House of Commons Hansard Debates for 24 Oct 1990

Mr. Powell : I am grateful to the Minister. Those appointed to serve on the Bill will read his remarks and ensure that hon. Members, through the Serjeant at Arms, have access to the House. I can imagine how much disruption would be caused if the road were raised. I am sure that all hon. Members would be glad of an assurance from the Minister that he, as well as the Select Committee, will bear the matter in mind. I am sure that the members of the New Building Sub-Committee will be looking to ensure that the observations that they have made in their reports are well and truly observed. 11.25 pm

Mr. Ron Leighton (Newham, North-East) : Some generous tributes have been paid to the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) and his eloquence. I happily join in them. However, I must enter one small caveat. He suggested in his opening remarks that there was no need for any discussion this evening. I do not agree. There are many matters that should be ventilated, especially because of the entirely unsatisfactory private Bill procedure under which these matters are dealt with. This is one of the few opportunities for ordinary Members of Parliament to have a say in what we all understand to be an important matter.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes : I should like to make it clear that, whatever the hon. Gentleman may have understood from my remarks, I welcome the debate. The points being put forward are serious and need to be considered. I am listening to them and I know that the promoters are listening and will take account of all the points made by hon. Members.

Mr. Leighton : I am pleased to hear that.

I received in my mail today--as I am sure did other hon. Members--a statement on behalf of the promoters in support of the carry-over motion. It says that since the Bill was deposited last November, London Regional Transport has been given leave to proceed with an

Column 446

"additional provision" which would alter the Bill's proposals in three ways. The first is changes to the station arrangements at Westminster, the second is a change at London Bridge station and the third is an alteration in the route. I draw attention to that alteration in the route which will take the line by way of the Blackwall peninsula at Greenwich. That is a major change taking the line from the north side to the south side of the river. Presumably the people on the north side of the river have an opinion about that. People undertook development there and some development is in prospect on the understanding that the Jubilee line was going to run there. Now, all of a sudden, it has been snatched away. What consultation was there with interests north of the river? I am pleased that the statement from the promoters also refers to the instruction we gave on Second Reading on the need for the regeneration of local communities and industries. Of course, there are no local communities or industries on the Greenwich peninsula. The change concerning what happens to the line when it leaves Canary wharf is a major one and I have heard no proper explanation for it. The additional provisions for the Bill lodged by the promoters will take the route from Canary wharf under the Thames into the Greenwich peninsula, where a new station is proposed. From that station, the proposed route again crosses under the Thames and goes up to Stratford. Some questions should be asked about that and I hope that we can hear some sensible comments tonight.

Cost is not irrelevant or unimportant. We heard what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) about the information that she received recently. We have heard the Minister's references to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). He had an assurance that he would get his stations only if there was enough money. It was not a cast-iron or, to vary the metaphor, copper-bottomed guarantee. In view of what my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford said, if it will cost much more to tunnel under the Thames twice perhaps the guarantees given to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey are not quite so firm. The route will be considerably longer than originally proposed. Not only will that be much more expensive, but two additional Thames crossings will have to be tunnelled, perhaps in difficult conditions. I do not know what expert opinion we have on how difficult it will be to do that tunnelling, but I should like to know what it will cost and who will pay. Is there any cost to the taxpayer, or will it be paid for by private interests? Parliament wants answers to those questions.

The railway is being paid for very oddly, with subventions from developers and I think that British Gas put up some money. The private Bill procedure for the expenditure of vast sums of public money is unsatisfactory. I ask these questions to see whether we can get some answers.

British Urban Development was set up from 11 major firms in the construction industry. Its purpose was to carry out redevelopment in the inner cities. The Prime Minister, in particular, looked very kindly on it and it was created virtually with her patronage. It was going to do great work in the inner cities, but unfortunately it is being scaled down because of dwindling Government support, the recession and the downturn in the property market. My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey) mentioned county

Column 447

hall. I think that that group was to develop county hall but has now gone bankrupt. As there is so much risk in this line of business but insufficient incentives for firms, they are contracting out of this development.

British Urban Development and British Gas are still paying at least lip service to the development at the Greenwich peninsula. A proposal has been made to develop housing and some small industry. I want to know a bit more about that and how firm it is. I hope that I am not being too insensitive if I say that many of the 11 firms are well known for contributing to the Conservative party. They certainly have much clout and have been able to change the route and take the line under the Thames twice to that site. I think that British Gas has offered £25 million. Is that why the development is being proposed? If we pass the motion, the Select Committee that will consider this will want to ask whether £25 million was available from people on the other side of the river. Is the route of the line to be decided by some sort of auction, with developers offering different sums of money?

We want to know whether the developers of the Greenwich peninsula will deliver. What guarantees are there that they will? My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) and I heard much talk about development in the royal docks. The area was taken out of the the control of the local authorities and put under the control of the London Docklands development corporation--an allegedly dynamic body that was supposed to develop the area. That was 11 years ago, and not a single brick has been laid. If that project has failed, what guarantees are there in respect of the Greenwich peninsula? Is the development viable, and is it fundable, bearing in mind the fact that we are talking about a derelict contaminated gasworks site. Are we sure that the development will take place?

The original route through the Leamouth area on the northern side was decided because of the support that it would give to the regeneration of docklands. It forms a vital part of the transport infrastructure planned by the LDDC for the area. I have not heard the LDDC say anything about the matter. What is the development corporation's view? Or is it inhibited because the Government are its paymasters? Perhaps it is not allowed to have a view. Many of those who have spoken to me believe that the reason for the original decision--which the promoters now want to alter--to run the tracks of the Jubilee line through the Leamouth area, supporting the regeneration of docklands and the east side of London, was sound, and that it constituted a vital element in the success of the regeneration.

Let us consider the development in the Leamouth area and the vast number of people who will be working there. If the Jubilee line does not run through the area, other forms of public transport will be needed, because the private motor car will not be sufficient to move the staff around. The docklands light railway will not be enough ; we all know that. Presumably, therefore, those people will be transported by bus, and that will clog up the roads.

Transport will also be needed on the Greenwich peninsula. I have heard a number of ideas about what could be done there, one of which involved the provision of a light railway, linking Westcombe park British Rail line with the peninsula. The DLR should also be extended from Island Gardens on the Isle of Dogs, via Greenwich, to Lewisham.

Column 448

In Newham, we want the royal docks to be developed. Ah! I see the Minister for Industry standing at the Bar of the House, wearing a white tie. I have half a mind to order a cup of coffee from the hon. Gentleman, but perhaps that would not be appropriate.

The Minister for Industry (Mr. Douglas Hogg) : With pleasure, Sir.

Mr. Leighton : Two sugars, please. The service in this place is wonderful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the hon. Gentleman's dress is a splendid example of the sort of uniform that might attract foreign visitors to county hall if ever it were developed as a hotel. In Newham, we want the Jubilee line extended to the royal docks. That will cost a lot of money, and I have asked about this because I want to know whether the money will be available. Two years ago, we were told that the route would be safeguarded. But as far as I know, after two years of talk, nothing has been done to safeguard it. When will that route be safeguarded?

The step plate junction is a subject close to the heart of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South. It is the facility that will be necessary to extend the Jubilee line to the royal docks. There are a number of question marks hanging over the project's technical feasibility and the availability of funds. Is the money available--if not, when will it be available--for the step plate junction? May we have an assurance that the engineering works will be committed? I am advised that they cannot be carried out once the trains are running ; I may be wrong, but I should like to be reassured about the junction. On the original route, the junction would have a gentle 45-degree curve, which could be accommodated. The other proposed route-- coming up from the south, from the Greenwich peninsula--would, however, involve a 135-degree curve. I am advised by some people that that would be impossible to implement.

When the Jubilee line is extended, which I hope that it will be in the future--perhaps under another Government--it will, ideally, cross the river at north Woolwich and go to Thamesmead.

I have, I trust, raised one or two legitimate questions. They are difficult to deal with under the private Bill procedure, but I hope nevertheless to receive some clear and specific answers.

11.40 pm

Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South) : On Second Reading, I gave the Bill qualified support. I therefore, of necessity, support tonight's motion.

When I questioned my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) about the will to complete, the Minister gave me an assurance for which I thank him. Perhaps my thought was a little unworthy--in relation to trains stopping only at Canary wharf, that is--but, as the Minister knows, the promoters are not obliged to complete any works for which an Act is provided. In any event, the Minister has cleared the matter up by giving me a Government assurance that the necessary funds will be available.

This is the season of carry-over motions, and we have some congestion on the private Bill railway. Comments have been made about private Bill procedure, which I think are best dealt with by way of example. We all know that the major delay is caused by a clash between national

Column 449

energy policy and the little matter of 50,000 miners' jobs. That, of course, is part of the reason for our being here, night after night, until rather late, but I shall not deal with that now. What I do wish to discuss, however, is an alternative procedure which might make a carry-over motion unnecessary in this instance. It has been suggested that railway Bills should be treated like proposals relating to motorways and referred to a public inquiry. Judging from the detailed comments about open spaces that we heard earlier, some hon. Members may consider that a good idea. What I favour, however, is an examination by a Joint Committee of both Houses--preferably before Second Reading--which would assure itself that any appropriate preliminary steps had been taken before a private Bill came to the House. Had such a procedure been adopted earlier, private legislation involving the channel tunnel, King's Cross and, indeed, the matters that we are discussing now would in my view have been dealt with much more expeditiously.

I am opposed to leaving the final decision with the Secretary of State rather than the House. The issues raised by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), for instance, should not be dealt with by means of an ordinary planning inquiry, in which event the decision would lie with the Minister ; here, it lies with the House, and with a Committee appointed by the House to look into the merits of the case. I think that that system should be

retained--albeit with some form of ring fencing outside--to ensure that all the preliminary procedures, including consultation with landowners and boroughs, have been undertaken before Second Reading. I wish to emphasise the importance of three broad issues which were dealt with on Second Reading. The regeneration of docklands and the lower Lee valley has been mentioned by many hon. Members. Inquiries have been made about the security of the step plate junction, and I am puzzled how the matter has arisen. The junction consists of concentric expanding rings in the tunnel--it was the design for the tunnel under the Thames, or near it, on the north bank in Canning Town and it was always in the plan. I understand that the design has been incorporated in the variation order, and I see that there are signs of agreement with that in the Chamber. A typical rumour has circulated and it is right that inquiries have been made, but there may be some misapprehension about the safeguarding of the route. As I understand it, that safeguarding will lie in the junction, which can be constructed only prior to the initiation of trains. The scheme will permit a branch through the royal docks, should that be found necessary in future, and that makes sense. Had there been sufficient and proper time to take the line over an existing or proposed bridge, or through a tunnel, into Thamesmead or Woolwich, that would have been a good strategic planning stroke to come from a future Bill. I referred on Second Reading to the Westminster/Charing cross problem, and I mention it again for the consideration of the Select Committee. Should the interchange with the District line be at St. James's park as the Committee wanted, at Westminster where the promoters want it, or at Temple which I have suggested as an alternative? If the interchange were at Temple, there

Column 450

would be the facility of continuing with the present route via Charing cross or Trafalgar square, which are relatively near. The curve of the line--curves have been mentioned in respect of Canning Town--at Green park would need to be transposed to a curve through Temple, or there would have to be a similar one. I am not convinced that that could be achieved. I have no doubt that the Committee will consider the matter, and I hope that the promoters will be preparing a variation order--they will if they are wise--in the event that the Committee finds that there is a better way of serving the general needs of London and getting rid of all the problems at Parliament square.

I make no apology for raising the subject of regeneration again. It is an example of the value of the parliamentary Bill procedure as a long-stop for anything that may come earlier. On Second Reading, the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot) talked about one of his constituents, a Mr. Downey, who has a business in my constituency. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman, who represents one of the Buckhurst Hill areas, devoted his speech to the just needs of Mr. Downey and his business. Mr. Downey owns a small engineering business by a filling station in Canning Town. It is one of the remnant industries of east London, and stems directly from the shipbuilding and ship-repairing tradition which, alas, is all but extinct in the area now. I believe that in 1906 a Dreadnought was built on the site close to where Mr. Downey has his workshops.

Compensation is causing some difficulty. I pay tribute to the work of some of the officials, some of whom may even be listening to what I have to say, in trying to find Mr. Downey alternative accommodation. The fact that he has two disparate businesses may make their job difficult. I understand, however, that it will be difficult for Mr. Downey even to continue with his engineering business, which has a relatively full order book. That is something which I believe the House will not tolerate. Will the Committee tolerate it, bearing in mind the instruction that the House has already issued? Mr. Downey is a gentleman of private enterprise. He is engaged in a business that would gladden the hearts of Conservative Members and one of which I approve because it is concerned with engineering and tangible things. It leads to items being made that people want, and it is conducted on good private enterprise lines which Conservative Members constantly applaud.

The private Bill procedure is meant to ensure that people get proper compensation. Because of the importance of regeneration, the LDDC and the instruction, such people should be permitted and enabled to carry on their productive businesses. My constituents should be enabled to continue their employment in a traditional east London industry and, if necessary, to carry out training and have apprentices so that if demand for Mr. Downey's fabrications increases, his industry can continue to meet it. At the moment, however, there is no guarantee of that.

I have been invited to be involved in the search for a solution but, as both myself--the Member representing the constituency in which the business is located--and the hon. Member representing Mr. Downey's constituency, who is present in the Chamber today, have pointed out, hon. Members should not have to spend any more time on mediation. I am glad and proud that Parliament can consider the fate of individual businesses and, in the

Column 451

traditional phrase, "the details of Mrs. Smith's pension" on the Adjournment. That is absolutely right and cases such as this are why we want to retain the private Bill procedure. However, once the House has given an instruction, and once the idea of proper compensation, enshrined for centuries, is embedded in the legislation, I believe that the promoters and others concerned should be enabled to get on with it.

I conclude where I began, considering the value of at least part of the private Bill procedure for railways. We can see what is happening at the moment with the procedure for roads. Not very far from the end of the Jubilee line at Oxleas Wood, the former Secretary of State for the Environment approved a road and not a tunnel. We are talking about a tunnel for a railway. At a stroke of his pen--in perhaps just 15 seconds' work-- the Secretary of State ruled that the inspectors' report on Oxleas Wood would be completely disregarded and decided that there should not be a tunnel there. No Secretary of State in the future--I do not care what party he belongs to--or future Administration in 20, 30 or 50 years' time should be given such a power in relation to tunnels for railways.

That is why I end where I began. Although we want the private Bill procedure to be improved, I believe that the case of Mr. Downey and the former Secretary of State's decision over Oxleas Wood prove that we should only modify our procedures and not hand the power of the House and its Committees to some personage who will be seated at a desk opposite the House in Whitehall.

11.52 pm

Mr. Robert G. Hughes : With the permission of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall seek to answer some of the important points that have been made, and to do so as briefly as possible. The promoters are extremely grateful for all the points that have been made, and careful note has been made of the important views expressed by those hon. Members who represent constituencies that will be affected by the line.

I shall not go into all the arguments that have been made about procedure, especially the private Bill procedure, because that is a complicated matter that is outside the scope of this debate. The hon. Member for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey) referred to the problem with Jubilee gardens. I well understand the point that she is making on behalf of her constituents. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) also made the point that Jubilee gardens is the only green space in the area and that there will be enormous problems if building has to be carried out there. However, as the hon. Lady also said, she and the people she represents are not against the line. She knows that, if the line is built, there will have to be some digging. She and the promoters are at one in seeking to have the building site located on the car park if possible. I shall not stray into the political areas of discussing how possible that may or may not be or should or should not be. Nevertheless, they are at one and LUL will be seeking to locate the building site on the car park.

My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West (Dr. Blackburn) hit the nail on the head in many regards, but especially when he said that improvements for hon. Members, and the new building that everyone desires, are in danger if the motion is not passed. That is the context

Column 452

in which we should put both his remarks and the valuable speech about the new building of the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell). I was tempted by the hon. Member for Ogmore when he talked about the prospect that county hall could be used for offices. I used to have an office in county hall which was about the same size as that enjoyed by the Prime Minister at the back of the Chair in this building. If it meant that I could have that office back, I should be in favour of moving into county hall.

Mr. Jeremy Hanley (Richmond and Barnes) : Until there was a Division.

Mr. Hughes : Until there was a Division, as my hon. Friend says. The Committee of the hon. Member for Ogmore has made a valuable contribution on the new building and the traffic in Parliament square. It is fair to say that the close working relationship that has built up between the PSA and London Underground has ironed out many of the problems that were raised by the hon. Member for Ogmore on Second Reading. Of course, problems remain to be ironed out, but I hope that the promoters will examine the problems outlined by the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members today and that further improvements can be made before the building work starts. I thank the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey for his kind words. He talked about the cost of the project. He asked whether the stations were linked to the project or to the cost of the project. The hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) also made that point. It is clear from everything that I have read and from what my hon. Friend the Minister said that the stations of Southwark and Bermondsey are linked to the project going ahead. There is not much point in having the stations if one does not have the line. There is no suggestion that the line would go ahead without the stations. That is important. I think that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey was satisfied on that point.

The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey also said that the line should serve communities and help to regenerate them. He said that it should not be merely for commuting into the rest of London. The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) also made that point. That objective is clear, as I said in my introduction to the debate.

The hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) made a speech that was interesting but not necessarily germane to a carry-over motion. I take to heart her point about wheelchair accessibility, and I hope that the promoters take it to heart too. We must work towards making people in wheelchairs real members of our society, with the rights that they deserve. We need to do some work on that. That was not in my brief, but I thought that I would say it.

Ms. Ruddock : I remind the hon. Gentleman that I also requested an assurance on safeguarding a route to the royals. Will he come to that point?

Mr. Hughes : I was coming to that specific point.

As the hon. Member for Newham, South said--in a sense in response to his hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East--the safeguard for the route to the royals is the fact that the step plates are integral to the

Column 453

building of the line. That has been clearly stated by the promoters. Without the step plates, the new line cannot be built to the royals. That is the guarantee. Guaranteeing the specific route is a matter for the Government, and no doubt that will have to be pursued. However, it may not need to be pursued because the step plates are guaranteed.

The case of Mr. Downey was raised by the hon. Member for Newham, South. There has been some correspondence--

Mr. Leighton : I am counting the hon. Gentleman's remarks and wondering whether he is responding in order in which the speeches were made. After replying to my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) he leapt over me to my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). Does he intend to come back to me by some sort of step plate? How is he arranging his speech?

Mr. Hughes : Rather like the pudding after the meal, I am saving my reply to the hon. Gentleman until last.

There has been correspondence between London Underground and my hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot) on Mr. Downey. The local authority and LUL are doing everything possible to find a new site. I know that my hon. Friend will not let Mr. Downey's case go by default and he will ensure that his constituent is satisfied before the Bill proceeds to the statute book. The hon. Member for Newham, North-East asked the important question about whether the line should go north or south of the river. The east London rail study identified two possible alignments between Canary wharf and Canning Town--via either the Greenwich peninsula or the Brunswick foreshore. The pressure of the November deadline on LRT to deposit a Bill last year made it necessary for it to reach a decision to plan on the basis of the shorter and cheaper alignment via Brunswick. The Bill was deposited on that basis.

Subsequently further discussions were held with property developers and landowners, whose interests would be affected by both alignments, to ascertain whether they would be prepared to meet the additional costs of providing a station and changing the route as necessary. Each of the interested groups offered to contribute, but the financial case for proceeding with the Greenwich alignment is more robust and offers additional benefits as it opens up the area to public transport.

In contrast, Brunswick will be effectively served by the Beckton extension of the docklands light railway. Accordingly, the Government authorised the deposit of an additional provision to change the alignment to go via Greenwich--LRT is committed to promoting the Bill as amended by that additional provision. LRT is convinced that the better route in terms of maximum use by passengers is that via the Greenwich peninsula. That decision, however, in common with many other matters that we have discussed, should be discussed in Committee.

Without the motion, there will be no line, at least for the foreseeable future. If we approve the motion, we shall get the line that Londoners desperately need.

Mr. Leighton : Am I right to understand that there was some kind of auction and discussions with property developers and landowners and that sums of money were

Column 454

offered? I believe that the hon. Gentleman said that the case for one route was more robust than that for the other. I do not know what that means.

We already know that, in the long term, the docklands light railway will not be adequate for the traffic it must carry. The Committee should point the spotlight on this matter and examine it most carefully. It should discover how much the various offers were worth. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman can tell us the answer, because, as he said earlier, that might not be in his brief. Does he know what was offered by whom?

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Briefly, please

Mr. Leighton : Perhaps we cannot deal with the matter here because of unsatisfactory procedures, but it is something that must be dealt with.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. I think that the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) might reply.

Mr. Hughes : The crux of the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Newham, North-East is that this matter should be discussed in Committee.

On Second Reading, people asked why this particular route had been chosen, given the announcement about the east-west route. The answer lies in cost- benefit analysis. LRT believes that that analysis proves that the Greenwich peninsula is a better route than the other, which happens to be cheaper. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the Committee should discuss the matter.

Without the carry-over motion, the Committee cannot discuss any matter, and London will be deprived of a desperately needed railway. Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That the Promoters of the London Underground Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid ;

Ordered,

That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House ;

Ordered,

That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session ;

Ordered,

That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed) ;

Ordered,

That all Petitions relating to the Bill presented in the present Session which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session ; Ordered,

That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited within the present Session or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business ;

Ordered,

Column 455

That, in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words "under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against Bill)" were omitted ;

Ordered,

"That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session ;

Ordered,

That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.

Column 456

Central and Eastern Europe (EC Aid)

12.4 am

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones) : I beg to move

That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 7720/90, relating to the extension of the provisions of Council regulation No. 3906/89 to Czechoslovakia, GDR, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia and Romania ; and supports the Government's view that the provision of co-ordinated economic aid to those countries by the European Community will promote economic and political reform in those countries and foster a closer relationship with the Community. Last Friday the House debated the EC consequences of German unity. Although that debate was not without its complexity--no less than 26 pieces of draft EC legislation lay on the Table for the House's consideration--it was lubricated by the fact that the former German Democratic Republic is acceding immediately to the Community as a part of the Federal Republic. The considerable costs of bringing the GDR up to the standards of the Community will be largely met by the Federal Republic of Germany. Even though substantial social and economic strains will result, they will undoubtedly be eased by the wealth of western Germany and its commitment to the cause of German unity. No such sponsor exists for the other newly emerged democracies of eastern Europe, and they will need our support both bilaterally and through the Community.

For Conservative Members and the majority of Opposition Members, the return of Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria and, we hope eventually, Romania to democracy and free enterprise is a matter for unalloyed rejoicing. For some Opposition Members the matter is not so clear cut.

Last Friday the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) leapt to the defence of the Trabant motor car--an heroic act that 18 million former East Germans are no longer prepared to perform. The hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) even praised the full employment policies of the GDR. At one stage I was surprised that none of the Members who sit below the Gangway rose to praise the policies of law and order that used to pertain under Herr Honecker. The regulation which we are debating this evening gives effect to the extension of the Community's aid to the other countries of central and eastern Europe in addition to the original recipients, Poland and Hungary. I was grateful for the Scrutiny Committee's agreement that our acceptance of the Commission's proposal did not need to await its deliberations. By agreeing to this regulation in July the Government were able to send a positive signal about their commitment to supporting political and economic reform in eastern Europe.

I should like to outline first the criteria used by the Community in deciding to which countries to give aid. Secondly, I shall touch on the range of measures that have so far been taken. Thirdly, I shall consider some of the projects that have been financed by EC funds. Finally, I shall comment on the future of EC relations with eastern and central Europe.

I shall begin with the criteria. The Community's aid policy is based on an assessment of each country's progress in implementing political and economic reform. We measure that commitment according to five criteria : the

Column 457

establishment of a market economy ; a pluralist democracy ; free and fair elections ; the recognition of human rights ; and the rule of law. The freedom of the media is a further barometer of the extent of political liberty in any country.

We retain, alas, some doubts about Romania's commitment to democracy following the unhappy events of June this year. Romania, although covered by the regulation, will receive EC economic aid only when Ministers are satisfied that the above criteria have been met. We look forward to its early inclusion.

The programme of aid available to Poland and Hungary developed at the end of last year comprised four basic elements--measures to boost trade with the Community, lending facilities, project aid for spending in the priority areas of environment, agriculture, training and industry, and food aid where that was required.

A further important role will be performed by the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development which we hope will begin operations in the spring from its London headquarters.

Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow) : What will happen after 1 January when non-transferable roubles become difficult and have to give way to hard dollars? That will hit countries such as Poland and Bulgaria extremely hard. Will the bank do something about that?

Mr. Garel-Jones : The hon. Gentleman will be aware that eastern Europe faces problems in financial management, accountancy and so on. Through our know-how fund and the TEMPUS programmes of the Community we shall be attempting, through conferences, seminars and direct advice, to give assistance to eastern Europe on the many problems that will arise from moving rather abruptly from a command economy to a market economy.

The EC's aid measures are being extended on a case-by-case basis to Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia and Romania, although I stress again that no disbursements will be made to Romania until she has met the requirements that I outlined to the House in my earlier remarks.

Mr. John Bowis (Battersea) : Does my hon. Friend intend to refer to Yugoslavia and the abuses of human rights there? It is hardly moving towards a free and fair democratic system, particularly in the Kosovo region. Will he also define Yugoslavia should Slovenia and others begin to break away and form their own nations?

Mr. Garel-Jones : I am sure that my hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not attempt this evening to define Yugoslavia--a matter which is causing some difficulty even for Yugoslavs. I agree that Yugoslavia has some way to go before it attains the criteria that I have just outlined.

In particular the PHARE--Poland Hungary aid for reconstruction of the economy--regulation now covers all the above countries for project aid, although, as I have just explained, there are no disbursements yet for Romania.

The original budget for 1990 of 300 million ecu, which is about £210 million, was extended to 500 million ecu, or £350 million, for all six countries, and 850 million ecu, or £595 million, has been earmarked for 1991. It might be helpful if I highlighted some of the projects implemented

Next Section

Home Page