House of Commons Hansard Debates for 3 May 1990

Mr. William Cash (Stafford) : One or two coincidences have occurred in relation to the Bill, not least that the Chair on which you are sitting, Madam Deputy Speaker, is a gift of Australia. To that extent, this is a quid pro quo : we are giving back to Australia that which is rightfully hers.

Last year, with the assistance of the high commissioner, Doug McClelland, I arranged, as secretary of the Lords and Commons cricket team, for us to play a most distinguished team from Australia, which we greatly enjoyed. One of the patrons and presidents of that team is Bob Hawke, the Prime Minister of Australia, who is a member of a club of which I am a somewhat unimportant member, Vincent's club in Oxford. Sir Robin Butler is also a member of that club. I hope that those interested in these matters will agree that a Bill of this importance and significance has some anecdotal interest.

It is highly appropriate that we should give the Bill a Second Reading today because we owe much to Australia and to the Australians who fought with us in the war. I speak as one whose father was killed in Normandy fighting with Australians in that great endeavour between 1940 and 1944. I say that with all the depth of feeling that I can command.

Column 1233

As we are now moving into a new era in Europe, we must remember the relationships that we have with our friends in the Commonwealth, and that the day must not come when Magna Carta becomes part and parcel of an Act such as this deposited in Brussels.

4.54 pm

Mr. James Molyneaux (Lagan Valley) : Perhaps I should declare an interest in the debate. First, half my family live in Australia and, secondly, I hope to visit the Commonwealth of Australia later this year but not, I hope, at public expense.

On my last visit in the 1970s, I was asked by a distinguished Officer of the House to convey a personal message to his opposite number in one of the state legislatures. My call at that Parliament building coincided with the dramatic announcement of the retirement of the premier of that state. The inevitable interviewer on the steps of the building jabbed his microphone at my mouth and invited me to make a profound comment on the shock announcement, as he called it. It was such a delicate matter that any comment from me on the premier's decision was bound to cause offence. I kept a straight face and explained that I had had a tip-off and had just flown from London to lodge my application for the job and expressed my hope that the assembled press men would support my nomination.

I thought that the stunned silence that enabled me to make my escape was the last that I would hear of it, but to my horror the next morning I discovered that an enterprising young journalist from one of the local newspapers had produced the headline, "Dark horse enters race for premiership."

On behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I will warmly support the Bill on Second Reading and throughout the rest of its passage. An uncle of my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) served with Australians at Gallipoli. My hon. Friend was one of the sponsors of the Bill introduced by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris). I warmly congratulate the right hon. Gentleman and the sponsors on their initiative.

The right hon. Member for Wythenshawe said that the Act is as much an Australian as a British document. I agree, but naturally, for understandable reasons, it is regarded as far more significant and precious by Australians.

We are grateful to the Solicitor-General for explaining with much clarity, as usual, the background to the debate. We welcome his decision to avoid delay in implementing the Act when it has received Royal Assent.

The Australian Prime Minister has been generous in his remarks regarding those who smoothed the way for today's debate. Many of us who are privileged to know the present Australian high commissioner assume that he played a vital role quietly in bringing the arrangements to fruition. The Commonwealth of Australia is well served by that distinguished public representative in London. The permanent transfer will mean much to older generations of Australians, but will have a separate meaning for younger Australians, because it will remove from their minds any impression that the United Kingdom is a far-away country about which they know little or

Column 1234

which knows or cares little about them. Today's operations and the subsequent developments will, I hope, convince them that we care about them and wish them well in their new nation on the other side of the globe.

4.58 pm

Mr. Neil Hamilton (Tatton) : I have been an hon. Member for seven years, and for six of them I have been secretary of the Australia-New Zealand parliamentary group. I can say with complete honesty that no title among the few that I hold has given me greater pleasure. In those six years, little has given me greater pleasure in the House than to have had the closest working relationship with the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), who by happy coincidence is my parliamentary neighbour as our constituencies abut one another. As my hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) said, only parliamentary convention precludes me from addressing him across the Floor of the Chamber as my "right hon. Friend." I should like to pay a warm tribute to him for all the work that he has done in the House not only on the Bill but on behalf of Australia, for which he has been signally rewarded by the Australian Government, who honoured him last year. I am sure that all hon. Members recognise that, in this Chamber, he is Australia personified.

This is one of the Government's most successful privatisation measures. I hope that it does not cause any difficulties for the right hon. Gentleman. However, as the Australian Labor Government are enthusiastic privatisers, I should not think that it will cause him any difficulty. I am delighted that it is one of the pieces of Government legislation that has given rise to complete unanimity. I hope that that will be followed in all other measures that they introduce.

Mr. Alfred Morris : The hon. Gentleman knows that one of my great fears is that the Government may even try to privatise the Public Record Office. I hope that there will be some assurance on that important question before the debate concludes.

Mr. Hamilton : I shall not be drawn into any controversy during this debate, but I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman's point will be well taken.

One of the least satisfactory aspects of our membership of the European Community has been the tendency of some Commonwealth countries, especially the older ones such as Australia, to take our growing and closer interests in Europe as betokening a loss of connection with or interest in Commonwealth countries. I am delighted that, today, we have an opportunity to declare to all the world that we value our continuing links with Australia--not only the friendly and diplomatic links, but the family and blood links mentioned by the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux).

As years go by, it is important that we work at remembering the historical connections and cultural identities that still bind our countries together. It is more than 200 years since the American colonies severed their links with the British Crown, but we still like to think that we have a special relationship with them. We certainly have a special relationship with Australia. I hope that that will continue for many centuries and that this measure will be one way to cement that.

Column 1235

It was a great pleasure to attend the ANZAC day service in Westminster abbey a few days ago. British through and through as I am, it gave me a thrill to sing, with full voice, the Australian national anthem. Although Australia is increasingly a cosmopolitan country, and although inevitably as the years go by the British element in its population will be diluted and the historical connections between our two countries loosened, there will always be a special relationship. It will always give us a shared thrill to sing that national anthem.

Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme, I could not attend the recent celebrations in Gallipoli. However, I was in Istanbul only a short time ago and I made a special journey to the British war cemetry at Uskudar --named after the famous Skutari hospital of Florence Nightingale--where many Australians and New Zealanders are buried. It was a moving moment when I wandered among the gravestones and remembered the vast loss of life on the beaches of Gallipoli. The friendship of our two peoples all those years ago was symbolised on those beaches, and I hope that it will continue to be remembered as a symbol of connection between the two countries.

As a supporter of the original measure introduced by the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe, it gives me great pleasure to reaffirm my commitment to the friendship between our two peoples and to wish Australia well in the future.

5.3 pm

Mr. Eric S. Heffer (Liverpool, Walton) : I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), who fought so hard for this Bill. I give it my total support. I first met Australians during the last war. I was attached to an RAF camp and I shall never forget the arrival of an Australian squadron. Our cinema was in a Nissen hut and the British officers sat in the front rows, the junior officers behind them, the sergeants and corporals behind them and the rest of us behind them. The Australians arrived, and they sat anywhere. It was marvellous. It was democracy in practice. They did not care whether someone was a leading officer, or an AC2 like me.

Mr. Molyneaux : I do not think that it was entirely an operation in democracy. It is a tribute to the intelligence of the Australians to say that they know that the expensive seats are always at the back of the cinema.

Mr. Heffer : Whatever their reasons, they took no notice of rank. Our officers were somewhat shocked. I thought that it would be the end of class rule.

It was following that experience that I began to study Australian history. I soon realised that it was our people--southern Irish, northern Irish, English, Scottish and Welsh--who were transported to Australia because they were thieves, dissidents, or people with ideas. They would not just sit down and accept everything that this class-conscious country accepted. They believed in democracy, and it was wonderful.

I learned a great deal from the Australians. They are wonderful people. They have a right to the document. Indeed, they have always had that right. They have a right to their freedom. However, I have always been concerned about the fact that we have turned our backs on them. I am not a British nationalist, although I was born in England

Column 1236

and my relatives go back to the Saxons, but it saddens me to think that we joined the EEC and turned our backs on all those people who I was with during the war--the Australians, New Zealanders, southern Irish, northern Irish, and others from all over the world. That is a shame on this country. I believe in internationalism, but we have a responsibility to those people and they have a love for us, as was shown when they joined us during those war days.

The Australians have a shame on them, too--the fact that they have never accepted the rights of the aboriginal people. I made that point at the time of the bicentennial celebrations when we sent Australia a gift. I was the dissident voice. I said, "Hang on, what about the aboriginals? They have rights, too." The Pope made it clear that he also thought that they had land rights. I certainly think that they have land rights. I say to our Australian friends--

The Solicitor-General : I gave the hon. Gentleman an incomplete answer earlier. I now have a copy of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900. Section 51 makes specific mention of the aboriginal peoples. It recognised that their position was already dealt with by the states. It reads :

"The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to :--The people of any race, other than the aboriginal race in any State, for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws."

That means that it was a matter of law for the states in 1900.

Mr. Heffer : I am grateful for that information about this important matter. There is no doubt that the mass of Australians have tended to ignore the position of the aboriginals, and that is quite wrong. An interesting book, "The Other Shore", has been written by a man called Hughes. If one reads that, or John Pilger's book on Australia, or watches television programmes about the position of the aborigines, one knows jolly well that there is a problem. I am not saying that it is a black and white problem--nobody should ever say that. There are always problems to which we do not get the full answers. However, aborigines have rights and those rights have been trampled on for a long time.

I am not sure that nowadays I would vote for Bob Hawke. He is a bit like my Front Benchers, who seem to have forgotten what socialism is all about. The Australians argued for socialist rights long before we did. People like Tom Mann went there, came back here, and talked about socialism on the basis of what they had learnt there. Michael Davide, the Irishman, came back from Australia and argued for land rights. He had learnt from the Australians who argued for those rights long before we did. Australia had a Labour movement, a Labour party and democratic rights long before we did. Let us never forget that. We can learn from them as much as they can learn from us. The Australians are right and we were wrong to be so unforthcoming, but they should not forget the rights of the minority. The aborigines have to be treated equally, whatever and whoever they are. Had the Europeans not gone to Australia, it would not be as it is now, but the aborigines are the original Australians and have rights. They must have those rights and Bob Hawke should not forget that. He should not listen to Murdoch and all the others with their big money. To hell with their money--

Column 1237

what is important is the Australian democracy, for which all Australians have fought. I was brought up on it because I learnt about it as a young lad after meeting Australians in the RAF. I was proud to meet them because they are great people. We are right to support them, but also to tell them that they should give the aborigines every right to which they are entitled.

5.12 pm

The Solicitor-General : With the leave of the House, I shall draw together this helpful debate in which the view of those who have spoken has been unanimously in favour of the Bill, starting with the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris). He asked whether there might be other requests and, if so, how they would be dealt with. The answer could not have been put better than it was by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) who is a progenitor of the Bill. He explained what a unique occasion this is, and how what is being given--to pick up the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill)--is not a copy of the Act. We are talking not about a copy of a birth certificate but about an original of the birth certificate, which will go to Australia with our full-hearted consent. That is what makes it so unusual and that is why it is the subject of primary legislation which is confined to that document going to that country. Such legislation will not normally be repeated. We do not expect this to become a precedent--it is a unique occasion.

I welcome the comments made by the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) and by my hon. Friends the Members for Stafford (Mr. Cash) and for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton). I have mentioned my hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme who, like other hon. Members, attended the ANZAC ceremony last week. We all have that deeply moving occasion in mind and it is highly appropriate that we should be having this debate so soon after that occasion.

I have answered the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) and shown that, even back in 1900, the aborigines were specifically mentioned in the Act, an original of which we are about to hand over. It is delightful to find unanimity on that point. If it had a carefully thought out provenance, it is all the better and more valuable as a gift in friendship for that. I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.-- [Mr. Patnick.] Bill immediately considered in Committee ; reported, without amendment.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Column 1238

Education and Training

5.17 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Patrick Nicholls) : I beg to move

That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 4431/1/90 and the proposal described in the un-numbered Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Department of Employment on 30th April 1990 relating to the establishment of a European Training Foundation, and 4432/90 and the proposal described in the un-numbered Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Department of Education and Science on 30th April 1990 relating to the establishment of a Trans European Mobility Programme for University Studies (TEMPUS) ; and supports the Government's view that these European Community initiatives will provide an appropriate means of providing assistance to the countries of Central and Eastern Europe in the areas of vocational training, higher education and youth exchanges.

The European Council at Strasbourg in December 1989 recognised the importance of training. It called upon the Community to establish a European training foundation for central and eastern Europe. I am sure the House appreciates the reasons for the Heads of States' enthusiasm for the principle of such a foundation.

Countries emerging from the stagnation of central bureaucratic control need help in defining their training needs. We must avoid assistance from the west being fragmented or overlapping. The recipient countries should not be flooded with offers of help in some areas to the possible detriment of others.

The Commission's proposal for the foundation started with Poland and Hungary because the Community's aid package covers only those countries at present. As other central and eastern European countries progress towards democracy, and become covered by the aid package, they may also benefit from the work of the foundation.

The arrangements for extension, as our initial explanatory memorandum and the Scrutiny Committee's reports pointed out, were unclear. We have therefore pursued these concerns in negotiations, with the results described in our latest memoranda. The intention is that the foundation will contribute assistance in initial and continuing vocational training and retraining, including management training.

The foundation works by providing assistance to the eligible countries in the definition of training needs and priorities. It will act as a clearing house to provide information on current initiatives and future needs in the training field, and provide a framework through which offers of assistance can be channelled. On the basis of this information, it will identify, and where necessary develop and support, specific projects in conjunction with member states and private organisations.

The December European Council also asked the Commission to bring forward a proposal for an exchange programme similar in character to those available for Community citizens. This is now known as the trans-European mobility programme for university studies, or TEMPUS to give it its more user- friendly acronym.

TEMPUS acknowledges that it has often been young people in the forefront of the pro-democracy demonstrations. They will also need to be at the forefront of the economic changes. TEMPUS will enable students from central and eastern European countries to study at a university or undertake a university placement within the

Column 1239

Community. There will be a small element of exchange, but most traffic is expected to be in the east-west direction. TEMPUS is modelled on the Community's ERASMUS programme, the European Community action scheme for the mobility of university students.

The Community will support activities which link universities and enterprises in central and eastern Europe with partners in the Community, such as retraining of language teachers and the development of short intensive courses and distance learning. That element of the programme is modelled on the Community's community action programme in education and training for technology--the COMETT programme. The likely demand for TEMPUS places within the United Kingdom is not yet known, but there is already much interest in English language training and for courses based in English. The United Kingdom began negotiations on the foundation and TEMPUS with a number of concerns. These were set out in explanatory memoranda Nos. 4431/90 and 4432/90. In the 12th and 13th reports on the proceedings of the Select Committee on European Legislation, the Government were invited to make available further explanatory memoranda about those issues on which they are seeking clarification in Brussels. These memoranda set out progress to date and deal with the specific points in the Scrutiny Committee reports.

As negotiations have progressed, the links between the proposals to set up the foundation and TEMPUS and the objectives of the European Community treaty have, at our insistence, been made clearer. It is important to remember that the latest presidency text, on which our supplementary memoranda are based, makes it clear that the foundation and TEMPUS are two of the mechanisms by which aid to Poland and Hungary will be achieved. The preambles are based on the preambles already adopted for regulation 3906, which makes clear the Council's view that intensified relationships brought about by such aid will contribute to a harmonious development of economic activities within the Community, and so achieve one of the objectives of the treaty. I am sure that it will be common ground on both sides of the House that both measures will amount to a worthwhile contribution to the end which we would all share. In that light, I commend them to the House.

5.22 pm

Mr. Derek Fatchett (Leeds, Central) : I thank the Minister for the way in which he has introduced the documents. I agree with his final comment that there is no disagreement on either side of the House about the overall value of the programmes. I agree with many of the Minister's comments this evening, including his commitment to investment in education and skills. I agree also with his comment that, to help central and eastern European economies to develop, it is necessary to develop those skills at all levels. The Minister was right to say that there is a need to develop managerial skills as well as the need to develop what I shall describe as middle-level skills, which are those that apply to technicians and vocational training that are important in terms of economic development. The Opposition welcome both of the programmes. They are important contributions to the development of eastern Europe and to links between eastern Europe and

Column 1240

the European Community. I shall put three specific questions to the Minister about the programmes in the hope that he will be able to answer them. The explanatory memorandum supplied by the Department of Education and Science says in the 10th paragraph on the third page that the flow of students--this point has been made by the Minister this evening--is much more likely to be from east to west. I am, of course, referring to the TEMPUS programme. It is important that British universities, polytechnics and colleges play their full part in the process. We should not be squeezed out of it so as to become second-class contributors to the programme.

The problem highlighted in the 10th paragraph is that students coming from central and eastern European countries would normally be charged full-cost fees. It is important that students are not prevented from participating in the scheme because the British Government charge full-cost fees. I shall welcome the Minister's comments. If we charge full-cost fees, there is a real danger that students from central and eastern Europe will decide to go to Germany, France or other European Community countries and not come to the United Kingdom. It would be a shame if Britain were excluded from TEMPUS on that basis.

When the Minister was talking about the establishment of the European training foundation, he referred to the possibilities for exchange as part of the development of vocational skills. Again, I suspect that the traffic will be mostly one way, from east to west. There may be a good deal of profit in a number of senses for some of that traffic to be from west to east, so that British youngsters and British workers of more mature age have the opportunity to develop certain skills in other countries and building up economic and cultural links on that basis. I hope that the Minister will give some reassurance that it may be possible for British youngsters to participate on that basis and to use the exchange mechanism in that sense to go to either Poland or Hungary.

The Minister rightly said that the two schemes are limited to two eastern European countries, Poland and Hungary. It is clear that there is a need for similar developments and exchanges with other eastern European countries. What criteria will be used when considering whether other countries should become part of the process? It is not unlikely that, before too long, countries such as Czechoslovakia will want to participate. How might they be included in the programme, what criteria will be used, and what are the cost implications of such a development for other countries?

The Opposition approve of the proposals, which build links across Europe. They help in the development of eastern European countries. It is important that the European Community plays its part in that development. On this one occasion we can say to the Minister and his colleagues that we support some of the activities of the European Community. We support the positive way in which they have made a contribution to the schemes.

5.27 pm

Mr. Willian Cash (Stafford) : I think that this is the first time that I have addressed the House when I have been the only Back-Bench Member on either side of the Chamber. It is important, however, to debate matters that stem from Europe when points of principle are involved.

Column 1241

The Select Committee on European Legislation, of which I am a member, considered the relevant document yesterday. Hon. Members will note that it is dated 2 May 1990. Some hon. Members may have noted the early-day motion which I tabled this morning, which refers to new Treasury memoranda on economic and monetary union. The motion refers to the report of the Commission on that subject and the important memorandum of the Treasury of 23 April, which is available to hon. Members in the Vote Office.

We are discussing an issue which arose during the sitting of the Select Committee on European Legislation yesterday in respect of training and management, which is of immense importance to the people of Europe, including Poland and Hungary, and of especial importance to the future prospects of Britain if it is to catch up with Germany, which now has a 70 per cent. trade surplus with the rest of the European Community put together. That issue is related to the future economy of Europe, including this country. I feel that we should debate economic and monetary union, as well as the issues that are before us, as early as possible. You may not want me to go down that path now, Madam Deputy Speaker, but you may allow me to do so on a future occasion.

There was a time when we were in danger of being somewhat pedantic about the treaty base of EC legislation. This proposal is based on article 235, which deals with proposals for which no explicit powers are set out in the treaty. But there are occasions--this is one of them--when it is clear that, in the interests of a wider Europe, that flexible association of states which, in combination with the EC--I hope that it will not become federal in the sense in which I have described it on many occasions--we can build on matters such as education and training a new, prosperous and freer Europe which will benefit all the people of Europe and bring peace and prosperity to all the people within that common home.

5.30 pm

Mr. Nicholls : I am grateful to the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) for the way in which he responded to my initial comments. It seems to be one of those days when there is amity throughout the House. Our colleagues in the outside world should be looking to see what we, on both sides of the House, can do when we are left to it.

The hon. Gentleman properly touched on a particular point of concern relating to tuition fees, for which our structures tend to be different from those of our partners in the EC. The Government, in conjunction with EC officials, are considering how to proceed. It would be unrealistic for me to try to work out exactly how that will be resolved, but it would be anomalous if a programme which we thoroughly and wholeheartedly welcome foundered on what is essentially an important point of detail which we must get right. I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's concern, and the Government are actively considering how to take the idea forward.

Mr. Fatchett : Can the Minister give us the likely time scale of those deliberations? There are clearly implications not just for the TEMPUS programme but in other directions as well. The Minister said that it would be anomalous to favour a programme and then create

Column 1242

difficulties in relation to TEMPUS, but presumably other countries with which Britain has certain relationships, particularly bilateral aid relationships, will be looking at the outcome of the deliberations.

I realise that it is not the Minister's direct responsibility, but I hope that he will tell his colleagues in the Department of Education and Science that the decision must be taken within a broader framework. It would be useful if we could have some idea when the deliberations will be completed.

Mr. Nicholls : The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight that point. The Civil Service has a number of helpful phrases, many of which will strike doom into the hearts of hon. Members--words such as "shortly" and "in due course". We want to make progress as soon as possible. This is an outstanding detail--not an issue--which we must resolve, and I shall make sure that the hon. Gentleman's point is drawn to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. The matter must obviously be dealt with as soon as possible.

The hon. Gentleman also asked for an assurance that an exchange from west to east would be possible. That is an important point which we have taken on board. There is no doubt that the structures allow for that, but, as I understand it, eastern countries feel that they cannot handle large numbers from the west at present. Without dwelling on their difficulties, one can understand the reason for that. It is anticipated that there will be such an exchange, but we must bear in mind the response from the eastern bloc countries. Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked about extending the programme beyond Poland and Hungary--a point raised by the Scrutiny Committee in its 12th report, when it sought clarification of the procedure to extend the foundation's work beyond Hungary and Poland. It felt that it should reflect the need of the Council of Ministers to control that process.

To some extent, we have tried to reflect the concerns about that in the original explanatory memorandum, because we share the Scrutiny Committee's views. Procedures for extending the work of the foundation beyond Poland and Hungary have been clarified ; and that is described in my Department's unnumbered explanatory memorandum of 30 April. They are linked to the council designation of

"such a country as is eligible for economic aid".

That extension would require a further Community legal act, such as that in relation to regulation 3906, which underpins the original package. Progress can clearly be made there. These matters have a momentum of their own.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) reminded us with fast footwork and his customary elegance that there are other matters that he would like to be debating. Were I to attempt to do so, since my footwork is not as fast as that of my hon. Friend, I suspect that I would be pulled up quickly. I shall simply say that I shall bear in mind what he says. He is right to draw attention to the fact that article 235 underpins this matter and that, to use a polite phrase, as one lawyer to another, it is a catch- all provision to take account of things which might not otherwise be thought of.

Mr. Cash : If I may be allowed to use another language, c'est le blancmanger qui mange-tout.

Column 1243

Mr. Nicholls : I was recently reproached in a Standing Committee for saying in Latin that I did not understand Latin, but that I was prepared to use the vernacular. As I was responding to a Latin tag from another lawyer, I thought that that was appropriate. On that occasion, I was properly reprimanded by the Chair for responding in a foreign language, so I had better not do so today.

Article 235 is there to ensure that there is harmonious economic development and so on. Inevitably, catch-all provisions have to be looked at with some care to make sure they are not catching more than all. However, we can be satisfied that this is a worthwhile initiative to take forward.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.),

Value Added Tax

That the Value Added Tax (Transport) Order 1990 (S.I., 1990, No. 752), dated 26th March 1990, a copy of which was laid before this House on 28th March, be approved.-- [Mr. Patnick.]

Question agreed to.

5.37 pm

Sitting suspended.

Column 1244

London Local Authorities (No. 2) Bill [Lords] (By Order) Order for Second Reading read.

7 pm

Mr. Jeremy Hanley (Richmond and Barnes) : I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

I am grateful that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, are present to assume your august responsibilities in connection with the Bill. I apologise, though not on behalf of the Bill's promoters, to right hon. and hon. Members for the fact that we are here all together at this time. It is an exciting time politically in the country, but particularly in respect of London elections. I know that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in your capacity as Chairman of Ways and Means, had a difficult task in selecting the business to be considered tonight. I understand that there are four London-related Bills in the pipeline, so it seems that any choice that you made would include a London Bill.

The London Local Authorities (No. 2) Bill is important, and although it is being promoted by Westminster city council, it is on behalf of and at the request of the London Boroughs Association and the Association of London Authorities jointly. Section 87 of the Local Government Act 1985 states that a London borough may promote a Bill for its own borough or for another borough. Schedule 1 to the Bill lists all the 31 participating councils promoting the Bill out of a total of 33. The two exceptions are the City of London, which usually has its own legislation, and Camden, where I believe there was some problem with the passing of a resolution to include that authority in the statute because there was insufficient time to do so. I have since been told that two of the remaining 31 boroughs wish to be dissociated from clause 4 of the Bill, so 29 London boroughs--comprising a mammoth population represented democratically by councillors--have asked for the Bill to be presented in its entirety.

I have been surprised at the way in which the arguments encapsulated in the Bill have developed over the past few weeks, but only clause 4 gives rise to any aggravation. I draw to the attention of the House an instruction that I tabled yesterday, and which appears on today's Order Paper :

"After Second Reading of the London Local Authorities (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ], to move, That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill that they do not allow Clause 4 (Private Hire Vehicles) unless they are satisfied that it will not jeopardise the unique and valuable position of the licensed Hackney Carriage trade within London."

I understand that that instruction has not been called, and I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for clarification.

Next Section

Home Page