 1998. One particular reservation with respect to Article 37(d) was withdrawn by the previous Government on 18 April 1997.
  346
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to involve young people in the process of preparing the Government's response to the report on the United Kingdom's performance in implementing the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. [24341]

  Mr. Boateng
  During 1998 the Government will be preparing the Second United Kingdom Report to the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child in accordance with the requirements of Article 44 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989. Early in that process there will be a UK wide launch conference at which children will be making a presentation. The advice of government departments and non-governmental organisations closely involved with children is being sought to ensure that children's views are reflected in the report's preparation.
  347
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on(a) central and (b) local government progress in implementing the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. [24335]

  Mr. Boateng
  During 1998 the Government will be preparing the Second United Kingdom Report to the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child in accordance with the requirements of Article 44 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989. The main focus of the report will be central and local government progress in implementing the Convention. The report will be publicly available early in 1999.

  Children's Rights Officers
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans the Government have to extend the network of children's rights officers. [24334]

  Mr. Boateng
  We have no such plans. Children's rights officers are usually appointed by local authorities. There is no statutory requirement that authorities should have such a post and it is up to each authority to determine the priority for this type of development.

  Minister for Children
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the Government will establish a Minister for Children. [24337]

  Mr. Boateng
  We have no plans to establish a Minister for Children with responsibilities for England. There are already systems in place to ensure cross-departmental co-operation in areas of shared interest. The Scottish and Welsh Offices have appointed Ministers for Children, but in their case, unlike in England, all social affairs responsibilities rest in the same department.

  National Health Service Budget
  Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of the NHS budget is spent on(a) maternity services, (b) infertility treatment, (c) joint replacement and (d) immunisation prior to visits abroad. [29278]

  Mr. Boateng
  In 1996–97 4.2 per cent. of the total National Health Service budget was spent on maternity services. At present, information on specific expenditure on infertility treatment, joint replacement, and immunisation prior to visits abroad, is not collected centrally.

  Sheep Dips
  Dr. Brand
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action his Department has taken to ensure that doctors are aware of the contents of the leaflet "Sheep Dipping" published by HSE, VMD, MAFF and Department of Environment (9AS 29 (rev) 3/95 C250). [32057]

  Ms Jowell
  We have been advised that the leaflet AS29 issued by the Health and Safety Executive and the Veterinary Medicines Directorate (Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food) has recently been revised and the 348
  latest version is to be launched on 12 March. It is aimed at farmers and primarily gives advice on the safe use and disposal of sheep dips. The leaflet also refers to issues of health surveillance of people regularly using organophosphate sheep dips. We would expect occupational hygienists or occupational health professionals to be better placed to assist farmers on these matters than local general practitioners or hospitals. If contractors or employers need advice on health surveillance of employees, the HSE Employment Medical Advisory Service can and does provide it.

  However, the Department has taken steps to increase awareness among medical practitioners. The Chief Medical Officers have written to doctors on a number of occasions since 1991 to remind them of the possibility of adverse effects from exposure to pesticides and certain veterinary medicines and to remind them of the reporting schemes. We are currently considering whether any further action may be necessary to advise doctors in this area and I will write to the hon. Member when a decision has been taken.

  Malnutrition
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of British children suffer from malnutrition; and what was the figure in 1990. [32550]

  Ms Jowell
  Malnutrition can mean over-nourishment as well as under-nourishment. As there is no clearly defined or accepted definition of malnutrition, the Department does not have information in the form requested.

  Nevertheless, the nutritional status of children can be assessed in several ways. The most widely adopted measure is height. An increase in height indicates an improvement in the nutrition of children. A continuous survey of English and Scottish children aged 5–11 years between 1972 to 1994 showed a year by year increase in the average height of all age groups. The same survey showed an increase in the mean weight for height index (an indicator of fatness) since about 1982, especially in girls. Another measure of fatness is Body Mass Index (BMI) and a recent survey indicated that the BMI of English children aged 2–15 years was generally higher than the 1990 reference figures. This indicates that children are generally getting fatter which represents an unsatisfactory trend.

  The Health Survey for England 1996 provides some information on anaemia in children, which can be caused by iron deficiency. It indicated that in the 12–14 age group, about 3 per cent. of white boys and girls might have had an iron deficiency. A survey in 1992–93 of British children aged between 1½ and 4½ years indicated that over 8 per cent. might have been deficient in iron. However, there is no comparable information for 1990. The problems of deficiencies of iron are being investigated to identify how best to prevent the disorder in all population groups.

  Trust Boards (South Yorkshire)
  Mr. Ennis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many directors serve on National Health Trust Boards operating in(a) Doncaster and (b) Barnsley; and how many of those directors reside in the Barnsley, East and Mexborough constituency. [33207]

  Barnsley Community and Priority Services NHS Trust

  Name

  Post type

  Term

  Post town

  Cllr. Thomas Douglas Sheard

  Chairman

  1 December 1997–30 November 2001

  Barnsley

  Mr. Keith Ellis

  Non-Executive Director

  1 December 1995–30 November 1998

  Barnsley

  Mrs. Josephine Ruth Lees

  Non-Executive Director

  1 December 1996–30 November 1999

  Barnsley

  Mrs. Margaret Michaels

  Non-Executive Director

  1 December 1997–30 November 2001

  Sheffield

  Mr. William Newman

  Non-Executive Director

  1 December 1997–30 November 2001

  Barnsley

  Barnsley District General Hospital NHS Trust

  Name

  Post type

  Term

  Post town

  Mr. Alan William Sherriff

  Chairman

  1 November 1994–31 October 1998

  Rotherham

  Ms Lynn Joyce Ambler

  Non-Executive Director

  1 November 1996–31 October 2000

  Barnsley

  Mr. Brian Levitt

  Non-Executive Director

  1 November 1994–31 October 1998

  Barnsley

  Mr. Maurice Alfred Robbins

  Non-Executive Director

  1 November 1994–31 October 1998

  Barnsley

  Mr. Robert Walker

  Non-Executive Director

  1 November 1996–31 October 2000

  Sheffield

  Mrs. Judith Watts

  Non-Executive Director

  4 November 1997–31 October 2001

  Barnsley

  Doncaster Healthcare NHS Trust

  Name

  Post type

  Term

  Post town

  Mr. David Bertram

  Chairman

  19 December 1997–30 November 2001

  Doncaster

  Mrs. Sheila Bryant

  Non-Executive Director

  1 December 1996–30 November 2000

  Doncaster

  Cllr. Jean Maureen Elwick

  Non-Executive Director

  16 December 1997–30 November 2001

  Doncaster

  Mr. John Lucas

  Non-Executive Director

  1 December 1995–30 November 1998

  Lincoln

  Mr. David Charles Miller

  Non-Executive Director

  11 December 1996–30 November 2000

  Doncaster

  Doncaster Royal Infirmary and Montague Hospital NHS Trust

  Name

  Post type

  Term

  Post town

  Mr. Richard D. Kitson

  Chairman

  1 December 1996–30 November 2000

  Doncaster

  Mrs. Janet Conroy

  Non-Executive Director

  1 December 1996–30 November 1998

  Near Doncaster

  Mrs. Rachel Cottrell

  Non-Executive Director

  1 December 1994–30 November 1998

  Doncaster

  Mrs. June Hawley

  Non-Executive Director

  1 December 1997–30 November 2001

  Near Doncaster

  Mrs. Carol Shekle

  Non-Executive Director

  1 December 1996–30 November 2000

  Doncaster

  Mr. Clifford Spiller

  Non-Executive Director

  1 December 1996–30 November 1999

  Doncaster

  South Yorkshire Metropolitan Ambulance and Paramedic Service NHS Trust

  Name

  Post type

  Term

  Post town

  Dr. Bernard Kingston

  Chairman

  16 January 1998–31 May 1999

  Sheffield

  Mrs. Patricia Battersby

  Non-Executive Director

  1 December 1995–30 November 1998

  Sheffield

  Mrs. Sandra Holland

  Non-Executive Director

  1 December 1997–30 November 2001

  Doncaster

  Mr. Sean Mahon

  Non-Executive Director

  1 December 1995–30 November 1999

  Sheffield

  Mr. Peter Threlfall

  Non-Executive Director

  1 December 1995–30 November 1998

  Sheffield

  Ante-natal and Maternity Care
  Mr. Wood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many district health authorities require women to pay for ante-natal or maternity care. [33367]

  Mr. Boateng
  The National Health Service provides all clinically necessary ante-natal and maternity care free of charge. Some NHS trusts may offer private tests which are not provided because they are not clinically effective or deemed to be clinically necessary by the NHS.
  350
  Mr. Milburn
  The current non-executive directors serving on the boards of National Health Service trusts operating in Barnsley and Doncaster are shown in the tables. Information is not held centrally on the parliamentary constituencies in which directors reside.

  Public Appointments
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many of the appointments to public bodies which he has made since 1 May 1997 have been from the Public Appointments Unit list. [33247]

  Mr. Milburn
  Of the appointments made to the Department's public bodies since l May 1997, five have been candidates whose names were obtained from the Public Appointments Unit's list. When seeking
  351
  nominations for candidates for appointments to public bodies we use a wide range of sources, of which the Public Appointments Unit is one, to ensure that there is the widest possible dissemination of information about vacancies.

  Accident and Emergency Services, Solihull
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent change there has been in the arrangements for the provision of accident and emergency services at Solihull Hospital. [33461]

  Mr. Milburn
  Following a meeting on 18 February, the Royal College of Surgeons decided to withdraw accreditation for the training of junior doctors at Solihull Hospital's Accident and Emergency Department, with effect from the end of July 1998. The Birmingham Heartlands and Solihull National Health Service Trust plans to replace the doctors in training with fully qualified doctors to enable the service to continue as before.

  Community Pharmacists
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has evaluated into the financial savings to the NHS of healthcare advice provided by community pharmacists; and what estimate he has made of the impact on NHS costs of the closures of community pharmacies over the last three years. [33475]

  Mr. Milburn
  Pharmacists provide a most useful service to the community through the provision of advice, particularly on minor or common ailments. We have made no evaluation of potential financial savings to the National Health Service of healthcare advice given to patients by community pharmacists.

  The overall number of community pharmacies in England and Wales has remained virtually unchanged over the last three years. It is difficult to estimate the cost, if any, to the NHS of any particular closures that have occurred during this period.

  Mrs. Organ
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what data his Department has collected on the numbers of people without access to public transport who use community pharmacies. [33741]

  Mr. Milburn
  None.

  Departmental Buildings
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the cost of(a) the original refurbishment of Richmond House as the Department of Health headquarters and (b) refurbishing (i) Skipton House and (ii) Quarry House, Leeds, in each of the last 10 years. [33675]

  Ms Jowell
  The refurbishment of Richmond House for the Department of Health and Social Security in 1988–89 was undertaken by the Property Services Agency. Details of the costs incurred are not held by the Department.

  Skipton House was acquired by the Department in 1992. The costs of fitting out the shell and core were £14,735,000 in 1992–93 and £1,192,000 in 1993–94. Subsequent expenditure on the building structure and services, excluding routine maintenance, was £368,115 in 1994–95, –500,619 in 1995–96 and £543,394 in 1996–97.
  352
  Quarry House, Leeds, was purpose built for joint occupation by the Department of Health and the Department of Social Security (who met the costs of construction and fit-out). It was first occupied in 1992–93 since when the Department of Social Security has been responsible for managing the building. Expenditure on the building structure and services by the Department of Health on the accommodation that it occupies was nil in 1993–94 and 1994–95, £139,000 in 1995–96 and £180,000 in 1996–97.

  Publications
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list those European Commission(a) newsletters, (b) magazines and (c) occasional publications to which his Department subscribes. [33652]

  Ms Jowell
  These European Commission publications are taken on subscription by the Department:

  Basic statistics of the European Union (annual)

  General report on the activities of the European Union (annual)

  Journal of the European Communities:

  Series C—Information and Notices

  Series L—Legislation

  Series S—Supplements

  Mutual Information System on Social protection in the Community (annual)

  Public Health in Europe

  Who's Who in the European Union (annual).

  Myalgic Encephalomyelitis
  Mr. Hesford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what provisions there are for specific training for GPs(a) before and (b) post qualification for the diagnosis and treatment of ME. [33711]

  Ms Jowell
  There are currently no provisions for specific training for general practitioners before or post qualification for the diagnosis and treatment of myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME).

  It is not practicable or desirable for the Government to prescribe the exact training that any individual doctor will receive. In general practice each trainee general practitioner will, during their year of general practice training, regularly see patients who present with those illnesses which are most common, which may well include patients with chronic fatigue syndrome/ME. This is in addition to the training received in medical school and during the pre-registration year and during their two-year hospital rotation.

  Additionally, doctors are encouraged to continue with their medical education after qualification and it is expected that they will spend some of this time learning about the illnesses they most commonly encounter.

  Asylum Seekers
  Sir Raymond Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many asylum seekers have been transferred from London authorities to Wales in the last 12 months; and if he will ensure that Welsh local authorities are not required to contribute to their support. [33698]
  353
  Mr. Boateng
  We are not aware of any asylum seekers being transferred by a local authority from London to Wales. If an authority makes arrangements under the National Assistance Act 1948 or the Children Act 1989 to place someone outside its boundaries, the financial responsibility remains with the placing authority.

  GP Lists
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the number of patients struck off GP lists in each of the last three years, for each health authority; and if he will make a statement. [34028]

  Mr. Milburn
  General practitioners' terms of service provide that a doctor may have a person removed from their list.

  The number of patients struck off GP lists for the years 1993–94, 1994–95 and 1995–96, for each former family health services authority, is published in the General Medical Practitioner Census Additional Data Collection 1995–1996, copies of which are in the Library.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Butterfill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list those parliamentary questions he has taken eight weeks or more to answer since 1 May 1997. [32710]

  Ms Jowell
  The Department has received over 3,400 Parliamentary Questions since 1 May 1997. 15 questions, or half of one per cent. of the total, were not answered within eight weeks.

  Vote office Reference

  Name of hon. Member

  Date due for answer

  10422

  Mr. Simon Hughes

  30 July 1997

  10416

  Mr. Simon Hughes

  31 July 1997

  12915

  Paul Flynn

  27 October 1997

  16716

  Mr. Simon Hughes

  19 November 1997

  17338

  Mr. Simon Hughes

  24 November 1997

  18270

  Mr. Elfyn Llwyd

  27 November 1997

  19983

  Mr. Keith Vaz

  8 December 1997

  21400

  Mr. Simon Hughes

  18 December 1997

  20702

  Mrs. Jackie Ballard

  12 January 1998

  20703

  Mrs. Jackie Ballard

  12 January 1998

  23005

  Ann Clwyd

  14 January 1998

  23010

  Ann Clwyd

  14 January 1998

  23011

  Ann Clwyd

  14 January 1998

  23013

  Ann Clwyd

  14 January 1998

  23014

  Ann Clwyd

  14 January 1998

  Mobile Phones
  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what discussions he or his Department have had with representatives of the mobile phone industry concerning the possible medical effects of the use of mobile phone handsets; [34152]

  (2) what research he has commissioned into the possible medical effects of (a) telecommunication masts and (b) the use of mobile phone handsets. [34153]

  Ms Jowell
  The Department has had no discussions with the mobile phone industry about possible health effects associated with handsets. The National 354
  Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) provides advice to Government on the risks to human health from both ionising and non-ionising radiations. NRPB' s view is that mobile phone handsets currently used in the United Kingdom comply with the recommended exposure restrictions.

  At locations accessible to the public, the electromagnetic radiation emitted by mobile phone transmitters is below maximum exposure levels recommended by the NRPB, published in Documents of the NRPB, Vol 4, No 5, 1993, copies of which have been placed in the Library.

  Wider concerns about the alleged health effects of long term use of mobile phones are currently being addressed by a range of research undertakings. The Department has commissioned three studies on biological effects of mobile phone microwave frequencies. The first is investigating the influence of radiation on learning ability and behaviour, the second is a laboratory study looking for biological responses of human cells in an electromagnetic radiation field and the third is a human volunteer study investigating possible effects of mobile phone usage on cognitive ability.

  The Department is also currently supporting the following initiatives:
  the review of possible health effects of electromagnetic fields, including microwave frequencies, being undertaken by the Advisory Group on Non-ionising Radiation to the NRPB;
  the World Health Organisation International Electromagnetic Fields Project which includes health effects of microwave frequencies.

  In addition a European Commission Expert Group has recommended a programme of scientific research to address the subject of mobile telephony and human health.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Poor People
  Mr. Pond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will carry out an assessment of the impact of her Department's current policies on the(a) income, (b) employment opportunities and (c) living standards, of the poorest 30 per cent. of the population. [23342]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  Our society is more divided than it has been for generations, and our policies are aimed at addressing these inequalities. We aim to offer educational and employment opportunities for all. The best way of improving the living standards of most people at the bottom of the income distribution is to help them into work, and we are implementing a range of policies under the New Deal to achieve this aim. We have also established a Social Exclusion Unit to co-ordinate action across Government to find new and more integrated ways of tackling the worst problems.

  We continually evaluate our policies using a variety of methods. In particular, the annual Government Statistical Service publication "Households Below Average Income" contains detailed data on the position of those at the lower end of the income distribution.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Butterfill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will list those parliamentary questions she has taken eight weeks or more to answer since 1 May 1997. [32716]

  Mr. Denham
  There have been two parliamentary questions which have taken more than 8 weeks to answer (not including recesses):

  Hon. Member received from

  Date of Order Paper

  Date answered

  Argyll and Bute

  22 May 1997

  29 July 1997

  Sutton and Cheam

  23 May 1997

  29 July 1997

  Note:

  Information taken from the Department's Parliamentary Question database which may be subject to some degree of error.

  Benefit Claimants (Millennium Awards)
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if Millennium Award grants given to benefit claimants will affect the levels of benefit which they receive. [34121]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  Guidance issued by the Millennium Commission to organisations wishing to take part in the Award scheme (known as Award Partners) makes it clear that they are expected to take account of the implications an award might have for individuals, including eligibility for benefits, and to set out how this will be addressed so that individuals receiving benefits are not penalised. Prospective Partners normally discuss their proposals with this Department, as the potential effect of an award in an individual case would depend on a number of factors. These include the type of benefit concerned, the purpose of the award, whether any cash payment was to be made to the individual and, if so, whether it was to be paid as a one-off grant or a regular series of payments.

  National Insurance Fund
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if she will estimate the effect on the National Insurance Fund in(a) 1999–2000, (b) 2000–01 and (c) 2001–02 of (i) leaving unchanged the expenses loading for contracted out money purchase schemes and (ii) increasing the rebate for contracted out salary-related schemes from 4.6 per cent. to 4.79 per cent; [34097]

  (2) if she will estimate the effect on the National Insurance Fund in (a) 1999–2000, (b) 2000–01 and (c) 2001–02 of her proposed amendments to rebates for approved personal pension schemes. [34096]
  356
  Mr. Denham
  The information is set out in the tables.

  Estimated amount of revenue forgone in respect of contracted out money purchase schemes (COMPS) for the tax years 1999–2000 to 2001–2002

  Year

  £million

  1999–2000

  69

  2000–01

  142

  2001–02

  144

  Note:

  It is based on the assumption that the rebate remains unchanged, and that the number and type of schemes which attracted that rebate do not alter.

  As the report by the Secretary of State for Social Security on Certain Contracting-out Terms (Command 3888) explains, there is evidence to show that a significant percentage of schemes which previously contracted-out on a salary-related basis are switching to contracting-out on a money purchase basis. Some are doing this to take advantage of the higher age-related rebates, and others for business reasons unconnected to the rebate. Irrespective of the reasons why schemes are switching to become COMPS, given that many will now be larger schemes, the expense margin contained within the rebate is inappropriate.

  Both this Government, and the previous one, made it clear that action would be taken to prevent further losses from the National Insurance Fund if it became apparent that the nature of COMP provision was changing. It is impossible therefore to provide a reliable estimate of what the various changes and behavioural effects imply for the National Insurance Fund. But clearly there would be huge costs if all schemes switched to take advantage of the current higher average rebates for COMPS.

  Additional estimated amount of revenue forgone from the national insurance fund should the rebate in respect of contracted out salary-related scheme be increased to 4.79 per cent.

  Year

  £ million

  1999–2000

  225

  2000–01

  250

  2001–02

  250

  Extra amount of revenue forgone from the national insurance fund, as a result of increasing the rebates for appropriate personal pensions

  Year

  £ million

  1999–2000

  —

  2000–01

  144

  2001–02

  154

  Note:

  There is no change to the amounts paid in the tax year 1999–2000 because the age related top up due for that period is not paid until the following tax year.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Southwell.): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Lord Dowding—Made the solemn Affirmation.

BSE
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith asked Her Majesty's Government:
Under what conditions they consider that the BSE epidemic will be sufficiently diminished for them to revoke the Beef Bones Regulations 1997 (S.I. 1997/2959).
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Donoughue): My Lords, as the epidemic declines, we will, with the help of SEAL, continue to review the policies which have been put in place in order to combat BSE in cattle and to protect public health, including the Beef Bones Regulations 1997. But it would be premature to reduce the controls in place at this stage. It would be imprudent to act, or to give any firm commitments to act, on the basis of predictions of the future course of the epidemic.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I thank the Minister for a rather depressing reply. There have been reports that the Standing Veterinary Committee advising the European Commission will be recommending a phased end to the beef export ban, based regionally on a period of years without BSE. Can the Minister confirm that that is the situation? Does it not suggest a possible way towards ending what might be called the BSE crisis?
Lord Donoughue: Yes, my Lords, thank you. We are very pleased with this initial progress, the first progress that has been made. The Standing Veterinary Committee has looked at the scientific evidence and is prepared to recommend the Commission's proposal, which would provide for a partial lifting of the ban with particular reference to Northern Ireland because it meets the condition of having computer traceability. I take the opportunity to point out that if we had not had the regulations which banned beef on the bone, our beef would have been technically, however remotely, unsafe and it is unlikely that we would have been able to make such progress.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, is the Minister aware that as a member of the Southwood Working Party I gave evidence yesterday, with the other members of that working party, before the BSE inquiry? I am quoted in the press this morning as having said that if we had possessed in 1988 and 1989 the scientific knowledge we now have we would then have recommended a complete ban on beef on the bone and
300
on the use of brain and spinal cord in the food chain. Does the Minister accept that, in the light of scientific evidence, it is becoming clear that the risk involved in eating beef on the bone is so minuscule that before too long it will be appropriate to allow consumers to make up their own minds as to whether they should eat such beef?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord and I appreciated what he said at the inquiry yesterday. We hope that we shall reach that position. There was no pleasure in introducing a ban which clearly inconvenienced people. However, as I said, without that ban I am convinced that we would not have made the progress towards lifting the export ban that we have. Following the precautionary principle—which we follow and which, I may say, the previous government followed, although noble Lords may have been misled by statements since that party went into opposition—it would be unwise to take any measures which risk the progress we have made. However, I can assure the noble Lord that when we reach a position where we feel that we can ease some of the control regulations, we certainly shall. In the meantime, our prime concern is to protect public health, to restore confidence in British beef and to make the progress we can towards the full lifting of the ban on our exports.
Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: My Lords, I am sure that the House welcomes what the Minister said about Northern Ireland and the possibility of easing the ban on beef on the bone there. Does the Minister also consider that there are several other parts of the United Kingdom that almost meet the requirements in place for Northern Ireland? Should not some reconsideration of the total ban be undertaken to relieve some areas—for example, in Scotland—where there has been no BSE in many herds for many years?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, indeed, we wish to see the ban lifted for the entire United Kingdom. The recommendation still has to go through the Agricultural Council, which I shall attend at the beginning of next week. But the ban is not for Northern Ireland. It has conditions which can currently only be met by Northern Ireland; for example, the existence of an adequate computer traceability system. We are pressing ahead as rapidly as possible to get that for the whole of the United Kingdom. We shall have it certainly before the end of this year, we hope by the autumn. Then we believe that we shall be in a position to say that we meet all the requirements. We shall press in the strongest possible terms to get the ban lifted, as it should be, for the whole of the United Kingdom.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that, when the beef on the bone ban was first instituted, it was done on the basis that there was a risk to health, however minuscule? He has told us today and previously that the reason for the ban was twofold: first, on the basis of health and, secondly, on the basis of getting the beef ban lifted. Can he tell

301
me whether, if there had been no prospect of the beef ban being lifted or it had already been lifted, there would have been a ban on beef on the bone?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, that is a fairly hypothetical question. I would point out that the Chief Medical Officer wrote to the Minister in clear terms saying that on public health grounds there should be a ban on beef on the bone.
Lord Luke: My Lords, the Minister said that the previous government should be blamed for acting too late. I thought that the Phillips inquiry was set up to establish the history of BSE overall. Have the Government already decided that the previous government should be actively blamed for acting too late? Where does that leave the status of the Phillips inquiry?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I did not say that the previous government acted too late. I said that they followed the precautionary principles, certainly towards the end, that we have followed. The Phillips inquiry is an independent inquiry and we await its findings with interest.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, the Minister may have read a recent description of himself in the press by another member of your Lordships' House as a "zealot vegetarian". Will he comment on that and say whether it has any bearing on the decisions in which he takes part?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I thank my noble friend. That tacky piece appeared in the Evening Standard.
I should say immediately that I see no reason why a vegetarian, however zealous, should not make objective ministerial decisions. In my case, ironically, on that very day I had eaten the best steak I had had for months.
The piece also described me as dishevelled, which is a matter of opinion. It said I was the lead Minister on beef policy, a matter of fact which is untrue. It also spelt my name incorrectly, which was not bad for 70 words. I should say that it did not suggest that I was a transvestite or a supporter of Arsenal, so I suppose we should be grateful for small mercies.

Church of England: Constitutional Arrangements
3.12 p.m.
Lord Waddington Lord Waddington asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have any plans to introduce legislation to disestablish the Church of England.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, the Government have no plans to introduce legislation
302
to disestablish the Church of England. We would not contemplate disestablishment unless the Church wished it, and it has not told us that it does.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I thank the Minister warmly for his reply, which is entirely to my liking. I can assure him that nothing in what I am about to say in the form of a question implies any disrespect whatever to the right reverend Prelate or indeed to any Member of the Bench of Bishops. However, does it not amount to this? The Church of England is not just a sect which can change its forms of worship at the drop of a hat in the vain hope that a bigger congregation will come in through its doors. It is, in a real sense, trustee for the whole nation of a precious cultural heritage.
Does the Minister agree that those responsible for the Church's forms of worship should not lightly tinker with the language of prayers which millions have learnt in childhood and from which they still find comfort at times of distress and grief? The Church should not substitute the trite, the banal and the ugly for the beautiful. It should not continue to try to force into disuse the Book of Common Prayer, with all its dignity, gracefulness and beauty.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords. I must declare an interest as a baptised and confirmed member of the Church in Wales and also a lapsed member of the "Band of Hope". We do not have problems of decaying language in the Church in Wales because we still have the great glory of Bishop Morgan's translation of the Bible, to which we stick. It is not for me to express any view about the cultural heritage of the Church of England, save to point out that richness of history, culture, tradition and language are of fundamental importance.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, does the Minister appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, cannot speak for the whole nation? Not only can he not speak for all Christians who belong to various denominations, as my noble friend pointed out, but he cannot speak for people of different religions or of no religion.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I do not believe that the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, was claiming to speak for all religions. He was saying that culture and tradition are important in the life of any nation. There are many different cultures and traditions in our country, and one of them is the important one that he identified.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there are many loyal Anglicans who are anxious about the doctrinal and other pretensions of the Synod and who therefore believe that the 1919 Act, which set up the National Assembly and Convocation, should be looked at afresh?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the constitutional arrangements between Church and state as presently existing work with reasonable satisfaction. As

303
I originally said, if the Church of England has any proposals to put forward, we shall consider them with the utmost care and scruple.
Lord Dean of Harptree: My Lords, I welcome the original reply of the Minister. However, does he recognise that many of us feel that establishment is a good thing for both the Church and the state and that it should not be tampered with?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I understand that that is a widely held view among many adherents to the Church of England. I made it plain that we do not contemplate any changed arrangements except at the initiative of the Church of England.
The Lord Bishop of Southwell: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the latest test of opinion by the General Synod of the Church of England indicates that a large majority have shown their desire to continue with the establishment? Furthermore, does he accept that the Church is aware that it has no divine right to an established status, but that that depends on the acceptance of the people whom it serves and the sense of value that they place upon it? Is the Minister also aware that in the resolution of the General Synod it rejected the proposal that there should be any changes with regard to the appointment of bishops and also with regard to Parliament's responsibility for approval of the Synod's decisions? Will he therefore confirm the Church's desire to continue to act in a way that is appropriate within the life of the nation?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I was aware of the large majority. I utterly endorse the proposition that an established Church can continue to exist only if it receives a substantial degree of support from the public, which I believe it does. We recognise the peculiar position of the Church. We have done that expressly, as the Lord Chancellor took pains to point out, in the Human Rights Bill where we introduced specific arrangements for legislative change if any were to he sought in the context of Church of England affairs.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, the Minister says that any change in the relationship between Church and state can be undertaken only on the initiative of the Church. Does that extend to the Church's position in your Lordships' House.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I said that we would not contemplate disestablishment until the Church wished it. The Church's position in your Lordships' House is a matter which, as they say, is presently under review.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for avoiding the morass of disestablishment and turn to a more practical level. In any thoughts on the future of the Church will attention be paid to the fact that one-third of Grade I listed buildings in England are in the charge of the Church of England and are largely
304
paid for by the Church of England? Any thoughts therefore on the Church's future should give consideration to the national heritage which it sustains.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I do not regard disestablishment as a "morass". The Welsh Church was successfully disestablished in 1914—effectively in 1920 after the First World War—and it is a thriving organisation within the life of Wales. I agree with what the noble Lord said in relation to the Church. The fabric of the Church in the material sense is extremely important, just as the fabric of the Church in the spiritual sense is important in the life of the nation.

Customs and Excise: Euro Transactions
3.19 p.m.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry Lord Renton of Mount Harry asked Her Majesty's Government:
At what date they expect HM Customs and Excise to be able to handle transactions in euros.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, Her Majesty's Customs and Excise will be in a position to receive VAT payments and to handle invoiced amounts for imported goods in euros from 1st January 1999.
Lord Renton of 1Vrount Harry: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer, which I find encouraging, particularly on this day of the first ever European conference when 26 European nations are gathered together to discuss key policies of the European Union. Does he agree that the question of the introduction of a single currency—the euro—is by far and away the most difficult decision that has ever faced the European Union since it started? For that reason, when will the Government consider publishing a simple, readable pamphlet, which would set out the pros and cons of joining the single currency and in the process demolish some of the myths?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I rather think that I agree with the noble Lord in his first suggestion that it is the most important issue that has occurred within the European Community. On his second question, we have published two guides: one on the pros and cons of EMU; a more detailed report by my noble friend Lord Currie; and one on the practical implications for business. We shall be updating those shortly. We have also set up, under my noble friend Lord Simon of Highbury, business advisory groups and standing committees to co-ordinate work in the public and private sectors and to facilitate our readiness for EMU.
Lord Newby: My Lords, in the light of that answer, will the Government reconsider their decision not to apply for funds which might be available from the EU in order to publicise the consequences of the introduction of a single European currency?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government's position on funding is that we have to be

305
very careful not to accept funding which would put the case for one side or another where there is disagreement. That is the principle on which we have looked at European funding in this matter.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I am delighted to hear what he has just said, that there should not be a one-sided argument about this? Under those circumstances, may I have his assurance that if and when we have a referendum on the subject that will certainly be taken into consideration and that the Government will be even-handed and allow those who are opposed to a single currency to have money from public funds equal to the amount which is available to the Government and other organisations?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am sure that when that day comes the Government will take into account my noble friend's views. But no decision has been taken on the matter at this time.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, the noble Lord referred to the business committees set up by the noble Lord, Lord Simon of Highbury. Can he assure us that, as part of their remit, they will be paying particular regard to the position of small firms, many of which will be trading with our Community partners?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Yes, my Lords.
Lord Randall of St. Budeaux: My Lords, I congratulate the Government on the information services and other support services to which my noble friend referred. However, does he not agree that the key in all of this is to ensure that British business remains competitive with those countries in the euro zone, as Britain will be on the outside of EMU during the initial phase?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Yes, my Lords, we are aware that those countries which join EMU on 1st January next year will have a considerable advantage in terms of reduced transactional costs. We shall certainly have to remain competitive in order to counter that. I also recognise that almost half of our total trade in goods and services is with the 11 countries which are likely to join EMU next year.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, reverting to the original Question about tax collecting, can the noble Lord assure me that his noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington will be able to fill in his self-assessment form in euros?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my noble friend will certainly be able to do that. I do not know
306
whether my noble friend or the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, have the advantage I have of a French bank account.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my latest statement has at the bottom the phrase, "To enable us to get used to the euro, we have presented your solde [final statement] in euros as well as in francs".
Lord Annan: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord, in his reply to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, did not imply that the Government, when they came to the point, would be entirely neutral? It is one thing to produce papers for the public to introduce them to the pros and cons of the matter. But when it comes to the point, surely the Government will have to come to a decision to recommend or not to recommend.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government have always made it clear that the first stage will be a decision by the Cabinet and by Parliament. Only after that will there be a referendum. Of course the Government will consider it their responsibility to make their position clear to the country. I thought that as far as that was concerned I stone-walled in my answer to my noble friend Lord Stoddart.

China: Human Rights
3.25 p.m.
Lord Moynihan Lord Moynihan asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend to support the UN Human Rights Committee resolution drawing attention to China's record on human rights.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, European Union Foreign Ministers decided on 23rd February that neither the presidency nor member states should table or co-sponsor a draft resolution on China at this year's Commission on Human Rights. We support that decision and will continue to pursue our human rights concerns through dialogue and co-operation.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, do the Government understand the amazement and scepticism among human rights campaigners and politicians across the party spectra that next month at the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in Geneva for the first time in nine years, since the censure motion which was introduced in 1989 after the Tiananmen Square massacre, the United Kingdom Government will not support a resolution to draw attention to China's record on human rights, particularly given the Government's much publicised commitment to a so-called ethical

307
foreign policy and the importance they have attached to UN resolutions pertaining to Iraq? Why have the Government gone soft on human rights violations?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the Government have not gone soft on human rights violations. I hope that those individuals to whom the noble Lord has referred will not be amazed, as he suggests they are, when they hear the explanation as to why the Government have taken the course of action they have taken. The resolution on China has consistently not only failed to be adopted but has not even been voted on in seven out of the past eight years. The truth is that there has been a consistent failure of the resolution and very little has been done for human rights in China. So what we are trying to do is to secure the same objective—the objective of greater human rights in China—which I accept the noble Lord supports and I hope he accepts that Her Majesty's Government support it too, but through different means: through the resumption of dialogue. Since October 1997 the resumption of dialogue has delivered so much more in the furtherance of human rights in China. It has delivered a signature on the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; it has delivered an invitation to the UN High Commissioner on Human Rights, Mary Robinson, to visit China; it has delivered an agreement to visit Tibet by the EU troika embassies; and today it has delivered an encouraging statement by the Chinese Foreign Minister about the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that dissidents in China continue to be arrested? Does she also agree that China still has a very long way to go to reassure the world about the freedom of comment of the media in that country, not least in the light of events that led to the BBC being closed out of China? Does she recognise that in view of the statements made by the former East Asia editor of The Times, Mr. Jonathan Mirskey, there is bound to be considerable suspicion about the relationship of friendship that exists between The Times newspaper and the government? In the light of that, will she answer two questions? First, has a date been found for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to go to China? Secondly, can she say whether the Government will consistently report back on the steps that China takes in response to the dialogue that she has told us now exists?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, of course I agree that there is still a very long way to go on questions of human rights in China. That is why the Government have considered it so important that we find alternative means rather than the ones which have been exhausted in the way that I described in my second answer. The noble Baroness asked specifically about the visit of Mrs. Mary Robinson to China. As yet a date has not been fixed. I hope that it will be fixed very soon. But Her Majesty's Government will also be reporting back, as we have done, on the exchanges with China. There have been eight top-level exchanges in the past
308
few months with Chinese officials, senior government officials and Ministers over human rights incidents in China. That will continue.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, will the Minister accept that very many people will be very relieved indeed that the Government have moved away from the ham-fisted and deeply offensive approach of the previous government, together with the previous governor of Hong Kong, which resulted in breaking off relationships effectively with the People's Republic of China, to the considerable disadvantage of the inhabitants of Hong Kong? Will she further accept that many people are grateful that we have moved away from this rather old-fashioned imperial approach to foreign policy?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, for his remarks. In the Government's election manifesto we made it clear that we did not believe that human rights were necessarily encouraged by isolating countries, but by proper and open dialogue. That was the position that we freely stated before the election. The noble Lord is quite right. The exchanges of views are what is important, not only as regards Hong Kong but also the many millions of people in China who do not enjoy the human rights that we would wish to see.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, if the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, are correct, why has the human rights campaigner Wei Jingsheng praised the United Kingdom for its vociferous stand on the issue of human rights in China until this year? Why has he criticised the Foreign Secretary as a coward whose soft pedalling on human rights violations in China for the sake of commercial contracts he described as a large and wrong-headed gamble and whose ethical policy he described as no more than a political slogan?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, those remarks do not reflect the tenor or the substance of the meeting that took place between Mr. Wei and the Foreign Secretary yesterday morning. The facts of that meeting are that Mr. Wei recognised that the United Kingdom had a strong record on human rights in China. He thanked my right honourable friend for the efforts that have been made by Her Majesty's Government and in particular as regards his own release. I believe that that stands for itself.

Business of the House: Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Richard): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

309
Moved, That Standing Order 44 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with to enable the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill to be taken through its remaining stages on Monday, 16th March.—(Lord Richard.)
On Question. Motion agreed to.

European Communities (Amendment) Bill
3.32 p.m.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Meaning of "the Treaties" and "the Community Treaties"]:
Lord Moynihan Lord Moynihan moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 12, at end insert ("(but, for the avoidance of doubt. not Article 1)").
The noble Lord said: We have seen a remarkable sight. At Second Reading a Whip did a Minister's job and today the Minister has been doing the Whip's job. As we begin our detailed consideration of the Treaty of Amsterdam, I should like to take this opportunity to welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, to the Dispatch Box today. Following the misunderstanding which in part led to her absence at Second Reading, I am very pleased that she is able to be here today on what we on the Opposition Benches are aware is a very busy time for Foreign Office Ministers. I am also very pleased that the noble Lords, Lord Whitty and Lord McIntosh, are here today to complete the Bill's ministerial troika. On behalf of the Government they will be responsible for answering all the questions we put to them on the effects of the treaty's provisions; the implications of the transfer of powers for which it provides; and for justifying the action that the Government took on behalf of the people of Britain in Amsterdam last June.
On that note, I am delighted that, following the great praise rightly heaped on the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, at Second Reading, the Government have recognised his exceptional talent, abilities and European expertise and rewarded him with promotion to ministerial rank. I quote from a Foreign Office memorandum which I have with me today. It describes the noble Lord as the Minister,
"with special responsibility for the UK presidency of the European Union".
Perhaps I may be the first, on behalf of the Opposition, to congratulate him on his promotion, and to express the sincere hope that he will receive a salary commensurate with his responsibility as well as a fully complemented
310
private office, appropriately furnished, and a ministerial car. I assure him that, following our successful advocacy on his behalf at Second Reading, the Opposition will do all it can during Committee stage to persuade the Government that this is no less than he fully deserves.
The purpose of the wide-ranging amendment tabled in my name and those of my noble friends, which we are considering today, is primarily to elicit from the Government an outline plan of how they intend to manage the Committee stage of this Bill. As the Committee is well aware, the Treaty of Amsterdam has important constitutional implications. I should like the assurance of the Minister in particular that since a guillotine Motion was introduced in another place after just 12 hours in Committee, allowing only a further 12 hours of debate for the remaining stages, there will be ample time allotted in this House to enable us to discharge our duty in full to the British people by examining the vital issues of constitutional importance contained within the treaty, including those which affect the powers and sovereignty of our national Parliament, qualified majority voting, the co-decision procedure and the new powers to the president of the Commission.
Some of the most important aspects of the Treaty of Amsterdam are dealt with in the amendment which I have tabled and which we are considering now. The Committee will be aware that not all parts of the Treaty of Amsterdam are amendments to the European Communities Act. Those parts which do not need to be incorporated into our legal system can be agreed by the Government without the approval of this House or another place. Treaty articles which are held to be intergovernmental in structure come into that category. But it is those very provisions, nominally intergovernmental, contained within Article 1 of the Treaty which would have a significant impact both on the sovereignty of this House and another place and on Britain's role in the European Community.
From these Benches we are aware that although this House cannot override the Government's right to use the Crown's treaty-making prerogative, the amendments tabled in my name nevertheless make it clear that the Opposition does not accept the principles set out in Article 1.
Three main aspects of this article give rise to serious concern on these Benches. First, there are moves towards further integration in the area of foreign policy and defence which need to be fully explored; secondly, the role and powers of the European Court of Justice; and, thirdly, the measures on human rights.
In consideration of this first amendment, I do not anticipate developing my arguments in detail, but simply to highlight those areas of concern. I should like to assure my colleagues that I have tabled a further series of amendments on all the critical issues. There will be ample opportunity to enter into substantive debate during our consideration of the Bill at a later stage. There is a wide-ranging opportunity to debate these issues now; but, as I have mentioned, I have sought to ensure that we shall look into the details in subsequent amendments, which will allow equal opportunity to the Committee to cover these issues in detail.
I should like to look briefly at the structure of the treaty, which is divided into supra-national and intergovernmental sections. It is that division and the distinction between the two which limits the extent to which this House and another place have any real say over certain parts of the treaty. At Maastricht, the division of the treaty into three pillars was intended to ensure that co-operation between governments both inside and outside the institutions would be the central feature of Europe's future development. That structure enabled matters relating to a common foreign and security policy in the second pillar and those relating to justice and home affairs in the third pillar to be settled by national governments co-operating on an intergovernmental level outside the formal decision-making process of the European Community; namely, the first pillar.
In our view, the pillared approach was one of the best features of the Maastricht negotiations. It is our firm belief that the most sensible way to proceed on foreign affairs, security, and home affairs is on the basis of intergovernmental co-operation, not through the use of the institutions of the European Union. Previous governments strongly supported the development of a common foreign and security policy but, critically, a CFSP built on closer intergovernmental co-operation. I intend to return to this theme at a later date. The pillared approach is worth defending and I should like the Minister's assurance that that is the Government's view.
The Amsterdam Treaty undermines the pillared structure. Article K.7, for example, explicitly involves the European Court of Justice in the home affairs pillar by giving it a degree of jurisdiction therein. That encroaches on the intergovernmental structure agreed at Maastricht whereby the question of the jurisdiction of the ECJ was to be left open. That encroachment may be marginal, but nevertheless the fear is that it represents the thin end of the wedge. We seek the Minister's assurance that the Government are cautious about the implications of this extension of the role and powers of the ECJ and that they will oppose any attempt to extend its jurisdiction further into other pillared areas.
I have outlined briefly some of the good reasons and justifications for opposing Article 1. This treaty brings in the social chapter. It reflects the total failure of the Government to advance the argument for the reform of the European Court of Justice. It threatens to undermine one of the prizes of Maastricht, the pillared approach. It commits us to the progressive framing of a common defence policy. It threatens to lead us away from a true common foreign policy agreed by all towards a common foreign policy agreed by most. It begs the question: is this really the best deal that the Government could get for Britain or was a good deal given up?
As I said earlier, I look forward to a substantive debate on these issues. I repeat that that is the reason we tabled separate and specific amendments which we did not couple with this initial amendment. I look forward also to the Minister's response to the questions and concerns that I have outlined. I beg to move.
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: It may be for the assistance of the Committee if I set out equally concisely and briefly the position of the Liberal Democrat Benches on the treaty. I hope that I shall not need to repeat later the general arguments that I shall advance now when we come to outline our position on many of the issues raised in the Bill.
The Amsterdam Treaty is a modest treaty. It is not regarded by the Liberal Democrat Benches as wholly satisfactory because it did not deal with the question of institutional change or with many of the implications of enlargement. Nevertheless, it contains some useful advances, to which I shall return. Before doing so, it is important to make it plain that the Amsterdam negotiations took place over the period of a general election and at the time when Her Majesty's Government changed from being a Conservative Government to a Labour Government. That change is reflected in the Amsterdam Treaty. Several clauses were brought forward at a very late date—literally within the last few weeks of the negotiations—because the Government had changed. We owe to the change of government the changed attitude, as reflected in amendments and changed clauses, to the social protocol, to the employment chapter and to the provisions on non-discrimination on grounds of race and religion. I express the gratitude of these Benches to the Government for their efforts during the closing weeks of those very long negotiations.
The difficulty was that the Conservative Government did not know what they wanted to do about Europe. Even today, it is plain that the Conservative Party does not know what it wants to do. It is a deeply divided party on these issues. We on the Liberal Democrat Benches believe that the concept of Europe that needs to be the basis of our discussions on this treaty, and on treaties yet to come, must recognise the extraordinarily radically changed world in which we live.
First, the European Union is here to stay. Whether or not the United Kingdom remains within it—I trust that it will and I believe that under the leadership of the present Government it certainly will—it is clear that the European Union will go on. Indeed, with no fewer than 11 nations queuing up to join, it is also plain that the European Union is seen throughout the whole continent as the anchor for stability and prosperity not only in Europe, but also for an area spreading into Asia, the Maghreb and elsewhere. It has become one of the crucial pillars of law and order in the world.
However, that does not mean that the European Union is faultless and that it should not be criticised. It means that today, along with the United States and, I hope, once again a reformed Russia and some day China and India, we share responsibility for universal law and order. That is a major responsibility—and Europe must begin to bear it.
Secondly, we live in a globalised world, which has changed out of all recognition. Only a few days ago, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund recognised that no individual state can easily withstand the sheer weight of the capital that moves across the

313
world, often at very short notice, which can swamp governments within literally a matter of weeks, as countries such as Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand and others have, sadly, recently discovered. Europe provides us with a base within which we can help to influence that global economy and without which we would have very little opportunity to do so.
Thirdly, within that global economy, there is a responsibility on this country and on the European Union to uphold the basic principles of human rights, individual liberty and the rule of law. I believe that that is an important part of the acquis to which Britain has made a major and valuable contribution. I believe that that contribution could be much extended and expanded in future years by a British Government willing to co-operate with Europe rather than spend their time opposing it or trying to belittle what it has achieved.
We must also consider the nature of the changing special relationship between the United Kingdom and the United States. That special relationship continues on a cultural, personal and linguistic basis, but anybody who imagines that the United States regards the United Kingdom on its own (as distinct from the United Kingdom in Europe) as a suitable partner with which to work is living in the world of the past. As many have said, including Presidents Clinton and Bush, Dr. Kissinger and others, the crucial nature of the relationship with the United States today is anchored on the relationship between the whole of the European Union on the one side and North America on the other.
In that context, I do not agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, said about a common foreign and security policy. In a week in which we have looked at the crisis in Kosovo, which is essentially a European crisis, and in the week after the week in which we looked at the crisis in Iraq, which is essentially a crisis with which Europe's prosperity is bound up in every possible way, it seems strange that we should still be saying that a common foreign and security policy is out of the question. We on these Benches welcome the steps that the Government have recently taken with regard to Kosovo to try to create a common position on the part of the European Union. I believe that that has been important in terms of sending a warning shot across the bows of Mr. Milosevic.
Finally, there are two areas in which I believe that the European Union has an indispensable task to carry out. The first relates to the United Nations. It is fragile, faulty and fallible but it is the only international institution that represents the whole world. Its agencies perform remarkable duties and have achieved remarkable results. We know that the US Congress is extremely reluctant to pay the subscriptions that it owes to the United Nations. If the United Nations is to survive and flourish in the next few years, it must depend upon the support of the European Union.
In that context the Amsterdam Treaty has certain remarkable achievements to its credit. At its heart is a commitment to human rights. Surely, that is something that many of us should welcome. At its heart for the first time—it is a great step forward—is a new article, Article F and, with it, Article F.1, which enables the
314
European Union to hold its member states to a commitment to human rights and civil liberties. That is a radical step forward and one that I believe every Member of this House supports.
The treaty has also introduced a new employment chapter. That does not go very far because essentially employment is a national responsibility, but it still enables us to exchange good practice and share experiences one with another. Importantly, it introduces a prohibition on discrimination on the grounds of religion and race. That is something which surely every Member of this House who cares about democracy welcomes. It also includes for the first time in the body of the treaty the social protocol which represents the belief that the economy and the free market should be balanced by the consideration of solidarity, the care by one person of another and family-friendly policies in the workplace.
I shall not detain the Committee any longer. I believe that the Amsterdam Treaty is a modest step towards the achievement of some of these goals. It is high time that those of us who believe in those goals should express our conviction and commitment that the European Union will bring them closer.
Lord Monkswell: I had not intended to intervene in this debate but I am driven to my feet by the contributions of both Front Bench speakers opposite. I may not have heard the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, correctly, but I thought I heard him say that not all the amendments of the official Opposition were yet on the Marshalled List and that further amendments would be tabled at a later stage of the Bill. Is the noble Lord speaking about a further Committee day? Is he telling the Committee that the official Opposition intends to table further amendments to be considered at a later stage in Committee or that it intends to table amendments at Report stage? Before he responds and while I am on my feet, I point out that this is the Committee stage of the Bill. I hope that we shall not have to sit through Second Reading speeches, as we have just heard from the Liberal Democrat Benches. I hope that the normal procedures of the House will obtain in future.
Lord Moynihan: Perhaps I may assist the Committee on the extremely important point just raised by the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell. The issue before the Committee at the moment relates to Article 1 which is widely embracing. Before Committee stage a number of your Lordships were concerned that specific separate amendments were required to give full and detailed coverage of those points that had to be gone through in considerable detail, and that just to have a broad amendment, as in another place, might not give noble Lords time to go in sufficient depth into the specific areas covered by Article 1.
For that reason, your Lordships will see that there is a range of amendments, not least Amendments Nos. 6 to 9, that breaks down the issues covered by Article 1. In another place those matters were coupled, but in this House it was felt wise to have a number of opening statements, in the form of a short debate under

315
Amendment No. 1, from the Front Benches, particularly the Opposition, in order to elicit from the Government how they intend to handle the Committee stage. I can assure the noble Lord that there will be plenty of opportunity for detailed consideration of all the key issues covered by Article 1. Amendments have been tabled to cover those matters.
I also assure the noble Lord that on future Committee days it is likely that the Opposition will be tabling further amendments, but they will not have direct relevance to Article 1. They will relate to the future stages of the consideration of this Bill which it is not intended to cover today. As noble Lords will have seen, the principal debate today is likely to be on European and monetary union. That is to be covered by the next group of amendments. I hope that that assists the noble Lord in explaining that we have covered the points that he has rightly drawn to our attention.
Lord Monkswell: I thank the noble Lord for that clarification. To be sure, is he talking about future Committee days as opposed to the Report stage of the Bill?
Lord Moynihan: Correct.
Lord Monson: The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, reminds us that the Amsterdam Treaty permits the European Court of Justice to extend its powers into aspects of home affairs from which it has hitherto been excluded. He went on to say that it was only a marginal encroachment. Marginal encroachment it may be, but, as we have seen so often before, once the ECJ gets even its little toe in the door leading to an area from which it has previously been excluded that door is inexorably pushed further and further open.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, for the spirit in which they have approached the Committee stage of the Bill. I should say at the outset that the Government cannot accept the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, which would have the effect of excluding from the European Communities Act 1972 all of the provisions of Article 1 of the Amsterdam Treaty. Since some of those provisions give rise to Community rights and obligations, if passed the amendment could prevent us from ratifying the treaty.
I am glad to say, however, that I agree with much of what the noble Lord has said about the handling of the Bill in the House. Although I do not intend now to delve into the detail of the treaty, any more than the noble Lord did in moving his amendment, I believe that noble Lords will have ample opportunity to do so during Committee stage, and that is as it should be. I am glad that we have a substantial amount of time already set aside for our detailed examination of the treaty. A full three days have already been allocated. It is right that the Chamber should use the outstanding experience and expertise on European issues which many noble Lords on all sides will bring to bear on our debates.
316
As for the Government, my noble friends Lord Whitty and Lord McIntosh and I will each lead on different parts of the Committee stage. We look forward to a vigorous and illuminating debate.
Before the election in May the Labour Party set out in a number of different documents its approach to European issues. I am confident that we shall see the commitments made in those documents, and those made when in opposition, fulfilled in the terms of the treaty. The fact that at Amsterdam we fulfilled the goals that we set ourselves was reflected in the overwhelming support which the Bill received in another place.
The Amsterdam Treaty is by no means as far-reaching as the Single European Act or the Maastricht Treaty; but it contains many useful improvements of the kind that we set out in our pre-election manifesto as the Government's ambitions. The treaty also fulfilled a different function. It was the essential precursor to the start of our enlargement process. If we had not reached agreement at Amsterdam enlargement would not have had the flying start that we have been able to give it during the British presidency.
Therefore, this is a useful treaty which touches on the real concerns of ordinary people in areas like employment, environment and the fight against crime. It is a treaty which consolidates past agreements rather than redefines the structure of the Union. We shall be able to consider all these points and more in the debates which I am sure many noble Lords will enjoy in the coming days.
In May, the Labour Government were given a popular mandate to make a break with the previous administration's handling of European Union issues and to follow an agenda along the lines that we have described. In the Amsterdam treaty, in the November job summit and in their position on economic and monetary union, and now in their handling of the presidency, the Government have shown that they can do business in Europe in a co-operative way which enhances the UK's ability to influence the way in which the Union develops. That is good for Britain and it is good for Europe. This is a treaty entirely consistent with that policy. I commend it to the Committee.
4 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I appreciate what the position is, and that there have been some declarations from each of the Front Benches. I do not intend to speak for long on this issue. There is considerable disagreement in some parts of the Committee, particularly with some of the remarks that have been made this afternoon. I hope sincerely that we shall have detailed and long discussions about the matters involved.
I want to emphasise the fact that in another place the treaty was given scant regard. Indeed, it was treated as if it were not a 3,000-mile service but a 1,000-mile service, and that is just not good enough when we are talking about the ratchet effect of further European integration which is included in the Amsterdam treaty.
The people of this country deserve proper discussion of these important matters; for example, last night there was a debate on BBC2 about further enlargement. Our

317
Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook, said that the issue of defence was not covered in any way in this treaty; but a woman, I think from the Institute of International Affairs, disagreed with that. She disagreed as to whether matters of defence were included in the treaty. We have to examine who is right. Is it the Foreign Secretary or is it the expert from the Institute of International Affairs? There are testing things that we must examine.
For example, I am confused—I hope that we can get my confusion levelled out—about the position of the WEU. It seems that there was a statement about the WEU and what its position would be, but that statement was made in advance of the treaty being signed. As far as I can see, it was made after the IGC in June. So we do not know exactly what is the position of the WEU within the treaty and what indeed it seeks to do. What is certain is that in J(1), for example, all reference to member states is removed. It is the Union, not in conjunction with the member states, which will be defining and implementing a common foreign and security policy. Article J(7) appears to give the WEU an operational role and co-operation in the field of armaments, and may indeed give it an armaments procurement role within the treaty. Those are some of the matters that we shall want to examine.
I heard my noble friend the Minister mention three days in Committee. I sincerely hope that that was a slip of the tongue, because I do not believe that we can examine all the matters that need to be examined in this important treaty in as short a period as three days. I hope that she will be able to tell me that a great deal more time than that will be available.
Lord Moynihan: I endorse the points that have just been made. I believe that I heard the Minister correctly when she said that three days had already been "allocated". I should have been equally concerned if she had merely mentioned that three days were all that we were going to have in Committee. The thrust of what noble Lords have said on the amendment underlines something which is of great concern to me; that is, not least because of the application of the Guillotine in another place, we need a great deal of time to examine in a forensic manner each and every detail that concerns Members of this place in a wide-ranging treaty.
This is no measure that should be treated lightly by this place, nor is it a measure that can be dealt with in one, two or three days. I anticipate that considerably more time will be required in Committee. That is a matter for your Lordships and for the interest shown in the debate. I already know—I hope from the nodding opposite me that I have confirmation from the Government Front Bench—that more than three days are already anticipated for the Committee's consideration of the Bill. It is essential that they are.
In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, I say that I hope that by the end of the Committee proceedings she will have a clearer view of the Opposition's vision for Europe; what our agenda for Europe would be; what our concerns are; and that that agenda will be a constructive one. Equally, she will be aware that we shall be looking in detail at many aspects
318
of the Bill: the uncompetitive nature of a number of the provisions; not least our view on the social chapter; the effects of more QMV; the greater power being given to the European Parliament; the important issues on defence that are raised in the Bill; the common foreign and security policy implications; and enlargement. They are of vital importance.
I believe that there is widespread agreement in this place about the benefits of enlargement. There should also be widespread concern that the institutional reforms which are necessary and a prerequisite for enlargement have not been put in place as a priority. Without those reforms, many of the aspirations of those who seek enlargement will lie fallow.
I listen carefully to the Minister's arguments. I repeat once more, for the benefit of the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, and others, that all the critical issues will be debated in full. I give him and the Committee an undertaking that while I am at this Dispatch Box, we shall be pushing all the time for every detail and every explanation that we require to ensure that the Bill is properly analysed and effectively scrutinised by your Lordships. There will be no shortage of opportunity today when we reach the EMU implications of the Bill, and possibly later today when we reach flexibility—although I anticipate that there will be a great many contributions on EMU—and in future days in Committee, for a full examination of the Bill's contents. Having listened carefully to the Minister, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Shore of Stepneymoved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 12, at end insert—
("() Article 1, other than the provisions of paragraph 5 (objectives of the Union) relating to economic and monetary union and the establishment of a single currency,").
The noble Lord said: As the Committee will readily recognise, the amendments that I have tabled in this group concentrate upon EMU and the single currency. The clauses in the Amsterdam treaty which largely repeat that have already, as it were, been accepted in the Maastricht Treaty some nine years ago. I think that it was in 1989 that the Maastricht Treaty and those sections were debated and agreed.
I want to say straightaway that I feel a great sense of disappointment about the Amsterdam Treaty, but not perhaps for the conventional reasons put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams. My disappointment is centred much more on the failure of the Amsterdam Treaty to carry out its first duty and function; that is, to be a revision treaty of the Maastricht Treaty. As those who know the text of the Maastricht Treaty will recognise, Articles B and N most unusually contain a formal commitment to have a further intergovernmental conference not later than 1996 in order to examine the arrangements and policies agreed in the Maastricht Treaty.
To some extent, that examination has taken place—and not necessarily to my satisfaction or that of other noble Lords. I refer in particular to the attempt to bring

319
Pillar III into the compass of Pillar I and all the machinery of the European Community together with the ECJ. However, it is extraordinary that no attempt was made to revise or reconsider the most important part of the Maastricht Treaty. I refer, of course, to the single currency and economic and monetary union. Not a clause of that vast section and its protocols was raised again either in the informal prolonged discussions which took place before the formal IGC or during the IGC itself.
Curiously, and it adds to the surprise and disappointment, there was an addition to economic and monetary union and to the proposals for a single currency. Oddly enough, the addition was agreed formally at Amsterdam on 7th July 1997 in the form of two council regulations. They are now the law of Europe and if we abandon our opt-outs they would affect us, too. They appear in the form of the so-called growth and stability pact, which is a most extraordinary document.
Perhaps I can demonstrate that by referring to Section 4. Article 12, which follows up the Maastricht Treaty's infamous Article 104c(11) which allows for fines to be imposed upon member states. It follows up the doctrine of imposing fines on a sovereign state with a precise mathematical formula as to how much shall be paid. I will not bother your Lordships with the details, but the mathematical formula has two components. If a state exceeds the EU's limit of excess expenditure as calculated as more than 3 per cent. of GDP, it is immediately fined 0.2 per cent. of its gross domestic product. In addition, the EU calculates that the difference between the state's borrowing requirement for that year and the 3 per cent. limit shall be subject to a further fine of one-tenth of the amount. Your Lordships will be glad to know that there is a maximum; a state needs to pay out only 0.5 per cent. of its GDP in any one year. I have calculated that if those provisions had been in force and applied to the United Kingdom during the five-year period of the previous Conservative Government Britain would have been fined £16 billion because it exceeded the 3 per cent. limit. That requires some thought and comment.
Furthermore, it has been said in many places, not only in this House and in the other place, and by many individuals, including, I regret to say, my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the Bill and the treaty do not involve constitutional matters and they are not worried. They are not sufficiently important and it will all be judged in a few years' time, whether or not we join, by economic criteria. I do not know, but I would have thought that the imposition of fines on a sovereign state was a matter of profound constitutional and political importance. Indeed, I know of no case in history where such a step has been agreed and allowed by any state. I know of no state which has such a lack of confidence in itself and trust in its politicians that it needs to be disciplined by the external authority of a treaty manned by other people representing other countries. I have heard of reparations, but I have never heard of fines imposed upon a sovereign state. To tell me that this Bill has no constitutional implications on this one matter alone is, frankly, to talk absolute nonsense and I reject it entirely.
I now wish to turn to other matters. It is more than eight years since we had the Maastricht Treaty. The great debate on the single currency and EMU has taken place in a helpful way. Although the matter is by no means settled, there has been great concentration of thought and much radical rethinking about the whole enterprise. I do not wish to go into it in too great a detail, but three things have persuaded many people that the whole enterprise needs rethinking and abandoning. The first is the clear effects of the monetary convergence criteria on the economies of western Europe and on the countries which have attempted to meet the convergence criteria.
A great deflationary policy has been pursued across the whole continent of Europe. Desperate attempts have been made to reduce government borrowing to 3 per cent. of GDP. We have seen as an immediate result unemployment on the continent of Europe—its greatest economic and political problem—rise during the eight years since the signing of the Maastricht Treaty from about 13.5 million to almost 19 million during the past year. The economies of western Europe have virtually ceased to grow. That is a slight exaggeration, but the growth is well below the level necessary even to maintain jobs at the previous level. That was the first point that was registered by people across Europe.
In a sense, the second point is more fundamental and is of particular relevance to the thinking of those noble Lords who are trained economists or who follow these issues closely. I refer in particular to the fundamental economic objection that a single currency and a monetary policy which is effective need genuine and continuing convergence of the real economies of the member states within that zone. It requires genuine convergence—equality, as it were—of performance, and we are not getting it. Frankly, it would be absurd to assume that we will.
Of course, if a state does not have such convergence and goes ahead with a single currency and a Frankfurt central bank it has lost its main means of adjustment between the weaker and stronger economies. If it totally gives up depreciation of its currency it has lost a major way of trying to compensate for the superior performance in productivity and output of the stronger economies. Similarly, if it cannot adjust its own bank rate it is at a double disadvantage.
The consequences of that have been spelt out, fascinatingly, not necessarily by people one would have thought would be the first to bring them to public attention. I refer to the Governor of the Bank of England, who not on one but on many occasions has properly pointed out that if one gets into that position and loses the capacity to adjust for differential productivity and output, what is one left with? As he rightly says, one is left with either high level stagnation and unemployment in weaker countries or the mass movement of people to those parts of the European Union where the jobs are to be found. There are well-understood reasons—culture, language and so on why we cannot and shall not have that large movement of people from one part of the Union to another.
In addition, it is well known that the only other way to deal with those problems is vastly to increase the European Union's budget and transfer financial resources from the areas of strength to the areas of weakness. I need not tell noble Lords that at present that is a pipe dream. There is not that degree of solidarity and it will not take place.
Therefore, it is a very damaging enterprise indeed. I claim that speeches made by the Governor of the Bank of England, and, for that matter, most recently, by the President of the Bundesbank, Professor Tietmeyer, making almost exactly the same points have alerted people to the dangers which are involved.
I have concluded from that, from the authorities and from my own studies that the economic case for monetary union is very feeble indeed. However, there is of course a political case. The covert federalists and those who believe in ever-closer union in Europe are only too pleased to envisage a situation in which the nation states are disarmed and rendered impotent in their pursuit of appropriate economic policies for their own people. The pressure and demand switches then to Europe and its institutions to do at the European level what we have abandoned and can do no longer at national level.
That is it. That is the argument. I shall now quote as authority that admirable and entirely objective US observer of the whole scene, Professor Martin Feldstein. In a lecture which he gave last year, he said:
"There is no doubt that the real rationale for EMU is political and not economic … The 1992 Maastricht Treaty that created the EMU calls explicitly for the evolution to a future political union. But even without that specific treaty language, the shift to a single currency would be a dramatic and irreversible step towards that goal. There is no sizeable country anywhere in the world that does not have its own currency. A national currency is both a symbol of sovereignty and the key to the pursuit of an independent monetary and budget policy".
Those words should be borne in mind as we consider those matters. I should also like to quote the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, who I am sorry is not in his place. He speaks with all the authority of a former commissioner and as a man of great intelligence and integrity. He wrote an article last month which ends with the words:
"EMU will disunite Europe like no other act since the end of the war".
That is a warning of which we should take very serious note. I beg to move.
Lord Taverne: First, I wish to apologise to the Committee because I shall have to absent myself from the debate for a brief period. That is why I am particularly keen to speak now.
The noble Lord, Lord Shore, will perhaps not be surprised that I take a totally different view from the one he takes. I feel tempted to follow him in some of the arguments he has raised. He has discussed the Maastricht Treaty and the fundamental question of economic and monetary union; it is all part of his total rejection of the European Union in itself. For example, he cited the monstrosity of fines being imposed on a sovereign country when he knows perfectly well that it
322
is part of the system of the European Union that in certain circumstances, the European Court of Justice can impose fines and sanctions on member states. International sanctions are not unknown, even without the European Union. At this moment, economic sanctions are being applied in Serbia.
I wish to point out what would be the consequences if this amendment were to be carried. It would mean that we should reject specifically what has been adopted by all the other member states as one of their goals. It is not as though we could then happily carry on minus monetary union, the only country specifically to have rejected it. It goes much further than the Leader of the Opposition is prepared to go because this amendment would exclude any possibility of us ever joining a monetary union whereas the Leader of the Opposition has ruled it out only for 10 years.
If this amendment were to be carried, its supporters would put us in a position where we should find ourselves increasingly at odds with the rest of our partners. For example, from time to time, if the pound were at a much lower rate than it is now, we should be accused of unfair competition. We should find ourselves at odds over a whole series of other measures. The amendment is designed, as no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Shore, would wish, to take us out of the European Union altogether. He wants us to set off in a totally different direction from our partners.
I do not wish to discuss the merits of the European Union. I do not wish to go as wide as that. I wish to state our position in relation to the Government. I welcome the fact that the Government have made very friendly noises about monetary union, and they have declared that in principle, if the circumstances are right, they wish to join a monetary union. But the difficulty about the Government's position—and where we on the Liberal Democrat Benches differ from the Government—is that they have still left an enormous area of uncertainty. They are asking industry to prepare, but there is still no absolute commitment that we shall join a monetary union. If industry is to be asked to spend hundreds of millions of pounds, as it would have to, to adapt to a euro, something which would probably have to be done some two years before we join and adopt the euro, then they must have a degree of certainty. They do not have that at present because a number of conditions have been put forward by the Government.
For example, let us look at the risk of a policy of uncertainty and the risk that it poses for the pound. Almost certainly, it will be a requirement of our membership that for two years the pound will have to be in a stable relationship with the euro. That poses great difficulties for us unless we pursue policies which ensure that the pound is much lower or unless we are able to negotiate that we can enter the ERM at a much lower central rate—something in the nature of 2.60 marks to the pound.
But in that period of instability, if there is no commitment, the pound will be extremely vulnerable. While the euro is established, the pound will be the only major European currency outside the euro. The European monetary area is quite likely to adopt a policy

323
of benign neglect towards the exchange rate. In a very large area, it will be rather like the United States which is not primarily very concerned about the exchange rate of the dollar. The central bank will be concerned with controlling inflation inside a monetary union.
In a position of benign neglect, as it were, in relation to the dollar, there may be considerable movements in international currencies. The pound could be particularly vulnerable to those movements and could be damaged. Therefore, uncertainty is a policy which carries very considerable dangers. We on this side of the Committee would like to see a much firmer commitment.
It is said that the question of timing is so difficult that we cannot commit ourselves. But far too much can be made of the problems of timing. For example, the Netherlands has been in a different economic cycle from Germany, although it has been tied in a monetary union with Germany for a considerable time. The Dutch economy has been expanding at a fast rate at a time when the German economy was stagnant. Incidentally, the main reason for that stagnation was the aftermath of unification when there were excessively high wage claims and when the Bundesbank followed a very restrictive and deflationary policy in order, so to speak, to punish the unions for being so irresponsible. The macro-economic policy has been the main reason for unemployment in Germany.
The Dutch followed a different policy. They have had a period of growth which has, in recent years, been at least as good as and, indeed, better than ours. The Dutch have managed to do that within a monetary union, although their cycle was different from that of Germany. Again, the low inflationary effects in a large monetary union are likely to be at least as important as a policy which is formed within a particular country.
Too much can be made of the fact that our interest rates are of different importance. Short-term interest rates matter much more in this country than they do in other member states. But the reason for that has been our past record of much higher inflation. If we had had the same record of low inflation as Germany or the Netherlands—or, indeed, of the other members of the core—we, too, would find that short-term interest rates would be much less important. We, too, would find that people would wish to take up their mortgages as fixed rate mortgages rather than as variable rate mortgages.
As I said, far too much can be made of those differences. If it is a question of timing, the chances of our timing coinciding exactly with the rate of expansion of Germany or France is not so great that one can look forward with any certainty to potential membership. I fear that the Government's projected timetable, which gives the impression that they would like to hold an election in the year 2001, with a referendum shortly afterwards, and then join by the year 2002 or 2003, may be very difficult to achieve. That is because of the uncertainty created at present by a lack of commitment and the impact that that would have on the pound.
The Liberal Democrat reaction to the policy which has been announced by the Government on EMU is that we welcome the general approach but we feel that a firm
324
commitment is needed, because the greatest danger that we will face in the course of the next few years, especially as far as concerns the pound, is the uncertainty which this lack of decisiveness entails.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Howell of Guildford: It is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Shore, in debating the amendment, although I do not agree with everything that he said. Nevertheless, the noble Lord brings to the matter enormous experience and conviction. I was particularly struck by what he said about the stability pact. It is far from reassuring that the architects of Maastricht—and, indeed, of the Amsterdam Treaty—appeared to fail to foresee the need for a stability pact. The glaring fact that now looks so obvious—namely, that if you are going to try to construct a currency with one central monetary control but 11 or 12 fiscal controls and policies it will be an unstable affair and you will need an additional binding instrument to unify or at least harmonise fiscal policies—came very late in the day. It does not bode well for the construction of what must, in the interests of global financial stability, be a system that works—and I hope that it does—that this very obvious need for an additional mechanism was arrived at so extraordinarily late in the day. It meant that it had to be rammed in outside the treaty structure altogether, as the noble Lord reminded us.
I am also grateful that we are having this debate now because the timing is more than usually apposite. People talk as though the show will get on the road on 1st January 1999, eight or nine months from now. But, in fact, we have about six weeks left. At the end of that time, on 1st May, the decisions on the participants will be made and the decisions on the cross rates will be established. Indeed, for all intents and purposes, the single currency project will be inevitably under way. The attention of the international financial markets will tend to switch to those who are not actually betting against the whole thing collapsing—and that outside bet will, I suppose, remain in the minds of some speculators. Most of the financial markets will turn to the different longer-term interest rates and the different costs of the bonds being issued in the member state capitals. I believe that there will be considerable variety in that respect.
We can already see the effects of what is about to happen in six weeks' time on the other currencies, including our own. The noble Lord, Lord Taverne, spoke about the potential threat to, and the weakness of, the pound in that speculators might turn against it. I agree with the noble Lord that circumstances may change. However, just now it is the very opposite: the pound has turned into the safe haven currency, as people look uneasily at the continental systems, the lack of convergence and the obvious pushing of politics over economics, and come to the conclusion that the pound is the currency to buy. Indeed, for all I know, it is well above three deutschmarks again—miles above the level at which we were pushed out of the ERM because we were told it was far too high. I believe that that gives one a fair assessment of the value of some pundits' opinions on these matters. So it is all going forward very

325
soon. Indeed, this is probably the last opportunity for this Chamber to debate the actual scheme before it is dead set, under way and unstoppable. I believe that it is unstoppable now.
There are those who have said that perhaps Helmut Kohl will be toppled by the new dynamic Gerhard Schröder, and so on, and that that will delay things. But that is an illusion; there will be no delay. I am reminded of the year 1914, although perhaps this is too dramatic a comparison. We are told that the armies began rolling, the troop trains moved and that it was then too late to stop the hideous events that followed. So, whether the events which follow now are hideous or good—and I hope that they are good and beneficial for us all—it is much too late to stop them. The troop trains have started rolling and cannot be stopped.
I should have thought that those who are really genuinely concerned to see a stable and prosperous Europe would focus upon the dangers that lie ahead now that the trains are rolling and now that we are on course for this ride. It will be a very bumpy ride; indeed, certainly for the first three years while the denominations of the separate currencies remain, though in theory they are all part of the one currency, and even beyond.
Why do I say that it will be a bumpy ride? The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, made a very good point; namely, that the Asian crisis is by no means over. We have not yet begun to see the full pain and impact of the Asian crisis on the world's financial system, nor the impact on the European economies, which will be considerable and very diverse because those economies are very diverse. It will also be extremely harmful to the general need for a steady recovery of the continental European economies in order to make the EMU process rise.
Incidentally, on the question of short-term interest rates—which I shall deal with in more detail in a moment—the idea that our interest rates could be down if only we had had a better inflation record in the past is absurd. The reason our interest rates are where they are is that we are at a high point in the business cycle and they need to be high in order to restrain the economy. It is possible that we are over the top of it now. Perhaps we will begin to see the effects of the Asian deflation and general turndown on our own economy and they can come down again. But that is why they are where they are, and that is why there is this obvious difference which cannot be just wished away. It is there. It is a reality in the nature of our different business cycles.
On top of the difficulties immediately ahead, we know for a fact that this is a political project. It is a very fine project with fine motives behind it, which we should always admire—the basic motive, obviously, being that of France and Germany never trying to destroy each other again. But that does not make it an optimal currency zone, however good the motives. It is not an optimal currency zone. It is not just a case of Americans such as Martin Feldstein and Milton Friedman pointing that out; we can see it for ourselves.
326
This is not an area where the normal process—as in the United States of America—of a free flow of labour takes place. There is no real labour mobility between the European states. There is not all that much within the European states. There has been some, for example, between northern and southern Italy and between different parts of the United Kingdom, but generally there is little labour mobility.
I always find it difficult to explain just how little labour mobility there is to some of my American friends. I use the following analogy. I beg the Committee's forgiveness for the exaggeration. A mummified body was dug up in the Cheddar Gorge, which dates back some 9,000 years. When the DNA was checked it turned out to be the same as that of a person living in a nearby village. That indicates that not much labour mobility has taken place in that part of Europe for the past 9,000 years. If that sounds exaggerated, it is usually effective in bringing home to our American friends the fact that there is little labour mobility in Europe.
The Governor of the Bank of England is wise on these matters. I heartily endorse and greatly welcome his reappointment. That was an excellent move on the part of the Government and the Prime Minister. The Governor has pointed out in many speeches that without labour mobility and without the ability to move short-term interest rates—as there will only be one which will have to suit the whole of this zone—there will be enormous tensions which will manifest themselves in other ways. If this all sounds a little general, let us be specific and consider the position of one or two countries in the next few months or in the first few months of 1999.
Let us consider Ireland. That country is undergoing a considerable property boom. There has been a 20 per cent. growth in money supply in the past year. There is the prospect of considerably higher inflation. Ireland's currency is probably undervalued and needs to be revalued to try to curb the rush into Ireland of capital flows. We all know what those capital flows can do, as our Asian friends have found out to their bitter cost. Ireland now needs to maintain its interest rates at a level not very different from ours. That would be the sensible thing to do. However, that is not the position that Ireland will be allowed to hold. It will have to reduce its interest rates dramatically over the next few months, and certainly by 1st January 1999 in order to qualify—assuming it is chosen, which I think will be the case—to join the system. What will happen? There will be the most enormous boom in Ireland. More money will rush in. We all know what follows boom; namely, bust. That is exactly what will happen to an economy that cannot use the normal levers to moderate and steer the economy at different times. That is a problem which is a direct result of attempting to centralise a single short-term interest rate on a non-optimal currency zone.
I suspect that the same kind of thing will happen in Spain, too. I believe it is quite likely that there will be a huge boom there followed by bust. Those of us who shrug our shoulders and say, "Well, so be it" should remember that when economies go badly wrong and politicians promise to lower unemployment but cannot

327
do so, when there is a major crisis and bankruptcies all round, as President Suharto is finding in Jakarta, political tensions rise. In Europe those political tensions could be extremely damaging and could bring about just the instability in Europe that all of us who have been working—I am certainly not a rejectionist, to use the word that has been mentioned—for European unity over 20 and 30 years have been trying to avoid. That is why I believe that good Europeans now should concentrate on the dangers and on how we can somehow modify the extreme dangers of the system which the rest of Europe is careering into.
There is no real convergence among the continental economies. It is not just a question of Britain not being convergent; there is little convergence among even the economies which are the keenest to be up front and to be the first to join. I am glad that the British economy is standing aside from this. I believe that the Government's position on this matter is broadly right. With all due respect to the noble Baroness, Lady Symons of Vernham Dean, I do not think the position of the Government in practice is very different from the position of the previous government; namely, to look with great caution on this experiment—which everyone recognises to be a dangerous one—to hope it will work, but not to plunge in when we clearly have so few benefits to gain from doing so, and when our own position is so much more favourable than that of the main participants and leading members of this new scheme.
Even on the trade side it has to be remembered that most of our overseas earnings—well over 50 per cent.—come from outside the European Union members and outside the 11. If one adds both visible and invisible earnings together, the figure is considerably higher than 50 per cent. I believe that only 38 per cent. of our invisible earnings—which are just under half our total overseas export earnings—come from the European Union 15, and less than that from the 11. Therefore this is not really a natural area for us to consider at the moment. However, it may change. The whole thing may be such a rip-roaring success that the sheer lunar pull of it drags us in. But the idea that we shall lose out by being isolated—to use these loaded words—is, I think, the inverse of the truth.
We shall gain considerably from being able to stand aside from what will be a tricky and bumpy experiment. I declare an interest as I work in the City of London. Our vast financial system and the City of London will gain considerably from being able to operate—we are well equipped as it is—in the euro markets without being inside. Indeed we may well be in a more advantageous position just as we have been as regards the euro/dollar market. I am glad that we shall not go in at the moment. I believe that the Governor of the Bank of England is right to be cautious. Those who really want to see Europe stable and prosperous should be extremely cautious and guard carefully against the coming difficulties.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Randall of St. Budeaux: I wish to make a brief contribution to this Committee stage this afternoon. I do
328
not want to make the case either for or against EMU. I wish merely to consider the amendment in terms of its practical viability. Perhaps I ought to declare that I am a full supporter of EMU and I believe that it is in Britain's interests for it to happen. If we were to proceed with this amendment at this stage, I believe that the British Parliament would look frankly absurd because there is no possibility that we can start tearing out the heart of a great big chunk of legislation from the treaties that we have already adopted, although I accept that there are certain conditions attached. The policy as regards EMU is laid down. We have our position. I do not need to declare it because all Members of the Committee here will know what that position is; namely, to decide when the conditions are right and then to seek the authority of the British people on the matter. At this extremely late stage I do not believe that we can move from that position by supporting the amendment of my dear and noble friend Lord Shore.
I noted what the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, said and I agree with him totally; namely, that we need to have stability in this country as regards policy. That must lead to the stability of the markets. The global markets are complex, fast moving and huge. One cannot play around in a mercurial way because of the consequences of that and the hammering that we would receive if we were to embark on such a risky approach. Matters are far developed. In May, under the British presidency, we shall see drawn up the list of aspiring countries to the euro zone. We shall know where we stand. The planning work will go ahead. Businesses will note all of that and they will establish their corporate plans in order to be able to react to all of that. That is just a few weeks away. In a few months the system will come into operation. That is such a short time. We are talking about a few months. For us to talk at this stage about tearing apart the treaty can be nothing short of wild and certainly mercurial.
As regards EMU, although the European central bank and the European system—the ESCB—does not fully exist, it is embryonic, its predecessor, the European Monetary Institute, is in place. I have good reason to believe that the policies are in position, in their plastic bags, ready to be endorsed by the new president and others who will serve on the ECB and the ESCB. We know that that will be Eddie George so far as concerns Britain. But all the preparation is done. One has to recognise that, although we shall not be in the first wave, the ramifications are there. We shall not be able to withdraw ourselves from its impact. Britain has to be aware that any wild reactions to the Amsterdam Treaty would not be acceptable.
My noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey covered this point at Question Time. My noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry asked a Question on preparations for the euro. My noble friend told the House in some detail about information published in leaflets, advisory meetings for businesses and so on. That work is going on now. It is already happening.
The amendment is not viable. It would not be sensible and I believe that it could damage the reputation of this good House if we were to suggest to the British public, and to the public in the remainder of the European

329
Union, that we could do such a thing. But there is also the question of the markets. We would be punished—if not immediately in the near future—if we were to behave in an erratic fashion. We know that business planning is going on. While we shall not be in the first wave, there will be no impediment to trading in euros. The Government have made that quite clear in response to several questions. All kinds of work is going on. I believe that to undermine it would not be acceptable.
I rest my case there. If—heaven forbid!—this amendment were to go to a vote, I hope that Members of the Committee would wholeheartedly reject it.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: Before the noble Lord sits down, I believe he said that under certain circumstances if we pass the amendment we would be punished. Will he explain how and by whom we are to be punished, and with what draconian measure?
Lord Randall of St. Budeaux: I am willing to answer that question. I believe that in the global world, with global markets, with global investment across those markets, the reputation of this country must stand high and strong. If we were seen to be creating such volatility in policy, I believe that our reputation could be damaged. And when it comes to inward investment, the markets could punish us in that sense. I believe that we would make ourselves vulnerable.
Because this is a Committee stage, I do not wish to take more time on the issue. This is not the time to be making the case for or against EMU but rather to consider the detail of the amendment before us.
Lord Boardman: The noble Lord. Lord Randall, suggests that we might be punished, or that some horror might befall us if we vote for this vital amendment on the Amsterdam Treaty, which has such an impact on this country but which has been discussed only briefly in another place. I hope that in this Chamber we shall be able to assess the merits and demerits of the amendments we make.
I endorse the points made by my noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford. I shall not repeat some of those arguments. I agree also with much that the noble Lord, Lord Shore of Stepney, said. I find myself in sympathy with a great number of his comments. That is a not entirely usual experience over the years.
I confine myself to one point. The economy of the nation depends upon two key policies: its monetary policy and its fiscal policy. Those are twin steering levers that under normal circumstances the Chancellor of the Exchequer has at his command. This country has now passed monetary policy to the Bank of England. In Germany the Bundesbank controls to a large extent its monetary policy; and in America the Fed. I believe that as the Chancellor has been preparing his Budget he will have regretted very much that he did not have monetary policy under his more direct control. He could then control the interest rate at the same time as he considered taxes.
330
As regards the Bundesbank, we all know what happened with the deutschmark years ago. The amount of freedom it has on the other side of the economy is fairly fragile; and the Fed is under similar control. But they all operate in their own nation. Those who control the monetary policy—the Bundesbank in Germany, the Fed in America, and the Bank of England here—work under the general economic conditions applicable in their own country. What is proposed here is to have a monetary policy controlled by people operating from Frankfurt, unknown, unelected and remote from the economies and circumstances of the individual countries whose monetary policy they are fixing. The fiscal policy will be left to the individual countries.
I have discussed this issue with many people in Frankfurt, Bonn and Brussels. I ask what will happen when each country cannot control its monetary policy but has freedom on its fiscal policy. The answer I receive is that there is a sort of understanding. People say that they will get together on the fiscal policy and will agree about taxation in order to fit in with what has been laid down on the monetary policy. I find that unrealistic and have said as much on occasions. It will only stand for a brief period while we apply fiscal uniformity throughout the countries that are in EMU.
A number of people believe that if we accept monetary policy we are bound to accept a fiscal policy binding upon those countries, and that leads to a political uniformity too. For that I have real fears. My point is this. To accept monetary policy as laid down in the treaty leaves us with a very limited control over our economic policy. The Chancellor has two levers: to steer right or left (for those who are used to driving tanks). But if he has to throw away one, he throws away any control of the monetary policy. He has to work out with the fiscal policy what is best for the economy of this country. I deplore that move. I think that it would be wrong to be party to it.
Lord Monson: The noble Lord. Lord Howell of Guildford, has done well to remind us that the problems arising from EMU are neither non-existent, as the Liberal Democrats would claim, nor speculative and well into the future, as rather less zealous Euro-enthusiasts would claim, but are with us already. The noble Lord spoke of the Republic of Ireland. It is booming because, as a result of massive transfer payments from the Germans and to a lesser extent the British, great inflationary pressures are rising. The current bank rate is 6.75 per cent. The central bank would like to raise it to well over 7 per cent. but it is not able to do so because it has gradually to reduce interest rates to the continental norm and it is expected that the European central bank will kick off with an interest rate of 3.3 per cent.
I support this amendment, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Shore, and wish to quote from sources that are not normally thought of as being in any way Euro-sceptic. Even Mr. Adair Turner, director general of the Confederation of British Industry—unlike the Institute of Directors or the Federation of Small Businesses,

331
the CBI is definitely not Euro-sceptic—speaking to the Deutsche-Englische Geselshafi in Berlin on 21st January, talked about the,
"flawed analysis of the potential benefits of EMU".
Among other comments, he said:
"What EMU will not do is solve Europe's unemployment problem and indeed we need to be clear that its … temporary effect could be to make Europe's unemployment problems worse, not better".
The noble Lord, Lord Shore, quoted part of an article by Professor Martin Feldstein published on 8th May 1997. In addition to the points quoted by the noble Lord, Professor Feldstein said:
"the adverse economic effects of a single currency on unemployment and inflation would outweigh any gains from facilitating trade and capital flows among the EMU members".
The president of the Deutsches Bundesbank, Dr. Hans Tietmeyer, said on 20th February this year:
"Monetary union is not a deus ex machina. It will not solve the European problems by itself nor eliminate the high level of unemployment, the structural problems in government finances and in the welfare system, or the poverty of those on the fringes of society … It would … cause considerable economic costs and above all great damage to the political foundation … previous currency zones in history have in most cases only survived if they were sooner or later bound together in a far-reaching and lasting political relationship".
He goes on to cite the comment of Jacques Delors that monetary union is not an end in itself; it is a means towards an ever closer political union.
Another distinguished German professor, Wilhelm Hankel, speaking on 7th March, made a number of excellent points. He said:
"Politicians are entering an irresponsible adventure with the Euro in 1999. The Euro will be neither stable nor durable. It will not hold Europe together or unite it".
There are those who believe it will have precisely the opposite effect.
Mr. Andrew Duff, director of the Federal Trust, writing in the January 1998 edition of the Parliamentary Monitor said that the British Government,
"should use the Presidency as an opportunity to ditch some strange old British baggage, including hostility to tax approximation (without which the single market will not be stable)".
Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, made exactly that point. It is obvious that there will have to be tax harmonisation if EMU is to work. As in the United States, there may be very small variations, as there are in sales tax between, say, Massachusetts and Connecticut, but no more than that—3 or 4 per cent. Excise duties will have to be reduced to continental levels, which will please smokers and drinkers but will infuriate the health fanatics; and I suspect that corporation tax will also have to be more or less harmonised. Much more could be said, but no doubt other noble Lords wish to take the debate further.
5 p.m.
Lord Grenfell: I listened with great interest to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Monson. I certainly do not wish to engage in, as it were, a war by quotation. If it comes to that, those of us who take rather different views on monetary union can match the noble Lord quote for quote. But that would not be terribly useful.
332
I did find useful and interesting the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Howell, in certain respects but not in all respects. The noble Lord was wise enough to point out that we are now only some six weeks away from the critical moment when monetary union will to all intents and purposes go ahead. He is wise to draw our attention to that.
However, I part company with some noble Lords, who, only six weeks away from that date, seem to give the impression that somehow the process can be brought to a grinding halt, or that it should be, were that to be possible. I do not know what is the collective noun for an assembly of King Canutes—it may be a "calamity" of Canutes—but there still seem to be a large number of people who believe that the whole process can be derailed. I am afraid that that is not going to happen. What we have to do is to see how it can be made to work.
I wish to turn to some issues raised by my noble friend Lord Shore of Stepney. He spoke of the stability pact. But one point he did not mention is that stability pact fines are not automatic. None of those to whom we have spoken during the course of the deliberations of Sub-Committee A—we spoke to the Bundesbank, to the European Monetary Institute and to others with great knowledge of these matters—has seen the stability pact fines as anything other than a rather necessary stick which they hope will never be raised to beat anybody at all. The truth of the matter (which was not put forward unless I missed out on it during the intervention of my noble friend Lord Shore) is that if a country gets into great economic difficulty and it can be shown that it has suffered a loss of output of 2 per cent., those would be the exceptional circumstances in which no fine would be levied. The stability pact as a threat to a country is aimed only at those that consistently overspend; it is not aimed at responsible countries which find themselves in understandable difficulties. That is a point which those who oppose the stability pact tend to gloss over; they simply raise the issue of how unconstitutional it would be for a body to impose fines on a country.
The noble Lord, Lord Howell, in remarking on the stability pact, said how strange it was that it came so late in the day. All I can say is: better late than never. It became quite clear that it would be very difficult to ensure the optimum operation of a single currency zone if it was not made clear that the convergence criteria were there for a purpose, and were not merely words on paper to be ridden roughshod over. There had to be some kind of sanction on those who were prepared to play fast and loose, not just to the disadvantage of their own populations, but putting at risk the economies of other countries in the European Union. There is a collective responsibility in a single currency. Where there is collective responsibility, there has to be some kind of sanction for those who wish to be part of the Euro zone but are not prepared to take the responsibility of trying to achieve the maximum benefit for all who are party to it.
The convergence criteria are desirable in themselves whether or not there is European monetary union. Aiming to keep our budget deficits at less than 3 per cent. of GDP and government debt at less

333
than 60 per cent. are very laudable aspirations in themselves. I happen to live in France, where the forward pension liabilities of the French Government are presently something like 106 per cent. of GDP. The French are working very hard indeed to correct that position. They would be doing so whether or not there was European monetary union. So it is rather strange—
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I wonder whether the noble Lord would give way. It is actually the third time this afternoon that a noble Lord has referred to EMU as "European and monetary union". The fact is that it refers to "European economic and monetary union", and it is the economic bit which will do the damage.
Lord Grenfell: I stand corrected and thank the noble Lord for pointing that out. I am afraid I was using a type of mental shorthand, and should have kept it mental rather than vocal. I agree with him: it is economic and monetary union. I shall turn to that in just a moment.
Another point raised was that EMU—economic and monetary union—would be divisive. I am afraid that I part company here with the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf. I am sorry not to see him in his place today. I read his article with enormous interest; it was important but I am afraid that I was not persuaded by it. If anything is divisive, it is a situation where there will be as many people outside the single currency as inside it. The guarantee or the best hope that a single currency will work well will be to have the maximum number of countries participating in it. That will take a long time. It will take the new candidate countries from east and central Europe some time to achieve accession to the European Union and no one believes that they will immediately be able to join a single currency. That would be wishful thinking. Even they do not believe it, although some are looking forward to the day when they do so.
The point is that the divisiveness will arise as a result of the single currency, although not intrinsically in the single currency itself; it will arise because it is a limited single currency and would exclude other member states of the European Union. I look forward to the day when EMU will embrace the whole of the European Union, but that will take time. It is not monetary union itself which is divisive.
Finally, perhaps I may say a brief word about the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Boardman. He spoke of the problems of having a monetary policy which was a single monetary policy and fiscal policies that were left to countries themselves to decide on. I do not take his gloomy view that that situation is calamitous. We hope that the member countries of the single currency zone will do their best to harmonise their fiscal policies because that is all part and parcel of a good and effective economic and monetary union. I do not say that it will be easy. I certainly do not believe that it means that, if there is an attempt at harmonisation of fiscal policy, we will end up with a binding single fiscal policy. I have never heard anyone but the most extreme federalists—and I do not share their views—say that the harmonisation of fiscal policies inevitably leads to
334
the day when all countries will decide that harmonisation is not enough, that we must have a strict single fiscal policy. That has never been the intention of the architects of economic and monetary union. I do not believe that the governments would wear it and it is not necessary. So long as there are sufficient efforts at co-ordination and harmonisation, it is not necessary to have a binding single fiscal policy for the whole of Europe. It is not possible.
So that is a slight red herring. I know that it can be used by those who say that it is a stepping stone to a politically single federal state of Europe, but that is not what most sensible people are looking for. It is not the message we have been receiving when talking on the issue to people in various European countries. So it is a bit of a red herring and we should not be fearful of the fact that monetary policy should be a single monetary policy but fiscal policies should be left to member states. That provides a sensible and realistic flexibility that will help make economic and monetary union work and will not be a hindrance to it.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Tugendhat: It is a great pleasure to speak after the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, because much of what he said was wise and apposite. I hope that the Committee will pay great attention to his insight. His point was that, whether or not we like it, whether or not we agree with it, the majority of member states will go ahead with economic and monetary union. Therefore, it is important to try to ensure that it works. That is the point on which we ought to concentrate our attention. It is true, whether we are in the economic and monetary union at the outset or at some future date or not at all, because our own economy is plainly much tied up with those of the participating countries.
My noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford produced some figures. Basically, 50 per cent. or slightly more of our exports of goods go to the 11 members who seem likely to make up the EMU. Some 36 per cent. of our services exports go to that group of countries. In all, it means that 15 per cent. of our GDP is tied up with them. It is therefore greatly to this country's advantage that EMU—whether or not we are in it—should succeed. It would be greatly to our disadvantage if it should fail. To concentrate, as some Members of the Committee have done, simply on all the dangers, without looking at any of the opportunities is in those circumstances a slightly negative approach to the subject.
Moreover, if 11 countries go ahead, it is clear that the important thing for us is not whether we doubt the viability of the enterprise or the wisdom of going ahead in the present form and at the present time. There are plenty of reasons to doubt whether now is the right time and whether the present form is the best one. If 11 countries go ahead, clearly we must take a view, on the balance of national advantage for this country, on whether or not, in those circumstances, it is in our interests to be associated with the project. We might prefer it not to go ahead; we might prefer it to go ahead at some future date. The fact is, as my noble friend Lord Howell said, it will go ahead in a few weeks. The

335
decision we must take is whether, in those circumstances, it is to our national advantage to be associated with it.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Howell that the position taken by the present Government on the matter is basically right. However, I differ slightly in my interpretation of the present Government's position compared with his. He appeared to say that there was little difference between the present Government's position on the matter and that of the previous government. To me, the present Government's position looks a great deal more positive and as if the Government not only avowedly say they want the EMU to succeed, but they have made it clear that if certain conditions can be met, all things being equal, they would greatly prefer this country to be in rather than out. That is a correct assessment of the national interest.
It also brings me to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Taverne. He drew attention to the fact that, in pursuit of their objective—which I applaud—the Government are urging commerce and industry to prepare as quickly as possible for the eventuality of joining. The Government are trying to persuade commerce and industry to be ready whenever the moment might come. That is true. There can be no major company in the country that is not spending large sums of money now in preparing for EMU, since it will affect us whether we are in or out. But it would make the task of commerce and industry a great deal easier. It would do much to encourage commerce and industry if the Government could be firmer in their commitment and clearer in some of the signs they give. If the Government want commerce and industry to spend money on preparing for EMU, it would be good if we could see some preparation on the part of Customs and Excise, the Inland Revenue and the social security system. If we are all being asked to spend money on preparing for EMU, it would be good to see government departments spending money on preparing for it. I very much hope that the points which the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, made on the matter will be noted by the Government.
I listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Shore of Stepney, whose position on European matters for many years has been consistent and, indeed, often courageous and disadvantageous to himself, and whose views therefore must always be worthy of attention. However, I felt that he was devoting a lot of time to telling other people that they were doing something foolish—which may or may not be right—but not much time to telling us what we should be doing in order to deal with the situation which is about to arise; namely, that EMU is going ahead.
I also felt that the noble Lord was less than fair in what he had to say on the subject of convergence. I agree that the level of convergence between participating states is by no means as great as I would wish and, in some respects, it is so recent as to cast doubt on its durability. But that said, one must pay attention to the extraordinary achievements of a number of European countries—Italy, Ireland, Spain and Portugal—which, a few years ago, would not have been expected to attain the levels of convergence that they
336
have. As I say, they may be recent and in some respects one may doubt their durability, but when one looks at the Maastricht criteria (as those are the criteria being used for this purpose), all those countries have shown the most remarkable consistency in bringing themselves up to scratch.
We are pleased in this country about the level of inflation and how much better we are doing than in the past, and I applaud that. But our rate of inflation is around twice that of the average of the countries preparing to go into EMU. When one looks at our rate of inflation now, compared with our neighbours across the Irish Sea, one can see that, although some things are going much better in this country than in Ireland, by no means everything is and the degree of convergence that has been brought about as a result of those criteria is impressive.
As the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, said, bringing one's public finances into order, bringing them into balance and reducing deficits are good objectives in themselves and they are certainly objectives which the party that I support always regarded as good (except some of my colleagues), when other people tried to pursue them in a European context. As the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, said, those countries are to be congratulated on what they have done. We have often said, on this side of the Chamber, that we undertook certain reforms under the leadership of my noble friend Lady Thatcher which others have yet to take; and that is true. But some of our continental neighbours are undertaking similar reforms under the pressure of the Maastricht criteria. It would behove us therefore to congratulate them rather than to diminish their achievements.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shore of Stepney, that a price has had to be paid in unemployment, as it was paid here. Many of my friends who are most Euro-sceptical applauded the price when it was being paid here, but criticised it when it was being paid in other countries. A price is being paid in terms of unemployment and I hope that, like us, those other countries will subsequently enjoy the fruits of lower unemployment as the reforms take effect.
However, I am struck by the fact that, even though the noble Lord, Lord Shore of Stepney, and other Members of the Committee believe that the price is too high and that those other countries are not pursuing their own national interest and so forth, in those countries EMU seems to be rather popular. There are a great many people in Germany among whom it is not popular, but when one looks at Ireland, Italy, Spain and Portugal—the countries which have really made progress towards meeting the criteria and which have also, in some ways, paid the biggest price to do so—the striking fact is that, whether or not we like it, they seem to believe that it is a good idea. Therefore, when we forecast failure and difficulty, we ought to bear in mind not only what they have achieved, but also the degree of support for the policies that have been secured.
My noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford made an important point when he drew attention to the lack of labour mobility in Europe as compared with North America. Undoubtedly, one of the reasons why one has

337
cause for worry in regard to the outlook for EMU is the degree of labour mobility on this side of the Atlantic in participating countries, which is less than it is in North America. I agree with that. On the other hand, I know that my noble friend is connected with a great Swiss organisation and will therefore know that in Switzerland there is not much labour mobility at all between the French-speaking canton, the German-speaking canton and the Italian-speaking canton.
The situation in Switzerland is not unlike the situation in Canada, where there is a good deal of mobility between the English-speaking provinces, but not so much between the French-speaking province and the English-speaking provinces. Most of the people in Quebec do not move into English-speaking areas. Switzerland does not have much labour mobility. Indeed, there is not much French spoken in Zurich and not a lot of German spoken in Geneva. Nonetheless, it does not seem to have done too badly with a common monetary policy and, indeed, a great many other common policies over a long period. Therefore, while it is perfectly reasonable to draw attention to the problems of the lack of labour mobility in Europe—and that is something towards which countervailing measures will have to be taken—one can make too much of it. I mentioned Switzerland because of my noble friend's connection with it, but it is also a good example of how some of those problems can be overcome.
I turn finally to my noble friend Lord Boardman. I felt that, although he drew attention to an important problem in terms of the handling of monetary policy, he overlooked the fact that we do not start from a position of absolute independence now and will certainly not be in a position of absolute independence in the future, whether or not we join EMU.
There are many people in this country who give the impression that somehow we have unfettered and total control over our monetary policy. Would that we did, one might say; but we do not and we have not for goodness knows how long. Everybody knows perfectly well that what happens in the United States, in Germany and in other parts of the world has a profound and immediate impact on this country and that the parameters within which economic and monetary policy are made in this country are a great deal more circumscribed than they used to be and are likely to become more circumscribed in the future. They will certainly become more circumscribed if we do not join EMU and it goes ahead. If our principal trading partners are linked in one area and there is a dollar zone, a yen zone and a euro zone, the making of monetary policy—indeed, also the making of economic policy—if one is outside those zones will be quite difficult. One will be attempting to make those policies on one's own when one is a relatively small player surrounded by large players. It will place us in a very circumscribed position.
Members of the Committee drew attention to the fact that sterling is high at the moment, and indeed it is. The Swiss franc is also high, to take another non-participating currency. Whether it is in our interests that, as a result of what is happening in the putative "euroland", our currency should be driven so high, is
338
another matter. Whether we will find, when EMU goes ahead and we are not in it, that the movement of sterling—which will be rather like a rowing boat in the wash of a much bigger vessel—is to our advantage, one can doubt. But being in the wash of a much larger vessel is not a position of independence. It is indeed a rather rough and difficult position to be in. So the choice is not between being independent out and being dependent in; the choice is between two different forms of involvement with one's neighbouring countries.
At the end of the day, whatever doubts one may have about whether it is wise of our partners to press ahead with EMU now and in the present form and whether it would not have been better for them to do so at some future date, the fact of the matter is that since we are so bound up with them, will we have a greater ability to influence the environment in which we live and to influence the environment in which we have to make policy if we are in or if we are out? I feel that national interests would be best served in the circumstances that have arisen by going in because I feel that this country would in those circumstances have a greater capacity to influence the environment in which it lives and the environment in which it has to make policy and that that would be to the benefit of the British economy and to the benefit of the people who work in the British economy.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: The noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, who is an expert in these matters and a former Commissioner, talked about being uncomfortable in the wash of this great ship. But it will be considerably more uncomfortable if this great ship hits the rocks and sinks. That, I am sure he will agree, is a distinct possibility.
I was very pleased to add my name to this amendment which was moved by my noble friend Lord Shore. The Committee listened to him with great interest. I listened with great interest in relation to the fines of up to 0.5 per cent. which could be levied on countries which did not meet the Maastricht criteria. That a very important matter. It was raised at the time of our discussions on the Maastricht Treaty and, indeed, I discussed it myself. My noble friend Lord Grenfell said that this is a stick that will never be used. I took down his words and that is what he appeared to say.
Lord Grenfell: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I did not say that it would never be used.I said that it was the hope that it would never be used. But the fact that it can be used remains there.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: So in actual fact it is a very considerable threat to the countries of the European Union. It is a real threat. At the time of the Maastricht discussions I said that if a country that was having difficulties and could not meet the criteria was then fined, its position would be made even worse. It would go on being fined, fined and fined until presumably its economy collapsed. That of course would be complete and utter nonsense. Indeed, as far as this country is

339
concerned, it would he quite a considerable amount of money that we would pay—up to £3,500 million a year, or at least so long as we did not meet the criteria.
There is another problem. What if Parliament does not want to pay? Let us suppose Parliament says to the Government, "They have fined you but we are not going to raise the money for you to pay the fine". What will happen then? Will the European Commission send in the jack boots? What will happen? The system is not a good one and it is one which I regret.
The noble Lord, Lord Taverne, who for very good reasons has had to leave us, seemed to say that arguing against EMU was not quite right; that we are in the European Union and in it for a long period of time, and so what do we keep arguing about? But the fact is that in 1975, when we had a referendum on whether we should remain in Europe, EMU was ruled out. The Government themselves came forward and said there was a danger that we would have economic and monetary union but that they had negotiated it away because it would do damage to our economy and particularly to employment. It was ruled out, and so it is perfectly legitimate for people to argue that it should not be ruled in, not at least at this stage and until there has been another referendum.
We are told that we should not interfere with other people and that if they want to go in, let them go in. But at Maastricht we agreed a set of criteria on which they should go in and on which the economic and monetary union third stage together with a single currency should go ahead. Those criteria were very tough. If noble Lords will remember, everyone was talking tough at that time; the euro was going to be at least as strong as the deutschmark. Am I right, or am I wrong? Of course I am right. Everyone who has argued the point will know that. But what do we find? When we come to the 1lth hour, a few weeks, as my noble friend says, before the decisions as to who is going to join are about to be made, what do we find? We find that the Maastricht criteria are not being adhered to and that there has been a lot of creative accounting. The French were able to sell their telecommunications system, the Italians have raised a one-off tax and the German Government wanted the Bundesbank to hand over its loot in order that they could meet the criteria. So there are lots of arguments as to why not only this country but other countries should not rush into it.
The noble Lord, Lord Howell, was right to urge caution. He made the point that it could be advantageous for us to remain out. So far, I have not heard the arguments made in favour of us going in at the first stage which would convince me that we should go in at this stage. My noble friend Lord Randall, who is not in his place, said that Parliament would look absurd if we passed this amendment. Parliament never looks absurd when it considers very closely and for a long time what it is doing. That is what Parliament is here for. If it is not in the country's interests that we should adopt the first stage of EMU and a single currency, then Parliament is the place where it should be discussed and Parliament should make the final decision together with the people of this country.
340
My noble friend talked about stability. Everyone is talking about stability. But at the same time everyone is talking about markets. The Labour Party is now market based. I always thought that the prime factor about markets was their instability. The very notion of having a stable market nullifies the term. A market is where a willing seller sells to a willing buyer at the price the market will bear at that time. So there is no stability. I wish people would not talk about it when we are talking about markets.
We had some sort of stability with the gold standard way back in the dim and distant past. It has been forgotten that the gold standard was a rigid standard—a single currency if you like—and it caused economies to collapse throughout the world. Economies collapsed in this country, Germany and the United States, and that probably brought Hitler to power. Then there was the Bretton Woods agreement just after the war. That was supposed to bring stability of currencies. That agreement collapsed because it was unsustainable, because money is part of the market force as is everything else.
Then we had the ERM. The very same people who are now urging us into a single currency were the very ones who urged us into the ERM, with disastrous consequences for this country in the loss of jobs and businesses. So there are plenty of precedents that we should observe before we jump too quickly into a single currency.
Many who express doubts about EMU are described as ignoramuses. In fact, someone said that we were barking mad. I have been in politics a long time and I have a thick enough skin to absorb such barbs as that. So often in this matter of Europe the truth is stood on its head. It seems to me that those who wish to embark on an experiment which has never been tried before in history and which, if it fails, will cause economic and financial disaster not only in Europe, but throughout the world, are the real crazies. Let us make no mistake: it is an experiment and it could be a very dangerous one.
In my view, it will undermine Britain as a sovereign state because it abandons our currency and allows a foreign conglomerate to decide by majority voting our monetary and economic policy and because it is a policy which is irrevocable. The Maastricht treaty makes it perfectly clear that the policy is irrevocable and because of that it undermines the very basis of the British constitution. Indeed, if anyone had advocated that not so long ago, they would probably have been detained at Her Majesty's pleasure under Regulation 18B.
Yet, despite all those things, the Chancellor says that there is no constitutional bar to our going into a single currency. But I believe that there is such a bar and that is because Maastricht says that the change is irrevocable. It undermines the very basis of our constitution that one Parliament may not bind its successor.
I believe that the present squeeze on public expenditure has not so much to do with the domestic financial situation and economic position. It is not because we are short of money. In fact, money has been coming in faster than ever before, as far as one can see. The present squeeze is to do with meeting the

341
convergence criteria for entry into a single currency. Single mothers, pensioners and others should bear that in mind.
The economic circumstances within the countries of Europe are so different that without a financial transfer mechanism through centralised taxing, which would be redistributive, EMU is bound to fail. It can do no other than fail. If we are prepared to tax and have a central distributive system, it might succeed, but if we do not have that, it is bound to fail because there will be no opportunity for the poorer countries, or those within the different cyclical economic positions, to adjust their currencies to take account of the situation. Therefore, those countries will stagnate, falling deeper and deeper into depression and then what will people do? They will not in the streets because there is no mechanism to do other than that.
Unemployment rates are already dangerously high in many parts of Europe, including Germany, France and Spain. If monetary policy were tightened, those countries would find themselves in an even worse position. What suits one country does not suit another. If we have a rigid system without redistribution, then only disaster can follow.
I believe that far from going further into EMU, it would be better for us to co-operate with a much wider range of countries. We have our own Commonwealth. There is the United States and Canada and the whole wide world. Growth rates show quite clearly that Europe is stagnating while the United States and the United Kingdom itself are having higher growth rates than the rest of Europe.
Therefore, I believe that this amendment has been useful in providing the opportunity for the Committee further to discuss this matter. I sincerely hope that there will be other opportunities to discuss it because I believe that at this stage we should move with less haste than some of the countries of Europe want us to. We shall do far better to consider the matter at much greater leisure.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: There has been a common assumption running through the debate this evening in this Committee. It runs through the debate in the country at large. It is to the effect that we have an opt-out from EMU. So I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shore, for tabling this amendment and for moving it so ably. It allows me the opportunity to explain to the Committee and to the Government why, if EMU survives and if we stay in the European Union, we do not in fact have such an opt-out.
It is not surprising that this assumption is so widely held because the previous government claimed to have secured such an opt-out at Maastricht when they had not done so. However, I hope that the present Labour Government will not continue to pretend to the British people that we do indeed have an escape available from this ill-fated project when, unless it collapses, we do not.
I can only assume that the new Labour Government are acting in ignorance and that they will wish to put the matter straight before they allow the Treaty of
342
Amsterdam to be ratified. The resulting negotiation would also afford the other European countries one last chance of avoiding the impending folly of EMU. I really hope that it is not too late for that.
In order to explain what I have just said, I fear that I must weary the Committee by descending into the detail of the treaty and placing on the record some of its depressing euro-speak. But the facts are very simple. Our so-called opt-out is contained in Protocol 25, as it has been renumbered at Amsterdam. Under paragraphs 3 to 9 of that protocol, a number of articles in the treaty will not apply to the United Kingdom if we continue to say that we do not want to move to the third and final stage of EMU. In particular, paragraph 8 of Protocol 25 lists 24 articles of the Protocol on the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank which will not apply to the UK if we do not want to be full members of EMU. We are also spared other articles by Protocol 25.
However, at least six articles have been left in the treaty which have not been included in Protocol 25, so they still apply to us, even if we continue to want to opt out. Indeed, one only has to put on a wet towel and, after a good night's sleep, examine paragraph 5 of Article 1, which this amendment wisely seeks to exclude from the treaty, to see that this is likely to be so.
Extracting the relevant bits of paragraph 5, merely in order to spare your Lordships too much ennui from exposure to Euro-speak, that paragraph ordains as follows:
"The Union"—
of which we remain part—
"shall set itself the following objectives—to promote economic … progress … and to achieve balanced … development, … through the strengthening of economic … cohesion and through the establishment of economic and monetary union"—
that is, of course, our old friend EMU—
"ultimately including a single currency in accordance with the provisions of this Treaty".
Those not well versed in the malice of Euro-land might be tempted to think that there was no problem here that the provisions of the treaty give us an opt-out, and so none of the rest of paragraph 5 will apply to us. But an examination of the rest of the treaty reveals the other five articles, not included in our opt-out, require us to run our economy on strictly communautaire lines, and at least two of them eventually commit us to EMU itself. If we do not do so, Articles 226 to 229 of the treaty allow us to be taken to the Luxembourg Court for unlimited fines.
Before quoting to your Lordships the very minimum parts of the articles necessary for an understanding of this matter, I shall give your Lordships just one example of the way in which the quicksand of the Treaty of Rome, into which we have so foolishly strayed, actually works. Your Lordships will recall that the previous Conservative Government claimed to have won two opt-outs from the Maastricht Treaty. One was from EMU, which we are discussing now, and the other was from the social chapter. Some of us spent many hours in your Lordships' House in 1993 trying to persuade that government not to ratify that treaty, but to no avail.

343
I know that the present Government have unfortunately now ratified the social chapter, but it is very instructive as to how our so called opt-out from EMU is likely to stand up in future, if we look back and see what happened to our opt-out from the social chapter.
As your Lordships will recall, our European partners got round that opt-out by bringing various harmonising social measures against us under other articles which are subject to the qualified majority vote and which we had accepted; for example, one measure, the Working Time Directive (or the "48-hour week" as it became known colloquially) was brought against us under the single market legislation.
This so surprised the Government that they appealed against its imposition to that engine of the treaty, the Luxembourg Court of so-called Justice. To give your Lordships the full flavour of the British Government's reaction to the Court's inevitable ruling against us, I can do no better than read your Lordships the letter sent on 12th November 1996 by the Prime Minister, my right honourable friend Mr. John Major, to M. Jacques Santer, the President of the European Commission. I quote:
"Dear Jacques,

ARTICLE 118A OF THE TREATY ESTABLISHING THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY
My intention in agreeing to the Protocol on Social Policy at Maastricht was to ensure that social legislation which placed unnecessary burdens on businesses and damaged competitiveness could not be imposed on the United Kingdom. The other Heads of State and Government also agreed that arrangement. without which there would have been no agreement at Maastricht"—
I am sorry, it reads,
"no agreement at all at Maastricht".
It could not be clearer than that. Mr. Major continued:
"However, in its judgement today, the European Court of Justice has ruled that the scope of Article 118a is much broader than the United Kingdom envisaged when the article was originally agreed, as part of the Single European Act. This appears to mean that legislation which the United Kingdom had expected would be dealt with under the Protocol can in fact be adopted under Article 118a.
That is contrary to the clear and express wishes of the United Kingdom Government, and goes directly counter to the spirit of what we agreed at Maastricht. It is unacceptable and must be remedied.
The United Kingdom will therefore table amendments in the Intergovernmental Conference to restore the position to that which the United Kingdom Government intended following the Maastricht agreement. Those amendments will be aimed at both ensuring that Article 118a cannot in future be used in ways contrary to the United Kingdom's expectation, and dealing with the specific problem of the Working Time Directive.
I attach the utmost importance to these amendments and I shall insist that they form part of the outcome of the Intergovernmental Conference. I do not see how new agreements can be reached if earlier agreements are being undermined.
Meanwhile, I urge the Commission to refrain from making proposals under Article I I8a which properly belong under the other Member States' Agreement on Social Policy.
344
I am sending copies of this letter to Heads of State or Government of European Union Member States.
Yours sincerely,
John Major".
Well, as your Lordships will be aware, the previous government failed to make any headway towards ensuring what they regarded as an honest interpretation of the treaty, and the saga was laid to rest when they lost the general election in May last year. Labour promptly signed the social chapter as part of its charm offensive in Brussels, and we have yet to see how much good or bad it will do us.
Be that as it may, this vignette is very helpful to an understanding as to whether we really do have an opt-out from EMU, especially when we come to consider the other five articles which remain in the treaty, to which I referred earlier. Again, to spare your Lordships as much pain from Euro-speak as possible, I shall extract the more relevant parts, but one really should read all of the articles concerned to appreciate their full meaning.
So, first, we have the old Article C, now Article 3, and I quote,
"The Union shall in particular ensure the consistency of its external activities as a whole in the context of its external relations, security, economic and development policies".
Well, one might think that there is perhaps not too much to worry about there, just a spot of forced economic collaboration in the EU's external activities, whatever the Luxembourg Court may eventually decide those to be.
But the plot thickens. We come to the big one, which is Article 2. I quote,
"The Community shall have as its task, by establishing a common market and an economic and monetary union x2026;to promote throughout the Community a harmonious and balanced development of economic activities, sustainable and non-inflationary growth respecting the environment, a high degree of convergence of economic performance, a high level of employment and of social protection, the raising of the standard of living and quality of life, and economic and social cohesion and solidarity among Member States".
My three remaining articles clarify and add weight to Article 2. First, there is Article 4, which includes the following words:
"For the purposes set out in Article 2, the activities of the Member States and the Community shall include … the adoption of an economic policy which is based on the close co-ordination of Member States economic policies, on the internal market and on the definition of common objectives".
Then there is Article 98 which decrees, and I quote:
"Member States shall conduct their economic policies with a view to contributing to the achievement of the objectives of the Community, as defined in Article 2".
Lastly, there is Article 99, which is similarly clear. It goes as follows:
"Member States shall regard their economic policies as a matter of common concern and shall co-ordinate them within the Council, in accordance with the provisions of Article 98".
Now, it seems to me that the main reason for the Government to avail themselves of what they regard as their predecessor's opt-out from EMU is because they too do not yet wish to join EMU, and therefore, for instance, to pool our interest rate with that of EMU's

345
participants. In other words, the reason for staying out of EMU is so that we can continue to run our economy ourselves, and the presumption must be that we hope to be able to do so more successfully than if we joined EMU. But what if we do just that? What if our economy remains more successful than those in the EMU zone? What if our unemployment stays lower than theirs? What if our unemployment goes on down and theirs goes on up? What if we wish to pursue different policies on taxation and social matters (pace the Social Chapter)? What if sterling continues to perform alongside the US dollar and the yen but the euro weakens, perhaps to the point of collapse? What, in short, if staying out turns out to be a thoroughly good deal for us and EMU turns out to be most uncomfortable for its participants but manages to survive because of the political will behind it?
Articles 226 to 229 of the treaty (with the wording of which your Lordships will be pleased to hear I shall not weary the Committee) allow us to be taken for unlimited fines to the Luxembourg Court if either the Commission or one other member state considers that we have failed to fulfil an obligation under the treaty.
I would have thought that the clauses that I have just identified place the clearest possible obligation on us to run our economy on strictly communautaire lines at least. So, it does not take a great leap of imagination, if we prosper by staying out, to see us being taken to the Luxembourg Court for unlimited fines for such anti-communautaire crimes as, for instance, "exporting unemployment", "unfair taxation" or—perhaps a better one—"competitive devaluation". Nor does it take much imagination, especially in view of the saga of our opt-out from the social chapter, to foresee how the Luxembourg Court will behave.
Our economy may already have been more constrained than most people realise. To clarify this doubt, could I put one question to the Minister about the stability pact into which the previous government entered on our behalf? Although I appreciate that the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time, my right honourable friend Mr. Kenneth Clarke, may have wanted to join the pact in any case given his well known affection for the whole European adventure including EMU, can I ask the Minister whether the UK could have stayed out of that pact if it had wanted to do so, or would the clauses that I have just mentioned and perhaps others, and the fact that we are committed to stages 1 and 2 of EMU, have been enough to force us to join that pact anyway? I would be most grateful if the Minister could enlighten us on this point when he comes to reply.
I also hope, in a rather forlorn sort of way, that the Government will accept this amendment for the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Shore, and others who support it, and also for the reasons I have given above, and no doubt many other good reasons about which we shall be hearing from other noble Lords. If the Government were able to do so, the signatories to the Amsterdam Treaty would be forced back to the negotiating table and Europe might have one last chance of avoiding the impending catastrophe which is EMU.
If this does not happen—I speak as a good European with friends and business associates in every European country—I fear that the future is bleak indeed.
6 p.m.
Lord Peston: I assure my noble friend, and indeed other noble Lords, that I do not regard him as barking mad. I do not think that the Committee wishes the subject of asperity of speech to be raised a second time this week, but in a slightly choleric mood perhaps I may return to Amendment No. 1. I am sure that the noble Lord in moving that amendment—I am sorry that he is not now in his seat—did so with the best of intentions, but the Committee appears to have interpreted what was said then as opening the gates under the rubric of this Bill to discuss any subject it likes as long as the word "Europe" appears in it. To take an obvious example, if I wished to table an amendment that the World Cup in 2006 rightly belongs to our country rather than our European partners in Germany on the basis of the way that the Committee is currently proceeding I believe that that would be an acceptable amendment. Many noble Lords would rather be debating that than the present rather peculiar amendment.
Cholerically, two matters trouble me. First, I believe that we should debate the Bill before us. We have the highest ratio of amendments to size of Bill that I have seen in all my years in this Chamber. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, promised us many more amendments. That is bad enough. Secondly, we have two amendments grouped, neither of which has been spoken to by the people in whose names those amendments appear. Not a word has been said about Amendment No. 27. I do not intend to speak to it either, although it is not uninteresting. Even in relation to Amendment No. 1, the only noble Lord who spoke to Amendment No. 2 was the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, who tried to interpret the amendment. In introducing the amendment, my noble friend did not offer any explanation of it. No one else has offered any explanation from that moment to this. I hope that this does not set a precedent for how we shall proceed with this Bill. I fervently hope that my noble friends on the Front Bench have no intention of extending the number of days to discuss this little Bill beyond those to which we are already committed. Those are my acerbic remarks and now sweetness and light will follow.
My general position has been that, starting from scratch, the economics of EMU have always been well balanced. I have great respect for those who are doubtful, even though I believe that on balance the case is better made for entry, but I have never been apocalyptic on this matter. However, starting from scratch is not a decision that confronts this country at the moment. As the noble Lord. Lord Howell of Guildford, has pointed out, the question at the present time is what we should do given that it will go ahead. If it were my choice—it is not—I would go in at this stage. I can well understand why my right honourable friend the Prime Minister feels that that is not possible, but I am sorry that we have reached such a position. As someone who is proud of the greatness of our country, to wait and see does not inspire me with the notion that

347
we are terribly courageous. I wish we were. But there is no point in arguing the point, because it will not happen. What happens in due course depends on the practicalities. However, I am concerned that because of that the people of our country are very doubtful and bewildered. Until our leaders to whom the public listen—I do not include myself among them—speak out in favour of it, the people of this country will remain bewildered and doubtful. I do not believe that is good, certainly not as we enter the next millennium.
Having said that, I should like to deal with one or two technical matters. Noble Lords have referred to optimum currency areas. This always fills me with despair. It is the standard comment. Elementary economics is turned into serious policy-making in ways which suggest that those who do it have not quite grasped what the subject is all about. I take an obvious example. Almost all the evidence of which I am Aware shows that the United States of America is not an optimum currency area. When I taught in that country, one of the favourite exam questions to be set was whether it would be advantageous for West Virginia, which at that time had serious economic difficulties, to have its own currency so that it could devalue. One was easily able to demonstrate that the incredibly successful United States—perhaps the most successful economy in the history of the world—was not an optimum currency area. The moment one understands that, one realises how preposterous are the economists as against people who live in the real world. I am not even convinced that the United Kingdom is an optimum currency area, or has been for a long period of time. I utter a word of warning in relation to those who refer to an optimum currency area against EMU.
I was very puzzled by one matter referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford. He thought that our interest rates were higher than those of the Germans as part of the present cyclical position. But he well knows that our interest rates have been higher than those of the Germans for 17 of the past 18 years. It is impossible that our interest rates should be higher than those of the Germans because of the present cyclical position. Our interest rates are higher than the Germans' because of the failure of our monetary policy, acting alone for the past couple of decades, as our central bank is a good deal less credible than the Bundesbank, not least with regard to inflation, but also with regard to other matters.
Perhaps I might put to the Committee the point which I have put before paradoxically: my judgment is that the one country that would benefit from EMU is our own. The real puzzle is why the Germans think that they would benefit, but that is their problem, it is not mine. The one country in terms of the history of policy that should be grasping the chance of going into EMU is ours.
On convergence, much of the earlier debate was about financial convergence, about which my noble friend Lord Grenfell spoke. My view is that financial convergence is sensible. The 3 per cent. criterion in terms of average budgets over the cycle makes good sense, and I speak as a Keynesian economist. It is not saying a zero budget; it is referring to the cycle. I should
348
have thought that that was not a bad policy, broadly speaking. I am not generally so certain about the 60 per cent., but that is another matter.
Members of the Committee have referred to real convergence. Real convergence is an entirely different matter. I have to say two things about that. First, if real convergence is what is required, it is just not possible. There is no real convergence between the individual states of the USA. I doubt whether there is any real convergence between the individual parts of the German Federal Republic. Real convergence is not only impossible; for anyone who has any knowledge of the market economy, it is not even desirable. The whole point of a market economy is that it is dynamic and does not become stultified into something one would call real convergence. I hope that those Members of the Committee, whom I respect, who are doubtful about EMU do not go down that path, because I do not believe it makes any economic sense whatsoever.
We should not study the European Union and its economic policies as if somehow, as a result of this, they will be set in stone. We are doing something that I hope will last for a long time. We will learn from experience of what is happening in Europe. I do not doubt—I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, is right—that the enterprise will run into difficulties. I have never known anything happening in the economy that did not run into difficulties. The question is whether those involved in taking decisions will be capable of learning from experience. Will they, on the basis of economic and monetary union, be capable of building upon it and developing methods which will deal with the problems that arise? I have no doubt that there will be regional problems and regional unemployment problems.
One of the matters that troubles me about the unemployment in our country is that we do not get rioting in the streets. I wish that we did have a bit of rioting in the streets so that politicians might be less anxious to create unemployment. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, was right in what he said about his noble friends. He should know that I, at least, was not happy to pay the unemployment price of getting down inflation, for obvious reasons: I did not pay. I have never been a believer in advocating others to pay the costs when I get the benefit.
I do not believe for one moment that as Europe advances the relevant decision makers, whom I regard as still and continuing to be national leaders, will behave in the foolhardy, straitjacket way that the opponents of this new development have said that they will. One noble Lord—either the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, or my noble friend Lord Stoddart of Swindon, with whom I always want to agree—said that he hoped to have a great many more debates of this kind. I end by saying that I hope we do not.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Beloff: Perhaps after that intervention by an economist, with the typical irresponsibility of that profession, I can bring the Committee back to considering the facts that we are discussing. One thing

349
that has struck me about previous speeches, especially those made by my noble friend Lord Tugendhat and the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, has been that there is this picture of a Europe—if you like 11 countries of Europe—determined on creating economic and monetary union, and about to achieve that within, I agree, a matter of weeks.
The fact that that may come about in a matter of weeks should not disguise what seems to me the most neglected part of the discussion hitherto, which is the fact that none of the 11 countries is doing it for the same reason or approaching it in the same frame of mind. There are exceptions. If nothing like this had come about, it is conceivable that the Netherlands, with its position as the output point for German industry, might have felt that it was happy having the same currency.
If we go outside the narrowest core, we find different approaches, and those are manifest to us through the discussions that go on. After all, we learn from the Bundesbank and various German statesmen that the ideal for which they are aiming is a European monetary system, controlled by a European bank which would be as like the Bundesbank as possible, and determined to make the curtailing of inflation its main purpose and objective.
On the other hand, the French—without a Franco-German combination, we should not be looking at a European Union at all—look at it differently. They have consistently said that there must be political input into these discussions, and even so great a Euro-enthusiast as the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, admits that the stability pact will operate only under certain political controls; it will not be automatic.
They have not, as far as I know, been able to agree on who should hold the important post of president of this new bank, as though there were a contest in this country as to whether Mr. Eddie George, with his well-known opinion on various economic matters, or some other person, holding totally different views, should occupy the post at the Bank of England.
Should not we at least agree that it is a system which is constructed by different countries, for different reasons, with different measures of popular consent? It is well known, and has been referred to by various speakers, that a test of public opinion in, let us say, Germany will produce a negative, and a test of public opinion in Italy will produce an enthusiastic positive. Should not that be a warning?
My noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford referred to the case of Ireland, which has hitherto, of course, done very well out of being a sort of pensioner of the European Union, and obviously is enthusiastic for further immersion into that system. But what will happen if Ireland goes in and the UK stays out, as a great deal of Irish trade, and Irish economic relations, are with this country? They will be part of a euro which is likely, according to many respectable economists—perhaps not the noble Lord, Lord Peston—to be a rather weak currency, while it looks as though sterling will continue to be a rather strong currency. So they will find
350
themselves in a position which they do not share with other countries for which the UK is not of particular importance as an economic partner.
We must recollect that the idea of popular participation in decision, which some noble Lords seem to believe would be important because they want the country to be enlightened, is not and cannot be a feature in many European countries. I very much doubt whether walking around the streets of Seville or Granada one will find anyone who can explain in detail what is meant by a single European currency. In most countries, as with the other aspects of this European venture, a limited elite are enthusiastic since they occupy positions of power in government and in the economy and they see this as a way of increasing their positions of power.
It is not therefore a very hopeful prospect. We heard the metaphor about a train rushing along and we were told, "You cannot stop the train". I agree that we probably cannot stop the train; folly is endemic in the human condition. All I worry about is the maiden who is strapped to the sleepers—this country—and I should like to detach her. That is the only consideration which I believe should influence us. What worries me is that we have deciding this matter for our country a Chancellor of the Exchequer who takes the extraordinary view that politics is one thing and economics is another; that you can settle something on what he calls "purely economic criteria". I do not believe that Adam Smith would have had much sympathy with that point of view and therefore I worry for our maiden.
Lord Grantley: My Lords, it is only rarely that I seek to inflict my views on your Lordships' House. I am tempted to do so on this occasion owing to the quite extraordinary nature of the debate. In all other member states of the European Union the governments put forward the argument for joining the EMU as expressly political. In their minds, there is no pretence that one should join the EMU for purely economic reasons. For some reason, the United Kingdom appears to be the only member state in which the political aspect of EMU is ignored and arguments are put forward for purely economic reasons. Actually, so far as I can see, they are put forward for no reasons at all.
In today's debate, it has been remarkable how few arguments have been advanced for the idea that the economy of the United Kingdom will benefit through membership of the EMU. The nearest suggestion I heard came from the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that in the past economic policy in the United Kingdom, in particular monetary policy, was not well conducted, whereas in other European countries such policy has been better conducted. The noble Lord is right in saying so.
However, that is not an argument for saying that that relative comparison is bound to endure for the future. On the contrary, we see significant changes in the conduct of economic policy, specifically monetary policy, in this country as in other European countries. We in the United Kingdom are now enjoying the benefits of the lowest long-term interest rates on gilts for many a year, reflecting the fact that our economic policy is being well conducted. I congratulate Her

351
Majesty's Government on their role in this matter. It is due to the Government's abandonment of socialism in its economic form that we are currently enjoying such a high quality of economic, and specifically monetary, policy. There is no reason for pessimism or a belief that in the future if we stay out of EMU our economic policy will necessarily be conducted worse than that of the European Union as a whole.
However, because we are reluctant to acknowledge that the main motivation for EMU is the desire on the part of other member states to have a political union, its proponents in this country are forced to produce an ever increasingly fantastic series of assertions as to why it is in our interests to join. One of the assertions made by a speaker earlier today was that if the amendment were passed the markets would punish us. The situation happens to be precisely the opposite. Whenever during the past 12 months the Government looked as though they were tending towards joining the EMU, sterling fell in relation to other currencies. At moments when it looked as though the Government were backing off joining the EMU, sterling rose. That shows that the markets believe that sterling is a safe haven in comparison with a relatively weak euro. Generally, the markets believe that the euro will not work, and I very much share that opinion.
The other assertion which I thought was quite extraordinary was that the economies of the other member states of the European Union are converging as demonstrated by the cases which they put forward recently to suggest that they have all satisfied the Maastricht criteria. I do not know whether I am living in a different world, but what I thought was particularly noticeable about the cases which the countries recently advanced was that for the most part they were based on fudge. We heard fudge from the Germans, fudge from the French and fudge from the Italians—and they are only the best known instances. It is deplorable that the countries were able to go to the European Commission in advance in order to obtain pre-clearance of the basis upon which they fudged their figures.
That has been exposed most noticeably by the directors of the Bundesbank in relation to the fudge by Germany. If anyone is entitled to be listened to with credibility on the subject of the economic consequences of EMU, I suggest that it would be the directors, and in particular the former directors, of the Bundesbank. When it comes to talking about sound money, they have more credibility than any other set of authorities within Europe. We know very well that the opinion of the members of the Bundesbank board is that from an economic standpoint EMU would be a disaster.
Surely, the case against our joining the EMU is simple. It is that we would forgo the ability to set interest rates with reference to our own conditions. To be able to do that is merely one of the aspects of political independence. It is a pearl of great price. Why should we throw away that pearl of great price without any obvious reason for doing so? The noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, introduced a red herring by saying that in today's global economy no country can operate economically independently of others. That is true, but the analogy is not precise. What we ought to have for
352
ourselves is the same degree of independence to set our own monetary policy with reference to our own conditions as, for example, the authorities of Switzerland have in setting interest rates to suit Swiss conditions or as the authorities of Singapore have in setting monetary policy to suit the interests of Singapore. Switzerland and Singapore happen to be relatively small countries, but the noble Lord's suggestion that small countries find it difficult to set suitable monetary policies to suit their own purposes is destroyed by the example of those small and successful countries which have set monetary policies to suit their own interests. There is no reason why we should not do the same.
If we were to join the EMU we would find that it would be the merest coincidence if the interest rates referrable to the European Union as a whole were appropriate for ourselves. It is almost certain that we would find that interest rates would be either too high or too low. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, mentioned the dangers for individual member states finding that the interest rates applicable to them post EMU are too high or too low. In the case of interest rates being too low there would be boom followed by bust and in the case of interest rates being too high there would be recession, followed by depression, followed by the possibility of a great deal worse.
I wish I were a prophet. I wish I could see through to what will be the ultimate consequences of EMU going ahead. But I believe that the apocalyptic scenario is not necessarily to be dismissed. I cannot see the stability pact working. The idea is fantastic that, when one is in a situation of depression, when one cannot keep the fiscal deficit below a stated proportion of GDP, then one will have to pay fines. By definition, in a state of depression one's fiscal deficit will be on the increase and one will need to reduce taxes to take up the strain of not having an independent monetary policy to suit one's own conditions.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Grenfell: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way, but I do not know whether, by chance, he had in mind some remarks I made earlier. Once again, I should like to emphasise that there is no question of fines being imposed on a country which has gone deeply into depression—asymmetric shocks possibly produced by external factors. To me a deep depression would mean a loss of about 2 per cent., if not more, of output. It just will not happen. There will not be fines.
Lord Grantley: I sincerely hope that the noble Lord is right. But I wonder whether there are any circumstances under which any member state in future will consent to paying a fine as required by the conditions of the stability pact. To me, it seems to be politically unreal. I know that the noble Lord has vast experience in those matters of the political and diplomatic realities or otherwise. But to my mind, it simply lacks credibility and I believe that the markets share that view.

353
I conclude by saying that if I were Her Majesty's Government, I should wish to make a commitment that we would never ever join EMU because it is completely contrary to both our political and economic interests. For that reason, I support the amendment.
Lord Ashbourne: I rise to support these amendments moved so ably and cogently by the noble Lord, Lord Shore of Stepney. I am not an economist and I shall not detain the Committee long. I wish to make one point and it is in relation to what I shall describe as the "pensions bombshell" or, put another way, what the House of Commons Social Security Committee, under the chairmanship of the right honourable Member for Birkenhead, Mr. Frank Field, described as the "pensions timebomb".
The UK has a massive private pension fund of £;600 billion, more than the combined total of all the other member states. In round figures, in the UK our pensions liabilities represent 19 per cent. of GDP; in France, they represent 98 per cent. of GDP; in Italy, they represent 113 per cent. of GDP; and in Germany, they represent 139 per cent. of GDP. A single currency will result in harmonisation of all taxes in the EU, so European Union pensions are likely to cost the UK taxpayer no less than £;1.2 trillion, increasing our national debt from £;5,000 per head of population to £;30,000 per head of population.
Jacques Delors has declared that,
"with a single currency, all members of EMU would become liable for debts of any single country of that union".
Continental politicians seem to understand that, but we must ask whether Her Majesty's Government understand it. I ask the noble Baroness who is to reply on behalf of the Government whether she will explain to the Committee in the clearest possible terms how the Government intend to fund that enormous pensions deficit.
Lord Bruce of Donington: It is always a pleasure to follow the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Ashbourne, with regard to convergence. Although I propose to touch on that matter lightly at a later stage, it is already clear—and I trust that my noble friend Lord Peston has taken note of it—that some rather creative accounting has been adopted by some of the member states in order to attain the required convergence criteria as laid down in the Maastricht treaty.
Be that as it may, I observed at an earlier stage in the debate that my noble friend Lord Randall suggested that this debate was redundant anyway; that there was no point in holding it; that the matter had been resolved already by the signature of the treaty itself; and he could not see what all the fuss was about. Perhaps after he has been in the House a little longer he will be aware of the traditional purpose of this House, which is, among other things, to give the other place the opportunity to think again about certain controversial matters.
It has been agreed generally in both Houses that your Lordships' House has frequently achieved an admirable purpose in securing that. According to our parliamentary
354
practice in this country, the assent of the other place and the assent of this House is required before a treaty is ratified. The treaty has not yet been ratified. I do not see any reason why we should shorten our parliamentary procedures in order to avoid a debate on it.
Perhaps a little unusually I propose to adopt the advice which this House very often gives to another place; to suggest that everybody thinks again about this, nothing more and nothing less. Matters are not quite as clear as they sometimes appear from the utterances of the more forthright advocates. This is one of those cases. I must plead guilty to not being backward in stating my views with some frankness. I believe that that is all to the good of Parliament.
Indeed, this discussion that we are holding this afternoon is not taking place in a vacuum. It is taking place within a current climate of opinion in our country. The matters that we are discussing receive the attention occasionally of the BBC and sometimes of the various broadsheets, yea even unto the Sun. Therefore, we are not talking about the whole question within a vacuum.
I venture to suggest to the Committee that perhaps there are some delusions about. They have been due mainly to people talking in terms of generalities. Such picturesque terms have been used as "missing the bus", "being late for the train", "being not at the core of Europe" and other such quite meaningless observations that have no relevance at all to what is in fact happening in the real world.
I suggest that by a combination of those factors and the massive propaganda that has been forthcoming, not entirely without the financial aid provided by the European Commission itself, there are three illusions or delusions that are current. The first delusion is the nature of the present European system, the EEC system itself. The second delusion is that it can work. The third delusion is that it is bound to work in the future because it could not possibly be a failure. Those views are expressed in very general terms.
I should like to examine each of them as impartially as I can—and there is some doubt about that, I am well aware. But what is the EEC system at the moment? Let us consider its characteristics. It is, of course, a competitive economy in general terms throughout the various countries in Europe and in varying degrees. But there is substantial deviation from that in the CAP itself, which propounds an economic method of conducting our farming affairs which is totally at variance with the basic concept of competition. Indeed, ever since 1975, when I first joined the European Parliament, its total reform has been under discussion. It is nearly a quarter of a century since everyone who articulated on it agreed that the CAP was a complete disaster.
What then is the system? It is simply that. But the other characteristic of the system is that its component parts, in terms of its institutions, are not accountable to anyone. The European Commission is not accountable to anyone. I have no doubt that it has many admirable people working in it; and, indeed, some of them are known to me. Some of them are distinguished; some of them are less distinguished. I would not presume to try to differentiate between any of them personally.

355
However, I invite Members of the Committee to consider that those organisations are not necessarily the last word in economic, financial or business affairs. I have not heard anyone say that they have any special claim to our affections on that ground. They are not accountable to anyone. Yet they are the principal engine of the policies. They are the principal authors and instigators of the various treaties that we are considering. But what special qualifications do they have for that? To whom are they accountable? Where is democracy?
I am a little old fashioned in that in my earlier political days, from 1935 onwards, I was a great believer in democracy—I still am. However, I do not see anything democratic there. I can see bureaucracy and it is clear that the bureaucracy has become enormously powerful. Nor can the possibility be excluded—I put it at its mildest—that they may possibly be considering their own interests, their own futures and their own professions rather than of necessity the welfare of the people whom they are seeking to influence.
The same applies to the European Central Bank. It is appointed; it is not responsible to anyone. There is no democracy there. The same also applies to the other institutions. There is the European Parliament itself. What claim do those involved have to be democratic other than having one Member of Parliament per half a million electors, most of whom they will never see? Certainly they have no claim in the ordinary sense to be "representative" as we understand the term. So there is a democratic deficit right from the beginning.
Lest it be said that the Council of Ministers is democratic, I should point out that it has no opportunity to be so. It can act only on the proposals coming from the Commission. That is enshrined in every presidential declaration. Every meeting of Ministers issues a communiqué afterwards. The democratic viability and the accountability of these very powerful organisations does not seem to be called into account.
I respectfully suggest to the Committee that you cannot try to determine policy downwards, without any consultation with people. Ultimately, policies in organisations must always be determined bottom upwards. What has been sought to be done is to impose from above a system to which we are required to conform. I do not believe that that is a very good precedent to follow. You cannot hurt institutions; you cannot even hurt countries: you can only hurt people or benefit them.
What has been happening? Has the system worked? From what I have heard this afternoon it seems that the policies which have been introduced throughout Europe over the past five to 10 years have produced a situation where we now have 20 million unemployed, and that figure is still rising. Since when has that been equated with economic success? I am a little surprised sometimes to note a sudden conversion, not least among those with whom I would normally regard myself to be politically associated, to the view that unemployment is at tolerable levels in this country; whereas the policy in the past has definitely been that unemployment is a price well worth paying. Yet, at present, we seem to be
356
accepting that unemployment at a real level of about 3 million here, which is on a comparable basis with unemployment when we left office in 1979, is somehow success.
Therefore, even on those grounds, the deflationary policies (that have been elaborated, once again, under the same auspices as the Treaty of Maastricht and the Treaty of Amsterdam) which we are now required to follow, not merely by argument but actually in a treaty, have proved to be completely disastrous for a large proportion of the population, not only of our country but of Europe as a whole.
It has not succeeded; on the contrary, it has failed. Yet the Euro-speak on the subject claims that it has all been a wonderful success. I hope that my Government will be able to convince me that the formal incorporation into the treaty and its confirmation under Amsterdam, subject to certain penal conditions, is the state of affairs that we should not only tolerate but also support. As noble Lords have pointed out, we live in a competitive society. Yet, when it comes to action in the monetary field, we find suddenly that competition is going to disappear.
Economic and monetary union—so far as Europe is concerned—is the financial form of the common agricultural policy. It tries to fix things by convergence; on what intellectual basis I do not have the remotest idea. I have always thought that competition, subject to restraints affecting the difference between capital and consumer goods, is a good thing. But now we propose to try to abolish it over 15 member states, and possibly even more. This surely is not the way to secure optimal results in the financial services field, any more than it is in the agricultural field which has once again turned out to be—as is well known—an abysmal failure.
I suggest that we have to think about these things again. We often hear observations from this non-accountable body on the effectiveness of the regulations that it brings forth from time to time and which are of course incorporated—now almost automatically—into English law. What sometimes it forgets is that the regulations have brought havoc to large numbers of small businesses that have proved quite incapable of dealing with the regulations as they are translated into action by our own civil servants here and by our own bureaucracy. Scores of small businesses have been ruined because of the meticulous enforcement of regulations issued from Brussels. Incidentally, when those regulations are received by other countries, there seems to be a curious reluctance to enforce them whenever that suits the particular country concerned.
I do not need to remind the Committee of the gendarmerie looking on in France while British sheep are slaughtered and burnt. There are many other cases. It is well known on the Continent that there is a general tendency to obey regulations only when it suits. We of course are brought up in an entirely different way. We are all law-abiding citizens—at least I hope so. I venture to suggest that my noble friend Lord Grenfell may have some illusions about the stability pact—the text of the resolutions of which I read carefully last night—together

357
with the origins of the treaty itself. He will find that the conditions of the stability pact, if he would care to re-read them, are not quite as inflexible as he may think.
The Earl of Longford: I do not think that anyone has ever dared to interrupt the noble Lord before but everything has to be done once. Is the noble Lord aware that when I was the Minister responsible for Germany 50 years ago the Germans were starving and, not long afterwards, the official view in the Treasury was that to tie ourselves to Europe would be to tie ourselves to a corpse? Does the noble Lord agree that the standard of living in Germany—in spite of recent troubles—is much higher than in this country?
Lord Bruce of Donington: I am sorry that I cannot answer the noble Earl as he did not articulate what he said sufficiently for me to hear him precisely. If he will try to use his nasal resonators, perhaps I can answer his question.
The Earl of Longford: I had better speak slowly. Is the noble Lord aware that when I was the Minister responsible for Germany 50 years ago, the Germans were starving, and that soon afterwards the official view in the Treasury was that to tie ourselves to Europe was to tie ourselves to a corpse? Does he not agree that the standard of living in Germany is still a good deal higher—in spite of recent difficulties—than it is here? How does he explain that?
Lord Bruce of Donington: Even conceding the point that the noble Earl makes that the standard of living in Germany is higher than our own—I gather that is a point that perhaps both the Government and the Opposition would wish to contest in view of their previous economic records—the noble Earl is probably equally aware that during his period of office as Minister responsible for Germany we in this country, at a time when we had suffered more than £;7 billion—at 1945 prices—worth of damage and destruction, rationed bread in order to feed the starving Germans. He might also remember that.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I hope I may go a little further than the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, in his answer to the noble Earl, Lord Longford. I am not sure that the picture that the noble Earl paints is quite as rosy as he thinks. At the moment unemployment in Germany is 11.6 per cent. and in this country it is only 5 per cent. Surely that is a reasonable yardstick of the well-being and standard of living of a country.
Lord Bruce of Donington: I agree with the noble Lord as regards the principle but not with his figures. The rate there is a good deal higher than ours; but ours is a good deal higher than 5 per cent. It is more in the region of 7 to 8 per cent. according to the method that was adopted in the 1979 parliament and by the previous Labour Government. But it is still to some extent immaterial.
358
One of the claims that is made for Maastricht—and which is still reiterated as being in operation—is the deregulation that was promised under the provisions of the original clause 3a which dealt with subsidiarity. The Committee may remember that Mr. Major returned waving a flag and saying that he had secured a degree of deregulation. I am not in possession of the current figures. I assume that they are in the possession of my noble friend on the Front Bench. However, I gather that the number of European regulations that have been repealed because of redundancy is small and is probably fewer than the number of fingers on one hand. So deregulation has been a complete farce.
Surely it is a little disingenuous to say that everything is going well within the European Community. That cannot possibly be so. If it were otherwise, the Government surely have a remedy within their hands. My noble friend has a remedy in his hands that the noble Lord, Lord Henley, declined when he was in government and was questioned by me upon the subject. If they are so sure that everything is going well and should continue to do so, why do they not publish a cost benefit analysis? It is quite easy. The noble Lord, Lord Henley, implied to me at the time that it was so obvious that the whole system was beneficial to the UK that any cost and benefit study would be redundant. If it is all that simple, it would not be difficult to publish the statistical justification, but that has not been done.
We must face the fact that the system is not working; that the system is not what we think it is, and that even though it is not working, we have to pretend that it is. This is not a satisfactory state for any government to be in. I do not have any particular prejudice against the system as such. The noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, confirmed to the European Parliament that when there I had done my very best to further the interests of my country and of the Community. That is my position today. Nevertheless I think that we have to pause before we go further because as day follows night you cannot bring real convergence into all the countries concerned. You cannot by mathematical sleight of hand pretend that they all have converged when a good number of the so-called convergent countries do not converge at all.
It goes right to the root of the matter. Here we have an economic and monetary policy, determined by the Commission in conjunction with the European central bank, whose only virtue is that its representatives are bankers. They have no other qualifications. So far as I know they have no political qualifications. Yet we are going to insist upon our currency being aligned and lost within one single currency despite divergences which undoubtedly exist between each of the countries concerned, the nature of which will make themselves known within a very short time indeed.
Has not the time come to acknowledge that a democratic system has to be democratically constituted and democratically accountable? When we can reach that stage, the utmost collaboration between the member states of Europe is very desirable. It is a concept I have continually supported. But to pretend that non-democratic, appointed bodies, responsible to no one but themselves, can do that by diktat from on top, by a flood of regulations, some of which go into our law

359
without even touching down in Parliament and often without the knowledge of the Government, cannot be the right way forward for the peoples of Europe and of Britain. Why should it be?
There is the argument that there can be a financial distribution out of the European budget, financed of course by ourselves to a large degree. We have a deficit of £3 billion at the moment, which seems to have escaped everyone's attention among other priorities. That simply would not work. One cannot have the strains of economies within their own boundaries proceeding at different rates according to different traditions and languages without contemplating considerable diversion of funds.
How will one contemplate that? Even at present there seems to be a complete disregard in this country and in Europe as to the nature and extent of fraud in Europe. The latest figure for the past year is £2.5 billion. It will probably be exceeded this year. These matters at present have no democratic accountability even in this country. If one reads the Commons Hansard, as I do on a daily basis, one finds that most European matters go through on the nod at about 10.30 p.m. There is no accountability even here.
I suggest that we should be a little more cautious in giving blanket approval to matters that are against the best traditions of our country and against the most favourable developments. We should not give up these things lightly. Least of all should we allow the powers of our Parliament, and for the time being the Government representing it, to be subordinate to people who are appointed and have no accountability to anyone.
7 p.m.
Lord Taverne: I apologised earlier for having to be absent. However, fortunately my noble friend Lady Williams has taken full notes.
First, I refer to the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Ashbourne, about the pensions issue. How often does one have to answer this hoary old canard? The provisions of the Treaty of Maastricht are absolutely clear. Article 104b states:
"A Member State shall not be liable for or assume the commitment of central governments … of another Member State".
That is absolutely clear. Secondly, it is reinforced by the stability pact. It is then said that the countries will run into problems anyway. We were going to run into problems until the reforms of 1981. Why could we reform in a way which was rather harsh but was done nevertheless? Why could we get rid of our hidden liabilities without other European states being able to do so?
If one considers what has been done in other European countries, it is clear that this argument is a canard. The Germans have by their own laws to make sure that contributions match the benefits paid out. Of course those contributions are rising; they will have to change. The Germans are about to introduce a form of privately funded pensions. The French have made moves in this direction; they do not face a major problem until 2005. The Italians have made major
360
reforms: the Amato reforms, the Dini reforms and the Prodi reforms. They have a long-term viable system in place. They face a short-term crisis which they are beginning to tackle under Mr. Prodi.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: Did the noble Lord say that the stability pact will be used to enforce proper arrangements for pensions?
Lord Taverne: The stability pact prevents one country having to bale out another country for its debts.
I turn next to an interesting speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Grantley. However, he made some strange statements. First, he said that no arguments had been advanced in favour of monetary union. There is a certain weariness about these debates. The arguments have been repeated time after time. We do not want to fight all these old battles. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, disposed in a refreshing manner of the argument about a natural single currency area. I thought that his speech was extremely refreshing. But when the noble Lord, Lord Grantley, said that no economic reasons were given by any other state, I wonder where he has been.
One regularly hears the arguments advanced that of course this will bring better investment because it will bring stability—stability of currencies. It is regarded as inevitable that if one has a single market one completes it by having a single currency. Those are economic arguments constantly advanced by other member states. To say that they never advance economic arguments is nonsense.
Lord Beloff: Of course that argument has been advanced frequently, but it happens to be nonsense.
Lord Taverne: I always like the humility with which the noble Lord expresses his opinions. I enjoy his speeches enormously, but he prevents this House being excessively polite. When he refers to Ireland, for example, as the pensioner of Europe, he is somewhat offhand in his appreciation of what has happened in different countries. Ireland has one of the best economic records of any of the European member states.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: The noble Lord will agree that Ireland receives £2 million every day. It has been doing so for many years and will do so indefinitely until it agrees to vote against it. That has had an interesting effect on the Irish economy.
Lord Taverne: Ireland has had assistance, as indeed have other parts of the European Union. That is one of the reasons why countries such as Portugal have been able to move towards the average income of the European Union. Ireland has made extremely good use of those services. It has moved from 60 per cent. to 98 per cent. of the average income of the European Union. And the cohesion fund will stop being applied to Ireland because of the excellent use it has made of those services in the past.
There have been many references to the fudging of criteria. Again there is a certain arrogance about that. By remarkable efforts countries have achieved the criteria.

361
People say that Italy has not done so, but even without the special Europe tax Italy would still be comfortably within the 3 per cent. deficit criteria. One should also remember that those criteria are not written in tablets of stone. They are not the be all and end all of tests as to whether a country is fit to join a monetary union. They are guidelines to indicate whether the country can comply with what really matters; that is, whether a country can sustain a low rate of inflation. That is the requirement—and it is one which countries have looked very much like achieving.
Of course dealing with inflation is not enough. One is looking for growth. It is remarkable that the countries of Europe have stuck to their plans regarding monetary union when going through a very bad patch and a deflationary period. Germany in particular has suffered from macro-economic deflation, largely as a result of unification. But the predictions of doom are somewhat misplaced. If one examines the scene in Europe at present, one finds that Germany and France are heading for a faster rate of growth than the United Kingdom. One should not adopt a somewhat patronising attitude to other countries which, according to some, seem to have managed their affairs rather less effectively than we have.
One thing that surprises me about the case put by the opponents of monetary union is that they totally disregard the enthusiasm for it that is shown in other countries. It is true that, so far as Germany is concerned, public opinion is hostile. It is also noteworthy that every time people in Germany have the chance to vote for a sceptic, they do not do so; the voting is very different from the way in which people express themselves in opinion polls.
Seeing the enthusiasm of other countries and their determination to make monetary union succeed, the question arises: are they all mad? According to the anti-Europeans, all those countries are absolutely mad to want to go for monetary union. An examination of their record shows it to be on the whole rather better than ours. We are not in a very strong position to lecture others about what is a sane economic approach. The political will is there; and there is therefore every reason to suppose that this venture will succeed.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Perhaps I may—
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: As I shall speak only once, perhaps it is the turn of this side. I do not intend to speak twice before the Minister replies, so I think I—
Noble Lords: Order. Viscount Massereene!
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: What is always forgotten when we debate the EEC is that those countries need us a good deal more than we need them. We have an adverse balance of trade with them. The corrupt shambles of the CAP costs every family in this country around £20 per week on their food bill. And now we are contemplating joining a single currency, sending all our
362
gold reserves to Frankfurt and getting a whole lot of unelected bureaucrats in effect to run our economy. Are we mad?
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: It is not—
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: At the risk of contradicting myself, I do wish to speak. I have spoken only once—indeed I am speaking for the first time. The noble Lord has already spoken.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: It does not matter.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: With all due respect to the noble Lord, I think that he might wait until after the Minister replies; then he can speak again. That is the normal way in which a Committee stage is conducted as I recall. I do not want to argue with the noble Lord, but we cannot have people speaking a second time before the Minister has replied.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I give way to the noble Lord.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, likened the European single currency to a railway train that was unstoppable and said there was a UK maiden strapped to the rails. I am beginning to think that this debate is unstoppable and I am the poor maiden strapped to the rails. That is why I decided to intervene.
I always find these debates difficult. We have had a fair number, and the only thing that has changed is the geography of the Chamber—I was usually sitting on the other side and the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, was here. The arguments were much the same. A few new players have emerged, but, frankly, the debate shows all the signs of never having moved on very much.
I have the same trouble as I had when I spoke from the Government Front Bench—I am "buffeted" by the Europhiles and Europhobes. The Europhiles come on—usually, it has to be said, from the Liberal Democrat Benches—with the attitude that almost everything in Europe is brilliant, everything in Britain is bad and we should do exactly what the foreigners want on every occasion and never think for ourselves at all. I then find myself being pushed into an anti-European position. Then, to counter that, along come some of the Europhobes, and I am very quickly pushed back. I sometimes feel like something of a yo-yo in these debates. Nevertheless, I maintain my position. I believe quite firmly in our membership of the European Union. It is thoroughly sound. I campaigned for it in the referendum. Just occasionally I think some of the policies are daft. But some UK policies are also daft, and therefore the European Union is no different from any other government. Just in case the Front Bench Opposite get any ideas that I am talking about the previous government, I am thinking of the ban on beef on the bone, for example, and matters of that nature.
As I have said on a considerable number of occasions, the fundamental point is that we have benefited from being in a market of something like 370 million rich (in terms of the rest of the world) consumers. Some of the

363
ideas put forward by those who would prefer us to leave the European Union are hugely out of date and we ought not to consider them too much. It does not do our country any service to be continually rehearsing arguments and battles long since gone, when the British people have decided in election after election that they want to remain inside the European Union.
There are many matters that the European Union ought to be getting down to, not just the single currency. It ought to be completing the single market. It irritates me slightly that the single market has not been completed. One example is the subsidies to the German coal industry. There are subsidies to state airlines, and British Airways is not being helped at all. Another example is the way in which financial services are still unable to penetrate the single market in the way they ought to. But those things will come about. A market requires, in the jargon, "a level playing field". It requires the rules and regulations to be made in such a way that they are fair to all countries and ensure that people can operate in every part of that single market. In addition, I should like to think that we can enlarge the Community and give to the people of central Europe the advantages that they were denied for 50 years when they were under the heel of the Soviet Empire.
The issue of the single currency has been introduced in a rather elegant way. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, complained about the first amendment, tabled by my noble friend Lord Moynihan. I think the real reason that my noble friend tabled the amendment was to allow the noble Baroness the Minister to come to the Dispatch Box and, so to speak, give an opening position regarding how she saw the Committee running, and also to introduce herself to the debate since she had inadvertently not been able to be present at Second Reading.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Peston: I have no criticism to make of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. My concern was that noble Lords might have interpreted what was said then to mean that they could go on to debate any subject they fancied from now on. I was hoping to hear it stated that that was not the agreement between the two Front Benches, but that we should at some stage debate matters to do with the Amsterdam Treaty.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I believe my noble friend's idea was to have a structured debate. I must tell the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that in my experience, if the word "Europe" comes into it, some of my noble friends, and some of his, have quite enough imagination to introduce almost any subject they wish.
This debate in particular allows us to talk about the single currency—although, as I understand it, the single currency does not play much of a part in any of the new texts in the Amsterdam Treaty, as the Minister will no doubt say. However, I cannot gainsay the fact that the single currency is a very important issue at this time. In a debate on Europe, even though it relates to the Amsterdam Treaty, it is probably fair that we should spend some time examining the issue of the single currency.
364
There are undoubtedly advantages in a single currency. Save for those who are entirely blinkered, most people see advantages. There are obvious advantages for those who travel about Europe and for business and commerce in Europe—there will be considerable savings in currency costs. I am not entirely sure why the banks should be in favour of a single currency. It seems to me that they will lose quite a lot of money. But there it is. I should not weep too much over the banks losing money.
We should be guarded about over-selling the business point. As noble Lords have pointed out, a fair amount of this country's business is not done in Europe. The ratio is roughly 50:50. It can be argued to he within a few points either way, but, roughly, 50 per cent. is with Europe and the other 50 per cent. is with other parts of the world. Currency transactions will continue to have to be done.
The problems which have been drawn to our attention fall into a number of categories. The first is the entrance criteria. There was considerable disagreement about whether some of the countries of Europe had fudged the entrance criteria. I have little doubt about this. Like other noble Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, pointed out in his usual heroic way that the countries had all done terribly well because they had grinned and borne all the difficulties and got there. I suspect it was a little of both. They have done quite well, but they have also fudged a bit and that seems to be the way in which they will all get into the single currency. As I have said on a number of occasions, undoubtedly the convergence criteria would be followed by any sensible government, whether or not the euro was there.
In the last parliament, speaking for the Treasury and the Government, I made clear that we would follow the convergence criteria. It had nothing to do with the euro but was because we believed it was a sensible economic policy. We have certainly done that.
Of course, as the noble Lord, Lord Grantley, said, the directors of the Bundesbank have pointed out their concern over some of the fudging going on and whether or not countries, including their own, have genuinely met the criteria.
The criteria are an important issue because, if a country is badly out of convergence, it will find it difficult to stay within what I would call the "corset" of the single currency. Once we move from the entrance criteria, we get into the territory of the stability pact. That pact is essential if the single currency is to work. Let there be no doubt in anyone's mind that if it is to work, there must be a stability pact to ensure that countries, having got into convergence, do not simply decide to ignore staying in convergence and blow the thing apart. It is important that the stability pact is not fudged and that people continue to meet the criteria which have been set down for entry into the euro.
I mentioned that one of the advantages of the euro would be that we would trade inside Europe on one currency. That would be a considerable saving. But there are two other aspects to the problem of the euro that cause me concern. First, the question of the rate at which we would go in and, secondly, what effect it would have. I know we are not going in right now, but one has to work

365
on some kind of basis in these discussions. If we were to go in now at the present value of sterling, it would be extremely damaging to our manufacturing industry.
The noble Lords, Lord Peston and Lord McIntosh and I are spending a few happy hours on the Bank of England Bill. One of the issues we are discussing is the level of the currency. Perhaps I can tempt the Minister—I doubt whether I can because I tried on the Bank of England Bill and failed miserably, but it is worth a try—to suggest, within parameters, the value of sterling the Government would like to see in order to keep it at that stable rate for six months, two years or whatever, prior to them entering in the next parliament. That is what I understand their policy to be.
The noble Lord, Lord Taverne, seemed to want the value of the pound to be reduced. I was not sure how he would achieve the reduction that he wanted but perhaps when he returns he can tell us. That is one problem—the rate at which we think our currency ought to be pitched if we join the Community.
The second problem is to do with interest rates. Interest rates are a difficult issue and again they are part of the debate we are having on the Bank of England Bill. The Government are setting up a monetary policy committee in order to remove from the Chancellor of the Exchequer control over monetary affairs—a subject which my noble friend Lord Boardman mentioned earlier in the debate.
I worry about an interest rate policy which will try to fix the same interest rate for the whole European Union, or that part of it which is inside the euro. There could be real difficulties about it. Inside this country, over my political lifetime, there have been difficulties in fixing an interest rate which is required to deal with the south east of England when, at the same time, the Scottish economy is not in the same overheated position as the south-east's economy. The Scottish economy may perhaps be beginning to experience a stuttering recovery; then all of a sudden interest rates have been increased in order to deal with the problem of overheating, largely in the south east of England. It has been said for many years that when the south east of England sneezes, Scotland catches a cold. I am happy to say that under the sensible economic policies of the last government, the position changed. The Scottish economy came out of the last recession much quicker and better than the economy of other parts of the UK. For a little while, our unemployment rate was below the UK average. It is not any more; it is marginally above it. But the position has not been as bad in the last decade as it was in the three or four previous decades. I worry about single interest rates. I draw the Government's attention to the experience we have had in this country on single interest rates.
The United States was mentioned, particularly by my noble friend Lord Howell. He rightly pointed out that there are two factors which do not apply in Europe. They have not applied to date and I do not see them applying, despite the example given by a noble Lord who said that Switzerland managed it, as well as another country which I cannot recall, in quite different places, with little or no labour mobility. The United States has labour mobility in a way that we do not in Europe. We have a little labour mobility in the United Kingdom, perhaps more now than
366
20 or 30 years ago because of the last government's successful sale of council housing. Council houses were one of the things that kept people immobile in this country, but the situation has changed and is better now. However, unlike in the United States, there is not much movement of the working population between one European country and another.
The second difference is that in the United States there are huge automatic transfers of money by the federal government from a more prosperous state to a less prosperous state. Those two points show that the United States is not a proper comparison with what the euro would be inside the European Community. We must be careful about looking at the United States as an example of a single currency which works well.
I am not an economist but I found the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, very interesting, as I always do. It was not a lecture, it was an interesting speech about these matters; but it is a pretty uncertain science, if I may say so. I was intrigued to notice, when I read the Minutes of Monetary Policy Committee Meeting on 4th and 5th February, that Members of the Committee tied on the vote about whether or not to raise interest rates again or to keep them where they were. The Governor gave his casting vote in favour of keeping them where they were. There is a nice sentence which sums up my difficulties with listening to professors of economics:
"Uncertainty was a normal state of affairs in economic policy making and there was no particular reason to believe that uncertainty would he any less in a few months' time".
I do not think that I can look to the economists for certain guidance, when I read that interesting sentence.
Lord Peston: I do not wish to interrupt as we are desperate to have dinner, but there is no more important proposition in economics than the one which the noble Lord has just read out.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Clearly I am learning at the feet of the noble Lord some of the principles of economics. I thank him for that.
I shall not go on too long because I should not like to keep the noble Lord, Lord Peston, from his dinner. But perhaps I can shift to another aspect of a European single currency which worries me. I do not want to go on for too long about examples, but there are two essential common policies at the moment—there may be some minor ones, but there are two major ones. We have a common agricultural policy and a common fisheries policy. This evening we are discussing a third common policy—a common currency policy, if I can call it that.
I do not believe that many people will rush forward to dispute with me when I say that the common agricultural policy and the common fisheries policy leave a lot to be desired. Both contain some pretty mad aspects. For example, the common agricultural policy subsidises tobacco farmers for growing tobacco, whereas the rest of the European Union bans the advertising of the product that they are all being paid, heavily subsidised, to grow. That is one of a number of silly propositions. Storing vast

367
amounts of food beyond their sell-by date is another silly proposition, and actually taking into storage the best of the product makes it even sillier.
I do not want to go too much into the common fisheries policy, but that is not a great success. It is not just a European policy. Many fisheries' policies around the world are based on some of the same principles and are equally failing in their objectives. But the common fisheries policy contains some silly aspects and there seems little chance of reform. I believe it was last July that "Dear Jacques" and "Dear Tony" letters on quota-hopping were exchanged and here we are in March, no further forward. Some letters have been exchanged; papers have gone to Brussels and we await, months later, some return. I give notice that I made a note in my diary to try to initiate a debate on the anniversary of "Dear Jacques" and "Dear Tony" if we still have not had a conclusion to that interesting exchange of correspondence.
My point is that those are two major common policies in the Community and here we are being asked to go into a third and—dare I say?—an even more important one than the other two; that is, the single currency. If it does not work or works in the same "iffy" manner as the CAP and the CFP, then all the economies of Europe could be in difficulty.
The interesting aspect of some of the debates we have had in this Chamber—unfortunately not today—is that we had the pleasure of hearing the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf. The first time I heard him I felt that he encapsulated better than I could exactly what I fear. It is simply this. As I said at the beginning of my contribution, I believe in Britain's membership of the European Union. I believe that the European Union has been a force for good for all the countries in Europe, including our own. My concern is that, if this common policy of having a single currency does not work or does not work well, then all the advantages that we have gained from our membership of the EU may begin to unravel, not just for us, but for all the people of Europe.
I hate the word, but in some ways I suppose I may be classified as a "Euro-enthusiast", though I am not a Euro-enthusiast in the way that most Members are on the Liberal Democrat Benches. I am certainly not a Euro-enthusiast when it comes to currency. My party has still to be persuaded that it is sensible for us to join. We took the view that we should judge joining when we felt that it was in the interests of the United Kingdom to do so. The Government have come round to agreeing with us that in this Parliament it is not in the interests of the United Kingdom to join. We doubt that it will be in the interests of the United Kingdom to join in the next Parliament because, frankly, we will still not know, well into the next Parliament, whether the project is working.
I do not know whether it is a Scottish phrase or a British one but I recall the words, "Suck it and see". I would prefer that "they" sucked it and "we" saw, and then we would be in a position to make a sensible judgment on behalf of the people of this country whether it is wise to join the single currency in the interests of this country and in the interests of Europe. As I said, my greatest fear is that we join it—or we do not join it; it does
368
not matter whether we are in or out—and, if it does not work, the results for all the people of Europe will be dramatic and catastrophic.
Lord Monson: Before the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, sits down, perhaps he will clarify one point made towards the beginning of his interesting speech. He said that the EU is no different from any other "government". Was that a Freudian slip or does he consciously believe that in due course the EU ought to be granted all the powers of a national government?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: It was not even a Freudian slip; it was just a slip. Perhaps it would have been better to say, "from any other bureaucracy." However, I shall be careful when the noble Lord is listening to me.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I could see the relief on the face of the Leader of the Opposition when the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, after a very heterodox speech from his party's point of view, rejoined the party line in the last few seconds. I felt that, "With one jump, Jack was free"!
I do not resent the fact that we have had a debate of this length on this subject. I certainly do not intend to use the briefs which make fun of the wording of the two amendments we are in theory debating. I do not even object to the fact that we are debating something which is neither in the Amsterdam Treaty nor in this Bill, as my noble friend Lord Shore recognised. Of course, it could be argued—and he went on to attempt to argue—that the growth and stability pact was something new and that we had to reconsider EMU as a result of the growth and stability pact. I shall have to remind him in a few minutes that the changes only clarify the procedures in Maastricht and do not impose any new legal obligations.
The debate is about EMU because Members of the Committee want it to be about EMU. Fine. Let me set out the Government's position towards economic and monetary union. First, we want the single currency to succeed. We all have a strong vested interest in ensuring that EMU is a success and good for prosperity, jobs and stability. It is also in everyone's interests that EMU is built on a firm and sustainable basis. The treaty is clear. EMU must be based on a high degree of sustainable convergence. We will take our responsibilities of the presidency seriously. We will use our presidency constructively and supportively during the crucial decisions in May on which countries should join EMU. In saying that, I recognise the force of the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, supported by my noble friend Lord Grenfell, that the real decisions will be made in May rather than in January next year, if they have not already half been taken.
We and our European partners are committed to launching a successful EMU on schedule on 1st January 1999. But I shall not comment on the economic positions of other member states now, except to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, that much of the effort that has been made to achieve the degree of convergence that has been achieved, has been worthwhile, regardless of whether anybody is accused of fudge.

369
The Chancellor of the Exchequer said last October that in principle British membership of a successful single currency would be beneficial to Britain and to Europe. If the single currency is successful and the economic case for the UK to join is clear and unambiguous, then we believe that Britain should be part of it. We are pleased to have that confirmed by Members of the Committee from all sides of the House—Europhiles of all political persuasions—in the debate this afternoon.
The Chancellor set out five economic tests which must be met before the Government can recommend membership of EMU to Parliament and the British people. Those are: whether there can be sustainable convergence between Britain and the economies of a single currency; whether there is sufficient flexibility to cope with economic change; the effect on investment; the impact on our financial services industry, and whether it is good for employment. To share a common monetary policy with other member states represents a major pooling of economic sovereignty. The Government accept therefore that there are important constitutional considerations. That is why we are committed to a referendum—my noble friends should not be too pleased too soon—if we decide to join. However, we do not accept that there is a constitutional bar that outweighs the economic tests as the decisive reason why we might join EMU. The constitutional issue is a factor in the decision, not an overriding one. If the single currency would be good for British jobs, business and future prosperity, then it is right in principle to join.
The Government recognise the benefits of a single currency. A successful single currency will act as a complement to the single market. It will reduce transaction costs and exchange rate uncertainty on trade within the euro zone. It will make prices more transparent, boosting competition and providing new opportunities for companies to trade and invest. A successful single currency will deliver price stability, as a foundation for sustainable, non-inflationary growth. It will reduce the damaging effects of volatility on investment, employment and, ultimately, economic prosperity.
However, the Treasury's assessment of the Chancellor's five economic tests was that it is not in this country's interests to join the single currency in 1999. Neither flexibility nor convergence with the other European economies are sufficient at present to make joining EMU during the course of this Parliament in Britain's economic interests.
Barring some fundamental and unforeseen change in economic circumstances, there is no realistic prospect of Britain having demonstrated, during this Parliament, convergence which is sustainable and settled. So making a decision during this Parliament to join is not realistic. It is therefore sensible for business and the country to plan on the basis that, in this Parliament, we do not plan to enter a single currency. But in order to create a real option of joining early in the next Parliament, it is essential that the Government and business prepare intensively during the Parliament. In this way, we could join if the single currency is successful and if the people agree in the referendum we have promised.
370
The Government are committed to a programme which is in the national economic interest and which will help satisfy the five economic tests: achieving macro-economic stability through sound fiscal and monetary policies; setting in place the right framework for low inflation through our reforms to the Bank of England and our commitment to monitor the inflation target in the light of the practices of the European Central Bank; ensuring that our fiscal rules and deficit reduction plan continue to be consistent with the terms of the stability and growth pact, underlining our commitment to avoid an excessive deficit; promoting greater flexibility in the UK economy and in Europe through our Getting Europe to Work initiative and making product markets work better by introducing new competition legislation; and negotiating to secure the best interests of our financial sectors and to open up the single market in financial services.
It is clear that the euro will affect the entire European business environment from 1st January 1999. It will have implications for businesses trading or investing in those countries which adopt the euro. I was able to give figures at Question Time this afternoon which indicate that for goods and services the share of our exports to the 11 countries which are on course to join the euro is almost 50 per cent. of the total; as the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, said, 15 per cent. of our gross domestic product.
The Government have established three complementary organisations to help preparations for EMU. Together they will examine and advise on the preparations needed, whether we are in or out of the single currency. I make this point to the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, who in his first speech talked about the necessity for preparations, whether or not we join.
First, the Chancellor set up a standing committee in September 1997 to oversee and co-ordinate preparations across the economy, in the private and public sectors, and to identify areas of preparations not being addressed elsewhere. The committee will produce an outline changeover plan by the end of the year, setting out the steps involved in joining EMU.
Secondly, the Business Advisory Group was established in autumn 1997 to look at the crucial practical questions, such as what UK firms need to do to trade in and use the euro in 1999. A report was published in January summarising the group's findings and conclusions.
Thirdly, the Euro Preparations Unit was set up in the Treasury with help from the DTI to provide support and help to business and public authority programmes. I was asked whether we recognise the needs of the public sector as well. The unit aims to ensure that British business and public authorities are ready for the introduction of the euro in other countries next year. It will also complete the necessary planning and preparation required to enable UK entry early in the next Parliament, if appropriate. A network of euro co-ordinators has also been established, one in each government department. Individual departments are now considering the implications of EMU for their operations. The DETR is helping local authorities to prepare.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I thank my noble friend for giving way on this important point. The preparations which businesses have to make will be very expensive, particularly if we go into a single currency. While large corporations may be able to cover those expenses, smaller businesses may very well not be able to do so. Are the Government contemplating, and, if not, will they contemplate, some means whereby they can be assisted by public funds to do something which, after all, many of them do not want and which is powered by government here and indeed in the European Union?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I would tend to turn my noble friend's intervention on its head. I think it is in the interests of large and small business to prepare for economic and monetary union. Of course there will be expenses, but firms will be doing it because they plan to benefit from it. The help we will be giving to them will be because we want to advance the time when businesses, large and small, can benefit from EMU.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I am sorry to interrupt my noble friend again. He says that all businesses will benefit from the euro and the single currency. However, he has already said that only 15 per cent. of trade is done overseas. That means that 85 per cent. of trade is done within this country; and it is done largely by small businesses. I should like my noble friend to reconsider what he said because this will put a great burden on many businesses and they will get no benefit from it.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am sorry if my poor articulation misled my noble friend. Fifty per cent. of our exports of goods and services are to the 11 countries which are on course to be applicants to become members of EMU. When I said 15 per cent., I was echoing the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, who reminded us that that represents 15 per cent. of gross domestic product. I repeat to my noble friend that the benefits for our businesses in working effectively with these 11 countries, which do receive almost 50 per cent. of our exports, are very great. We want to help them to achieve that.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I am not quite sure from where the noble Lord gets his figures. I have here an extract from the United Kingdom Balance of Payments—the Pink Book-1997 edition, produced by the Office for National Statistics and published by the Stationery Office in August 1997. That gives the proportion of UK world exports—visibles plus invisibles—as more than 50 per cent. going outside the 14 other countries of the European Union. In amplification of the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, it seems that other statistics, which are not contested, show that about 80 per cent. of our economic activity takes place within the United Kingdom and that 20 per cent. of our economic activity goes to export. Of that, about 9 per cent. goes to the European Union altogether, which is reflected in the figures I gave the noble Lord earlier; and 11 per cent. goes outside the European Union. Therefore, the 80 per cent. figure that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, mentioned, is the percentage of economic activity that takes place in the
372
country and it is accurate. In particular it is the small businesses which trade entirely in this country which will have no benefit whatever from this project. That may be why the Federation of Small Businesses voted to leave the European Union two years ago.
Lord Peston: Before my noble friend feels obliged to answer that, perhaps I may say that that was about as blatant an example of a complete misunderstanding of economics and trade as I have ever heard. There can hardly be a firm in this country that does not directly or indirectly either use goods and services imported from abroad or which exports abroad. As the noble Lord was speaking, I was trying to think of an enterprise that had no connection directly or indirectly with foreign trade and I found it impossible to do so. Simply looking around your Lordships' House, where we do not think of ourselves as being engaged in foreign trade, we are wearing and doing things which have aspects connected with foreign trade. That is precisely what the noble Lord is saying. It is as good an example of the misuse and misunderstanding of statistics as I have ever heard in my life. I am now willing to have the asperity paragraph read out, if necessary.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: If my noble friend could think of a firm which was insulated from the outside world, it would have no costs in preparing for the euro, so there would be no problem.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I never said that those firms were insulated from the outside world. My own firm trades entirely overseas and in most of the major currencies. I merely said that 80 per cent. of our economic activity takes place within this country and only 20 per cent. of it goes outside, less than half of which—and this is where I disagree with the Minister—takes place with the European Union, if one adds visibles and invisibles together.
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne: At the risk of adding to the statistical confusion that has already been offered, I suggest that we should compare our own export trade with the need of other people for exports. We should recognise that most of our competitors need only to export between 10 per cent. and 12 per cent. of their products in order to keep up their quality of life. We, in common with Japan, have to export well over 20 per cent. Surely, it is a question of comparison with our competitors. We have to export considerably more and it is that which we are debating tonight.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: We are more of a trading nation than almost any other country in the world. Of all that trade in the export of goods and services, well over 50 per cent. goes to the other 14 countries, as the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, has rightly quoted, and almost 50 per cent. goes to the 11 countries who are applicants for European monetary union.
I now turn to some of the interventions of Members of the Committee. I cannot deal with all of them. I want to say something first about the stability and growth pact which, as I said, as regards Amsterdam, clarifies and extends the procedures of Maastricht, but it does not carry with it any new legal obligations.

373
Perhaps I may make clear that some of the fears which have been raised about fines are exaggerated. There are no fines whatsoever on any countries which are not within EMU. We believe in keeping to convergence because it is in our interests to do so and for no other reason. My noble friend Lord Grenfell has reminded us that fines are not automatic. That has been made very clear. I remind the Committee that fines would require unanimity in Council in order for them to be imposed. It is the members of EMU who submit stability programmes and it is others, including ourselves, who will submit convergence programmes because, as I have said, it is in our interests to do so.
Lord Shore of Stepney: I am worried about the noble Lord's statement that no additional legal obligation has been placed on us by the two regulations which were issued in July 1997 at Amsterdam in relation to the stability pact. My understanding was that if those regulations are flouted or disobeyed, that can be taken up with the European Court of Justice, whereas what was in the Maastricht Treaty, while being pretty nasty, was simply declaratory.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am confident that I am right on this. I shall respond when I reply to the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch. If I have left anything out I shall certainly write to my noble friend.
What is proposed here, very largely, is what is called multilateral surveillance, which is not binding on member states. The noble Lord, Lord Taverne, said that the Government will have left an enormous area of uncertainty. I hope that my re-statement of our policy will leave him clearer than he appears to have been before. Of course, it would be wonderful if I could respond to the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, by saying what exchange rates and interest rates are going to be in four to five years' time. If I could do that I would join Mr. George Soros rather than survive on a ministerial salary in this House.
The noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, in a wonderful speech, weaves a complex but entirely illusory argument that the United Kingdom does not have an effective EMU opt-out. First, as he himself recited, Article B of the Treaty on European Union says clearly that the objectives of the EU, including EMU, shall be achieved in accordance with the provisions of the treaty. That includes the United Kingdom's clear and explicit opt-out contained in Protocol 25 in the new numbering of the treaty. Secondly, the United Kingdom is indeed party to Articles 98 and 99, which require, for example, that they shall treat their economies as a matter of common concern. But the treaty also sets out very clearly the way in which effect is given to that notion, for example, by the broad economic guidelines procedure in Article 99. That makes it clear that, although the Council can make recommendations to a member state, its recommendations are not binding.
Of course, it is possible to fantasise that the European Court of Justice will fall on a few words taken out of context from the treaty and conclude from them that the explicit UK opt-out from economic and monetary union is not valid. But no one who knows anything of the
374
European Court of Justice—in which the United Kingdom wins most of its cases anyway—could seriously believe that that is going to happen.
I was going to reply to the noble Lord, Lord Ashbourne, about what he called "the pensions bombshell", but the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, has done that for me. Article 104B is absolutely clear. Whether we join or not there is no bail-out. There is no provision that would require any member state to bail out any other member state for any shortfall in its debt recovery as a result of its pensions policy. There will, of course, be very valuable pressure on other countries to control their pension deficit and that must be to the benefit of all of us.
In view of the time I shall write to other noble Lords who asked me specific questions. Therefore I end by echoing what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat. Economic and monetary union is going to go ahead. We shall be affected by it whether we join or not. It is not the case that we can be entirely independent of it out of EMU or in it. This Government want the single currency to succeed. If the economic case is clear and unambiguous we want Britain to be part of that success. In the meantime we are working together with British business so that we are ready for the launch of EMU on 1st January 1999.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I shall not keep the Committee very long. We have not discussed Amendment No. 27, which is unfortunate. I do not know whether it can be decoupled at this stage: presumably it cannot. I am given to understand that it can. In those circumstances I wonder whether when my noble friend winds up he might indicate that that is what he wants to do.
8 p.m.
Lord Shore of Stepney: I understand that, unlike in the other place, in Committee in your Lordships' House one has the great advantage of being able to return to a subject which one has raised even if one made a speech on it only two or three hours ago—
Noble Lords: Four hours ago!
Lord Shore of Stepney: Yes, four hours ago. Time flies!
I say first to my noble friend the Minister, for whom I have warm affection, that his speech disappointed me greatly. I find it almost incomprehensible that anyone speaking seriously about these issues can deny that there is a major constitutional issue involved in the abandonment of your national currency and the subjection of yourself, your people and your government to the rules of a treaty which you did not design, and to the rule of an unelected central bank based in Frankfurt. This is a disgraceful flight from self-government and from national responsibility. I shall not judge this matter wholly on economic grounds although I believe that, simply on economic grounds, the arguments are quite overwhelming. When it comes to the debate in the country we shall have seriously to address both sides of this great question as they are of almost equal importance.

375
What I liked most about my noble friend's speech was his opening sentence. When the noble Lord who spoke from the Opposition Front Bench gave his view of the matter, I thought, like my noble friend, that we might be witnessing a remarkable revolt from that Front Bench against what I had understood now to be the new policy of the Conservative Party. Right until the end of his speech, the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, put the balance of the argument so heavily in favour of Britain joining economic and monetary union and the single currency that, frankly, it was difficult to draw any other conclusion. Of course, the noble Lord rescued it right at the end and I was glad of that.
The noble Lord referred to the difficulty that Scotland has often had within the United Kingdom when economic policy has been good for the south but difficult for the north. Yes, and we have all the ability to transfer resources nationally to the assistance of Scotland when that part of the United Kingdom is in difficulty. Has the noble Lord imagined what the effects would be of having a single central interest rate for the whole of Europe? It would magnify the problem way beyond anything that we have experienced within our own country where we have command over national resources to help areas in distress.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Clearly, in moving from one side of the Chamber to the other I have lost some of my skills. In making that point about Scotland and about the United States, like my noble friend Lord Howell, I thought that I was illustrating what I believe to be the dangers of the euro and the other side of the argument that I had put initially. I am not one of those people in politics who think that all the arguments are inevitably on one side. There are a number of pro arguments; there are a number of con arguments, and one must then make a balanced judgment. I thought that I had made it clear what my balanced judgment was.
Lord Shore of Stepney: I am grateful to the noble Lord for that clarification—as far as it goes—but I shall rely upon my own judgment as to where his judgment tilts at present.
I must advise my noble friend the Minister that I have some further queries about the Government's position towards EMU and, above all, towards the major meeting and the decisions that have to be taken on 1st May. I shall come to that point a little later. First, however, I should like to refer to those noble Lords who have directly challenged me on one point or another. I shall then comment on those who broadly agree with me, and finally I should like to pick up on some of the major points referred to by my noble friend Lord McIntosh.
As I have said, I turn first to those who challenged me. The noble Lord, Lord Taverne, started with a challenge. I plead with the serious-minded advocates of ever-closer European union and now the single currency and economic and monetary union, "Don't dismiss the argument because it comes from a known Euro-sceptic". This is a serious argument. If I were a Euro-enthusiastI am not—I would be desperately worried by this particular development in the policies of the European Union. Like the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, I think that
376
a more serious danger is now facing the whole European construction and Europe's prosperity than at any time since 1956. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, to take this argument seriously because if he does not, and if things go wrong, he will certainly live to regret it.
When the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, replied for the Lib-Dems, he gave me the first reason for mirth that I had experienced during the debate when he said that we were overlooking the "enthusiasm" of other countries for the single currency. The "enthusiasm"? There is no enthusiasm other than within the European political elite, within the classe politique, to which the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, referred in his short remarks. That is the group that wants EMU, but they dare not put it to their own peoples in a referendum. To pretend that the people of Sweden, Denmark or even of Germany are now in favour, by a majority, of the single currency is to misread the facts.
I know that the noble Lord is a serious student of these matters so I refer him to the last issue of Eurobarometer, which regularly carries out polling throughout the European Union, in which he will find that the latest poll shows that almost for the first time since the Maastricht Treaty the majority that always used to be in favour of a single currency has now become a minority. That is remarkable when one thinks of the extraordinary pressures that have been put upon people to persuade them of the merits of a single currency. Such pressures have been applied not only by national governments, but also by the Commission in its lead in the propaganda offensive. Think of the money that has been devoted to it and all the targeting of all the higher institutions of learning throughout the Community including, I gather, in the United Kingdom shortly, to persuade the people that all their worries and concerns should be forgotten because somehow, mystically, the single currency will bring about the great benefits of political union. Well, the situation is changing—and largely because, on their merits, the arguments simply do not stand up.
In dealing with those who rebutted what I said in moving the amendment, I turn now to my good friend, the noble Lord, Lord Randall, who is not in his place at the moment. He should not take too seriously what I confess is something more than a probing amendment, but which I tabled, above all, so that we could have a major discussion about a major issue which will affect our own people. This is part of the great debate because British democracy is real. We have a democracy and we must use it. We cannot simply just accept that governments do things on our behalf and that we hand over our powers to others and to other institutions that are no longer accountable to us. As my noble friend Lord Bruce stressed, this is about democracy and accountability.
I confess to the Committee my fears because I do not see how we can make our democracy work beyond the frontiers of our own country. Like sovereignty, it is confined within the territory of the United Kingdom. Democracy belongs here with us and cannot be shared with others; even less can it be claimed that sovereignty can be shared. We know that very well the moment we consider the European Parliament. That cannot be and is not a substitute for our democracy here. We have the

377
reality of a national community and the bogusness of a European Community contrived in Brussels and in its various institutions.
Lord Grenfell: I thank my noble friend for giving way. Would he include or extend his theory of internal sovereignty to our membership of NATO?
Lord Shore of Stepney: I am perfectly happy with NATO. NATO does not write the laws of my country. It is a defence organisation from which I can withdraw at will, as General de Gaulle did for France. I am willing to co-operate with other countries to the nth degree but I shall not let them write the laws of my country, decide the taxes in my land and so on. I shall not do that because I am a British citizen. I also hope that I am a world citizen. However, I have had Euro citizenship thrust upon me without my consent. It is meaningless, and I think I speak for very many who have had similar experiences.
The contribution of my noble friend Lord Grenfell on the stability pact was very direct. It must be answered, and I shall now attempt to do so. Certainly there is an area of discretion and the matter must be considered. The fines are not automatic but they are semi-automatic. Unless one can plead a convincing case why one should not be fined one will be fined. That is the law of the treaty which is enforced by the European Court of Justice.
My noble friend's other point was quite correct. One must experience a fall of 2 per cent. of GDP in a single year in order to relieve oneself of the liability to pay a fine if one has an excessive deficit, but a 2 per cent. drop in GDP in an advanced western country is a calamity. We have not had it. We have had ups and downs. Our unemployment has risen to 3 million. The French have had 3 million unemployed and the Germans have nearly 5 million unemployed. In not a single year have they or we suffered a collapse of output or GDP of 2 per cent. We have had a fall of perhaps nought to I per cent., or even an increase of 1 per cent., of GDP. My noble friend should be aware that advanced western countries require a growth of output, productivity and GNP of no less than 2 per cent. per annum if they are to keep employment at its existing level. If we fall below 2 per cent., unemployment begins to rise, but our rate of growth of productivity is higher than 2 per cent.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Peston: Perhaps I might interrupt my noble friend since he made two erroneous remarks. GDP in this country fell by 2.2 per cent. in 1980 and 2 per cent. in 1990. It is simply not the case that that has never happened. It happened twice in this country under the leadership of the party opposite.
Lord Shore of Stepney: I should have said "since the signing of the Maastricht Treaty". In 1990 it was just over 2 per cent. In the remainder of those years we would have been eligible for a fine. Our fall in GDP was nothing like that; indeed, there was a modest growth. The point is that it is not much of a safeguard. I accept the minor corrections made by my noble friend.
378
I depart from that rebuttal to deal with one or two other matters. I was gratified by the extent of the support that my amendment attracted in different parts of the Chamber. I was particularly struck by a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Howell, in his broadly supportive speech. He referred to the problem that might be faced by Ireland if that country subjected itself to a common interest rate based in Frankfurt.
I was very sympathetic to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Boardman. His prediction that the next stage after monetary union would be fiscal union is all too correct. They will be pressing for it the moment European monetary union is finally established. I believe that the quotations of the noble Lord, Lord Monson—who is in his place—were very well chosen and not without significance. That previous almost fanatical European, Adair Turner, director general of the CBI, has now begun to come to his senses and have second thoughts about the whole matter. The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, was so right to emphasise that this matter has the support of the political elite in Europe but not of the people.
I turn to two outstanding issues. The noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, who I understand cannot be in his place, went to the heart of the problem of EMU and the present convergence criteria. For so many at the heart of the matter is the 3 per cent. of GDP. The absence of borrowing and an excess deficit and, above all, insistence on price stability are at the heart of the arrangements for a European central bank, fixed exchange rates and so on. Basically this is a matter of political judgment. Very properly, the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, said that there was a price to be paid in unemployment for the degree of convergence with monetary criteria to which European countries had subjected themselves to qualify for joining the single currency. They have paid a very heavy price. To me, it is interesting and welcome to have the frank admission that that is the major cause of the massive rise in unemployment in Europe since the Maastricht Treaty was signed. There has not been much honesty about that in previous debates up and down the country. It is good to have it on the record.
That is a price which politicians must always weigh up also against excess inflation, but it is a balance and a judgment. If one is not prepared to allow the Ministers of one's own elected Parliament to make that judgment from time to time, one does not know what other aspect of democracy one would not defend from external takeover.
I believe that the criteria and the central bank, with its terms of reference, are a great mistake in the development of the European Union. The one matter that worries me about Europe—I am reasonably content with many of the events that have occurred, if I may assure the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, as to that—is that it may face many great difficulties if it has a continuing slump of the kind that it experienced in the 1930s. A great slump of that kind leads people to believe that they can do nothing to improve their lives because their governments are no longer responsive to them. What do they do? They begin to take to the streets. In France taking to the streets is almost a tradition. But occupying social security offices and burning sheep and beef have happened here also, have they not? They happened recently.

379
Why are the farmers so enraged? It is because they no longer feel they can obtain any response from a British government. It is a not a British government who placed a world-wide ban on the sale of British beef. It is a European government who did that. There are many people in the farming community who, while they accept that other countries have an individual right to say, "We are not going to take your beef for our own good public health reasons", find unacceptable that someone is making that judgment for the rest of the world, as it were, against their industry.
If we find ourselves in the position where the economic policy and prosperity of our country, and, above all, unemployment, seem to be no longer in the hands of elected British governments, the traditional British belief in law and order, good behaviour and an acceptance of democratic decision-making will be eroded and may break down. It will be a great opportunity then for those who represent extreme points of view, an authoritarian government and chauvinism, as distinct from a decent regard for one's own country, to have their chance and their innings.
My last point takes up the question of the decision that has to be made on 1st May. My noble friend the Minister said that the British Government's attitude is: we want EMU to succeed. We want the single currency to succeed. We want it to succeed on a firm and sustainable basis. We shall be constructive in our approach on 1st May. Well, 1st May is not far away. Therefore it requires a bit more probing.
A firm and sustainable basis? That is what the convergence criteria were laid down to achieve. In Opposition my own party made a great deal of the fact that if the thing were to go ahead, it had to be on a firm and sustainable basis. The German Government have said the same, and the Dutch Government too. But what is the situation that has emerged in the past few weeks and months? Eleven nations in Europe have said that in their judgment they have converged and so they should be part of the single currency. Two of them have, indeed, fudged outrageously. The French have conscripted their telecommunications pension fund to close the gap in their borrowing requirements. The Germans have tried to monetarise their gold reserves in an attempt to close their gap. I am not sure whether, seriously considered, they have dipped below the 3 per cent., even taking account of those extraordinary manoeuvres, but if they have, the question arises: is it sustainable? When the pressure is off this year there is a considerable chance that the 3 per cent. GDP gap will re-emerge. That is not the only criterion, is it?
The other criterion built into the Maastricht Treaty is that one's national debt in relation to GDP should be not more than 60 per cent., but with the Italians at over 120 per cent., and the Belgians the same, they would seem to be self-evidently disqualified. Therefore the matter is quite a serious one. So who is to adjudicate? Eurostat, quite frankly, is corrupt—it is prepared to wave through the French pension fund without demur—the European Commission, which should perhaps sit in judgment and give a serious and objective report; Mr. Santer, the chief
380
propagandist of the whole thing, who has done his utmost in his presidency to cheer it along? Well, he is hardly the man to deliver an objective judgment.
So, a great responsibility falls upon the presidency, does it not? How is the presidency going to react and behave? Is it going to be just co-operative and let the 11 through, or is it going to raise the question of honesty, genuine convergence and sustainability? We need some more information about that.
There is one report from an institution which I have not mentioned before which could be important. The European Monetary Institute, which of course is the precursor of the European central hank, is also to make a report. That report will be published on 25th March. I wonder what it will say? If it delivers a judgment adverse to a number of the self-proclaimed, "We are eligible member states", will the Government back up the EMI? Will they really act in the interests of Europe, because a weak unconverged currency, a weak euro, would surely break up, sooner or later, and have disastrous economic effects on the whole of the European Union?
Lord Bruce of Donington: I want to speak to Amendment No. 27.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: We have not reached Amendment No. 27.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Elton): Does the noble Lord, Lord Shore of Stepney, wish to withdraw his amendment?
Lord Shore of Stepney: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Hoyle: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving this Motion, may I suggest that the Committee stage begin again not before 9.25 p.m.
Moved accordingly and, on Question. Motion agreed to.
House resumed

Greater London Authority (Referendum Arrangements) Order 1998
8.28 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 10th March be approved [26th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, as some noble Lords may be aware, since this order was considered and approved by this House last Tuesday, we have spotted a technical flaw which has necessitated its relaying in amended form. The error was in Article 6 of the order which seeks to ensure that the cut-off date for additions to the electoral register used for the referendum is the same as that for local elections happening on the same day. As drafted, the order provided that the last date for alterations to the register for the purpose of the referendum should be 20th March.
It has since been brought to our attention that 20th March is in fact the final date by which applications for late registration can be accepted for inclusion in the following month's local government register. Formal amendment of the register only takes place in the first few days of April. If interpreted strictly, the article might have led to some late registering voters being able to vote in the local elections but missing out on the opportunity to vote in the referendum.
I am sure that noble Lords will agree on the importance of taking immediate action to ensure that no London residents miss out on their right to vote in the referendum as a result of registering late. That is why we have taken swift action to lay an amended order and to bring it back before this House.
The only difference between this order and the one considered and approved last week by this House is that Article 6 has been amended to provide that the last date for alterations to the register should be 6th April rather than 20th March. This will ensure that anyone who applies to register up to 20th March will be able to take part in the referendum.
I apologise to noble Lords for the inconvenience of having to reconsider this order. But I am sure that your Lordships' House will accept that the Government have acted properly in seeking to put right this problem as soon as possible. I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 10th March be approved [26th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton.)
Lord Burnham: My Lords, with reasonable luck, the debate will not last so long as the debate to which we have recently listened. I am happy to see a genuine manuscript amendment. We on these Benches are entirely content for the case which the Minister has made for the order. I am happy to support it.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Hamwee, who is unable to be here tonight, I thank the Minister. Will she convey to her noble friend Lady Hayman my noble friend's thanks for the courtesy of the letter which she wrote? My noble friend, on behalf of these Benches, is happy with the action which the Government have taken.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I am delighted with the responses of both noble Lords.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 9.25 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.32 to 9.25 p.m.]

European Communities (Amendment) Bill
House again in Committee on Clause 1.
Lord Shore of Stepney Lord Shore of Stepney moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 12, at end insert—("() Article I, other than paragraph 12 (Title Via of the Treaty on European Union (provisions on closer cooperation)),").
The noble Lord said: I am more than slightly embarrassed at appearing again on the Floor of this Chamber after one or two earlier occasions on this very day. But this is the next amendment in order and it is extremely important, and I move it formally now.
It would have been much better had this group of amendments been taken on another day because at this time of night on a Thursday, the Committee is inevitably rather sparse in its attendance and, of course, noble Lords had no intimation until one o'clock today that these amendments were to be debated today. I feel that if they had had that intimation and had had that knowledge, the Committee would be much better attended, even though it is a late hour.
Why do I say that? I say that because these amendments that I am moving and the articles in the treaty to which they refer have two, or perhaps three, aspects. The first is their technical nature, which raises questions which I shall seek to explore further, and I hope that the Minister will be able to enlighten us about that.
Secondly, the amendments raise the whole question of the future development of the European Union and, in particular, whether it is possible to find a modus vivendi between different groups of states, some of which wish, in certain areas, to go into a much closer union than others.
If that could be worked out satisfactorily and explored fully, we may find a solution to many of the difficulties that we have experienced as a country under different governments in our dealings with the European Union and previously the European Community.
First, I turn to the rather technical aspects. The basic article is Article K.15 in the Treaty of Amsterdam. Indeed, it comes under the heading of "Provisions on closer cooperation". It clearly allows for states, provided that there is at least a majority of member states, to go forward into closer co-operation than exists in the present treaties; indeed, it allows them to go beyond that. The article lays down certain conditions which, on the face of it, are welcome and acceptable. There are several paragraphs under the article. Paragraph (f) makes the proviso that that process should,
"not affect the competencies, rights, obligations and interests of those Member States which do not participate therein".
That is to say: if they do go ahead, they must not do so in such a way as to inflict disadvantage and damage upon those member states which do not choose to go with them. That seems to me to be a very important safeguard.
The article also allows for states which do not wish to go ahead into closer co-operation at a particular time, to do so at a later stage if they so decide. Under paragraph (g) it says that it,
"is open to all Member States and allows them to become parties to the cooperation at any time, provided that they comply with the basic decision".
They seem to me to be quite important safeguards; and, to that extent, I welcome them.
I turn now to the very important question of the voting procedures. Those procedures applying to closer co-operation, which are quite fundamental, are to be found in Article K.12 of the treaty. Oddly enough, that precedes the major section defining what closer co-operation is all about. It says that closer co-operation could go ahead, so to speak, provided that the Council has acted by a qualified majority vote; the Commission has presented an opinion; and, for what it is worth, the request has also been,
"forwarded to the European Parliament".
So the Community institutions will have had a chance to consider the matter and, presumably, to deliver their opinion.
The article then goes on to say—and this is very important—that it is not just decided by qualified majority vote. If it were, it would be totally unacceptable and, in my view, would be rejected out of hand. The second paragraph of Article K.12 (2) says:
"If a member of the Council declares that, for important and stated reasons of national policy, it intends to oppose the granting of an authorisation by qualified majority, a vote shall not be taken".
Again, that is certainly helpful. It then goes on to say:
"The Council may, acting by a qualified majority, request that the matter be referred to the European Council for decision by unanimity".
That is the most important group of words; namely, that,
"the matter be referred to the European Council for decision by unanimity".
Presumably, any state which feared that it was being disadvantaged or damaged in some way by other states going forward into closer co-operation would know that it could exercise a veto and prevent that happening. However, as I said, it would have to put a case forward within which serious national interests would have to be stated and it would have to bring its case to the European Council. I find that not unacceptable. I think I have interpreted correctly the clauses relating to closer co-operation. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will tell me whether I have it wrong in any way or confirm that I have it right.
So much for the technical side of it. K.15 and K.16 raise the prospect of a majority of countries moving ahead into closer co-operation while others do not. I should have thought that raises the whole question of the future of the European Union and the question of whether the different aims and aspirations of countries within the European Union can be accommodated without, as it were, inflicting damage upon a minority, or a minority inflicting damage on the majority—depending on which way you look at it—by holding everything up. In other words, the measure offers the possibility not just of a two speed or a multi-speed
384
Europe but of genuine flexibility. It offers the possibility that some nations which agree on some matters of collective importance will go forward and use the treaty machinery and institutions—as the clause allows them to do—while others who do not want to do that are under no obligation to join in.
When you look at the sheer complexity of the European Union as it now is—it is bound to become even more so, particularly when one considers the first and second tranche of candidate countries—the differences of background, history, tradition, institutions, people and languages are so enormous that it is almost impossible to envisage the whole thing working uniformly across the Continent. If one reaches that point in one's examination of the present situation and the reality of the Community and of national life within it, surely it is possible to begin to work towards what I mentioned earlier; namely, a modus vivendi which can be accepted by all members of the European Union.
It is relevant to accept that there are serious differences in goals and intent. We all know that some countries—I suppose this was strongest in the original Six who signed the Rome Treaty—wish to progress to a much deeper integration than the rest. They wish to do that for a number of understandable reasons which I certainly do not despise and have never wished to frustrate. The most recent common experience of the Six was defeat, occupation, liberation and destruction in the Second World War. The fires of war visited those countries not once in defeat but secondly in liberation. The damage and destruction were virtually beyond belief. Before that vivid experience of 50 years ago—not that long ago—there was the earlier massive conflict of the First World War. In the case of the two central nations in this European Six—France and Germany—there was rivalry, hostility and war going back to 1870 and beyond. Therefore it is perfectly understandable that there should have been a strong desire in that Six—which is stronger than in any other state—to come together to be as certain as possible that war would no longer be a possibility between the member states of that original Six.
It is interesting to look back on its history. The first initiative was the European Coal and Steel Community—a rather old fashioned view, as we now see it—when the sinews of war were considered to be coal and steel as they were in the First and Second World Wars. By uniting the European coal and steel industries the individual countries would be deprived of the essential sinews of war. It would come under a collective High Authority. That was the beginning.
Since then there have been many other projects. Some were abandoned, like the European Defence Community with multinational troops down to platoon or company level. That was all part of the integration. Behind all that, giving this tremendous drive and force, was German guilt and French fear. Those were the two dominating emotions and forces in the ever closer European Union construction. It was interfered with for a period on the part of France by General de Gaulle. He asserted with great self-confidence the national independence of France. But it was abandoned again the moment the Berlin Wall came down, and the two Germanies reunited, when France

385
faced 80 million Germans again on the frontier. National independence, or a Europe of sovereign states, was abandoned by Mitterrand and he entered into the great leap forward of the Maastricht Treaty in the belief that, roped down with a thousand regulations, a single currency and a common monetary policy, it would be impossible for Germany to assert itself independently of its neighbours.
That is fully understandable. Those countries which were occupied and then liberated had seen their state power smashed, and the rule of law of their own countries completely discarded, overturned and torn up. That has not been the experience of this country. We may have been fortunate, lucky and blessed in our history, but we have not seen our state power smashed and overruled. We have not suffered the appalling losses and indignities of being occupied by an enemy power.
I believe that that lies as much at the root of the British approach to Europe as anything else. We are prepared to co-operate. We are prepared to go a very long way. But from our own historic experience, and the will of our people, we do not feel that we need to enter into such an intimacy of relationship that we abandon self-government and the powers of our own democracy.
I turn to the clause. All that I have said is relevant to it, and to the future of the European Union. The first obvious point is this. With the best will in the world, the British have tripped over the rest of the European Union and found themselves in conflict not just over the Amsterdam Treaty but the Maastricht Treaty too. What is an opt-out, in a sense, but the acceptance by the majority that it can go forward into a closer arrangement but not carrying the country which has an opt-out? The Danes, the Swedes and the Finns also share with us the desire not to go forward in this way. Let us imagine trying to apply to the East European applicant countries the disciplines of a single currency and a European central bank. We know that it is a nonsense.
We have quite considerable opt-outs. We opted out of Schengen. We believe that our borders are to be patrolled by our own people and are not simply to be part of a European open frontier system. We opted out crucially on the single currency and monetary union. Those are precursors, in a way, of these clauses and of this policy, this treaty prospect of closer co-operation, differentially applied to the member states of the European Union.
I see a great possibility here. It has been the failure to be honest with ourselves and with our European partners that has led us into such difficulties and so much bad will. It started under the previous government, with the then Prime Minister, Mr. Major, talking about "Britain at the heart of Europe"; and our own Prime Minister, Mr. Blair, is talking now about "leading Europe". If you accept that there are differences of historical experience and of objective, you cannot start, as it were, posturing as the leader when you know that the majority of the states want to go further, and in a different direction, than we do. The majority of European Union countries actually want a federal Europe. They want it—and good luck to them. Indeed, I wholly understand, and I shall never advocate
386
standing in their way. But it is not right for us. It is not consistent with our history and it is not going to be our destiny.
So this clause is of immense importance. If we can only manage to talk frankly, openly and honestly with ourselves and say that their objective is a federal state but ours is not—if we could only do that—we could have a much happier, more fruitful relationship with our European neighbours than we have had so far.
If anyone is worried and is thinking: "Oh dear, there is a great European state across the Channel, and here are we, a rather smaller nation state on the other side", let them reflect for just a moment on another English-speaking nation which lives with a similar experience in prosperity, peace and general good will. I refer to Canada, living cheek by jowl with the superpower, the United States—managing its own affairs, having its own currency and its own central bank, making its own laws, and enjoying the good will and close co-operation of its neighbour. Let that be a model for us, too.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: I wish to refer to Amendment No. 3, so ably moved by my noble friend Lord Shore of Stepney. It refers specifically to,
"paragraph 12 Title VIa of the Treaty on European Union (provisions on closer cooperation)".
I have before me Article K.15 as reproduced quite faithfully in the Treaty of Amsterdam. It states:
"Member states which intend to establish closer cooperation between themselves may make use of the institutions, procedures and mechanisms laid down by this Treaty and the Treaty establishing the European Community, provided that the cooperation:
(a) is aimed at furthering the objectives of the Union and at protecting and serving its interests".
My first question is: who determines whether it is aimed at furthering the objectives of the union and protecting and servicing its interests? Who defines that?
In the Treaty of Rome, in a section that is so far not repealed, it states that the European Commission:
"is in itself the authority for the interpretation of the treaty".
What it really means is this: The European Commission is satisfied that it is aimed at furthering the objectives of the Union and at protecting and serving its interests. Through the Treaty of Rome, similarly, it is the Commission, under Article K.15(b) of the Treaty of Amsterdam, that determines whether the co-operation:
"respects the principles of the said Treaties and the single institutional framework of the Union".
So again it is the Commission that has to be satisfied and to certify that the co-operation:
"(c) is only used as a last resort, where the objectives of the said Treaties could not be attained by applying the relevant procedures laid down therein".
There is no democratic determination; it is determined by the Commission. As noble Lords are well aware from the previous observations I ventured to make to the Committee, the Commission is responsible to no one but itself. It is not elected, it is accountable to no one.
Paragraph (d) states that it:
"concerns at least a majority of Member States".

387
Even I am willing to concede the power of the Commission to determine the simple mathematical problem that it concerns a majority of member states. Then it is the Commission that has to be satisfied that it:
"does not affect the 'acquis communautaire' and the measures adopted under the other provisions of the said Treaties … [It] does not affect the competences, rights, obligations and interests of those Member States which do not participate therein".
That is similar to paragraph (g) and all the rest.
The whole operation of the closer co-operation and how it may be applied is not decided by any elected body. It is decided by an unelected body—the bureaucracy which is enshrined in the Commission itself. The Commission's word is final in these matters. It is not open to objection by the Council of Ministers, it is not even open to objection by the European Council. It is the Commission itself—an unelected, non-accountable body—that makes the crucial decision as to whether certain members who want to follow a certain course of action outside the normal ambit of the treaties are permitted to make use of its facilities to do so.
Perhaps Members of the Committee and Her Majesty's Government are quite willing to accede to this procedure on the fiat of the Commission. I repeat that under the Treaty of Rome—let the Front Bench deny this—it is the Commission that is responsible for the interpretation of the treaties. It is responsible for that under the Treaty of Rome in an unamended section. If it suits Her Majesty's Government, who represent the United Kingdom, that such co-operation outside the normal ambit of the Treaty of Rome is to take place independently on the say-so of the Commission, they are welcome to take that view. For my part, I believe it is incompatible with our position as a sovereign state with a due right under the treaties to its own views and opinions without being "at the heart of Europe". Nothing can take that away.
It is allied to an even more important question which arises from the operation of another section of the treaty which is of unique importance in this regard. It may well be—and I willingly concede it—that a member state, perhaps even the United Kingdom in its moment of independence, would take the matter to the European Court. It is entitled to do so. What happens? Article K.7, paragraph 6 reads as follows:
"The Court of Justice shall have jurisdiction to review the legality of framework decisions and decisions in actions brought by a Member State or the Commission on grounds of lack of competence, infringement of an essential procedural requirement, infringement of this Treaty or of any rule of law relating to its application, or misuse of powers. The proceedings provided for in this paragraph shall be instituted within two months of the publication of the measure".
In the event of any appeal, any objection or any action in dissent, or even in assent, of proposals contained in the original article to which I referred, goes to the Court of Justice. That article should be read in conjunction with Article K.6, which states:
"The Council shall take measures and promote cooperation, using the appropriate form and procedures as set out in this Title, contributing to the pursuit of the objectives of the Union. To that end, acting unanimously on the initiative of any Member State or of the Commission, the Council may: (a) adopt common positions defining the approach of the Union to a particular matter: (b) adopt framework decisions for the purpose of approximation of the laws and regulations of the Member States. Framework decisions shall be binding upon the
388
Member States as to the result to be achieved but shall leave to the national authorities the choice of form and methods. They shall not entail direct effect".
At sub-paragraph (d) it states:
"establish conventions which it shall recommend to the Member States for adoption in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements. Member States shall begin the procedures applicable within a time limit to be set by the Council. Unless they provide otherwise, conventions shall, once adopted by at least half of the Member States, enter into force for those Member States. Measures implementing conventions shall he adopted within the Council by a majority of two-thirds of the Contracting Parties".
Let us look at those two articles taken together. Let us say that there is a challenge by a member state—or even by the Commission itself—arising from the application of the article to which I referred and the matter goes to the European Court of Justice. That raises important considerations. It raises the consideration as to what is the force behind Article K.7(6), which gives the court full powers. I want to know from Her Majesty's Government how far the Court of Justice rules shall override our own decisions in these matters. It raises matters of grave constitutional importance.
For example, in this country we have a rule—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, is unfortunately absent through illness and I wish he was here; indeed, I wish him a happy recovery, as I am sure do all Members of the Committee—which the noble and learned Lord, speaking in his capacity as the then Lord Chancellor, put to the House when he said that no Parliament can bind its successors; no Parliament can pre-empt the right of its successors to change. Does that rule still exist? Under Article K.7(6) it would appear otherwise. Will my noble friend who is to reply give me the Government's opinion as to the validity of Article K.7(6)? Carried to its logical conclusion, that would postulate that the Court of Justice can prevent any action taken by a future government to, for example, opt out of the European Community altogether. Will my noble friend give me his opinion on that? Does Article K.7(6) override our constitution? That is the vital question involved, and it is one of which this incidence in connection with the article contained in the amendment is a mere small example. Perhaps in due course we can have an observation from my noble friend, if necessary with advice, whether the doctrine that a succeeding parliament can override what has been decided before still applies. For example, will a parliament elected in 2002 still have the right to overturn a decision reached by the previous parliament? That is the fundamental question involved. I invite my noble friend to reply in due course.
10 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Shore, for introducing this amendment (to which my name has been added) in such a deep, probing and thoughtful way. When he talked about the understandable inspiration of the original Six to want to set up the original European Common Market, which has grown into the animal we see before us today, he was right to say that the two main inspirations for that initiative were the fear that Germany might go to war with France yet again and the wish to create a bloc to stand up against the growing power of the Soviet Union. My trouble is that I think those

389
fears are both truly redundant nowadays. If there is one question I would wish to put to Herr Kohl, who I am sure is in good faith when he fears that the German nation might go to war again—I of course disagree with him completely—it is this: when did a bourgeois democratic nation ever provoke a war? I believe that the answer is, historically, never. I cannot see any possibility of it happening again with a democratic nation in Europe.
Then this question of closer co-operation raises the possibility of new members for the European Union, about which we hear so much. Indeed, both our main political parties and many people in Europe regard the expansion of the European Union to include the former communist countries of eastern Europe as the number one priority. But for that it is generally acknowledged that we must achieve reform of the common agricultural policy, and that, in turn, would require 62 out of the 87 votes to achieve it. The last time I looked at the subject, there were 54 votes ranged against reform of the common agriculture policy; and so I should very much like the Minister, when he comes to reply, to say whether there has been any progress in that matter, and whether Germany perhaps now supports reform of the common agriculture policy.
Not only do we require reform of the common agriculture policy but we require reform of the structural and cohesion funds. I understand that one black ball from the recipients of those funds would exclude any reform of them. So, unless the Minister can enlighten the Committee otherwise, it seems to me that the question of enlargement is almost certainly a pipe dream.
Are we at all sure that the former communist countries of eastern Europe really do want to be members of the European Union? I have been able to discuss this question with some of their governments recently and I have found no genuine enthusiasm for full membership. They all seem to want access to the market and defence through NATO. Access to the market is not being made exactly easy for them and, generally speaking, they are frustrated by the EU's famous bureaucracy, although they are very fond of the handouts which they receive from Brussels while they are queuing for membership.
Be that as it may, I cast a note of caution on these new flexibility provisions in the Amsterdam treaty, which appear to be something of a victory for the federalists. I say that because previously any new initiatives or changes to the EU's organisation had to be agreed unanimously. If some countries wished to integrate more deeply in any new area, they needed everyone to agree that they could use the institutions and mechanisms of the treaty to do so. An example of that was when the United Kingdom agreed the Maastricht protocol on social policy, which allowed the other 11 nations to go ahead with the social chapter using the Community's institutions for which the UK continued to pay its share.
But instead the UK could have vetoed the policy. The others would then have had to set up separate mechanisms, use separate buildings, separate bureaucrats, chauffeurs, translators and all the rest, if they were really so keen on it that they wanted to go ahead in those circumstances. Likewise, we could have vetoed the whole economic and monetary union policy at
390
Maastricht. Many of us believe that that is exactly what we should have done. Apart from anything else, it would have saved us a considerable debate this afternoon.
In those circumstances our previous government were beginning to suggest that we might withhold our veto on future projects of closer integration which the others wished to pursue, but only in return for a repatriation of some powers to the United Kingdom. So instead of the ever-closer union of the people of Europe—that guiding principle of the treaty and of the court—we had started to think of a Europe where powers would pass up and down between Brussels and the national parliaments; hence the expression "variable geometry", a leading proponent of which was my right honourable friend Mr. Michael Howard in the previous government. But as that geometry contained a potential minus sign it was not very popular with those who wished to pursue a single European superstate. So, as I understand it, that is why the veto was so weakened at Amsterdam—it removed the bargaining chip of those who wished to depart from the ever-closer union of the people of Europe.
Until I heard the very powerful opening speech on this amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Shore, I had thought that the veto had been removed more completely than he indicated. So I join him in waiting to hear the Minister's interpretation of this matter and whether agrees with the interpretation of his noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington to the effect that the Commission remains in charge—as, under the Treaty of Rome, it usually does. In other words, if the acquis communautaire is in no way impaired by these changes to the treaty, these new clauses are very far from welcome.
Lord Monson: Unlike my sceptic friends—I use the word "sceptic" rather than "euro-sceptic" deliberately because neither I nor, I believe, they are sceptic in any way about the proud, ancient nation states of Europe in all their infinite and enriching variety; indeed, we have great affection for them; we are only sceptical about this centralising, bureaucratic, often wasteful, corrupt, bossy and interfering European Union—I see no harm and, indeed, some possible good, in a multi-speed Europe, provided that those wanting to create their own mini-alliances, so to speak, use their own funds to do so rather than Community resources. Indeed, if they use their own funds to forge such mini-alliances without involving any of the institutions of the Community, it is difficult to see how any other member state validly could object.
Some years ago, Sir Richard Body, who is now the honourable Member for Boston and Skegness, a noted Euro-sceptic but also a passionate champion of the Commonwealth and, in particular, of its poor countries, and—this is less widely known—a great idealist, wrote a book—one of the many excellent books that he has written on agriculture and other matters—entitled, if I remember rightly, Europe of Many Circles. He envisaged a neighbourly Europe of freely co-operating, independent nation states which might wish to forge bipartite, tripartite or multipartite treaties with their neighbours in fields which particularly concerned them but which other European states might wish to approach in a different manner. As the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, has just said, interestingly enough, Mr. Michael

391
Howard—not an habitual ally of Sir Richard—seemed to echo that in a notable speech in the Inner Temple two or three years ago. That is the direction in which we should be travelling.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: In some ways I find the debate on this amendment somewhat anomalous. If we go back a bit, we discover that one of the ways in which the then Prime Minister, Mr. John Major, dealt with the profound divisions in his own party on the Maastricht Treaty was by means of opt-outs. Indeed, I recall that he came back from debates on that treaty announcing that he had won, "game, set and match", by having organised no fewer than three opt-outs from the conclusions of that treaty. The first of those opt-outs was on the social protocol, and he was extremely proud of it. The second opt-out related to European economic and monetary union, to which noble Lords have already referred in this brief debate, and the third was the opt-out on the Schengen community, which he shared with Denmark and Ireland. It must be said that Ireland did so notably reluctantly and primarily because of its interdependence with the United Kingdom in terms of border controls, not least between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.
So, there were three opt-outs at Maastricht and it was obvious that what Mr. John Major had done—incidentally, a Prime Minister whom I think that history will treat rather more kindly than do many contemporary commentators—was not to achieve a break in the deadlock in Europe, as he proclaimed, but rather to achieve a bridge in the chasm in his own party.
Having done so, the then Prime Minister discovered the route of opting out as possibly the best answer to the dilemma that he faced—the dilemma of being at one and the same time within the European Union and half outside it. It is interesting that as he developed that idea—I shall say a few more words about that development in a moment—he aroused more and more concern on the part of the other member states of the Union. He aroused that concern because they recognised that at a certain point opt-outs and their like, "variable geometry", a la carte Europe, and the rest of it, would so husk out the very core that had been achieved over all the years since 1957 that the European Community and the European Union would begin to unravel, with serious consequences not so much for the United Kingdom as for the other member states.
So, if we look at the record, we find that as early as 1995, M. Chirac and Herr Kohl sent a joint letter to the other member states in which they outlined the concept of what they described as "concentric circles"—a core of central member states who would make the fundamental decisions about the development of the European Union, a penumbra of other states which were in a sense half-members and finally an outer rim of countries that one day would wish to join but saw little prospect of doing so. The outer rim at that time contained most of central and eastern Europe, which saw little prospect of soon being able to join the Union.
In the White Paper of March 1996 Her Majesty's Government put into words this particular policy. They described their goal as,
"a variable geometry but not a two-tier Europe".
392
I believe that it would have taken the extraordinary ability of a very great athlete to achieve that combination, for "variable geometry" implied a two-tier unit. There was no way in which one could insist upon a single tier Europe on the basis of variable geometry. Why should the other member states grant full influence to the United Kingdom if she had opted out of some of the central parts of the European treaties?
In January 1997 the Prime Minister announced that he had devised a blueprint for a multi-speed pick-and-mix Europe. That was the description given to it by the press. He said that he was in favour of what he termed "multiple opt-outs". I quote his words:
"The great debate is how flexible it will be and what sort of flexibility it will mean. I can see a way of unlocking it but we still have to negotiate our way through. I can see now how it can be done and I will endeavour to see that it is done over the next few months".
The Prime Minister was as good as his word. He entered into the Amsterdam negotiations of that summer and autumn intending to seek one opt-out after the other. That was the way he envisaged the possibility of reconciling his own party, in particular the Euro-sceptical element of it, to what he knew would be the next step to yet another treaty on the way to closer union in Europe. I do not blame him for that. It was a perfectly reasonable political decision on his part, but it had very little to do with the development of the United Kingdom's influence in Europe. Indeed, it was almost certain to be counter-productive.
The Intergovernmental Conference was instructed, after the report of a reflection group, to consider strengthened co-operation by some if not all member states which would be open to all. It would have to conform with the acquis but would leave open to Britain the possibility of a Europe of many different tiers moving at many different speeds. The Amsterdam discussions were in some ways contorted by the attempt to reconcile what the other member states wanted with the position of the British Government. When one looks at the wording of such provisions as Articles K.12, K.15, K.16 and 5a, one sees the desperate attempt to try to include Britain on the terms that she was prepared to he included.
Yet the other member states—I shall come in a moment to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Shore of Stepney, about the position of the other member states—sought to protect themselves against the impact of the variable geometry proposed by Britain. They did so in three ways. Article 5a, which stands alongside Clauses K.15 and K.16 at the core of this concept, addresses itself to the first pillar, the Community pillar, and has a great many more conditions to be met than Articles K.12 and K.15.
Among those requirements are, centrally, the protection of the acquis communautaire. Indeed, variable geometry on the first pillar was a very restricted concept. One could argue that it was tailored entirely to the demands of the British Government of the time. Even then there was a requirement—the noble Lord, Lord Shore of Stepney, pointed this out—that there should be an authorisation. That authorisation depended upon a qualified majority. If at the end of the day that authorisation was not sufficient—if one-third of the states refused to co-operate—then the proposal for greater

393
co-operation would not go ahead. That was an attempt to prevent there being a split within the Community pillar itself.
It was however the case—I draw it to the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington—that there was written into 5(A) and K.15 a precise restatement in narrow form of the Luxembourg veto, because it said there—the noble Lord, Lord Shore, argued this point on K.15, which applies mainly to justice and internal security, and not to 5(A), where it applies to the first pillar—that where a member state had important and stated reasons of national policy for not being willing to accept a co-operative venture involving some states, the matter would not be resolved by a qualified majority, it would be referred to the European Council—the single most senior body of the Community made up of heads of state and governments.
That was an astonishing safeguard. It was made as a gesture almost entirely to the UK. The only other country taking the same position was Denmark. No other country among the 15 took that position. It was made in respect also of K.12 and K.15, where the same procedure is laid out, but with fewer flanking requirements because K.12 and K.15 apply to the third pillar, and there is therefore an intergovernmental structure into which they fall, where the requirements to be met were considerably looser than in the case of the first pillar, and understandably so.
That meant, essentially, that the rest of the Union was determined to defend the acquis except in the most exceptional circumstance affecting the core interests of a member state, but they were willing to be somewhat forthcoming when it came, in particular, to the third pillar. The reason for that was that the third pillar had within it two strains. One of those strains was the insistence of the UK and some other member states that that was to remain intergovernmental. But the other element was an understanding that the pressures of circumstance through organised crime and the drug trade, particularly in the area of the third pillar, were becoming so strong that, frankly, to talk about the strength and impermeability of national borders no longer made very much sense.
Indeed, the rapid rate of development of international organised crime and of organised crime throughout Europe—I probably share this view with the noble Lords, Lord Shore and Lord Bruce—and the speed at which we are seeing international responses to organised crime demand a much tighter control by national parliaments of the conventions that are reached than exists at present in the treaties.
I turn, secondly, to the situation outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Shore of Stepney. I must say with the greatest respect—and I have the greatest respect for the noble Lord—that I fundamentally disagree with him on one point, as I do with the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch. There is no evidence to show that the six have a special commitment with Europe which is not shared by the other countries.
I was surprised by the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, because only yesterday I had the privilege of talking to the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary of Poland specifically on this issue. There were presiding over a moving meeting which was headed
394
"Poland Comes Home". The theme of their speeches was to the effect that Poland had rediscovered its European destiny. It was not a hand held out for aid, because as regards enlargement Poland does not expect to be any kind of beneficiary of the CAP, as my noble colleague on Sub-Committee A knows as well as I. However, it expects a return to what Poland sees as its historical tradition, which is bound up with the rest of Europe and not, as it once was, with the former Soviet Union. The same can be said for the Czech Republic, Hungary and the other countries which are currently in the first wave of access candidates.
The only countries which have an opting out view of any seriousness are the United Kingdom and Denmark. My impression is that with the exception of defence which is a special case that we shall debate later, the United Kingdom Government are moving away from the endless seeking of opt outs. The Government know, as we know, that the decision to end the opting out of the social protocol was hugely welcomed on the continent of Europe not because it was felt that suddenly the United Kingdom would find itself bogged down with 1,000 regulations and requirements, but because Her Majesty's Government understood that this was the message about the kind of Europe one wanted and it was a Europe which was to be enthused with the spirit of social justice as well as the spirit of the free market and liberty. We shall discuss that subject in more detail later in Committee.
We wish strongly to repudiate what was said earlier today by one noble Lord; that the Liberal Democrats find everything right with the continent of Europe and nothing right with the United Kingdom. That is profoundly to misunderstand and misinterpret our position. I can sum up our position quickly. It is that the United Kingdom has a rich heritage of democracy, individual liberty and civic society to share with the other countries and member states of Europe. It is just because we believe that the influence of this country can be benign, that it can help us towards a Europe which looks beyond its own borders and has a sense of responsibility for the rest of the world, that we wish to see Britain playing the fullest part in the European Union.
We wish passionately to see a Europe which is free, accountable, democratic, tolerant and pluralistic. We believe that we can reach that point by getting fully inside the European Union rather than staying half in and half out.
Lord Shore of Stepney: Before the noble Baroness resumes her seat, would she answer one question? Does she accept that there is a difference of fundamental aim between some of the countries of the European Union and ourselves in their objective of establishing a genuine union, a new state, which we do not wish to pursue? Is the noble Baroness in favour of the pursuit of a new state in Europe? If so, surely it makes sense for us, in the interests of good relations with our neighbours, not to deceive them that we can go along, not to stand constantly in their way, but to reach an accommodation.
10.30 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: I believe that every question that is asked seriously of me, as this has been asked, by the noble Lord deserves a reply. I can give him a reply based only on my recent impressions. They are that there has been a considerable switch in mood within the Continent of Europe towards a greater degree of what one might describe as "confederation" and away from the concept of tight federalism.
One only has to look at the way in which the Federal Republic of Germany, and not least its separate Landerä, has moved towards a greater emphasis on subsidiarity and the right of self-determination over a very wide range of issues to see that we are moving towards a closer Union but not a closer Union that involves the kind of tight federalism that many people, like the noble Lord himself, fear.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: It was interesting to hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, that Europe is moving towards confederation rather than tight federalism. I must confess that I had not noticed it myself. Indeed, Herr Kohl and many others are still talking about a united Europe and they see the single currency as a further move in the political direction of a country called Europe.
That is what I am hearing from them and that is what is reported in the British newspapers. If the noble Baroness has better information, I am pleased to hear it. We had Professor Wilhelm Hankel to speak to some of us over the weekend. Professor Hankel is one of the four professors who is challenging Euro economic and monetary union, the single currency, in the German Federal Court. I do not think that it was his view that the German Chancellor was moving in the direction in which I should like him to move; that is, towards a more confederal Europe rather than a federal Europe. However, things may develop and I hope that the noble Baroness is correct in what she says.
I take it from that—and I stand to be corrected—that the Liberal Democrat Party is not in favour of federalism itself. Again, I have always understood that that was its aim. If it is not, I should be pleased to hear it. But everything that I have heard so far leads me to believe that that is true. Does the noble Baroness wish to comment?
Baroness Williams of Crosby: I thought that I had explained myself in my previous response to the noble Lord, Lord Shore of Stepney, and I do not want to delay the debate further.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: We may have to return to that later on. But there are one or two questions that I should like to ask. I should like to say a lot more but the time is getting on. I should like to know whether nations which have agreed co-operation under K.12 will be able to withdraw at some later stage if they believe that that co-operation is no longer of any use to them, or, as under the acquis communautaire, will they be obliged to continue such co-operation for all time?
I should certainly like to have an answer to that.
396
If that is not so, if they can withdraw, what will be the procedure for withdrawal? That certainly is not clear in any of the articles under Title VI, so I should like to know about that.
The other matter that I simply cannot understand is why the administrative and operational costs of those new co-operative ventures should be paid for by the Community as a whole; that is, those who do not take part in the co-operation ventures will be subsidising those who are taking part. I should like further explanation of that and to ask my noble friend whether he believes that to be fair. I certainly do not think that it is fair. If those people who are co-operating—and, presumably, getting the benefits of that co-operation—feel that it is worth while, surely they should pay the cost.
I also hope that my noble friend will be able to answer a question put to him by my noble friend Lord Bruce as regards Article K.7(6), which appears to undermine the British constitution. In fact, we will have the opportunity later to discuss the matter more fully, because I intend to table an amendment which will make it absolutely clear that this treaty can in no way undermine our basic constitution which, as I understand it, is that one parliament may not bind its successors. Indeed, we shall have the opportunity later to discuss that whole issue.
I turn, finally, to Amendment No. 31 which calls on the Government to produce a report. It says:
"No later than one year after the passing of this Act, and at annual intervals thereafter, a Minister of the Crown shall lay before both Houses of Parliament a report containing details of—

(a) the participation of the United Kingdom in any measures adopted under Articles K.15 and K.16 of the Treaty … [and]

(b) any decision of the United Kingdom not to participate in any measures mentioned in paragraph (a), and the reasons for such decision".

It seems to me that that is a reasonable request to make. I hope that my noble friend will he able to tell me that the Government accept the amendment, especially as Article K.17 provides that the,
"Council and the Commission shall regularly inform the European Parliament of the development of closer cooperation established on the basis",
of that particular title. Under those circumstances, as the European Parliament is to have a report, I do not understand why we in this Parliament cannot have a report from our own Government about matters which affect our country.
Lord Swinfen: I should like, very briefly, to return to a point raised by both the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, and the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon. I do so because there is quite a large number of people in this country who are very happy with what I would describe as the "Common Market", but who are not at all happy with a single state of Europe. Indeed, some people think that that is coming.
In his reply, can the Minister confirm that, should a government in the future wish to leave the EC, there is nothing in the Treaty of Rome, the Maastricht Treaty and, indeed, the Amsterdam Treaty, which will prevent us from so doing? I ask that question particularly and would like confirmation. Someone who knows far more

397
about the European Union—the EC—than I do, and is a much greater expert on the relevant documents, has suggested to me that once the Amsterdam Treaty is ratified an attempt to leave would be an act of rebellion against the EC. That would mean that we had become one state in Europe. That is what we are being told is not happening; we are told that it is a collection of independent states.
Therefore, when replying, can the Minister confirm that, should a government in the future decide to take the United Kingdom out of the EC, there is no obstacle to doing so? I believe another noble Lord also asked how that could be done. I do not expect an answer to that question at the moment because it will probably be quite a complicated and drawn-out affair. However, I believe that this Chamber should be given that information some time before the Bill passes.
Lord Moynihan: I am sorely tempted to reply to the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, which in my opinion were a wholly misguided assessment of the position that John Major took on opt-outs. But I hope she will forgive me if I return to them at a later stage.
For now, suffice it to say that our position is to welcome the inclusion of the concept of flexibility into the treaty on the basis that we have always advocated the concept that a flexible Europe is essential if the European Union is to be enlarged successfully. A diverse, enlarged Europe simply cannot be forced into the rigid strait-jacket of uniformity.
However, we take the approach that, although the concept of a flexible Europe is essential if the European Union is to be enlarged successfully, it should be introduced following certain key principles; namely, any arrangement which allows groups of fewer than the 15 member states to use Community institutions must be agreed by all and open to all and must not force any member state into further integration; such arrangements must also be consistent with the single market; and proposals that Community institutions could be used by vanguard groups if one or more states were actively opposed are simply not acceptable. However, sadly, under the Amsterdam Treaty, a group of member states can decide to go ahead with further integration in any area without the support of the full European Union, which undermines the fundamental principle that flexibility should be open to all and agreed by all.
In my few remarks this evening I wish to be specific, albeit technical. I ask the Minister some questions in relation to Articles K.12 and K.15 together with new Article 5a. Had the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, spotted that, it would have been open to the very same questions that he raised in relation to the article that he focused upon.
These provisions enable member states to pursue a form of fast track integration on the basis of a qualified majority, if they wish to do so, and they are drafted in similar vocabulary to the national veto/emergency brake clause for common foreign and security policy, to which I shall return in detail in a subsequent debate.
398
I emphasise that the reason we on these Benches welcome in principle the introduction of the concept of flexibility in the treaty is that it is an indication that the whole of Europe now agrees with an effective reform pioneered by the previous government. These provisions provide a basis for a different approach by different member states that reflects the differences which inevitably arise as a result of different national circumstances.
However, there is clearly a paradox when it comes to the question of flexibility. On the one hand, for the European Union to fulfil its potential, it must adhere to certain core disciplines and obligations which must not be undermined by the introduction of flexibility. On the other hand, Europe's strength is in its diversity and some flexibility must not only be allowed but encouraged, particularly as the Union enlarges. Our former opt-out of the Social Chapter and Economic and Monetary Union, as well as other member states' decision to go ahead with the Schengen provisions are examples of this type of flexibility. One thing is clear in this paradox. Whatever jargon is used to describe it, be it variable geometry, differentiated integration, Europe aà la carte, multi-speed Europe, enhanced co-operation, concentric circles, flexibility must not be the foundation for a two-tier Europe, whereby an exclusive fast-track hard core of member states lay claim to a privileged status over which the rest have no real check. For this reason I would like to ask why the Government did not insist on a straightforward, watertight veto, so that the instigation of such projects of "closer co-operation" outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, could be decided by unanimity, irrespective of which member states then implemented them. This would have meant that flexibility was open to all and agreed by all, which is surely the most sensible way forward.
As the Minister will be aware, the previous government always insisted that the decision as to whether such action should and could proceed should be taken on the basis of unanimity. The provisions in the treaty on this question are to me oddly circuitous and not at all clear. I should appreciate the Minister's clarification on whether or not Article K.12 and Article 5a were intended to provide for unanimity. Was it the intention that decisions taken under the provision of these articles should be taken on the basis of unanimity? If so, why is there not a straightforward provision to that effect rather than the roundabout route of paragraph 2 of K.12, repeated in Article 5a? That states that:
"The authorisation"—
to establish closer co-operation—
"referred to in paragraph I shall be granted by the Council acting by a qualified majority at the request of the Member States concerned and after inviting the Commission to present its opinion: the request shall also be forwarded to the European Parliament. If a member of the Council declares that, for important and stated reasons of national policy, it intends to oppose the granting of an authorisation by qualified majority, a vote shall not be taken. The Council may, acting by a qualified majority, request that the matter be referred to the European Council for decision by unanimity".
I have a number of questions to put to the Minister on this point. Is the action of a member state which wishes to oppose the granting of an authorisation,
"for stated and important reasons of national policy",

399
subject to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice? Could the Court rule that the reason relied on by the member state was not in fact "important"? What framework is there to determine what constitutes,
"important and stated reasons of national policy",
and who will be the arbiter of this?
I wish also to ask whether it is indeed the case that both paragraph I of Article K.12 and paragraph 5 of Article 5a enable groups of EU states to use European Union institutions for what amounts to purposes for which there is no explicitly stated treaty provision? Is it not a fundamental British position that access to European institutions should be agreed by all, since they are paid for by all? Furthermore, will fast track countries be entitled to European Union funds for their projects?
I should also like to ask the Minister why the provision for a veto appears in the text of the treaty and not as a Council declaration? Since it has been incorporated in the treaty, can the Minister confirm that the door is now open to rulings from the European Court of Justice, which has the power to overrule the use of the veto?
I shall not further detain the Committee by responding to some of the wider issues that were raised. I hope that the Committee will forgive me for having concentrated narrowly on some important issues raised in this context of flexibility. But on these Benches, we believe that they are extremely important. If clear answers cannot be delivered today—I fully respect the fact that the Minister is not in a position to have answers whisked from the Box to assist him, despite his admirable knowledge of the subject—perhaps he will write to me on the subject with answers that I can share with other colleagues who have stayed until this late hour. That would be much appreciated.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Grenfell: Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may ask him this. The noble Lord would like to see the veto put up front. Does that not open the whole process to abuse by any single member state which is against flexibility as a matter of principle? Therefore before any countries could get together to co-operate in the manner described under this title and articles, they would be prevented from doing so from the very beginning. Surely it is far better to have what may seem to be a rather complex procedure with the Council being the final arbiter so that one can be sure that those who are serious about co-operating will not be frustrated at the beginning by one single country which happens not to like the idea of flexibility.
Lord Moynihan: I regret to say that that is not the only issue. It goes much further than that. It is not the Commission that would be the final arbiter in these circumstances. It is indeed the European Court of Justice that could be in the position of determining what are the important reasons for national policy. That is the issue on which I sought clarification. I appreciate that the noble Lord's point is an important one, but it is the next
400
step beyond that point that requires clarification this evening. So I can fully appreciate the Government's position on the text of the treaty.
Lord Whitty: The debate has been wide-ranging, and I am sorely tempted to challenge some of the interpretations of history that were set out. However, I shall concentrate on the effect of the amendment and the whole question of flexibility in this treaty. In so far as I can answer the various specific points raised, I shall attempt to do so.
On the general context of the debate, first, I thoroughly endorse the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, about the general atmospherics within fellow member states. There is no vast enthusiasm for a great integrationist project. I disagree with the interpretation put on it by my noble friend Lord Shore and others. There was a time when the political elites in Germany, France and the Benelux countries were very much down the road towards an integrationist policy. That time has gone.
Noble Lords may have seen the television programme last night on BBC 2 presenting a discussion on enlargement. A German Social Democrat Member, indeed Vice-President, of the European Parliament, Madeleine Hoff—in the demonology of most noble Lords, she would be an arch-integrationist—said absolutely clearly that there is no chance of moving towards a federal, integrated superstate. She said that perhaps there would be some confederal features, but it is a free association of independent nation states bound by treaty and pooling their sovereignty in certain agreed areas. That is the project not only for the United Kingdom, but also for the other member states.
The view of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, of the attitude of the governments of those countries that seek membership of the European Union is completely at odds with anything I have experienced. Last night I met members of most of the delegations who were here for a very important European conference which took place today. They made absolutely clear their desire to join the European Union. In that, I believe they reflect the views of their peoples.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: The noble Lord will, however, accept that my view is based on personal discussion.
Lord Whitty: I accept that is based on personal discussion. However, both the formal position and recorded public opinion in those countries indicates a rather different conclusion.
In a sense, flexibility was to have been the big issue of the Amsterdam Treaty and it turned out not to be. These provisions on flexibility are relatively limited, and they do not change the total nature of the treaty that we inherited from Maastricht. Before Amsterdam, there was a big push and a lot of talk about new configurations of Europe, concentric circles, hard-core, soft-core, onions, variable geometry of various descriptions. In fact, this has provided a little elbow-room for a bit of welcome flexibility. But some of those grandiose projects for flexibility, and therefore

401
a multi-tier Europe, were also reciprocated to some extent by the previous administration, as the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, said.
There was a dangerous situation where there appeared to be some coincidence between those central powers of Europe which wished to proceed to a flexibility which excluded in large part member states, including the United Kingdom—and the previous government of the United Kingdom, who wished to exclude themselves. To the Labour Party in opposition, and to the Government who came in in May, that seemed a very dangerous course. We were therefore not in favour of widespread flexibility within the treaty, and in particular not within Pillar I of the treaty, where the laws of the Community should, as far as possible, with a little bit of flexibility at the edges, apply more generally.
With flexibility in this treaty, it is not the first time we have seen flexibility in the European Union. From the Treaty of Rome onwards there have been derogations and transition periods and the single currency is one big bit of flexibility, the new provisions on border controls are another big one. The opt-outs are bits of flexibility.
What is new in the treaty is that we have made general provisions on flexibility which are spelt out in Article K.15 and which are subject to very serious safeguards. There has been some confusion during the course of the debate on how some of the provisions operate. In K.15, K.16 and to some extent K.17 we are talking about the overarching provisions which relate to all parts of the treaty. The specific clauses relating to Pillar I of the treaty, the Community part of the treaty, are in Article 5a.
Members of the Committee have referred to a great extent to Article K.12 which relates only to the justice and home affairs area and is limited to intergovernmental arrangements in any case. It relates to instruments such as conventions rather than Community law. Article K.12 is not therefore the key clause; it is Article 5a.
I wish to answer the noble Lord, Lord Shore, who interestingly welcomed some of the provisions. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, who was in favour of slightly more flexibility than I am, objected to them because they did not provide so clear a veto in the first instance. It is undoubtedly true that these provisions are a bit of a compromise—as are all treaty provisions—between those who wanted flexibility to go ahead, and to do so without any agreement with the others, and those who wanted to block any possibility of going ahead. What we were looking for and always said we were looking for was flexibility but only flexibility by the consent of the rest. The consent can be passive or active, but in the situation where the consent is not forthcoming a member state should be able to use its veto by appealing to the European Council as a whole.
There is not a veto within the first stage simply because, if one country was opposed to going forward but was nevertheless prepared to allow the others to go forward, that should not constitute a veto. But if there was a strong national objection, it would be reflected in
402
the reference to the European Council where it could be blocked. Therefore, we are safeguarding a situation where people go forward to the detriment of the national interest of those who do not go forward.
In a range of questions, my noble friend Lord Bruce asked me who determined the situation when states can go forward. Surprisingly to all of us, he identified the Commission as the bogeyman in these arrangements. That is not the case. It is true that under Article 5a the Commission has to give an opinion, but the people who take the decision are the Council. The Council takes the view in the first instance by QMV, but that is capable of being overridden by the process I have just described. In no sense does the Commission make the final judgment. Only in limited cases where there is an issue of dispute would the Court of Justice have a role. That can be spelt out in detail in response to the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, should he so wish.
In relation to the other question raised by my noble friend Lord Bruce and repeated again in more extreme form by others, including the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, my noble friend Lord Bruce referred to Article K.7(6). But that does not have much to do with the flexibility clause; it relates to the JHA area. But, nevertheless, it does not give the European Court of Justice any jurisdiction over action by member states. It only allows the Court of Justice jurisdiction over decisions of the Council, not of member states. So it can have no effect on the sovereignty of Parliament. It does not therefore give the Court the ability to override or strike down legislation passed by Westminster.
That means that in the extreme case outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, it does not prevent a member state from determining that it will withdraw from the European Union. Clearly, in order to withdraw, it would involve an incredibly complex degree of negotiation. Neither this Government nor any future government, I hope, would wish to contemplate withdrawal. Nevertheless, this article does not prevent us from withdrawing. The conditions under which we would accept flexibility and have accepted it in the Amsterdam Treaty, and would wish this Parliament to accept it in passing this Bill, are strict and limited.
Lord Swinfen: Perhaps the noble Lord will forgive me for intervening when he is in full flow, but I was not referring only to this article; I was referring to the Amsterdam Treaty as a whole. I was asking whether that will lock us into the EC and whether, once that is ratified, we will be able to withdraw. If we cannot withdraw, this Government are seeking to bind a future government, and that would be unconstitutional.
Lord Whitty: These are treaties. This is not a constitution of a federal state; these are treaties and we can negotiate our way out of a treaty. But it would require negotiation to get out. This treaty does not alter the status of the United Kingdom in relation to the European Union. Nothing that is newly introduced in

403
this treaty alters the situation as regards ultimate withdrawal—remote and hypothetical as I trust that consideration may be.
Lord Swinfen: I thank the Minister for that response. That is the first time that I have ever heard a Minister in this Chamber, or reported elsewhere, saying that we can withdraw from the EC should we wish to do so, even though it may take some negotiation. That is a comfort to some of us.
Lord Whitty: I hope it is not much of a comfort because the negotiations would be extraordinarily difficult. It is certainly not an option I would wish to give any currency to in this Chamber or elsewhere.
Briefly, my noble friend Lord Stoddart referred to Amendment No. 31, which calls on the Government to provide a report on the operation of flexibility to both Houses of Parliament. I do not need to go into detail. There is already a substantial degree of reportage on these areas to Parliament. but it is the intention of the Government, as set out in another place by my right honourable friend the President of the Council, to improve the scrutiny of all European legislation under these provisions and under others, and in particular to give a greater and more formal role in scrutiny in relation to the second and third pillars.
Lord Bruce of Donington: Will the noble Lord clarify the position constitutionally? The noble Lord will recall that I put to him that it was in our present constitution, as generally understood and interpreted so far by lawyers, that no Parliament can bind its successors. Therefore, if the next government decided to reverse anything that had been done by the previous government, they would have the right to do so constitutionally because under our constitution a preceding government cannot bind.
As I understand the noble Lord, he assented to the general proposition, with the important qualification that we could always negotiate our way out and that that might take some considerable time. That still does not address the constitutional problem because, under those terms, those with whom we would negotiate might decline any further negotiation and might decline to move in any direction whatever. I ask the noble Lord a
404
straight question: does the constitutional doctrine applicable to the United Kingdom that no Parliament can hind its successors still hold?
Lord Whitty: The straight answer to that is "yes" and no treaty that has been passed since we ran the referendum in 1975 to assess whether or not we would leave the European Community has changed the situation. If the decision had gone the other way in the 1970s, we would have been able to withdraw. The status has not been changed by any subsequent treaty. I remain of the opinion that we are bound by treaty law to negotiate our way out of it, but there is no way in which that ultimate right has been changed.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Will my noble friend allow me to intervene?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No. We have an agreement on all sides of the Chamber that we will try to finish at 11 o'clock. The House sits at 11 o'clock tomorrow morning.
Lord Whitty: In the light of the time and because I believe that I have dealt with most of the points raised, I ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment, despite the illuminating debate that we have had. If there are any other points, I will write to him.
Lord Shore of Stepney: I am grateful to my noble friend for his reply. As I said at the beginning, I regret that we could not have begun this interesting and important debate at an earlier stage. But, in view of the lateness of the hour, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
House resumed.

Wireless Telegraphy Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with a privilege amendment; the amendment considered and agreed to.
House adjourned at live minutes past eleven o'clock.

  Building Inspectors: Amendments to Regulations
  Building Inspectors: Amendments to Regulations
  Government Offices for the North-West and Merseyside
  Government Offices for the North-West and Merseyside
  Northern Ireland: Analysis of A-Level Points
  Northern Ireland: Analysis of A-Level Points
  Disability Benefits: Studies
  Disability Benefits: Studies
  Artificial Limbs
  Artificial Limbs
  Family Mediation: Suppliers
  Family Mediation: Suppliers
  Information Meeting Pilot Exercises
  Information Meeting Pilot Exercises
  Ethnic Minorities: Applications for Public Appointments
  Ethnic Minorities: Applications for Public Appointments
  Ethnic Minority Issues: Ministerial Responsibility
  Ethnic Minority Issues: Ministerial Responsibility
  Wales: Analysis of A-Level Points
  Wales: Analysis of A-Level Points
  Wales: Analysis of National Curriculum Tests 1994–97
  Wales: Analysis of National Curriculum Tests 1994–97