Commons Chamber

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

House Of Commons

Wednesday 14 December 1994

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

Prayers

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Business Of The House

Ordered,

That there be laid before this House a Return for Session 1993–94 of—
(1) the total number of Questions to Ministers or other Members which stood on the Order Paper, distinguishing those set down for oral, written Answer on a named day and written answer

Closure Of Debate And Allocation Of Time

Ordered,

That there be laid before this House a Return for Session 1992–93 of—

(A) applications of Standing Order No. 35 (Closure of debate)—

(1) in the House and in Committee of the whole House, under the following heads:
1	2	3	4	5
Date when Closure claimed, and by whom	Question before House or Committee when claimed	Whether in House or Committee	Whether assent given to Motion or withheled by the Chair	Result of Motion, and, if a Division, Numbers for and against

and

(2) in the Standing Committees under the following heads:
1	2	3	4
Date when Closure claimed, and by whom	Question before Committee when claimed	Whether assent given to Motion or withheld by the Chair	Result of Motion and, if a Division, Numbers for and against

(B) applications of Standing Order No. 28 (Powers of Chair to propose question)—
(1) in the House and in Committee of the whole House, under the following heads:
1	2	3	4	5
Date when Closure claimed, and by whom	Whether in House or Committee	Whether claimed in respect of Motion or Amendment	Whether assent given to Motion or withheld by the Chair	Result of Motion, and, if a Division, Numbers for and against

and

(2) in the Standing Committees under the following heads:
1	2	3	4
Date when Closure claimed, and by whom	Whether claimed in respect of Motion or Amendment	Whether assent given to Motion or withheld by the Chair	Result of Motion, and, if a Division, Numbers for and against>

and

(C) the number of Bills in respect of which allocation of time orders (distinguishing where appropriate orders supplementary to a previous order) were made under Standing Order No. 81 (Allocation of time to Bills), showing in respect of each Bill—
(i) the number of sittings allotted to the consideration of the Bill in Standing Committee by any report of a Business Sub-Committee under Standing Order No. 103 (Business sub-committees) agreed to by the Standing Committee, and the number of sittings of the Standing Committee pursuant thereto; and

respectively, the number of days upon which replies to Questions for oral answers were given in the House; and the total number of Questions for oral answer to which such answers were given in the House;
(2) the total number of Notices of Motions given for an early day;
(3) the number of Members ordered to withdraw from the House under Standing Order No. 42 (Disorderly conduct), showing separately the orders given in the House and those given in Committee; and the Members suspended from the service of the House under Standing Order No. 43 (Order in debate) or otherwise, distinguishing whether the offence was committed in the House or in Committee, the period of such suspension, the number of occasions on which more than one Member was so suspended having jointly disregarded the authority of the Chair, and the number of occasions on which the attention of the House was called to the need for recourse to force to compel obedience to the Speaker's direction; and
(4) the number of public petitions presented to the House distinguishing separately those: brought to the Table at the times specified by Standing Order No. 133 (Time and manner of presenting petitions).—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

(ii) the number of days or portions of days allotted by the allocation of time order and any supplementary order to the consideration of the Bill at any stage in the House or in committee, together with the number of days upon which proceedings were so taken in the House or in committee.—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Delegated Legislation

Ordered,

That there be laid before this House a Return for Session 1993–94 of—
(A) the numbers of Instruments subject to the different forms of parliamentary procedure and those for which no parliamentary procedure is prescribed by statute (1) laid before the House; and (2) considered by the Joint Committee and Select Committee on Statutory Instruments respectively pursuant to their orders of reference, setting out the grounds on which Instruments may be drawn to the special attention of the House under Standing Order No. 124 (Statutory Instruments (Joint Committee)) and specifying the number of Instruments so reported under each of these grounds; and
(B) the numbers of Instruments considered by a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c., and by the House respectively, showing the number where the Question on the proceedings relating thereto was put forthwith under paragraph (5) of Standing Order No. 101 (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments,&c.).— [The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Private Bills And Private Business

Ordered,

That there be laid before this House a Return for Session 1993-94 of—
(1) the number of Private Bills, Hybrid Bills, Bills for the confirmation of Orders under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders introduced into this House, and brought from the House of Lords, and of Acts passed, specifying also the dates of the House's consideration of the several stages of such Bills;
(2) all Private Bills, Hybrid Bills and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders which were reported on by Committees on Opposed Bills or by Committees nominated by the House or partly by the House and partly by the Committee of Selection, together with the names of the selected Members who served on each Committee; the first and also the last day of the sitting of each Committee; the number of days on which each Committee sat; the number of days on which each selected Member served; the number of days occupied by each Bill in Committee; the Bills of which the Preambles were reported to have been proved; the Bills of which the Preambles were reported to have been not proved; and in the case of Bills for confirming Provisional Orders, whether the Provisional Order ought or ought not to be confirmed;
(3) all Private Bills and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders which were referred by the Committee of Selection to the Committee on Unopposed Bills, together with the names of the Members who served on the Committee; the number of days on which the Committee sat; and the number of days on which each Member attended;
(4) the number of Bills to confirm Orders under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, distinguishing those proceeded with under section 7 and under section 9 respectively; specifying, in the case of Bills proceeded with under section 9 against which petitions were deposited, whether a motion was made to refer the Bill to a joint committee, and if so whether such motion was agreed to, withdrawn, negatived or otherwise disposed of; and stating for each joint committee to which a Bill was referred the names of the Members of this House nominated thereto, the first and last day of the committee's sitting, the number of days on which each joint committee sat for the consideration of the Bill referred to it, the number of days on which each Member of the committee served, and whether the committee reported that the order ought or ought not be confirmed;
(5) the number of Private Bills, Hybrid Bills, Bills for the confirmation of Orders under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders withdrawn or not proceeded with by the parties, those Bills being specified which were referred to Committees and dropped during the sittings of the committee; and
(6) the membership, work, costs and staff of the Court of Referees and the Standing Orders Committee.—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Public Bills

Ordered,

That there be laid before this House a Return for Session 1993-94 of the number of Public Bills (other than Bills to confirm Provisional Orders and Bills to confirm Orders under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936) distinguishing Government from other Bills, introduced into this House, or brought from the House of Lords, showing—
(1) the number which received the Royal Assent, and
(2) the number which did not receive the Royal Assent, indicating those which were introduced into but not passed by this House, those passed by this House but not by the House of Lords, those passed by the House of Lords but not by this House, those passed by both Houses but Amendments not agreed to; and distinguishing the stages at which such Bills were dropped, postponed or rejected in either House of Parliament, or the stages which such Bills had reached by the time of Prorogation.—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Sittings Of The House

Ordered,

That there be laid before this House a Return for Session 1993-94 of the days on which the House sat; stating for each day the day of the month and day of the week, the hour of the meeting, and the hour of the adjournment; the total numbers of hours occupied in the sittings of the House; and the average time; showing the number of hours on which the House sat each day and the number of hours after the time appointed for the interruption of business; and specifying, for each principal type of business before the House, how much time was spent thereon, distinguishing from the total the time spent after the hour appointed for the interruption of business.—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Special Procedure Orders

Ordered,

That there be laid before this House a Return for Session 1993-94 of—

(1) the number of Special Procedure Orders presented; the number withdrawn; the number annulled; the number against which Petitions or copies of Petitions were deposited; the number of Petitions of General Objection and for Amendment respectively considered by the Chairmen; the number of such petitions certified by the Chairmen as proper to be received and the number certified by them as being Petitions of General Objection and for Amendment respectively; the number referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses; the number reported with Amendments by a Joint Committee, and the number in relation to which a Joint Committee reported that the Order be not approved and be amended respectively; and the number of Bills introduced for the confirmation of Special Procedure Orders; and

(2) special Procedure Orders which were referred to a Joint Committee, together with the names of the Commons Members who served on each Committee; the number of days on which each committee sat; and the number of days on which each such Member attended.—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Standing Committees

Ordered,

That there be laid before this House a Return for Session 1993–94 of—
(1) the total number and the names of all Members (including and distinguishing Chairmen) who have been appointed to serve on one or more Standing Committees showing, with regard to each of such Members, the number of sittings to which he was summoned and at which he was present;
(2) the number of Bills, Estimates, Matters and other items referred to Standing Committees pursuant to Standing Order No. 101 (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, Ĉc.), or Standing Order No. 102 (European Standing Committees) considered by all and by each of the Standing Committees, the number of sittings of each Committee and the titles of all Bills, Estimates, Matters and other items as above considered by a Committee, distinguishing where a Bill was a Government Bill or was brought from the House of Lord, and showing in the case of each Bill, Estimate, Matter and other item, the particular Committee by which it was considered, the number of sittings at which it was considered (including, in the case of the Scottish Grand Committee, the number of Meetings held in Edinburgh, pursuant to a motion made under paragraph 3 of Standing Order No. 94 (Scottish Grand Committee)) and the number of Members present at each of those sittings; and
(3) the membership, work, costs and staff of the Chairmen's Panel.—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Select Committees

Ordered,

That there be laid before this House a Return for Session 1993-94 of information and statistics relating to the membership, work, costs and staff of Select Committees (other than the Standing Orders Committee).—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Oral Answers To Questions

Foreign And Commonwealth Affairs

Land Mines

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is Her Majesty's Government's policy on the export of land mines.

The United Kingdom has not produced or exported anti-personnel land mines for some years.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Can he say precisely for how many years the Government have not exported land mines? Does he agree that it is important to get over to the public at large and to those organisations that have a proper interest in and concern about land mines exactly what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government?

My hon. Friend asked for how long we have not exported anti-personnel mines. It is certainly a decade. The policy of Her Majesty's Government was best described by my own announcement on 27 July this year, when I announced an indefinite moratorium on anti-personnel land mines without self-destruction or self-neutralising capacity. That is important because, as my hon. Friend will be aware, a large number of civilian deaths are caused each year by improperly used land mines and the aim of our policy is to reduce and eliminate that as much as possible.

Does not the Government's decision to exclude self-destructing land mines from their ban actually mean that we are now lagging behind other countries rather than taking a lead? Is the Minister aware that the problem of land mines is so great that new killing fields are being established throughout the world because of land mines, and that at the present rate of clearance it will take 5,000 years to clear the land mines in countries such as Afghanistan? Is it not more important for the Government to announce a complete ban on the export of land mines and to intensify international efforts to deal with the problem effectively so that a real start can be made?

On the contrary. For example, the American proposals on land mines are close to our code of conduct and we are actively seeking to ensure that the international community adopts a regime that gets the most adherence possible. The problem with land mines is not just their type but how they are used. The UK armed forces adhere to the UN weapons convention and the principles thereof to ensure that no civilian risks arise from land mines, and that is one of the major routes to improving the position. However, in my judgment, self-destructing and self-neutralising land mines are the best possible route for our policy.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his response and on the Government's policy. Will he confirm that, to the best of his knowledge, the British Government have never sold any land mines to the Soviet Union—which laid millions in Afghanistan—that no civilian in Afghanistan, Cambodia, Angola or Mozambique has been injured by a British anti-personnel mine, that other countries are responsible for this awful tragedy in all those countries and that we should be congratulated on our excellent policy in this matter?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. What is more, the British Government have contributed some £7 million in the past three years, together with personnel and funds, to try to clear up the problems created by other people.

Nuclear Non-Proliferation

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to secure an indefinite and unconditional extension of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

We are working hard for the indefinite and unconditional extension in unamended form of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty in 1995. We are aiming to obtain a sizeable majority in favour.

As a first step, we are trying to persuade non-member states to accede to the treaty, which is already the most widely adhered to arms control treaty in history.

In addition to an on-going European Union joint action, we are lobbying moderate non-aligned movement states to convince them that indefinite and unconditional extension of the treaty is in the security interest of all states and that such an extension would send a clear message to would-be proliferators of the international community's resolve to prevent any proliferation of nuclear weapons.

How can the Government seriously argue for an indefinite and unconditional extension of the non-proliferation treaty at next year's conference when they intend to break their obligations under article 6 of the treaty by doubling their deployment of strategic nuclear warheads? Is it not an insult to the intelligence of the non-nuclear weapon states to expect them to accept that blatant hypocrisy?

The hon. Gentleman is consistent with his party in one thing: the continuing defiance of the facts. It is worth noting that the most significant reduction in nuclear weapons has taken place under the non-proliferation treaty as it now stands. This country has done away with maritime tactical nuclear weapons. It has reduced the number of nuclear bombs carried by aircraft, and the nuclear power of the Trident programme is broadly similar to that of its predecessor, the Polaris programme. The net effect of all that is a 25 per cent. reduction in the nuclear power that this country wields.

Mr. Cousins : The Minister has recognised the dangers of proliferation and the spread of tactical ballistic missile systems throughout much of the world. Can he give the House an assurance that there will be no undue cavilling about the text of the treaty and that there will be a single strong European Union position towards it with which the Government will totally identify themselves?

The Government will set out to get the best possible nuclear non-proliferation treaty, and will do so in a way that is constructive and seeks to get the maximum possible adherence of countries to that treaty. That is the only way in which it can be made to work.

East Timor

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Indonesia concerning their occupation of East Timor.

We have not recognised Indonesia's annexation of East Timor. We continue to encourage Indonesia and Portugal to work together under the auspices of the United Nations Secretary-General to find a solution to this problem. We welcome recent talks between East Timorese representatives and the Foreign Ministers of Portugal and Indonesia, and among East Timorese representatives themselves.

Does the Foreign Secretary think that Britain's representations concerning East Timor would have just a tinge of credibility if we were not at the same time supplying to the Indonesian regime arms and aircraft, which, supposedly, are for training but have been used to bomb East Timorese people and their positions, and if we did not maintain normal trade, diplomatic and aid relationships with the Indonesian Government, whose army has murdered 200,000 East Timorese people over the past 15 years and continues a genocide against those people? Does the right hon. Gentleman think that Britain's position is just one of rank hypocrisy?

Certainly not. We do maintain normal, indeed friendly, relations with Indonesia. Because we do that, we are able to make known to the Indonesians our views, whether on East Timor or human rights generally, and we do so. I do so myself. The hon. Gentleman cannot, and has not, produced evidence to support allegations that Hawks, already supplied to Indonesia under the contract authorised by the previous Labour Government, have been used for oppressive purposes in East Timor. We think not.

In case the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), who spoke a moment ago, cares to disown the previous Labour Government, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he read in the New Statesman of November 1993 that the then Labour party spokesman on defence matters positively approved the sale of Hawk aircraft? Does he agree that it does not take forward the cause of human rights in Indonesia, a cause which even the Indonesian Government admit needs improving, for the Opposition, instead of acknowledging the improvements that have taken place—even dissidents in Indonesia admit that they have—to make ill-informed criticism, when, if they were asked to find Indonesia on a map, let alone East Timor, they would know nothing apart from the fact that it is somewhere east of Islington?

I sympathise with what my hon. Friend says and am well aware of the New Statesman article to which he refers. I had it almost by heart on a previous occasion.

As regards human rights, there has been some improvement in Indonesia over the past two decades, but not yet enough, and we take all the steps that we can to point out to it where we think the shortcomings still are and to suggest ways in which they can be remedied. For example, we encouraged the Indonesian Government to invite a delegation of Amnesty International to see the situation on the ground. I hope that that will happen.

Does the Foreign Secretary not think that the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) should have declared his visit to Indonesia? He has been a guest of the Indonesian Government and that may have affected his approach to the question.

I do not think that there is any secret about my hon. Friend's knowledge of Indonesia and his friendship with that country. I do not think that there is any harm in that at all.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Hawk training aircraft is the finest aircraft of its type anywhere in the world and that is why it sells to Indonesia and other countries? This is just humbug from the Labour party in much the same way as there was humbug over Argentina when it sold warships to that country.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I can help the Opposition Front Bench out of its difficulty by providing some ammunition against its Back Benchers.

The Hawks in Indonesia are two-seater trainers and we have no evidence that they have been reconfigured to carry live bombs since they were supplied.

Angola

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to meet the Angolan Foreign Secretary to discuss the situation in that country.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs

(Mr. Tony Baldry)

My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has no immediate plans to do so. However, my noble Friend the Lord Inglewood met President dos Santos in Lusaka on 20 November at the signing ceremony of the Lusaka protocol.

Does the Minister agree that one of the principal reasons why the tragic war in Angola resumed after the United Nations-sponsored elections two years ago was the failure of the international community to give immediate and unequivocal support to the newly elected democratic Government? In the light of that, is there now a special responsibility on the UN and the international community not only to support the ceasefire but to do everything possible to see that UNITA hands in its weapons? Should they not also provide an aid programme that helps to rebuild that country which has suffered so tragically when, all too often, the world's media and Governments have focused their attention on situations elsewhere that are less tragic?

The United Kingdom has allocated more than £24 million for emergency assistance since the United Nations appeal in June 1993 and we have established a new Angola development fund. Clearly, the rehabilitation of Angola will be a long and difficult process. As a member of the Security Council and of the European Union, Britain is willing to help with that rehabilitation. However, it cannot do so unless both parties commit themselves to lasting peace and reconciliation.

Bosnia

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further discussions he has had with representatives of the US Congress and Senate on Bosnia.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current situation in Bosnia.

I had a meeting with Senator Dole when he visited London on 1 December. We had a thorough discussion on Bosnia. Senator Dole's views differ on some points from those of the United States Administration, with whom we are co-operating closely. We and the other members of the contact group are united in pursuing peaceful settlements in former Yugoslavia.

On Bosnia, we all agree that the way forward is to achieve a ceasefire around Bihac, a Bosnia-wide cessation of hostilities and a resumption of political negotiations on the basis of the contact group plan. We welcome the recent statement by some members of the Bosnian Serb assembly in support of that.

On Croatia, as I told the House last week, we welcome the recent economic agreement between the Croatian Government and the Croatian Serbs, brokered by Lord Owen and Mr. Stoltenberg, and we hope that it will be quickly and fully implemented.

Does the Foreign Secretary share the American concern that the Bosnian Serbs rejected the Vance-Owen plan and were appeased, rejected the Owen-Stoltenberg plan and were appeased and rejected the contact group plan and are still being appeased? The stench of Munich is in the air here and in Bosnia. Has not the Foreign Secretary learned any lessons from appeasing the Hitlers of this world?

As I pointed out last week, that is a ludicrous analogy. The hon. Gentleman is completely out of date with his views on the United States Administration. The United States Administration is one of the authors of the contact group plan. They fully support and are working with us on the policy that I outlined a moment ago.

The Foreign Secretary has frequently emphasised the importance of a settlement that preserves the territorial integrity of Bosnia, but he will be aware that Lord Owen, in a recent interview with Brian Walden, expressed the view that the Serbs could reasonably expect to achieve

"autonomy of such a degree that in most people's minds it would be independence".

Does the Foreign Secretary agree with Lord Owen? If not, what steps is he taking to ensure that the European Union's peace envoy does not undermine the prospect of maintaining Bosnia's integrity?

The contact group plan is clear and we reaffirmed it when contact group Ministers met in Brussels the week before last. It is based on two main principles: the need for the Bosnian Serbs to withdraw from 72 per cent. to 49 per cent. of the land that they occupy in Bosnia and the need to preserve the integrity of Bosnia-Herzegovina within its present frontier. Once those two principles are accepted, talks can take place between the parties about territorial swaps and constitutional relationships, including those between different entities in Bosnia-Herzegovina and their neighbours.

In view of the increasing gravity of the situation and the importance of ensuring that the United Nations' authority and credibility are not damaged beyond repair, will my right hon. Friend talk urgently with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister about a British initiative to summon a summit meeting of the Presidents of the United States of America, Russia and France and the Prime Minister?

Such a meeting would not be complete unless it also contained the parties. I am not especially keen at the moment to give Mr. Karadzic, the leader of the only group that has rejected the contact group plan, a world platform. I do not exclude my hon. Friend's idea and the possibility of a summit in order either to avert a disaster or to consolidate a success. In either case, that might be possible.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, whatever silly things may have been said in the Senate, in Congress or a few minutes ago in the House about the Bosnian position, the American Defence Secretary's offer of at least 18,000 or more American troops—should there be a need for reconfiguration of UN troops, including our own, on the ground, or should there be a need for withdrawal—is thoroughly constructive and very much in the spirit of maintaining the Atlantic alliance and of not allowing it to be undermined by differences of emphasis over Bosnia? Would my right hon. Friend welcome that?

I would, indeed. My right hon. Friend is right. President Clinton's decision, which he described, substantially helps forward what NATO is doing to prepare to help withdrawal, if that should be needed. However, as Secretary Perry and my right hon. and learned Friend agreed again today in Brussels, we believe that UNPROFOR is doing a good job, and that its withdrawal would be complicated and difficult. It is necessary to plan for withdrawal in case UNPROFOR's task becomes impossible. We hope that that will not happen, and so do the Americans.

Does the Secretary of State agree that the history of the conflict in former Yugoslavia suggests that the Bosnian Serbs have been adept at taking advantage of any signs of disunity in the international community and, in particular, in the contact group? There have been substantial signs of that disunity since the congressional elections, to which he referred. What efforts are Her Majesty's Government taking to ensure that public disagreements of the sort that have occurred in the past two or three weeks will be eliminated?

There are no public disagreements between Her Majesty's Government and the United States Administration on the right policy towards Bosnia. We are working together to further the policy that I outlined to the House today.

Although I appreciate the splendid humanitarian work carried out by the British Army, will my right hon. Friend tell our United States allies that, from a military point of view, we shall heed the sound maxim, "Never reinforce a failure"?

If my hon. Friend had been with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence on his visit to British troops in Bosnia last week, he would have agreed with my right hon. and learned Friend's conclusion that they continue to do, as he said, a thoroughly worthwhile job. We hope that they can continue to do that. If it becomes impossible, we have to plan to withdraw. The American decision to help that withdrawal is a considerable comfort.

May I press the Foreign Secretary on a question to which he did not respond in his statement last week? Is anything being done to make the remaining safe havens safe? Is there any prospect of the UN forces there being strengthened, or of the safe havens being demilitarised? Will air power be used the next time any of them come under threat? Does the Foreign Secretary appreciate that if we do none of those things, there is a real risk that we will be held responsible on the next occasion when one of the safe havens suffers the same fate as Bihac?

We should always look for ways in which what the UN is accomplishing in Bosnia through UNPROFOR and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees can be strengthened. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence is doing precisely that at today's NATO meeting in Brussels.

We must constantly seek realistic ways of strengthening the role of UNPROFOR. We should not exaggerate; there is a role for air power, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, but, as he himself said on the radio last week, it could not solve the problems and might make them worse. There is also a role for reinforcement and demilitarisation of the safe areas. We need to examine all those aspects constantly if we are to improve the situation on the ground.

Australia

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on British relations with Australia.

British relations with Australia are excellent. We continue to develop close co-operation in all areas. We intend to organise a series of cultural, scientific and commercial events in Australia throughout 1997 as a showcase for this partnership.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that I had the opportunity and privilege of trying to further British-Australian relations in my own way when I was a member of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association delegation that visited Australia two months ago? Will he take it from me that our relations with Australia in regard to the debate about the monarchy can best be strengthened if we allow Australia freely, in its own way, to make up its own mind in a responsible way about what it wants to do about the Head of State in the future? Does my right hon. Friend accept that the Australians are more concerned with opportunities to enter the European Community trade market? That, ultimately, is the way in which to improve our relations with Australia.

I recognise the contribution made by my hon. Friend. He is right: the Australian constitution lays down procedures for change in that constitution, and Her Majesty's Government have no role in the debate. The identity of the Australian Head of State is a matter for the Australian people to decide.

We are working hard to enhance our current very good trade relations. Our exports rose by 16 per cent. last year, and growth has been sustained since then. We have had extremely successful relations, and we shall build on them.

When the Minister discusses trade with Australia, will he ensure that coal imported to the United Kingdom is economically priced, and that no subsidies undermine the United Kingdom's deep-mined coal? Will he assure us that he will investigate the position?

I will certainly do so.

Cuba

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the state of the United Kingdom's relations with Cuba.

We have long had normal relations with Cuba, and are now building on them.

May I commend my hon. Friend's work, and that of our hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor), the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Technology, during his recent visit to Havana, when much was done to develop British exports and investment?

Should Cuba not realise, however, that Fidel Castro is now well past his sell-by date? Cuba should take a leaf out of the book of Hastings Banda or Kenneth Kaunda, and hold all-party elections in Cuba. If it did so, it would join every other Latin American republic in becoming a true multi-party democracy.

My hon. Friend is right. There is a healthy two-way exchange of Ministers between Cuba and the United Kingdom. As my hon. Friend pointed out, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Technology went to Cuba earlier this year, and I believe that Isabel Allende visited London earlier this year as well. We enjoy normal relations with Cuba, and they continue to develop; but it is certainly true that progress in those relations would be enhanced by improvements in civil and democratic rights in Cuba. Earlier this year, it received the United Nations Human Rights Commissioner, and I hope that that will lead to co-operation with the UN special rapporteur, which would also be helpful.

On a more serious point concerning Cuba—[Interruption]—is there any way in which the British Government can simply ask our friends in Washington, the American Administration, to lift the unnecessary and self-defeating boycott? The quickest way to bring Cuba to democracy would be to allow hundreds and thousands of Americans to go there as tourists and business men, to travel and to trade. That would undermine Fidel far more quickly than the absurd boycott that Washington insists on maintaining.

The subject of human rights is rather a serious point, and I hope that the first phrase in the hon. Gentleman's question was simply a slip of the tongue. We take the view that the relationship between America and Cuba is a bilateral issue. What we do is aimed at improving our relationship with Cuba, which we have done in a number of ways and which has been marked by an increase of about 140 per cent. in our trade with that country, from £8.8 million in the first nine months of last year to £21 million this year. We shall continue that process in a way that will encourage democracy and economic reform in Cuba. We think that that is the best policy both for ourselves and for Cuba.

Vietnam

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on British relations, including trade relations, with Vietnam.

British relations, including trade relations, with Vietnam are now better than they have ever been. Our exports to Vietnam in the first three quarters of 1994 were up by 380 per cent. on last year.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that Vietnam is a rapidly growing economy offering great potential to British industry? As English is one of the main languages of international trade, what are the Government doing to try to satisfy the thirst of the Vietnamese to learn English?

As my hon. Friend says, there is a great appetite in Vietnam for English language training. When my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary visited that country in September, he promised to provide English language training for officials in key ministries. That has been delivered, and the British Council and the Voluntary Service Overseas have received much acclaim for their English language training programmes. We are considering how we can do more. English is extremely important to Vietnam as it develops international commercial relations.

Does the Minister accept that the desperate problem of the 26,000 Vietnamese boat people still in camps in Hong Kong has to be sorted out—and not, as in recent months, by riot squads, tear gas and water cannon? I urge him to visit the camps, as I have, and to see for himself the awful circumstances in which those people live. Will he then, with the three Governments involved, urgently work out a practical formula to repatriate people in a humane and dignified way, instead of in straitjackets, as happened a few days ago?

The hon. Lady is right to raise the problem of the remaining migrants in Hong Kong camps. I have visited the camps myself a number of times ove the past 15 years, and we are working closely with the Vietnamese Government and the Hong Kong authorities to ensure that Vietnamese migrants leave Hong Kong well before China takes over in 1997.

Syria

10.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to visit Syria in 1995 to discuss the middle east peace process; and if he will make a statement.

We attach great importance to our relations with Syria. I was in Damascus several weeks ago, but neither the Foreign Secretary nor I have any plans to visit in 1995.

In view of the lifting of the arms embargo on Syria by the European Union, and other efforts to improve relations with that country, does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that Syria should now do much more to control the terrorist groups that want to wreck the middle east peace process? Should not Syria now spell out in detail what it means by normalisation of relations with Israel?

The second part of my hon. Friend's question is important. It is quite plain that we will not see a permanent agreement between Israel and Syria unless Israel makes it plain that she will withdraw from the entirety of the Golan Heights and unless Syria makes it plain that she will establish with Israel the kind of relationships that are properly to be established between one friendly state and another. It is important that in negotiations both parties make their provisions plain as speedily as they can.

The Minister will know that the Syrians have offered full peace for full withdrawal and that the Israelis have responded by saying that the depth of peace will be based on the depth of the withdrawal. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will also know that everyone in the area is concerned about the military machine that still exists in Iraq and that any depth of withdrawal or scaling down of Syrian forces is bound to be based on the potential that Iraq has to cause trouble, as it recently tried to against Kuwait. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that the war machine in Iraq is taken into account to help along the peace process in the middle east?

I think that both parties to the negotiations between Israel and Syria are primarily concerned with the position of Israel on the Golan Heights, the need for Israel to withdraw and the nature of the relationship that thereafter will be established between Israel and Syria. I do not think that the wider question to which the hon. Gentleman referred is playing a very large part in the Israeli-Syrian negotiations.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the involvement of Syria is not only crucial but central to a long-term middle east settlement and, indeed, to reaching an accommodation with Israel? Do not the Government have an obligation, given our history in the region, to take initiatives with our partners to achieve those objectives?

It is obviously important that we should see a permanent agreement between Israel and Syria as soon as it can be achieved. The Americans have an important intermediary role to play, and are playing it. The parties must hold face-to-face bilateral discussions if we are to secure an agreement soon. The British and, indeed, other Governments in the European Union have a supportive role to play, but a permanent agreement will come not from outside pressure but from bilateral face-to-face discussions between Israel and Syria.

Does the Minister accept that the next, and perhaps most urgent, step that has to be taken in pursuit of the peace process is to ensure elections for Palestinians at an early stage? Will he ensure that Britain and the rest of western Europe send sufficient support and monitoring personnel to ensure that those elections proceed satisfactorily?

The hon. Gentleman is quite right. It is obviously important that elections should be held as soon as possible. It is rather unlikely that they will take place before next spring or summer, but I wish it were sooner.

I do not think that they will take place unless Israeli forces are redeployed quite soon. I am sure that, if elections are fixed and there is a request for assistance, as I suspect there will be, the British Government, in common with other western countries and others, will wish to play a part and respond.

Will my hon. Friend try to get the partners in the peace process back to some pretty basic United Nation principles: that territory should not be conquered and occupied by force of arms, in Syria or elsewhere, that, where territory is occupied, the Geneva convention should apply—it certainly does not apply in southern Lebanon today—and that the local population should have the right to self-determination?

Where territory is occupied, the Geneva convention most certainly should apply. Security Council resolutions 425, 242 and 338 apply and should be the basis of discussions and ultimate settlement.

Saudi Arabia

13.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last had discussions with his Saudi Arabian counterparts on the state of British-Saudi relations; and if he will make a statement.

I last had discussions with my Saudi counterparts when I visited Saudi Arabia on 13 October. Our relations are excellent.

The Foreign Secretary will have noted the threat to this country by the brother of King Fahed, which was reported in The Independent on Monday, and he will know of the second consecutive 20 per cent. cut in the national budget of Saudi Arabia as its economy heads deeper and deeper into slump, with the unrest that that inevitably generates. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, as the Al-Saud royal dictatorship is so unstable, it is rather foolish to place all our eggs in her basket? In the light of the threats to the lives of Saudi Arabian dissidents here in London, which were confirmed by Scotland Yard in a report that appeared in The Mail on Sunday a couple of weeks ago, would not it be extremely unwise to proceed with the deportation of the leaders of the Saudi opposition movement here in London, on the principle that today's dissidents and opposition might be tomorrow's Government in Saudi Arabia?

The hon. Gentleman puts together a mass of misinformation in one question. I do not agree at all with his premise about the stability of the kingdom of Saudi Arabia simply because it is dealing with its budget deficit. That seems to be way beyond the mark. He referred to the decision taken by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary that Mr. Al-Massari should be returned to Yemen, the country from which he reached us. Mr. Massari has appealed against that decision and it would be wrong to comment further while the process is under way.

"Maltese Double Cross"

14.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make an assessment of a film, a copy of which has been sent to him.

Decisions about whether to prosecute are matters for the police and the prosecution authorities. They are indeed considering the film to which the hon. Gentleman has referred.

May I, first, thank the Foreign Secretary for seeing me in his room on Monday night about Allan Francovich's film entitled "The Maltese Double Cross". Could the Crown Office and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office—the lead Departments—be persuaded to question the right hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon), who was Secretary of State for Transport in March 1989, and who, I believe, said in good faith to reputable members of the Lobby, that the bombers were about to be identified? Should not the investigation ask him what prompted him to say that, and why he was subsequently removed by Mrs. Thatcher from her Cabinet? Could not it also be asked whether any serious investigation into the truth of Lockerbie can take place without asking Mrs. Thatcher how, in 800 self-serving pages, she did not mention Lockerbie once, but she did say, in justifying the 1986 raid, that never again, after the raid on the working-class tenements of Benghazi and Tripoli, would there be any kind of Libyan terrorism. If, with her access to intelligence, she believed that, how could she possibly think that the Libyan state was responsible for Lockerbie?

Truth to tell, I am awfully fond of the hon. Gentleman, but he sometimes behaves in a rather dotty manner.

Answer.

Order. Has the Minister responded to the question?

I have indeed responded to the question from the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell).

Bosnia

15.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about Bosnia.

I refer to the answer that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has already given the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford). [Interruption.] With respect, I have already answered Question 15. [Interruption.]

Order. I understood that the Minister was responding to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr.Dalyell) on Question 14.

I understood that Question 15 had been called and, in response to that, I was referring to the answer that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has already given to the question posed by the hon. Member for Greenwich.

On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

I take points of order at the end of Question Time and after statements.

I, too, should like to refer to my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford). He asked the Foreign Secretary about the statement made by Lord Owen on the "Walden" programme last weekend that the contact group plan would mean virtual independence for the Bosnian Serbs. I ask two very direct, brief questions: do the Government agree with Lord Owen's statement; and, if not, will they appoint a peace mediator who understands the Contact group plan?

The position, which was reaffirmed in the Essen declaration, is that the Bosnian Serbs have to accept the Contact group plan—the map—and that must be the basis of the settlement.

The question that then arises is what should be the relationship between the federation—the Bosnian Croats and the Bosnian Muslims on the one hand, and the Bosnian Serbs on the other? There must be a relationship between the two within the external frontiers of Bosnia. That is a matter for discussion and negotiation between the parties. I believe that there will be a very loose association between the two.

The question remains as to the relationship between the Bosnian Croats and Croatia, and the Bosnian Serbs and Serbia. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the federation has already agreed that there should be confederal rights—whatever that means—between Bosnian Croats and Croatia, and parallel rights between Bosnian Serbs and Serbia.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend take the opportunity of explaining the position on crimes against humanity in Bosnia and former Yugoslavia? Does he believe that what is happening in the United Nations represents useful progress and will the process have a deterrent effect?

My hon. Friend will know that proceedings are currently afoot in Germany against one named alleged war criminal. Evidence is being gathered against other named criminals, but the problem is that they are not within the easy reach of the tribunal.

Before putting my question, I must say that the Minister would command more respect in the House if he replied to the questions that are put to him by all hon. Members.

In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Bayley), the Minister said something different from the Foreign Secretary's statement last week. The right hon. and learned Gentleman referred specifically to a confederal arrangement between the Bosnian Croats and Croatia and implied that in the current peace plan equal, parallel arrangements are available for Bosnian Serbs.

Is the Minister saying that the proposal in the current peace plan offers confederal rights to the Bosnian Serbs with Serbia? If so, where does that leave the future of the Muslim community in Bosnia?

I used the words that I intended to use. The federation has agreed to confederal rights between the Bosnian Croats and Croatia. That phrase has not been used in respect of the relationship between the Bosnian Serbs and Serbia. There must be some relationship between the Bosnian Serbs and Serbia, and that has been agreed by the Bosnian Government.

The phrases "special rights" or "parallel rights" have been used to describe the relationship between Bosnian Serbs and Serbia, which is clearly different from "confederal rights". But it indicates a kind of relationship between Bosnian Serbs and Serbia that falls short of confederal rights. All of that must be negotiated within the external frontiers of Bosnia, as I have said already. The purpose of the negotiations is to preserve one entity— Bosnia.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, if Secretary of State Perry's offer of American troops being committed to ground duties in Bosnia is taken up, it would be appropriate for members of UNPROFOR that have provided generously to the defence of that country to review their commitments? Would not that allow us to withdraw some of our troops?

We are extremely grateful to the United States Government for what has been offered, but it is important to remind the House that what has been offered is the provision of troops within the context of NATO to assist the withdrawal of UNPROFOR troops, should that become necessary. I very much hope that it will be possible to keep UNPROFOR troops in Bosnia through the winter, because what they have been doing has been of enormous value and deserves the utmost praise.

Will the Minister address himself to the remarks made by Lord Owen last week, which he and the Foreign Secretary have refused to address up to now? Will he correct his reference to the confederal links between Croatia and Bosnia, because the link is not with the Bosnian Croats but with the whole of the Bosnian republic and all the peoples of Bosnia and Croatia? That is an important distinction to make.

The second part of the hon. Gentleman's question is right and I am grateful for his clarification. On the former part of his question, the nature of the relationship between the federation—if I may use that word for these purposes—and the Bosnian Serbs within the external frontiers of Bosnia will inevitably be a matter for negotiation. I suspect that the relationship between the federation and the Bosnian Serbs will be very loose, but it is impossible at this stage—after all, negotiations have not even begun—to determine what the outcome of negotiations will be. That being so, it seems to be idle to speculate about the outcome.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that President Milosevic in Belgrade is the key to peace in Bosnia? Does he accept that Milosevic has aided and abetted Karadzic in the gruesome war, but that only Milosevic can influence the Bosnian Serbs into accepting the peace plan?

I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that the role of President Milosevic is central, and he is better placed than anybody to induce the Pale Serbs to accept the Contact group plan—the map—and to enter into the negotiations to which I have referred. It is because of that that the Security Council has been willing to relax the effect of some of the sanctions.

Since Bosnia is clearly a failed entity that should never have been recognised as an independent sovereign united state, when will the Government extend to the Serbs who live there the right of self-determination?

But that is to argue that existing frontiers can be disregarded and that international law can be flouted by armed aggression. If one were to follow what the right hon. Gentleman has suggested, one would begin to see the entirety of the former Soviet Union, and probably much of central and eastern Europe, dissolve into conflict. That is not something that he or I want, and it is important to go on asserting that existing frontiers must be respected unless altered with the genuine consent of all relevant parties.

Cyprus

16.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last consulted the United States Secretary of State about the situation in Cyprus.

I last discussed Cyprus with the United States Secretary of State when I was in Washington on 22 June, but we have had many exchanges at official level since then, most recently with Mr. Williams, the United States special co-ordinator on Cyprus, here in London yesterday.

As Britain and the United States are members of the Security Council, why are they not making the reunification of Cyprus a top priority in every sense? Cyprus has been divided for far too long, and many of the interested parties are dragging their feet. Why are the Government not pressurising Turkey, for instance, to make efforts to try to make the negotiators in the north come together in a meaningful and peaceful way to reunite Cyprus?

We are, indeed, pressing constantly on behalf of the Secretary General in that direction. We believe that he is best placed to carry forward those discussions. I have encouraged him to persevere with them despite the disappointment last year, when it looked as though the parties concerned were close to an agreement on confidence-building measures, which could have led to an agreement on the substantive issue. It is disappointing that that agreement dissolved at the last minute.

The latest effort by the Secretary General is to call together Mr. Denktas and President Klerides. They have had meetings and I hope that they will have more meetings. We follow the discussions with great care and offer support and apply pressure wherever we believe that it is needed to reach an agreement.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that in the face of the continued intransigence of the regime in the north of Cyprus, the only solution now is to press forward as fast as possible with processing the application from the Republic of Cyprus to join the European Union?

We certainly do not believe that anyone has a veto on the application of the Republic of Cyprus. We were party to the decision of the Corfu summit earlier this year that the next phase of enlargement of the European Union will involve Cyprus.

Bosnia

18.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the latest developments in Bosnia.

I refer the hon. Lady to the answers that my right hon. Friend and I have already given.

As the Minister obviously does not want to answer a question about Dr. David Owen, I will not: press him on that. Did he see a report in The Times last week that British soldiers had not just been held by Serbs, but taken out of their tanks and beaten up? What did the British Government do about that? Would they have reacted differently if British troops had been taken out of tanks by Saddam Hussein's troops?

It is important to keep in mind the limited mandate that UNPROFOR has in Bosnia. We did not go into Bosnia to wage war, but to reinforce the humanitarian effort and to maintain peace and tranquillity where we could. We have achieved considerable success in both of those objects of policy. For example, we have been able to achieve a great degree of peace and tranquillity in central Bosnia. The consequences of the limited mandate is that British troops and UNPROFOR forces in general are not equipped in the way that they were equipped to go to war against Iraq in Kuwait.

Commonwealth (Human Rights)

19.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his Department is doing to discourage human rights abuses in the Commonwealth.

We stand by and we encourage others to implement those provisions of the Harare declaration that deal with human rights.

Will the Minister make human rights a cornerstone of his policies towards Commonwealth countries? Will he, in particular, make it clear that the death penalty is repugnant? In his discussions with Commonwealth countries will he ensure that the view of the House—that the death penalty is primitive and should not be used—is expressed to them? Will he look in particular at cases in which children are under threat of the death penalty in one particular country?

I would not restore the death penalty to the United Kingdom, but, that said, I do not think that it is repugnant. It is a matter for the Parliament of any country to determine its own criminal code and that includes the penalties that it might deem to be appropriate. As to the generality of the hon. Gentleman's question, human rights are a cornerstone of our policy within the Commonwealth, as elsewhere. That is why we did so much to encourage the part of the Harare declaration which emphasised the importance of the respect for human rights.

To what extent is that part of the Harare declaration enforceable? What measures can be taken to see that members of the Commonwealth follow it to the letter? Are there some particular instances to which my right hon. and learned Friend can point where we have had some success with that policy?

The Harare declaration is not a legal document but a political declaration. Therefore, and to that extent, it is not enforceable in the sense that my hon. Friend means. By political pressure, however, one can influence the policies of countries within the Commonwealth and we seek assiduously to do that.

Somalia

20.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made towards establishing normal international links with (a) Somaliland and (b) southern Somalia.

It has not proved possible to make progress towards establishing normal links with Somalia due to the failure of the Somalis to reach agreement on the formation of a national Government. The future of north-west Somalia must be for Somalia as a whole to determine.

Does the Minister recognise that there is no Somalia as a whole now? The warring factions in the south cannot determine who represents the south but the north has functioned comparatively—I stress the word "comparatively"—as an operational entity for a couple of years now. Does not the Minister recognise that the links between Britain and Somalia are with the north-west—with the Republic of Somaliland—which is where Britain should be providing support, help and encouragement? To wait for some magic date when everything will come right in the south is to wait for a date that will never come.

I know that the hon. Gentleman takes a close interest in north-west Somalia, but it is clear that a return to peace in Somalia as a whole and the establishment of viable national institutions with which the international community can deal can be achieved only by the Somalis themselves. We hope that they will work with renewed vigour to achieve those goals.

Public Expenditure (Wales)

3.30 pm

With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement on public expenditure in Wales.

Copies of my statement, details of provisional standard spending assessments and provisional capping principles for counties and districts will be available in the Vote Office when I sit down.

I am presenting a budget for Wales, full details of which will be published in my departmental report early next year. This is a good settlement for Wales: £6,770 million will be available for 1995–96, an increase of 2.9 per cent. over this year, which is £190 million extra. Because inflation is down, it will buy more than the plans for 1995–96, which I announced last year—£40 million more.

The success of the Welsh economy is well advertised. Industrial output is up by almost 10 per cent. over the past year. The Celtic dragon now rivals the Asian tigers. This budget, with its emphasis on public services and regeneration, will keep Wales roaring ahead. The largely untold success story has been the growth of small and medium-sized businesses, the increase in self-employment and the restoration of entrepreneurship—[Interruption.] I see that the Opposition welcome good news with all the enthusiasm of an undertaker at a baptism.

Self-employment is up from 136,000 in June 1988 to 175,000 in September 1994 and VAT-registered production companies are up from 3,600 at the end of 1979 to nearly 6,000 at the end of 1991. That is great progress. Between them, those firms have created more jobs than the inward investors. That is a well-known success story. The two are mutually reinforcing.

Today's news on unemployment brings the rate in Wales back down to the United Kingdom average. That is welcome news indeed, and I hope that Opposition Members will join in the chorus of support.

Independent forecasts are positive for Wales. They expect growth in 1995 and 1996 to be faster than a strongly performing United Kingdom. From Queen street in Cardiff to the business park in north Wales; from Imperial park to Fishguard harbour, investors are busy building and rebuilding, creating new jobs and prosperity for the 1990s.

Yesterday I launched a drive for £1 billion of private investment for the valleys' 20 prime sites. Good locations for new homes, new shops, new factories and new offices are on offer. This budget provides the money for the new roads and public investments that those schemes require. It provides local authorities with cash under the strategic development scheme and through capital programmes.

Better health and safer streets are the overriding priorities for the public services. There is an additional £114 million for the national health service in Wales—a cash increase of 5.5 per cent., or a 2.2 per cent. real increase. It will increase NHS spending by more than £39 for every man, woman and child in Wales, bringing expenditure up to £754 per person next year or more than £3,000 for an average family. It is more than it costs to run the family car or to go on the family holiday.

With that money, we aim to cut junior doctors' hours, recruit more medical staff, treat many more patients and fulfil patients charter guarantees. There will be fewer forms, fewer administrators in health authorities and many more satisfied patients. A further £6.6 million is available for disabled people. I look to local government to come forward with good schemes to help people in need.

I propose to set total standard spending for local authorities at £2,767 million, an increase of 2.7 per cent. on 1994–95. TSS will be made up of £2,466.3 million for county and district councils and £300.7 million for the four new police authorities. Police TSS represents an increase of about 6 per cent. on 1994–95 police authority budgets. That substantial increase demonstrates the Government's commitment to providing a decent amount of cash for police services.

I am sure that some opponents will complain that those new arrangements take responsibility away from local authorities; but the people of Wales will welcome that additional money for law and order. Local authority members continue to have the majority on the new police authorities. I am sorry that local government in south Wales was unable to find sufficient money when it had control of the decisions, as I and most people in Wales would have liked it to do. I want that money to buy more detective work and more patrols and reduce the number of criminals on the loose.

Final standard spending assessments will be announced in the new year. Aggregate external finance will be £2,450.8 million, comprising revenue support grant of £1,705.5 million, business rates of £520 million and other grants of £225.3 million. I am consulting on my proposals for RSG. Both TSS and AEF include £124.4 million for care in the community—another large increase.

On capping, I propose that any increase of more than 0.5 per cent. on a county or district council's 1994–95 budget requirement will be considered an excessive increase if it gives rise to a budget requirement above the authority's SSA. Any budget requirement that is more than 12.5 per cent. above the SSA will be considered excessive, subject to certain conditions. My capping principles are provisional. I shall make my final decisions in the light of authorities' budget decisions and all appropriate considerations.

There have been suggestions from the Opposition Benches that I would not meet the costs of local government reorganisation and that local authority services would suffer as a result. I am pleased to be able to confound those expectations. The local authority associations asked me to provide £19.5 million to the shadow authorities for their running costs. I propose to meet that bid in full.

The associations asked me to provide £20 million for changes to information technology. I propose to meet that bid in full in the present financial year and next year, by supplementary credit approvals. The associations asked for £10 million for compensation costs. I have concluded that I should provide £3.5 million of supplementary credit approvals in 1995—96.

I have consistently made it clear that I expect that virtually all existing local government staff will find jobs in the new authorities, or will go through the normal process of natural wastage. I expect the new authorities to make the fullest possible use of existing staff—if necessary, by redeploying and retraining them—rather than spending large sums of public money on redundancies and recruitment. The provision that I have made for compensation reflects that. However, if some authorities decide that they want to make major administrative savings at the point of reorganisation, I shall make more money available to facilitate that.

In addition to the £43 million that I have made available for local government reorganisation, I have decided to issue £525.6 million of capital grants and credit approvals for 1995–96 for local authority capital investment. That represents a 4.5 per cent. increase on the current year, a real increase, giving local authorities more scope to make their own decisions. That will enable local authorities to play their full part in the regeneration initiatives at the heart of the budget.

I have increased provision for local government investment in environmental and economic development by 15 per cent., to a total of £43.2 million. That includes £4.5 million of additional support to rural areas in place of grant schemes formerly provided by the Welsh Development Agency and the Development Board for Rural Wales. A further £49.4 million goes to capital projects under the strategic development scheme. I shall be announcing the results tomorrow. It is a very generous settlement, taking into account the special needs of Welsh local government.

Planned expenditure on agriculture for 1995–96 will be £267.5 million—more than £33 million above planned expenditure for this year; an increase of 14 per cent. It means that farmers will continue to receive high and fast-growing public support.

Following the change in the assisted areas map announced to the House, there will be reductions in regional assistance. I shall continue to meet demand in full under the rules of the scheme.

The Welsh Development Agency will be able to spend more than £153 million next year. I am reducing the grant substantially in both 1995–96 and 1996–97 as a result of an accelerated property disposal programme. I have indicated a substantial increase in the agency's grant in aid for 1997–98. The WDA this year has received as; much money as it can sensibly spend from grants and asset sales and next year will see a further substantial programme of work. Indeed, this year the WDA has returned £10 million that it was unable to spend. The WDA is not held up by a lack of cash.

I am determined to cut out unnecessary bureaucracy in favour of services. The running costs of my Department for 1995–96 will be below £75.5 million, which is less in cash and real terms than in 1993–94 or 1994–95. They will fall further in cash and real terms in 1996–97 and 1997–98.

I am reducing the total running costs of Welsh executive non-departmental public bodies from £66.7 million this year to £65.3 million next yearv—a cut of 2.2 per cent. or 5.4 per cent. in real terms. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) is making fatuous comments from a sedentary position. The figures speak for themselves; they show that we are reducing the overheads and putting the money into services. [Interruption.]

Order. We cannot have continual barracking from sedentary positions. Hon. Members will have the opportunity to question the statement in a moment.

I shall also be requiring some NDPBs to make considerable savings on consultancy fees and advertising and shall be slimming down the operations of a few. In some bodies, such as the Countryside Council for Wales, there is scope for that. I am maintaining the provision for arts and leisure in full for next year.

Housing associations have seen substantial increases to their stock in recent years, running well ahead of 10,000 new homes over three years—the target set in 1991 by the Agenda for Action. In 1995–96, more than £100 million should enable Housing for Wales to achieve a target of more than 3,500 additional homes. I have taken into account the 628 empty properties owned by associations and am asking them to bring more of those into use.

I have increased local authority housing provision to £267.6 million, including more than £150 million for mandatory home renovation grants. I am making an additional £3 million available for local authorities to develop low-cost home ownership schemes, which will help 300 more families into home ownership next year. That is in addition to 450 families who will be helped through Housing for Wales. A recent survey shows that many in rented accommodation want to own. I intend to help them do so.

I propose to spend £188 million on central Government roads and transport in 1995–96. The A465 heads of the valleys improvement between Abergavenny and Hirwaun will help development in Merthyr and I remain committed to bringing it forward as quickly as possible. I opened the long-missing link on the M4 motorway over the River Neath on Monday. I plan to start the M4 Magor-Coldra widening, the A550 Deeside Park interchange and the A40 Fishguard western bypass. Work will continue preparing the A55 improvements across Anglesey.

I propose to make £109 million available for capital expenditure on local authority roads. I have discussed with the south Wales valleys councils their priorities for regeneration. This budget meets their main needs.

In Gwent I have decided that work can start next year on the £20 million A472 mid-valleys strategic route improvement. Work continues on the Tredegar bypass, which should open next year, and there is preparation work on the Aberbeeg-Cwm improvement.

In Mid Glamorgan, work can start on the £7 million Merthyr western relief road and on the Bridgend inner relief road. Work is well under way on the Pontypridd inner relief road, which will improve access to the A470 and M4. Preparation work should continue on the Porth and Lower Rhondda Fach relief road.

In West Glamorgan, I am supporting a start to the third phase of the Swansea valley dualling. That will provide access to the important Tawe vale development—

Tory vale?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for renaming it.

I continue to support preparation work on the Port Talbot peripheral distributor road and I have confirmed that work can start soon on the Rhuddlan bypass. I should like to make progress with more schemes, but I am disturbed by significant cost increases on some important local road schemes. I have asked South Glamorgan to look again at the design and costs of the final links in the Cardiff peripheral distributor road. The costs have increased by £35 million—or 50 per cent. —in the past year. I have agreed to provide money to prepare an improved link to Cardiff-Wales airport. That, too, needs to be realistically designed and costed.

There is a large amount of freight on Welsh roads that could be taken by rail. I have asked the WDA to include a rail option on its industrial parks wherever possible, and to see how freight facilities can be improved.

Further and higher education will receive grants totalling £411 million in 1995–96. That will enable the higher education institutions to provide full-time places for more than 30 per cent. of young people each year. It also provides for the number of part-time students in higher education to increase. Student enrolments on those plans increase by more than 30 per cent. between 1992–93 and 1996–97. Some £40 million for capital expenditure in that area in 1995–96 will help in renovation and development. In addition, I am giving the colleges greater flexibility in the way in which they can use their capital. From next year, they will be free to use it to service loans from the private sector if suitable schemes are designed.

I have increased the money for the Curriculum Council for Wales next year by 18 per cent. The aim is to oversee the tests in schools and allow external marking.

I shall introduce a major new initiative for popular schools. I am committed to promoting parental choice and diversity and to raising standards in our schools. [HON. MEMBERS: "What is a popular school?"] Opposition Members ask what a popular school is. It is one to which parents wish to send their children. I should have thought that that was elementary. If Opposition Members do not understand that, they really do have problems with education policy.

Popular and successful schools are having to deny places to large numbers of children—some of them are constituents of Opposition Members—seeking to enjoy the first-rate education that they offer. My popular schools initiative will provide the money for additional facilities at those schools and will be a major investment in the future education of children in Wales. It will be very welcome to parents, even if Opposition Members do not speak for them.

Results in Welsh schools are still too varied. The best are good, the worst are bad. The bad schools are not starved of money and cannot always shelter behind the notion that their pupils are bound to fail because of their backgrounds. It is not the income of one's parents that matters to do well at school—the daughter of an out-of-work plumber can do better than the son of a stockbroker if she is encouraged to do so.

This budget for Wales means a stronger health service, more resources for the police to improve the safety of our streets and homes, more investment in urban and rural regeneration, better education in our schools and opportunities for more students in our colleges. It pays the costs of local government reorganisation, gives local authorities more capital for their communities and tackles the high overheads of government.

This is a budget for a Wales recovering from recession, a budget to reinforce the growth of new jobs, a budget for a more modern and prosperous Wales. I commend it to the House.

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, which has taken nearly 20 minutes. I should like to draw your attention, Madam Speaker, to what I regard as a flagrant abuse of the proceedings of the House. Over the past 11 years, certainly for as long as I have been a Member, at this time of year we have had a statement on local government finance. I was not notified that the Secretary of State intended to make a 20-minute speech on what is, in effect, a budget for Wales. I do not think that any hon. Member was aware of that and no notification was given of the fact that we were to have an extended debate. If it is the Secretary of State's intention to adopt that procedure in the future, I ask you to reflect, Madam Speaker, on whether you should discuss it with the appropriate authorities to ensure that hon. Members' rights are protected.

I want to make it absolutely clear that I and my colleagues have been pressing for some time for a debate on all these matters in the Welsh Grand Committee in Cardiff. It is of great concern to me that the Secretary of State has apparently been conspiring through the usual channels to frustrate our requests for a meeting of the Welsh Grand Committee, where we would have an opportunity to question the Secretary of State about the very matters that he has put before us now. It appears that the new style adopted by the Secretary of State is to deny us the opportunity for a full debate in Cardiff on all these matters and to come here at the shortest possible notice, without the courtesy of notification to any hon. Member, with the intention of smuggling through the House without debate or question what he refers to as a budget for Wales. It is a flagrant abuse of our proceedings and I hope that the House will register the strongest possible dissatisfaction with what the Secretary of State has done.

During the earlier part of his comments, the Secretary of State referred to the fact that he was producing a budget for Wales. I want to refer to the Budget produced a fortnight ago by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who I understand carries more authority in the Cabinet than the Secretary of State for Wales, certainly when financial matters are discussed. The Chancellor's Red Book records the fact that total expenditure for Wales in the current financial year is £6.5 billion and that the forecast for next year is £6.4 billion. By any standard, that is a cut in real terms of £100 million. It ill becomes the Secretary of State to try to confuse matters by arguing that there has been a real-terms increase in expenditure for Wales. It is a completely unsatisfactory way of dealing with those matters and I hope that we shall not see any repetition of that disgraceful behaviour by the Secretary of State.

The fact that the right hon. Gentleman's Department is today releasing 12 separate press releases shows that he is embarking on what he expects to be a major series of announcements. If there has been any increase at all during the past 12 months, it has been an increase not in the expenditure available to Wales, but in the number of press releases, which is apparently the result of frenetic outpourings from the Secretary of State's private office as he hopes to restore his battered reputation.

The Secretary of State does not represent one person in Wales and his decision not to consult any of the 32 Opposition Members out of 38 Welsh Members about this new system is a deliberate insult to the House of Commons, a deliberate discourtesy to 32 out of 38 Members and a clear sign of the contempt that the Secretary of State has for the people of Wales.

Now that the right hon. Gentleman has embarked on that new process, will he give two specific guarantees? First, will he ensure that there is a full day's debate on the Floor of the House on the local government settlement, so that we can have a full and proper discussion? Secondly, will he give a clear undertaking that there will be no further obstruction in the operation of the usual channels, so that Labour's long-standing request for a meeting of the Welsh Grand Committee in Cardiff to debate the whole of the Government's programme in Wales can now be met?

On the matter of local government, which should have been the subject of the statement, does the Secretary of State acknowledge that his analysis of the settlement is different from the analysis provided by those in local government? Will he confirm, particularly, that his claimed increase of 2.7 per cent. on total standard spending represents a cut of 5 per cent. in real terms if the basis of comparison is what local authorities budgeted for in the current financial year? In addition, the proportion of the settlement that the Secretary of State has funded this year is 1 per cent. less than last year. Does he accept, therefore, that the budget's net result is that the average council tax payer in Wales faces a 10 per cent. increase in household bills in the next financial year?

We all know that the Secretary of State has a secret agenda to cut public expenditure in Wales—it is a matter of common knowledge. Why, therefore, must he resort to the sort of subterfuge that he showed this afternoon? If he wants to cut public expenditure and if he is proud of his public expenditure cuts, why does not he have the courage of his convictions and stand up and say that that is what he wants to do?

In his statement, the Secretary of State referred to the costs of local government reorganisation. Now that the changes have collapsed in chaos in England, why should we in Wales have to suffer injury added to insult, with the average Welsh income tax payer paying an extra £1 per week for changes that we did not approve? As with the Severn bridge tolls, is not that yet another Tory tax on Wales?

The Secretary of State referred to £19.5 million being made available to shadow authorities in the current financial year. Will he tell us whether that money is a grant to shadow authorities, or whether it will be made available on the basis of supplementary credit approvals? If the latter is the case, he is not paying for the changes; Welsh council tax payers will pay for them.

The Secretary of State has made available a small sum for staff compensation arrangements arising from the reorganisation. Will he now make it clear whether all staff who do not agree to redundancy should transfer to the new authorities and whether it will be the responsibility of the new authorities to bear the cost of subsequent redundancies? That is a direct question. I hope that we shall have a direct answer from the Secretary of State.

Without exception, Welsh local government is doing a good job efficiently and it is providing vital public services under democratic control. Does not the Secretary of State appreciate the irony of his undermining those local councils when his own regime at the Welsh Office represents one of the most centralised, least efficient and least accountable of all Departments? Does he understand the serious reservations across Wales about his decision to take control of the police?

Having effectively nationalised the police, why is the Secretary of State still underfunding police authorities to the extent that police authorities such as Dyfed-Powys and North Wales are openly critical of his budget? That decision alone will divert resources from services, such as education and social services, which are playing a vital crime prevention role. As a result of this budget, the social services' budget in Wales is £38 million short of the amount that they require to meet their statutory obligations under care in the community. Will the Secretary of State, therefore, concede that his Government clearly have no coherent partnership strategy for dealing with crime?

What value does the Secretary of State place on local government now that he has reorganised it, stripped it of its functions, undermined its resources and placed the tightest-ever regime of rate capping on it? On the other programmes that he has announced today, does he understand the widespread dismay that will arise in Wales because of the impact of the cuts? Is he surprised at the lack of confidence in him as Secretary of State when it emerges that even the Cabinet had to restrain him from his zeal for further cuts in public expenditure?

The cuts in the grant to the Welsh Development Agency will be especially deplored. Given the way in which the Secretary of State's predecessors have played politics with the agency, does not he recognise that he has a responsibility to restore some long-term stability to it and to restore credibility and security to its operations?

Will the Secretary of State confirm that, if he cuts the Tai Cymru budget by the 20 per cent. that the budget suggests, the number of homes built in Wales will be reduced next year by between 700 and 800? Given that last year he referred to the increase of 150 new homes as a "welcome increase", what words does he now use to describe the reduction, particularly given the fact that Shelter Cymru has reported a record figure of 60,000 homeless people registered in Wales this year?

The Secretary of State's treatment of quangos demonstrates that he wishes to interfere with their executive functions, but he will do nothing to restore or extend democracy at board level.

Is the Secretary of State planning—as his statement seemed to suggest—a savage cut in funds for the Countryside Council for Wales? Does he recognise that such action would be regarded as a particularly sinister development, given the council's role as environmental watchdog for Wales? Is it now being victimised because it will not bend the knee to Government diktat—although it is headed by Michael Griffith, who has described himself as "a crusty old Tory"?

During our debates on the Budget, the Secretary of State announced cuts of £180 million in Welsh Office expenditure. We are now seeing what that actually means, Department by Department. Does the Secretary of State understand why Wales has turned against him and his party?

I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman's objections to the statement. It was clearly flagged on the monitors as a statement on public expenditure for Wales, and that is exactly what I spoke about. I should have expected Opposition Members to welcome an opportunity to cross-examine me on all matters concerning spending in Wales, not just on the local authority settlement. I shall, of course, do my best to answer the questions that are asked.

I believe that my offer of a Welsh Grand Committee in London this side of Christmas, to debate the budget and spending arrangements for Wales, was passed on through the usual channels—as was my offer of another Welsh Grand Committee in Cardiff, probably to debate a subject of the Opposition's choosing. I believe that it was the Opposition who turned down the offer of a sitting in London before Christmas, which I should have welcomed as an opportunity to debate those matters at greater length.

I have no worries about democracy and proper argument; I believe that I presented a good budget, and I shall be happy to debate it at length as well as answering questions about it.

As for the objection that I am issuing press releases today, I plead guilty. I believe that issuing press releases is a well-known ministerial practice, and I do not think that I am issuing more press releases about spending in Wales this year than has been traditional in past years. This time, however, I am providing an opportunity for cross-examination in the House. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Get on with it."] I am going on about that point, because the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) made it the main feature of his objections to my statement.

I hope that agreement will be reached through the usual channels in regard to the debate on local government spending; I am sure that it is a worthy subject for further discussion.

The hon. Gentleman suggested that the local authority settlement was a 5 per cent. cut in real terms. It clearly is not, as the figures that I gave illustrate only too well. The hon. Gentleman should bear it in mind that I am recommending a higher proportion of grant through aggregate external finance than is being provided for either England or Scotland. He will know that the level of council tax is in the hands of local authorities, many of them under Labour control, which will determine spending levels.

The hon. Gentleman spoke of cuts in public expenditure. He had clearly prepared the wrong speech ahead of my statement. As the statement made clear, there is to be a cash increase of £190 million—a very large increase. I have identified ways in which that will mean a real gain for Wales in the main areas of spending.

As for coming clean on cuts, I have come clean. I confess that cuts are being made in one or two areas, but I spelt them out in detail. That is how I have managed to secure real growth in the budgets that matter. I have cut the grant to the Welsh Development Agency, but it does not need the money; as I said, it can raise it from asset sales.

The hon. Gentleman asked whether the £19.5 million would be grant or supplementary credit approval. I am currently considering representations on that, and I shall make an announcement later. I am also consulting on the standard spending assessments for the police and other bodies, and will inform the House as soon as I have completed my calculations.

I welcome my right hon. Friend's extensive and novel budget for Wales. It sounded to me rather like a very fulsome Christmas stocking: there was a great deal in it for many people in Wales. There was some excellent economic news, followed by the announcement of an increase of 2.2 per cent. in real terms in money for the health service. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that that will mean more patients being treated better in NHS hospitals in Wales?

I also welcome the increased spending on further and higher education, and the fact that there will be more students. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that support for those students will be maintained in real terms, as either loan or grant?

I am delighted that my right hon. Friend has understood the message; my statement is indeed a Christmas stocking packed with goodies. More patients will be treated, and there will be more students.

Will the Secretary of State assure the House that he will never again abuse parliamentary procedure as he has done today by delivering a budget virtually without notice, under the guise of a statement? He cut out of that statement a joke from the published version, comparing the Welsh Grand Committee with a cartoon character. Does he recognise that if he wants to present a budget, it will be a Mickey Mouse budget unless it is given to the Welsh Grand Committee and is debated and amendable?

Does the Secretary of State further accept that his "budget" will be a great disappointment to everyone in Dyfed and Powys because the settlement for the Dyfed-Powys police is equivalent to a cut of no fewer than 100 police constables? Does he also accept that there will be a great sense of disappointment at his failure to quash the rumour that passenger railways in Wales are under severe threat, in that not one extra penny will be available to sustain them?

Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that his reference to "popular schools" does not mean that money over and above the norm will be given to grant-maintained schools in an effort to bribe governors and parents into going for grant-maintained status? Finally, will he confirm that, although it has been claimed that extra money is being given for community care, the real effect of the settlement is that there will not be a single new penny piece to ensure that people who cannot obtain community care now will be able to do so in the coming year?

The hon. and learned Gentleman is wrong on those points. An extra £38.5 million will be provided for community care; of course we wish the elderly and the disabled to be taken care of. I notice that the hon. and learned Gentleman did at least listen to what I said as well as reading my speech, and I am glad that he tried to adjust his question when I disappointed him by not reading out the bit on which he wished to play.

It was published—here it is.

I have published the speech that I delivered, and it is up to people to check the text against my delivery in the House.

I shall receive representations on the police, and I take what the hon. and learned Gentleman said as an early representation. Passenger railway grants are in the main financed through Department of Transport programmes, and I shall pass his comments on to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I can reassure the hon. and learned Gentleman on popular schools; the plans that I have in mind relate to local education authority schools, not only grant-maintained schools.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his positive statement. It is especially welcome that, against a background of falling unemployment and of growth in the Welsh economy, nothing done today will jeopardise that growth or the continued recovery. I especially welcome what my right hon. Friend said about the funding of the police. In south Wales, we have suffered as a result of the police authority's choosing to leave the police force short of resources, so I warmly welcome the fact that the money will go directly to where it matters. If one message has come across loud and clear from my constituents, it is resentment that the South Wales police authority and the three county councils from which its membership is largely drawn have chosen to stifle and limit the resources of the police in south Wales in general and in the Vale of Glamorgan in particular. I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement and wish his plans every success.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support.

Within the generalised claptrap that the Secretary of State has given us, he has forgotten that there are many areas in Wales, such as the Cynon valley, Merthyr and the Rhondda, which by any socio-economic indicator are among the most deprived in the United Kingdom. Yet no special treatment is being given to those valley communities. It is incredible that the Secretary of State should allow the Cardiff bay barrage road scheme to overrun by £35 million, and simply announce it in the Chamber today, and that he should tell us that the WDA is to hand back £10 million to the Welsh Office, when schemes submitted for the valleys have been turned down, seemingly because of lack of resources. This is not a fair budget for Wales. I decry the fact that we do not have the opportunity to discuss its vital elements, which are so important for our deprived communities.

The hon. Gentleman is wrong. The deprived communities of Wales, as he calls them, get favourable treatment in the proposals. I have listened carefully to what valleys local authorities want. I have met their demands for a big road-building programme. I am putting a lot of money into regeneration through the strategic development scheme, the Welsh Development Agency budget and directly through Welsh Office budgets. The hon. Gentleman misunderstood the point about the Cardiff peripheral road. I am querying the cost overrun and saying that I do not accept that cost overrun. I have, indeed, said today that my priorities go to the valleys where I have approved the schemes.

If the Secretary of State is so generous, why in the name of heaven did the WDA manage to hand back £10 million, when in all our communities we could use that money in the productive regeneration of infrastructure and other developments? What is going on in the WDA that leads us to that? Given that the right hon. Gentleman is to make such a huge cut in the WDA's budget, what assumptions is he making about rent increases for businesses and companies run by the WDA? Will it, in fact, mean a significant increase in rents this year to cover the cuts in grants and budgets that he is proposing?

No, rents will be determined by the marketplace and I do not think that the marketplace will permit very big, if any, increases in rents. The problem for the WDA was that schemes were not ready. That often involves the local authorities, which are also strongly involved in those developments. I have not cut the WDA's spending budget. I have cut its grant substantially because I intend to finance that budget from sales of assets.

The Secretary of State said that he was not afraid of democracy. Are not today's totally unsatisfactory proceedings a classic example of why we need a Parliament in Wales where we can discuss and debate those issues and take our own decisions on a budget for Wales? How can he call it a budget for Wales when there is nothing in it on the income side? It is all very well pretending to play Santa Claus to the electorate of Wales, yet he plays Scrooge to his friends on the Tory right wing.

The reality is that the money that the Secretary of State is giving back to the people of Wales is money paid by the taxpayers in Wales—some £13 billion to £14 billion in the year in question, compared with the £6.7 billion that he announced for the Welsh Office. Is not it the case that if we had proper scrutiny of public expenditure in Wales, quangos such as the WDA would have to answer for what they were doing or not doing to the people in Wales, rather than this totally unsatisfactory arrangement? Surely we need a Treasury for Wales, answerable to an elected all-Wales body, so that we may have proper control and scrutiny over what is happening.

If the economy of Wales is as strong as the Secretary of State says, why is the income per head in Wales 17 per cent. below the UK average and a further 2 per cent. below the average for Europe? That shows the failure of Government policies.

The statement includes items on the income side through the asset sale lines about which I have been talking and it implies matters on council tax, which will, of course, be determined by local government, but which are a matter for discussion today. The hon. Gentleman and his party scored an own goal with their attempt to prove that more money was sent from Wales to London than was sent from London to Wales, because their own figures showed that there was a £2 billion gap in favour of Wales, which they made up through some notional transfer. Their own figures made that very clear.

The Government borrow from Wales.

The hon. Gentleman says that the Government borrow from Wales, but he has to prove how much they borrow from Wales. The point remains that the income collected is less than the money spent, and rightly so. It is misleading of him to imply otherwise.

In some parts of Wales, income per head is still too low. That is the purpose of the regeneration and industrial schemes that I identified today.

Will the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge the constant underfunding of the schools budget? It is reduction after reduction. Does he know that my local education authority is desperately anxious to avoid sacking teachers and cutting special needs provision? Is not it the case that the Secretary of State has now cut into the bone and there is no more flesh to cut away? He has left the teachers in the lurch and parents in despair. This is not a Christmas-stocking budget; it is a very miserly budget.

The schools budget is an item for decision by local councils, and I welcome that. I hope that they use their discretion wisely. Like the hon. Gentleman, I think that spending good amounts of money on schools is important for the future of our children.

The Secretary of State's statement was carefully camouflaged, but is not his essential message, "Cut, cut, cut"? Is not that a deplorable policy, bearing in mind the fact that we are about to inaugurate our local authorities in Wales? Is it any wonder that the Government have become widely known as the enemy of local government?

The hon. Gentleman has been listening to a different statement from the one that I delivered. Does he not see the large increase in capital approvals that I am offering local government, which give it real discretion? Does he not see that the total Welsh budget is up £190 million? That is no cut.

May we say that there is a welcome for the announcement that the Government have decided not to privatise the Patent Office or to contractorise jobs there? Is that a sign that the Government's privatisation madness has run its course? Although there is a welcome for the announcement that the work of the Patent Office will be extended within its statutory role, does the Secretary of State see a future for the Patent Office, the Passport Office, Companies House in Cardiff, and the statistical office? Should not they be modernised for the next century, within the public sector, by extending their statutory roles?

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman welcomes an announcement by the Government. I shall pass on the question to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State who is responsible for such matters. This is not the end of privatisation, however. The hon. Gentleman should remember the very successful privatisation of coal, which was most welcome to the miners of Tower who bought their own pit.

May I say that I found the Secretary of State's comments on care in the community remarkably complacent? As everybody in the Cynon Valley and throughout Wales knows, care in the community simply does not work. People who cannot cope are walking the streets. People are relying on their neighbours because there are no acute or secure beds available to cope with the crisis. Can the Secretary of State guarantee that the settlement will deal with the crisis in community care?

The big increases in the budget go into just those sensitive areas: £114 million extra for health and £38.5 million extra for care in the community. Of course I want high-quality services for the people whom the hon. Lady mentions. I trust that a good job will be done in her area as elsewhere in delivering that care.

The Secretary of State told us that his settlement is a good deal for law and order in Wales, and in particular that more policemen will be on the beat and more criminals locked up. Will he therefore explain why the chief constables of North Wales and of Dyfed-Powys police are saying that it will mean a cut in the number of police officers available? Who is telling the truth: the Secretary of State or the two chief constables?

I referred to the overall position in Wales. The hon. Gentleman is quite right that the big increases go to the South Wales police force, where the majority of people live and where the underfunding has been very pronounced in recent years. Of course, I shall listen to representations from north and west Wales about the settlement, but I am right about the average experience; it will mean a big increase in the resources to fight crime.

Will the Secretary of State look again at the funding of Dyfed-Powys police? Based on a standstill budget for the work that they did last year, they needed an extra £2 million. Instead, they have a cut of £200,000, and they might have to sack or get rid of up to 100 constables. Will the Secretary of State look again at the underfunding of Britain's most successful police force?

My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones), who is responsible for local government in Wales, will be meeting a delegation tomorrow to discuss the matter, and of course I shall receive a full report on the points that are made at that meeting. There is a common formula for England and Wales, and we shall look very carefully at the points that are made.

Does the Secretary of State accept that my constituents in Clwyd awaited the settlement with great trepidation and nothing that the Secretary said today will allay their fears? Will he meet Clwyd county council to hear at first hand the cuts that will have to be made following the settlement announcement?

Will the Secretary of State also define what he means by "good schools", as many of my constituents attend perfectly good schools which are not grant-maintained and which face dramatic funding cuts in the forthcoming year? Will he inform the House what he plans to do with the WDA once he has finally sold all the family silver?

The budget proposals make it clear: the grant in aid will increase again in order to maintain the work that we think still needs to be done. We shall make a final judgment nearer the time, in light of the requirements of Wales and the amount of money available.

"Good schools" are schools in the grant-maintained or local education authority sectors which achieve good results and which are liked by parents and pupils. I wish to reinforce all schools that are achieving good results, whether they are under local authority control or whether they run themselves through grant-maintained status.

There will be the usual consultation arrangements during the period of consultation on my proposals.

Taking into account next year's 2.3 per cent. pay increase for local authority workers and the additional cost pressures imposed on local authorities by Government legislative requirements, why does not the Secretary of State come clean and admit that the settlement will mean real expenditure cuts for all local authorities in Wales?

For example, West Glamorgan county estimates funding cuts totalling £9 million. Coming on top of expenditure cuts of £5 million in each of the past two years, that will mean savagely reducing front-line services, such as care for the frail elderly and school budgets, or adopting a scorched earth policy and raiding the reserves and crippling the new unitary authorities. Why does not the Secretary of State admit that cuts have been made instead of surrounding his statement with warm words?

I will not admit anything because I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's points. Large amounts of money are offered to Wales through the statement—particularly for care in the community, which looks after the frail elderly whom the hon. Gentleman mentioned in his question.

I believe that there is considerable scope for efficiency improvements in local and national government. I am not asking local government to do anything that I will not do myself in the Welsh Office.

What we have heard this afternoon confirms that the Maples memorandum has not been very effective in guiding the Secretary of State for Wales. Plainly, Walter Mitty is alive and well and running around the Welsh Office. This afternoon's statement on expenditure in Wales gives the impression that Welsh local authorities—the police and everyone involved in the provision of public services—will be wondering how on earth they will spend the money, there is so much available.

The truth is that there will be expenditure cuts in education, which come on top of the cuts detailed in last year's settlement. It is calculated that expenditure increases of between 5 per cent. and 6 per cent. Will be needed next year to maintain the service at the same level as this year. The Secretary of State has not taken into account the increased demands of the introduction of the code of practice for special educational needs. Class sizes in Wales are rising and an increasing number of teachers are taking early retirement because of illness. Yet all the Secretary talks about is a popular schools initiative.

Has the Secretary of State asked any of the heads of oversubscribed schools whether they want money to attract more pupils, or to provide better facilities for their existing pupils? If the Secretary of State wants to spend more money on schools in Wales, he ought to concentrate on the schools that provide education in the most difficult circumstances in our inner cities and deprived valleys. That is where he needs to spend money.

In any case, where is the money? The Secretary of State did not tell us this afternoon where it will come from. What does he intend to do about his grant-maintained school initiative? Will he now dump that initiative, given the second ballot at West Mon school and given today's announcement that Bishopston school has voted 2:1 against becoming grant-maintained? Is it true that the 18.8 per cent. that has been given as extra money to the Curriculum Council for Wales for external marking will come out of the budget that schools would normally have had?

On further education, can the Secretary of State confirm that while current spending will go up by less than 4 per cent., he expects student numbers to go up by over 11 per cent.? Why does not he fund the further education sector so that it can take full account of the increased number of students?

On housing, the right hon. Gentleman mentioned that he wanted to encourage home ownership, but no money was attached to that. Finally, on local government reorganisation, he said that he did not expect there to be any staff cuts, but that he expected savings to be made. Where does he expect savings to be made in the immediate future?

The hon. Gentleman with the elephant tie went on a stampede of a question, and ran out of control as a result. He cannot stand the good news. South Wales police is very pleased with .my announcement today, and the health service will be pleased with the substantial sums of extra money.

The popular schools initiative will of course apply in the valleys and in communities such as the hon. Gentleman's own, as well as elsewhere in Wales. I am now consulting schools before I finalise the details of the scheme. I thought it best to tell the House first, although I see that the hon. Gentleman wishes that I had not. I wonder whether he cleared his remarks on grant-maintained schools with the Leader of the Opposition, who takes a rather different view from him on the subject.

The money for the further and higher education sectors will take account of the growth in student numbers, and the hon. Gentleman should remember that there are some economies of scale as one increases the number of pupils or students going to an organisation.

The hon. Gentleman is simply wrong to say that there is no money for home ownership, as I announced money for that subject in my statement.

Points Of Order

On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Will you confirm to the House that statements by Ministers are made by your indulgence and that there are at present no Standing Orders that regulate the making of statements? Would you consider the production of a Standing Order that ensured that Ministers knew the scope within which statements may be made? Would you say that if a Minister wishes in effect to make a speech on a matter that is more effectively dealt with by debate, he should do so under Standing Order No. 22 on a motion for the Adjournment of the House, or—he would be better placed in this instance—by bringing the matter to the Welsh Grand Committee, where we could have a proper debate on what has been described, for the first time as I can recall, as a Welsh budget?

Statements made by Ministers are not made by my indulgence. I have no authority whatsoever in relation to statements. I am simply told by the Department concerned when a Minister wishes to make a statement.

The other two matters raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman are matters of procedure. There may be a great deal in them, and perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman might like to put the points to the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, as they relate very much to Standing Orders.

Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. You heard the Secretary of State say that he wanted this Welsh budget to be compared with the Budget. At the time of the Budget, the Vote Office normally has all the press releases associated with it. We have heard that there are about a dozen press releases emanating from the statement, but not one press release is available in the Vote Office. Through you, Madam Speaker, may I ask the Secretary of State whether he intends to issue press releases, as the Chancellor does?

That is not a point of order for me. The hon. Gentleman is trying to use me as Speaker to put questions to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State heard what the hon. Gentleman said, and I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will let the House or individual Members know his response.

I ask hon. Members not to use me as Speaker to put questions to Ministers, as that should be done during questions.

On a point of order, Madam Speaker. My point of order relates to Foreign Office questions. As a result of his legendary arrogance and unpleasantness, the Minister of State—the right hon. and learned Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg)—had an uncomfortable time during Foreign Office questions, and I must ask you on a point of order to make the right hon. and learned Gentleman's time more uncomfortable still.

You will recall that a few months ago, I had cause to write to you about a question that I asked the Minister of State, to which he replied that he found my views odious, and sat down. [Interruption.] Conservative Members evidently find that proper parliamentary procedure. That says much about them—indeed, we know the record of the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) in the matter.

This afternoon, my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), a widely respected Member of Parliament, asked a very long and detailed question of the Minister of State, who stood up and said words to the effect that my hon. Friend was a loony and sat down. I ask you, Madam Speaker, on a point of order, as I did on the occasion when the same thing happened to me, to assert again that Ministers of the Crown have a responsibility to answer parliamentary questions raised by all Members of Parliament at Question Time. I hope that you will take a dim view and the gravest exception to that pattern of behaviour from the Minister of State.

I do take considerable exception to the manner in which that question was answered. For my part, I should not have used the word that the Minister did to describe the manner in which the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) pursues issues in the House.

The hon. Member for Linlithgow pursues any issue he takes up truly at great length, truly in great detail and with great determination, but certainly with the greatest courtesy. I believe that not only does he have the right to a proper response, but he has the right to have that response given to him in a most courteous manner.

Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. May I add that this is not, of course, a blanket criticism of all Ministers? I must say that, on Monday night, the Foreign Secretary thought it proper to give me 25 minutes of his time on the very issue in his room. The courtesy of the Foreign Secretary is in contrast to the discourtesy of the Minister of State.

That suitably ends the matter.

On a point of order, Madam Speaker. There is one pleasing aspect to my point of order, because it gives me the opportunity to repeat, yet again, my thanks to you for the admonishment that you directed at those on the Treasury Bench on Monday and for the efficacy of the advice that you offered me yesterday.

Following your advice, Madam Speaker, I contacted the private office of the Secretary of State and I reminded that office of the commitments made by two Ministers on three occasions in March and April this year. Those promises were two-pronged. First, Ministers promised to place summaries of the representations on the Cleveland order in the Library. Of course you saw the paucity of their response—just a paltry five paragraphs on a scrap of paper, supplied two days ago and four days late.

The second half of the commitment was that individual representations would be made available, if requested. I must be honest and say that the Minister for Local Government and Planning followed that up by saying:

"unless the writers intended their views to be treated in confidence."—[Official Report, 20 April 1994; Vol. 241, c. 532.]

This afternoon, I received a reply from the Secretary of State, who said:

"I am bound to regard representations as not intended for publication unless there is a clear indication to the contrary."

The Government have already said that they have received more than 300 representations and I do not believe that those 300 writers would not want us to know about them. The Secretary of State has agreed to contact the local authorities to ask their permission to allow me to see their submissions—copies of which I have in profusion. Surely it is not unreasonable to ask the Secretary of State to contact those who made the other 300 representations, which the Government claim they have received, so that I am allowed to see them.

As a pupil of the Jesuits, and with all due respect to my teachers, I think that that twisting of words adopted by the Government is unacceptably Jesuitical in the House.

Since you, Madam Speaker, supported my appeal on the first half of the commitment and pointed out that those on the Treasury Bench were being unacceptably lethargic, I ask you to support my request that those Ministers honour the second half of that commitment to make individual representations available to the House.

This is the third successive day on which the hon. Gentleman has raised this matter with me on a point of order. I recognise his frustration over the issue, but it is not a matter on which I can help him any further. I know that he was promised a summary of the representations received. He has had that, although he does not consider the response adequate. He was also told that individual representations would be made available, unless the writers intended their views to be treated in confidence. I understand that the Minister's view is that that proviso applies to the representations to which the hon. Gentleman wishes to have access. That cannot be a matter for me.

Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. May I suggest that that matter raises an important issue which is relevant to all hon. Members? If we are to believe answers that we receive from Ministers and answers printed in Hansard, we need to pursue the matter slightly further. If it is not possible for the Minister to fulfil the commitment that he made not just to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook), but to a Conservative Member, the Minister should not have made those promises in the first place. Either Ministers were wrong when they gave their answers in March and April this year or they have gone back on promises, which are clearly recorded in Hansard, to Members on both sides of the House.

Ministers are responsible for the remarks that they make in the House, but I am glad that the hon. Lady has placed her comments on record, where all members of the Government can see them.

Bills Presented

Home Energy Conservation

Mrs. Diana Maddock, supported by Mr. Tim Yeo, Mr. John McAllion, Mr. David Rendel, Mr. Cynog Dafis, Mr. A. Cecil Walker, Sir Richard Body, Mr. Peter Bottomley, Mr. Alan Simpson, Mr. Peter Temple-Morris, Mr. Malcolm Wicks and Mr. Gary Waller, presented a Bill to make provision for the drawing up of energy conservation plans and priorities for residential properties in their areas by local authorities in the United Kingdom in order to secure more efficient and effective use of natural resources; to give the Secretary of State powers to set timetables for such plans and for works arising from them; and for related purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon 20 January, and to be printed. [Bill 8.]

Activity Centres (Young Persons' Safety)

Mr. David Jamieson, supported by Mr. Win Griffiths, Mr. Nigel Griffiths, Ms Glenda Jackson, Ms Harriet Harman, Sir Malcolm Thornton, Mr. Andrew Miller, Ms Tessa Jowell, Mr. Nick Harvey, Mr. David Porter, Mr. Robert Hicks and Mr. Peter Kilfoyle, presented a Bill to provide for the regulation of centres and providers of facilities where children and young persons under the age of 18 engage in adventure activities and for the establishment of prescribed minimum standards of safety in the provision of such activities and the maintenance and use of equipment and premises for the purpose of such activities: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon 27 January, and to be printed. [Bill 9.]

Proceeds Of Crime

Sir John Hannam, supported by Sir Ivan Lawrence, Ms Ann Coffey, Mr. Oliver Heald, Mr. Menzies Campbell, Mrs. Anne Campbell, Mr. Michael Shersby, Mr. James Clappison, Mr. Sebastian Coe, Mr. Anthony Steen and Mr. Michael Stern, presented a Bill to make further provision for and in relation to the recovery of the proceeds of criminal conduct; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon 3 February, and to be printed. [Bill 10.]

Tobacco Products Labelling

Mr. Terry Lewis, supported by Mr. Kevin Barron, Sir Peter Emery, Mr. Hugh Bayley, Rev. Martin Smyth, Ms Liz Lynne, Mr. Roger Gale, Mr. Gerald Kaufman, Mrs. Alice Mahon, Mr. Eric Illsley, Mrs. Edwina Currie and Ms Tessa Jowell, presented a Bill to require warnings and information carried on packets containing tobacco products to be displayed more prominently: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon 17 February, and to be printed. [Bill 11.]

Civil Rights (Disabled Persons)

Mr. Harry Barnes, supported by Mr. Alfred Morris, Mr. Roger Berry, Mr. David Alton, Mr. Dafydd Wigley, Mrs. Margaret Ewing, Rev. Martin Smyth, Mr. Seamus Mallon, Rev. Ian Paisley, Sir James Kilfedder, Sir Richard Body and Mr. Gordon McMaster, presented a Bill to make it unlawful to discriminate against disabled persons in respect of employment and in other circumstances, and to establish a Disability Rights Commission; to make provision for access to polling stations and voting by disabled persons; to place certain duties on local authorities, education authorities and other bodies in relation to disabled persons; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon 10 February, and to be printed. [Bill 12.]

Referendum

Mrs. Teresa Gorman, supported by Sir Richard Body, Mr. Nicholas Budgen, Mr. Christopher Gill, Mr. Tony Marlow, Mr. Richard Shepherd, Sir Teddy Taylor and Mr. John Wilkinson, presented a Bill to provide for the holding of a referendum on the United Kingdom's membership of the European Union: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon 24 February, and to be printed. [Bill 13.]

Wild Mammals (Protection)

Mr. John McFall, supported by Sir Andrew Bowden, Mr. Ron Davies, Mr. Elliot Morley, Mr. Simon Hughes, Sir Teddy Taylor, Mr. Edward O'Hara, Mr. Tony Banks, Mr. Kevin McNamara, Mr. Roger Gale, Mrs. Margaret Ewing and Mrs. Helen Liddell, presented a Bill to make provision for the protection of wild mammals from being taken, killed or injured by the use of dogs and snares and from certain other cruel acts; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon 3 March, and to be printed. [Bill 14.]

Referendum (Single Currency)

Mr. Nicholas Budgen presented a Bill to provide for the holding of a referendum on whether the United Kingdom Government should continue to work towards a single currency within the European Union: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon 24 February, and to be printed. [Bill 15.]

Insurance Companies (Reserves)

Mr. Oliver Heald, supported by Mr. A. J. Beith, Mr. John Butterfill, Mr. John Greenway, Mr. James Clappison, Mr. Peter Ainsworth, Mr. Peter Butler, Mr. Nigel Evans and Mr. Edward Garnier, presented a Bill to provide for the maintenance by insurance companies of reserves in respect of certain classes of business; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon 27 January, and to be printed. [Bill 16.]

Carers (Recognition And Services)

Mr. Malcolm Wicks, supported by Mr. Hugh Bayley, Mr. Roger Berry, Mr. Tom Clarke, Mrs. Margaret Ewing, Mr. Frank Field, Mr. Alan Howarth, Ms Tessa Jowell, Mr. Archy Kirkwood, Rev. Martin Smyth, Ms Rachel Squire and Mr. Dafydd Wigley, presented a Bill to provide for the assessment of the needs of carers and for the provision of services to them by social services authorities; and to amend the law relating to the definition of the term "private carer": And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon 3 March, and to be printed. [Bill 17.]

Road Traffic (New Drivers)

Dr. Michael Clark, supported by Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock, Mr. Richard Page, Mr. Andrew Mackinlay, Mr. Michael Lord, Mr. Robert Key, Mr. Doug Henderson, Mr. Nick Hawkins, Sir Anthony Grant, Mr. Winston Churchill, Mr. Malcolm Bruce and Mr. Stuart Bell, presented a Bill to make provision about newly qualified drivers who commit certain offences, including provision with respect to tests of competence to drive: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon 3 February, and to be printed. [Bill 18.]

Natural Disasters (Scotland)

Mr. Gordon McMaster, supported by Mrs. Irene Adams, Mr. Thomas Graham, Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie, Mr. Brian Donohoe, Mr. Thomas McAvoy, Mr. Sam Galbraith, Mr. Tom Clarke, Mr. Norman Hogg, Mr. Charles Kennedy, Mrs. Margaret Ewing and Mr. Bill Walker, presented a Bill to make further provision in respect of emergencies or disasters occurring in Scotland as a result of accidents or natural causes and involving destruction of or danger to life and property: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon 10 February, and to be printed. [Bill 19.]

Olympic Symbol Etc (Protection)

Mr. Nicholas Winterton, supported by Sir Terence Higgins, Mr. Gerald Kaufman, Mr. Sebastian Coe, Mr. Tom Pendry, Mr. Menzies Campbell, Mr. Joe Ashton, Mr. Anthony Coombs, Mr. John Maxton, Mr. Toby Jessel, Ms Kate Hoey and Rev. Martin Smyth, presented a Bill to make provision about the use for commercial purposes of the Olympic symbol and certain words associated with the Olympic Games; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon 3 February, and to be printed. [Bill 20.]

Tobacco Smoking (Public Places)

Ms Tessa Jowell, supported by Rev. Martin Smyth, Mr. Geoffrey Hoon, Mrs. Alice Mahon, Mr. George Foulkes, Mr. Kevin Barron, Dr. Tony Wright, Mr. Peter Luff, Ms Janet Anderson, Mr. Roger Sims, Mr. Terry Lewis and Mr. Simon Hughes, presented a Bill to control smoking in public places and to make provision with regard to smoking and employment; and for purposes connected therewith: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon 17 February, and to be printed. [Bill 21.]

Protection Of Animals

Mr. Paul Flynn, on behalf of Mr. Tony Banks, supported by Mr. Elliot Morley, Mr. David Amess, Mr. Alan Meale, Sir Teddy Taylor, Mrs. Diana Maddock, Mr. Harry Cohen, Ms Diane Abbott, Mr. Peter Bottomley, Mr. John McFall, Mr. Paul Flynn and Sir Andrew Bowden, presented a Bill to make further provision for the protection of animals; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon 3 March, and to be printed. [Bill 22.]

Transport Of Animals For Slaughter

Mr. Bill Olner, supported by Mr. Elliot Morley, Mr. David Jamieson, Mr. Roger Gale, Mr. Harry Greenway, Sir Andrew Bowden, Mr. Michael Stephen, Mr. Simon Hughes, Mr. Nigel Jones and Ms Ann Coffey, presented a Bill to prohibit the export of live animals for slaughter and in certain other circumstances; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon 10 February, and to be printed. [Bill 23.]

Prisoners (Return To Custody)

Lady Olga Maitland, supported by Sir Ivan Lawrence, Sir David Mitchell, Mr. Michael Shersby, Mr. Michael Stephen, Mr. David Amess, Mr. Hartley Booth, Mr. Oliver Heald, Mr. Edward Garnier, Mr. Nick Hawkins, Mr. Nirj Joseph Deva and Dr. Robert Spink, presented a Bill to make provision, by the creation of an offence and the conferring of powers of entry, for the punishment and return to lawful custody of persons unlawfully at large: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon 17 February, and to be printed. [Bill 24.]

Charities (Amendment)

Mr. Ray Whitney, supported by Sir Peter Hordern, Mr. Frank Field, Mr. Jerry Hayes, Sir David Knox, Mr. Peter Luff, Mrs. Marion Roe, Mr. Andrew Rowe, Mr. Roger Sims and Dame Jill Knight, presented a Bill to make provision for the treatment of two or more charities as a single charity for all or any of the purposes of the Charities Act 1993: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon 27 January, and to be printed. [Bill 25.]

Dogs (Fouling Of Land)

Mr. Harold Elletson, supported by Mr. Michael Fabricant, Mr. John Sykes, Mr. Andrew Robathan, Mr. Keith Mans, Mr. Nigel Evans, Mr. David Porter and Mr. Gyles Brandreth, presented a Bill to make provision with respect to the fouling of land by dogs: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon 10 February, and to be printed. [Bill 26.]

Protection Of Calves (Export)

Mr. Eric Martlew, supported by Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours, Mr. Elliot Morley, Mr. Gerry Steinberg and Mr. Keith Bradley, presented a Bill to prohibit the export of calves where, after such export, they are to be housed or fed in a manner which would be unlawful in Great Britain: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon 3 February, and to be printed. [Bill 27.]

Rating And Vafluation

4.39 pm

I beg to move,

That the draft Non-Domestic Rating (Chargeable Amounts) Regulations 1994, which were laid before this House on 12th December, be approved.

With this it will be convenient to discuss motions 2 to 7 on the Order Paper.

These seven orders and regulations make important provisions for the implementation of the 1995 revaluation of non-domestic property, which takes effect next April. Five of the orders prescribe the rateable values of the large network industries—the railways, electricity and water industries, British Gas and certain docks and harbours. Without those, the industries concerned would not have up-to-date values next year. A sixth order revokes the 1989 rateable values orders for the telecommunications industry and British Waterways. Those industries will have their rateable values for next year determined in the same way as most other businesses.

Probably the most important instrument for the majority of businesses, however, is the Non-Domestic Rating (Chargeable Amounts) Regulations. Those regulations contain measures to phase in the effects of the revaluation for those ratepayers who would otherwise be confronted by significant changes in their rate bills next year.

As announced by my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Wales on 29 November, the effect of those regulations will be to limit rate increases for small businesses next year to no more than 17.5 per cent. after allowing for inflation. For property with a new rateable value of £10,000 or more—or £15,000 or more in London—increases will be limited to a maximum of 10 per cent. after allowing for inflation. For small properties consisting of both business and living accommodation, the corresponding limit will be 5 per cent. Those limits will continue to apply throughout the period until the next revaluation in the year 2000.

Regular revaluations are essential to ensure that businesses pay their fair share of the cost of local government. Revaluations do not affect the overall yield from business rates. Even if the national total of rateable value increases, we are required under the statutes to set the poundage—that is the amount per pound of rateable value that ratepayers must pay—so as to keep total rate bills broadly constant after allowing for inflation and the possible effects of successful appeals.

As it happens, the 1995 revaluation will hardly change total rateable values in England, and we have announced a poundage of 43.2p for this country for next year—the same as for this year after allowing for inflation. In Wales, total rateable value is set to increase, so we have proposed a reduction in the poundage from 44.8p to 39p next year to compensate.

However, it is inevitable that the revaluation will change the rateable values of individual properties in line with changes in the property market during the five years since the previous revaluation. The rates bill of many individual businesses will therefore alter, with some businesses confronted by rate increases, some benefiting from reductions and others experiencing little or no change.

For the 1995 revaluation, the swings in bills are likely to be more marked than might have been expected, for two reasons. First, the 1990 revaluation was based on market rental values for property as at April 1988. In most parts of the country, rentals were still on the rise then, and they continued to increase for a while. In some regions, especially the north and the midlands, values then levelled off; in others, they fell back as recession started to bite. By April 1993—the base date for the 1995 revaluation—property values had hit rock bottom in central London but were barely past their peak in other areas. As a result, and as a broad generalisation, there has been a reversal of fortunes between ratepayers in the north and south: ratepayers who benefited from the 1990 revaluation are likely to do less well next year, and those who found themselves worse off in 1990 are likely to do much better.

The second reason for large potential changes in bills is that some ratepayers continue to benefit from the transitional arrangements introduced to cushion the effects of the 1990 revaluation, so their bills this year continue to be somewhat less than what they would have been, had the 1990 changes come through in full. Without a further transitional scheme, some of those ratepayers would be confronted by a stiff increase next year, irrespective of the revaluation. Although the revaluation will mitigate the increase for some ratepayers, for others it may add to it.

The Government do not think it right that businesses should have to absorb large increases in their costs overnight—they need time to adjust. That is why we have put before the House the regulations to phase in the changes. We estimate that nearly 1 million smaller properties and nearly 350,000 larger properties in England and Wales will benefit from relief. More than one third of the beneficiaries will be shops, and 156,000 offices and 320,000 warehouses and factories will also benefit.

How many of the businesses that will benefit from transitional arrangements will be ones that were already enjoying some transitional relief following the 1990 revaluation?

If I may, I shall come to that when I sum up, because I do not have the figure immediately available. I undertake to inquire into that and I hope to reply to my hon. Friend later.

The cost of protecting businesses against large rate increases must fall somewhere. About 170,000 properties will have reduced bills as a result of revaluation, and many of those will have benefited from relief under the 1990 transitional arrangements. We feel it right, therefore, that they should meet much of the cost of funding the new arrangements. The regulations therefore include provision to limit rate reductions so that, as under the 1990 transitional scheme, a contribution towards the cost of the relief will be required only from those who will make savings from the revaluation.

For next year, rate reduction will be limited to a maximum of 10 per cent. for small businesses and 5 per cent. for larger ones, after allowing for inflation. We envisage that similar limits will be required in the following year. Reductions should then start to come through much faster, as many ratepayers who have been phased upwards will have then reached their full new bills and will no longer require relief. The regulations make provision for reductions of 20 per cent. for small businesses and 15 per cent. for large businesses for 1997–98, and 35 per cent. for small businesses and 30 per cent. for large businesses for 1998–99 and 1999–2000. As the revaluation is not yet complete and the effect of appeals cannot be known with accuracy, those estimates are inevitably provisional, which is another reason why I cannot answer my hon. Friend's question at the moment. We therefore propose to review the estimates before the start of each year.

For the next year, the 5 per cent. and 10 per cent. limits on reductions will not meet the full cost of the relief for business facing increases. That is why, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in his Budget statement on 29 November, the Government have also pledged a generous Exchequer contribution towards the cost. In England and Wales, the contribution will total £525 million for next year. As we promised in debates on the Non-Domestic Rating Act 1994 earlier this year, that contribution will be added to the non-domestic rating pool so that no billing authority is any worse off as a result of the shortfall in rates yield.

Right hon. and hon. Members may have seen some recent press reports, as I have, notably in the London Evening Standard, suggesting that, notwithstanding the Exchequer support that we have announced, London will be robbed of hundreds of millions of pounds as a result of those measures.

It is perfectly true that inner-London ratepayers, taken together, will make a substantial net contribution to the cost of the scheme, but I fear that memories are short. In 1990, the boot was on the other foot; many businesses in central London received transitional protection, which was paid for by ratepayers elsewhere. Besides, this is not a simple issue of London versus the rest, because every region will have a mixture of losers and gainers. About half the ratepayers in inner London, most of which will be small businesses, will actually receive help from the scheme. A good many fewer inner-London ratepayers will be required to pay an additional contribution, and two thirds of the contributors will not be in inner London at all.

I must also emphasise that local authorities in London will not receive a penny less out of rates as a result of our scheme, because rate revenue is pooled nationally, and every authority area receives the same amount per head of population.

The regulations governing the transition are complex. That is the result of the need to deal fairly with a number of different types of case that can arise. In essence, however, the arrangements will work similarly in all cases.

The new rates bill, known in the regulations as the notional chargeable amount, will be compared with a notional bill—the base liability—for the current year, taking account of the existing transitional arrangements where necessary. If the change from one year to the next is more than the limit—known as the "appropriate fraction"—allows, ratepayers will pay the limited amount, subject to any other reliefs that may be available.

Properties newly constructed after 1 April 1995 will not attract the phasing arrangements, but properties created by division or merger of existing properties will do so. In addition, we have made special provision to apply the downward phasing provisions to properties wholly or mainly reconstructed from existing properties. We do not think it right that ratepayers who are helping to meet the cost of the phasing arrangements should be able to escape their obligations simply by undertaking refurbishment or other reconstruction works.

The phasing provisions will apply to the large network industries in broadly the same way as for most other businesses. That brings me to the six rateable value orders before the House. Prescription of rateable values for those industries is necessary because assessment by local valuation officers in England and Wales is impractical. In some cases, it is because the property is of a highly specialised kind which presents complex valuation problems. In others, it is because the property is so extensive that the time and other resources needed to value it conventionally have simply not been available.

Rateable values in Great Britain for conventionally assessed property have changed little as a result of the revaluation. We have, therefore, based the new values for most of the centrally assessed industries on their 1994–95 values, adjusted for any changes in the property they occupy. There are exceptions, such as the railway networks, where the industry has undergone profound changes since the last revaluation and we have undertaken a fresh valuation.

The orders also contain provisions to recalculate rateable values for those industries annually, to take account of changes in the amount of property they occupy. They appear as formulae in each of the orders and provide a proxy for the changes which ratepayers who occupy conventionally assessed property would expect to see reflected in changes to their rating assessment. In addition, the water undertakers order contains a method for determining rateable values when water companies merge.

It is less than satisfactory that we still have to set rateable values for certain industries in this way and I am therefore pleased to announce that, from next April, some industries whose rateable values were previously prescribed by order will have their values assessed by the Valuation office agency in the normal way. They include British Waterways, British Telecommunications and Mercury Communications, for which there is a separate order repealing the earlier provision. The Tyne and Wear metro and the docklands light railway will also be conventionally assessed and will no longer appear in the railways order and the amendments to the 1989 docks and harbours order ensure that ports with relevant incomes of between £50,000 and £1 million will also be conventionally assessed next year.

It is our intention that the prescription of values for most of the remaining industries will end in the year 2000. We have already drawn up timetables for gathering the information we need to determine the values for some industries and discussions on others are to start early in the new year.

I commend these somewhat technical orders to the House.

4.51 pm

The Minister may have read the orders as he reads routine technical orders that pass through the House on a regular basis at 1 o'clock in the morning, but if he considers them to be trivial matters, he has no understanding whatsoever of the anger of business men and women which will be expressed and will find its way to his desk.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, he should at least let me get into my speech. I understand where he comes from, however, and I will certainly give way to him in a moment.

In the north of England and the west midlands, where the business rate revaluation means that people will pay much higher rates this year, there will a colossal amount of anger. The same frustration will emerge from people in London, who thought that the revaluation would offer some relief.

I certainly did not say that it was a trivial matter; it is a technical matter and I described it as such. I was referring to orders other than the one relating to industry and commerce. It is precisely because it is such a sensitive matter for property owners throughout the country that we have given great thought to the protection scheme which we have introduced. I hope that we have produced a scheme that, if it is not totally welcomed by people facing increases and decreases, will at least seem to them to have recognised their real fears.

The Minister had better look again at precisely what the schemes offer. They do not provide the same protection that existed in the past or that industry and business are seeking. The Minister needs to understand how desperately affected some businesses will be and how deeply they will resent what is happening.

In view of what the hon. Gentleman said about anger, I wonder why, with the exception of one hon. Member, the Labour Benches are completely empty. Is that how Labour Members represent their constituents when big issues are involved?

That point is too trivial for comment. I am happen to debate the issues, but I should point out that only three or four Conservative Back Benchers are representing the party that claims to represent small businesses. No doubt they are present to support a Minister who is sticking the knife into small and large businesses. The hon. Gentleman can do a little better than that and I look forward to hearing his remarks.

Let us examine the background to the business rates system. I refer the House to a speech by the then Secretary of State for the Environment, Nicholas Ridley, on 16 December 1987. He told the House:

"The…function of the unified business rate is to remove the arbitrary variations in the amounts businesses pay at present."

What can be more arbitrary than the position in Yorkshire and Humberside, for example, where the business rates, which on average went down in the last revaluation by 21 per cent. on 1988 prices, will now increase office costs by 56 per cent? If that is not arbitrary, I am not quite sure what the word means. Even by the then Secretary of State's definition, the scheme simply has not delivered the goods to business.

Is it not a fact that, before the unified business rate was introduced, local authorities fixed the business rate and there were arbitrary variations, whereas now the Government fix the maximum increase in the UBR by the retail prices index? Is that not a considerable improvement?

The hon. Gentleman does not understand the scheme. Although in normal circumstances the Government fix the maximum up to the level of the RPI, next year the bills that come thudding on to businesses in my constituency will include a massive increase way over the RPI.

Let us look at different regions as that appears to be the nitty-gritty of the debate. The worst affected region is the west midlands, where there were decreases in rateable values in 1990 of about 25 per cent. That was very welcome at the time, but the then Secretary of State, Nicholas Ridley, said:

"Together with the effect of the revaluation…these proposals will reduce rates by some £700 million in the north and midlands. The unified business rate alone will reduce rate by £380 million in inner city programme areas. Those reductions will give a major boost to employment in the areas of greatest unemployment and, at the same time, reduce the pressure for development in the south-east."—[Official Report, 16 December 1987; Vol. 124, c. 1121.]

If, at that time, the reductions were designed by the then Secretary of State to provide relief to hard-pressed businesses in the north and the west midlands on the ground that they would create employment, let me tell Conservative Members that businesses in my constituency and in the west midlands are not so robust that they can calculate their costs on the basis of arbitrary rate increases that they will face next year. If the measures were introduced some seven years ago to create employment, let me tell the Minister and his hon. Friends, who seem to like the present scheme, that the Government had better take on board the destruction of jobs and businesses that will be caused by these rate increases.

We moved from a system of local control, where local businesses were consulted in order to assist. The new system is massively more arbitrary; the swings and variations are much greater than anything seen on a year-by-year basis, when local government had control of the local business rate in negotiation with local businesses.

Is the hon. Gentleman saying that he is against the revaluation? That is what happened under Labour before. The Labour Government refused to revalue year after year and we reached the point where rateable values bore no relationship to market values. The difficulties that we experienced with the introduction of the UBR were a direct result of that. Is he saying that he would cop out, as the previous Labour Government did year after year?

Once again, the hon. Gentleman has a fairly deficient memory and a poor understanding of the situation. The 1988 revaluation was some nine years into the 10 years of a Conservative Government. The charge of holding back on this matter must be applied to that Conservative Government.

What it is more important—if the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald), muttering away as he does, would have the courtesy to listen for a moment—is that we recognise that when we are talking about a locally determined system, variations within rateable values are nothing like as serious as those in a national system.

The introduction of the national non-domestic rating system—the unified national business rate—caused the major problems with the variation in valuation. That was why at the time there were colossal swings and so much pain and anger in inner London, for example, which saw its non-domestic rates bill shoot up by some 39 per cent. In the capital, some 45 per cent. of businesses are still waiting to see the full impact of the revaluation of 1990. Because of the present revaluation, that full impact will never occur. Businesses will be grateful for that small mercy, but they will not be grateful for the fact that the Minister is limiting their capacity to benefit from a revaluation.

One of the concerns expressed by businesses, particularly in inner London, is that the present revaluation, having lurched from a 40 per cent. upgrading last time around to a 40 per cent. downgrading of business costs in London, means that the charge of arbitrariness cannot be avoided by the Minister. What is much more important is that it means that any idea that businesses in London can plan long term for the vagaries of this system is simply ridiculous. Businesses like stability. That is the point that most business people make to Members of Parliament. They like to be able to predict what will take place. There is no ability to predict when there are such wild variations.

I hope that the Minister will take my next point seriously. The whole basis of the revaluation that took place in 1990 has been called into question. Those who represent businesses in inner London have put the point to me that they detect a pattern whereby, increasingly, appeals against valuation have not been successfully challenged by the Valuation Office. That in itself shows that the whole valuation process was wrong in the first place; that is borne out by the wild swing in the national revaluation this time around.

The Minister must accept that, if there is no confidence in the basis of the system, businesses will not be confident that the system is either fair or reasonable. The House must recognise that, since the introduction of the scheme, the Government have been caught in an almighty mess. They are caught in a situation in which their initial commitments and promises have regularly been broken.

Let us remember, for example, the promises that were made by various Secretaries of State. We were told in 1987, when the system was first introduced, that the system would be self-financing. We were told that there would be no cost to the Exchequer. From 1987 to 1992, the Government's official line was that the winners would have to pay for the losers, to allow for transition—that the pain would be spread among different businesses. That applied until 1992, when the Government were under such tremendous pressure. It could be a coincidence that a general election was on the way at that time. Businesses complained mightily in parts of the country like the south-east, where the pressure was enormous.

We were told that the transitional arrangements were set in stone when they were introduced in 1990, when the Minister's predecessors stood before Parliament, as he has done today, and said that this would carry through over the next five years; yet, only a couple of years into the scheme, Ministers were coming back to the House grovelling with an apology. That is a bit of an illusion, as it is rare for Ministers to come into the House with anything other than their usual arrogance and insulting ways. They should have grovelled with an apology to the industries and companies that suffered so badly when the Government recognised that it was necessary to limit the increase in business rates to the zero per cent. which then applied, in the middle of the recession that they had brought about.

Instead of a no-cost self-financing scheme being introduced, the Government spent £1.4 billion of taxpayers' money propping up their scheme between 1992 and the present financial year. Although the Minister did not quote the figure, we know that, next year, £505 million will be used to effect the transition over that time. Let me say, just in case Conservative Members think that I am going to argue against that move, that I welcome the fact that the Government recognised the stupidity of their scheme and had to do something practical to ensure that we did not see the demise of businesses throughout the country, particularly in the south-east and in inner London.

The whole point is that, now we have come to the present revaluation, once again the Minister is in an almighty mess. We know that the kind of promises that were made—that the rate increases would be kept down—have not been effective. When the then Chancellor said in his Budget statement in 1992 that, throughout the 1980s, business rates had increased in real terms on a nationwide basis by some 37 per cent.—and used that as justification for the present scheme—he was not aware that this year alone there would be increases that would swamp that 37 per cent. and that, over the period of the present revaluation, many of the small businesses which the Minister said he would protect would be protected only to the extent of 7.5 per cent. over the next two years. That in itself is a guaranteed increase of 15 per cent. over and above the RPI increase. Then the lid will begin to come off.

As we go around the different parts of the country, we will see that the real increase—not a notional increase, not one protected by inflation—for business and commerce, whether for small or large firms, will be significantly greater. Once the protection is off, the full impact will be felt.

The hon. Gentleman seems to have confused the particular with the general, because the fact is that the income being raised from the non-domestic rate will go up in line with inflation. Of course, some individual businesses will face increases, which, in turn, will reflect the valuations put on properties, which are largely based on current rental evidence. That has been the principle of a rating system ever since it was introduced. I cannot see why the hon. Gentleman thinks that, just because some individuals will face increases, and some will face decreases, industry and commerce in general will be penalised. As I have said, they will simply face increases in line with inflation.

That is probably the most ludicrous retort that I have ever had to answer in the House. It is the Minister who is confusing the general with the particular. Does he want to come with me and visit a business—for example, a company in the north-west of England that owns an office whose rateable value has gone up by 51 per cent., which is the average figure for the north-west—and say, "Don't worry about it. You'll be happy to know that, on average, the business rate for industry and commerce is zero. The fact that you will have to find half as much again should not detain you at all"?

If the Minister really wants to come and talk to people like that, he may find that in general he is right but in particular those business people will be extremely angry with a Minister who is stupid enough to give that kind of excuse. Does the hon. Gentleman wish to intervene again to argue that point, as it is very important?

The hon. Gentleman's argument now seems to be that nobody should face any change in rateable value when revaluations take place and that, somehow or other, we should go on as before. That, in effect, was what the previous Labour Government said by not updating valuations. Businesses in areas where the desirability of property goes down will never take advantage of that, and businesses in areas where property is more sought after and where, therefore, rental values are on the increase, will in effect pay less than their fair share. That is not a fair system. The hon. Gentleman could argue for a totally different approach to the contribution that business makes to local government—I should be interested to hear his views on that—but, as long as we have a rateable value system, there must be revaluations to make it fair.

I have already told the Minister that if he were to tell the businesses that will face the incredibly arbitrary changes that this is all okay because, on average there is no increase or because it is simply a technical fix which is in the nature of the rating system, he would find that they are angry.

I was talking to a small shopkeeper the other day who was telling me how difficult it is nowadays for somebody trying to run a general shop. If the figures that apply in my region are typical, he will face a real-terms rate increase of 31 per cent. over the next five years. He will be cushioned next year so that the increase is only 7.5 per cent. in real terms and he will be cushioned the following year so that it is only another 7.5 per cent. in real terms. Thereafter, he will be less cushioned and he will reach the full 31 per cent. increase.

If the Minister knows anything about small businesses, he will know that they always complain about the disproportionate impact of rates, relative to other costs. I can assure the Minister that my small shopkeeper friend will be extremely angry about the position in which he finds himself because his is already a marginal business. It is beset on all sides. The landlord wants to put up the rent, the suppliers want to put up costs and the recession is still having an effect on the incomes of people in the area in which he trades. For a small business an increase of 30 per cent. plus is not a small cost. That business man will be entitled to say that the Government are extremely unfair to him as an individual trader and, more generally, to small businesses.

The Federation of Small Businesses has said that it is disappointed that the revaluation winners are required to contribute to the payment of relief to the losers. It also said—the Minister should take this on board—that the transitional relief scheme, which is now operating for a second five-year period, totally undermines the credibility of the uniform business rate. The Minister must address that. The original transitional system had not worked its way through before we moved on to the next revaluation and the next transitional scheme. Such a system is neither stable nor credible. The Forum of Private Business, which writes to hon. Members regularly, makes a similar point. It is concerned about the impact of the business rate on small firms in particular. It says that it is a proportionately higher cost than that borne by large businesses. It advocates a profit-based scheme, which has its demerits. The Minister seems to be oblivious to the doubts and concerns about the present system. He must accept the real concerns that businesses are expressing.

The implication of what the hon. Gentleman is saying is that either he is against having a revaluation next year or he is in favour of never having a revaluation. What is the Labour party's policy on that?

As is sometimes said, all will be revealed shortly. I believe that the hon. Gentleman supported the legislation that introduced this system. It is important to examine the defects of the system adequately. We must recognise the frustration and anger felt by business people about a Government whose language seems to be friendly to business while demonstrating the most peculiar form of embrace—a poisoned cuddle. Some businesses that find themselves moving towards the bank manager, or even the bankruptcy courts, may feel that the Government have given them rather more than a cuddle.

I used to be the chairman of the finance committee of Nottinghamshire county council and we were responsible for setting the business rate for our local community. I can remember that there was less anger when we were in charge than when the Labour party was in charge and the anger in those days was a jolly sight stronger. If the hon. Gentleman looks back at the debates on rates in the House between 1974 and 1979, he will see that there was a great deal more anger and concern than are expressed today.

It would be churlish of me to remind the hon. Gentleman that, during that period of the Labour Government, a great deal of local government was controlled by the Conservative party. If the hon. Gentleman feels that Conservative local authorities did a bad job, he may have an interesting point that I shall try to absorb.

The simple truth is that there is a great deal of anger. The present system lurches from five-year period to five-year period and not from year to year. In the east midlands, in which the constituency of the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) is located, businesses saw a 15 per cent. reduction in rateable values in 1990 with the introduction of the 1988 revaluation. Those businesses will be less than enamoured of the support of the hon. Member for Broxtowe for this measure when they find that their bills are increasing by 20 per cent. That will be the real-terms effect of the revaluation on the east midlands.

I am sure that there will be winners and losers. The Minister has tried to explain that, on average, everybody will be happy. I can assure the hon. Member for Broxtowe that the losers in his constituency will be less than enamoured of him or the Minister if he really believes that a 20 per cent. plus rates increase will do their businesses any good.

Let us look round the country at the different valuations. I hope that the Minister will accept the figures, because they have been drawn from parliamentary answers provided by his colleagues. The west midlands is the worst affected region. Across all businesses, the revaluation will increase rateable values by 34 per cent. That is a large increase, but even that manages to disguise the impact on some businesses. For example, office rateable values in the west midlands will increase by 54 per cent. Commercial activity such as that is necessary in areas such as Birmingham, which, like many cities outside the south-east, is trying to move from the traditional manufacturing base to a much stronger commercial base. Such a revaluation will do great damage.

Warehousing has become a feature in traditional manufacturing areas where, sadly, it has replaced traditional manufacturing industries. Warehousing revaluation has meant that there will be a 49 per cent. increase in rateable values. That is a massive increase for an industry that is labour non-intensive and relatively property intensive. It will increase warehousing costs disproportionately.

The same thing will happen with factories. The west midlands is still famous, even now, for its manufacturing base, but the revaluation will mean a 40 per cent. increase in the cost for factories.

As I have already said, the overall increase in the east midlands will be about 20 per cent. Ironically, at 20 per cent., businesses there get off relatively lightly. The hon. Member for Broxtowe will be able to tell businesses in his constituency that things are not so bad because they are worse a few miles down the road in the west midlands. I am sure that those who will be paying an extra 20 per cent. will say that they are truly grateful.

The northern region is still suffering heavily from de-industrialisation. The overall increase there will be about 24 per cent. That will not be welcome. In my region, the north-west, the increase will be 32 per cent. That disguises individual variations. A city such as Manchester is increasingly seeing investment in office-based activity and that has become important to the local economy. However, office rateable values will increase by 51 per cent.

In Yorkshire and Humberside—I say this for your benefit, Mr. Deputy Speaker—there will be an overall increase of 26 per cent., which disguises some of the sectoral increases which are much greater. The Minister talked about transitional relief, but every one of those regions faces serious and real increases in industrial costs.

In inner London, the position is reversed. Office valuations there have shot down by 59 per cent. With that decrease in industrial costs, one would have thought that, in considering the massive unemployment in London, the possibility existed of more employment of that sort being located in the capital city. That will not take place for some years because of the transitional relief package, which gives transitional relief only in one direction. It will bring transitional misery for people in inner London, who will not receive the benefit of the revaluation that they thought might give them relief.

The hon. Gentleman has ruled out increases for anyone that is angry and has problems. He wants people who will benefit from revaluation to gain immediately. The logic of his position, therefore, is that there must be a substantially greater contribution from the Exchequer. I ask him to put on record precisely how he would find the extra contribution. Would he raise VAT or income tax to cover it? Since the matter relates to business, would he raise corporation tax or something like that? Might we even return to that hoary old Labour chestnut—a selective employment tax? If the hon. Gentleman is moving down that road, it is up to him to tell us where he would get the money from.

It is not up to me and I shall explain why. It may have escaped the Minister's attention that my party is not the party of government. The Government faced the same problem in relation to revaluation in the early 1990s. It is up to them to tell us why, having told us that there was no more money, all of a sudden they produced £1.5 billion out of a hat to pay for the scheme. It is not up to the Opposition to find the money in the Chancellor of the Exchequer's bag. It is up to the Government to set out a scheme that is affordable and consistent. They did not do so from 1990 until now and they will not do so in the future. That is the reality of the position.

Since the hon. Gentleman is being transparently dishonest in failing to deal with the question of where the money would come from, will I at least receive an answer to the question whether the Labour party would fund any such scheme out of Exchequer money—wherever it may come from—and whether Labour would not fund it in the way in which the Government propose in the orders?

That is a good try on the Minister's part, but unfortunately it is not good enough. This is the Government's scheme. The present unified business rate system was introduced by the Government. The problems have been brought about because of the Government's incompetence. The Minister must deal with that incompetence. He cannot get away with asking other people to drag his chestnuts out of the fire. His Government are loading the costs on to industry. They are not able to tell businesses in inner London why they will not benefit from a revaluation that works in their favour. That view is not unique to me. I think that it is the position, for example, of the Confederation of British Industry, which says that protection should go to the losers and that the winners should not pay for the whole thing.

This is a filibuster.

In time-honoured Tory Whip fashion, the hon. Gentleman said that my speech was a filibuster. He plays little role in the Chamber nowadays and I understand that he is out of practice in such matters, but Conservative Members have been engaged, unusually for hon. Members, in something of a dialogue on an issue that obviously concerns them. I should not want him to dismiss their comments in the way that he does and as if they have no value, because they have played an important part in a debate that is of concern, perhaps not to him as a Member of Parliament but certainly to businesses in his constituency. When their rates go up next year, they will be worried that he thinks that this is such a trivial matter. He might want to write to his local chamber of commerce to explain his view on the matter.

Conservative Members asked, "What is wrong with the present system?" I shall tell them what is fundamentally wrong with it. When the Government chose to nationalise the business rate, they made a fundamental mistake. They broke the link for local business. When the scheme was introduced, Mr. Nicholas Ridley, a former hon. Friend of the Minister, said:

"Under the present system half of local revenue is raised from businesses which are defenceless against exploitation by authorities".—[Official Report, 16 December 1987; Vol. 124, c. 1115.]

The problem is that the scheme does not defend businesses from exploitation by central Government. That is the nub of the matter. Central Government have been a much worse custodian of the business rate than local authorities were before. That is why we must have a return to some sort of local control of business rates, so that local businesses can negotiate with local authorities, which are served by people who are closer to them and who will listen to them. That at least is what we must begin to do.

As of now, it is up to the Government to recognise the real misery that will be imposed on individual businesses and to begin to deal with the problems that will be the subject of Conservative Members' letters in their postbags from about next February, when the bills begin to go out. The Government must recognise that the transitional scheme is inadequate and will not deal with the problems that will be caused.

I have concentrated the bulk of my remarks on the transitional relief scheme because, in many ways, it is the subject of the most important of the measures that lie before the House. The Minister referred, however, to the six other orders and I want to press him on the formula funding system. Will he tell us what the likely rates of increase in valuation will be in practice for industries in forthcoming years? We have a good idea of what the increase rate will be for companies that operate outside formula funding and in the ordinary rating valuation system.

We need to have a comparison with industries that find themselves in this slightly anomalous situation. Although I welcome the fact that the Minister has repeated the Government's assurance that they intend to move to a rating valuation system for the bulk of those industries, I should like to press him on why it is necessary to let that process run through to the year 2000, which is a long way off. Given that negotiations have been under way for some time, I should have thought that it would be possible to consider ways of speeding up that process. It is in everyone's interest to ensure that there is no discrepancy or favouritism and that industries are not disfavoured by the system. I should be grateful if he would spell out the reasons why it has to take until the year 2000.

The Minister did not mention railways as one of the candidates to be brought within the rating valuation family. Full privatisation is still the Government's policy. With the break-up of railway companies, why will the railways still operate under a formula funding mechanism after the year 2000? Why cannot we begin to move the railway system on to the same basis as other industries?

At every point, the Government have established principles by which business rates would operate. At every point, those principles have been rendered null and void when circumstances have changed and when the Government have come under pressure. The Government will come under tremendous pressure next spring and thereafter when businesses realise the full consequences of what is taking place. I warn the Minister that, unless he can give answers that are better than those that he has given today, businesses up and down this land will believe that the Government have done serious damage both to the employment base and to the industrial and commercial base.

5.28 pm

I do not share many things with the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) apart from possession of an MBA degree. On the principle that we MBAs must stick together, I hung on his lips and did not intervene, even during his most controversial propositions. I shall content myself by saying that even if his speech was not meant to be a filibuster— perhaps to cover the emptiness of the Opposition Benches behind him— I look forward greatly to the occasion when he is really trying and is speaking to produce a filibuster.

My constituency interest lies primarily in the Non-Domestic Rating (Chargeable Amounts) Regulations 1994, which my hon. Friend the Minister identified as the main pabulum for the debate. The working population of my constituency exceeds the national average per constituency by a factor of 17. In the W1 postal district, there are as many businesses as residential households. Therefore, in my constituency we have had a disproportionate interest in the Government's consultation on transitional arrangements.

The draft order is an inspissated rather than a pellucid document. In the intellectual challenge that it sets the reader, it has an echo of those Christmas puzzles of one's youth, which used to start, "Mr. Black, Mr. Brown, Mr. Green and Mr. White live in houses that are, but not necessarily respectively, black, brown, green and white." Of course, their interest was domestic rather than non-domestic. I do not complain about the inspissation. It is in the nature of the proposed legislation and not a function of perverseness or mischief by the Department of the Environment.

Nor am I here to register a complaint that London has been ruthlessly robbed, pillaged or despoiled. I appreciate that the Government have consistency on their side in pursuing the transitional arrangements of 1990, especially in the form improved by amendment in the past five years in respect of properties that have changed hands.

Where the result of consistency on the one hand and inspissation on the other cross over is in whether the modest relief granted in London is the most generous that could have been achieved, especially when fuelled in 1995 by a direct Treasury subvention, which was not mirrored in the 1990 arrangements, even though one occurred willy-nilly in later years because of changes to the scheme.

The argument for transitional arrangements is that they should soften extremities of change, and notably increases. What should not be lost sight of, however, was that in 1990 we were coming to our first revaluation for 17 years and to a new system of calculating non-domestic rates. The effect was therefore likely to be sharp in significant areas—I use "areas" geographically. In London, we were unlucky that the process coincided precisely with a recession. There were, however, other concomitants to the change in procedure.

If I temporarily disregard the City of London element in my constituency as being sui generis, as indeed the legislation has itself allowed, though my later remarks apply to it as elsewhere, prior to 1990, under borough determination, the rates in Westminster were lower than in Camden, an authority to which I choose to refer for its adjacence and because I once served within it as a councillor. As a result, rents were lower in Camden because Camden had to compete with Westminster for office or retail accommodation. Therefore, the combination of rents and rates needed to be the same, or about the same.

The logic of 1990—I use the date as a proxy for the change—was that, if rates were harmonised on a national basis, rents would follow the new level of rates. As Westminster's rates rose, its rents would fall, and vice versa in Camden. That prospect, in the recession, offered some comfort and relief in Westminster, but the very effect of transitional arrangements in smoothing the sharpnesses was also necessarily to delay the rearrangement of the market to reflect what I have just described. There is an equal hazard that the repetition of the transitional arrangements now will likewise delay the return of recovery in London, which is widely acknowledged to have been very hard hit during the period of recession. That is the more serious as the otherwise admirable absence of inflation in the housing market still leaves the south-east's consumer enthusiasm much tempered by the continuance of negative equity in domestic properties.

Moreover, just as the climate in the Chamber determines the political argument throughout the country, so the feelgood factor in the nation will remain diluted as long as London's prosperity is muted. My right hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench have an interest in not delaying the feelgood factor spreading for too long. My hon. Friend the Minister will know that currently in London we have properties where rates exceed rents; that cannot make even medium-term economic sense.

Although, as I have made clear, I do not quarrel with the concept of transitional arrangements, I have queries about their application. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment was good enough to write us all a letter in which he sought to set our minds at rest on a problem that I had not posed. I do not blame him for concentrating on his own agenda and setting it out and not making his letter comprehensive, but at the end of the exercise I am left with no clear arithmetical picture of how the calculations were prepared to produce the particular conclusions that they did.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will know, not least because he has some departmental responsibility for the property industry, of the dire economic and employment straits of great swathes of the industry today. He may disclaim their calculations on the grounds of bias or self-interest, though I imagine he would be pleased to see the infrastructure of the industry returning to health. He will know, however, of the scale of the research that the industry undertook during the autumn and early winter on the subject that we are now discussing. Its postulated calculations are that the Government could have gone to a 15 per cent. rate reduction in real terms rather than one of 5 per cent.—admittedly, for larger properties—in the improvement in London next year.

All that I am asking of my hon. Friend the Minister—it is too complicated a subject to be dealt with on the Floor of the House—is that in correspondence and in measured time he might lift the veil a little on the calculations of the Department of the Environment to let us know why they have been significantly more pessimistic than those of the industry, which has the advantage—I acknowledge self-interest—of being closer to the real market than some of those who advise the Government.

We shall be happy to share our thinking and knowledge. In so doing, I hope that I can convince my right hon. Friend of the rightness of the conclusion at which we arrived.

I am grateful for that harbinger of correspondence.

The changes that had to be made after 1990—I am referring to changes of detail, not to the results of the beneficence of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer—revealed that even in the best ordered of Governments the market can still teach some lessons. That is what I am seeking to say this evening.

As we are a thin House and I am not likely to rob any hon. Member of the opportunity of a speech by adding one further thought, I shall allow myself the self-indulgence of a general remark about the legislation under which the orders apply. When the Government, by introducing legislation, cut the link between businesses and their immediate local authorities, they seemed to rob local authorities, too, of their interest in those businesses. In my constituency, the Corporation of the City of London has long taken a profound interest in the welfare of its business constituents, for understandable reasons. I am delighted that, despite the direct link being cut, Westminster city council has within the past five years recognised the holistic nature of a community and is deliberately renewing its links with the business community in a most constructive way, which in turn has been welcomed by the business community.

Given the exceptional constituency employment figures that I quoted at the beginning of my speech, the dual thrust by the two local authorities within my constituency is good news for the economy at the heart of the nation. I hope that in subsequent debate, which my hon. Friend has promised me, he can reinforce the progress that has been made by the instruments at his disposal.

One of the incidental contributions that the Government can make in these matters is to speed up the pace of dealing with valuation appeals. I know that the valuation service is not the responsibility of the Department of the Environment, but I know too how much frustration has been caused in my constituency—admittedly it is densely populated in business terms—by the historic delay in hearing appeals over the past five years.

5.38 pm

It is good to have the chance to follow what was in some respects an apt demolition job on the way in which transitional relief will be used next year. I was delighted to hear that demolition from a Conservative Member.

Interestingly, some of the Minister's remarks and some of those made by the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) have some merit. If we are to have a uniform business rate system, there must be the chance for revaluation, and for revaluation to have a real effect on the level of rate payments by individual businesses. The management of the UBR system so far, however, has meant large—in some cases unbearable—rate increases for some businesses.

When the system was introduced, I understood—as I think most business men did—that the whole idea was to introduce fairness: a level playing field for businesses throughout the country. I thought that the intention was not to allow individual councils to place burdens on businesses in their areas. Sadly, however, that level playing field has not been created, and we are now seeing the farce that the UBR has brought about.

The Government were forced to introduce a transitional relief system to overcome the burden of extra rate increases in parts of the country where valuations themselves showed large increases. That has caused the whole system to break down: far from being given a level playing field, businesses that have been the beneficiaries of transitional relief for the entire initial five-year period can be said to have been playing downhill all that time, with a following wind.

Those businesses received the amount of transitional relief that they received because they had suffered the biggest—in many cases, quite unrealistic—valuation increases towards the end of the 1980s. As I said earlier this year in a debate on the Non-Domestic Rating Bill, that has led to an absurdity: some businesses have experienced real-terms rate increases this year, only to find that, because of a lower valuation, the rates will return to a more reasonable level next year.

I understand why the hon. Gentleman describes that position as absurd, but is it not an automatic consequence of regular revaluations? If he does not like regular revaluations, what alternative would he suggest?

The alternative is clearly some sort of site value system, which we have proposed all along.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

May I answer the previous question first? Obviously, revaluations must take place; the problem is caused by the big and rapid jumps in value caused by the extended intervals between revaluations.

The problem with the site value system is that it makes no distinction between premises such as office blocks, which have a high usage rate in terms of occupation of the land, and "low-occupation" enterprises such as garages. It is thus grossly inequitable.

That is not true. It depends what planning agreement has been made. Whatever agreement has been made, however, the site value system will lead to the best and most efficient use of the site: that is why it is a good system for business.

Would transitional arrangements operate under the site value system?

If a move from the system that the Government now run happened all in one go, such arrangements would clearly have to operate— [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is now speaking from a sedentary position. Does he want me to give way again?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way to me, following my sedentary intervention. He has spent the first few minutes of his speech criticising transitional arrangements; what would be different about his proposed transitional arrangements?

I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has not been listening very carefully. I have not been criticising transitional arrangements as such; I have been disputing the need to make the amounts so large and to continue the arrangements for so long. The original point of the UBR was to introduce a level playing field across the country, but it has not worked. It is the UBR system, rather than the transitional arrangements, that I am criticising.

Unfortunately, the Government have now chosen to introduce a phasing system for businesses whose valuations have decreased. I consider that totally unfair. I understand the need to introduce a transitional system where there have been large increases; there would otherwise be a serious risk that many businesses would go under. They cannot be expected to take account of very large increases all in one year. It does not seem fair, however, that the system should be paid for by businesses whose valuations have decreased.

The original understanding, five years ago, was that the system would be self-financing—that, as far as possible, the phasing in of the decreases should pay for the phasing in of the increases. This year, no such suggestion is being made. Because of the £505 million that the Government are putting in, no real attempt is being made to make the entire system pay for itself. If no such excuse is left to the Government, it seems extraordinarily unfair that businesses whose rates happened to be high last year should be forced to pay for transitional relief for those that would otherwise pay high rates this year. Just to help themselves balance their budget, the Government are in effect fining businesses next year because they had large rate bills last year. That cannot be fair, and the Government should not be proposing it.

5.45 pm

I want to make two points. First, the revaluation and transitional measures are good for British business and amount to a fair contribution to local government expenditure. Secondly, they will be good for local business men in north Hertfordshire, particularly over the medium term. Some 170,000 businesses will experience benefits nationally and I hope that a considerable number will be in north Hertfordshire.

Before I develop those points, however, let me refer to what other hon. Members have said. The hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) began by saying that there was anger in the north of England—not just because of the revaluation and the increase in business rates, but because of the link with local councils that had been lost, and the loss of the special way in which they had been able to set business rates.

It would have been better if the hon. Gentleman had listened to my speech. What I said was that there would be anger next year, when the business rate bills begin to drop through the letter boxes of businesses—not just in the north but in London.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for clarifying that. He should have explained, but failed to do so, why there would be anger in the north when the change is being made following a revaluation that reflects property values, when transitional relief is available to help the businesses that are most in need and when the system is generally recognised to be fairer than the previous one.

The hon. Gentleman spoke of the link with local councils. He should recall what the position was like previously. Local authorities were not accountable to businesses for the way in which they spent the money that they had raised; many authorities used non-domestic rates to support increased spending at no political cost to themselves; and there were dramatic year-on-year increases at a couple of weeks' notice.

In the 1970s and 1980s, I campaigned in inner-city areas where business after business would say, "This is ludicrous: look at the rate that we are having to pay, compared with the rate paid in the suburbs." Those businesses would then move out. There was genuine anger, because the system was unjust. No one could say that of the present system, which is based on a proper valuation of premises, regularly updated, and on a poundage that is the same throughout the country.

The hon. Gentleman may recall that the average poundage was 258p. Labour councils in certain inner-city areas, however, had far higher poundages, and businesses in those areas suffered badly. There has been a huge improvement since the introduction of the uniform business rate.

It was a breath of fresh air to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester), whose constituency is the home of the Bramley apple. Unfortunately, he is not in the Chamber now. He, too, experienced those days back in the 1970s and early 1980s, when local authorities were able to make such decisions. He spoke of the large increases that took place under a Labour authority, and the far better position that existed when it was Conservative controlled.

What the hon. Gentleman cannot explain away is the fact that if we do not have a system of regular revaluations and we allow what happened between 1973 and 1988 to continue we shall end up with a hopelessly distorted system, with very low rateable values. It is a cop-out to say that one would not tackle the problem of revaluing year on year.

I shall deal in a moment with what Labour suggests in place of that, but burying one's head in the sand, as happened in 1978—and, I confess, in the early years of the Conservative Government—is no solution. If one says, as the hon. Gentleman does, that the transitional relief should be phased in such a way that people could have the benefit of a revaluation immediately if there were a cut, but that an increase should be phased over a long period, one has to explain where the money would come from.

I can put a figure on what would be required if there were no contribution from those who stand to benefit. Instead of the £500 million that comes from the Exchequer now, the contribution would have to be £1.8 billion.

That is a colossal sum, and we have riot had a clear exposition from the Labour Front-Bench spokesman of that party's pledge. If there is a spending pledge of £1.8 billion it is incumbent on the Labour party to explain where the money would come from.

Can the hon. Gentleman or any of his colleagues tell us why it is fair that the £1.8 billion—or at least, the £1.3 billion that businesses are presumably putting in—should be paid only by businesses that happen to have suffered from high rates last year?

That is obvious when we consider what happened in 1990. Clearly at that stage there had to be a valuation that dealt with property values as they were, but during the recession it was right to have transitional arrangements that took into account the fact that business was in difficulty.

The hon. Gentleman will recall that in the 1992 Budget the package was £1.25 billion, and in 1993 it was £550 million; there will be further help this year. That was all necessary because the fact that businesses were in the middle of a recession and were having difficulties had to be reflected. However, if we compare that with what is happening now, with growth of 4 per cent. and unemployment falling, the picture is transformed. The Government must take account of that fact, as has been outlined.

The hon. Gentleman has not answered my question. I asked why the particular businesses that happen to have suffered high rates last year must suffer this year, too. If the Government want there to be some transitional relief for those with increases, why do they not ask all businesses rather than only those that suffered last year?

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman was not listening to the earlier part of my speech in which I said that a sudden dramatic change in the level of business rates was to be avoided. Business finds that desperately difficult to deal with; that is why the uniform business rate was introduced in the first place.

If there is to be a system that smooths the transition year on year—the Government are committed to that, and it is right—we cannot say that we shall smooth upwards but not downwards. If we did we should have to explain where the £1.8 billion will come from—something that the Liberal party can never do.

The hon. Gentleman has not answered my question.

It all reminds me of a former Labour Minister who last week, from the Back Benches, said, "£1.3 billion? Let's just wait and see if we need it." That is typical of the approach during the 1970s, and it is why this country got into the state—

The hon. Gentleman was not in the House at the time, but he must know that when the Government found themselves in massive difficulties with the relief scheme in 1992 they had no difficulty finding £1.5 billion to bail themselves out following their incompetence over the scheme.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for saying that, because my argument is that the Government explained where the money was coming from—something that Opposition Members cannot do. We have heard an example of exactly that.

When we consider the transitional relief it is important to remember that without the proposed scheme there would be difficulties in smoothing and effecting a proper transition. The hon. Member for Stretford said earlier that the scheme had not been helpful to business. But businesses in my constituency have been helped. About 350,000 larger properties have had help, and the new transitional arrangements will cover 156,000 offices and 320,000 warehouses. It is important to have such a scheme to help business over the period in question.

Now I shall start on my main argument. I had intended to start by dealing with the background, but perhaps I have already done so. In 1990 it was necessary to examine rateable values because they had fallen so low, and there was no real relationship between rateable values and market values. During the 1980s property values had risen in the south, and the year that was used, 1988—this was especially true of April 1988—was when rental levels were at their highest both in my constituency and across the rest of the south of England.

That was not true in the north, where many businesses gained as a result of the revaluation. When we revalue this year there should be a proper reflection of the changes, because since April 1988 commercial property values have fallen sharply. Business men in the south have adapted to the changed conditions, and in my constituency there are 1,000 small nursery companies that are beginning to see growth and are taking on labour; unemployment has fallen by 1,000 there in the past year.

The help that such businesses will receive from the revaluation is much needed. Opposition Members have not mentioned the effects in the south of England, not just in the inner cities but in other areas that are important and should also be considered, especially—as the Minister, who is also a Hertfordshire Member, says—Hertfordshire.

Hertfordshire has suffered defence cuts, which have been difficult for our industries. They have adapted, but now that there is a rising trend it is right that they should see the benefits of changing property values, and I am glad that they will. I have no objection to the fact that the changes are to be phased in, because the transition should be smooth.

In north Hertfordshire, as well as the 1,000 nursery companies other small businesses have had a lot of help. There is business link, the Hertfordshire Development Organisation and the KONVER funds from Europe; there are simplified arrangements and less bureaucracy; finally, there are Investors in People and BS5750. That combination of help from the Government, built on this year by a further package of £1.7 billion in the Budget, is helping those businesses out of recession.

The larger businesses in north Hertfordshire—such as Fermark, a most successful company; Irvin, the manufacturer of parachutes for the British Army; Victaulic, which had the first management buy-out; and Johnson Matthey, which has moved from precious metals into new operations, such as those involving catalytic converters and diesel catalytic converters, and which is at the forefront of technology—have all had to adapt to the high rateable values that resulted from the 1990 revaluation.

As those businesses have adapted to the new conditions so well, I can say that businesses in any area where property values have increased and where it is difficult to cope with that at first—although there are, of course, transitional arrangements—are capable of adapting, and I believe that they should. Opposition Members argue for a system that is unjust between the north and the south, and that seems wrong to me. If the Labour party has pretensions to be a party of the south of England it will have to do better than that. Businesses in Hertfordshire would expect to have a level playing field. I do not think that the hon. Member for Stretford can say that anything less than that is acceptable. So the businesses which have been expanding and exporting, when unemployment is falling and they are benefiting from the help that the Government have given them, will welcome the orders.

As I understand it, the Labour party is suggesting that we should scrap the uniform business rate and allow local councils to set their own poundages. If we did that, we would return to the situation that I witnessed in the inner cities in the 1970s and 1980s and which Labour Members, in their heart of hearts, know was wrong for business. It was all too easy to increase the business rate and then go to the local voters and pretend that that was in the interests of them and their employment, when it was completely against their interests to see their businesses forced out of the inner city and to see those jobs go. We do not want to return to that system. If we scrap the uniform business rate and return to the unlevel playing field and the scandalous way in which those matters were dealt with, we will pay a heavy price in our businesses in the inner cities. It will lay them waste as it did before and we should not be prepared to accept that.

The Liberal Democrats talk about site value rating. As I said earlier to the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel), site value rating does not take account of the fact that a small business may occupy a large and valuable site, for example, a garage, and that it would be valued in exactly the same way as a large office block, which has far more money-making potential as a building. Are we to say that small businesses on valuable sites should be forced out of such areas?

My hon. Friend is doing a marvellous demolition job on the hon. Member for Newbury's advocacy of a site value tax. My hon. Friend should remember that the hon. Gentleman's own party has already done such a job. On 22 September, at their party conference, delegates rejected an attempt to revive the Liberal Democrats' proposal for a site value rating system. So I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was even speaking for the Liberal Democrats on this occasion.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend because I noticed particularly that the hon. Gentleman said "some sort" of site value system. That struck me as not being very specific at all. I wondered if it had anything to do with the comments of Mr. Adrian Slade, who, of course, used to be the president of the Liberal party. He recently said about the idea that it was

"not sufficiently equitable…not based on the ability to pay…discriminate against small retailers, especially in prosperous areas".

Is that really what the Liberal Democrats want to stand for?

Is my hon. Friend also aware that the system, according to the Institute of Revenues Rating and Valuation, has explicitly rejected site value rating? It also said that the system was completely unworkable.

I am not surprised. I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing out that something which seemed obvious to myself and to other hon. Friends has been asserted and proved beyond doubt by such a worthy body. It is the expert. It has given its judgment; the former president of the Liberal party has given his. Really, the Liberals will have to go back to the drawing board.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Earlier this afternoon, in a public expenditure statement on Wales—

It took an hour.

My point will become apparent. In that statement, the Secretary of State for Wales declared that he was presenting a budget for Wales. You know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that when the Chancellor presents his Budget statement to the House, he also provides for right hon. and hon. Members a full list of accompanying documentation, including press releases issued to accompany the Budget statement. I have been to the Vote Office to try to get all that documentation, including the 14 press releases issued by the Welsh Office, but have been told that, although the Vote Office tried to secure them, the Welsh Office said that they would be put in the Library only and not made available to hon. Members in the Vote Office. I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to use your good offices to ensure that what is custom and practice for the Budget should become custom and practice for the Welsh Office budget, which the Secretary of State read out to us this afternoon.

It is not for the Chair to decide what should become custom and practice between one Department of State and another. But I am quite sure that the Treasury spokesmen heard the point that the hon. Gentleman made. I am sure that there will be some reaction.

6.4 pm

Ministers and other Conservative Members have presented the arrangements for the business rate as being a solution to a great many perceived problems, many of them imaginary from my experience. If they came to the House and admitted that there were difficulties and problems, which they were struggling to resolve, Labour Members may have a little more sympathy with their predicament. But when they try to explain that there are no difficulties or problems, that the new system is wonderful, that it has replaced a terrible system and that all they should get is congratulations, we have a right as Opposition Members to raise one or two matters and ask them to give some answers.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd), the Labour party Front-Bench spokesman, highlighted a number of problems and said that he felt that when the rates bills drop on the doorsteps of businesses next year, there will be a great deal of anger, confusion and concern about why this system, which is supposed to solve the problems of business, has created so many problems. Businesses will be faced with rate bills that will have risen far higher than the rate of inflation. While the Government pretend that a recovery is going on throughout the country, businesses are still struggling, their margins are still thin, and they are still looking to retain their employees. If they are faced with large rates increases, it will create problems for them.

Revaluations are never popular. Labour Members do not pretend that they are, nor that a change of Government would make them popular. We accept that revaluations have to occur from time to time and that there have to be transitional arrangements to see them through. But we are asking Ministers to recognise that the revaluations this time have led to some very large increases. The Yorkshire and Humberside average rate increase, I am told, for all businesses is 26 per cent. Obviously, when businesses see those figures, they start to be concerned about the impact not only in the first year, but in the second and third years as transitional arrangements wear off. The increase for factories is 23 per cent.; for warehouses, it is 32 per cent. Those are very large increases.

Conservative Members tell us to consider the problems in the south and to look at the difficulties that businesses in the south are facing. They say that it is fair to have a relative readjustment between businesses in the south and in the north. Labour Members accept that because of the Government's economic policies, businesses in the south are struggling and have struggled in the past few years. Since businesses in the south are going through a far worse time than they may have done in the recession of the early 1980s, as compared with businesses in the north, let us not pretend that many businesses in the constituencies of myself and my hon. Friends here today have not also suffered considerably. Such revaluations, therefore, are worrying, alarming and concerning.

We want Ministers to recognise that they have problems with a system which is supposed to clarify and sort out all difficulties and be a new, improved system which everyone should welcome. Increases in rates, which will come out next year, will be well above inflation for many firms and those same companies will be seeing forecasts of rates above inflation for future years. The transitional scheme is complicated by the fact that it is a transitional scheme on top of a transitional scheme. In other words, it is not simple and easy to understand. I readily accept that Ministers have difficulties. They have large increases on the one hand and on the other their transitional scheme is overlapping a previous scheme, causing complications and difficulties. If Ministers would at least accept that the scheme that they set up contains problems and difficulties, it would be worth hearing from them.

I also want to respond to what Conservative Members have said about why the scheme was introduced in the first place, why we will need to retain it and what was so awful about the previous arrangements. Again, that is not my experience. Most of the perceived problems that I recall came in the early 1980s, when there were some very large increases in business rates in some authorities.

At that time, it was not that authorities under Labour control were maliciously against business in their areas and were trying to increase business rates in order to gain money to go on a spending spree. Central Government were reducing grants to those authorities by large amounts. In response, those authorities increased their rate to compensate and to maintain the services which the people in their communities put them into office to preserve. It was very simple.

I was a member of an authority in Sheffield which did precisely that. We had some large rate increases in the early 1980s. The authority went to the electorate and asked, "Do you agree that that was the right thing to do in response to the Government's actions?" The response was decisive. The Conservative party lost seats in Sheffield because of that action. Conservative Members forget that, when we had alternative arrangements and business rates that were set at local level, there was a direct connection with the electoral process because business rates were directly linked to domestic rates. We could not put up one without the other. A local authority which increased business rates at that time had to increase domestic rates, and it had to do so by a slightly higher percentage.

Is not it the case that, in many areas, more than 50 per cent. of voters paid no domestic rates and had no interest in how much money was raised?

I do not think so. It certainly was not true in Sheffield. There certainly was a system of benefits on rates, but that did not mean that more than 50 per cent. of my constituents—I was a local councillor at the time—paid no rates at all and had no incentive in the rate levels in the city. They had a very strong incentive, of course, in the services that were provided. The democratic link, therefore, was absolutely clear. As I was explaining, the increase in domestic rates was higher because of the existence of domestic rate relief, which meant that for any increase in pence in rates there was a higher percentage increase in domestic rates.

Conservative Members think that we had to have the new system in the 1980s because manufacturing industry was shutting down all over the north of the country after Labour authorities had put up rates. That is nonsense. The evidence at the time showed no link between the number of firms closing or the increase in unemployment and what was happening to rates. That information was made available in the Library at that time.

The city council examined the balance sheets and accounts of some major companies in Sheffield. The rates bills of major engineering and steel companies were less than 2 per cent. of their costs, even in the most extreme cases. They were and still are suffering from high energy costs, particularly electricity costs. That was a far greater burden on those industries. It was a far greater problem for them in terms of maintaining their viability and continuing in a major recession in the early 1980s than the impact of the business rates.

We were told that we would have a new system which removed all the problems. I do not think that businesses in Sheffield believe that the convoluted orders are a better, simpler system for them. When rates were set at local level, businesses could go to the town hall to consult. We believe in consultation. In Sheffield, we certainly consulted local businesses long before the Government made it mandatory at national level. It is a two-way matter. Local business has the right to be consulted, but it has the right also to contribute to the community in which it is based. The very existence of industry creates costs for the local community. It is right that there should be a link between them. The business rate should not be set at national level in the way that the orders will force central Government to do.

Some of the difficulties of the early 1980s were forced upon local councils. Central Government produced the national rating system. Local authorities put up rates in response to the actions of central Government. Out of some of the difficulties that arose in my city and in many others, there were initial conflicts between business and local authorities, but, at the same time, they brought about a more harmonious working relationship between authorities and a belief that there were common interests between authorities and local businesses.

Partnership initiatives were developed in many Labour-controlled authorities. Central Government are now trying to claim credit for the development of partnership initiatives, whereas it was the Government's policy to be against them. Local authorities entered partnership initiatives, despite the fact that businesses were paying rates to the local council and sometimes having arguments about it.

Conservative Members constantly challenge Opposition Members to state what Labour policy is or will be. We made our policy absolutely clear before the previous election. I am sure that we will restate it before the next election. We believe that there should be a link between businesses and their community. We believe that businesses should pay a rate to their community. The business rate should not be set nationally by central Government and then distributed on a per capita basis.

A per capita distribution of the business rate is nonsense. It does not relate to anything. It does not relate to the number of businesses in an area, to the needs of an area or to the resources of an area. It simply relates to the number of people who happen to live there. That is not fair or equitable. It certainly has nothing to do with local businesses or how much they contribute to or cost the local community. Labour party policy is right. We should recreate the linkage between local business and its community.

The nonsense is that when everything is centralised, of course there will be complicated formulae. Many businesses—it is interesting that the Confederation of British Industry has made similar comments—would prefer a system whereby rates were set at local level and businesses could consult local authorities and relate what they do to the local community to which they make a contribution through the rates.

At present, there is no direct incentive for local authorities to encourage business in their areas. Many do that, and I commend them for it, but would not it be better if local authorities that are determined to assist business and attract business to their areas had an incentive to do so, and if the rates that were gained from the creation and development of business in their areas actually brought some benefit to local communities in terms of rates paid to local exchequers for local councils to use for the benefit of their local communities? I should have thought that Conservative Members would have preferred such incentives to be created for local authorities, rather than the arbitrary national arrangement in which local authorities are completely removed from the process.

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, because he is making a rather better fist of putting forward Labour policy than did his Front-Bench colleague, the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd), although I do not agree with everything that he says. Surely the hon. Gentleman must address the issue that industry and commerce are not uniformly spread over the country; there are areas in which there is relatively little and areas in which there is much successful and enterprising business. Therefore, there would have to be a redistribution system, which immediately weakens the hon. Gentleman's argument. That is why we ended up in such a position, apart from all the other points on the deterrence of business from locating in certain areas.

I thank the Minister. I recognise that point. The Labour party addressed it in its manifesto for the previous election. Of course there must be a resources element in Government grant. That is accepted; it occurred before rates were nationalised by the Government; it must exist. However, that does not mean that we must have a resources element that completely removes incentives for local authorities to help to develop business in their areas. We can have an incentive element to enable the process to be meaningful.

Another problem which Conservative Members should address, because it is the most significant problem created by setting up the national business rate system, is the small amount that local authorities now raise on their own account and which they are able to determine. Roughly speaking—it varies from authority to authority according to how much authorities receive from national Government in grant as a percentage of their budgets—about half the money comes from central Government, or perhaps slightly less than half in terms of the revenue support grant. About a third of the money comes from the rating system, and a sixth comes from the council tax.

That is very worrying because it creates a difficult gearing problem. Some authorities now collect less than 10 per cent. of the money that they spend. That creates a divorce between the democratic process of people being elected, spending decisions, and the taxation to pay for that spending. I think that the Government should be very worried because it has undermined and undervalued the local democratic process. In elections people vote for services and for taxes which have to be paid in order to finance service provision. If the average local authority decides to increase its expenditure by 1 per cent., it will face a taxation increase of 6 per cent— the figure is even higher for some authorities.

That creates a substantial imbalance, and that gearing problem can be addressed only by giving local authorities more power to raise finance at the local level. To facilitate that, we must abolish the complicated and convoluted nationalised business rate system. If the rate is returned to local authorities, the amount of money collected from business will be tied to that which is collected from the rest of the population, so local authorities cannot simply raise business rates without raising rates for local voters.

Let us kill the myth that it is wrong to return business rates to local authorities because business rate payers do not vote in local elections. At present, business rates are set nationally by central Government and business rate payers do not have an extra vote in national elections. They have the same number of votes at national and local elections as the rest of the electorate, and that is how it should be.

I do not think that the Government should bring forward orders which permit Parliament to determine local matters. If we give local matters back to local government we will have a much better system.

6.20 pm

The hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) seems to have learnt nothing from recent experience. In 1975, Anthony Crosland said, "The party is over." He meant that the consensus between central and local government had broken down and something had to be done about it. It is beyond belief that we are being asked to return revenue-raising powers to irresponsible local authorities.

Businesses do not like paying taxes. The Government levy three substantial taxes on businesses: social security contributions on their employment costs, corporation tax on their profits and business rates on their properties. We should be very wary of any proposals which will lead to an increase in taxation for businesses.

Businesses create jobs and the money to spend on Government services. Businesses do not have votes and they are not able to influence local authorities. There may have been consultation between local authorities and businesses in the past, but in the end local authorities could simply ignore what businesses said. Corporation tax and social security contributions are levied at national rates— no one suggests that those rates should vary from one area to another. I think that the reforms introduced in 1990 were entirely correct, and I fully support the uniform business rate.

The hon. Gentleman suggested that the Government do not recognise the difficulties in that sector. The transitional arrangements are a recognition of the problems associated with the introduction of the new system. If there had been no problems, we could have moved straight to the new system.

However, we were not able to do that because revaluations had not taken place for 17 years. As a result of that fundamental difficulty, there were large revaluations in the south and substantial devaluations in the north of England. We should have regular revaluations, but I do not think that Opposition Members can run away from the consequence of that, which is that some businesses will pay more while others will pay less.

For example, in the west midlands, manufacturers face a 40 per cent. increase in the rateable value of their properties. There is only one reason for that: rents in the area have increased by the same amount. Rents on manufacturing properties have increased in the past five years because demand for manufacturing capacity in the west midlands has risen also. That is good news for the west midlands.

Manufacturing in the west midlands is booming. British exports increased by 14 per cent. last year, and businesses are facing substantial revaluations. Many businesses will have paid rent increases of 40 per cent. over the past five years. They have coped with those increases by driving down other costs, increasing productivity and becoming more competitive. That is good news.

When we discussed these matters five or seven years ago, people talked about the north-south divide— there was then a substantial divide— but no one talks about that divide today. We have seen substantial change in the past five years. The last recession hit the south far harder than the 1981–82 recession and, as a consequence, property values in the south have fallen. It is inevitable that rateable values will fall also and that businesses will benefit as a result.

Opposition Members refuse to face up to what that means. They do not want businesses to have to pay any more rates; they do not accept any increases. Yet they tell us that those businesses which will benefit should receive the whole of the benefit in 1995. That is simply not realistic— it would cost a great deal of money.

The largest Budget item designed to help business is the £525 million which the Treasury is making available for transitional arrangements. How much would the proposals advanced by the Opposition parties cost? I am sure that it would be many hundreds of millions of pounds more. It would also mean living with a permanent distortion in the system.

In the past few years, it has been difficult to arrive at a genuinely national system with national rateable values and national rate poundage. That is what we are now moving towards, and we can achieve it only if there is some yearly movement in real terms both for those who will have to pay more and for those who will benefit. The Government's approach is an entirely sensible one.

Did my hon. Friend notice that the speeches of Labour and Liberal Members were indistinguishable on one important aspect? They supported phasing when business rates were increasing, but, as my hon. Friend has said, they were not in favour of phasing when business rates were falling. They failed to recognise that that would leave a shortfall for the Government to pick up, and they certainly failed to say where the money would come from.

My hon. Friend is entirely correct: the Opposition parties always fail to say where the money will come from.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I wish to reply to my hon. Friend. I believe that a party which aspires to Government should answer some of those questions. It is totally irresponsible not to face them. Perhaps the hon. Member for Newbury will answer the question.

I wish to reply to the previous intervention. It is not true to say that I was at one with the Labour spokesman in not knowing where the money would come from. I made a quite different point. I said that if transitional relief is to be provided to those businesses whose rates will increase, it is unfair that all the money should come only from businesses which have had high rate increases in the past. It should come from all businesses— not just from those which have paid high rates in the past.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that obfuscation. I am not sure that I fully understood what he said; perhaps the Minister can clarify Liberal policy.

I can tell my hon. Friend precisely what the hon. Member for Newbury means. He argues that the people who will gain under the present system should become losers and that those who are losers should become even bigger losers, in order to ensure that the money comes from the business sector as a whole. Presumably the hon. Gentleman accepts the capping of those who are most adversely affected, as that can be the only consequence of what he is arguing.

I am sure that my hon. Friend is entirely right. The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) said that some businesses which had benefited from transitional arrangements had been playing downhill for the past five years. I think that he was talking about businesses whose rates bills have increased year in, year out.

One of the difficulties is the 17-year gap between 1973 and 1990. I understand the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) that there is a close relationship between rent levels and rate levels in a particular area, and that substantial increases or reductions in rates will have a knock-on effect on rent levels in that area. The Government are trying to reach equilibrium between the two matters. They will achieve that, although it will take place over a period of time.

I am sure that the approach which the Government are adopting is the right one. It is taking time, as it is bound to, but we cannot have a situation in which there is no movement. There must be, and there will be, some movement. We are seeing not just a simple reversal of the north-south divide, because even in the south and in London we will find—as my hon. Friends have said—that some properties will have an increase in their rateable value, while the majority will have a reduction. That is an inevitable consequence of a revaluation, and one which we must face.

We cannot simply kick all the problems under the carpet. We must face up to them in a realistic way and enable businesses to plan by letting them know exactly what their future increases will be. I very much support the orders, which I think provide a sensible balance.

6.31 pm

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) who injected a refreshing note of realism and wisdom into the debate. I am pleased to take part in a debate on what may be considered by some to be a dry measure. In fact, the issue of business rates is vital and touches real businesses, large and small, which are the life-blood of the UK. My hon. Friend said that businesses generate jobs, an idea which the Opposition fail to understand.

I wondered whether there were any businesses in which property did not play an important part. For most businesses, the places in which they do their business are an important part of their overheads. My mind wandered to a company based near my constituency called the Ugborough hot air ballooning company, whose main activity takes place off the ground. Then, it occurred to me that the balloons must take off and land somewhere, so the business rate is critical even for that company.

The crux of the orders today is that we are revaluing business properties in 1995 with a sensible transitional relief package, which means that those businesses which can afford to pay more of the burden of the business rate will share that burden. It is a tax that is closely linked to the ability to pay, and it is greatly to be welcomed.

After the introduction of the uniform business rate in 1990, there was great relief in Plymouth because the local left-wing council was no longer able to set local business rates. If it were able to do so, the council would certainly be driving many local businesses into the ground with its desire to spend and spend, irrespective of the damage caused to those who must pay the bills.

Business people in Plymouth had a narrow escape following the introduction of the UBR, which was greatly to be welcomed. The prospect of local authorities setting business rates will strike terror into the hearts of many business people. Opposition Members do not seem to understand the connection between businesses and jobs. They say that they want jobs to be created, yet they continue to clobber businesses without making the link between the two.

I want to talk about the impact the orders will have in the west country. In a number of sectors, the review which will take place in 1995 will have a significant result for local businesses. A number of local industries, such as agriculture, tourism and defence, have declined for the past five years, for a myriad different reasons. The properties from which businesses in those industries are operated should be revalued to reflect their current value and the return which businesses can make from them.

I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to reflect upon a number of cases in Devon and Cornwall where businesses are suffering particularly badly. The first sector to which I draw my hon. Friend's attention is residential nursing homes. I hope that the sector will greatly benefit from the revaluation which will take place in 1995. My hon. Friend may know that residential nursing homes in Devon are suffering particularly from the implementation of the care in the community proposals by the Liberal-run Devon county council. The council is failing miserably to comply with its requirement to ensure that 85 per cent. of its allocations are made in the private sector, and prefers instead to place people in local authority homes. In many cases, those local authority homes are far more expensive for the ratepayers of Devon.

There is a case in my constituency where the local authority home costs £400 per week, per person, and yet better care can be bought by the local authority in the private sector for less than £200 a week. The local authority home is more expensive for the local authority, and the policy is causing havoc and misery among residential home owners in my constituency. I hope that the issues will be taken into account when the revaluation of the business rate takes place in 1995.

I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister can go better than that, and that he will intervene to try to stop the Liberal-run Devon county council so flagrantly flouting the Government's rules. In fact, I call for an inquiry on that important aspect. Many owners of residential nursing homes have contacted me, and I speak for them when I say that it is important that the value of their homes is reflected in the revaluation of the business rates, as a result of the iniquitous policy carried out by the Liberals on Devon county council. It is a scandal that must be stopped.

Secondly, like all retailers, retailers in the centre of Plymouth have suffered from the recession in the past few years. Retailers in Plymouth have suffered more than most, because the Labour-led Plymouth city council is conducting a parking charges policy in the centre of Plymouth which one can only describe as punitive. The charges are driving people out of town, and causing businesses in the city centre to suffer. I hope that that factor will be taken into account when the properties are revalued in 1995.

It would be greatly welcomed if the revaluation could throw a lifeline to retailers in Plymouth and reflect the reduction in the value of their property as a result of the punitive and outrageous policies being pursued by the Labour-controlled Plymouth city council. I welcome the measure as, in one sense, it gives the Government the ability to redress some of the scandalous political practices in my part of the country.

Some sectors are doing extremely well, and it is right and proper that that should be reflected in the amount of business rate which they pay. Out-of-town shopping in Devon and Cornwall is doing exceedingly well, and many of the sheds in which those activities take place are increasing in value and are now much sought after. That is the sort of property which can now afford to pay more in business rates. That is a reflection of how the new policy is placing the burden of business rates where it can be afforded.

As many of my hon. Friends have said, manufacturing industry is doing well. Plymouth has many outstanding manufacturing industries and companies, which are doing exceedingly well, particularly in exports. I visit those firms regularly and I have learnt from them that their order books have never been fuller and that they have never done as well as they have in the past 12 months. They are particularly delighted that they export a range of products to many countries throughout Europe and the Pacific rim. That is incredibly encouraging news. It is quite right that that business success, created by the Government's economic policies, should be reflected in the value of those companies' properties and factories and in their business rates.

Does the hon. Gentleman not understand that the revaluation is based on the value of a property as at 1 April 1993, so what is currently happening has no effect?

I am delighted to report to the hon. Gentleman that companies in Plymouth have been experiencing success since the beginning of 1993. Those companies have enjoyed sustained growth for two years. That is jolly good news for them. It is a pity that Opposition Members continue to rejoice in bad news; they just do not like good news.

I am delighted that the revaluation date will reflect the growth that has been experienced by companies in Plymouth during the past two years. It is encouraging to note that, as a result of that growth, jobs have been created and unemployment in my constituency is falling month after month. I welcome the fact that the revaluation exercise will reflect those improved circumstances.

The transitional arrangements, which are a triumph for common sense and wisdom, are also welcome. I congratulate the Minister on introducing them. It was extremely interesting to note, once again, that when Opposition Members pretended to be representing the party that wants to govern Britain, they could not explain how they would fund their spending pledges. They want to do away with phasing as it applies to those businesses where the rate is set to go down. That would undoubtedly create a shortfall which the Government would have to pick up. Can they explain where that money would come from? They cannot. Once again, we were offered pie-in-the-sky politics. The Opposition offer us spending pledges, but they have no understanding of how those pledges would be funded. That is typical of the politics that we have now come to expect from the Opposition.

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the problems with not addressing where the money would come from is that one is led into the trap into which the Labour party was led the last time it was in Government? That Government constantly buried their head in the sand and borrowed more money because they were not prepared to take the tough decisions needed in the interests of the country.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right: all Labour Governments have borrowed themselves out of existence. Let us hope that the days of the late 1970s, when a Chancellor had to go cap in hand to the IMF for yet another loan, are for ever behind us. My hon. Friend is right to say that the answer lies in taking tough decisions.

I welcome the transitional arrangements, which are fair. It is important for all businesses to be able to plan and to know what the maximum increase in their rates bill will be in the next few years. Most financial directors will welcome that useful aid to planning.

I also welcome the fact that, under the orders, greater fairness is being shown to the south-west. We have often heard about firms in other parts of the country which have struggled greatly, but we in the south-west have taken our fair share of hits. We have borne our brunt of difficult times. I am pleased that relief will be offered to businesses in the south-west. That Government help will be welcomed by those businesses.

The revaluatino orders are a triumph for fairness and common sense. I welcome the fact that they will place the burden of the business rate on those who can best afford it. That will be offer a boost to the south-west, because it will give us the opportunity to make good some of the unfairnesses that have resulted from the implementation of policies pursued by the Liberals at county hall and by the Labour party at the city council in Plymouth. For those reasons, I welcome the orders.

6.44 pm

I want to make two points about the orders and how they affect my constituency, but first I should like to refer to the remarks of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts).

As the House knows, the hon. Gentleman was leader of Sheffield city council. I, too, was a member of that council and for many years I worked in industry and business in the area. Today, he simply rewrote history. He said—I made a note of it—that business rates were merely perceived to be a problem in the city. They were a real problem for those who worked in companies—a real problem with which they to deal daily and weekly in their overheads. Because of the city council's involvement in setting the business rate for the community, businesses moved out of the city and went elsewhere, taking employment with them. People who lived in the city moved out to Derbyshire if they could. It was only the introduction of capping that resolved the domestic problem and the introduction of the uniform business rate that resolved the industrial one.

When parts of the city were being decimated, an enterprise zone was offered to Sheffield, but the hon. Member for Attercliffe and his colleagues on the council would not accept it. The very thing that would have helped industry in the city was rejected. It was only when the urban development corporation took an interest in the city—the hon. Gentleman opposed that too—that confidence in the business community began to be restored. That development, and the knowledge that the business rate was outside local political control, meant businesses started to come back to the city. A similar success story could be told elsewhere.

The hon. Member for Attercliffe advanced another argument that staggered me—I do not know how he had the nerve to make it. He blamed central Government grant reductions for the city's financial problems. Those problems were caused by the hon. Gentleman and his party, who bid for the world student games. They budgeted to spend £30 million on capital facilities and planned to make a profit from the games. They actually spent £150 million and lost money on the games. That has left the city strapped with a debt, which is being paid by every resident and paid, indirectly, by every business. That is the truth. That is why I say that the hon. Gentleman told a tale to the House—I know, because I was there.

I should like to see indirect local government involvement in industry in the community. I should like local government to make an area attractive by offering good road networks, reclaiming derelict industrial land, processing planning applications quickly and being known as a responsible spender that offers services at a reasonable price. That is the most attractive thing that local government can offer to industries and, therefore, to the local economy. Those who heard on the radio the explanation of the policy followed by Conservative-controlled Clitheroe council will know that the policy has resulted in that area having the lowest unemployment rate in the country.

Further changes to the uniform business rate are now proposed. The midlands, which I represent, benefited from the 1990 revaluation. I accept the points made so eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) and touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Streeter) that one of the difficulties for many areas was caused by the considerable period of time between that 1990 revaluation and the previous one. Other areas, such as my own, however, benefited from the revaluation and that had a beneficial effect on companies, businesses and manufacturing and engineering industries—the very industries on which the midlands depends. In common with my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton, my constituency has also enjoyed a continuous reduction in the unemployment rate, month after month—in the past 12 months the unemployment figure has dropped by 1,400. One of those companies' concerns is that the next revaluation will not benefit them. Clearly, just as companies in the area benefited from the last revaluation, so they could easily find that, under the revaluation for next year, they will start to see increases. That is why I welcome the transitional arrangements.

Inevitably, all transitional arrangements are complicated, but they exist precisely to buffer the differences and problems that can result when rates are increased by a huge amount. I am surprised at the concerns that have been expressed about such arrangements because they will benefit companies in areas such as mine. Not one company has complained about transitional arrangements. They are what people need, not what they do not like.

The order before us is complicated. Often, the results of such arrangements do not come home to the business community until the day when their bills land on the desk. I hope that, rather than just leave it as it stands today with a general announcement, we can talk to those involved with the business community in chambers of commerce and trade throughout the country so that they realise in advance what their rates bill will be and companies do not discover what they will be 24 hours after the bill has been sent out.

Two specific business rate problems in my constituency concern the local authority. Action taken by the local authority has badly affected small businesses and traders and resulted in a large consequential loss of business. The first concerns the building of a relief road which isolated a popular pub and cut off a popular trading street called Market street. The public house was isolated not just for a day or a week but for three months, during which time people could hardly cross the road to reach it, let alone park in its car park or anywhere near it. To help matters, somebody dug a hole and cut off its gas and electricity and broke the drains. One can imagine the pub's consequential loss of trade, which ran to several thousand pounds and was more than the landlord could manage to cover.

Although the pub received a temporary business rate reduction as a consequence of those works, it nowhere near covered the loss of business. The chip shop, sewing shop, small bicycle shop and other small shops in Market street had the same problem. The cafe was particularly affected. They all applied for and received a business rate reduction because the street had been cut off from general traffic, but it simply did not cover the amount that they had lost through lack of trade. The small shops lost trade not just during those three months but for good because the entrance to the street was closed off. I hope that we can better recognise within our business rate system the consequential loss of business to companies because of local authority activity that is out of their control.

The second problem is similar and may be partially shared by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton. Again, it arose in Ilkeston, where the first problem arose. This time, the local authority decided to pedestrianise the main shopping street, which is one of the steepest shopping streets in the country, so people must walk up it. The local authority has pedestrianised about half the street and work is still in progress. It is taking a long time and is extremely disruptive. In addition to the disruption, people are finding it difficult to reach the street. Having blocked off the bottom half, cars can get nowhere near it.

The local authority then decided to charge for car parking, which has resulted in a dramatic loss of business to many shops in the street. Even the bank told me that its custom was down by 20 per cent., and the last place to which one stops going is the money shop, because that is where one gets money out, not where one pays it in. Such disruption can have a dramatic effect on the turnover and business viability of many small businesses. Again, although those companies and small traders received a business rate reduction, it was massively insufficient to cover the loss in trade.

Three solutions are possible. The first is intervention by the Department of Transport in some of those local road projects. Secondly, a mandatory right of compensation could be built into the contract for such works. I know that those two matters are outside the remit of my hon. Friend the Minister, but the third solution would be to look at business rate reductions to help companies that find themselves in the position that I have described.

6.55 pm

With the leave of the House, may I say that this has been an interesting debate? Although I thought that such a complex issue would not provoke such detailed and thoughtful speeches, hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree that we have heard some very interesting contributions, often from hon. Members with a great knowledge of local authorities or industry and commerce in their area.

First, I redeem the promise that I made to my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith). Like the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts), I believe that where there are questions, there should be answers, even if they are imperfect. My hon. Friend asked how many businesses currently in transition will benefit from relief next year. Currently, 362,000 rate payers benefit, 294,000 of whom are small businesses and 68,000 large ones. I am afraid that statistics are not held centrally which would enable us to say how many of those will benefit next year, but as those rate payers are some way from their full 1990 bills it is likely that the majority of them will benefit next year.

Many detailed points have been made, but I shall address some of the points of principle first. The fundamental point is whether we should have business rates at all. Although the Labour party seems to be broadly in accord with the Government on that matter, a difference of opinion was expressed by a Liberal Democrat Member. The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) argued for site value taxation. I hope that I was able to clear up that point by reminding him, as he evidently had not had an opportunity to study his party policy, that that policy was defeated at the Liberal Democrat party conference, no doubt for the reasons that were ably put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald) as well as by the professional bodies that he quoted.

The second issue of principle is whether, if we ate to have business rates, there should be revaluations. Although revaluations are periodic and therefore, in a sense, a snapshot, they are also a kaleidoscopic picture. Even within sectors such as shops, or geographical areas like London or the south-west, circumstances change. The desirability of a corner shop may decrease and the desirability of an out-of-town shopping centre may increase, or at some stage the opposite may occur. It is therefore necessary to re-examine from time to time the rents in those areas and therefore the rates, which automatically follow as night follows day. So no one can reasonably argue that revaluations should not take place from time to time.

Labour Members then argued about whether those taxes should be collected entirely and spent by local authorities. The answer is that the proof of the pudding is in the eating. We all know from the past that many Labour authorities simply held business rate payers to ransom using the old system. It is therefore important, if we believe in a one-nation approach, as I certainly do, to ensure that businesses are not held to ransom by their Labour-controlled local authorities. The hon. Member for Attercliffe accepted the case for a redistribution mechanism, even without a localised business rate.

The third question is, should we have a transitional system? I think that everyone has agreed with that, and I do not propose to discuss it further.

That leaves the terms. I want to discuss, in my final remarks, the proposals of the hon. Member for Attercliffe that the cost should fall on all business ratepayers, not on the beneficiaries. The consequence would be that some of those who stand to gain would be made losers and some of those who are losers would be made even greater losers. There is no sense in that. It appears to me, therefore, that the Government have got it right in expecting the biggest gainers to pay part of the cost, with the Exchequer paying more than £500 million as well.

It is because I think that we have got it right that I have pleasure in commending the orders to the House.

It being Seven o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Order [9 December].Question put and agreed to.Resolved,

That the draft Non-Domestic Rating (Chargeable Amounts) Regulations 1994, which were laid before this House on 12th December, be approved.—[Mr. Robert B. Jones.]

Resolved,

That the draft Water Undertakers (Rateable Values) Order 1994, a copy of which was laid before this House on 5th December, be approved.—[Mr. Robert B. Jones.]

Resolved,

That the draft Railways (Rateable Values) Order 1994, a copy of which was laid before this House on 5th December, be approved.— [Mr. Robert B. Jones.]

Resolved,

That the draft British Waterways Board and Telecommunications Industry (Rateable Values) Order 1994, a copy of which was laid before this House on 5th December, be approved.—[Mr. Robert B. Jones.]

Resolved,

That the draft Electricity Supply Industry (Rateable Values) Order 1994, a copy of which was laid before this House on 12th December, be approved.—[Mr. Robert B. Jones.]

Resolved,

That the draft Docks and Harbours (Rateable Values) (Amendment) Order 1994, a copy of which was laid before this House on 5th December, be approved.—[Mr. Robert B. Jones.]

Resolved,

That the draft British Gas plc (Rateable Values) Order 1994, a copy of which was laid before this House on 5th December, be approved.—[Mr. Robert B. Jones.]

Fisheries

[Relevant documents: European Community Documents Nos. 10648/94 relating to guide prices for fishery products 1995, 7831/94 relating to passive gear, 8612/94 relating to the crisis in the fishing industry, 8187/94 relating to European aquaculture research, 9837/94 relating to the common organisation of the market in fishery products and aquaculture, 10082/94 and an unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum, dated 17th November 1994 relating to two amendments to the 1994 Total Allowable Catches and quotas, 9215/94 relating to the financing of health inspections, 9466/94 and 9467/94 relating to European Community and Greenland fisheries, 10991/94 relating to an amendment to the Technical Conservation Regulation, and the second Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum 9285/93 relating to fishing licences.]

7 pm

I beg to move,

That this House takes note of the unnumbered Explanatory Memoranda submitted by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 8th December 1994, relating to the renewal of fishing arrangements for vessels from European Community countries other than Spain and Portugal in Spanish and Portuguese waters, and for Portuguese vessels in the waters of those other countries and relating to European Community quotas for 1995 in the waters of Guyana; on 12th December 1994 relating to proposals for reciprocal access and 1995 quotas in the Baltic (with Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Poland and Russia) and with the Faroe Islands; proposals allocating European Community quotas for 1995 in the waters of Iceland and Greenland, and a proposal fixing catch possibilities in 1995 for North West Atlantic Fisheries Organisation waters; and on 13th December 1994 relating to total allowable catches for 1995 and proposals fixing 1995 opportunities and reciprocal arrangements relating to Norway; and supports the Government's intention to negotiate the best possible fishing opportunities, and to protect the interests of British fishermen in these negotiations and in those providing for the integration of Spain and Portugal in the Common Fisheries Policy.

Madam Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.

I make a plea from the Chair that there are exactly three hours and there is specific interest in the debate that follows, so I hope that we shall have short speeches from the Back Benches and not too long a speech from the Front Benches.

This is indeed an important debate on matters connected with fisheries and the common fisheries policy. However, before turning to the substance of the debate, I am sure that the House will share with me our sorrow at the tragic loss of Skipper McLeman's life at sea. Sadly, his was the most recent of those events which bring home all too clearly to us an indication of the hazards that face our fishermen as they go about their lawful vocation.

I hope that the House will indulge me for a moment on a happier note if I take the opportunity of sending my best wishes and congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) on the announcement of his engagement. That was a joyous piece of news. He is destined, after the cold comfort of the debate, for warmer climes and I think that the whole House will wish him well.

This is a singularly important time for the British fishing industry. We shall be debating, among other things, the quantities of fish that we shall be able to catch next year, and the new arrangements for the full integration of Spain and Portugal into the common fisheries policy.

Among the many comments that I hear, it is sometimes said that the Government are in some way not fully committed to the future of the fishing industry. I shall rebut that line unequivocally.

There should be no doubt of the extent of the Government's commitment to the industry. We have had the challenge of bringing a better balance between, on the one hand, catching capacity of the fleet and, on the other, the quantity of fish available. To that end, we have a successful decommissioning scheme in its second of three years. We have already spent about £17 million and a further £8.3 million is available for 1995–96. In addition, we are investing nearly £3 million in grants for harbour developments to the benefit of the industry this year, and another £2 million is being spent on vessel safety grants.

It is often said that the question of enforcement and ensuring that people play by the rules is central to any policy such as the common fisheries policy. To that end, we are spending £17 million a year on air and sea surveillance to watch the activities of boats from all the members of the Community which fish in our waters. Our aim is to protect the long-term interests of the fish and our fishermen, and to ensure that the rules are observed and enforced.

While the Minister is on the subject of enforcement, I wonder whether he may be in a position to give us a progress report on the negotiations with the Spanish Government about compensation due to Cornish boats for the acts of piracy that took place during the so-called tuna war in the summer?

May I say, in responding to the hon. Gentleman, that I shall be happy to give way, but I hope that the House will understand that that necessarily will mean that the time for other hon. Members will be affected.

To answer the right hon. Gentleman's question directly, I have personally spoken to the Spanish Minister Atienza about that, making a plea to him to discuss that matter with his industry, because obviously there may be a joint endeavour to settle matters. That point was reinforced by my right hon. Friend the Minister when he recently visited Spain, and I have subsequently had a personal discussion with the Spanish ambassador on that subject. Matters remain under consideration by the Spanish industry. They are aware of the strength of feeling on that specific matter, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that I will continue to pursue that as diplomatically as I can.

Will not many of the aspects of policing and monitoring be deferred back to member states, and will we not be seeking Europe-wide monitoring and policing? The documentation that I have received says that member states will have responsibility, and Spain certainly has not been one of the countries in the European Union that has received praise for its monitoring of the position.

I am sure that later I shall mention Spain and Portugal, which are central to our considerations this evening, in relation to the question of enforcement. However, the hon. Lady will be aware that technical developments are currently being appraised. Satellite monitoring of vessels may, in the longer term, have great relevance to Europe-wide enforcement. Nevertheless, it is generally accepted that the role of the coastal state is crucial in enforcement matters, and those are matters to which we attach much importance in terms of the money that we are spending.

Also in the long-term interests of the industry, we are spending £20 million a year on scientific research and assessment of our stocks, so that we can pursue policies designed to sustain the future of our industry. At the European level, we also benefit from a range of schemes, and soon many fishing communities will gain from the PESCA initiative. With a fund of about £28 million for the United Kingdom as a whole, that is designed to strengthen the onshore economy in respect of changes in the numbers of people employed in sea fishing.

In all that, the industry has also had its part to play. I place on record my appreciation of the industry's constructive contribution to the negotiations about Spain and Portugal. Its input has genuinely been much appreciated. That is a subject to which I shall return later.

I welcome the establishment of an industry task force on the difficult problem of fish marketing, which is to be led by the Sea Fish Industry Authority. That important initiative points the way forward to a means of helping the industry to increase its income. I look forward to the task force's report in the new year.

It is customary to hold fisheries debates at this time of the year, slightly before the December Council meeting of European Union Fishing Ministers. At that meeting, important decisions are generally taken on the total allowable catches, or TACs. Those deal with the situation for the forthcoming year and on the national quotas that are derived from them.

However, tonight's debate is on a wide motion, which will enable us to discuss all the common fisheries policy issues relevant to next week's Council. I recognise that many hon. Members will want to question me, and I shall be happy to give way in the terms that I have indicated.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because he seemed about to leave the TACs to move on to other issues. Will he consider the position in the North sea coast of the Farne deeps and Fladdens nephrops fishery? If that is not separated off, many Northumbrian fishermen will not have the degree of access that they should have to a traditional fishery.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that point and I understand its importance. He will be aware that, as a result of a representation that we received from north-east fishermen, we were able to intercede with the Commission to keep that nephrops fishery open—to argue effectively the case that the precautionary TAC had perhaps been set slightly too tightly—so that fishermen were able to complete their fishing. I shall certainly bear that point in mind. However, there are problems with the North sea stocks which I shall address in just a moment.

It is always the case that, unfortunately, the annual cycle of scientific assessment of stocks and the Commission's analysis of what is proposed by way of TACs and quotas gives us little time for scrutiny before the December Council.

This year, however, we face an unprecedented situation. All the TAC and quota documentation in preparation for the December Council was understandably prepared by the Commission on the assumption that Norway would be joining the European Community. Following the referendum on 27 and 28 November, all the documents had to be adjusted and that delayed the provision of definitive texts. I regret the inconvenience which that must inevitably have caused the House.

Agreement has now been reached with the Norwegians for those stocks in the North sea which are jointly managed with them. For the first three months of 1995 we shall work on the basis of the 1994 quotas.

Decisions on those stocks for the whole of 1995 will be negotiated with Norway by the end of March 1995. The available quotas for the rest of the year will then be determined taking account of the TACs decided and the provisional allocations made for the first quarter. A regulation providing a legal base for all that is one of the documents that will be before the Council.

The December Council will also be asked to settle in the usual way those TACs and quotas which are not jointly managed. I draw the House's attention to the overall trend of scientists' advice on the stocks and to the Commission's proposals for western waters.

Generally speaking, with a few exceptions, the scientists feel that stocks continue to be under considerable pressure. As a result, many of the TACs that the Commission is proposing for western waters are substantially lower than this year's levels. That affects a number of stocks of importance to our industry, including most of the important Irish sea stocks and the western hake.

Last year, the scientists said that there would be hardly any cod left in the Irish sea, yet this year there were extremely good catches. How could the scientists have been so out of touch with reality in the waters?

The hon. Gentleman puts his finger on a perennial problem in dealing with fish and science. When two or three fishermen are gathered together, the chances are that they will always say that the scientists are wrong because they are comparing their individual catches with the position last year. The scientists carry out an exacting European-wide monitoring operation to assess the take of fish on particular points on the map and compare it with the data that they received last year.

Fishing science is well informed, but no fishery scientist would argue that it is a precise activity. That is why, when we go to the Council, we listen carefully to all views, including those from the industry. Those matters are and will be fully discussed with the fishermen and I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that we will take their views into account. If he has a specific view from Northern Ireland, I shall be happy to include that in our assessment vis-à-vis our negotiations.

I have a specific view from the west of Scotland. The Clyde Fishermen's Association is particularly worried about the TACs for cod, haddock, whiting, saithe, hake, monkfish and megrim. The total allowable catch for some of those species is only 50 per cent. of what it was five years ago. That is decimating the fleet on the west coast. Many fishermen are decommissioning their boats. Girvan, a traditional fishing port, is now under a great deal of pressure. Will the Minister take account of all that and argue the case powerfully for an increase in the total allowable catch? I agree with the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor)—

Order. The House is most interested in who the hon. Gentleman agrees with, but he has already asked a question.

The hon. Gentleman tempts me to suggest that the solution to all fishing problems for this Minister would be to be able to re-enact the miracle of the loaves and fishes. Unfortunately, I am not endowed with those powers.

We examine all the arguments carefully. I understand the hon. Gentleman's point that when scientists suggest large cuts in particular quotas, in business terms that can be difficult for hard-pressed fishermen. I hope that he will understand that it would be folly not to take into account what the scientists say in reaching a view. It is all very well the hon. Gentleman shaking his head, but if we do not, as I shall point out in a moment, there can be disastrous results if a whole fishery collapses.

It would be folly and unwise if we did not heed what the scientists say. On the other hand, if there is good hard evidence so to do, we challenge the figures that are put forward and I shall obviously take his remarks into account at the Council next week.

Pursuant to the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) and the reply he received, cod catches in Northern Ireland ports have been the best throughout the season of 1994, despite the 1991 prediction by scientists that they would be almost non-existent. Will the Minister take it on board that the quantity, size and all the attributes of the cod show that the scientists were wrong? When will he take cognisance of the practical experience of the fishermen against the theoretical evidence from the scientists?

Fishermen are involved in the discussion assessing the scientists' evidence. It is not done between scientists and fishery Ministers. Real fishermen are involved in assessing the calculations and I have certainly arranged for fishermen to go to our fisheries laboratory at Lowestoft to see exactly how the work is done and how the calculations are made. If the hon. Gentleman would like to go there I should be happy to arrange a day trip for him.

Is the evidence of the fishermen given equal weight with that of the scientists?

All measures are taken fully into account, but we are aware of the real impact that the announcement of any change in TACs and quotas have on fishermen and their livelihoods. I assure the hon. Lady that we consider those matters very carefully when we argue our case.

As I said a moment ago, it would be folly to ignore completely the advice of the scientists. A fishery off the east coast of Canada delivered something like 300,000 tonnes of cod catch a year and, because people ignored good advice on conservation of the stock, it collapsed with the loss of 20,000 jobs. It would be folly not to listen to scientists when taking these matters into account. We shall be negotiating within the hard reality of the state of the stocks to ensure the best available fishing opportunities for fishermen around our shores.

What disturbs the industry so much are the sudden changes imposed on it. The fact that the proposed TAC for western hake is to be cut by 45 per cent. means that it is difficult for fishermen to plan. If we are constantly getting scientific advice, why do we have these sudden changes rather than perhaps a gradual change? Can the scientists not warn that there is likely to be a problem in the future so that small reductions in TACs could be implemented rather than the large cuts now being proposed?

It is fair to say that when we ask scientists—that is why it is right that politicians and others can challenge their findings—they are sometimes hard-pressed to provide a full explanation because what occurs can defy logic. They can only report their findings. They are measuring the position this year compared with what they found last year. Their work is based partly on their own observations at sea and partly on their analysis of the landings of fishermen. They also take into account the requirements and, using all that information, they calculate the right level of fishing effort to maintain a proper spawning stock biomass.

For all those reasons, including an assessment of the recruitment into a particular fishery, there can be some large fluctuations. These are the recommendations of scientists and, as I said to the hon. Lady a moment ago, we take into account other views. For example, I have received individual representations from fishermen about the hake stock. We will take them into account, and no doubt there will be quite a debate on that subject in the Fisheries Council. I understand the point made by the hon. Member for Pembroke.

The other major item on the agenda for the Fisheries Council next week is the integration of Spain and Portugal into the common fisheries policy. I hope that the House will bear with me if I explain how that matter has developed.

Spain joined the Community in 1986 with a big fleet of fishing vessels, but with strict limits imposed on where they could go and how many boats could be on the fisheries at any one time. Those rules put limits on Spain and Portugal which do not apply to other member states. They also provided that the Irish box arrangement would end on 1 January 1996 and that there would be a review of all the arrangements before that. As a result of the review in April this year, the Council agreed the sensible guidelines to be applied when Spain and Portugal are integrated into the common fisheries policy. The timetable for concluding agreement on the arrangements was established in the enlargement negotiations and was reconfirmed by the European Council in Essen last weekend. That means that future arrangements for Spanish and Portuguese integration into the common fisheries policy need to be settled by the end of this year.

Is there any truth in what is being said: that Spain wants access to western waters before it will agree to an enlargement of the European Union? If there is any truth in that, has a counter-arrangement been made so that Spain will be allowed into the western waters only when it has a better attitude towards its border with Gibraltar?

The timetabling arrangements for Spain were initially secured in the context of the EFTAn enlargement negotiations. During those negotiations, Spain secured language in the final text which indicated that the Fisheries Council should come to a conclusion on matters connected with the successor arrangement by the end of this year. I think that the remarks on the subject of Gibraltar are more appropriate for my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, and I shall certainly undertake to draw his attention to my hon. Friend's point.

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Will the Minister give way?

I said that I would give way to the hon. Lady.

I am grateful to the Minister.

I am interested in the Minister's reference to the language of the text of the Spanish treaty. Perhaps we could return to that matter later. Will he, in the context of what was said at Essen, give an indication of what was meant when Mr. Gonzalez said that he had achieved everything that he wanted in the context of Spanish accession? Who said what to whom? What was the status of those exchanges and what exactly does it mean?

I was not there at the time, so I really cannot honestly answer the hon. Lady's question. I do not believe in giving unclear answers to straight questions. I would rather tell her straightforwardly that I did not have the pleasure of being at Essen. I cannot explain why the Spanish Minister went off in such a high propagandist tone when in fact what he got was simply an underpinning of the agreements within the EFTAn arrangements. I know of no deals being made at Essen, for the simple reason that, because there was no proposal to consider that particular matter, a deal could not have been made. I shall come back to the question of the Essen declaration in due course, because it is central to these matters, but I must give way to my hon. Friend.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Will he at least state whether it is a fact that there was an agreement in the 1986 treaty of accession with Spain that Spain would not have full access to Community waters until 2002?

What was very clear in the treaty of accession was that the arrangements for the Irish box would end on 1 January 1992—[Horn. MEMBERS: "1996."] I apologise. The question of whether matters could have been postponed until 2002 was considered and has been debated in the House, in the European scrutiny committee. Opposition Members shake their heads. I am sorry if they were not there. The hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) gave me a detailed quizzing on that point. She and I may still disagree, but the treaty of accession was fully debated, as she will see from columns 158 and 350 of Hansard of 4 December 1985. There was a question of the legal base and the timing. That was resolved by the Community's legal services. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) looks troubled. I am riot surprised. This is perhaps the detail that he ignores in these matters. It was debated and the Community's legal services say that there was a proper basis for the matter to be considered in the terms now before the Council.

What the Minister says in relation to the Irish box is, of course, correct, but I do not believe that what he says in relation to the other waters is correct, and it is not the view of the House as a whole or, indeed, the legal advisers.

I was at the Council and the hon. Gentleman was not. I stand by what I said and what is on the record in Hansard in the House. I have made my views clear.

To follow up the intervention from the hon. Member for Moray, it is no good the Minister saying that he cannot comment on what was said to whom and where at Essen because he was not there. He must have known that, given the strong statement about the Spanish getting everything that they wanted, the matter would be probed in the House. What inquiries has he made of the Prime Minister or the Foreign Secretary? Can he therefore categorically say that what the Spanish said was totally wrong, that there has been and that there will be no change?

With respect to the hon. Gentleman, when I give a straightforward answer that I was not present at any conversations that took place, I am not going to invent one. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, as my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) averred to earlier, was pressed on this matter in the House on Monday and made his position entirely clear. I inquired through the official channels as to what was agreed. What was agreed was the published text in the Essen statement, a copy of which is in the Library. The hon. Gentleman will have read it and understood the text that is in it. I cannot explain why Spanish politicians choose the language that they do. I suspect that the message that the hon. Gentleman has received has been more a media-based report than what actually happened. The fact of the matter is that a straightforward agreement was reached on the terms of the timetable, with some helpful language in it, which I will come on to.

Will the Minister give way?

I have given way generously to the hon. Lady and would like, in deference to the House, to make a little progress.

As I said, as a result of the review, in April this year, the Council agreed the sensible guidelines to be applied when Spain and Portugal are integrated in the common fisheries policy. The timetable for concluding agreement on these matters was established in the enlargement negotiations and was reconfirmed by the Council in Essen last weekend. That means that the future arrangements for Spanish and Portuguese integration into the common fisheries policy need to be settled by the end of the year.

The House will accept that, as a man of honour, the Minister knows of no conversation. Is he confident in his own mind that if an impasse is reached next week at the Fisheries Council the Spanish will not call in some deal that was done with Prime Minister Gonzalez and Chancellor Kohl last Saturday or Sunday?

I am sure that if the Fisheries Council does not come to an agreement next week, I may not be enjoying a turkey at Christmas. The Council might have to resume discussions, because, as I point out to the hon. Gentleman, it meets on 19 and 20 December and there are still a number of days left before the end of the year. He will also be aware, I am sure, that people always make contingency plans. It would not be the first time on which Europe had negotiated right down to the wire. There does seem to be a genuine effort being made to find a way forward on this matter. No deal was done. The words are there in the Essen declaration and they mean what they say. I will say more about that in a moment.

As required by the April guidelines, the Commission made proposals, but these were, in our view, enormously complex, bureaucratic and unenforceable as well as being based on dubious arithmetic and unsound assumptions. We rejected them and so did the rest of the Council. I am glad to say that the United Kingdom led the charge. Since then, no further official proposals have been made, but the presidency has been striving to find a better way forward and to reach agreement, at least on the elements of a compromise on the principles for integration. The essence of the presidency's latest thinking is that member states should draw up their own list of vessels entitled to fish in the various fisheries, work out the amount of fishing effort they need to catch fish there, and, if there is excessive effort, install a means for controlling it.

My hon. Friend makes a great stand on behalf of Britain's fishermen under difficult circumstances. My hon. Friend may not be aware that my wife is called Rachel and that she comes from near Plymouth. He may, therefore, imagine my pleasure recently at seeing a fishing boat called the Lady Rachel from Plymouth—[Interruption.] I am sorry, but I cannot hear what is being said by the Opposition.

Order. Sedentary remarks tend to put off hon. Members and they are not helpful. I hope that the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) has a short question for the Minister.

My hon. Friend may not know that the Lady Rachel is currently tied up in Coruna because, although it is registered in Plymouth, it is a Spanish boat that fishes British quotas. My hon. Friend will know that we have previously opposed the Spanish taking our quota by registering boats in Plymouth. I hope that my hon. Friend will be fighting hard against the Spanish, because they do not have a record of good faith in fisheries policy.

On the latter point, I can well understand my hon. Friend's comments. On the former part of his remarks, he will be aware of the Factortame judgment.

He will know that, sadly, despite our best endeavours, Anglo-Spanish boats have the opportunity to use British quotas to fulfil their fishing opportunities. I understand that that is still a matter of considerable concern in the industry, but it has now been settled.

Finding satisfactory arrangements is a difficult challenge. We have at all stages had extensive consultations with the industry. Even today I met industry leaders to bring them up to date with the latest developments. I have made clear to the industry and to the presidency the United Kingdom's objectives in the negotiations. We want a simple, non-bureaucratic scheme. We want one that allows our fishermen to take their quotas. It must be enforceable at reasonable cost and it must not put new constraints on our fishermen so long as their effort does not increase. We want proper protection for the Irish box. As I have said, there was never any question of its continuance. We need to find new management tools for western waters which will replace what is in the treaty. That is what I am negotiating for.

My hon. Friend has given an admirable list of objectives. Will he go a stage further and assure me and my colleagues from the south-west that another objective is to give special protection to those areas of traditional fishing for our own fishermen? I am referring in particular to the area between Cornwall, Devon, Wales and Ireland. Will he assure me that he will fight for that and that he will vote against any proposal that does not secure it?

I have one or two words to say about the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris). My hon. Friend has raised an important point in the discussions so far. We have battled very hard in respect of the Irish box. It is worth pointing out that in the presidency's efforts so far to satisfy our requirements, it has conceded that the zones in the areas mentioned by my hon. Friend do require special protection. One of the successes is that already area VII a is indicated to be available for traditional fisheries and, therefore, closed to Spain. We seek to build on the base that we have established with area VII a and, as I have said, we wish to expand the area of protection as far as we can in respect of those very important fisheries which have long been the home of those who fish from our west coast ports. I understand my hon. Friend's point and I shall try to secure what he seeks.

My hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives will understand that, as a negotiator, I will not at this stage tell the House or my hon. Friend—I am sorry to put it firmly—what the United Kingdom's position will be on this matter.

Why not?

If I go into the Council wearing a large badge that tells everybody which way I am going to vote, I will have given away my most precious negotiating position. It would be irresponsible and lunatic for me to go into the negotiation telling people my position. If the hon. Member for Moray has ever been a card player, she will know that the last thing she should do, if she is to have any chance of winning, is to show her hand to her opponents. My task is to win the game for Britain's fishermen. I am not in the business of giving our position away by declaring my negotiating hand.

In previous statements about the Government's objectives the Minister has talked about no change in relative stability and no increase in fishing effort. He did not use those phrases in his list just now. Are they still part of the Government's objectives?

In the text that was agreed for the regulation in April, the maintenance of relative stability and the question of no increase in fishing effort were two of the underpinning principles. I did not rehearse the entire content of that regulation so I did not mention it. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman asked about that and I assure him that those fundamental principles of the common fisheries policy underpin the negotiations.

I understand my hon. Friend's point about not revealing his negotiating hand. Can he assure the House, my colleagues from the south-west and, above all, the fishermen of the south-west, that one of his objectives is to keep the Spanish out of not only area VII a but of areas VII f and VII g? Can he assure me that that is one of his objectives and that he will do his damnedest to achieve it?

I told my hon. Friend that we want to build on the concession already won about area VII a. I said that we want to extend the protection as widely as possible because those areas are within the terms of the current Irish box. I shall do my very best to include the areas mentioned by my hon. Friend. I must tell my hon. Friend very quietly that his amendment mentions area VII b. I assume that that was a typographical error. That shows that I have studied his amendment with great care.

Is there not a fundamental contradiction in the Minister's negotiating position? If we accept that by 1 January 1996 the Irish box will disappear either in part or entirely, and that the basic list of some 200 Spanish vessels will come in to all or part of the Irish box, how can we maintain relative stability unless there is a massive reduction in fishing effort from British—that means south-western English, Welsh and Scottish—fishermen?

It is important to distinguish between the effect of relative stability and the question of fishing effort. Relative stability is the basic mechanism of calculating the key points in the allocation of stocks within the common fisheries policy. That is not the subject of these discussions, except that in the terms of the April agreement, the regulation makes it clear that relative stability must be maintained. There is no dispute about that among any of the participants in the discussion.

Fishing effort is a different matter. The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger) talked about a Spanish fleet of 200 vessels. When the basic periodic list system was established, we saw a basic list of 300 Spanish vessels, of which, at any one time, 150 could fish. The Spanish have argued that the size of their fleet has diminished. It remains to be seen, however, what type of basic list or reference list system will be devised under the light-touch type regime that is being considered at the moment and under successive regimes. Clearly, that will be of particular importance in the determination of the amount of fishing effort to be applied in relation to stocks and quotas to be fished.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Will he assure me that, when he goes into the negotiations, he will bear in mind the interests of inshore fishermen? Will he take account of the fact that, if pressure is placed on the deep-sea fishing sector, by a process of osmosis that pressure will also be placed on inshore fisheries? Fishermen off Hastings have trouble from beamers that destroy their nets and whose engine sizes are far too large. We must ensure that our enforcement deals much more efficiently with engine sizes.

My hon. Friend is an assiduous campaigner on behalf of inshore fishermen in her constituency and I pay tribute to that.[Interruption.] Clearly, she has a lot of support in the House for that position.

rose—

The hon. Gentleman has had his share of my total effort. I must deal with the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mrs. Lait). I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman at this stage. My hon. Friend talked about the position of inshore fishermen. The 12-mile limit has been one of the benefits at least of the common fisheries policy. She will be pleased that, during the many long hours that we spent negotiating on the subject of Norway, the position of inshore fishermen was very much acknowledged. Sadly, those discussions did not lead to Norway's entry into the European Community, but I assure my hon. Friend that the position of coastal communities is important—

It is disgraceful.

I agree that it is disgraceful, but the point is that the question of inshore fishermen is taken fully into account. My hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye makes an important point.

rose—

In due deference to hon. Members, I feel that I should make a little progress. I shall give way a little later, so hon. Members will have to stay their handl. I think that they should listen to the rest of my speech, which is very good.

We want a simple, non-bureaucratic scheme that allows our fishermen to take their quotas. I have said that those are some of the key objectives for which I argued at the November Council.

rose—

The hon. Lady will have to restrain herself for a moment.

I have personally lobbied with other Fisheries Ministers to explain the strength of the British case. I shall give way to the hon. Lady for the last time.

I appreciate that the Minister argued against bureaucratic controls—no one will take that away from him. In light of that, however, will he explain why the Council document refers to

"potential fishing effort … a reference list … and assessed effort"?

Has he any clear definition of exactly that what means for our fishermen?

There is a difference between talking about the elements that will have to form part of a new agreement and the way in which it will be worked out. It is clear from the Essen text, which contains the word "non-bureaucratic", that simplicity will be the order of the day. That is the stuff of the negotiation and any document that the hon. Lady may read is very much an interim document. I am not certain where she has obtained the document, but, wherever she obtained it, until the Council meeting, we will not know precisely the nature of the text that we shall discuss. I assure her, however, that we shall continue our fight against over-complex, over-bureaucratic systems that would bear down unfairly on our fishermen. As I said, that has been our negotiating stance all along and the hon. Lady has been kind enough to acknowledge that.

Will the Minister give way?

I must give way to the hon. Member.

As the splendid fishermen of Southend-on-Sea have been sending me faxes all day containing the demands that I should make and how one should vote, will the Minister, to avoid any misunderstanding, make it abundantly clear to them that, although he will try hard and fight valiantly, he or any alternative Government could give no assurance that the decisions will be made by a majority vote of the Council of Ministers? Will he further appreciate that Southend fishermen have been slaughtered since the United Kingdom entered the EC and that many of them greatly sympathise and respect the good people of Norway, who voted to retain their freedom?

The hon. Member knows as well as I—[Interruption] If he could contain himself for a moment, I might be able to give him an answer. He knows as well as I do that the matter will be dealt with by qualified majority voting. I am surprised that he did not advert to the singular success that we achieved in keeping the Spanish out of the North sea, which will be of particular interest to Southend fishermen. I am also disappointed that he does not advert to the fact that one of the things that we achieved in the reform of the licensing and quota management arrangements, which was of particular concern to me, was to protect the interests of small-sized boats in the Southend fleet by underpinning the non-sector. Those are important gains for his constituents and I should be happy to discuss them with him in detail.

rose—

I must make a little progress.

As I have said and as hon. Members are perhaps sensing, the negotiations have been an uphill struggle. Despite our best efforts, the presidency has not been able to adopt our straightforward approach. As a result of our efforts, however, it has begun to focus on the United Kingdom's concerns and to accept that we mean business in pursuing them.

Will the Minister give way on that point?

No, I want to make some progress.

Our position, however, was not helped last weekend when it became clear that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East had been putting it about that some shady deal had been done in the margins of the Essen Council and that our fishermen's interests had been scuppered. I know that because when I was waiting to be interviewed on BBC South West's parliamentary programme, I heard the hon. Gentleman telling the audience all about the matter but clearly indicating that he had no idea what was in the Essen text when he was putting that about. I was able to put him right and to tell him, as I have told the House, that no deal had been done and that the content of the Essen text is helpful to our cause.

As I have also said, the text contained the provision that future arrangements should be "non-bureaucratic". The hon. member for Edinburgh, East may have thought that he was gaining some short-term political advantage by what he was doing, but he well and truly frightened many fishermen into believing that the game was up. That was wrong.

The Minister is totally misrepresenting what I said in that programme. I suggest that he reads the transcript. I made it clear that I did not know what had been agreed at Essen, but I noted, as others had done, that the Spanish Prime Minister met Chancellor Kohl and said that he believed that he was in a position to lift his block on the new entrants because he had got what he wanted. I emphasise that I did not know what was agreed.

I should not want to be unfair to the hon. Gentleman, but I said that he told the audience that he did not have any idea of what was in the Essen text. I assume only that perhaps he and other politicians put it about in the media last weekend that some deal had been done when that was palpably not the case.

The Minister is an honourable man. I suggest that he now accepts that I did not suggest that any shady deal had been done.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for clarifying that and obviously I accept his assurance that that was the case. All I say to him is that some of the questions that I was asked by the media showed that information had reached them that deals had been done. I had to spend my time refuting that view and making clear the contents of the Essen text.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, as a result of many of the Opposition spokesman's comments on this matter, much concern has been expressed in the industry and unnecessarily so? Does he also agree that that has partly come about as a result of the hon. Gentleman's ignorance about these matters? Before the hon. Gentleman makes statements like that in public, he should learn a bit more of his brief.

My hon. Friend makes his own point. I rang fishing sector leaders at the weekend to give them a personal assurance about what had happened in relation to the Essen text to calm the position down.

Will the Minister give way?

I must give way to the hon. Gentleman, or he will blow up.

I am grateful to the Minister. I want to calm the position down as well. My hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger) asked about the criteria for the scheme, which the Minister described. The Minister—who I am not sure is listening—said that one of the criteria was enforceability at reasonable cost. How does he envisage enforcing the scheme when an armada of 150 or 200 Spanish boats—

There are 220 boats.

My hon. Friend corrects me. How does the Minister envisage enforcing the scheme when an armada of 220 boats comes into the Irish sea in the Firth of Clyde? How will he possibly ensure that that Spanish armada abides by the agreements that have been made by him and his colleagues?

We must keep matters in perspective. The fishing industry is valued at about £500 million a year, and we already spend in total about £50 million on the industry. Enforcement is an important part of that expenditure. We must balance expenditure against objectives. We shall examine enforcement in the light of what is ultimately agreed.

Will my hon. Friend give way?

No. I must make some progress.

Amendments have been tabled to the motion—

Before my hon. Friend moves on—

No. I want to make some progress.

I shall be brief.

Very well.

I am grateful. How will it be possible to give the Spanish and Portuguese fish from British waters without reducing the amount of fish that is available for British fishermen in British waters? How will it be possible to satisfy the Spanish and the Portuguese without causing a grave injustice to British fishermen?

The hon. Gentleman might have been right if that was what we were going to do. I said that relative stability would be maintained. Perhaps the hon.

Gentleman is not aware that Spain already has quotas in the western waters and that there is no intention of increasing them. Portugal does not fish there.

Will my hon. Friend give way on the issue of enforcement?

No. I shall make some progress. I may be returning to enforcement.

I fully understand the problem that my hon. Friends the Members for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe) and for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) have raised through their amendment. I explained only a few moments ago our attitude towards the assurances that have been sought for protection in the areas mentioned in their amendment. I hope that I have convinced my hon. Friends of the Government's negotiating endeavours and that they will be able to support us tonight.

My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor)—I am glad that he is still in his place—tabled an amendment which was not selected. I merely say that the amendment is not relevant to the debate as discussions are taking place in the context of the common fisheries policy.

The substance of the Scottish Nationalists' amendment has been dealt with in earlier debates. They know the Government's views. We agree, of course, with the importance of proper policing for whatever measures are adopted.

The amendment of the Liberal Democrats is interesting. I re-read last night the report of the debate on the accession of Spain and Portugal. The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) was one of only two Members to say anything in the debate about fishing. When he reviewed the position of Spain and Portugal in that context, he congratulated the Government on the negotiations and on what had been achieved and said that it was a difficult matter. He said that he recognised that a good job had been well done.

We have explained the biological sensitivity of the Irish box to the Commission and the presidency. We are already using every means to secure the interests of our fleet, and we recognise the importance of enforcement. We have been promoting the point. Liberal Democrats should not feel uncomfortable about supporting the Government's motion this evening.

Before I mention the Opposition's amendment, which has been selected, I shall remind the House of what the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) said in Committee in December 1985 about Spanish and Portuguese accession. He said that the Opposition welcomed the accession of Spain and Portugal and described it as the "right move" for the Community and the applicant states. He said that the Opposition took that view because they recognised the "merits" of the two new democracies joining the rest of Europe and facing "Europe's problems with us." He added that the Opposition did not welcome accession "blindly, ignorantly or oblivious" of the difficulties and anxieties. That implicitly acknowledges that difficult issues would face us all over integrating Spain and Portugal fully into the European Community. We are facing those difficulties now and they cannot be ignored. The difficulties must be resolved.

It is clear from those remarks that the Opposition of the day knew exactly what they were signing up to and exactly what was in the list of forthcoming attractions.

The present Opposition, like the rest of us, must recognise that the solution lies within a European context. Much of the language in their amendment is compatible with the Government's negotiating position. But the text is not helpful in three specific ways.

First, the amendment introduces into our considerations an irrelevant point about days at sea. That is not what we are negotiating about. Secondly, on the reference to the Irish box, will the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East accept that I will do all in my power to find ways of protecting as much of the box as I can? I would say that despite the specific reference in the accession treaty to the box vanishing at the end of 1995, our firm negotiating stance has already won a concession from the presidency that area VII a can remain exclusively open to those who have traditionally fished there. I shall build on that in the negotiations. Thirdly, the amendment calls for access to be restricted to vessels with an historic record in the western waters. That would not be acceptable to our industry if, as would certainly be the case, the rule would also be applied to United Kingdom vessels.

I say quietly to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East, who takes a keen interest in these matters, that his proposal could well rule out the possibility of boats from the east coast prosecuting a fishery, in his terms, on the west coast. There is danger in what he suggests.

In the light of all that I have said and of my desire to ensure that the House sends this Minister in to bat in Brussels with a best chance of achieving a good result for our industry, I ask the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East, in the light of my remarks, whether he really wants to press his amendment.

I have made it clear that our objective is to reach agreement in the Council next week. I do not want to hold things up. We want to see whether it is possible to assist the presidency to meet the deadline and to stay within the terms of the Essen declaration.

Will my hon. Friend give way?

No.

The negotiations are likely to reach a conclusion next week, but it is possible that that may be on the basis of a text that leaves more to be done under the next presidency.

I am glad that my hon. Friend knows where his friends are. May I remind him that currently Spain is receiving about £6.5 million a day from the European Community and that £4.5 million goes from Britain to the Community every day. When he goes to negotiate, will he satisfy himself that cross-border enforcement is as strong as it can be? There is no point in agreeing anything if other countries do not enforce what has been agreed. The concern on Conservative Benches is that we always follow what we say we will do when other countries enact laws and do absolutely nothing to implement them.

My hon. Friend has put his finger on a central issue. I have made it clear to Commissioner Paleokrassas on more than one occasion that I will not tolerate any no-go areas when it comes to the Community investigating the way in which the common fisheries policy is being implemented. It is vital that once the matters before us are decided, enforcement is considered seriously and that we are convinced that the necessary measures will be properly administered. I realise that unless I can convince our fishing industry that there can be proper policing, it will, however hard I negotiate, not have confidence in the final outcome. I give the House the assurance that I shall do all in my power to pursue enforcement and adherence to the rules as vigorously and as completely as I possibly can. These are important issues.

How will the Minister do that?

The hon. Gentleman, who is a member of a party which espouses the cause of Europe, will understand that negotiating in a European context is one of the ways in which we must proceed. It is a question of arguing our case and of making it clear that, on the question of enforcement, we will not accept no for an answer. Obviously, we shall examine our own enforcement in the light of the agreement; I know that it is central to the issue, and I shall pursue the matter with all the strength at my disposal.

I felt that my hon. Friend was rather dismissive of the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) and supported by seven of his hon. Friends. My hon. Friend the Minister said that the amendment was not relevant. How can he say that, given that it was tabled by eight Conservative Members of Parliament and is undoubtedly supported by thousands of British fishermen?

I said it was not relevant for the simple reason that it discusses a solution to the problem outside the terms of the common fisheries policy. We are discussing the problem within the terms of that policy. The amendment uses some amazing language, concluding with the words

"thereafter to negotiate, where appropriate, reciprocal arrangements with other nations in the interests of the British fishing industry."

That is rather sloppy language, which gives no indication of the way in which the trick would be pulled. What, in the circumstances posited by the amendment, would we say to Spain if it said to us, "If you are outside the common fisheries policy, it is open door, boys: in we come"? It is an open-door policy, and I cannot associate myself with such logic. That is why the amendment is not relevant; I believe that we must negotiate within the terms of the common fisheries policy.

Throughout the negotiations I have wanted to stay in the closest touch with fishermen. I have told them frankly how matters have been progressing, and I have taken their wishes into account as fully as possible. The industry has set Ministers a tough negotiating brief because, understandably, it has stuck to its preference for what it considers an ideal solution. It wants the toughest possible restrictions on Spain, no new constraints on itself and continuation of the full protection of the Irish box after its expiry date. I pursued that approach because it was sensible to do so: it enabled me to gain understanding for the United Kingdom's position and it has been valuable to me to be able to point to the unity of the industry.

The time has now come for us to negotiate—as we will next week—on a new document that the presidency will table. I have made it clear to the industry, and I repeat now, that on an issue such as this, which is subject to qualified majority voting, to fail to negotiate is to be sidelined and to lose all influence over what is ultimately decided. We will not put ourselves in that position; it would not be in the industry's interest, the fishermen's interest or the national interest. We will do all that we can to assist the Fisheries Council to reach a conclusion, but above all we will do everything possible for the interests of our fishermen from all parts of the United Kingdom. We will negotiate, to the best of our ability, a successful conclusion to these vital matters.

8.2 pm

I beg to move amendment (a), to leave out from "Norway" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:

`supports the industry in its opposition to government policy on days at sea restrictions; calls on the Government to ensure that the UK fishing industry does not lose fishing opportunities in order to accommodate Spanish and Portuguese vessels; urges tint there should be no increase in Spanish and Portuguese fishing effort in UK waters and that access should be confined to vessels with a historic trade record in UK waters; recognises the importance of the Irish Box to protect threatened stocks and believes that it must be replaced with comparable measures which take into account the historic rights of established fishing communities and their traditional fishing patterns; recognises the pressure on fish stocks in UK waters and the need for a sustainable policy based on effective conservation measures; and calls on the Government to do all in its power to secure the effective enforcement by all member states of Common Fisheries Policy conservation measures.'.

As the Minister has reminded us, this is the main fisheries debate of the year; indeed, it is often the only one. It precedes the December meeting of the Fisheries Council, at which a number of important decisions are made on, in particular, total allowable catches and quotas. As the Minister pointed out, on this occasion a major decision will be made about the arrangements for Spanish and Portuguese integration into the common fisheries policy.

I wrote to the Leader of the House some time ago to point out that half a day is an unacceptable amount of time to allow for the main fisheries debate of the year, given the industry's importance to so many communities. Certain communities are particularly dependent on it. Some people will think of Hull and Aberdeen for historical reasons. Those towns are still very involved in fishing, and especially in fish processing; but we should also consider fishing communities in small towns such as Brixham, Falmouth and Newlyn on the south coast, Milford Haven in Wales, Ardglass and Kilkeel in Northern Ireland and Mallaig and Ullapool in Scotland. I could name many more communities that depend on the industry. It is vital to those communities that we make the right decisions—that we do not allow our stocks to be exhausted and long-term fishing opportunities to be diminished for them, and for future generations.

Another reason why it is important for us to have a proper debate is that no industry is more regulated than the fishing industry. Inherent in the industry is the fact that the Government determine the opportunities, and have a major impact on the industry. It is even more regulated than agriculture. There is good reason for that: technological advance has been such that our stocks could be diminished or even exhausted. Government—I use the word to apply to European institutions as well as to our domestic Government—have a responsibility to implement and enforce conservation measures to protect stocks, and a responsibility for the long-term future of the communities which I mentioned and the country as a whole.

Let me refer to some developments in conservation that have taken place over the past few years before I deal with the major issue of Spanish access. The European Union has agreed that all member states should comply with multi-annual guidance programmes. We are expected to reduce our fishing effort by 19 per cent. by the end of 1996, compared with the 1992 level. One way in which to approach that target—the most efficient way, some would argue—is to establish a substantial decommissioning scheme.

I do not want to make a meal of this, because we have been over it time and again. Towards the end of the 1980s, however, we engaged in debate after debate: hon. Members on both sides of the House who represented fishing communities urged the Government to introduce a major decommissioning scheme as other countries in the European Community—as it was then—were doing, thus securing money from the Community for decommissioning.

Many hon. Members will recall the repeated refusals of the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), now Secretary of State for the Environment. He simply would not accept the case for a decommissioning scheme. We have such a scheme now, but it is too small. That is certainly the industry's view. I appeal to the Government to think again about the possibility of an enlarged and bolder scheme, which will be necessary if we are to achieve the multi-annual guidance programme target. It is important that we achieve that target. As the Minister will understand, if we do not do so by the end of 1996 we may find that we are ineligible for European Union financial support for a range of fishing measures.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I shall do so sparingly. I am keen to let others speak.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He mentioned a larger decommissioning scheme. How much more money does he think would be appropriate to make it effective, and what effect does he think it would have on the fishing communities that he mentioned?

The answer to that is in the Hansard report of last year's debate. If the hon. Gentleman takes the trouble to read it, he will get a very precise answer.

I take the hon. Gentleman's point: decommissioning is not a panacea. It has a part to play, however. We can keep the rest of the industry viable only if we take out a certain amount of capacity, so that what is left operates profitably. Decommissioning is not the only way in which we can achieve our target, but the industry is united about the case for a better decommissioning scheme. It has also been united over the years in opposing the Government's proposed compulsory tie-up scheme—the proposed days-at-sea restrictions. That is why the amendment refers to it. The reference relates not to Spanish access, but to an important issue that is still hanging over the industry.

I do not think that, in the last 10 or 20 years, any issue has aroused such anger and opposition in our fishing communities as the proposed compulsory tie-up scheme. When the current Secretary of State for Education took over as the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food with the Minister of State, they inherited the policy and they announced that they would reconsider it. Indeed, they postponed the implementation of the days-at-sea restrictions, and it is worth recalling that if that postponement had not taken place and the scheme had not been challenged in court, the days-at-sea restrictions would have been in operation from 1 October this year. There was much hope in the industry that the new team of Ministers would abandon the policy of restrictions and adopt an alternative approach to reducing our fishing effort.

Ministers invited the industry to submit its own proposals, and I believe that the Minister of State congratulated the industry on the lengths to which its representative organisations had gone to produce conservation proposals, sometimes even encountering difficulty with their own members—I am glad to see that the Minister is nodding. However, the Government and the industry are now going to the European Court, still on the issue of compulsory tie-up. There has been no response yet from the Government to the proposals made by the industry, although, if my memory serves me correctly, those had to be in by the end of September 1993.

That is unsatisfactory. There is a vacuum, and the Government should be implementing conservation policies to defend our stocks throughout British waters. I appeal to the Minister and the rest of the Government to think again. How can it be right for us to continue with that hiatus? What sort of spectacle does it present for our industry and our Government to be fighting it out in the European Court of Justice?

Conservation measures work only if they have the support and co-operation of the industry, and the Government's proposals on days-at-sea restrictions did not have that support. Indeed, it is clear that in the form in which they were suggested, they will never have support, so I ask the Government to think again on that important issue.

On some things we agree, and there is no dispute. I accept without question the fact that the Minister has to take scientific advice on levels of total allowable catch, on quotas and conservation, and so on. Surely we cannot go on for another year without an agreement, still awaiting the proceedings of the European Court of Justice. I say to the hon. Gentleman, "Be bold; abandon the whole idea of days-at-sea restrictions and sit down to talk to the industry on the basis of its proposals." Let us go forward with an approach to conservation that the whole House can support.

As the Minister has rightly said, the major issue facing the Government, the House and the Council concerns the arrangements for the incorporation of Spain and Portugal into the common fisheries policy. Let us start by being clear about the importance of what is at stake. Our waters are crucial—the Irish box, the south-western approaches, right up the west coast and beyond the north-west of Scotland. Those are vital fishing grounds for our people and our communities. They must be protected.

The stocks there are already under enormous pressure. That is why Spain made the agreement on the Irish box in relation to the treaty of accession, and it is why there are limits on the Spanish vessels allowed to fish from the so-called restricted list in those waters. The Minister of State knows better than I that one has only to examine the quota figures to realise what pressure there is on the stocks. It is vital that nothing should happen next week to do long-term damage to those stocks. Of course, any system that is agreed will not come into operation until 1 January 1996, but once it is agreed it will be in place for a long time.

That is what we have to defend. I think that we agree about the threat. It is not unfair to say that the Spanish vessels operating in our waters have not demonstrated a willingness to comply effectively and rigorously with conservation measures—and that is putting it mildly. We have seen example after example. There is a lot at stake, and there is an entirely legitimate concern that any increase in the number of Spanish vessels operating in our waters would do enormous damage over a period to our stocks, and eventually would severely curtail the fishing opportunities and the economic well-being of some of the communities in the south and south-west of England, in Wales, in Northern Ireland and right up to Scotland.

What can we do about it?

That is a good question, and I shall come to the point. Where are we? We already have the treaty of accession. I do not want to get into an argument about the position in the year 2002, but it is certainly not in dispute that the Irish box had to be renegotiated, because the arrangements automatically fell at the end of 1995. What is important now is what happened at the end of last year and in the early months of this year.

As the Minister has said, those discussions were linked to the question of Norwegian entry. None the less, important decisions were taken, as a result of which we now have a timetable that demands an agreement on all the arrangements that will govern the access of Spanish vessels to our waters.

As I said to the media at the weekend, I do not know what happened at Essen. However, I know that the Spanish Prime Minister, with the support of his Parliament, wrote to President Kohl saying that Spain would block the access of the three new member states if it did not secure a satisfactory deal on fishing. I believe that the Minister will confirm that that threat has not been lifted. The nearest that Spain has come to lifting it was when its Foreign Minister said yesterday that he was 99 per cent. certain that his country would get a deal that would make it unnecessary to carry out the threat. But the threat is still on the table.

There is an agreement whereby there has to be a settlement by the end of the year, the Spaniards are threatening to block the access of new member states if they do not get an acceptable deal, and provided that the arrangements made are within the terms of the treaty—no doubt they will be—the decision can be made on a majority vote.

Given what the Government agreed in the earlier Councils this year, they seem to have boxed themselves into the necessity to reach a decision next month by majority vote. The only justification for their having done that must be that they can mobilise the support that they need in the Council to secure a satisfactory deal for the British people. It would be utterly unacceptable for the Government to be outvoted in the negotiations. Surely it would be unthinkable if we ended up by accepting a vote against us.

I shall now respond in part to the amendment to which the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Hams) has put his name, although I am sure that he did not mean that amendment to carry such an implication, as it mentions voting. It will not be good enough for the Government to come back to the House and simply say, "We voted against the agreement." Given the way in which the Community works, the basis for what the Government have already agreed can be justified only if they are confident that they can muster the support in the Council at least to block a bad deal and, it is to be hoped, to ensure that there is an arrangement that is satisfactory for our country as a whole.

When we managed to sideline the wholly unacceptable proposal by the Commission in September, we set about mustering support to ensure that the arguments and arrangements moved closer to a United Kingdom agenda than the original position. The fact that no decision was reached on the matter last November was a sign of the success that we achieved. We shall continue to negotiate and to seek all possible support for the simple, non-bureaucratic, straightforward, light-touch regime that our industry will understand.

I accept that. No one is criticising the hon. Gentleman for his efforts to keep close to the industry. Indeed, recent decisions have been made rejecting the Commission's initial compromise—although of course, that is still on the table—and subsequently the German presidency's "mark 1" compromise. No one is faulting the Minister of State for the way in which he handled himself then. I was referring to decisions taken earlier in the year, associated with Norwegian entry, which have meant that we are almost certainly boxed in and have to settle the matter next week.

I shall make my final point now because many hon. Members want to speak in the debate. I believe that the Opposition amendment gets it right. If we accept that our stocks are already under pressure, and that fishing in our waters should not increase, and if we are to protect the interests of our own fishermen, who traditionally fish in those waters, we cannot have an increase in Spanish fishing there. Given the track record of the Spanish on conservation, the only effective way in which to achieve that is to control the number of vessels in those waters tightly. Indeed, logically, to say that there can be no additional fishing is to say that there can be no more Spanish vessels.

Surely the fairest way in which to control the Spanish vessels is to say that those vessels that will continue to be allowed to fish in those waters—obviously, I am not referring to the new arrangements in the Irish box, where we hope that the Minister will negotiate to continue to keep vessels out of that general area—are those that have a historical track record in those waters. That is not incompatible, I would argue, with Spanish integration into the common fisheries policy. Indeed, we have only to look at the latest proposal of a new list of vessels, or the Shetland box, to see that there are plenty of precedents for operating on that basis.

The Labour party has laid down the minimum conditions which have to be met. They have the support of the fishing sector throughout the United Kingdom. There has been much speculation about whether, somehow, the amendment has been drafted to undermine the Government, to embarrass the Government. That is not the issue at all in this debate. The issue is quite clear. It is about protecting a vital national interest. It is about defending our long-term future.

Will the hon. Gentleman explain why the British Labour Members of the European Parliament have had to invoke a conscience clause so that they would not support Spanish accession to the European Parliament?

Frankly, to come up with that in the context of this debate is a bit rich. The position, as I understand it, is that the Scottish National party is against the integration of Portugal and Spain into the common fisheries policy. I have just been explaining that we accept the principle of Spain's accession and we believe that our amendment is quite consistent with that. The hon. Lady should not be complaining because British Labour MEPs and one SNP Member of the European Parliament happen to be voting together on the issue.

Our amendment lays down the minimum required to defend the long-term interests of our fishing communities and I urge all hon. Members to support it.

8.21 pm

I recognise that at next week's Fisheries Council, the Minister faces a very difficult task. He has not only to reconcile the British sector and regional interests with the requirements of the common fisheries policy, but on that occasion, he has to take into account the added difficulties and complications associated with the accession of Spain and Portugal. I have to admit that as a Member of this House who voted for UK membership of the European Community in 1971–72 and who still believes that it is in our national interest to be at the centre of the European decision-making process, I would not use the example of the common fisheries policy as one of Europe's success stories. I say that with genuine regret. Indeed, since it was hastily contrived, just prior to our entry, with the proposal for rights of automatic access to the beaches of member states for all fishing fleets, the common fisheries policy has lacked a strategy and a direction.

For the past 10 years or so, attempts have been made at reform and the defining of objectives. Those have usually resulted in short-term remedies that have failed to address the underlying problems and weaknesses. That means that today we have a common fisheries policy which, frankly, is a shambles because it lacks cohesion and direction. It is difficult to monitor and virtually impossible to implement and police.

Given that unsatisfactory background, one may have been forgiven for thinking that, with the accession of Spain and Portugal, an opportunity had arisen for a basic review and assessment of the fisheries policy. One has to accept, however, that that will not happen. I must say that I have—sadly—come to the conclusion that existing and proposed arrangements cannot go on indefinitely. I do not say that lightly to my hon. Friend the Minister. A crunch will come. I do not know now what specific set of circumstances will trigger it off, but the common fisheries policy as we know it today will not survive.

Meanwhile, next Monday, Fisheries Ministers will continue with the present approach of seeking to accommodate new problems and requirements within the context of the present unsatisfactory framework. Obviously, we all look to the Minister to secure and confirm certain objectives for the UK fishing sector. Those include—they have been mentioned this evening—the safeguarding of fishing opportunities for our fishermen and the conservation of fish stocks backed by enforcement. This time, of course, there is the added complication of Spanish accession.

In that context, my hon. Friends the Members for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) and for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe) and I have tabled an amendment which, in effect, seeks two bottom-line assurances from our hon. Friend the Minister. We call on the United Kingdom Government to reject any attempt by either the German presidency or the European Commission to impose further bureaucratic controls on United Kingdom fishing vessels. That, of course, is a direct reference to the days-at-sea restrictions, on which I, like many other hon. Members from all parties, wish that Ministers would give a definitive response and say that, as far as UK legislation is concerned, that proposal is dropped once and for all.

My hon. Friend will remember the night when the orders for the conservation measures—days-at-sea and tie-up—were brought before the House. We may not have been in this situation tonight, waiting on a European Court ruling, had Labour and Liberal Democrat Members—

What about Conservative Members?

bothered to maintain their discipline on a three-line Whip after 10 o'clock to come along and vote against the measures.

All the sheep are over there.

You cannot have it both ways. The majority that night was far smaller than the number of the hon. Gentleman's colleagues who did not stay behind to vote the measures down.

How did the hon. Gentleman vote?

If the hon. Gentleman on the back row wishes to catch my eye at a later stage, he had better keep a little quieter now.

I know that on the occasion to which my hon. Friend referred, he, our hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives and myself, who all represent Cornish constituencies, voted against what we thought were ill-conceived Government proposals. Nevertheless, we were certainly heartened by the Prime Minister's statement in the House on Monday when, in answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives, he confirmed that the summit had agreed in its conclusion that a non-bureaucratic solution would have to found to meet the fishing requirements.

The second requirement is that, given the importance of fishing to the regional economy of Devon and Cornwall, the United Kingdom must not lose fishing opportunities to accommodate Spanish vessels, especially in areas of the Irish box which are not traditional fishing grounds for Spanish vessels—indeed, to the best of my knowledge, they have never yet ventured there to fish—but which are the traditional fishing grounds of south-west fishermen.

That seems to be a reasonable requirement to ask of my hon. Friend the Minister on behalf of my hon. Friends from Cornwall and myself. We look to the Minister to persuade his Council colleagues of the validity of our arguments, which are shared by a much wider section of the House of Commons. The Council should not ignore regional requirements and the political, economic and social significance of traditional fishing patterns and methods. My hon. Friend the Minister should be very robust in his approach next Monday. If, by chance, his colleagues in the Council of Ministers should not be persuaded by the validity of his arguments, my hon. Friend should stand by not only our fishermen but the regional economies of which fishing is such an important component part.

8.31 pm

It is rather good to see the comparative interest in and high attendance at this debate. It is even better that, at last, we have a three-line Whip for a fishing debate. It is about time we had such a concentration of interest.

The debate is taking place at a time when I have never seen the fishing industry in a worse state. Morale has collapsed. The industry 'feels that the Government have given up on it. Because the Government could not impose their will on the industry and get the days-at-sea limitation that they wanted, they now hope that the fishing industry will die and go away. The Government are using the fishing industry as a trade-off in Europe.

We have no sign of a Government strategy for the support, encouragement, development and improvement of our fishing industry. It desperately needs a testament of Government support and interest. It needs protection from intensifying competition, but it is receiving nothing. There has been no response to the industry's pleas. It is important for the Minister to listen occasionally to the debate. He might notice that we have not even had a proper response to the conservation plans that the industry put to the Government as an alternative to the days-at-sea limitation. There was a meeting four months after the plans were presented, but nothing has happened. The plans have fallen into a pool of silence. All proposals for encouraging fishing seem to fall into such a pool.

I am particularly concerned about the industry in Grimsby. Our fleet is shrinking below the critical mass that is needed to underpin facilities and, in particular, the improvements that are now taking place in landing and market facilities in Grimsby. Millions of pounds are being spent when the fleet is shrinking and is probably getting too small to underpin or support those facilities. The fleet is struggling to continue because catches are down, prices do not provide the necessary income, and there is a threat to the financial stability not only of some vessels but of some firms in Grimsby. That will cause disintegration. A failure in fishing has knock-on effects on suppliers, engineers and the rest of the industry. Everybody in fishing is in debt.

That shrinkage could cause a house-of-cards collapse in fishing. I dread that happening. That is why the Government must make a commitment and provide backing and encouragement for the fishing industry. It is a matter not just of negotiating in Europe, but of keeping a vital, active fishing industry going, and the Government do not seem to be interested. Every other European Government are doing more to support, encourage and back their fishing industries.

Grimsby will be particularly badly hit next year by the reduction in the plaice quota and the 47 per cent. reduction in catches. The scientists got it all wrong. They estimated an increase a couple of years back, but suddenly drastically cut it, taking out the consequences of their own mistake on the fishing industry. The result is that the Grimsby fishing industry, for which plaice is our second catch and which was accustomed to catching between 5,000 and 10,000 tonnes a year, will suddenly be reduced to catches of 2,000 tonnes of plaice a year. That will be the quota.

At the same time, non-sector vessels, the big-beam trawlers—they are big boats—will be upping their record, catching more plaice, and getting a better record in plaice at the expense of traditional fishing boats from Grimsby. That is an unreasonable balance between the two sectors of the industry. Grimsby is suffering because of the reduction in the plaice quota. There is a need to encourage and build not only the Grimsby industry but the national industry. We need a national plan for fishing. We need incentive, vision, encouragement and stimulus to invest in the industry.

I now refer to the wider issue of Spanish accession, about which the Minister talked at length. I must say a word of congratulation and encouragement to him—I mean it sincerely—because he is learning fast and coming out very strongly in defence of the industry. I say that because there was a bad start, which was the days-at-sea limitation, which alienated the British industry, and then the agreement in principle to allow the Spanish full access to the CFP. With such a bad start, it is difficult to recoup lost ground. In all sincerity, I must say that the Minister is working hard at recouping that ground. He started from a difficult position, but he is strenuously defending the claims and the position of the British industry in the Spanish negotiations.

Yet we are in an impossible negotiating position when it comes to Spain, because the terms of Spanish accession in 1986 were that Spain brought no great additional stocks or waters to the Common Market pool, of which we provide the great bulk. Eighty per cent. of stocks in the more valuable species are provided by Britain. Spain brought a huge fishing fleet, which doubled the fishing fleet and pressed on a pool to which it made no great contribution in terms of fish. In other words, if British and other European fishing industries have to be cut, and if our effort and the number of vessels are to be reduced, that is to make way for a Spanish fleet that is far too big.

The importance of the agreement was that there was a 16-year period of adjustment, during which it was clear that the Spanish fleet had to be massively cut. That period has effectively been shortened, as has been pointed out. That is the reason why our fleet is being cut. The overcapacity is not ours—it is theirs, yet the consequences of that overcapacity fall on us. The consequence of that overcapacity carrying on fishing is a threat to our stocks—British stocks—which we contribute to the Common Market pool.

In that situation, it is daft to agree in principle to accelerate the full accession of Spain to the CFP. Perhaps the Minister was not his own master in the negotiations. I accept that he is subject to the decisions of Cabinet and other matters and that the British Government are always interested in gains on other fronts. Fishing is small beer for the British Government; they are not particularly interested in fishing. That has been our tragedy all along. The British Government are never sufficiently interested in fishing to fight on the issue. There is always something more important. In this case, it was more important to bring the three Nordic states and Austria into the Community. To achieve that aim, the Government were prepared to make concessions to Spain. But that has now been totally vitiated. It was also hoped that Spain would receive concessions in Norwegian waters when Norway became a member of the European Union. The basis of our concession has now collapsed because Norway has decided not to join.

The Norwegians were right in voting not to join the European Union. I visited Norway to tell them not to join; it was very sensible advice. I do not claim that Norway decided against joining as a result of my persuasiveness—not entirely because of it—but the Norwegians were worried that what had happened to our fishing industry would happen to theirs if they joined the Union. That was a major argument in Norway when membership of the Union was considered.

Norway is not joining the Union, but Spain still wants its pound of flesh. It has been given, in principle, full access from 1996. I accept that the Minister is making a brave stand, but he will not get anywhere because the principle has been conceded without regard to safeguards and how it would be implemented. That is a bad negotiating position from which to start.

We have 35 documents to refer to in the debate, but they contain nothing about next week's proposal. We have not been told what will be discussed. According to the Library brief, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has a restricted document entitled "First Thoughts Towards Proposals", which we are not allowed to see. The Minister has not even told us about it. There have been three presidency Compromises that we have not seen and know nothing about. How can we discuss next week's proposal sensibly if we are not allowed to see all the documents?

We know that the Spanish Prime Minister has said that he has an agreement. I have no knowledge of the Spanish, but the Spanish Prime Minister would be daft to tell his people that he had an agreement if he did not have one. It makes me wonder who is telling the truth. I fear that we shall see a Government climbdown next week. There will be some agreement that will allow the Spanish fleet to fish for stocks with no total allowable catches and for non-pressure stocks in the North sea.

If a gradual build-up of the Spanish fleet is allowed, which will be policed by the relevant coastal state, it will impose a considerable burden upon our industry. The document talks about "non-bureaucratic administration". If that means that our vessels will not be burdened with a reporting system, I welcome it. But I fear that if Spanish vessels are allowed to fish in our area, we shall see a universal reporting system for everyone.

I fear that the limit of 150 vessels will be raised. It may be a gradual increase, but it will soon reach the eligible number of 220 vessels. There will be a gradual build-up in the number in the Irish box. Everyone is being threatened with a days-at-sea limitation. The point is that the Spanish fleet will be allowed full access to our waters under the common fisheries policy.

Spain has a massive fishing fleet. It has a £80 million programme, probably spanning five years, to rebuild its fleet when it should be shrinking. It will mean that the Spanish will dominate the seas and decimate fishing stocks. Once they are allowed access to our waters, there is no effective way of controlling the over-large fishing fleet of a nation which we know cheats. We know that Spanish vessels have false fish holds. We know that the fleet does not observe the quotas— it catches too much and hopes to get away with it— and that it fishes when it is not entitled to do so. Once the fleet is allowed to fish in the North sea for non-pressure stocks—turbot, dogs, monks and so on—our stock will disappear.

In a sense, the Spanish are the Commission's blue-eyed boys because they have fulfilled their multi-annual guidance programme. It has come down to that: we are well behind and we have not fulfilled our programme. The Spanish have counted all their fleet as gill-netters, for which they do not have to make any reduction— there is a 20 per cent. reduction for trawlers— and have therefore fulfilled their multi-annual guidance programme. The Spanish practices that were common in Fleet street are common in the Spanish fishing fleet.

The number of Spanish boats with access to our waters cannot be policed effectively. If they are not allowed access to the North sea, they will do what so many others are doing and set themselves up as British vessels and catch our fish that way. The Government will accommodate them by removing the Aliens Act amendment of 1919. That is a limitation which requires a vessel's crew to comprise at least some British officers. Spanish boats with entirely Spanish crews will be based in Britain and they will catch British fish.

Drake repelled the Spanish armada, but now a second armada is being allowed to play ducks and drakes with our policing system. I must warn the Minister of the consequences of allowing Spanish vessels to fish in our waters. The National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations and Grimsby fishermen have told me and headlines in Fishing News warn that there will be anarchy.

If British fishermen see Spanish vessels taking catches in our waters effectively unpoliced—because they cannot be policed—our fishermen will not want to obey the rules either. They will not recognise the restrictions, they will not be kept in dock and they will not co-operate with the Government. The Government will be unable to police our vessels, so great will be the anger of British fishermen about the way in which they have been treated. British fishermen will be forced to cheat to survive or go bankrupt. They will be driven to it by Government policy.

That brings me to the issue raised by the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), with which I agree, about the common fisheries policy. It is a farce for hon. Members to pretend that the common fisheries policy is effective. It has failed and it cannot be made to work effectively. There was enthusiastic argument in favour of it on the basis that fish do not carry national flags—[Interruption.]

Order. This is not the first time that I have had to tell the House that I deplore what appear to be conversations across the Chamber while formal debate is taking place.

The policy is unworkable for several reasons. It emerged from a political decision-making process, and there are certain things that one cannot do in such a process. We need to get rid of industrial fishing. It is decimating the fishing stock and the natural feeding cycle of fish. It is producing by-catches on an unknown scale.

However, we cannot get rid of industrial fishing because the Danes will not let us. As long as their resistance continues, there is no possibility of taking steps that are in everyone's best interests—they are certainly in the best interests of our fishing stock.

The British Government never get their way in negotiations. They never really try, because they always have another objective. The Minister responsible for fisheries is always told, "Keep quiet on this one, lad, and we'll get our way on something else." The Foreign Secretary will come along in his reasonable and avuncular fashion, and the Minister will have to climb down on an issue that is basic to fishing but not basic to the Foreign Office or to the Government, who want to give way.

Fishing is always sacrificed on the altar of Europe, and it has been consistently since we joined the Community, particularly since the derogation ended in 1982. The majority of countries in Europe are against us. It is easy for Spain to satisfy its ambitions, its fleet and its fishermen at our expense because the stocks are ours. We contribute the overwhelming majority—I calculate 80 per cent.—of the most valuable species in this so-called Common Market pool.

How easy it is for everybody else to gang up on us. They say that they are sympathetic to poor old Britain, but that their fishermen must be kept fishing. When they are kept fishing, the policy fails again because there is no adequate way of policing catches. It is not in the interests of the other nations to control the landings of fish that have been caught in our waters, or to have an effective and proper reporting system.

For all the other countries care, their fishermen can exhaust and decimate our stocks, and that is what is happening. The fish are not properly controlled or policed at the port of landing, and as long as nation states do not enforce the rules, that will go on. We enforce them properly, and we conserve stocks. They do not, and that will go on. Shall we overrule them? We effectively have no veto. The Minister has said that he will fight next week, but, in the end, he will be overruled because it is in the interests of everyone else to overrule him. The member states will solve their difficulties—a present difficulty is that of the Spanish accession—at our expense. They catch British stocks, and it does not matter to them.

The only thing central to the common fisheries policy is common access; everything else is derogation and temporary regulation. The basic principle is clear—the others get their nets into our stocks. Any restrictions are temporary, and can be swept aside. They may well be swept aside in 2002, because what will the basic principle be then? All the derogations will be up for grabs, and they will continue only if they are kept by all member states.

The principle of common access, it has been argued, should apply in full. Austria and Luxembourg—even if they do not have fishing fleets—can set up fishing companies in this country, take over British fishing vessels and catch our stocks for us. That is the trap we are in. It is a Sisyphean job to roll the stone back to where it was before it was betrayed by the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), who sold the pass to British fishing in our entry negotiations.

The CFP for us will always be a no-win game. Whoever wins, we lose. That is the principle by which the CFP works. It seems to me that the Minister has two choices. He is either intransigent on the CFP and rolls the stone back uphill—I think that that is impossible, but keeping Spain out entirely is a central part of the problem for the industry—or he gives the industry massive support, financial backing, incentives and encouragement, and develops a new plan for fishing and gives it a place in the sun. The Minister cannot abdicate his responsibility to fishing on both those fronts as that would be a double-track, no-win situation for fishing. He must do one or the other. It seems to be difficult, because the trend has always been to abdicate on both fronts.

I warn the Minister that overwhelming support is building up in the fishing industry for the Save Britain's Fish campaign. More and more fishermen are coming round to back that campaign, which wants us out of the CFP. They see the damage that the CFP has done, and they say that we should act for ourselves. The more the Minister betrays the industry, the more he gives way next week and the more he refuses to help the fishing industry, the more support he will build up and generate for that campaign and for the basic argument that I am making. We have been in the CFP too long for any good that it is doing us. It is time to go.

8.55 pm

There is no doubt that the prospect of the Fisheries Council next week, and in particular the argument over Spain and Portugal, is dominating the debate, Anybody who is involved in the fishing industry cannot but deplore the way in which the common fisheries policy has been implemented. For those of us who are Euro-sceptics, the CFP illustrates the bureaucracy, inefficiency and impracticality of so much that is wrong in Brussels. The whole House must be behind the Minister in the difficult task which he faces next week in Brussels. I know that he carries with him the support of the industry, which has been encouraged by the way in which he has championed its cause this year.

I should like to refer to one or two detailed matters, including medicine chests. I was amazed to hear the suggestion that expensive medicine chests should be carried on all fishing vessels. It makes sense that there should be some provision for first aid, but expensive chests with equipment which requires a highly skilled person to operate it are wholly inappropriate, especially on smaller vessels. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to have a word with his colleagues at the Department of Transport.

I wish to refer in particular to three matters relating to the north-east coast; the first being the cost of salmon licences. I and others have warned that, as the number of licences falls, there will be a danger that the National Rivers Authority will seek to recover its costs by increasing the cost of the remaining licences. That is what is happening now, and there is a danger that, as the number of licences falls further, we shall see an even greater increase in costs. I urge my hon. Friend to look into the matter, because it is simply not on that the whole of the costs should fall on an ever-decreasing numbers of licence holders.

The second matter relating to the north-east is the prawn fishing industry. The Minister will remember that, earlier this year, large catches in the Fladden field off Scotland led to the quota being practically exhausted before the north-east coast fisheries started—as they traditionally do—in the autumn. As a result, we faced draconian cuts in the quota and the likelihood that the industry would be banned completely in a short period of time. That would have been disastrous for local fishermen, whose livelihoods depend very much on the prawn fishing at the end of the year.

With the North Shields fishermen, I went to see my hon. Friend the Minister and urged him to take the case to Brussels. We are grateful to him for the way in which he acted so speedily and effectively. He won the argument in Brussels, and there was a significant increase in the quota. My hon. Friend arranged, at my request, for the local fishermen to visit the research establishment at Lowestoft, and he referred to the establishment there in his opening remarks. That was, I believe, the first meeting of its kind, and it was described to me as being constructive and helpful. There may be a lesson there for the future.

It is clearly wrong that there should be the present system of one quota for prawns. We do not want to see the same thing occurring next year. The total quota could again be used up by earlier fishing in the Fladden field and fishermen from North Shields and other north-east ports will find that the quota has been exhausted before their season starts. I urge my hon. Friend to look at that issue in the new year to prevent the same crisis from arising in 1995.

Prawns, by their very nature, do not migrate far, so there can be no real suggestion that catching them in the Fladden field affects the prawn stocks elsewhere. It was just as our fishermen prepared for their catching season that the quota ran out this year. I urge the Minister to take up that issue in the new year. I pay tribute to the leaders of the fishing industry of the north-east coast, who have put their case sensibly. Throughout the year, they practised restraint in the interests of the long-term preservation of that vital prawn stock.

My third concern about North Shields is the future of the quay and the auction market which, under European regulations, were threatened with closure if the facilities were not revitalised. I might add that I am one of those who is sceptical about how far those regulations are enforced in some southern European countries.

North Shields was facing a serious problem, because the fish harbour and the quay which were run by the port of Tyne were losing a great deal of money. The urban development corporation has put some money on the table, however, and as a result of initiatives by the local fishing industry, a development company was formed with Jeremy Pritchard as its chief executive to plan and implement the necessary works. I pay tribute to him and to his team for the success that they have had in facing up to the challenges. Money for improvements has also been provided by the port authority.

I am grateful to the Minister for his encouragement and support of the improvements in North Shields. That came to a head with the recent issue of a grant approval. We are grateful for that because it will mean an assured future for the industry, which would otherwise have faced absolute disaster.

On behalf of North Shields, I thank the Minister for what he has done to help us and I wish him well in the difficult task that he faces next week.

8.59 pm

I hope that the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) will forgive me if I do not discuss the details of the north-east fishery. I should like to pick up on perhaps the one bright thing that the Minister of State said, by congratulating the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland on his engagement. I wish him and his future wife every happiness.

The debate is inevitably dominated by the question of the consequences of Spanish and Portuguese accession. It has been said that it is perhaps the most important negotiation that has taken place since the common fisheries policy was originally negotiated.

Given that I shall make a short speech, I will not mention days at sea and decommissioning, but my views on that, and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends, are well known to the House.

As has already been aired in the debate, part of the reason why the Minister and the Government find themselves in such a complex negotiating position is that, arguably, the pass was sold earlier on when accelerated full access for Spain and Portugal in 1996 rather than 2002 was conceded. It is clear that the arrangements relating to the Irish box were subject to review and were in place initially only until 31 December 1995.

I took careful note when the Minister suggested—I hope he will forgive me if I do not use his precise words—that the Legal Committee's advice was that the European Union could look to full Spanish and Portuguese accession after 1996. It could equally have been said, however, that that need not happen until 2002. I do not believe that there was any compulsion in the terms of the treaty for that to happen. I understand that it was felt that different arrangements should not be offered to member states who joined before 1996, then to Norway, Sweden and Finland and, yet again, to Spain and Portugal. It would appear that the fundamental decision was taken in that committee, but as we approach next week's negotiations, all that is water under the bridge. We should not, however, lose sight of the background to those negotiations.

It would be idle to pretend that the Minister and his colleagues will have an easy time next week. It would also be unfair if the Opposition parties did not acknowledge the efforts that the Minister has made to date. He has already succeeded in rebuffing the first set of overly bureaucratic proposals. He has worked closely with the industry on that issue. I am also aware that he is engaged in a number of bilateral discussions with other member states to try to bring them around to appreciating the British point of view. He deserves our support for that.

There is no need to rehearse all the details of the case that has been put by the British fishing industry, many of which have been aired tonight. I shall pick out some of the key points. All hon. Members are concerned about the future of the Irish box, which, according to the framework regulations, was accepted as a biologically sensitive zone. That being the case, it begs the fundamental question of why in the world we want to allow extra pressure on stocks in that box.

The Minister said that he would try to ensure that any Spanish access did not impinge on those who have traditionally fished those waters. Many would agree with that sentiment, including not just those who fish area VII a but those who fish areas g and f. I think that I have got those right. If Spain is allowed greater access to the box, it will be difficult to turn that sentiment into a reality.

I accept that it would be daft if the Minister revealed his negotiating hand to the House, just before those negotiations, but I would be interested to know whether he thinks that it would be possible to allow Spanish access while safeguarding the interests of those who have traditionally fished in the box. If Spanish vessels are to enter and there is to be no overall increase in effort, the equation appears impossible to resolve. Will the Government assure us that they have some proposals that could help to resolve it?

I am informed that a proposal may be put forward for discussion about a specific number of Spanish vessels in 1996–97, without mentioning the years thereafter. Does that imply a further review of the Irish box after 1997?

My concerns about not merely area VII a but areas VII f and g, and area VI a off the west coast of Scotland, are underlined when we consider the more traditional subject matter of these Christmas debates—the forthcoming total allowable catch regulations—and the fact that some critical decisions remain to be made about next year's TACs in those areas. Those concerns include the dramatic reduction proposed for hake in the channel and western approaches, and a 41 per cent. reduction in the cod quota in the Irish sea. Successive reductions in TACs of cod, haddock, whiting and saithe off the west coast of Scotland amount to some 50 per cent. over five years. The current proposals will result in swingeing reductions in TACs of saithe.

One has only to listen to what cuts are proposed to realise how vulnerable the stocks in those areas already are. That fact forms part of the background to the subject that we are discussing—access for Spanish vessels. Even if Spanish access were not an issue, we would still ask the Government to acknowledge the serious problem of the proposed TACs in all those areas and others, and I should be interested to learn how the Government intend to deal with the specific problem of TACs.

We support the aim—which the industry has made clear and which the Government have acknowledged—that existing fishing opportunities for British vessels should be safeguarded. It would be the ultimate tragedy and, if it were not so sad, almost a farce, if any proposal so constrained British effort that we could not fish our existing quotas. I am sure that Ministers will do their upmost to avoid such an outcome.

We also believe that the negotiations should not be used as a back-door means of agreeing a European days-at-sea restriction, or the like. Above all, we emphasise the industry's deep-seated and genuine anxiety that Spanish access to our waters be contained. We may all be asking for the circle to be squared, and various proposals will doubtless be made on how that might happen.

Reference lists of vessels might be the way forward, but that solution would produce its own problems. If we allow member states to compile reference lists, can we be sure what the Spaniards would put on those lists? Equally, we might feel that it is in our interests to compile our own national reference list. I do not pretend that such a solution would be easy. Our distrust of how the Spaniards might go about drawing up such a list is an important consideration to take into account in all those negotiations. Not just historical record but, as the Labour party's amendment says, entitlement—all British vessels are entitled to fish in those waters—may be a means of legitimately limiting Spanish vessels while not straying down the path of national discrimination.

Another point which Ministers will want to recognise is that next week is not necessarily the end of the road. Some people are concerned that an overall framework is all that will be agreed next week and that the detail will be left for the Commission's management committee to fill in. That sets many alarm bells ringing. The House wants to be satisfied that the Minister will do everything possible to tie down as much as possible of the detail next week, and that he will not allow some loose ends to remain, under which many unacceptable things could crawl in or crawl out—I am not sure which—and eventually appear in a final package.

I have mentioned suspicion and mistrust; those feelings pervade the entire issue. Mistrust was generated by the statement of Prime Minister Gonzalez that he got everything that he wanted. I accept the Minister's word that, as far as he and the British Government are concerned, no deal was done at Essen to which the British Government were party. I am afraid that suspicions have been roused as a result of what Prime Minister Gonzalez said, and I sincerely hope that the British Government will not be taken off balance next week if, out of a hat, some deal is produced which was cobbled together by the presidency and the Spaniards behind our back. Perhaps, instead of urging other Prime Ministers to take guide dogs to their respective Parliaments, our Prime Minister should take sniffer dogs to European Council meetings, to ensure that nothing is being hatched behind his back.

A mistrust of Spanish fishermen is also at the heart of the issue. In one sense, that need not cause any problem, because I doubt that there would be much to worry about, with relative stability agreed as a fundamental principle, if there was effective monitoring and a policing regime that worked. However, we know that that is simply not the case, and that judgment is based on both history and experience.

In The Herald of Monday 12 December 1994, Mr. Murray Ritchie says:

"A long catalogue of misdemeanours by the Spanish skippers has been built up by the Irish over the years. Some of the more obvious Spanish practices were the obvious one of catching too many fish, often the wrong ones, using illegally sized mesh and too large nets, hiding catches in ships with secret freezer compartments, overstaying time limits in the fishing grounds, and sometimes fishing the wrong grounds."

Indeed, a fisherman suggested to me earlier today that the Spaniards could make a TAC last for 100 years.

That is the depth of the mistrust that exists, and that is why we believe, and I think that the whole House believes, that policing measures are essential. We have not heard enough in the debate about the specific monitoring and policing measures that are proposed, but they must be of the highest standard and done multi-laterally if any deal, whether or not it is initially thought to be good, is to command confidence and support throughout the industry.

That is why, of all the objectives sought by the fishing industry, limitations on Spanish effort is possibly the most important goal. The Spaniards cannot argue that they have not done well out of the CFP. It has already been said by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) that they are building an £80 million investment in new boats, some of which includes European Union money. A third of the CFP budget spent on international fishing agreements is spent on that, so Spain takes the lion's share of that budget.

Our anxiety today is not so much about long-distance fleets or big business boats, but is focused on our local fisheries—on boats that represent a family's investment, on fishermen for whom the waters around their shores have been their source of a living for generations, and on communities whose vitality depends on a healthy fishing industry. Those are important considerations for the CFP to take into account. Conservation of stocks in areas such as the Irish box, the western approaches and west of Scotland is vital, because they represent the source of economic health for those communities for years to come.

To date, the Minister has shown that he understands how crucial those decisions will be for the industry. When my right hon. and hon. Friends cast their votes tonight, we shall want to send a message, not so much to the Minister but to his colleagues in the Council, so that they know that they will be dealing with a Minister who has come from, and will ultimately have to answer again to, a Parliament that is not prepared to accept that our country's fishing industry can be tossed aside like the loose change from some big deal.

9.13 pm

Not for the first time, it is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace). He is a fair and just man and puts his case with absolute sincerity. Like everybody else who has spoken tonight, he rightly paid tribute to the efforts of my hon. Friend the Minister of State. May I add my word of praise, particularly in light of what I might say later?

I have always found my hon. Friend to have a completely open door. Only last week, I took Mr. Michael Townsend, the chief executive of the Cornish fish producers organisation, to meet him for a full discussion about these matters and many others. It was the latest in a long line of meetings and I am sure that that is the experience of many hon. Members in the Chamber tonight.

I also praise him for the way in which he has genuinely listened to the views of the industry and tried to meet them. I echo the hope, expressed by many hon. Members, that he will implement some of the proposals from the industry. Like others, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, South-East (Mr. Hicks), I hope that he will abandon the wretched days at sea regime and not go to the lengths of a European Court case. He has transformed the relationship between the Government and the fishing industry in these difficult times, but the crunch is about to come, and I suspect that it will be next week.

My hon. Friends the Members for Cornwall, South-East and for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe) and I have tabled an amendment. First, let me make it quite clear that there is a misprint in it. When it refers to "areas VII a, b and g" it should refer to "areas VII a, f and g". I suspect that the misprint is due to my own rotten writing in submitting this amendment.

My task in speaking to the amendment is made much easier by the splendid speech of my senior colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, South-East who has spoken for the three Conservative Members and, I suspect, for all Members representing Cornwall, as we have an united aim in this matter. I am glad to see the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) nodding in agreement.

Our aim is same as that of hon. Members from other parts of the United Kingdom. We are doing our utmost to keep the Spanish out of the waters which our fishermen fish on a traditional basis and on which the Spanish have no great historic track record. We owe it to our fishermen to take that stand. More particularly, my hon. Friend the Minister owes it to our fishermen also to take that stand.

We are in a difficulty here tonight which, if we were honest, we would all acknowledge. We cannot determine what will happen in that vital Fisheries Council on Monday and Tuesday.

As we speak, we do not know what will be the exact terms of the German presidency compromise that will be laid on the table when the meeting starts on Monday. We all know bits of various drafts of compromises that have been floating around, but we do not know the final document that will spark off the debate in the Council. We certainly do not know how the debate and the negotiations will develop. No one here tonight can say what my hon. Friend the Minister and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will be faced with at the end of those days of negotiations.

My hon. Friends and I understand why our amendment has not been selected. We would have loved to have had it selected so that we could vote on it—if necessary against the Government—to show where we stand. In our amendment we have tried to draw a bottom line and to say how we will judge the outcome of the negotiations. We have served clear and specific notice on my hon. Friend. No doubt he thinks that I pressed him rather hard this evening when the debate started, to try to pin him down in responding to the basic demands that we have encapsulated in the amendment.

I must tell my hon. Friend that I shall have no hesitation in speaking out if he votes for an agreement that does not deliver those demands. I have said to him—he will not mind me saying this—and to my right hon. Friend the Minister on a number of occasions, "Look, if the ultimate deal that comes out of those negotiations seriously damages the British fishing industry, particularly the fishing industry of the south-west, your clear duty is to vote against it." I am sure that that is the message that the House would want to leave with my hon. Friend as he sets out to Brussels.

I know, of course, that because the issue will be decided on the basis of qualified majority voting my hon. Friend will almost certainly be voted down, but I know that I speak for the many fishermen who contacted me, and no doubt my hon. Friends on both sides of the Chamber. They would rather see my hon. Friend voted down honourably, saying that we cannot go along with a deal that does real damage to our fishing industry. I beg of him and warn him not to go along with a compromise that seriously damages our fishing industry. I and my hon. Friends have set him very clear and specific targets, which we want to see him deliver. If he cannot deliver, he should vote against any deal that is done.

I shall now deal with the Opposition amendment. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) said with a straight face, "Well, of course, there are no party politics in this. We have at heart the genuine interests of the fishing industry." Well, looking around the Chamber, one can judge the support or otherwise that the hon. Gentleman has for that proposition. I am not judging this on his attitude, because he has a genuine interest in fishing, and the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) has a deep interest. I pay tribute to both of them.

The hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon), in his remarks on the radio, made no bones about the matter, and said quite clearly that what this is about is voting the Government down, to inflict another defeat on the Government.

To ensnare the Government.

To ensnare the Government, as my hon. Friend says. It was a silly thing for the hon. Member for Ashfield to say, because it made it difficult and virtually impossible for my hon. Friends—who do not quarrel with many of the sentiments contained in it—to vote for the Opposition's amendment. Therefore, the difficult decision that I and my hon. Friends—particularly those who represent constituencies in Cornwall—have is over what to do. Do we abstain on this important matter or do we back my hon. Friend the Minister as he goes into the negotiations? No doubt I could court popularity in my constituency, as could my hon. Friends in their constituencies, by saying, "Yes, we will be big boat boys and will not support the Government tonight." Indeed, we have voted against the Government on many occasions on fishing, as my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne has said before.

I made up my mind during the course of the debate only after hearing my hon. Friend the Minister. I am going to back him, but I do so on the basis of the warning that I have clearly given him verbally tonight, and more importantly the warning that is set out, without fudge, in the amendment that stands in my name and those of my hon. Friends the Members for Falmouth and Camborne and for Cornwall, South-East. That is the basis on which I shall judge his action. I will back him and I hope that others will, too, because despite what the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland said in his concluding remarks, it is important that the House, which has paid proper tribute to my hon. Friend, backs him as he goes into the negotiations. That will be my position on the main issue.

I want to mention my concerns about the other major issues that have been virtually obscured tonight because of our quite proper concentration on the important matter of Spanish accession, and that is the total allowable catches and the quotas that will be before the Council. I echo all that has been said on that tonight. I am horrified at the proposal to reduce the plaice quota in the North sea by 47 per cent. I am grateful for the support of the hon.

Member for North Cornwall on that issue. That reduction would have a potential knock-on effect in the waters of the south-west in that it could inhibit the ability to do the swaps on which we depend to gain access to other species.

I am even more disturbed by the proposed 45 per cent. reduction in western hake. Hake features largely in these debates. Such a reduction, on top of everything else, would be devastating for the industry in the south-west, as would be the proposed reduction of 14 per cent. in the monkfish allocation. I believe that the way forward on hake would be to increase the mesh size. I believe that there is agreement about that on both sides of the House. If we did that, the biomass would increase and improve and the proposed draconian reductions would become unnecessary.

I reiterate the warning that I have given to my hon. Friend the Minister. However, I salute him for all that he has done. We are putting him on trust and he must deliver.

9.26 pm

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the few minutes that will enable me to convey to the House the grave concerns of the Northern Ireland fishing industry. It is ironic that at a time when we want to wish people prosperity in the new year, this debate is bringing despair to the fishing industry. Time will not allow me to develop many of the real points that I want to make, but I want to add my voice to that of those who have already eloquently addressed the problems of the Spanish and Portuguese accession.

It is ironic that we can stand on the beaches of Northern Ireland and watch the fishing boats being burned when we know that in 1996 and 1997 those boats will be replaced not by boats from Northern Ireland but by new boats from Spain and Portugal. That is difficult to take.

We have heard during the debate that there is no easy answer. My Northern Ireland colleagues and I want to assure the Minister that we would strongly support him in not agreeing to the accession terms that are already on the table, particularly in terms of the numbers—23 additional vessels in 1996 and 37 additional vessels in 1997.

The Minister should go back to the opening statement made by the German presidency in respect of the fishing industry. It said quite categorically that there should be

"no increase in fishing effort."

There is a contradiction here. One cannot introduce additional fishing vessels without, at the same time, increasing the fishing endeavour. Either they take more and we get less or they do not come at all. The latter must be enforced.

I do not believe that the self-monitoring system mentioned by the Minister can be imposed on the European states. That is not acceptable. The Minister referred twice in his opening remarks to the light touch that would be involved in the control of the enforcements. I do not understand that. We have all said that that is one of the most fundamental issues facing the fishing industry, not least the fishing industry in both the north and south of Ireland. I am sure that the Minister will find a ready ally in the Republic of Ireland in this matter, at least in the Council of Ministers. It is essential to note that fishing is the sole support of these communities in Northern Ireland. No alternative employment or industrial sector exists.

If the fishing sector collapses, the community collapses—it is as serious as that. It is a matter of life and death. There is nothing else there for us. If the Minister loses in Brussels, those communities are condemned. It is as simple as that. That is the stark choice that the Minister must make. I know that the Minister has made valiant efforts in the past, as has Baroness Denton of Wakefield, who represents the Government in the other place on Northern Ireland matters. I should like to pay tribute both to him and to the noble Lady for their efforts.

On herring fishing, will the Minister renegotiate the closing date—I think that it is 21 September—for a resolution of that famous problem involving the Douglas bank? People in the fishing sector tell us clearly that the patterns of spawning and migration have changed dramatically since 1985. Will he endeavour to do something about that?

Because of the lack of time, I can refer only to cod quotas in area VII a, and only briefly. The fishing sector has demonstrated in 1994 that there is a reasonable supply of good-quality fish. The spawning is right. The number of smaller fish is right. All the 1991 predictions of the scientific voices are out of order and incorrect. The theory has been proved wrong by practice.

Will the Minister listen a wee bit more to the fishermen, who know what is happening in their sector, who see the physical evidence of their own efforts, which are better than the paper efforts of the scientists? Those fishermen take more account than scientists of reality in respect of not only cod but the other catches to which reference has been made.

Time prevents me from making further comments. My right hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) referred to the Hague preference. You can take that as read, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Minister will have the total support of fishing organisations and fishermen in Northern Ireland if he goes in strong with all guns blazing in Brussels—figuratively speaking, of course, because we are now a peaceful society in Northern ireland—and if he does not yield in any single way to terms that will destroy our communities.

9.32 pm

If it were not so serious, we could regard the annual fisheries debate in December as the start of the pantomime season. It has all the good old ingredients of a familiar plot, in this case, written about a sector that is choking under more regulation than the nuclear industry. It has some old favourites such as the tie worn by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) and old certainties such as the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) is always called before me. Some things do change, however. The big names on the Front Benches change from time to time, but hon. Members in the chorus on the Back Benches have the same script.

My hon. Friend the Minister has done a good job since he took up the poisoned chalice. I agree that it is almost impossible to keep such a diverse sector totally happy, to keep Conservative Back Benchers happy, to keep moving with everything that was piled on Minister's plate when he took over and to keep negotiating in what is allegedly a European Union with so-called partners who tolerate our voices around the table so that they can get their hands into our wallets.

I should like to have been able to support the amendment calling for the United Kingdom's removal from the common fisheries policy to regain the sovereignty of our sea. That amendment is tabled in the names of my hon. Friends, who are described by the Government as the "unwhipped Conservative group." My hon. Friend the Minister dismissed the amendment as irrelevant because the common fisheries policy is a sacred cow. None of us would start with that policy, however. We have a messy structure of restrictions, with more tinkerings, changes, bodges and bizarre attachment than anything Heath Robinson could have dreamed of. Instead of saying, "It has failed, let us scrap it," we just add more to it ever more desperately. The pile of papers in many languages from the Vote Office which accompanies the debate demonstrates the absurdity of it. It becomes more like Kafka every day.

Bearing in mind the scale and size of the industry, the diversity of the seas around this country and the historical, cultural and psychological importance of fishing in this still maritime-minded nation, if we could start again we surely would not start with a concept that treats the seas as a common resource open to all, regardless of how much seaboard each member state has.

My right hon. and hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench receive advice from officials that the policy cannot be scrapped. They would advise that, would they not? A Member of the European Parliament once told me that if we did not have the common fisheries policy, we would have to invent it. That person is no longer an MEP.

He is a Tory.

Indeed. There is a lesson for us all, and certainly for some of my hon. Friends.

When we talk of the CFP, we should be sure of what we are talking about. The CFP is not the 1983 agreement, which was an agreement of derogation involving mile limits, historic rights, percentages of total allowable catches and relative stability. The CFP is the basic agreement of 1972, which expires at the end of 2002. On 1 January 2003 everything reverts to the 1972 agreement, in which all Community vessels shall have free access to waters falling under the sovereignty of or within the jurisdiction of member states. Of course, some amendments have been made. The Maastricht treaty has altered the definition of sovereignty and other countries have lined up to join the Community.

There has been much debate about the Spanish and the Portuguese. We know that the Spanish fleet is more than half the size of the European Union's fleet. The former East German fleet has apparently been absorbed. How large is the Polish fleet? That is a consideration if Poland comes into the EU. How big does everything get?

There has been any amount of wringing of hands in the quarters of some Brussels apologists because the Norwegians have "failed" to vote to enter the Union. They have more sense than to do so. The Norwegian fishermen, especially, have more sense.

As there is to be delay in the introduction of the 1995 TACs, we have a golden chance to push for a new start. The proposals to reduce the plaice TAC by 47 per cent. and the sole TAC by 29 per cent. are alarming. We know that the scientists were in error over the quantity of stocks. No one doubts that scientific advice must inform quotas, but how are errors put right? Reference has rightly been made to the Ministry's laboratory at Lowestoft and the excellence of its scientific advice, but how are mistakes put right?

No one doubts the acceptance of a downturn in the plaice quota, but a reduction of the proposed magnitude defies belief. Lowestoft is the largest plaice port in England, but the quota is not always taken up. Restrictions mean that there are not enough boats to catch it. That is when swaps come in, mainly with Holland. There needs to be more flexibility within the system, more recognition of the effect of small boats and large boats and more recognition of the distorting effect of sector and non-sector differentials. There must be more recognition of the range of fishing activity from the north to the south of the North sea.

Similarly, there needs to be more recognition of the possibilities of swapping within United Kingdom areas before going outside them. Let us have more recognition of the point at which restrictions make earning a living impossible. There must be recognition of the unfairness of a policy that prohibits beam trawling in the plaice box off the Dutch coast, and of the difficulties of enforcement. One approach is to close the seas completely for certain periods for every boat, but let us compensate fishermen with a net aside to pay for it.

I am sorry that the reprieve that the court action on days-at-sea restrictions has given us has not been used to test the industry's solutions to the problem. We could have seen over the past 12 months if its ideas reduced effort, contributed to conservation and were workable, enforceable and fair. There seems sometimes to be a terrible desire on the part of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to produce bureaucratic decisions from desks rather than finding practical answers from the deck of a boat or on the market floor.

9.38 pm

The debate is perhaps one of the most important that we have had on fishing since the common fisheries policy was agreed in 1983. The Minister has told us that he does not want to put his cards on the table before negotiations take place. That is fair and understandable because he has to obtain the best deal possible, but it is fair and understandable also that the Minister should make it clear publicly what the bottom line is when it comes to a deal. It should be that we must recognise historical track records. We must recognise also that the Minister was wrong when he said that we cannot link days at sea with the issue that is before us. The Minister well knows that that is one of the issues that has been debated in terms of effort control.

My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) talked about the importance of fishing to his community and to many others. We heard the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. O'Grady) speak of the importance of the issue that we are debating to his community in Northern Ireland. Many fishing communities have no alternative employment. We have heard about the importance of quotas to Northern Ireland fishing communities, which was also mentioned by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace).

Let me say a little about total allowable catches. The debate has rightly been dominated by the accession issue, but there are other important issues that have an impact on the fishing industry, such as the severe cuts in North sea plaice and sole. I hope that the Minister will give careful consideration to those. Hake cuts have also been mentioned. The Spanish fish for hake in the bay of Biscay with mesh sizes of 55 mm, while in our waters we use mesh sizes of between 80 mm and 90 mm and square mesh panels of 80 mm. Many of us are disappointed that square mesh panels have not been introduced in the other European Community fishing nations.

As has been pointed out, if the Spanish and Portuguese gain access to the waters under the agreement, they can switch to non-quota stock species. The south-west has been affected by the current pressure exerted on stocks of sea bass by the French, which is causing great concern. Cornish Members will have seen an excellent letter from the Cornish branch of the National Federation of Sea Anglers, which demonstrated that the issue not only affects commercial fishermen but goes a good deal further.

There is also the issue of area VI, the west coast of Scotland, where advisory TACs have been applied. There is concern about the scale of the cuts in area VI, which other hon. Members have mentioned, and the fact that the TACs have been applied despite the comparative shortage of accurate scientific data. I hope that the Minister will consider the impact that that is having.

There have been some welcome increases in TACs, particularly the North sea nephrops quota, which has increased by 35 per cent. I raised the issue with the Minister in a written question on 24 October; it had been raised with me by Mr. Harold Musgrave of Maryport, a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). Mr. Musgrave, who operates from South Shields, will be particularly pleased that the quota for next year has been increased. I hope that the same will apply to other quotas.

Mr. Musgrave and many other people have mentioned the need to consider a separate quota for Fladden bank. That would help quota management. They have also referred to an issue that I have raised with the Minister before—the need to ban twin prawn trawls. There is a voluntary ban on such trawls for boats operating out of South Shields, which has been very successful. I feel that it should be extended around the coast; it is supported by many fishermen.

There is also the question of conservation practice and conservation gear, which is strongly supported by the industry and has worked effectively in fisheries management, as the Norwegians have shown. When we talk of the replacement of the Irish box and reduction of effort, conservation gear should be given a bit more consideration than the Commission, certainly, has given it. I believe that, through its representatives and associations, the industry has come up with serious, workable and practicable suggestions.

Whatever conservation measures are suggested—and, perhaps, accepted and implemented—they will be worthless unless they are properly enforced, particularly in the light of the possibility of access for Spanish vessels to the Irish box. The conservation track record of the Spanish is appalling, as my hon. Friend knows. If certain trade-offs have to be made about access to the Irish box, should not the Minister take the opportunity next week to argue for a fully effective enforcement system?

That is an excellent point. The issue is, of course, crucial to fishermen in Pembroke, whom my hon. Friend defends both doughtily and regularly. I know that the Minister will want to examine the issue of enforcement, because we know of many examples of how the Spanish, in particular, have ignored proper fishing controls. That is one reason why there is so much concern about the current access negotiations.

I now return to the principles of relative stability and historical track records, which are two key elements that should defend the interests of British fishermen in the negotiations. The Minister has conceded that relative stability will be an important part of the negotiations, but we must recognise that if we increase the number of fishing boats in the Irish sea, there will be a knock-on effect on relative stability. The idea of historical track records has been recognised within the industry and has been used, for example, in agreeing extra fishing opportunities in north Norway. I do not see the problem that the Minister suggests arising from that.

The issue to which we must return, on which my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) touched, is that of decommissioning. After two years, barely 5 per cent. of the capacity of our current United Kingdom fleet has been cut. The failure to meet multi-annual guidance programme targets will cost the industry money in grants towards marketing and also through the £28 million PESCA scheme, which the Minister has already mentioned. A little more than £6 million committed by the Government generates a scheme worth about £25 million over three years. We should contrast that with the position in Denmark, which has committed £125 million over three years. Removing boats is the only sure way to reduce effort—not letting more boats in, which is what we are discussing.

The House of Lords Select Committee recommended a scheme for this country worth about £100 million to make a meaningful impact on decommissioning, and that would need a Government contribution of about £30 million to attract the EC grant. We accept that £30 million is a large sum of money to find, and that it has to be budgeted for—but, coincidentally, £30 million was the sum given as a handout to the private hospital in Clydebank run by Health Care International. That was £30 million down the drain that could have made a significant contribution to an effective decommissioning scheme.

rose—

The Government should also examine the growth of industrial fishing, which has taken more than 50 per cent. by weight of the catch in the North sea—

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

The hon. Gentleman has not been here for the debate, and I am pressed for time.

The Minister will concede that the products of industrial fishing are used for substances such as fertiliser; they are even used in a power station in Denmark. The effect of such fishing on marine ecology is drastic, and the by-catches of the small-mesh nets used cannot be underestimated. The situation is not improved when the Government give grants to places such as a fish-meal factory in Grangemouth run by a Danish company, and when they grant increases in the quotas for fishing capelin.

Clearly, the big issue tonight concerns the Spanish and Portuguese accession agreements. They have worried many hon. Members on both sides of the House. The Opposition amendment recognises the need to protect our industry in every part of the United Kingdom, and the importance of the agreements to our fishing communities, especially those in the south and the south-west.

The hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe) had something to say about the vote on days at sea, but if he really wants to protect his local fishermen, he should support the Falmouth and Cambome Labour party, which has vociferously campaigned for his local fishing community. He should also support our amendment. There is little difference between our amendment and that tabled by the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris), whose integrity I fully recognise. The hon. Gentleman identified in particular areas VII a, f and g which are important to his local community, and our amendment would protect those communities, because we have specifically recognised the need to protect historical and local fishing patterns.

The hon. Gentleman is probably unaware that the president of the Falmouth and Camborne Labour party is the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), from that famous seafaring constituency, who has not been in the Chamber at all this evening to defend their interests.

As the hon. Gentleman has not spent half as much time in the Chamber as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover, the Falmouth and Camborne party has shown that it has made the correct choice.

We are calling on hon. Members to support our amendment because our amendment clearly represents the feelings of hon. Members from all parties. Voting for our amendment tonight would strengthen the Minister's case when he goes to the Council because it would demonstrate clearly the strength of feeling in the House and the need for the Minister to protect the interests of British fishing.

9.49 pm

First, I should like to thank very much those hon. Members who made kind references to my new status; perhaps the reception in Florida will be rather warmer than it is at the moment.

The traditional fishing motion before the December Council always sparks off a robust debate, and tonight has been no exception. I am glad that a number of hon. Members with fishing interests have been able to contribute to it. I agree with the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) about the desirability of a full day's debate, in which all hon. Members with fishing interests could take part, but that is not a matter for me.

My hon. Friend the Minister of State has worked very hard indeed over recent months to achieve our current position and to rebut the first two presidency proposals. He and I will reflect very carefully on what has been said tonight before we go to the Council on Monday and Tuesday.

I do not follow the arguments of the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), who replied for the Opposition. I should have thought that as the fishing industry has been exceptionally helpful over recent months in forming a united front with the Government to try to obtain the very best possible results from the European Union discussion, it would have been very much better if my hon. Friend and I were to go to Brussels next week with a united House behind us and with everyone determined that we should achieve the best possible for the fishing industry, which is the object of the exercise. I feel that, for the House to be divided tonight on the Opposition amendment, or indeed on other amendments that were not selected but which convey the same impression, would be most unfortunate.

The interest in the debate shows the continued importance of the fishing industry, which makes a tremendously valuable contribution to our economic well-being. All of us who are interested in the fishing industry know how much it means to the more remote areas where there is no alternative but fishing.

There are, of course, many concerns about the future of fishing, some of which have been articulated tonight, but it is sometimes easy to get the impression that the industry is hanging over a cliff-edge. Some key issues must certainly be resolved, especially the need to balance the fishing effort of our fleet with the fishing opportunities available to it.

Decommissioning was raised by a number of hon. Members. I believe that our £25 million scheme has been a big success. The first two tranches have taken out a significant percentage of the multi-annual guidance programme and we will remove about 6 per cent. over the whole scheme. It is worth recording that the Opposition have indicated that they are prepared to spend £75 million on a decommissioning scheme without saying where that sum will come from. However, more will need to be done at Community, national and industry level to ensure the sustainability of stock and we cannot look to instant solutions. I see no reason why the long-term future of the industry should not be bright.

The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), who was hopping up and down but now does not seem to realise that I am speaking to him, should have confidence on the issue of area VI and the quotas. We will discuss that issue in detail next week. The 1994 TAC was 13,000 tonnes. That figure is recommended by the Commission for discussion next week, and we shall watch that very closely indeed, as we did in respect of nephrops in other parts of Scotland and the United Kingdom. We were able to obtain additional quota, which was most important, over the past month.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, South-East (Mr. Hicks) pleaded for regional issues and the position of areas VII a, f and g. I assure him that we will watch those matters very closely indeed. If we can achieve all that he wants, I am sure that he will be the first to say thank you.

The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) was wrong on several counts. There is no question of the Spaniards coming into the North sea for any stock unless a British licence is sold to a Spanish boat. It is wrong for the hon. Gentleman to continue to raise that issue, because the Spaniards do not have a track record in that respect. There is no question of my hon. Friend the Minister climbing down. He has been right at the front, leading the charge at each Council meeting in September and November, when we were able to reverse the policies that were on the table.

Again, the hon. Member for Great Grimsby was highly critical of policing matters. I know that the issue of the Spanish boats is difficult, but the hon. Gentleman must also give tremendous credit to our fisheries protection vessels, both at sea and in the air. They have had great success. Courts in Scotland have convicted offenders, imposing large fines on the Spaniards.

My hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) made an important point about directives. We will bring his remarks to the attention of my colleagues in the Department of Transport and discuss further the medical stores and other matters that he raised. My hon. Friend was right to highlight the issue of prawn fishing and how we were able to obtain extra quota, particularly for the Fladden grounds, which will have an important impact on North Shields.

The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) was right to say that we must not give away our negotiating position. We do not intend to do so, however much the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe says that we should give a bottom line. The last thing that we want to give is a bottom line. We will be way above it. There is no use in negotiating from a bottom line. I agree that we do not want to be tied down. We will see what comes out of the negotiations.

My hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) is wise and experienced in this issue. It will be a tough negotiation, but we are going to try to get the very best out of it that we possibly can. My hon. Friend has confidence in our hon. Friend the Minister. We will fight a very hard battle in Brussels next week.

I advise the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) and the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) that we were helped in the negotiations by officials from the Northern Ireland Office and by my noble Friend Lady Denton. We will keep a very close watch on quotas. I have been looking at the proposed cod quotas for area VII a, which is down from 6,200 tonnes to 5,600 tonnes. We will negotiate on that issue next week, and we will do the very best that we possibly can for Northern Irish fishermen.

Opposition Members must realise that the negotiations next week will be critical. The diplomatic stakes are very high. It is no use Opposition Members expecting us to show our hand tonight. We will argue the case for the very best results for our fishermen, who deserve and are receiving the Government's support in terms of the money that we are putting into fishing, including, as I announced yesterday, large grants to three fishing ports in Scotland, which was good news for them. I should like to think that hon. Members on both sides of the House will be behind us when we go to Brussels to achieve the best result for Britain and Britain's fisherman.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 270, Noes 298.

Division No. 24]	[21.59 pm
AYES
Abbott, Ms Diane	Allen, Graham
Adams, Mrs Irene	Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Ainger, Nick	Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)	Armstrong, Hilary

Ashton, Joe	Flynn, Paul
Austin-Walker, John	Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)	Foster, Don (Bath)
Barron, Kevin	Foulkes, George
Barnes, Harry	Fraser, John
Battle, John	Fyfe, Maria
Bayley, Hugh	Galloway, George
Beith, Rt Hon A J	Gapes, Mike
Bell, Stuart	George, Bruce
Benn, Rt Hon Tony	Gerrard, Neil
Bennett, Andrew F	Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Bermingham, Gerald	Godsiff, Roger
Berry, Roger	Golding, Mrs Llin
Betts. Clive	Gordon, Mildred
Blunkett, David	Graham, Thomas
Boateng, Paul	Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Boyes, Roland	Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Bray, Dr Jeremy	Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)	Grocott, Bruce
Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)	Gunnell, John
Burden, Richard	Hain, Peter
Byers, Stephen	Hall, Mike
Caborn, Richard	Hanson, David
Callaghan, Jim	Hardy, Peter
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)	Harman, Ms Harriet
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)	Harvey, Nick
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)	Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Campbell-Savours, D N	Henderson, Doug
Canavan, Dennis	Heppell, John
Cann, Jamie	Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)	Hinchliffe, David
Carttiss, Michael	Hodge, Margaret
Chidgey, David	Hoey, Kate
Chisholm, Malcolm	Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Church, Judith	Home Robertson, John
clapham, Michael	Hood, Jimmy
Clark, Dr David (South Shields)	Hoon, Geoffrey
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)	Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)	Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
clelland, David	Hoyle, Doug
Clwyd, Mrs Ann	Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Coffey, Ann	Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Cohen, Harry	Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Connarty, Michael	Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)	Hutton, John
Cook, Robin (Livingston)	Illsley, Eric
Corbett, Robin	Ingram, Adam
Corbyn, Jeremy	Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Corston, Jean	Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Cousins, Jim	Jamieson, David
Cox, Tom	Janner, Greville
Cummings, John	Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)	Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John	Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Dalyell, Tam	Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)	Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)	Jowell, Tessa
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)	Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)	Keen, Alan
Denham, John	Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)
Dewar, Donald	Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Dixon, Don	Khabra, Piara S
Dobson, Frank	Kilfoyle, Peter
Donohoe, Brian H	Kirkwood, Archy
Dowd, Jim	Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Dunnachie, Jimmy	Lewis, Terry
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth	Liddell, Mrs Helen
Eagle, Ms Angela	Litherland, Robert
Eastham, Ken	Livingstone, Ken
Enright, Derek	Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Etherington, Bill	Llwyd, Elfyn
Evans, John (St Helens N)	McAllion, John
Ewing, Mrs Margaret	McAvoy, Thomas
Fatchett, Derek	McCartney, Ian
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)	Macdonald, Calum
Fisher, Mark	McFall, John

McGrady, Eddie	Rendel, David
McKelvey, William	Robertson, George(Hamilton)
Mackinlay, Andrew	Robinson, Geoffrey(Co'try NW)
McLeish, Henry	Roche, Mrs Barbara
McNamara, Kevin	Rogers, Allan
MacShane, Denis	Ross, Ernie(Dundee W)
McWilliam, John	Rowlands, Ted
Madden, Max	Ruddock, Joan
Maddock, Diana	Salmond, Alex
Mahon, Alice	Sedgemore, Brian
Mandelson, Peter	Sheerman, Barry
Marek, DrJohn	Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Marshall, David (Shettleston)	Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)	Short, Clare
Martin, Michael J (Springburn)	Simpson, Alan
Martlew, Eric	Skinner, Dennis
Maxton, John	Smith, Andrew(Oxford E)
Meacher, Michael	Smith, Chris(lsl'ton S amp; F'sbury)
Meale, Alan	Smith, Llew(Blaenau Gwent)
Michael, Alun	Soley, Clive
Michie, Bill(Sheffield Heeley)	Spearing, Nigel
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)	Spellar, John
Milburn, Alan	Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)
Miller, Andrew	Stevenson, George
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)	Stott, Roger
Moonie, Dr Lewis	Strang, Dr.Gavin
Morgan, Rhodri	Straw, Jack
Morley, Elliot	Sutcliffe, Gerry
Morris, Rt Hon Alfred(Wy'nshawe)	Taylor, Mrs Ann(Dewsbury)
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)	Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)	Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)
Mowlam, Marjorie	Timms, Stephen
Mudie, George	Turner, Dennis
Mullin, Chris	Tyler, Paul
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon	Vaz, Keith
O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)	Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)	Wallace, James
O'Hara, Edward	Walley, Joan
Olner, Bill	Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
O'Neill, Martin	Wareing, Robert N
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley	Watson, Mike
Parry, Robert	Welsh, Andrew
Patchett, Terry	Wicks, Malcolm
Pickthall, Colin	Wigley, Dafydd
Pike, Peter L	Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)
Pope, Greg	Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)	Wilson, Brian
Prentice, Bridget(Lew'm E)	Winnick, David
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)	Wise, Audrey
Prescott, Rt Hon John	Worthington, Tony
Primarolo, Dawn	Wray, Jimmy
Purchase, Ken	Wright, Dr Tony
Quin, Ms Joyce	Young, David (Bolton SE)
Radice, Giles
Randall, Stuart	Tellers for the Ayes:
Raynsford, Nick	Mr.Gordon McMaster and
Reid, Dr John	Mr.Joe Benton.
NOES
Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)	Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan	Bates, Michael
Alexander, Richard	Batiste, Spencer
Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)	Bellingham, Henry
Allason, Rupert (Torbay)	Bendall, Vivian
Amess, David	Beresford, Sir Paul
Arbuthnot, James	Biffen, Rt Hon John
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)	Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)	Booth, Hartley
Ashby, David	Boswell, Tim
Aspinwall, Jack	Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)	Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)	Bowden, SirAndrew
Baker, Rt Hon K (Mole Valley)	Bowis, John
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)	Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Baldry, Tony	Brandreth, Gyles
Banks, Matthew (Southport)	Brazier, Julian

Bright, Sir Graham	Grylls, Sir Michael
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter	Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)	Hague, William
Browning, Mrs. Angela	Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald
Bruce, Ian (Dorset)	Hampson, Dr Keith
Burns, Simon	Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy
Burt, Alistair	Hannann, Sir John
Butcher, John	Hargreaves, Andrew
Butler, Peter	Harris, David
Butterfill, John	Haselhurst, Alan
Carlisle, John (Luton North)	Hawkins, Nick
Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)	Hawksley, Warren
Carrington, Matthew	Hayes, Jerry
Channon, Rt Hon Paul	Heald, Oliver
Churchill, Mr	Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward
Clappison, James	Heathcoat-Amory, David
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)	Hendry, Charles
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)	Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey	Hicks, Robert
Coe, Sebastian	Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence
Colvin, Michael	Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Congdon, David	Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Conway, Derek	Horam, John
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)	Hordem, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John	Howard, RtHonMichael
Corrnack, Patrick	Howarth, Alan(Strat'rd-on-A)
Couchman, James	Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford
Cran, James	Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Currie, Mrs Edwina (SD'by'ire)	Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)	Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Davis, David(Boothferry)	Hunt, Sir John(Ravensbourne)
Day, Stephen	Hunter, Andrew
Deva, Nirj Joseph	Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Devlin, Tim	Jack, Michael
Dicks, Terry	Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen	Jenkin, Bernard
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James	Jessel, Toby
Duncan, Alan	Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Duncan Smith, Iain	Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Dunn, Bob	Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)
Durant, Sir Anthony	Key, Robert
Dykes, Hugh	Kilfedder, Sir James
Eggar, Tim	King, Rt Hon Tom
Elletson, Harold	Kirkhope, Timothy
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter	Knapman, Roger
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)	Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)	Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)	Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Evans, Roger (Mon mouth)	Knox, Sir David
Evennett, David	Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Faber, David	Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Fabricant, Michael	Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Fenner, Dame Peggy	Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)	Legg, Barry
Fishburn, Dudley	Leigh, Edward
Forman, Nigel	Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)	Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Forth, Eric	Lidington, David
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman	Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)	Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)	Lord, Michael
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger	Luff, Peter
French, Douglas	Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Fry, Sir Peter	MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Gale, Roger	MacKay, Andrew
Gallie, Phil	Maclean, David
Gardiner, Sir George	McLoughlin, Patrick
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan	McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Garnier, Edward	Madel, Sir David
Gillan, Cheryl	Maitland, Lady Olga
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair	Major, Rt Hon John
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles	Malone, Gerald
Gorst, Sir John	Mans, Keith
Grant, Sir A (Cambs SW)	Marland, Paul
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)	Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)	Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)	Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Mates, Michael	Soames, Nicholas
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian	Spencer, Sir Derek
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick	Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)
Mellor, Rt Hon David	Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Merchant, Piers	Spink, Dr Robert
Mills, Iain	Spring, Richard
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)	Sproat, Iain
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)	Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Moate, SirRoger	Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Monro, Sir Hector	Steen, Anthony
Montgomery, Sir Fergus	Stephen, Michael
Moss, Malcolm	Stewart, Allan
Needham, Rt Hon Richard	Streeter, Gary
Nelson, Anthony	Sumberg, David
Neubert, Sir Michael	Sweeney, Walter
Newton, Rt Hon Tony	Sykes, John
Nicholls, Patrick	Tapsell, Sir Peter
Nicholson, David (Taunton)	Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)	Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Norris, Steve	Temple-Morris, Peter
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley	Thomason, Roy
Oppenheim, Phillip	Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)
Ottaway, Richard	Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Page, Richard	Thumham, Peter
Paice, James	Townsend, John (Bridlington)
Patnick, Sir Irvine	Townsend, Cyril D (Boxl'yn'th)
Patten, Rt Hon John	Tracey, Richard
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey	Trend, Michael
Pawsey, James	Trotter, Neville
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth	Twinn, Dr Ian
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)	Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Porter, David (Waveney)	Viggers, Peter
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael	Walden, George
Powell, William (Corby)	Walker, Bill (N Tayside)
Rathbone, Tim	Waller, Gary
Redwood, Rt Hon John	Ward, John
Renton, Rt Hon Tim	Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Richards, Rod	Waterson, Nigel
Riddick, Graham	Watts, John
Robathan, Andrew	Wells, Bowen
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn	Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)	Whitney, Ray
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)	Whittingdale, John
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)	Widdecombe, Ann
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela	Wiggin, Sir Jerry
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard	Willetts, David
Sackville, Tom	Wilshire, David
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim	Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas	Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)
Shaw, David (Dover)	Wolfson, Mark
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)	Wood, Timothy
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian	Yeo, Tim
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)	Young, Rt Hon Sir George
Shersby, Michael
Sims, Roger	Tellers for the Noes:
Skeet, Sir Trevor	Mr.David Lightbown and
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)	Mr.Sydney Chapman.

Question accordingly negatived.
Main Question agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House takes note of the unnumbered Explanatory Memoranda submitted by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 8th December 1994, relating to the renewal of fishing arrangements for vessels from European Community countries other than Spain and Portugal in Spanish and Portuguese waters, and for Portuguese vessels in the waters of those other countries and relating to European Community quotas for 1995 in the waters of Guyana; on 12th December 1994 relating to proposals for reciprocal access and 1995 quotas in the Baltic (with Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Poland and Russia) and with the Faroe Islands; proposals allocating European Community quotas for 1995 in the waters of Iceland and Greenland, and a proposal fixing catch possibilities in 1995 for North West Atlantic Fisheries Organisation waters; and on 13th December 1994 relating to total allowable catches for 1995 and proposals fixing 1995 opportunities and reciprocal arrangements relating to Norway; and supports the Government's intention to negotiate the best possible fishing opportunities, and to protect the interests of British fishermen in these negotiations and in those providing for the integration of Spain and Portugal in the Common Fisheries Policy.

European Community Documents

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102 (9) (European Standing Committees).

Generalised Scheme Of Preferences

That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 9101/94, relating to the Generalised Scheme of Preferences; and supports the Government's view that, whilst the review of the GSP is to be welcomed, the draft Regulation will require some amendments.

Food Hygiene: Milk And Milk Products

That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 4195/94, relating to food hygiene for milk and milk products; and endorses the line that the Government is taking in seeking a satisfactory outcome on the issues of somatic cell counts and double pasteurization—[Mr. Wood.]

Question agreed to.

Agrimonetary System

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees),

That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 11061/94, relating to the Common Agricultural Policy agrimonetary system; and supports the Government's intention of seeking to negotiate agrimonetary arrangements which do not impose undue costs on the European Community budget nor unnecessary burdens on traders in agricultural products.—[Mr. Wood.]

The House divided:Ayes 303,Noes 251.

Division No.25]	[22.15pm
AYES
Ainsworth, Peter(East Surrey)	Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan	Bowden, Sir Andrew
Alexander, Richard	Bowis, John
Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)	Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Allason, Rupert (Torbay)	Brandreth, Gyles
Amess, David	Brazier, Julian
Arbuthnot, James	Bright, Sir Graham
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)	Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)	Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Ashby, David	Browning, Mrs. Angela
Aspinwall, Jack	Bruce, Ian (Dorset)
Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)	Burns, Simon
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)	Burt, Alistair
Baker, Rt Hon K (Mole Valley)	Butcher, John
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)	Butler, Peter
Baldry, Tony	Butterfill, John
Banks, Matthew (Southport)	Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)	Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Bates, Michael	Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Batiste, Spencer	Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)
Beith, Rt Hon A J	Carrington, Matthew
Bellingham, Henry	Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Bendall, Vivian	Churchill, Mr
Beresford, Sir Paul	Clappison, James
Biffen, Rt Hon John	Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas	Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)
Booth, Hartley	Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Boswell, Tim	Coe, Sebastian
Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)	Colvin, Michael

Congdon, David	Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence
Conway, Derek	Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)	Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John	Horam, John
Cormack, Patrick	Hordem, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Couchman, James	Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Cran, James	Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)	Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)	Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Davis, David (Boothferry)	Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Day, Stephen	Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Deva, Nirj Joseph	Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Devlin, Tim	Hunter, Andrew
Dicks, Terry	Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen	Jack, Michael
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James	Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Duncan, Alan	Jenkin, Bernard
Duncan Smith, Iain	Jessel, Toby
Dunn, Bob	Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Durant, Sir Anthony	Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Dykes, Hugh	Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Eggar, Tim	Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)
Elletson, Harold	Key, Robert
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter	Kilfedder, Sir James
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)	king, Rt Hon Tom
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)	Knapman, Roger
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)	Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)	Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Evennett, David	Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Faber, David	Knox, Sir David
Fabricant, Michael	Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Fenner, Dame Peggy	Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)	Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Fishbum, Dudley	Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Forman, Nigel	Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)	Legg, Barry
Forth, Eric	Leigh, Edward
Foster, Don (Bath)	Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman	Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)	Lidington, David
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)	Lightbown, David
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger	Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)
French, Douglas	Lord, Michael
Fry, Sir Peter	Luff, Peter
Gale, Roger	Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Gallie, Phil	MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Gardiner, Sir George	MacKay, Andrew
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan	Maclean, David
Garnier, Edward	McLoughlin, Patrick
Gillan, Cheryl	McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair	Madel, Sir David
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles	Maitland, Lady Olga
Gorst, Sir John	Major, Rt Hon John
Grant, Sir A (Cambs SW)	Malone, Gerald
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)	Mans, Keith
Greenway, John (Ryedale)	Marland, Paul
Grylls, Sir Michael	Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn	Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Hague, William	Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald	Mates, Michael
Hampson, Dr Keith	Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy	Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Hannam, Sir John	Mellor, Rt Hon David
Hargreaves, Andrew	Merchant, Piers
Harris, David	Mills, Iain
Harvey, Nick	Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Haselhurst, Alan	Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Hawkins, Nick	Moate, Sir Roger
Hawksley, Warren	Monro, Sir Hector
Hayes, Jerry	Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Heald, Oliver	Moss, Malcolm
Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward	Needham, Rt Hon Richard
Heathcoat-Amory, David	Nelson, Anthony
Hendry, Charles	Neubert, Sir Michael
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael	Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Hicks, Robert	Nicholls, Patrick

Nicholson, David (Taunton)	Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)	Steen, Anthony
Norris, Steve	Stephen, Michael
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley	Stewart, Allan
Oppenheim, Phillip	Streeter, Gary
Ottaway, Richard	Sumberg, David
Page, Richard	Sweeney, Walter
Paice, James	Sykes, John
Patnick, Sir Irvine	Tapsell, Sir Peter
Patten, Rt Hon John	Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey	Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Pawsey, James	Temple-Morris, Peter
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth	Thomason, Roy
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)	Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)
Porter, David (Waveney)	Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael	Thumham, Peter
Powell, William (Corby)	Townsend, John (Bridlington)
Rathbone, Tim	Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)
Redwood, Rt Hon John	Tracey, Richard
Renton, Rt Hon Tim	Trend, Michael
Richards, Rod	Trotter, Neville
Riddick, Graham	Twinn, Dr Ian
Robathan, Andrew	Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn	Viggers, Peter
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)	Walden, George
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)	Walker, Bill (N Tayside)
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)	Waller, Gary
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela	Ward, John
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard	Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Sackville, Tom	Waterson, Nigel
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim	Watts, John
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas	Wells, Bowen
Shaw, David (Dover)	Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)	Whitney, Ray
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian	Whittingdale, John
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)	Widdecombe, Ann
Shersby, Michael	Wiggin, Sir Jerry
Sims, Roger	Willetts, David
Skeet, Sir Trevor	Wilshire, David
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)	Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)	Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)
Soames, Nicholas	Wolfson, Mark
Spencer, Sir Derek	Wood, Timothy
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)	Yeo, Tim
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)	Young, Rt Hon Sir George
Spink, Dr Robert
Spring, Richard	Tellers for the Ayes:
Sproat, Iain	Mr. Sydney Chapman and
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)	Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.
NOES
Abbott, Ms Diane	Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Adams, Mrs Irene	Burden, Richard
Ainger, Nick	Byers, Stephen
Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)	Caborn, Richard
Allen, Graham	Callaghan, Jim
Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)	Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)	Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Armstrong, Hilary	Campbell-Savours, D N
Ashton, Joe	Canavan, Dennis
Austin-Walker, John	Cann, Jamie
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)	Chisholm, Malcolm
Barnes, Harry	Church, Judith
Barron, Kevin	Clapham, Michael
Battle, John	Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Bayley, Hugh	Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Bell, Stuart	Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Benn, Rt Hon Tony	Clelland, David
Bennett, Andrew F	Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Bermingham, Gerald	Coffey, Ann
Berry, Roger	Cohen, Harry
Betts, Clive	Connarty, Michael
Blunkett, David	Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Boyes, Roland	Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Bray, Dr Jeremy	Corbett, Robin
Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)	Corbyn, Jeremy

Corston, Jean	Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Cousins, Jim	Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Cox, Tom	Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)	Jowell, Tessa
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John	Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Dalyell, Tam	Keen, Alan
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)	Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)	Khabra, Piara S
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)	kilfoyle, Peter
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)	Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Denham, John	Lewis, Terry
Dewar, Donald	Liddell, Mrs Helen
Dixon, Don	Litherland, Robert
Dobson, Frank	Livingstone, Ken
Donohoe, BrianH	Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Dowd, Jim	Llwyd, Elfyn
Dunnachie, Jimmy	McAllion, John
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth	McAvoy, Thomas
Eagle, Ms Angela	McCartney, Ian
Eastham, Ken	Macdonald, Calum
Enright, Derek	McFall, John
Etherington, Bill	McGrady, Eddie
Evans, John (St Helens N)	McKelvey, William
Ewing, Mrs Margaret	Mackinlay, Andrew
Fatchett, Derek	McLeish, Henry
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)	McMaster, Gordon
Fisher, Mark	McNamara, Kevin
Flynn, Paul	MacShane, Denis
Foster, Rt Hon Derek	McWilliam, John
Foulkes, George	Madden, Max
Fraser, John	Mahon, Alice
Fyfe, Maria	Mandelson, Peter
Galloway, George	Marek, Dr John
Gapes, Mike	Marshall, David (Shettleston)
George, Bruce	Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Gerrard, Neil	Martin, Michael J (Springburn)
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John	Martlew, Eric
Godsiff, Roger	Maxton, John
Golding, Mrs Llin	Meacher, Michael
Gordon, Mildred	Meale, Alan
Graham, Thomas	Michael, Alun
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)	Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)	Milburn, Alan
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)	Miller, Andrew
Grocott, Bruce	Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Gunnell, John	Moonie, Dr Lewis
Hain, Peter	Morgan, Rhodri
Hall, Mike	Morley, Elliot
Hanson, David	Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)
Hardy, Peter	Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Harman, Ms Harriet	Mowlam, Marjorie
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy	Mudie, George
Henderson, Doug	Mullin, Chris
Heppell, John	Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Hill, Keith (Streatham)	O'Brien, Mike (Nee W)
Hinchliffe, David	O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Hodge, Margaret	O'Hara, Edward
Hoey, Kate	Olner, Bill
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)	O'Neill, Martin
Home Robertson, John	Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Hood, Jimmy	Parry, Robert
Hoon, Geoffrey	Patchett, Terry
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)	Pickthall, Colin
Howarth, Dr.Kim (Pontypridd)	Pike, Peter L
Hoyle, Doug	Pope, Greg
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)	Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)	Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)	Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Hutton, John	Prescott, Rt Hon John
Illsley, Eric	Primarolo, Dawn
Ingram, Adam	Purchase, Ken
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)	Quin, Ms Joyce
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)	Radice, Giles
Jamieson, David	Randall, Stuart
Janner, Greville	Raynsford, Nick
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)	Reid, Dr John

Robertson, George (Hamilton)	Sutcliffe, Gerry
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)	Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Roche, Mrs Barbara	Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)
Rogers, Allan	Timms, Stephen
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)	Turner, Dennis
Rowlands, Ted	Vaz, Keith
Ruddock, Joan	Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold
Salmond, Alex	Walley, Joan
Sedgemore, Brian	Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Sheerman, Barry	Wareing, Robert N
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert	Watson, Mike
Shore, Rt Hon Peter	Welsh, Andrew
Short, Clare	Wicks, Malcolm
Simpson, Alan	Wigley, Dafydd
SKinner, Dennis	Williams, Rt Hon Alan (SW'n W)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)	Wiliams, Alan W (Carmarthen)
Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)	Wilson Brian
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)	Winnick, David
Soley, Clive	Wise, Audrey
	Worthington, Tony
Spearing, Nigel	Wray, Jimmy
Spellar, John	Wright, Dr Tony
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)	Young, David (Bolton SE)
Stevenson, George
Stott, Ronger	Tellers for the Noes:
Strang, Dr. Gavin	Mr. John Cummings and
Straw, Jack	Mr. Joe Benton.

Question accordingly agreed to.

10.27 pm

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will note from today's Order Paper that European Standing Committee A met at 10.30 am to consider the reform of the agrimonetary system, on which there has just been a vote. You will also be aware that when the House of Commons set up European Standing Committees A and B, we were given a clear undertaking that part of the reason for moving European legislation from the Floor of the House to the Standing Committee system was that the House of Commons would have the right to examine these important matters in considerable detail. For example, the issue we were considering today not only affects the whole farming community, but involves large sums of money. We were assured that the House of Commons would not take a vote until the matter had been considered by the European Standing Committee.

This morning, the Committee met and examined the matter before us tonight. We were somewhat astonished to find that a motion to take note appeared on the Order Paper, even though the Committee had not sat and considered the matter. For your information, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Committee defeated the measure this morning.

Therefore, with the greatest respect, I want some explanation from you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, of why the House of Commons is being treated with such arrant contempt. It is painfully clear that there is absolutely no point in having the machinery of the European Standing Committees—with the specific undertaking that we will have the right to examine legislation before it is voted on in the Floor of the House—because the Government have pushed through a measure tonight, in the knowledge that the Committee voted against it this morning.

It is contemptuous of our procedures and it is arrogant, not of the Ministers concerned, but of the Government Chief Whip, and we want an explanation, otherwise there is no serious point in manning the European Standing Committees.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Order. Let me deal with that point of order first.

Obviously, the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) and the Opposition feel somewhat aggrieved about what has taken place, but nevertheless I must advise the hon. Lady that the Chair must abide by the Standing Orders. I must inform her that Standing Orders Nos. 102(8) and 102(9) permit a motion to be decided forthwith even if the Standing Committee came to no resolution. Further to that, the Chair must consider nothing outside the Standing Orders.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Is it the same point of order? If so, I have dealt with it. I cannot say anything further to it. I have just dealt with the powers—

rose—

Order. I have just dealt with the powers of the Chair, and there can be nothing further to that point of order. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to raise a different point of order, I will deal with it, but if it is the same I will not accept it. Is it a different point of order?

It is different. If, in your judgment, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you think that it not different, I would be pleased if you would inform me. [Laughter.]

Sir, a few years ago, another point arose about Committee proceedings. A motion that was indeed passed on a Division by a Committee had not been printed and therefore its merits were not capable of being assessed by Members of the House before the debate took place on the Floor. I put it to you, therefore, that whatever may be said in Standing Orders, consideration perhaps should be given to give the opportunity for Members—

Order. There is very little difference, and it is the same answer. [Laughter.]

Petitions

Family Planning (China)

10.31 pm

I beg to present an humble petition of the residents of Wellingborough and Rushden, signed by 366 of my constituents, which sheweth:

That the UNFPA (United Nations Population Fund) and the IPPF (International Planned Parenthood Federation) receive money from the Overseas Aid Budget and in turn support the Chinese Population

Control Programme which abuses the human rights of the people of China through forced contraception, sterilization and abortion, leading to infanticide and physical damage to women.

Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House will ensure that no further funds from the Overseas Aid Budget are disbursed to the UNFPA and the IPPF, while these organisations support, encourage or act as apologists for the Chinese Population Control Programme.

And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc.

To lie upon the Table.

Sites Of Special Scientific Interest

10.32 pm

I am pleased to present a petition on behalf of 570 residents of Delyn constituency, led by Mr. Norman Watson, of Wyngarth, Sunnyside estate, Bagillt, Clwyd, which reads:

To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled. The Humble Petition of Delyn Friends of the Earth sheweth:

That every year 200-300 Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs), our best wildlife sites, are damaged or destroyed.

Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House introduce tougher laws to protect SSSIs.

And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will every pray, etc.

I plead that this petition is worthy of the attention of the House.

To lie upon the Table.

Blood Transfusion Service

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr. Bates.]

10.33 pm

First, may I, through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, thank Madam Speaker for the opportunity to raise the subject of the future of the Liverpool blood transfusion centre on the Adjournment of the House? May I also take the opportunity of thanking the Minister for being in his place to answer the points that will be made, and my colleagues the hon. Members for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) and for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter), both of whom have indicated that they will seek to catch your eye. I have informed the Chair and the Minister of my willingness to give up some time to demonstrate the all-party nature of the concerns that are being expressed tonight. I also thank the hon. Members for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) and for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) who are also in their places. I know of their concern about the question as well. The hon. Member for Crosby (Sir M. Thornton) has asked me to mention his support for the arguments being put to the House, although he is unable to be present because he has engagements on Merseyside.

It may help the House if I outline what has happened so far and then say why parliamentary, public and clinical opinion is so staunchly opposed to the National Blood Authority plan. The House will be aware that the proposal is to close five transfusion centres to make savings of £10 million. One of the centres is situated in my constituency, in West Derby street, Liverpool.

When the announcement was made I immediately visited the centre and was extremely impressed by the competence, dedication and professionalism of Dr. Vanessa Martlew, the medical director, and the staff. I subsequently went to see Sir Colin Walker at the NBA's headquarters in Watford and I attended and spoke, together with the hon. Members for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing), who has joined us for the debate, and for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) at the amazing meeting held at St. George's hall in Liverpool on 7 November. It was attended by more than 1,000 people. The hon. Member for West Derby said that he could not recall a scene like it since Lord Wilson held his eve-of-poll election rally there back in 1964. Since then, other colleagues have met Sir Colin and John Adey, the NBA's chief executive, and I have tabled two early-day motions and several parliamentary questions on the subject. The local newspaper, the Liverpool Echo, has run a well-informed and strong campaign to ensure that the 2.8 million people who will be affected on Merseyside and in north Wales are well aware of the implications of the ill-conceived and ill-considered plans.

I have rarely experienced the strength of feeling that I have encountered over this issue, but that is not surprising. The service has saved countless lives over the past 50 years. It is bitterly ironic that as the national service prepares to celebrate its half century in 1996, it should be simultaneously preparing to shut one of its most efficient and well-supported centres.

The Minister has, rightly, told me and other hon. Members that we have the finest blood transfusion service in the world. If the clock is not broken, why try to fix it? The Minister could save himself and the service considerable grief by abandoning the plans that the NBA has circulated throughout the length and breadth of the land.

Regardless of the reasoned and principled arguments for not proceeding with the plan, to which I shall come later, there is a technical reason for immediately discontinuing the consultation process. When the process began, the plans were clearly different from the slimmed-down proposals now on offer. Many of the representations have therefore been on a false prospectus. The basis on which the consultation process is proceeding is extremely dubious and highly suspect.

The most recent announcements from Sir Colin Walker point to four things. First, a stock holding facility will be retained in Liverpool to supply blood and blood components to hospitals in Merseyside and north Wales. However, as Melanie Phillips pointed out in a recent article in The Observer , there has been some uncertainty about what the undertaking really means. Secondly, the NBA recognises the advanced development of specialist clinical services and says that it will maintain the services in the future. Thirdly, local donations will be used to treat local people and, fourthly, as Sir Colin Walker made clear to me himself, the Liverpool centre will not be amalgamated with the Manchester centre if clinical opinion is opposed to such a move.

Even against the modified version of the original suggestions there remain compelling arguments. First, the transfer of blood from the periphery of the region, from places such as Barmouth or Anglesey, will take considerably longer to get to the Manchester centre than to Liverpool. The entire major road network was recently gridlocked for several hours and anyone who has travelled over the Thelwall viaduct will know that there are often considerable delays in travelling between Liverpool and Manchester and beyond, even in good weather.

It is crucial that plasma is separated from whole blood as soon as possible after it is donated in order to provide blood components of the highest quality. The unnecessary extension of travelling time would therefore diminish the quality of the blood available. No consideration of logistics or feasibility was ever undertaken before the proposals were issued and there has been no pilot study. Thirdly, despite frequent reminders from regional transfusion directors on the national blood executive committee in 1993-94, transport considerations were not included in the final proposal. The financial savings in the consultation document, therefore, may have been overestimated since transportation costs were never included. Such a glaring omission of such magnitude places in question the thoroughness and validity of the Bain report by the management consultants who were engaged to assist the NBA in its strategic planning.

On the subject of erroneous information, the consultation paper goes on to suggest splitting administration into three zones. Perhaps someone should tell the people involved that that has already happened and that zone executive directors are already in post. The jobs were advertised in July even before the consultation paper was published.

Since the transport scheme was not included under the proposed new arrangements, no guarantee can be given as to the available remaining shelf-life of products prepared out of Liverpool at a remote site in Manchester. Since the shelf-life of platelet concentrate, which is used in the treatment of many patients with cancer and leukaemia, is only five days, the loss of one or two working days considerably reduces the shelf-life of the product. What sort of message does that send to the countless women and men who voluntarily and generously give blood, often at their own expense and inconvenience, because they care about the health of other people?

A promise of large stockholding fridges in hospital blood banks is far from reassuring. Larger stocks mean higher wastage levels and the unavailability of fresh blood in an emergency. Nine times out of 10, older blood is unsuitable for emergency clinical use. If allowed to happen, that will result in a second-class service to patients and may result in death. Perhaps people who take those sorts of decisions should follow the generous example of the donors and care less about market practice and more about the well-being of patients. Saving money is important, but saving life is infinitely more so.

The removal of a processing facility from Liverpool would reduce the quality of service that is delivered to the supra-regional foetal medical centre situated at the heart of Liverpool. Red cells for intrauterine use are prepared to order and their use is recommended as soon as possible after preparation. The removal of processing and testing from the blood centre in Liverpool effectively stops part of its activity, so specialist services palpably will suffer.

Anyone who heard the moving and eloquent appeal made at the meeting in St. George's hall by a consultant paediatrician from the region's Alder Hey children's hospital, or those people who have read the letters signed by consultants at the cardiothoracic unit and consultant anaesthetists at Royal Liverpool University hospital, representations from the regional pathologists and the objections from Sir Donald Wilson and the regional health authority will know that acute concern exists across the spectrum about the loss of specialist expertise to Merseyside and north Wales which will arise if this wrong-headed decision goes ahead. The consultant anaesthetists at the Royal propose legal action if any harm should come to their patients.

John Adey, underlining what Sir Colin Walker had already said to me, told four local hon. Members, including the right hon. Member for Wirral, West (Mr. Hunt) that no changes would occur

"unless a majority of consultant haematologists and other relevant medical experts in the area agree that patient services can be maintained or improved."

I have yet to meet a single doctor in favour of that plan, so why, if that statement is to be believed and taken as the basis for proceeding, should we persist with this exercise, unless it is all a charade and a fait accompli, which is the view of many people who have been following events closely?

The views of all the regional transfusion directors were sought when the consultation process began and when the analysis and preparation of the options were conceived. Most significantly, however, those same people were not consulted about the feasibility or implications for north-west England, notwithstanding the fact that the two directors affected at Liverpool and at Lancaster had between them in excess of 30 years' experience in the practice of transfusion medicine in our region.

It is extremely revealing that in the north-west, two out of three centres are listed for closure although no amalgamation is proposed in the north-east. Only one member of staff from the north-west was closely involved in the Bain analysis and he is employed in Manchester. Is it any wonder, therefore, that there is little public confidence in the process? The gravest danger of the proposals is that donors will be alienated. Why should we undermine the effectiveness of such a superb service? Why sever its arteries? Why risk its paralysis?

The extra costs involved in storage and transportation, the wastage of freely given blood, the subsequent alienation and loss of donors, the implications for emergencies or disasters, the effects on hospitals and on training facilities such as Liverpool's school of tropical medicine and the University hospital, all amount to a damning indictment of the plans.

Blood is not a commercial commodity. In Holland, there are spot markets in blood. In America, blood is bought and sold. We have successfully avoided such a dirigiste and commercialised approach. It would be profoundly foolish and destructive to jeopardise the service by proceeding with the proposals. I hope that the debate will help to underline all-party opposition to them in the area which I represent in part.

10.45 pm

I shall speak only briefly because I am extremely interested in the Minister's response.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) on securing the Adjournment debate. I thank him for allowing me to say a few words. All Merseyside Members have been working closely together to try to prevent consultation and proposals from being implemented. After our meeting with Mr. Adey, we have little confidence in what the National Blood Authority is telling us. It is telling people what they want to hear and then reneging on its statements.

We had a meeting at which, as the hon. Member for Mossley Hill said, we were told:

"There will be no changes to the current arrangements unless a majority of consultant haematologists and other relevant medical experts in the area agree that patient services can be maintained or improved."

Those words were used by Mr. Adey before a television camera after the meeting. When we issued that information, we were informed by the press that Miss Sue Cunningham, who I understand works for the NBA as a public relations adviser, was briefing members of the press that we had brow-beaten Mr. Adey into making a claim that he did not mean.

We had a meeting in good faith. Miss Cunningham seemed to suggest that Mr. Adey should not be let out alone because he might make promises that he would be unable to deliver. What confidence does that give us in the way that the NBA is being run?

From the Wirral's point of view, there has been nothing but complete objection and opposition to the proposals. Dr. Spigge, who works at the Wirral health trust, states:

"It is not clear to us that the Wirral population will benefit in any way."

The Wirral division of the British Medical Association states:

"These plans are a cause of serious disquiet and represent a serious threat to the well-being of our patients."

Our constituents agree and are signing petitions.

The NBA has spent £1,257,000 on consultants' fees to save money. Of that, £1 million went to Bain and Co. I have seen a copy of its report, and it is not worth £1 million. I hope that the Minister will justify the use of these consultancy moneys. Will the results of the consultation that we have had be published? We know that on Merseyside there is massive and overwhelming opposition to the proposals. Will the NBA publish an analysis of the results of its consultation? Will it then confirm— I hope that the Minister will do so tonight—that the plans will not be implemented if the majority of local consultant haematologists and other experts say that they do not agree with them? If we can have that assurance from the Minister tonight, we shall be given confidence that the consultation period is genuine and not a massive sham.

10.49 pm

What was said by the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) is entirely correct. I may not be quite as excited and emotional as the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton), but I know that the people of Merseyside, and those of the Wirral in particular, were very concerned about what they thought might have been proposals. We had a cross-party meeting with the appropriate representatives of the National Blood Authority, and were given assurances.

I ask the Minister to assure me, first, that there will be a blood bank in Liverpool; secondly, that no steps will be taken to alter the present arrangements unless a majority of the consultant haematologists and others who have appropriate professional qualifications are in favour of it; and, thirdly—I consider this the most important point—that, whatever the new arrangements may be, the people of the Wirral will not suffer in any way.

I am all in favour of efficiency, cost-consciousness and so forth, and I do not think that anything is so good that it cannot be changed for the better; but if the arrangements are to be changed, I want to be persuaded on behalf of my constituents that the change will be for the better. If it is not for the better I will not wear it, even if a vote of confidence is involved.

10.50 pm

I congratulate the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) on raising an issue that clearly excites considerable emotions in his area. Let me repeat what he said at the beginning of his speech: we do indeed have the finest blood service in the world. I say that for a number of reasons. The service provides an enormous degree of quality assurance, and its high standards are well known throughout the world; I also applaud its level of testing, its safety and indeed the very fact that it is an entirely voluntary service. All those who give blood do so simply to help others: they have no other motive. There are other so-called voluntary services which offer travelling expenses, statutory days off work and other incentives that this service does not offer. It is 100 per cent. voluntary, and we intend to keep it that way.

The hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) mentioned blood being bought and sold. There is no question of that happening in this country. We mean to keep our blood service, to improve it and to build on its many qualities.

The present system results mainly from the existence of 13 regional transfusion services. The fact that there are 15 processing centres is largely due to that, rather than to any actual assessment of geographical spread. A national blood authority was recently set up for the first time, to bring together a loose federation of transfusion services that involved a good deal of duplication and fairly arbitrary organisation. It immediately set to work to find a way of streamlining the system and improving collection, quality, co-ordination and donor support.

Meanwhile, it was clear that there was excess capacity in processing and testing. The blood service is about collecting blood from voluntary donors, and making sure that that blood is then processed, tested and supplied to the hospitals that need it. If there is found to be excess capacity in those other operations, that is clearly a waste of manpower and resource that could be devoted to what the service is really about—sending out more mobile teams to collect blood from our precious core of donors.

There is no reason to suppose that the blood service should be entirely based on processing centres. Only about 5 per cent. of all donations are made at such centres, and there is no reason why collection teams that go out have to be based in them. In fact, the NBA proposal presupposes mobile teams going out from more bases that are not processing centres, and that will allow them greater flexibility to work more closely to where they are based. Such are the improvements foreseen by the NBA.

No one suggests that there is any reason to doubt the quality or the expertise at the Liverpool centre, or the commitment of those who work there. The question is whether we should have three processing and testing centres in the north-west when, for logistical and technical reasons, only one may be necessary. It is that question that we are now debating and, as the House knows, no final decision has yet been made.

I put it to the hon. Member for Mossley Hill that unless an absolute cast-iron case can be made that there is some danger—

It is not for me to make such a cast-iron case, any more than it is for the Minister to do so. All three hon. Members who have spoken in the debate have said that the views of the haematologists, clinicians, consultants and other medics should be the ones that really count. Will the Minister assure the House that if clinical opinion is united in its opposition to the proposals, yet the NBA proceeds with the plan and the decision, is referred to him, he will kill the proposal stone dead at that stage?

I certainly would not expect anyone to welcome the closure of such a centre, especially when allegations are being made about safety—the hon. Member for Mossley Hill has made several technical points about shelf life, and so on. However, if the NBA comes to the conclusion that, from a logistical point of view, it is able to continue to provide all the specialist services to Liverpool hospitals and all the support to donors, and all the other specialist activities that are performed now, and that it is not necessary to continue processing and testing in Liverpool, that is something for the authority to decide.

On the other hand, if, as I was saying, a cast-iron case is made that safety is in question or that donors, hospitals or the patients who need blood will suffer from such a development, that must be carefully taken into account. I am not aware that such a cast-iron case has been made.

We are not really discussing that, and that is not what we want guarantees about. The single point on which we seek the Minister's support arises from what happened when the four Wirral Members met representatives of the authority, when we were told that no changes would be made unless there was clear support for such changes among the medics most clearly involved. Will the Minister stand by what was said, or does he think that that undertaking should not have been given to us? Does he consider it foolish—or even worthless—that it was given?

I have put it in another way. As I have said, if the NBA believes that it does not need processing in Liverpool, it is up to the authority to satisfy itself and us that there are no clinical dangers to patients. That is all that I can say at present.

May I answer a couple of the other questions—

If the Minister is to make the final decision, whose advice does he think best—that of haematologists or that of bureaucrats on the National Blood Authority, who are consulting the haematologists in Liverpool but who appear to be in danger of taking no notice of what they are told? What advice will the Minister accept? What is the best advice?

We are in the first instance looking to the advice of the National Blood Authority. In its consultation process, it has to take the views of all the experts into account.

I shall deal with one or two other matters which were raised, such as consultancy costs. The NBA has indeed used consultants because a vast organisational change is being planned, involving, for example, the bringing together of all the disparate computer systems at the different transfusion centres, none of which can be linked with each other. Also, many logistical changes need to be made so that the current fairly arbitrary arrangements for transfer of blood around the system in cases where there are excesses and deficits and where particular blood groups are needed are worked out very carefully. The NBA does not have that sort of expertise in-house. If one visits the headquarters of the National Blood Authority at Watford, one finds that there are very few people in that office. I am glad to say that it is a very lean organisation, which has brought in expertise.

The question of consultation was also raised. I shall have to leave that matter in the form in which it was initially published. I hope that the NBA will be able to make available the maximum information.

I am sorry to press the point with the Minister but I think that it is the nub of the matter. The four Wirral Members, whose intellectual capacity is clearly unparalleled, were clearly told that there would be no movement on the matter unless the medics, the professionals, agreed. Are we to understand that that was just a matter of consultation? Or were we to accept it, as I did at the time, as being a binding commitment?

I can only say once again that it is a question of whether the case is made clinically that the closure would damage patients. That is what it is about in the end. Obviously, all the relevant advice will be taken into account. I would be very concerned if it were not.

We enormously value our voluntary donors. They are at the centre and they are what makes the blood transfusion service. Various hon. Members have mentioned that they may be alienated. They will be alienated if they are continually told, sometimes spuriously, that the blood service is being damaged by these proposals. I know well those who run the National Blood Authority. I was involved with the establishment of it. There is no way in which that authority would take actions which would damage the blood transfusion service and I would be the last person to sanction any actions which would alienate our greatly valued voluntary donors of blood in this country.

Question put and agreed to.Adjourned accordingly at two minutes past Eleven o'clock.

Volume 251: debated on Wednesday 14 December 1994

House Of Commons

Prayers

Business Of The House

Closure Of Debate And Allocation Of Time

Delegated Legislation

Private Bills And Private Business

Public Bills

Sittings Of The House

Special Procedure Orders

Standing Committees

Select Committees

Oral Answers To Questions

Foreign And Commonwealth Affairs

Land Mines

Nuclear Non-Proliferation

East Timor

Angola

Bosnia

Australia

Cuba

Vietnam

Syria

Saudi Arabia

"Maltese Double Cross"

Bosnia

Cyprus

Bosnia

Commonwealth (Human Rights)

Somalia

Public Expenditure (Wales)

Points Of Order

Bills Presented

Home Energy Conservation

Activity Centres (Young Persons' Safety)

Proceeds Of Crime

Tobacco Products Labelling

Civil Rights (Disabled Persons)

Referendum

Wild Mammals (Protection)

Referendum (Single Currency)

Insurance Companies (Reserves)

Carers (Recognition And Services)

Road Traffic (New Drivers)

Natural Disasters (Scotland)

Olympic Symbol Etc (Protection)

Tobacco Smoking (Public Places)

Protection Of Animals

Transport Of Animals For Slaughter

Prisoners (Return To Custody)

Charities (Amendment)

Dogs (Fouling Of Land)

Protection Of Calves (Export)

Rating And Vafluation

Fisheries

European Community Documents

Generalised Scheme Of Preferences

Food Hygiene: Milk And Milk Products

Agrimonetary System

Petitions

Family Planning (China)

Sites Of Special Scientific Interest

Blood Transfusion Service