Skip to main content

Commons Chamber

Volume 228: debated on Monday 12 July 1993

The text on this page has been created from Hansard archive content, it may contain typographical errors.

House Of Commons

Monday 12 July 1993

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

Prayers

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers To Questions

National Heritage

Arts Funding

1.

To ask the Secretary of State for National heritage when he next plans to meet the Secretary General of the Arts Council to discuss Government funding for the arts.

My right hon. Friend meets the Secretary General of the Arts Council from time to time to discuss a range of issues.

The Minister must be aware that there is a mounting crisis in arts funding. For example, the proposed budget for next year is to be 2 per cent., or £5 million, less. That proposal will have a devastating effect. The former Secretary of State for National Heritage said only a few days ago in The Guardian that the reduction in funding will not be spread evenly across the board, but will fall heavily on the smaller companies, which means that some of them are likely to be put out of business. How does the Minister intend to ensure that those smaller companies are protected and are able to continue to make their cultural contribution to the community?

The hon. Member mentions an important point. This year there will be an increase in the Arts Council grant in aid of £5 million, or 2 per cent. Next year it will be cut by 2 per cent. At a time of economic difficulties, the Arts Council cannot remain immune to those difficulties but must shoulder its burden like everyone else. Much of the unease being expressed results from the Arts Council's deciding on new artistic priorities, not from the amount of funding that it has been given.

May I draw a comment from my hon. Friend on the reported decision of the Arts Council to ask three of the great orchestras to submit themselves, their musical standards and future programming to a judge for examination and for a decision on whether they should continue to receive public funding? If the musical experts at the Arts Council cannot reach a decision on that matter, what is the precise purpose of the Arts Council?

It is a matter for the Arts Council to decide how to deal with its funding. We want London to have world-class orchestras and I am afraid—or perhaps I am not afraid—that it is a matter entirely for the Arts Council.

Surely the Minister cannot be immune from commenting on such important matters. He actually set up the Arts Council, which was established to advise on where the funding should go. If it makes a botch of it and relies on a judge to take over such responsibilities, surely he has something to say on the matter.

I do indeed have something to say about it. There is a firm tradition of an arm's-length relationship between the Department and the Arts Council in these matters. If the Arts Council chooses to make its decision by taking outside advice, that is a matter for the Arts Council.

What is the latest position on Arts Council support for the London City Ballet?

My hon. Friend mentions an important subject. As I understand it, the Arts Council was perfectly prepared for the London City Ballet to go into liquidation. Now that a new company appears, possibly, to be rising from the ashes of the old, the Arts Council has said that it will not even pay the touring grant, which previously it was going to pay. I cannot openly give my views on the subject to the Arts Council because of the arm's-length principle, but I see no reason why my hon. Friend should not.

The Minister obviously has a convenient memory. At the last general election, the Conservatives promised to maintain support for the arts, but they have ratted on that promise, just like everything else. Does the Minister feel any concern about the probability that one, and possibly two, of London's orchestras will he forced to close, and that several of our famous regional theatres are now under threat of closure because of Government cuts, or is the Minister totally apathetic about the wreckage being inflicted on the arts by the Government's policies?

Perhaps I could remind the hon. Lady that funding for the arts has gone up by 45 per cent. under the Government. That certainly is doing our bit by the arts. It is true, as I said in answer to an earlier question, that next year there will be a cut of 2 per cent. only. The reason that so many provincial theatres are at risk is not the 2 per cent. cut but the fact that the Arts Council, in its wisdom, has decided that it does not want to concentrate as much on drama in the future. I hope that the Arts Council will read Hansard and see the strength of hon. Members' feelings about its decision.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that, over the past five years, the Arts Council grant from the Government has actually risen by 20 per cent. in real terms? Will he state, particularly in relation to London City Ballet, that the Arts Council should be far more flexible about the way in which it allocates funding? It is disgraceful that, out of a classical ballet budget of £15 million, the council cannot find even £250,000 a year to give a touring grant to an established ballet company.

My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point, and I hope that he will make it forcefully to the Arts Council. He is correct in pointing out that the Government spend a great deal on the arts. At a time of economic pressure, the Arts Council grant this year is £225·6 million, which is a great deal of money.

Independent Television

2.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what steps he proposes to take to protect the independence of the smaller independent television companies; and if he will make a statement.

7.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what discussions he has had with the Independent Television Commission about the rules concerning the ownership of C3 franchises.

I am reflecting on the discussions I have had with both the Independent Television Commission and the ITV companies about the ownership rules and other issues.

Does the Secretary of State acknowledge the value of a genuinely produced and transmitted independent commercial television service to local areas such as my own in south-east Scotland? Will he say more about the discussions? Is he aware that the small independent companies are expressing great concern at the lack of protection that may exist for them after 1 January? Will he give an assurance that they will have a degree of protection similar to that afforded to the larger companies under the existing rules? Will he confirm that an article in today's Financial Times indicating that he will make an announcement in September is something like the truth?

I am happy to join the hon. Gentleman in his commitment to, and endorsement of, the importance of regional quality. The Broadcasting Act 1990 was written in such a way as to ensure that the ITC made certain of that. As to protecting the small companies, the hon. Gentleman will know how the legislation is written. The meeting that I held on 14 June, on which I am still deliberating, obviously related to events after 1 January in a number of directions.

Things are not always too good on a Monday, Madam Speaker.

When the Secretary of State speaks to the heads of ITV companies, will he make them aware that many people in the industry are deeply concerned about the prospect of an internal carve-up and a free-for-all? It is also widely felt by many in the industry that this is merely a self-propagating effort by those with a vested interest in the matter. Will the Secretary of State ensure that those who are stating that in the region of £100 million can be saved by doing away with duplication between various companies are made to explain filly to the Secretary of State's satisfaction that that is the case, and that it is not just another example of the companies advancing their own views to their own advantage?

The rules relating to ownership are written into the 1990 Act. I acknowledge—as I did to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood)—that my meeting with ITV companies on 14 June related to that and to other matters. As to the £100 million savings, that issue was raised at the 14 June meeting and I have had subsequent correspondence with a number of those present pressing just the point that the hon. Gentleman made.

My right hon. Friend will be well aware that there is, to put it mildly, some dispute between the chairmen of the various ITV companies over whether the moratorium at the end of the year is likely to lead to a greater risk of a foreign takeover of some of the smaller ITV companies. Does he have a view on that dispute and if he has concluded that there is some likelihood of a foreign takeover, does he propose taking any action to prevent it?

The issues that relate to what happens after 1 January came up at the meeting that I held on 14 June, so I was made fully aware of the views of individual Channel 3 companies about that proposition. We are of the view that our rules should be on all fours with those of the rest of the Community and we are taking an interest in those countries where we feel that the rules are not drawn up on the same basis as our own.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that immunity from takeover and protectionism for existing management do nothing for the quality of programmes or for the efficiency of companies?

I could not possibly disagree with my hon. Friend. On the other hand, if we were to proceed with the Broadcasting Act 1990 as currently written, companies in this country would be in a slightly different position from those in other Community countries after 1 January.

As there is some dispute, will the Secretary of State tell us the net amount he expects the ITV companies to pay to the Government this year compared with the amount paid under the old levy system? Is he aware that Yorkshire Tyne Tees Television is to axe a further 188 jobs in yet another cost-cutting exercise? Does that not confirm what the Labour party has repeatedly said about the discredited Broadcasting Act 1990 and the damage being inflicted on ITV? When will the Secretary of State understand that staff loyalty, staff continuity and, above all, adequate staffing levels are critical to maintaining programme quality?

I am, of course, aware of the commentary in one of today's newspapers about the specific amounts that ITV companies are paying in levy this year, although I have not yet done my own detailed cross-analysis of those figures. The hon. Lady knows that I share her views on the need to maintain the production base of television in Britain and that there are many aspects to that question beyond those that she has mentioned.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that strict enforcement of programme obligations, the current ownership structure and the regionality of ITV make it all the more important that the House should have regard to the funding of ITV? Does he accept that commercial pressure is being brought to bear on ITV at the present time? As a constructive way to resolve that problem, would he consider bringing forward the review of the ITV franchise arrangements to coincide with the review of the BBC charter?

I understand my hon. Friend's proposition, but it would be premature to take a decision of that nature. On the other hand, I mentioned to the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) a moment ago my concern that we maintain the production base in this country. That larger issue will certainly inform our thinking.

Broadcasting Act 1990

3.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has to seek to amend the Broadcasting Act 1990.

As the stability of commercial television is now threatened by takeover mania, and as Granada has expressed an interest in taking over London Weekend Television, as has Carlton, and in taking over Central, Yorkshire and Tyne Tees, will the Secretary of State guarantee that there will be no change in the legislation to enable major regional companies to be taken over by national monopolistic conglomerates? Should not people like Jerry Robinson, the tea boy at Granada, concentrate on programme making rather than on pushing up Granada's share price for his personal benefit?

In answer to an earlier question, I paid tribute to the issue of regional quality and to the fact that the legislation is written in such a way that the Independent Television Commission can ensure that that quality is maintained. On the rest of the question, I have made it clear that the issues that we discussed at the meeting with the heads of the Channel 3 companies on 14 June covered a wide agenda. It was a lively but good-natured debate. All aspects of the issue were discussed constructively by all parties.

In any future amendments to the Broadcasting Act 1990, will my right hon. Friend consider introducing provisions to ensure that the Arts Council continues to fund excellent municipal theatres such as the Theatre Royal in Plymouth, which has attracted more people per £1 of grant—

Order. What has this to do with broadcasting? The hon. Gentleman is referring to an earlier question.

In any amendment to the Broadcasting Act, is it possible to include a provision whereby the Arts Council can be made to ensure that it supports mainstream municipal theatres—

Order. I understand the hon. Gentleman's enthusiasm, but I think that we should. now move on.

Does the Secretary of State accept that the fact that the heads of a number of major independent television companies seek to change the fundamental terms of their franchises and the fact that Richard Branson is seeking to alter the waveband on which he has received his franchise throw into question the whole operation of the Broadcasting Act? Is that not a comment on the fact that the legislation is so misguided that it is creating an absolute shambles in the broadcasting industry?

Taking the second premise relating to Virgin Radio and the waveband first, in any negotiation for an exchange of the waveband, it would not be within the gift either of Mr. Branson or of anybody with whom he sought to effect such an exchange to make that exchange. Control over the wavebands remains with the Radio Authority, with which he should therefore treat. The purpose of the meeting on 14 June—at which, I hasten to say, the smaller companies were as interested in being present as the larger companies were—was to discuss a way forward, looking at the larger objective of maintaining the quality and the production base of British television.

London Hospitals

4.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what proportion of London hospital facilities are listed buildings.

There are some 90 hospitals in the 12 central London health districts, of which 25 are subject to 80 statutory listings.

Did not the 1987 report show that there were 770 listed hospitals in Britain, of which 11 were grade I—the equivalent to this place and Westminster abbey—a further 58 starred grade II and all the rest of historic significance? Has not Save Britain's Heritage been fiercely critical of the neglect of many hospitals, including the neglect emanating from the Government? Is not the position set to get a lot worse with the closure of hospitals in London? Will the Minister step in as part of his departmental responsibilities to save London's heritage hospitals such as St. Bartholomew's, or is the neglect part of a conspiracy with health Ministers, business-oriented health managers and developers, who see listed hospitals only as the source of a quick buck?

The hon. Gentleman asks a very important question. The answer is that the Secretary of State for Health is responsible for ensuring that the heritage aspects of hospitals are maintained. Only last week, we issued general guidance to those who find that they are in charge of listed buildings, but who find that there is no longer a commercial use for those buildings. We are trying to reach an agreement whereby people understand that for the buildings to be preserved for commercial use one or two of the statutory listings may have to be changed. My Department has also set up a task force between the Department of Health and ourselves to ensure that the considerations that the hon. Gentleman mentioned are taken into account.

Is my hon. Friend aware that many of us appreciate the work being done by his Department in listing London hospitals and many other buildings? Will he proceed with extreme caution, however, before committing public money to buildings that clearly have no use or no useful life to come?

We will certainly be careful. That is why I mentioned that where it is possible to maintain a building with a commercial use, we quite understand that there may have to be one or two changes in the statutory listings in order that the building as a whole may continue. As to my hon. Friend's question about hospitals, that is primarily a question for the Secretary of State for Health.

Is the Under-Secretary of State seriously saying that those hospitals that have been maintained over centuries, such as St. Bartholomew's, will not be given any special concessions, and if it is in the commercial interests of the Secretary of State for Health to let that building go, presumably because it is a city centre site for which she can obtain a large amount of money, he will do nothing to ensure protection for existing buildings? If that is his implication, we shall begin to understand rather more clearly why the Secretary of State for Health is so anxious to get rid of that major centre of importance.

I am absolutely not saying that. I am saying that the Secretary of State for Health has a duty to look after the heritage buildings within her remit. Her Department spends £500 million a year on the maintenance of a current estate. Within that, the listed aspects of the building will be protected. If the buildings are sold off, that is a matter for her. The heritage aspects will absolutely not be neglected either way.

Performing Arts

5.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations his Department has received about the impact on British performing arts of local authority discretionary grant policy.

Since the establishment of the Department of National Heritage last year, we have received more than 300 letters about local authority discretionary grant policy and its impact on students of dance and drama.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the British performing arts make an enormous contribution not only to cultural life but to the economy? Is he aware that the local education authority discretionary grant policy in many counties, including my county of Hereford and Worcester, means that many talented young people are unable to play their full part in that success story? Does he share my concern at the damage that that is doing to the future success of the British performing arts?

My hon. Friend has been a persistent and assiduous campaigner for this important subject. It is certainly true that most of the letters and representations that we have had have shown that an awful lot of students are not able to take up places because local authorities have declined, for whatever reasons, to fund them—

The hon. Gentleman should wait. I accept that there is a serious problem. It may well be that there is a genuine shortage of money, although local authorities were given sums that the Department of the Environment thought sufficient. To settle the matter, the National Foundation for Educational Research will examine precisely what the facts are. Depending on what those facts are, the Secretary of State and I will speak to the Department for Education, which has a lead in the matter, to see what needs to be done to sort it out.

I welcome the Minister's response to the previous question—that there could indeed be a financial shortfall, which is having a deleterious effect on those young people who manage to gain the very few and highly contested places in drama schools—but does he agree that there is little or no point in any young person taking a place in a drama school if the Arts Council is allowed to pursue its stated policy of closing 10 regional theatres? Is there any aspect of the cultural life of this country for which the Government take responsibility?

We certainly take responsibility and the £225·6 million that we shall give to the Arts Council this financial year is proof of that. That sum will be spent at the decision of the Arts Council. It has taken decisions that are nothing to do with me. Indeed, I am prevented by the arm's-length principle from lavishing so much as a breath of praise or dispraise upon it. It is up to the Arts Council. If the hon. Lady disagrees with the Arts Council's policy of moving away from drama and music towards contemporary dance, she should lose no opportunity of telling it so.

Is the Minister aware that in the borough of Oldham, we have a theatre workshop, the Oldham Coliseum theatre and one of the best repertory companies in the United Kingdom? Does he agree that it is important not only that funding reaches those worthy causes but that all hon. Members who purport to support the arts should help the National Lottery, etc. Bill complete its passage through Parliament before the summer recess?

I hope that the Bill will get its Royal Assent before the recess. Otherwise, I agree, as so often, with my hon. Friend's words of wisdom.

Does the Minister care that 23 theatre in education companies in England and Wales, including the Collar and Tie in the constituency of the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff), have lost around £1 million in grants this year, mainly because of cuts in what the Government will allow local authorities to spend, and that they face further cuts because of money being taken from the Arts Council grant? Does he understand that this may see the end of the unique blend of theatre and educational drama, mainly for children in areas where no other theatre exists? Will he set up an independent inquiry into how theatre in education companies can be funded from next April or is he content simply to see another slice of our theatre wither away?

The issue arises on a later question and if the hon. Member will contain himself in patience, he will get a powerful answer at that point. However, I fear that I would be trespassing on your patience, Madam Speaker, if I gave a longer answer on that now.

National Lottery

6.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when he expects the first moneys to be paid out by the National Lottery Charities Board.

We hope that money will be available to be paid out by late 1994 or early 1995 for charities and the other good causes.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he know that I am being pressed by the local Liberal Democrats in my constituency to get that money through as quickly as possible? Can he ensure that all parties in the House understand that all my constituents, from whichever party they come, are keen to see that money come through as quickly as possible so that it can go to all the excellent sports and arts projects that they wish it to support?

I am delighted to hear that the Liberal Democrats of South Dorset are pressing to get the Bill through as early as possible, as their party in the House voted against Third Reading of the Bill.

Will the Secretary of State kindly tell us whether there is any particular significance in the archaic use of the word "monies" in the question as originally tabled, and more particularly in the archaic use of that form of the plural, or is it merely a dry run for the Government's English test for 14-year-olds?

As the hon. Gentleman may know, in terms of such textual criticism, his question should be addressed to my hon. Friend and not to me.

Tourism, West Yorkshire

12.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make a statement on the promotion of tourism in West Yorkshire.

That is a matter for the English tourist board through its strategy for support to the regions, and for the Yorkshire and Humberside tourist board through its strategy for meeting local needs and priorities.

I accept the Minister's reply, but does he accept that there are problems with the Yorkshire and Humberside tourist board and the English tourist board over financing? West Yorkshire, with its loss of jobs both in traditional industries such as mining, textiles and engineering and in other sectors, is looking for Government help towards tourism. Is the Minister prepared to meet the leaders of West Yorkshire council to discuss tourism and allow them to put to him their concerns over lack of resources to promote tourism throughout West Yorkshire?

Yes, I will glady meet a delegation if the hon. Gentleman wishes to bring it along. Let me take this opportunity to congratulate his region on the fact that the latest figures show 7·2 million overnight visitors in his area. Other areas in the United Kingdom have been more badly hit during the recession, but the excellence of the tourist facilities in his area ensured that the number of visitors there were kept up.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the project to house the royal armouries in a brand new museum in Leeds will be, when completed, one of the largest and most important international tourist attractions in this country? Does he also agree that all political parties should come together to get the project built as soon as possible?

I agree with my hon. Friend. The armouries in Leeds would be a tremendous addition to the city's tourist attractions. I hope that the project will go ahead as my hon. Friend said.

The Minister is to receive a copy of the Coopers and Lybrand report that has been commissioned by the English tourist board steering committee, on which sits one of his representatives. If that report condemns the cuts in funding to the English tourist board that were made by the Minister's predecessor, will he take the best initiative to encourage tourists to Normanton, Bradford, Halifax and elsewhere in West Yorkshire by being bold, brave and sensible enough to restore the funding?

So far as West Yorkshire is concerned, I note that two applications for tourism renewal grants have been received from Wakefield and Dewsbury. No doubt both those applications will be considered properly by the tourist boards.

Although it is true that overall funding to the British Tourist Authority and the English tourist board has been cut, the British Tourist Authority's grant will be maintained. We believe that, within the cuts that have been made necessary by the economic climate, there should be a slight shift away from centralised English tourist boards to those run by the regions.

While continuing to promote tourism in West Yorkshire, will my hon. Friend also continue the campaign against deregulation? Does he agree that unnecessary regulation in the hotel and entertainment industries has been crippling, and has resulted in increased costs to the customer?

My hon. Friend makes a good point. In West Yorkshire, and elsewhere in the country, there is no doubt that the competitive edge of our tourist industry—when compared with other countries—has been worsened by the heavy regulatory burden. I am determined to remove as much of that unnecessary burden as possible and to make our industry more competitive when compared with other countries.

Theatre In Education

13.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has to meet representatives of theatre in education to discuss funding.

theatre in education companies have traditionally been funded by local education authorities together with the Arts Councils and regional arts boards. Any discussions on funding are most appropriately undertaken with those agencies.

The Minister will be aware, from the question put some moments ago by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett), that theatre in education companies are under threat. Some theatres have closed and others are facing closure because they have lost revenue, because of council tax capping placed by the Government on local authority spending, because of the lack of money that is available through the local management of schools and because of the threatened cuts in Arts Council grants.

The Minister should recognise that theatre in education provides a unique dimension to education in many thousands of schools throughout the country. Does he agree that the shortfalls—amounting to £1 million—should be met by the Government? Will he instigate a full public inquiry into the funding of theatre in education for the years to come?

No to the hon. Gentleman's last question, no to his second last and yes to his third. I agree that theatre in education can make an important contribution to schools, but those involved now must realise that they must sell themselves to individual schools because of the local management of schools process. If they do that, and if individual schools want to have theatre in education, the projects will continue.

Independent Television

14.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations he has received concerning the operation of the Independent Television Commission.

This year, I have received five representations from four hon. Members about various aspects of the ITC's activities.

I do not know whether any of those representations backed the ITC's position on "News at Ten". I hope that the Minister will support that position and that adopted by the National Heritage Select Committee, which wants the programme to remain at 10 o'clock, so that political news—including 10 o'clock votes from this House—sports news, news from America and hard-hitting news generally can be properly dealt with. We need news at ten, not nudes at ten.

The obligation of the Channel 3 companies is

"simultaneously to broadcast high quality news programmes dealing with national and international matters at peak viewing times".
The hon. Gentleman has drawn the attention of the House to the action of the chairman of the ITC, who will be awaiting a response from the Channel 3 companies.

Attorney-General

Magistrates Courts

27.

To ask the Attorney-General what proportion of cases pursued by the Crown Prosecution Service in magistrates courts in the last 12 months have resulted in a conviction.

For the year ending 31 March 1993, 97·6 per cent. of cases that proceeded to a hearing in the magistrates court resulted in either a guilty plea or a conviction.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend satisfied that those excellent figures have been achieved by the Crown Prosecution Service adopting the test of a reasonable prospect of conviction, not some higher esoteric standard?

My hon. Friend raises an important point. I am satisfied of that. It is extremely important to make it clear that when the CPS reviews the evidence to determine whether there is a sufficiency of admissible, substantial and reliable evidence, it applies the test of a realistic prospect of conviction—not, as is sometimes suggested, a higher test.

Is the Attorney-General aware that, despite a 50 per cent. increase in recorded crime since 1987, the number of cases that the police are instructed by the CPS to drop has nearly doubled? What role has the Treasury had in creating a situation in which arrested people are allowed to walk free because of the cost of bringing them to trial? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that 32 per cent. of cases are dropped on public interest grounds? Has he agreed to that? Will he define it in the context of decisions taken by CPS officers? Will he publish the instructions given to them; and what is the lowest grade of officer allowed to take such a decision on public interest grounds?

I am not aware of any case that has been dropped on the ground of cost. The shadow Home Secretary has visited the Crown Prosecution Service this morning, I am glad to say, and has been able to hold discussions and form his own views on these very matters. Meanwhile, I am glad to have been able to answer the right hon. and learned Gentleman clearly in this regard.

When cases are discontinued on public interest grounds, cost is not the reason. It will be well understood by the House that it is not in the public interest to prosecute every elderly person or every frail person or everyone suffering from some injury or every case for which there is sufficient evidence.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that our magistrates courts are capable of dealing with a great many more cases, especially those that go to the Crown court? Does he agree that the recommendation by the royal commission to end the right to trial by jury would end the scandal of 83 per cent. of those electing trial by jury pleading guilty? Is not the reason for that the fact that policemen are spending too much time writing up reports and preparing cases for court, which keeps them off the streets?

My hon. Friend rightly draws attention to the 83 per cent. of defendants who choose to go to the Crown court and then to plead guilty once they get there. That imposes what the royal commission has suggested are unreasonable costs and a waste of resources on the system.

London Borough Of Bromley

28.

To ask the Attorney-General when the Crown Prosecution Service received reports from the Metropolitan police into two separate allegations of fraud within the social services and environmental health departments of the London borough of Bromley; and whether the Crown Prosecution Service now intends to prosecute.

An initial report concerning the social services Department was received on 17 October 1991. Following further police investigations, an additional lengthy report was submitted on 20 May 1993. Meanwhile a report concerning the environmental health department was received in February this year. Police inquiries continue and decisions on prosecution will be made as soon as possible.

Is the Solicitor-General aware that it is now almost two years since this matter was first reported to the Metropolitan police, and almost a year since it was first reported to the chief executive and monitoring officer of the London borough of Bromley? Is not it a disgrace that it has taken so long for a decision to be reached on a matter of such importance and significance, and that we are still told today that decisions are awaited? Will the Solicitor-General give an assurance that incompetence and corruption in local government will be pursued as vigorously as possible, wherever they arise, and not soft-pedalled in areas that the Government and the Conservative party regard as particularly sensitive?

The hon. Gentleman is quite right that all cases ought to proceed with expedition. Where there are allegations of fraud and corruption, as in this case, it is doubly important that they are investigated rigorously. It is not unusual for such fraud to be carried out in a secretive way by those involved, and, for that reason, the police sometimes find that it takes a considerable time to investigate. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that it is not in the interests of justice for defendants to he tried on half-baked inquiries, which are then found to be without substance when fully tested at trial.

As to political considerations, I remind Opposition Members of the words of Mr. Peter Archer, when he was Solicitor-General, which were contained in a Fabian pamphlet. I do not suppose many Opposition Members read Fabian pamphlets nowadays. Mr. Archer said that no Law Officer takes into account party considerations.

Does my hon. and learned Friend accept that there is widespread concern about corruption in local government? Does he further accept that many hon. Members would like to see an inquiry into the corruption in local government, in view of the deplorable events in Lambeth?

A number of inquiries are being held up and down the country into local government dishonesty and fraud. There are two cases of alleged fraud in the Bolsover district council, in which one defendant has already been convicted and the other has been tried and a retrial of his case is awaited.

Asil Nadir

29.

To ask the Attorney-General what representations he has received in the last two years over the Nadir case.

I have explained to the hon. Member in a written answer this afternoon, of which I have given him notice, that a total of eight Members have written or spoken to me or my predecessor about this case. Of these, four have made representations during the past two years.

It is now eight hon. Members and not seven. Although the Attorney-General is reluctant to reveal their names, can he explain why the majority of hon. Members who made representations are very reluctant for their identities to be known? What were their reasons for making those representations in the first place? Is not there a particular responsibility on those who championed the cause of Mr. Nadir in the House of Commons, strongly to urge him to return so that he can put his case in open court? Does the Attorney-General accept that the money given by Mr. Nadir to the Conservative party should be returned promptly because it comes from a very dubious source?

I do not accept the factual premise of the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question. Most people, I think, have made it clear whether they wrote—[HON. MEMBERS: "No, they have not. Name them."] However, as to contributions to any particular political party, the hon. Gentleman knows that that is not a matter for me. This case makes it abundantly clear that it does not produce any favour or affection either way, whatever party may be involved.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, while not condoning melodramatic practices by any of its operatives, hon. Members should not, in general, attack the Serious Fraud Office? Should we not all support it and give it greater resources in the fight against fraud?

My hon. Friend may have seen the remarks in the royal commission's report about the importance of the work of the Serious Fraud Office, both in maintaining high standards of financial probity in the financial services industry and in making it possible for anyone who abuses the privileges that apply to that industry, thereby damaging investors—often small investors—to be brought to justice more effectively.

Lenient Sentences

30.

To ask the Attorney-General how many cases have been referred to the Court of Appeal on grounds of leniency of sentences in the past 12 months.

In the 12 months to 30 June 1993, the Attorney-General applied to the Court of Appeal for leave to refer 33 sentences for review, including five in Northern Ireland. Of the 19 references so far determined by the court, 16 have resulted in an increased sentence.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that the Court of Appeal's judgments in those referred cases have already been of considerable assistance to sentencers at first instance? In the spirit of open government, will he publish the letters that he received from Opposition Members who voted against the Criminal Justice Act 1991, which included that power, so that we may know that those who voted against it now seek to make use of it?

That power is now widely accepted as important and necessary and we often see it referred to by judges in their sentencing remarks. I shall resist the temptation that my hon. Friend has extended to me but, on Second Reading in 1988, an Opposition Member described that power as "sheer cruelty". He appears to have a poor memory because, only a short time ago, he wrote to my right hon. and learned Friend asking him to refer the sentence in the Newport case to the Court of Appeal and invite it to pass a severe sentence. However, following our usual custom of confidentiality, I shall spare his blushes and shall not publish his letter.

Overseas Development

Elephants

35.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what resources he will make available for elephant conservation projects during the current financial year.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs
(Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd)

We estimate that conservation projects supported by the aid programme, which may include benefits to elephant conservation, will amount to £2·85 million in the current financial year.

I noticed that the Minister said only "may". We need to know precisely how much money is being paid out to protect, wherever possible, the welfare of elephants. Is he aware that, because of drought, civil war and the continued activities of illegal ivory poachers in sub-Saharan Africa, enormous pressures are being put on herds of African elephants, a noble and magnificent beast which is close to extinction in some places? Will he please consider earmarking far more money for elephant conservation schemes? The people of this country would support that wholeheartedly.

We all know what the hon. Gentleman has done to save the elephant and he is to be commended. He must agree that the British Government have done very well. We did exceptionally well in 1992, when there was a further £600,000 specifically for helping elephant populations.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the key to protecting endangered species is effective action on bio-diversity to protect their habitats? In that context, what has his Department done to help elephants?

We do a lot for bio-diversity conservation generally, including the protection of habitats. At present, there are 78 projects wholly or partly concerned with bio-diversity and those cost some £37 million a year.

Kenya

36.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to visit Kenya to discuss bilateral issues.

My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development will visit east and southern Africa later in the year. Her detailed programme is not yet available.

When the Minister's right hon. and noble Friend visits eastern and southern Africa, will she note the fundamental changes in monetary and economic policy that the Kenyan Government are now following, adding to their increased problems with refugees from Somalia? Will the Government be sympathetic to requests for aid, should they be made, and for releasing funds earmarked for Kenya?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Kenyan Government have had difficulty with the International Monetary Fund, but reached a new agreement in May of this year called the shadow programme, which we and the IMF will monitor. If the shadow programme is successful over a period, the IMF and the British Government will consider their position on new balance of payments support and other such matters.

Will the Minister take this opportunity to reinforce the concern that has already been expressed by Her Majesty's Government about the official sabotage of the printing presses of Fotoform Ltd, whose managing director is a British citizen? Will he make it clear that enforced continued non-publication of various magazines by that press constitutes unwarranted interference with the freedom of the press?

We have repeatedly stressed the importance of a free press as one of the cornerstones of a healthy democracy and strongly condemn the police action against Fotoform printers. We are pressing for the court case to be concluded urgently.

European Development Fund

37.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the effectiveness and economy of administration of the European development fun; and if he will make a statement.

The European Commission is responsible for administering the European development fund. We are in constant touch with the Commission and with other member states to improve its effectiveness.

Is it not true that Britain, under the leadership of my right hon. Friend, takes the lead in insisting on a more efficient and focused European development fund, and the co-ordination of its policies with member states' aid policies?

I hope so. We should certainly like to see in the European development fund greater concentration on countries in real need with a record of good government. Making multilateral programmes more effective is increasingly important, as they make up a steadily increasing part of the total aid programme.

The Prime Minister decided at Edinburgh last December to double the United Kingdom's contribution to the European development fund and the EC aid programme by the year 2000, while freezing the British aid programme for the next two years. In view of that, has the Foreign Office told him that such policies are throwing Britain's bilateral aid programme into turmoil? Is he aware that his own Department has released a statement declaring that the next two-year freeze will reduce Britain's aid programme by £150 million and that, in terms of value for money, after black Wednesday's devaluation, that figure will be nearer to £250 million? Will he confirm that his own Department is preparing contingency plans for major cuts in aid? When will the Foreign Secretary start standing up for the aid budget and stop being such a soft touch?

We are beginning, not ending, this year's public expenditure round and we all know the problems affecting that round. There will be pressures on the aid programme, as on other public expenditure programmes. As I said in answer to the first question, I believe that multilateral contributions, whether to the EC or the United Nations, are a steadily increasing part of the total aid programme. I believe that our bilateral programme is second to none in its quality and I intend to maintain an effective programme.

Population And Development Conference

38.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on preparations for the international conference on population and development to be held in Cairo in 1994.

I understand that the United Nations preparations are proceeding well. The Overseas Development Administration will continue to work closely with everyone involved to help ensure the success of this important event.

I thank my hon. Friend for that positive statement. I congratulate him and the Prime Minister on persuading the G7 summit to agree to encourage the success of the United Nations conference, which reflects the growing concern over the population issue. Does my hon. Friend accept that there is growing concern that what is meant to be a conference on population and development is rapidly turning into a conference on development and a bit of population?

I very much agree with my hon. Friend that the conference must be about population, not development generally—it is essential to get that message across. My hon. Friend and the all-party group on population and development are to be congratulated on drawing attention to what is a great problem. There is no purpose in having aid programmes if they do not, in considerable measure, address the problems of population growth for the future of the world in the next century.

Does the Minister accept that, as we prepare to go to some of these conferences, some countries find it odd that this country and Europe still pay farmers to reduce production through set-aside programmes? Should not we try to use that food to help with the problems of population and development in other parts of the world?

All those questions can be considered at the conference. The important point is to understand the principles that are at stake.

Russian Federation

40.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to meet European colleagues to discuss continuing aid to the Russian Federation.

Aid from the European Community and member states makes up 70 per cent. of all western support to Russia and the rest of the former Soviet Union. I meet my European colleagues regularly, and support for Russia is often discussed.

Following the success of my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister at the G7 summit, we are all aware that £3 billion will be given to assist the Russian Federation. Will my right hon. Friend expand on this and state the sort of aid that we give to Russia, especially for expertise on privatisation?

I think that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister may touch on that in a few minutes. It was certainly an important result of his expedition to Tokyo. Through our British know-how fund and the schemes that were confirmed and extended at Tokyo, it is important to give special assistance to Russian privatisation and to small and medium enterprises in Russia. I think that my right hon. Friend will give details of the extra commitments that were made.

Economic Summit (Tokyo)

3.30 pm

Madam Speaker, with permission, I should like to make a statement on the economic summit in Tokyo and the Group of Seven meeting with President Yeltsin.

I attended the summit with my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. During the three days I also had bilateral meetings with our host, Prime Minister Miyazawa, and with the Presidents of the United States and Russia and the Prime Minister of Canada. The summit produced significant achievements. These are set out in the economic and political declarations which I have placed in the Library of the House.

Before the Tokyo summit, the GATT talks had been stalled for several months. The summit acted as a catalyst. The United States, Japan and the European Community negotiated a report on access to each others' markets which has led to a resumption of GATT negotiations in Geneva this morning.

The report offers large benefits to British industry. In six of the eight categories where tariffs are to be abolished entirely, Britain is a net exporter. These include pharmaceuticals and construction equipment. Japan's agreement to abolish all the import duty on whisky will give a welcome boost to sales in a market which is already worth over £170 million a year to Scotland. Many other particularly high tariffs faced by British exporters will be cut by 50 per cent. or more. These include punitive United States tariffs on ceramics, glassware and high quality textiles. In other categories of manufactured goods, there was agreement to cut as many tariffs as possible by a third, or to harmonise them at low levels.

The Uruguay round is far wider in scope than previous multilateral trade negotiations. It still has a long way to go, but the Tokyo meetings have injected much-needed momentum and real progress on substantive issues—action as well as words—and the world-wide prospect of more trade and more jobs, especially for a trading nation like the British. With low interest rates and firm control of costs, British industry is exceptionally well placed to benefit from a successful GATT round.

Each summit country, except Japan, is facing a serious fiscal problem. With the exception of the United Kingdom, the European participants are not expecting economic growth this year. Against this background, the summit identified barriers to growth which have developed in much of the industrialised world.

As at the European Community's Copenhagen Council, I found a new willingness among our partners to address some of the hard lessons that we learnt in the United Kingdom during the recent recession. Three points in particular were generally accepted. The first is that there is a long-term upward structural trend in unemployment in addition to the cyclical effect of the recession. Secondly, on present forecasts, the cost of social provisions is likely to exceed the capacity to meet them in all the main industrial economies and, thirdly, that deregulation and labour market flexibility are vital to get unemployment down.

It was agreed that Europe should implement the firm budgetary and other measures needed to facilitate the rapid reductions in interest rates that are now required in many countries on the continent. In north America, strong action was being taken to bring down fiscal deficits over the medium term with the objective of securing higher saving and investment. Japan, meanwhile, will implement fiscal and monetary measures to ensure sustained growth led by strong domestic demand. That will help to reduce Japan's large current account surplus.

Each of those measures is intended to help growth around the world. The summit's accent on jobs was reflected in agreement to send high-level representatives to a special meeting that President Clinton is convening in the autumn. That will study the causes of unemployment and pool experience in seeking solutions.

In April, the Group of Seven put together an unprecedented set of measures to help Russia through its deep transformation. At Tokyo, the Heads of Government confirmed that approach and noted that some large financial flows were already being made available, including $1½ billion in a new IMF facility. We set out a programme worth some $3 billion to help privatisation and restructuring. There are now some encouraging signs of a spreading enterprise culture in Russia. The summit leaders told President Yeltsin that they were determined to sustain the huge support that they had given reform in his country.

Of equal importance, we have reinforced our political partnership with Russia. As an innovation this year, our agenda included a joint review with President Yeltsin of international problems. At my suggestion, the meeting concluded with an invitation to the Russian President to join us again next year in Italy.

The political declaration touches on many of the problems we discussed with President Yeltsin, or beforehand among the Seven. We supported a negotiated settlement for Bosnia, but only on the basis that it would be acceptable to the Muslim people and not imposed on them. We highlighted the importance of the nonproliferation treaty, supported the constitutional talks in South Africa and expressed concern about the behaviour of Iraq, Iran and Libya.

The summit paid close attention to problems of the developing world and of the environment. I secured agreement that improved debt reduction terms should be considered for the poorest and most indebted countries. I hope that that will carry implementation of the Trinidad terms further. On the environment, the summit reaffirmed its commitment to sustainable development and implementation of the Rio decisions.

Finally, a word about the summit process itself. Over 19 meetings, the summits have evolved from an informal discussion between Heads of Government into an enormously expensive and, in my view, over-structured international event. I believe that radical change is necessary if we are to get the best out of the summit process. I proposed innovations last year and I made further proposals in Tokyo. These were widely supported. I hope that, as a result, future summits will be more informal, less pre-prepared and will provide even more opportunities for spontaneous discussion between the summit Heads.

Despite the procedural weaknesses I have mentioned, the Tokyo summit produced results of particular benefit to the United Kingdom as an exporting nation and a leading advocate of free trade. It concentrated on problems that are causing deep concern not just in this country, but around the world. It helped to bring leaders who are addressing those problems in common closer together. It laid the groundwork, I believe, for productive work at future summits.

I thank the Prime Minister for making this report to the House.

We welcome the recognition by the Group of Seven that there is insufficient growth and too much unemployment in their economies. In particular, we welcome President Clinton's proposal for a special employment summit this autumn.

Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why, when similar issues were raised at the summit last year by the then French Government, he was, as was noted in Saturday's issue of The Independent, brusquely dismissive of the idea of unemployment being discussed, apparently saying:
"What for, if we can't do anything about it?"
Does the right hon. Gentleman now accept the need for closely co-ordinated international action to promote growth and employment, and that such action must be taken at the European level? Would not it be a good lead to others for Britain now to cut interest rates? Would not that also be very much in Britain's interests, given last week's warnings by Midland Montagu, among others, that recovery in our economy will flag unless there is a further cut in base rates? I welcome what the Prime Minister said about the progress that has been made on the GATT. Will he explain, however, why two of the critical issues—agriculture and trade and services—were ignored at the summit? Although valuable progress has been made in the quad talks to which he referred, all the agreements depend on a successful outcome on the difficult fronts. Why was agriculture ignored when the main protagonists in the dispute—France, the United States and Japan—were all around the same table?

Does not the Prime Minister recall that the G7 countries have promised to settle the issue in every summit since Houston four years ago, and that two years ago, at the London summit, the right hon. Gentleman himself pledged to remain personally involved in the process,
"ready to intervene if differences can only be resolved at the highest level"?
Why was the subject dodged at Tokyo?

Opposition Members also welcome the continued economic assistance for Russia; but is it not strange that the $4 billion package agreed by the G7 in April has now shrunk to $3 billion? Why has that happened, and what message is meant to be conveyed by such a startling reduction in such a short time?

Was any consideration given to assistance for the Ukraine, especially in the light of its genuine economic difficulties and the vital importance of its accepting the arms reductions agreed under the strategic arms reduction treaties?

Does the Prime Minister appreciate that there will be disappointment—in many parts of the House, I hope—that full agreement on the Trinidad terms of official debt reduction has still to be reached by all the G7 countries, and in particular by Japan? Should not consideration now be given to extending the principle of debt relief from bilateral to multilateral official loans, especially those of the International Monetary Fund and the World bank? Can that be put firmly on the G7 agenda?

We welcome the recognition in the declaration of the danger of nuclear proliferation and the vital importance of the non-proliferation treaty. Would not the process be assisted, however, if a comprehensive test ban treaty could be agreed? Will the Prime Minister join me in strongly welcoming the United States' decision to extend its own ban on tests by a further year?

Does the Prime Minister understand the depth of feeling, in this country and throughout the world, about the disastrous turn of events in the former Yugoslavia—which, I believe, merited only one sentence in his statement? Does he appreciate the incomprehension at the complete failure of the international community to address its responsibilities in Bosnia? As we speak, the Serbian siege threatens to overwhelm Sarajevo. How does the Prime Minister think the inhabitants of that city feel about the evasive platitudes of the G7 declaration? Have they not heard it all before? Meanwhile, Serb and Croat aggression continues unchecked.

Are we not in a parlous state when the whole United Nations effort—both humanitarian relief and peacekeeping—is stalling because of inadequate resources and support from the international community? Instead of vague threats such as
"Stronger measures are not excluded"
which the Foreign Secretary got into such a mess trying to explain—should we not hear a commitment to action, such as the use of air strikes, to make the aggressors understand that the international community will no longer tolerate the defiance of United Nations authority and the dismembering of Bosnia?

Why are not sanctions against Serbia being toughened, and why are not sanctions being imposed on Croatia? Why are extra troops and greater resources denied to the United Nations in the field? Why is there no resolve to make safe areas the haven that they should be for the innocent sufferers in this bloody conflict?

Has not the summit generally failed to fulfil its exaggerated promises of success, and, in the case of Bosnia, completely avoided its fundamental responsibilities?

The right hon. and learned Gentleman was uncharacteristically negative, but I shall endeavour to deal with the points that he made. I am grateful for the welcome that he gave to parts of the agreement that have been reached. Whatever cross-party support is available is always helpful on these occasions internationally.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the report in The Independent. As is so often the case with newspaper reports, I am a little baffled by what the right hon. and learned Gentleman was quoting from, or what he might mean by it. [Interruption.] Well, he probably quoted something that was inaccurately reported.

As for the right hon. and learned Gentleman's question regarding co-ordinated action on unemployment at the European level, I refer him to the report that I gave on the Copenhagen summit some time ago, to which I believe he responded.

I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman that there is a long way to go on the Uruguay round. I specifically made that point. It was necessary to get the access agreement settled so that we could return to everybody negotiating, yet again, for both services and agriculture, where there are extremely difficult problems to be solved. What is vital is that, as a result of the agreement reached in Tokyo, the multilateral negotiations have started again this morning.

Whatever agreements may be reached by the quad, they are only a part of all the countries which finally have to reach agreement in terms of the Uruguay round. I have made the point on many occasions that each G7 summit since Houston has sought an agreement on the Uruguay round. It was for that reason that on a number of occasions in the last six months I approached other Heads of Government to try to push the negotiations along further, including a meeting that I had with the President of the Commission in the autumn of last year.

I have therefore, as I said I would, remained personally involved in this matter, and I propose to do so for one reason above all others. I believe that there is nothing more important internationally at the moment than a satisfactory outcome to the Uruguay discussions, for such an outcome will increase growth and create jobs in this country and around the world. I believe that that is vital. I know that the right hon. and learned Gentleman shares that view.

On the right hon. and learned Gentleman's questions about Russia, the $4 billion to which he referred that had been spoken of in April was an aim suggested by one member. It was not an agreement. We have agreed on $3 billion. No one is forthcoming with resources beyond that. When I met President Yeltsin at breakfast, and subsequently, he seemed to regard that as a very substantial contribution, and one for which he was extremely grateful. He did not have the reservations expressed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman about it.

As for the Ukraine, we are helping the Ukraine bilaterally. The reason for the inability to help the Ukraine multilaterally is that it has not reached an IMF agreement. If it is able to reach an IMF agreement, the prospect of further multilateral assistance is certainly necessary. The point made about arms reduction in the Ukraine is important. It was a point that we discussed, and it was discussed on previous occasions. It is a problem of immense complexity that we shall need to continue to address.

As for the Trinidad terms, Japan has always had a rooted objection to writing off debt. Japan is prepared to extend debt, but for its own internal accounting reasons it is deeply reluctant to write it off. The United States has often had the same difficulty. However, it has now established the principle of debt relief and will be meeting the Trinidad terms. That is a distinct move forward.

We agreed, as a result of discussions, that we would ask the Paris Club to look afresh at further help for the poorest countries. That will involve the Trinidad terms countries in particular. I expressed the view that I hoped that it would look at going well beyond the Trinidad terms and writing off a large proportion of the total stock of debt, not just the stock of debt that becomes due for repayment during the period of an IMF agreement. That would be a substantial addition to write-off for the poorest countries in the world. We shall continue to push for that in the Paris Club.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to a comprehensive test ban treaty. That does remain a long-term aim. I hope that in due course we shall be able to achieve it.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman raised a series of points on Bosnia, points that he has raised on previous occasions. I am not sure that there is anything fresh in what he has said today. Although he was quite long on questions, he seemed to me to be a little short on solutions. It may be that he has lost touch with some of the events that are occurring on the ground. In respect of humanitarian aid, he will perhaps have noticed that even this morning my right hon. and noble Friend Lady Chalker announced a further £18·5 million worth of humanitarian aid from the United Kingdom to help people in Bosnia.

Did my right hon. Friend impress on the other European Community Heads of State and, in particular, on the President of the Commission, Mr. Delors, that if they are at all serious about reducing unemployment and improving employment prospects they should immediately abandon the social chapter and all similar policies, which would impose unnecessary costs on industry and commerce?

I am extremely sorry to say that Mr. Delors was unwell and was not therefore at the summit. He was represented by Mr. Christophersen, the Vice-President of the Commission, who is aware of the United Kingdom's views on the social chapter. We did not specificallly discuss it, but he is in no doubt whatsoever that we believe that the social chapter would cost jobs, not create them.

I thank the Prime Minister for having met an all-party group to discuss the Trinidad terms before he left for the Tokyo summit. How soon does he expect some results from the initiatives that he took at the summit?

Secondly, am I correct in understanding that none of the announced tariff cuts will take effect until the Uruguay round of the GATT talks has been completed, and should we not keep that in perspective?

Thirdly, on Bosnia, will the Prime Minister accept that neither the strong words of the G7 nor the humanitarian package announced this morning will do anything to help the potentially murderous siege of Sarajevo unless the United Nations troops on the ground are authorised and reinforced with resources by their Governments to enable them to break that siege?

On the three points that the right hon. Gentleman made, I hope that the Paris Club will begin soon to discuss the question of further debt relief. How rapidly it will reach a conclusion I am afraid I cannot anticipate. The United Kingdom will push for a comprehensive solution as speedily as possible, but we have run into difficulties. People believe that we have been a little ahead of them in seeking debt reduction in Toronto terms three or four years ago, in Trinidad terms a couple of years ago and now. There are distinct difficulties in other countries. It is possible for some countries to move ahead unilaterally, as we ourselves have done from time to time in the past, but that then diminishes the capacity of those countries to seek what the debtor countries most need, which is a comprehensive write-off of debt by the Paris Club and, where appropriate, by the London Club as well in terms of commercial debt.

One of the points that I hope all our partners will recognise is that there is no incentive whatsoever for many of the poorer countries to continue to try to lift themselves out of their present difficulties if every element of their increased prosperity is then utilised to pay off an increasing level of debt interest on an increasing capital sum. I hope that it will be possible to have a substantial write-off.

On tariff reductions, the right hon. Gentleman is entirely right: nothing, in the famous terms, is agreed until everything is agreed. The hope and expectation is that the deadline will be in the middle of December—

The hon. Gentleman says, "Again", and he is right to be sceptical about it. We have done it, but we now have movement that we have not seen in the past with the fast track renewal in the United States and the breakthrough on access talks. I hope that we will get it concluded in December of this year.

On the question of Sarajevo, the right hon. Gentleman knows the Government's position. I am not in a position to offer fresh troops.

The Prime Minister has clearly had a most excellent Tokyo summit, but may I congratulate him in particular on the work that he intends to undertake to make such gatherings much less structured and, hopefully, much less frequent? Is he aware that in certain circumstances travel narrows the mind and that there is nothing more absurd in the current circumstances than a gathering of the world's elite, discussing the nobility of its aims, at a time when right across north America and Europe there is an all-time record gap between the perceptions of Government and governed?

I strongly share the views expressed by my right hon. Friend. It may be that one of the reasons for that gap between the public and the politicians is an excess of summit fatigue, where people meet together without a realistic expectation of actually achieving what may have been expected from a summit of that sort.

I am delighted that colleagues have accepted many of the ideas for simplifying the summit process. I must confess that I did not achieve all the ideas that I wanted. I say with some trepidation, with my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary sitting beside me, that I had hoped to restrict the summit to Heads of Government only and not Foreign Ministers and Finance Ministers. However, those of our colleagues with coalition Governments felt that they should continue to attend.

Is the Prime Minister aware that one of the advantages of these summits is revisiting, again and again, the continuing problems that face the world? Will he accept that what is needed now is the necessary pressure on Japan to reduce its balance of payments surplus and the essential requirement to move the GATT forward? The excessive trumpeting of success does not suggest that we have the GATT problem fully in mind.

We are well aware of the importance of the GATT round and no one in this House has been in any doubt about that for the past two years. Well over 100 nations are engaged in the Uruguay round talks. That makes it extremely difficult to reach agreement. As I indicated earlier, the talks are much wider and much more comprehensive than any previous trade talks. They include services and agriculture, and that has not been the case in the past. Those extensions are very welcome.

One point which deserves to be made is that many of the Cairns group of countries—in industrial terms, rather smaller countries—reached their GATT agreements three, four or five years ago and they have held to them. Their frustration at the difficulty of the United States and Europe in sticking to agreements that they reached months ago is entirely justified. I very much hope that we will be able to do that and also reach an agreement.

The point about revisiting problems is entirely right. However, it is not desirable to revisit them on occasions when there seems to be no practical opportunity of doing anything about them unless the revisiting is on the basis that I have proposed for the future—much more informal discussions.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, while the agreements in Tokyo are to be welcomed, there is no question but that a general reduction in tariffs is to be preferred to a series of bilateral agreements reached between different countries such as the United States and Japan? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the main purpose must be to achieve a reduction and success in the Uruguay round in agriculture? Will he confirm that no single country has the right of veto in such negotiations?

I would certainly confirm that. In terms of the European Community, an agriculture agreement is available by qualified majority vote. One hopes that that would not be necessary and I hope that, at the end of the negotiations, the advantages there for every western European country in industrial matters will ensure that no one would seek to block it on the grounds of agriculture. We need an agreement on agriculture. It will be a novelty to have one and it would be a very remarkable breakthrough if it were achieved.

With regard to my right hon. Friend's earlier point, a general agreement is infinitely to be preferred to bilateral agreements. Bilateral agreements are of little help to many of the developing countries.

In his bilateral talks with President Clinton, did the Prime Minister discuss the United States ban on British nuclear tests in Nevada? Did he remind President Clinton that a year and a quarter ago this Government told the country that nuclear tests were indispensable to British security? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether British nuclear tests are still indispensable to British security, and will he give a clear yes or no?

In fact, I discussed that with President Clinton a few days before we went to Tokyo and we spent some time discussing it. The ban has been extended for a further year. We will wait and see whether other people outside the United States sphere of influence continue testing, in which case I think that the United States and we would as well. In that year, we are seeing whether we can find alternative ways of managing without the necessity for the tests. Some think that we can do that and we are still examining that. The scientists are as yet uncertain. I hope that it will be possible.

Although I congratulate my right hon. Friend on a very successful summit, may I press him again on Bosnia? Does he accept that, since the Washington declaration, events have deteriorated markedly, that no extra protection has been given to those in safe havens, and in Sarajevo in particular, and that that great European city stands on the brink of total collapse in the most atrocious conditions seen anywhere in Europe since the end of the second world war? There were some tough words in the declaration on Bosnia. Is my right hon. Friend prepared to say that they will be followed by action to try to save Sarajevo?

The Secretary-General, as my hon. Friend will know, is actually mustering troops at the moment in terms of the resolution, the number of which escapes me for the moment, on safe areas which was passed some time ago. We ourselves have provided troops; we have had troops in Bosnia for some time. We look forward to other people doing so as well so that that resolution can be carried out.

Given the importance of the level of world trade to British prosperity, may I welcome the small but important movements in the GATT negotiations that the Prime Minister announced this afternoon? May I remind the Prime Minister of the answer that he gave recently to the House, that one of the Government's objectives was to establish full employment? Is he aware that it is a long time since the House has heard that as an objective of Her Majesty's Government? Does the Prime Minister accept that, although many people have very useful ideas on how we could marginally increase the number in employment, nobody but nobody in the western world has any idea how to achieve his objective?

When Britain faced exactly the same situation in the 1930s, the then Prime Minister sounded a note of urgency by initiating a national debate and having that debate reporting directly to him. Will he consider a similar initiative so that when the British delegates go to Camp David they can go armed with new ideas, bringing hope to our constituents, some of whom have waited 10 years or more in the dole queues, rather than acting as mere intellectual bag carriers of other nations?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he had to say in his opening remarks about GATT. It was, of course, this country that raised at Copenhagen the significant question of employment across Europe and the long-term trend.

What is of increasing concern when one strips away the effect even of the recession is that right the way across Europe—not just in this country but right the way across Europe—from about 1970, under Governments of both parties, and at one stage two parties at once, there has been a general increase in unemployment. Worse than that, there has been a corresponding increase in long-term unemployment that is centred particularly upon low-skilled or unskilled males. That is not a British phenomenon; it is a phenomenon that one can see to a greater or lesser degree across the whole of the industrialised world, with the exception of Japan, where different circumstances apply.

We did raise the issue in Copenhagen. I raised it again in Japan. We will most certainly contribute forcefully both to the White Paper in Europe and President Clinton's discussions later on this year. Some jobs will certainly be created by supply side reform, some by growth, but there is not an automatic equalisation between growth and jobs, as hon. Members will realise. On any rational expectation, a satisfactory GATT agreement will also create a significant number of jobs. There is a series of events in train that can help to put people back to work. That is certainly our objective.

As the substantial and exciting tariff reductions that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister fought so hard to achieve can be frustrated if the GATT round breaks down, what on earth can we do if the European Community is unwilling to reduce its agricultural expenditure which is currently beating every previous record, with the mountains of food breaking every previous record? Would it not greatly help the GATT discussions that the Prime Minister has worked so splendidly on if some member state within the EC would propose that either the CAP should be scrapped or that individual nations should be entitled to disengage from it? Would not that help my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in the fantastically good job that he did at Tokyo?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his helpful contribution. The Government agree with him on the need for CAP reform, and there has been some reform of the common agricultural policy. No doubt more will be necessary, but we will certainly endeavour to persuade all our European partners not to stand in the way of a comprehensive trade agreement.

In his opening statement, the Prime Minister referred to discussions on the behaviour of Iraq. What hard evidence did either the Americans or President Clinton give about the involvement of the Iraqi state in the so-called attempted assassination of President Bush in Kuwait? Is it likely, if it was Saddam Hussein's handiwork, that the would-be assassins would run out of petrol and not know where the university of Kuwait was? Will he be very careful before endorsing further military action and the launching of missiles on Baghdad?

I will send the hon. Gentleman a copy of the remarks concerning the behaviour of Iraq that were made recently by Ms Albright at the Security Council of the United Nations, which I think he will find of some interest. In the past couple of days, we have also seen obstruction of the United Nations weapons inspectors. I think that is a provocation. It stands in stark contrast to Iraq's obligations under Security Council resolutions and, clearly, that matter will now have to go back to the Security Council.

May I ask my right hon. Friend—who always represents Britain at meetings of Heads of Government with distinction—a similar question to that which I asked him when he returned recently from the European summit in Copenhagen? What is the point of repeated high-flown communiqués drawing attention to the urgent need to reduce unemployment, when its principal creator, the central bank of Germany, is outside democratic control? Has my right hon. Friend, with his usual tact, reminded his German colleagues of the fact that it was not inflation but unemployment that brought down the Weimar Republic and put Adolf Hitler into power?

I cannot say that I made that particular point in that fashion at the summit discussions, but we indicated the importance that we attach to unemployment when we were in Copenhagen, bilaterally with other European and other Heads of Government, and again in Japan. I think there is a level of understanding about the concern that people feel about the problem that did not exist even a few months ago. I know that my hon. Friend's remarks will be read carefully in other places.

Is not there an air of unreality about the fact that the Prime Minister had to go all the way to Tokyo to tell us that they have discovered unemployment in Britain? If he had asked in any region of the British Isles, he would have found out that everyone knows that there is a lot of unemployment in Britain. Instead of swapping advice with other Heads of State about how to fiddle the figures in different countries. and talking about level economic playing fields when there cannot be such a thing in the world, why does not he do something here at home, and save the pits, stop shutting the shipyards, save the engineering base, reintroduce exchange controls and introduce import controls? That is the way to save jobs in Britain.

I am sure that someone would have made a similar speech following the invention of the wheel.

Did my right hon. Friend make it clear at the summit that there will be no deeper involvement of our limited forces in Bosnia, or any mad adventure there, notwithstanding the blandishments of the armchair television warriors on the other side of the House? Will he suggest to them that, if they want a deeper involvement, they had better go out there and serve themselves?

I have said on a number of occasions that we have made a contribution in terms of troops to humanitarian aid. There has been a call by the United Nations for more troops. I think that that call should be met by those countries that have not yet contributed.

While I recognise that every Member of the House will welcome the fact that the GATT round of talks seems to be under way again, will' the Prime Minister say whether he believes in his heart of hearts that a conclusion can be reached by mid December?

As to the agreement on Scotch whisky reached by the quadrilateral partners, does the Prime Minister accept that throwaway remarks suggesting that it will be to the benefit of Scotland really mean that it will be to the benefit of the Exchequer? While the agreement may help to retain jobs in the whisky industry in Scotland, it will not create them. The issue underpinning that industry, which is a major exporter, is the need to eradicate the internal excise duty levied by Japan, which disadvantages Scotch whisky and other spirits produced in this country by £4 to £6.

As to the hon. Lady's first point, I think that a settlement can be reached. I cannot be certain because many complex matters have yet to be determined. I am in no doubt now that one can be reached, and I am delighted that the talks in Geneva recommenced this morning.

As the hon. Lady said, there are two elements in the difficulties faced by Scotch whisky in the Japanese market. One is the external tariff. When a settlement is reached, it will disappear entirely—100 per cent. of the external tariff will go. The other is the internal taxation level. We have been pursuing with the Japanese—and I did so again with Prime Minister Miyazawa—the high level of taxation on Scotch whisky. We will continue to do that in the hope of having it reduced. There has already been a significant reduction, or there will be, with the removal of the external tariff.

As I said in my statement, £170 million of exports go to Japan. As Scotch whisky will in future be cheaper, it is likely that exports will increase. That will certainly safeguard jobs, and I am not sure why the hon. Lady is so certain that it will not create them as well.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that perhaps the most popular policy being pursued by his Government at the moment is that of deregulation? It would be even more popular if it were more widely known. Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that he was able to persuade his G7 partners that that is a popular and necessary part of a world policy, which will make the lives of small businesses in particular rather more fruitful in future?

They seemed persuaded. We shall see whether action follows the gentle response when I made that point in discussions. I believe that there is an understanding that there need to be supply side changes to create employment. One important change, as my hon. Friend said, is deregulation.

On the question of Bosnia, the Prime Minister has sometimes given the impression that all the expert advice that he receives is that the west should not get involved in using military force to deter territorial aggression, first in Croatia and then in Bosnia. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm whether that is the uniform advice that he is receiving, or do senior diplomatic and military figures say that we could and should use military force to stop the slaughter in the former Yugoslavia?

I have received no advice either from senior diplomats or from military figures that a solution could be imposed by military force.

Will my right hon. Friend accept the congratulations of my constituents, who are heavily involved in the textile and agriculture industries, on the results of the Tokyo summit? We are pleased at the 50 per cent. reduction in textile tariffs as against the United States. However, if that agreement cannot be put in place by December, does he understand that there will be a need for further reductions in the 50 per cent. tariff ratio so that we may achieve far better exports of British textile goods to the United States.

I agree with my hon. Friend. I hope that we will achieve the settlement by December. In any event, that is not the end of the matter. Although a 50 per cent. reduction in tariffs is certainly welcome, we would have preferred a larger reduction—but that was what was negotiable on that particular occasion. I hope that we will return to that matter and seek an even larger reduction in the tariff, up to its complete elimination.

Perhaps I may pursue the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), in response to which the Prime Minister seemed to be well intentioned and sincere in his desire to reduce unemployment but vague as to what he would do. Will the right hon. Gentleman share with the House a little more what new specific policy and initiatives the Government are currently examining which they may take to any new employment summit in the autumn?

As I said earlier, there was a range of matters to deal with unemployment. One is deregulation, which has just been mentioned. Not to impose extra costs on employers, as the social chapter would, is a second illustration of what needs to be done. Other measures include policies that will enable the economy to grow—as we have been seeking to do—and to protect capital investment, as we did in the previous public expenditure round. There are also the international macro points that I mentioned earlier: the United States is tackling its budget deficit, Japan will continue to support domestic demand as necessary, and in continental Europe there will be a move towards a reduction in interest rates. The necessity and attraction of closing the fiscal deficit in this country, as in other countries, is that it will be easier to make further interest rate reductions.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the positive and warm support he receives from Conservative Members for the achievements of the summit, especially the progress towards freer world trade and the greater advantage that that will have for our manufacturing industry? Will he now renew his efforts among our European partners to ensure that they all share our enthusiasm for free world trade?

Yes, I will certainly do that. A number of our European partners are also firm advocates of free trade. There are one or two who are slightly less firm in their advocacy and we shall endeavour to encourage them. We are not the only advocates of free trade in Europe; a number of other nations wholly share our views.

How much of the money that has been allocated to Russia will go towards helping to dismantle its nuclear weapons? Would not it impress the other.G7 countries if, instead of talking about the nuclear non-proliferation treaty in glowing terms, the Prime Minister did something about it by introducing a programme in the United Kingdom to shift our manufacturing base away from producing weapons of war to manufacturing for peace and getting rid of Trident nuclear weapons? On the basis of his argument, our jobs will depend on either the manufacture or maintenance of weapons of mass extermination for the next 20 years. Is that his policy?

The hon. Gentleman refers to weapons of mass extermination, when nuclear weapons act as a deterrent to protect the nation. That is their purpose. If the hon. Gentleman is so keen for us not to manufacture them, I hope that he will make that point equally clearly in Barrow and Devonport and that he has previously made it in Rosyth. His point rings with a rather curious air against representations made by many of his hon. Friends during recent months.

On the question of Russia, to which I was just coming, we are already helping the Russians with the transport of nuclear weapons and with technical help on their destruction. That is of importance to Russia, and, as his right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition mentioned earlier, it is important to Ukraine, where further progress needs to be made.

As my constituency is not far from that of the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) and as it produces pharmaceuticals, chemicals, engineering products and other products that fall into the eight areas on which, it has been agreed, tariffs will not be imposed in the future, may I warmly congratulate the Prime Minister on negotiating away those tariffs? I hope that he will bring as much pressure to bear as he can to end the GATT round as soon as possible.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I certainly undertake to do that, and I am grateful for his earlier remarks.

I noted with interest the Prime Minister's reference to the Rio accord, which is intended to underpin all economic and trade policies henceforth. I wonder whether the Prime Minister is aware that a recent United States district court ruling meant that the north American free trade agreement could not be ratified because it did not include an environmental impact statement. Is not it possible that a similar fate might await the GATT agreement and that that could unravel the whole round? In that case, will the Prime Minister give some detail about the nature of the environmental discussion in Tokyo and the effect on the agreement there?

One of the significant points made in the discussion on the environment at Tokyo was that President Clinton pledged himself wholeheartedly to the Rio accords. That was a shift of policy for the United States and one that was very welcome. As the hon. Gentleman may know, much work has been going on following Rio to produce national plans for sustainable development, for dealing with climate change, for biodiversity and for forests by the end of 1993. There have been meetings of the United Nations commission on sustainable development; the most recent was in New York last month. Developed and developing countries are now working together actively to put the Rio commitments into practice. Rio is becoming a reality.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that many of the issues that figured most prominently at Tokyo, such as cutting deficits, deregulation and improving the flexibility of the labour market, were issues of British concern? Just as at Copenhagen, the agenda reflected Britain's concerns. Does my right hon. Friend further agree that there is growing evidence that Britain's case is prevailing, both in Europe and in the rest of the world?

My hon. Friend is entirely right about that point. It was very striking in the Copenhagen discussions just a few weeks ago and it was equally evident in our discussions in Tokyo last week. One of the reasons for that is that we went into the recession earlier than many other countries did. There is nothing like a recession to concentrate people's minds on the reality of what needs to be done. Many countries, now that they are entering recession, are having to look, just as we have done, at some very hard decisions to help people and to recreate jobs.

The Prime Minister conceded earlier that Japan was not experiencing high levels of unemployment. While he was in Tokyo, did he take the opportunity to look at what is happening in Japan? Did he notice, for example, that the Japanese are spending $70 billion in public works programmes to expand the economy? Did he notice that Japanese employers are trying to hold on to their workers and are not taking every opportunity to cut the work force? Did he notice that they are not as obsessed with the flexible labour market ideology? In fact, the Japanese Government and Japanese employers cannot understand all the fuss about the social market. Did the Prime Minister notice that, in spite of all that, it is the Japanese who have the substantial balance of payments surplus and that it is we who have the balance of payments deficit? When will he abandon the outdated Thatcherite philosophy and look at what really works in this world?

The hon. Gentleman may care to study Japan a little more closely before he entirely advocates that. He might, for example, not be entirely happy if we reduced our public spending share of gross domestic product to the Japanese level. That would make a significant difference and one that would be pretty unwelcome to the hon. Gentleman. If he looked at the social costs in Japan, he might also be just a little less enthusiastic. If he looked at some of the wage levels in parts of Japan, he might be a good deal less enthusiastic. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman spends his holiday in Japan.

Points Of Order

4.22 pm

On a point of order, Madam Speaker. This is a genuine point of order on which I have had discussions with my right hon. and learned Friend the shadow Attorney-General and a number of colleagues.

You will recollect and have had it brought to your attention, Madam Speaker, that in 1941 one of your predecessors, Mr. Speaker Clifton Brown, took exception to the various efforts made to raise under the emergency procedure the fall of Singapore before it actually happened. Are we to understand that your advice is that if there is a serious threat of military action whose importance is not challenged and whose urgency is not challenged, but which may not meet the third criterion, which is that it is definite, you cannot hear a Standing Order No. 20 application?

Bluntly, it is appalling that the House of Commons should face the situation where, apparently, there is British endorsement of a United Nations plan to launch missiles on a foreign city, Baghdad, which the House cannot discuss before it has actually happened. Will you, Madam Speaker, reflect over the next 24 hours and come up with a ruling on the conditions in which you will hear an application under Standing Order No. 20 in the case of possible military action?

I cannot anticipate what may or may not happen in an emergency. I must look at every application on its merits and I do precisely that. But as the hon. Gentleman knows, there have to be new developments. This is a continuing situation and there must be a new immediate development before I can grant an application. I look at each application to me entirely on its merits and will continue to do so.

On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I ask that you give a ruling debarring hon. Members who are Lloyd's names from voting on Report this evening or tomorrow on Third Reading. If hon. Members who are Lloyd's names vote themselves tax privileges which are worth perhaps thousands—or even tens of thousands—of pounds, that is tantamount to them putting their hands on taxpayers' money and putting it straight into their wallets.

Lloyd's names have a direct pecuniary interest and "Erskine May" cites a whole series of precedents in which hon. Members are debarred from voting. I realise that they mostly concern private Bills and that the Finance (No. 2) Bill is a public Bill. Nevertheless, the 14 clauses and two schedules in the Bill that apply exclusively to Lloyd's affect uniquely and personally those 44 Members who are shown on the Register of Members' Interests as having an interest in Lloyd's. Therefore, I feel that they should be debarred from voting, and I ask you to give that ruling.

Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) raised an important distinction between a private Bill and a public Bill. The Finance (No. 2) Bill is a public Bill.

I draw specific attention to amendment No. 21, which you have selected for debate this afternoon. It renders the special reserve funds liable to tax. My submission is that that represents an immediate and personal interest on the part of those hon. Members who are Lloyd's names.

No doubt, Madam Speaker, you will refer me to the ruling that your predecessor made on 14 January 1986 at column 1013 when the issue before the House was whether hon. Members who were Lloyd's names could vote for an amendment that widened the scope of the Finance Bill. Your predecessor quite rightly held that, on a matter extending the scope of the Bill, the House was dealing with a public matter.

In my submission, there is a difference. We are not talking about the scope of a public Bill. We are talking about an amendment, which, if pressed to a vote, would result in tax privileges being available to a number of hon. Members, all of whom are Conservative. It would be useful if you would give a ruling at to what exactly is meant by an "immediate and personal" interest, which is referred to on page 354 of the current edition of "Erskine May".

Finally, Madam Speaker, you will be aware that the matter was raised on 24 March 1981 by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) in relation to the Lloyd's Bill. Mr. Speaker advised Members that if there was any doubt on the matter, they should not vote.

It would be helpful if you would let us have a ruling as the matter is of interest not just to Members of the House. Members of the public would like to be assured that the House would not let a situation arise where Members who had a vested interest in their own benefit were allowed to vote in a way that other members of the public were precluded from doing.

Order. I think that I can now deal with those points of order if I may be allowed to do so.

Yes, it is a shame but we ought to make some progress and I am quite prepared to deal with those points of order.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) for giving me notice that he would raise this matter. The rule against voting on a matter in which a Member has a personal pecuniary interest does not apply on a public Bill so long as other similarly situated persons will benefit in the same way.

The provisions of the Finance (No. 2) Bill are not confined to those members of Lloyd's who are also Members of the House. There is no prohibition on such Members voting on this matter of public policy.

Order. I have not finished. Hon. Members should not be so impatient, but should listen to my entire ruling. The House will expect members of Lloyd's affected by the Bill who speak in the debates on the relevant clauses to declare their interest.

Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I should like to be clear about the matter. Do I understand that the effect of your ruling is that, because there are members of Lloyd's who are not Members of Parliament, Conservative Members of Parliament can vote for the measure, notwithstanding the fact that they gain direct benefit? I understand that a further procedure has to be invoked. However, the House must look at such circumstances because many people regard that as rather unfair.

Order. Let me take the matter a stage further because I want it to be clear to the House. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) is quite right. The measure affects other individuals outside the House and, for the sake of completeness, I shall leave the House with this thought. If I ruled that no hon. Member could ever vote on a measure that would allow him or her to enjoy benefits available to others, the House would never be able to vote for a reduction in income tax. I hope that that clarifies the point. I have given my ruling and I will accept no further points of order on that matter.

It is an entirely fresh point of order, Madam Speaker. May I have your guidance on clarification of the position under Standing Order No. 31, which, as you know, deals with the selection of amendments, so as to assist Back Benchers in future over the submission of amendments at this stage of consideration of a Bill? I am referring specifically to the Finance Bill.

The point is covered on page 502 of "Erskine May", which says that the power is exercised by the Speaker as
"a check upon excessive repetition of debates which have already taken place in committee."
I have in mind that, on 10 May, the House, in Committee, spent a full day debating issues that appear to be grouped together under amendment No. 7 and other amendments on the provisional selection list.

I do not question your selection in any way, Madam Speaker, but I should like to know whether there has been any change in the guidelines or in Standing Orders, given that "Erskine May" says that that is a power that Speakers tend to exercise "rigorously".

The hon. Gentleman will find that "Erskine May" also says that the Speaker has total discretion over the selection of amendments. Irrespective of whether a matter has been debated earlier, it is at the discretion of the Speaker to decide whether to select such amendments for debate during our consideration of the Finance Bill.

On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I did not get involved in the points of order raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) and for Neath (Mr. Hain) because they dealt adequately with those points, which you then answered. However, in your answer—

No, this is straight and above board. In your answer, Madam Speaker, you said that if the rule were applied in the way that we wanted, hon. Members could not vote on a reduction in income tax because we would all benefit, as well as those outside. The clear distinction is that, while all Members of Parliament would benefit from a reduction in income tax from 25 to 20 per cent., or even to 15 per cent., in the Lloyd's case, only 44 Tory Members will benefit.

Clause 123 relates to Members of Parliament, but not all Members will benefit from it. That is quite distinct from the taxation point. I have given my ruling on the matter, and we should not now return to it.

On an entirely separate point of order, Madam Speaker. One of the developments that has taken place since I was elected in 1974 is that the House has adopted a much more tightly controlled attitude towards Members' financial interests. In the circumstances, would not it be helpful if you asked either the Select Committee on Members' Interests or the Select Committee on Procedure to look at the position of those who have financial interests and their voting abilities? I am not challenging your ruling because, unfortunately, I do not have the power to do that, but it might seem outside that it is inconsistent with the development of tighter scrutiny in the House.

The hon. Gentleman can make such references himself. I am certain that my ruling will be seen to be accurate and logical when it has been printed and reflected on.

On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have listened carefully to what you have said. You commented that if hon. Members who are also members of Lloyd's speak during the debate. they should declare an interest. Will you reflect and make a ruling before tonight's vote on whether those hon. Members should also declare an interest before they vote?

The interests are contained in the Register of Members' Interests. I am advising Members who wish to speak that they must declare an interest when they do so. Hon. Members have never been called upon to declare an interest before they enter the Division Lobby.

On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Are there any matters of public policy that are decided in the House that do not affect people outside the House?

On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wish to raise a point that concerns the general principle of declaration of hon. Members' interests. I am not a Lloyd's name. Does an hon. Member have to declare an interest at the onset of his speech, or can he simply allude to it during that speech? The 44 Lloyd's members on the Conservative Benches should, if they catch your eye, declare an interest at the beginning of any intervention that they make.

The procedures of the House on this matter are clear and direct. An hon. Member must declare an interest immediately on standing to speak.

Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans). I seek your guidance, Madam Speaker, on the group of amendments starting with amendment No. 7. Many of the amendments deal with the same point and could be described as repetitive and overlapping. Have the guidelines for those matters changed?

No. We never allow repetition or overlapping to occur in the House. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is not challenging my selection of amendments.

On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wish to make a point about fair play. I rose following your response to the first point of order, and you would not allow me to continue because you said that you had given an answer. You have since called four Opposition Members to speak on the same subject. I shall not detain the House by pressing you on this, Madam Speaker, but I like to see fair play.

The hon. Gentleman often rises to say that I have been particularly fair. If he reflects on Hansard tomorrow, he may see that the points to which he refers which were raised by hon. Members were separate from my ruling.

On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek advice from you for the future.

My point relates to petroleum revenue tax, and the concerns of hon. Members on that subject. We know that the matter was debated extensively on Second Reading and that some amendments that were tabled by members of the Committee were ruled out of order for various reasons.

The issue is complex and hon. Members have taken counsel's opinion on the amendments that have been tabled today to ensure that they are in order. Although I appreciate that the matter was explored at some length in Committee, the concept of transitional arrangements was not so explored. Is there a way in which, in the future, hon. Members can frame amendments so that we can be sure that they will be in order and available for consideration?

I am sure that the Public Bill Office, which is open all hours, will be extremely helpful.

Ways And Means

Scottish Trusts

Resolved,

That provision may be made in relation to trusts having effect under the law of Scotland where the trustees are resident in the United Kingdom.—[Mr. Dorrell.]

Orders Of The Day

Finance (No 2) Bill

Not amended ( in the Committee) and as amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause 17

Scottish Trusts

'.—( 1) Where—

  • (a) any of the income of a trust having effect under the law of Scotland is income to which a beneficiary of the trust would have an equitable right in possession if that trust had effect under the law of England and Wales, and
  • (b) the trustees of that trust are resident in the United Kingdom, the rights of that beneficiary shall be deemed for the purposes of the Income Tax Acts to include such a right to that income notwithstanding that no such right is conferred according to the law of Scotland.
  • (2) This section shall have effect in relation to the income of any trust for the year 1993–94 or any subsequent year of assessment.'.— [Mr. Dorrell.]