Lords Sitting of 2 July 1991

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of St. Albans.

Baroness Hilton of Eggardon
Jennifer Hilton, having been created Baroness Hilton of Eggardon, of Eggardon in the County of Dorset, for life—Was, in her robes, introduced between the Baroness David and the Lord Richard, and made the solemn Affirmation.
Lord Leconfield and Egremont Lord Leconfield and Egremont— Took the Oath.

The Lord Chancellor: Leave of Absence
2.48 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, before the commencement of business, I take the opportunity to inform the House that I am to visit the judges and staff at Chester County Court, Chester Crown Court and Rhyl County Court on Friday 5th July 1991. Accordingly, as these arrangements were made before it was known that the House would be sitting on that day, I trust that the House will agree to grant me leave of absence for Friday 5th July.

Scottish Salmon Farming Industry
Lord Mackie of Benshie Lord Mackie of Benshie asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are aware of the difficulties of the Scottish salmon farming industry and what plans they have to assist this industry.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, the Government are fully aware of the industry's current difficulties and we are working closely with it to secure the future of salmon farming in the United Kingdom. This is not an area where the Government can act unilaterally; we have to work through the European Community. We have already raised the matter with the Commission and we hope to have a further meeting with it shortly.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply although it does not appear to be totally satisfactory in view of the assurances that have been given in various parts of the country. What attitude will the Minister adopt at the meeting on 8th July, which I understand is a council meeting? Will he vigorously press for a tariff to be levied under the anti-dumping arrangements, which the EC committee has already confirmed, to help this hard pressed industry? We must bear in mind the fact that because of Norwegian dumping the United States has already imposed a tariff of 26 per cent. whereas the EC has proposed a tariff of 11 per cent.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Lord is correct to say that there is a meeting of the fisheries council on 8th July; though this matter comes under the heading not of fisheries but of competition. However, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will talk to the responsible commissioner on that day in Strasbourg and will make known to the Commission the strong views held by the Government and the industry. The future of any dumping procedure is for the industry to tackle. We are urging the industry to build up evidence that can be produced for the Commission.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, is not the Minister aware that the problem that is confronting the Scottish salmon farming industry at the moment is the massive dumping of Norwegian salmon? Last year the Norwegians produced 160,000 tonnes of salmon of which 60 per cent. was exported to the European Community. It is that factor that is causing the closure of some of the fish farms in Scotland. Is the Minister also aware that an anti-dumping levy was proposed in order to safeguard the Scottish salmon farming industry, but that the Commission turned it down? What was the attitude of Her Majesty's Government towards that levy and what have they done further to safeguard this industry?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I understand that the Commission proposed that levy but was not supported in the Council of Ministers by other member states. Our position has always been plain. Where dumping is proven, we would like the Commission to make proposals for change. However, we must seek the agreement of other member states on this issue. We shall continue to help the industry and ask the industry to produce evidence. At the end of the previous dumping negotiations, the Norwegians promised to bring forward a freezing down programme. That was successful during the course of 1990 but half-way through 1991 that arrangement seems to be breaking down.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, do the Government need to obtain any more information from the industry? Last August the Commission decided that there was undoubted dumping by Norwegian salmon fisheries. It then produced the idea of an 11.4 per cent. levy. Rather weakly, it did not seem to push that proposal hard enough with the other countries and therefore about 6,000 very valuable jobs in deeply rural Scotland are at risk. Does the noble Lord agree that the Government should do rather more and push the Commission in order to have a proper levy established?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, we are helping the industry. We are pushing the Commission and I have met the Norwegian ambassador to impress on him the dire state of the Scottish salmon farming industry. Beyond that, at this stage there is not very much more that we can do.
Viscount Thurso: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the dumping of Norwegian salmon affects not only the salmon farming industry but also the

895
livelihood of coastal netsmen and some people around the rivers and along our coasts? Can the Minister assure us that the salmon that is so dumped upon us is produced to the same standards of healthfulness and quality as is the salmon produced around our coasts by our own farms, and our wild fish?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I have not received any representations from coastal netsmen so I presume that they are not suffering in the same way. The quality of the fish coming from a salmon farm compared with wild fish is a matter of taste, which is for the individual to decide.
Lord Jeffreys: My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the great anxiety among game fishers and salmon farmers about the over-fishing of sand eels in the North Sea? If so, what representations are being made about it to the EC?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am aware of the position on sand eels. My noble friend will know that we have banned fishing for sand eels in Shetland. A lot of research is being carried out on the problems of salmon, which includes a study of sand eels.
Lord Kirkhill: My Lords, many distinguished veterinarians regard the practice of salmon farming as inherently cruel. Do the Government have a view on that particular difficulty?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, salmon farming is a young industry. It has to develop and work out what is best for the long-term viability of the industry. Over the course of the past few years new vaccines have been and continue to be introduced so as to increase the welfare of the salmon, and there is now lower stocking density in the nets.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, do I gather from the tone of my noble friend's reply that when the Government have the additional information they will consider working actively in the interests of Scottish salmon and point out that many other Community countries, whose views may well weigh against us, do not have a salmon problem and therefore are not in the picture?
Lord Strathclyde: Yes, my Lords.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the North Atlantic salmon is one of God's wildest creatures? Does he consider that to keep it in a cage is an inhumane practice at a time when most of the emphasis seems to be on getting animals out of cages?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am no great expert on the welfare of farmed salmon. I understand that in the early years the wild salmon will also shoal as they do in the nets in a farm.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that in 1989 it was apparent that the Norwegian Government had accepted the fact that there was dumping? Do the Government consider it appropriate that this time they should abide by the agreements that they make with the Commission so that this situation will not arise again?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that question. I understand that the Norwegian industry has reached agreement for a short-term loan facility of about £145 million to freeze up to 40,000 tonnes of fish this year. That will be an extension of the 1989 scheme that worked so successfully during the course of 1990. We must see whether or not it will have entirely the same effect.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is the Minister aware that subsidisation of the Norwegian industry is massive compared with the help that was received on the start-up of ours? Can he tell the House what additional information he requires, since the Commission accepted that there was dumping as late as August 1990?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the industry will have to bring forward firm evidence that there has been dumping, particularly in France and Germany. It is well aware of that and is working towards finding it.

Motor Cycle Helmets: EC Policy
2.58 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton Baroness Masham of Ilton asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will make representations to the other member states of the European Community to ensure the speedy adoption of legislation to enforce the wearing of helmets by motor cyclists throughout the Community.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, all member countries have already adopted legislation requiring motor cyclists to wear helmets, although in some countries the requirement does not extend to moped riders.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he agree that one of the biggest problems is to ensure that places such as the Greek islands implement the legislation? Is he aware of the extent of brain injuries to holidaymakers caused by motor cycle accidents? Such accidents are traumatic for the families concerned. Is he further aware that great expense can be incurred by families arising from injuries which often entail long-term disability and pose a great problem for our National Health Service?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we are well aware of the kind of injuries that can occur as a result of motor cycle accidents where people have not worn helmets. We were the first country in the EC to make compulsory the wearing of helmets. That was way back in 1973. It has undoubtedly proved a great success. Implementation of the law on the Greek islands can only be a matter for the Greeks themselves.
Lord Thorneycroft: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that reaching agreement on what the law ought to be is an interesting but rather useless exercise? The fear is that that is exactly what we might experience in the Common Market. Is it not therefore desirable that

897
special efforts be made to reach agreement on the implementation, not of some difficult or complicated matter, but of such an obvious necessity?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, my noble friend makes a very good point. I do not know what resources the Greeks, for example, put into implementing the legislation. It is important that having signed up to a deal all countries should implement it.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is the Minister aware that standards of implementation of such a measure vary? If he is of that view, will the Government consider pursuing the matter with the Commission in order to obtain some data-based information on the enforcement of the law? If there are substantial breaches, will the Government try to persuade the Commission to take effective action to restrain such breaches in the future?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, it is no doubt possible for the Commission to look into enforcement of laws in member states. I shall certainly see that attention is drawn to the noble Lord's remarks.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that while there is a difficulty of implementation and enforcement, much depends on the individual response of those who motor cycle outside the United Kingdom? Does the Foreign Office, or any other government agency, give notice of Community legislation to those who travel abroad and advise that they should wear helmets when they ride motorbikes, wherever they may be?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am not aware that any information is given to motor cyclists who travel abroad. The problem arises from the hiring of motor cycles when people are abroad rather than from those who travel abroad on their own bikes.
Lord Monson: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that what my noble friend suggests, and what other noble Lords seem to endorse, is consistent not with a federal super state but, far worse, with a unitary super state? Does he agree that in federal nations such as the United States and Australia every state is totally free to decide its own policy on such matters as seat belts, crash helmets, speed limits and the age at which driving licences can be acquired? As we are not yet—thank God!—part of a super state, is it not the case that every nation has the right to decide its own policy on the matter without interference from outside bodies?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we consider each Commission proposal on road safety on its merit. and potential benefits. In order to avoid a piecemeal approach we are encouraging the production of a strategy. At the last Transport Council it was agreed to set up a high level working group to produce such a strategy.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the noble Lord, Lord Monson, is absolutely right in what he states? It is a classic
898
example to which the principles of government, supposedly leading to the principle of subsidiarity, should apply.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I believe that is right, yes.
Lord Rea: My Lords, my question goes in a somewhat different direction from the last two. Does the noble Lord consider that if we can score a success on this issue and improve implementation throughout Europe, the Government will have made amends to some extent for their stand in Europe where they oppose the banning of tobacco advertising and the placing of a warning on cigarette packets?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, banning of tobacco advertising is a very different matter. I understand that it is proposed by those who operate state monopolies in Europe and who do not wish to see competition.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, is it not the responsibility of citizens of the United Kingdom who travel abroad and who intend to ride a motor bike to wear a crash helmet? They are used to doing so in this country. Should they not also carry out the procedure abroad?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, it is the responsibility of citizens of this country who travel abroad to obey the laws of the country to which they go. If that law means that they have to wear a crash helmet when riding a motor cycle, so they should.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, will the Minister inform the House whether or not it is very expensive to bring back from Europe someone who has suffered a brain injury? Does he agree that it costs about £13,000? That can break some families financially. Can such information be made available to motor cyclists travelling abroad with the advice that they take their helmets with them?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I cannot honestly endorse the figure which the noble Baroness suggests. Nor do I believe that I am able to find out that information. The National Health Service in this country has to treat people whether they have obeyed or disobeyed the law.

Africa: Food Aid
3.5 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs Baroness Ewart-Biggs asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to improve the international response to famine in Africa.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, in addition to the substantial multilateral and bilateral aid we have given, on 9th June we and the German Government launched a joint initiative to improve and support the way the United Nations responds to

899
humanitarian disasters and emergencies including those in Africa. On 29th June the European Council endorsed our ideas.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his answer. Does he agree that there is desperate urgency in a situation where the world programme shows that up to 30 million people in Africa face starvation? Perhaps the Minister will answer two questions. First, will he state the amount of food pledged by Her Majesty's Government and the EC, and how much of that food aid has been delivered and distributed? In view of the need for co-ordination of responses from non-governmental organisations, donor governments and the UN, why are Her Majesty's Government opposing the re-establishment of the Office for Emergency Operations in Africa? As the noble Earl knows, it was set up in 1984 and did a very good job. It was withdrawn in 1986 on the basis that it would be re-established should the need arise. Does the Minister agree that the need now arises?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, since last September, in response to the present crisis, the UK has provided £122 million, including our contributions to the Community actions. That includes 220,000 tonnes of food. Almost 180,000 tonnes of that has been directed to the Horn of Africa where we are the second largest bilateral food aid donor after the United States. If other countries were to follow our example, perhaps the terrible situation to which the noble Baroness refers would be alleviated a great deal more quickly. In response to the noble Baroness's second point, as I said in the debate on Africa, we do not rule out the revival of the emergency operations unit in Africa, but we must avoid duplication.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is it not the case that the Office for Emergency Operations in Africa, to which my noble friend refers, did a first class job in 1984–85 during the crisis there? Some 30 million men, women and children in Africa are on the verge of starvation. Is there not the strongest possible case for re-establishing the office for emergency operations? Will the noble Earl give an assurance to the House that he will speak to his right honourable friend so that Her Majesty's Government can bring immediate pressure to re-establish the office? That is essential if those people's lives are to be saved. Such numbers represent over half the population of Britain with a problem far beyond anything that we in this country have experienced.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition that the Office for Emergency Operations worked well for co-ordination in 1984–86. The noble Lord and the Government are also in agreement that we need to improve co-ordination to get supplies and aid out to Africa. What is in question is whether the Office for Emergency Operations is the right vehicle, given the initiative that my right honourable friend has already launched.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that emergency famine relief is only one half of the equation? The other half is to encourage people in these countries to grow their own food. Will my noble friend inform the House what proportion of overseas aid, both unilaterally and bilaterally through the EC, goes towards that purpose?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, since 1982 the total British aid to Africa has amounted to £4.5 billion. That is a substantial sum of money. About 25 per cent. of the UK bilateral aid to Africa goes to agriculture and related activities.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does the Minister agree that notwithstanding the endeavours of Her Majesty's Government, the people of this country are seeing in newspapers and on television probably the most horrific scenes that they have witnessed in their entire lives? Since Question Time began, approximately 1,000 children have starved to death in Africa. Therefore is it not time that our Government, who have done a great deal, should make it their top priority within the EC and the United Nations to ensure that the rest of the world supports us in our endeavours to end the horror of people starving at the rate of thousands per day? When that is overcome, will they carry on their endeavours to ensure that it never happens again?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we are at one with the noble Lord in wishing to see a speedy solution to this difficult problem. We are the second largest bilateral food aid donor to the Horn of Africa. If other countries followed our example, the solution would be arrived at much quicker.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, will the Minister say whether food supplies can get through to the southern Sudan, which is one of the areas affected, and whether co-operation is forthcoming from the Khartoum Government?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord raises an important point. It is all very well wishing to give food; but unless one can deliver the aid, one cannot implement one's wishes. There are certain difficulties in some parts of Africa.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, can my noble friend assure the House that certain difficulties are not caused by this country trying to bring political pressure to bear on the Sudan? Is it not also true that although food sometimes arrives there, the distribution is extremely difficult for that country? It is far the largest country in the African continent.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I know that my noble friend has tabled a Question on this issue. I should hate to pre-empt him, although I should be happy to do so if the House would approve.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, will the Minister answer a question that I asked? Can he say how much of the food that has been pledged has been distributed? There is clearly a problem of slow delivery which is exacerbating the difficulties in the countries affected.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I do not have the precise breakdown for which the noble Baroness asks. I believe that I gave it in our debate on the subject, but I shall endeavour to ascertain the latest situation.

Japanese Knotweed
3.13 p.m.
Baroness Sharples Baroness Sharples asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress has been made in combating the spread of Japanese knotweed in the United Kingdom.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, considerable research on this subject has already been undertaken. The Welsh Development Agency commissioned a major study by consultants, completed last year, about the status and control of Japanese knotweed in Wales. The study makes several suggestions about controlling knotweed including local surveys, education, the production of guidelines for practical control and the investigation of the potential for biological control.
Baroness Sharpies: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer, which is not very different from that which I received two years ago. What co-operation are we receiving from our European partners? Furthermore, what effect does this nine foot pest have on SSSIs? I understand that flora are being greatly affected by this pest.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the CAB International Institute of Biological Control and a firm of UK consultants have made a joint application with the institutes in Ireland and Germany for EC funding to investigate the potential for biological control. It is a very difficult plant to eliminate. However, the National Trust in North Devon has been undertaking a control programme for a number of years and chemical and physical means of control have proved successful in a number of national nature reserves and sites of special scientific interest.

Business
3.15 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.45 p.m. my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will, with the leave of the House, make a Statement on asylum.

School Teachers' Pay and Conditions (No. 2) Bill
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the School Teachers' Pay and Conditions (No. 2) Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order—
Clause 1,
Schedule 1,
Clauses 2 to 6,
Schedule 2.
—(Lord Cavendish of Furness.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Medical Qualifications (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Atomic Weapons Establishment Bill
3.17 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (The Earl of Arran): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Arran.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Arrangements for the carrying on of certain activities]:
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 22, after ("company") insert (", being a company registered under the Companies Act 1985 and beneficially owned as to 95% or more of the shares by United Kingdom citizens resident in the United Kingdom and, so far as it is not owned by individuals, by a company or companies which are themselves so registered and owned,").
The noble Lord said: Before explaining my amendment I shall leave a short interval for those Members of the Committee who are not interested in the debate and who, no doubt, will not participate in its conclusion. I beg to move Amendment No. 1 standing in my name, and that of the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, and my noble friend Lord Kennet. I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 4 and 9 which are consequential upon Amendment No. 1 for reasons that I shall explain.
Perhaps I may remind the Committee that on Second Reading Members gave approval to the principle of the Atomic Weapons Establishment Bill. In summary, that principle is that the Government will continue ownership of the establishments in question and will contract out to third parties the production of the product. The establishments are those which at present produce our nuclear warheads for all purposes; for example, Polaris. They will in future be entrusted with the production of nuclear warheads for the Trident programme.
The first general point that I wish to reiterate is that we are dealing with a most important industry. We are not dealing with an establishment that makes some kind of toy but one that produces nuclear warheads for our strategic defence. The activities that it is proposed to contract out to third parties are spelt out in Clause 1(2). It states:

903
"any activities connected with the development, production or maintenance of nuclear devices or research into such devices or their effects".
That is the provision with which the prime contractor must deal. Immediately we ask ourselves: who will be the prime contractor? There is no doubt that the prime contractor will carry a heavy responsibility for the future defence of this country.
My amendments are directed to the ownership of the company or consortium which will be the prime contractor for this purpose. We debated that question on Second Reading. When pressed the Minister gave what I thought to be a somewhat ambiguous reply. I do not quote the noble Earl's words because they are in the Official Report but I do not believe that I misinterpret what he said. He said that the prime requirement of a contractor should be security, that the Government should be satisfied that the prime contractor has sufficient security and provisions for security to allow it to take on that task. On that, we have no quarrel with the Government whatever; we endorse that.
He went on to say:
"Secondly, we shall not rule out any company on grounds of nationality in itself. However, given AWE's close co-operation with the US, it is more likely that US companies will meet our rigorous security requirements than companies from other countries".—[Official Report, 14/6/91; col. 1313.]
That was the point which we reached on Second Reading. We believe that that is not a sufficient assurance. The amendments which I move address themselves to that problem.
The ownership of the prime contractor is of fundamental importance. It is not just a question of whether the prime contractor meets the security requirements laid down by the present Government. If there is foreign ownership of any substantial nature in the prime contractor, in our view that could lead to leakage of information about the manufacture of our nuclear warheads and, indeed, about our research into the effect of those warheads.
There is also a general principle, which I shall state as clearly as I can, that in our view the prime contractor should be of UK origin with UK citizenship and owned by UK residents. I do not believe that it is in the interests of this country that our nuclear warheads should be manufactured by a consortium or company which is to any substantial extent in foreign ownership.
I understand that the Government have very rigorous security requirements and, as I said, I accept that. I understand that, for example, the French have equally rigorous security requirements. After all, they have been manufacturing nuclear warheads for the past 30 years. There is no reason to suppose that the French industry is not equally security conscious. It is possible that a French company may wish to participate in the prime contract which the Government are to let.
I use the example of France because that is the nearest one which comes to mind. Members of the Committee can easily imagine other countries which are either manufacturers of nuclear warheads in their own right or which have aspirations to manufacturing
904
nuclear warheads. They could, by one means or another, gain access to technology by virtue of having a large shareholding in the prime contractor.
I recognise one point which the noble Earl made on Second Reading; namely, that we have a very close relationship with the United States in the technology of those warheads. Whether they are of wholly British design or partly British and partly US design is a matter which we have debated previously at Question Time. I understand that the final version which the noble Earl is able to give is that the warheads are of British design but they draw on US technology. Therefore, there must be a relationship with the United States. After all, the warheads will probably be tested in the United States when made. There can easily be a contractual relationship with the United States and with US firms which have the technology without necessarily inviting those firms into the ownership of the prime contractor.
Perhaps I may refer now to the amendments which I am to move. Amendment No. 1 seeks to ensure that the prime contractor initially should be a company registered under the Companies Act 1985 and beneficially owned as to 95 per cent. or more of the shares by United Kingdom citizens resident in the UK. In other words, it looks through the initial consortium to the parents, grandparents and great grandparents to make sure that there is no foreign ownership beyond 5 per cent. coming in by stealth. Amendment No. 4 is purely consequential on Amendment No. 1.
On the other hand, Amendment No. 9 seeks to ensure that, even if a prime contractor in the initial stage is 95 per cent. UK owned, that principle is enshrined for the future, since, if at the initial stage it is 95 per cent. UK owned, there is a possibility that one of the UK companies or UK-owned companies —because they need not necessarily be owned entirely by UK citizens—may well be taken over. In our view that should trigger a retirement of the contract and the Secretary of State should take it back.
In an exchange of correspondence which we have had in The Times and which your Lordships may have read, the noble Earl has said that we can rely on the Government to ensure the security of the country and that we need not worry too much about putting anything on the face of the Bill.
However, the noble Earl recognises that this is an important problem and that it will not go away. We believe that Parliament should assert its right on this matter. If Parliament believes that it is proper that there should be foreign ownership of the prime contractor to any major extent making our nuclear warheads and researching into other devices, then Parliament will reject my amendment. On the other hand, if the Committee believes that Parliament should put into the Bill a requirement that any Secretary of State and any future Secretary of State, whoever he or she may be and of whatever political colour, should be bound by an Act of Parliament and that in order to change that he must come back to Parliament, then the Committee will join with me in approving the amendment.
Lord Mayhew: It is strange enough that the Government should wish to hand over the production of weapons of mass destruction and their associated development and research to a private commercial company. Even stranger is their willingness to hand it over to a private company with substantial foreign shareholding.
At previous stages of the Bill and in the noble Earl's letter to The Times, to which the noble Lord, Lord Williams, referred, the noble Earl gives us the assurance that the Government will look closely at any foreign connections which the United Kingdom contractor may have. We have been told on numerous occasions that if shareholders are seen to be objectionable by the Government, the Government will cancel the contract.
Those assurances are inadequate. First, how will the Government know who are the foreign shareholders? How can they be sure that the purchasers of shares in London, New York or wherever are unobjectionable and that they are not being fronted by less objectionable agents? I doubt whether Saddam Hussein wishes to buy into the contracting company but I assure the noble Earl that, if he wanted to, his agents would not have the slightest difficulty in doing so. The Government would not know.
If the Government did know, what would they do about it? What powers do the Government or a private company have to require shareholders to sell their shares? I am not aware of those powers any more than the chairman of ICI at this moment is aware of powers to induce shareholders to sell their shares. The Government are aware of that point. Their sanction is to cancel the contract. What good will that do? In the first place, it is almost certain to be unfair to the contractor. The contractor does not want undesirable shareholders any more than the Government want them. and probably less so. Why should the contract be annulled for reasons with which the contractor is incapable of dealing? Having annulled the contract, the Government will find a successor contractor. But the same problem will arise with the successor. It too cannot control the ownership of its shares.
The cancellation of the contract is no small matter. It means another wholesale change of management on the production, research and development of our nuclear weapons. I said that Saddam Hussein would not wish to buy into this company. He might think differently if he knew that his buying shares in the company, and notification of that to the British Government, would disrupt and delay the production of British nuclear weapons.
It is no answer to these and other objections that may be made to foreign shareholdings for the Government to say that the Bill leaves open the way for American participation. It leaves open the way also to other participants of whom the Government and Parliament might not approve. I make this humble suggestion to the noble Earl. At a later stage the Government may incorporate in the Bill the suggestions made by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, that cur relationship with American help should be by contract. Or, if they wish, they could amend the Bill
906
along the lines of the amendments tabled, forbidding all foreign participation other than American. That would somewhat diminish the hostility felt on this point towards the Bill.
I must make clear that we on these Benches feel that the success of the Trident project is already too dependent on American goodwill. The Bill will increase that dependence; these amendments will decrease it. It is our view that such weapons of mass destruction, which are British, should be handled by British people and British companies and not by foreigners.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Kennet: I rise to make two points only having said most of what I wish to say at Second Reading. My first point concerns sovereignty. In the case of the European Community, the Government are extremely watchful of any process which may cause sovereignty to drain away from Parliament and its elected government to any other quarter. I am one of those who believe that it is right to be watchful and, although one may adjust the speed from time to time, by and large one should not go too fast in that direction.
In contrast with the Government's caution towards Brussels, in this case we see what appears to be an extraordinary example of a lack of caution towards the United States. We realise that the Government share our opinion that one is talking mainly of a possible United States contractor if one is thinking of allowing foreign-based contractors. I wonder why it is right to be cautious about the gradual passage of sovereignty towards Brussels and yet wrong to be cautious about an immediate, sudden outright cession of sovereignty at the very heart of the military integrity of this nation; namely, in the fabrication of nuclear warheads.
Secondly, on the question of United States versus other foreign countries which might own the contracting company, the noble Earl, Lord Arran, was kind enough to write to me after the Second Reading debate. In his letter he said that the Government would set their face against foreign contractors. He went on to say that the United States is an exception.
The history of United States/British collaboration in the manufacture of nuclear weapons is far better known to the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, than probably anybody else in the Chamber at the moment. It has had its ups and downs. Its long history began in 1941 and since then it has not been plain sailing by any means. The generation of the independent British nuclear production programme was due to one of the downs in that relationship. However, I am not arguing on strategic or political grounds that the United States should be treated the same as other foreign countries in the context of the Bill, so much as on environmental grounds. I risk recapitulating what I have already said at Second Reading, so I shall be brief.
The United States is the only country in the world which has experienced the prolonged use of private contractors in the manufacture of nuclear warheads. Environmentally that has been disastrous. The strong

907
man, Admiral Watson, was brought in two years ago to rectify matters. He had to close down a great many plants and the reclamation programme of poisoned earth and so forth is likely to cost hundreds of billions of dollars. Even the end of the beginning is not yet in sight in that country. There is a considerable risk that if we permit a US company to become a contractor in this country there will be a strong temptation for all those who have lost employment under Admiral Watson's programme of dismissals to seek employment here. I wonder whether the Government are confident of their own ability to prevent the employment of persons whose incompetence has been proven already in the United States.
I leave the matter there. I have been long enough in this House to believe that when the Government agree that something should be done, that is enough for the proper functioning of parliamentary government. If the Government agree that something should be done it is best that that be incorporated in an Act of Parliament. To the same extent that the Government agree that it should be done, they will not mind it appearing in such an Act of Parliament.
The Earl of ArranThese amendments to lines 22 and 24 of page one of the Bill would have the effect of imposing, by statute, a requirement for the AWE employing company, and the contractor acquiring it, and any parent company of that contractor, to be 95 per cent. UK owned. The further amendment to line 24 of page two of the Bill would impose a statutory restriction on any subsequent transfer of the contractor's shares to non-United Kingdom nationals.
To the extent that these amendments reflect a concern that United Kingdom national security interests must be fully safeguarded in the contract arrangements, I have no argument with those who tabled them.
I think I am correct in saying that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, said that we are dealing with a very important industry. He is quite right. It is of absolutely paramount importance that the information about the UK's nuclear weapons must continue to be protected just as rigorously as it is now, and that such information should not fall into undesirable hands, whether foreign or otherwise. I must oppose these amendments, not because of any opposition to the security concerns which lie behind them, but because the amendments would be neither a suitable nor an effective way of safeguarding those concerns.
First, I must reassure those Members of the Committee who fear that we might be about to let the AWE contact to a foreign company. I can assure them unequivocally that the contract will be let to a company which is based in the UK, and it will also be a company whose controlling share interest is in British hands. This is not, therefore, a debate on whether the AWE contract should be let to a British company or a foreign one. It will, without doubt, be let to a British company. The debate is really about how we should ensure that whatever UK-based company we select meets our security concerns.
908
The noble Lords who propose these amendments have chosen to focus narrowly on the question of share ownership. But the issue of security is far too complex and important to be dealt with in such a simplistic way. We shall take a close interest in the share ownership of the contracting company. Indeed it is likely that we may specify in the contract that shares in the contracting company should not be transferred without the consent of the Secretary of State. That was a point that the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, was concerned about. We would certainly reserve the right to terminate the contract of the ownership if the contracting company were to change in a way that was prejudicial to our security concerns.
But the ownership of shares is only one of many considerations that are relevant to security and, given that the controlling interest will in any case be in UK hands, it is by no means the most crucial. The holding of shares in the contracting company would not of itself confer any rights of access to AWE information. In any case, a company could be 100 per cent. UK owned and yet still have connections with undesirable foreign interests; or it could fail to meet our security requirements for other reasons. The most important safeguards for our nuclear weapon information are the stringent vetting procedures which must be undergone by all personnel before they can receive it and the principle that even among security-cleared personnel information is restricted to those who have a need to know.
Nevertheless, we will, as I have said, take a close interest in the share ownership of the contracting company and, in practice, the need to be absolutely sure that UK nuclear weapon information was protected would count against any company in which there was a substantial foreign shareholder. The United States is an exception in this case. Under the UK-US defence agreement of 1958, with which the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, will be familiar, the United Kingdom and United States Governments have co-operated closely on nuclear weapons matters for many years and will continue to do so. We would not therefore rule out participation by firms in which there was a US minority shareholding. An example is the Hunting-BRAE consortium which is 36 per cent. owned by Brown & Root UK, a company whose US connections are well known.
Hunting-BRAE is currently at AWE under the interim management contract which started last October. It has provided some 20 senior management personnel, including the AWE chief executive, who are seconded into the Civil Service at AWE for the planned two-year period between last October and vesting day for full contractorisation, the latter event depending of course on the Committee's approval of the Bill. The amendment relating to 95 per cent. British ownership of the contractor would presumably rule out the Hunting-BRAE incumbent company.
It is the job of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence to safeguard Britain's national security. The Committee may rest assured that the protection of our nuclear weapon information is of paramount concern to him. He does not need a statutory obligation in order to do everything

909
necessary to protect that information. The amendment would therefore be unnecessary, even if it were appropriate. But in fact it is misguided. The best way to protect our nuclear weapon information is by the careful and thorough examination of a wide range of security considerations, of which share ownership is only one, and not by the blunt instrument of a statutory share ownership threshold.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, sought to distinguish security from leakage of information, arguing that while a contractor may be acceptable on the former ground, he may not be acceptable on the latter. That is a false distinction. The need to prevent leakage of information is part of our security concerns; indeed it is paramount among them. If there were a danger that to choose a particular company would lead to leakage of information, that company would not meet our security requirements. That is why we have consistently stated that security must be the prime concern when it comes to the selection of the contractor.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, talked about the EC. I can assure the Committee that we shall not be obliged by the EC to let the AWE contract to a non-UK EC company. I realise that not everyone in the Committee or elsewhere is an uncritical admirer of the EC Commission in Brussels. But surely the Commission, even if it were to have its way in defence matters generally, would hardly be likely to want us in the UK to pass our national nuclear warhead information around the Community through the backdoor. In any case there is already an interim management contract with the Hunting-BRAE consortium which covers the provision of 20 senior managers, including the chief executive, seconded from industry into the Civil Service at AWE. That arrangement corresponds approximately to the solution advocated by the unions and the Opposition—that is to say, keeping AWE staff in the Civil Service while reinforcing the senior management from industry.
Some kind of contract seems inevitable under such options, even if it is only a contract to provide a chief executive or other senior staff reinforcements. Any snags which Members of the Committee opposite perceive in the letting of a contract for AWE would therefore apply to their proposed solutions as well as that advocated by the Government, since the letting of some kind of contract appears to be in common.
Those are the reasons why we resist very strongly this amendment. I urge the Committee not to accept it.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: Will my noble friend go a little further as regards three points which he made? He referred to the fears that the Government might let the AWE contract to a foreign company. He went on to say emphatically, as I understood him, that it would be let to a British company. I wonder why that should not be put on the face of the Bill.
My noble friend also said that the Government would take a very close interest in the share ownership in the contracting company. Again, why cannot the
910
Government go further and say what kind of interest they would take and how they would make sure that that interest is effective?
My noble friend also said that Secretaries of State do not need statutory obligations to safeguard national security. I regard that as a very odd doctrine. Secretaries of State change from time to time and their performance also varies from time to time. I do not believe that Parliament has ever been particularly easy to persuade to abdicate its responsibilities simply on the premise that whoever the Secretary of State may be and whatever party he might belong to, he will do his duty. I believe that in asking Parliament to pass such a measure as this and others, the Government should be careful not to ask for sweeping powers. If they declare that their purposes are so impeccable, as I am sure they are, why should not those purposes find a place on the face of the Bill?
The Earl of Onslow: Can my noble friend tell me this: would Israel, the United States, France or any other nuclear and capitalist country allow the same outside ownership of shares in their atomic warhead manufacturing as we do? If they would not, why are we being what can only be described as lax in the circumstances?
Lord Zuckerman: Can the noble Earl say whether the Americans are as concerned about the ownership and the nature of the contracting company as the Committee is? Can he further say whether any infringement of the 1958 agreement would imperil our total relationship with the US over the whole defence field? Can he also say whether any of the 20 individuals referred to who have already been transferred—on, I presume, a temporary basis—are American citizens?
The Earl of Arran: In answer to my noble friend Lord Peyton I say again that the overriding importance of the whole of this piece of legislation—it is a very important Bill—is security. That is what it is all about. To suggest that we should have some kind of special shareholding, or some pre-arranged understanding of shareholding ownership, would not be sensible in this case; it is all to do with security. From the security point of view that would rule out many other countries. As I said, the AWE contract will be let to a UK-based and UK-controlled prime contractor. As regards any foreign connections this contractor may have, whether through shareholdings or in any other way, we shall assess the security implications carefully to ensure that there is no risk of nuclear warhead information falling into undesirable hands, foreign or otherwise.
My noble friend then referred to the various Secretaries of State for Defence who will be coming forward in the future. To whatever party he belongs, that Secretary of State will have the same paramount concerns at heart regarding the sensitivity of this extremely important weapon.
As regards the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, I think he knows well that we have always had very friendly relationships with our United

911
States counterparts in regard to nuclear affairs. We look forward to that continuing in the future, however that may affect us.
The Earl of Onslow: Is it possible for my noble friend to answer the question that I asked him? I shall put it in a slightly more vivid way. Would the Kuwait Investment Office be allowed to buy shares in the Israeli atomic weapons manufacturing company?
The Earl of Arran: I should have thought that extremely unlikely.
The Earl of Onslow: Will my noble friend please go on to answer the question that I asked him? I have now asked him a second time. I expect an answer.
The Earl of Arran: With respect to my noble friend, am not quite sure what that second part of his question was.
Lord Chalfont: Can the noble Earl say, on a point of information, whether there is in this debate any relevant position to be taken on the nuclear non-proliferation treaty? A great deal has been made about foreign ownership and about security. However, is it not a fact that under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty Her Majesty's Government—and indeed all governments of nuclear weapons states—are forbidden to transfer nuclear weapons, or the knowledge of how to make them, to any other power. Would that not override any considerations of ownership or even of security in the case which is now before the Committee?
The Earl of Arran: The noble Lord raises a very important point. Indeed, it is a point that the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, raised at Second Reading. I can say to the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, that our intention is to let the contract to a UK-based company or consortium which will have to satisfy very strict security requirements. The need to prevent classified information about the UK's nuclear weapons from falling into undesirable hands is paramount among our security concerns. The fact that we are bound by a non-proliferation treaty reinforces that concern, but is not its sole justification. It is also important that such sensitive UK information should not fall into the hands of countries which already possess nuclear weapons or, for that matter, terrorist groups within the United Kingdom. In practice, the need to protect UK nuclear weapons information would count against any company in which there was a major foreign shareholder, since such a company would be unlikely to satisfy all our security concerns.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am very grateful to those noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I find myself somewhat at a loss because my wind-up speech was made by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, in the first place, the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, in the second place, and the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, in the third place. I have very little to add to what they said. The Government seem to persist in the view that it is enough that this should be dealt with by contract. The noble Earl has conceded our case. If this is to be dealt
912
with by contract let us—for goodness sake!—govern this Secretary of State, (a most honourable man) the next Secretary of State (who, no doubt, will be a most honourable man) and any future Secretary of State, so that Parliament has its say if and when we wish to give any considerable degree of foreign ownership to the prime contractor. That would have to come back to Parliament. Putting that into the Bill would answer the question of the noble Earl, Lord Onslow. In my view, no other country in the world would do what the Government are proposing to do at the moment. I believe that this is a proposal that the Committee should accept.
The noble Earl keeps saying, "We shall do this; we shall do that; we shall do the other". The noble Earl is undoubtedly an honourable Minister, and the Secretary of State is undoubtedly an honourable Secretary of State, but the tenure of office of Ministers is, as we know, ephemeral. Other Secretaries of State and other Ministers in the place of the noble Earl may react in a different way.
I believe that this is a matter of fundamental importance; of such fundamental importance that I shall invite the Committee to divide on the issue. I believe it is time that Parliament asserted itself in a matter of such great importance and should instruct the Secretary of State what he can and cannot do in respect of this very important industry.
3.56 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No.1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 110; Not-Contents, 126.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Grey, E.

Adrian, L.

Grimond, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Hampton, L.

Aylestone, L.

Hanworth, V.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Beloff, L.

Hayter, L.

Birk, B.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Blackstone, B.

Hilton, B.

Blease, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Bridges, L.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Brightman, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Briginshaw, L.

Jacques, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Jay, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Jeffreys, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Jeger, B.

Carter, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

John-Mackie, L.

David, B.

Rennet, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Desai, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Leatherland, L.

Ennals, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, E.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Longford, E.

Fitt, L.

McCarthy, L.

Gallacher, L.

McFarlane of Llandaff, B.

Galpern, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Glenamara, L.

Mar, C.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

[Teller.]

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Greenhill of Harrow, L.

Mayhew, L. [Teller.]

913

Merrivale, L.

Shannon, E.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Shepherd, L.

Molloy, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Monkswell, L.

Stallard, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Stedman, B.

Mulley, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Ogmore, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Onslow, E.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Peston, L.

Thurlow, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Thurso, V.

Phillips, B.

Tordoff, L.

Porritt, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Underhill, L.

Redesdale, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Richard, L.

Whaddon, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

White, B.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Seear, B.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Serota, B.

Zuckerman, L.

Shackleton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Hives, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Holderness, L.

Alport, L.

Hood, V.

Ampthill, L.

Hooper, B.

Arran, E.

Howe, E.

Astor, V.

Ilchester, E.

Astor of Hever, L.

Ironside, L.

Attlee, E.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Aucklarid, L.

Kimball, L.

Bessborough, E.

Long, V.

Blyth, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Boardman, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Borthwick, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Manchester, D.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Margadale, L.

Butterworth, L.

Marlesford, L.

Caithness, E.

Melville, V.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mersey, V.

Carnock, L.

Middleton, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Morris, L.

Cayzer, L.

Mottistone, L.

Chalfont, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Clanwilliam, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Cockfield, L.

Munster, E.

Colnbrook, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Colwyn, L.

Nelson, E.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Newall, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Norrie, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Orkney, E.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Oxfuird, V.

Denham, L.

Pender, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Plan of Writtle, B.

Dilhorne, V.

Pym, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Reay, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Renton, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Renwick, L.

Erne, E.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Rodney, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Roskill, L.

Flather, B.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Flowers, L.

Savile, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Sharples, B.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Gainford, L.

Sherfield, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Shrewsbury, E.

Gisborough, L.

Slim, V.

Gridley, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone,

Strathclyde, L.

L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal,

Halsbury, E.

L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Harmsworth, L.

Strathspey, L.

Harvington, L.

Sudeley, L.

Henley, L.

Swansea, L.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Swinton, E.

914

Teviot, L.

Waddington, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Wedgwood, L.

Tombs, L.

Westbury, L.

Trumpington, B.

Wilberforce, L.

Ullswater, V.

Wise, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Asylum
4.5 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to make a Statement. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary is making a similar Statement in another place. The Statement is as follows:
The number of people seeking asylum in the United Kingdom has risen sharply from 5,000 a year in 1988 to more than 30,000 in 1990. From January to May this year 21,000 applications were received, a rate of nearly 1,000 a week. In the light of this increase the Government have been examining asylum arrangements, and I should like to inform the House of our initial decisions.
Britain has a long tradition of providing refuge for people who face imprisonment, torture or death because of their beliefs or ethnic origin. But for hundreds of millions of people who live in disordered countries or under totalitarian governments the answer to their problem does not and cannot lie in emigration to the West. Last year about 500,000 people applied for asylum in Europe. Numbers of this kind cannot be sustained year after year and go far beyond what was envisaged when the present international arrangements were established.
Fear of persecution is no longer the dominant element for many asylum seekers. In only a small minority of cases in the United Kingdom are the applicants shown to have a "well-founded fear of persecution" as required by the terms of the 1951 United Nations Convention on Refugees.
This convention is an instrument of last resort, designed to protect life and liberty from immediate threat. It does not confer an unfettered right to travel the world and settle in the country of one's choice. It does not oblige parties to facilitate, still less to encourage, the arrival of asylum applicants. We cannot allow immigration control to become optional. Nor must we let the institution of asylum be undermined by abuse.
Across the whole of Europe governments are having to review their procedures and provide additional resources to cope with the unprecedented weight of numbers. My right honourable friend is of course discussing the problem with our EC partners. In the United Kingdom we have decided to take the following action.

915
First, we want to make it absolutely clear that the United Kingdom is not normally prepared to entertain claims from individuals who have failed to claim asylum in the first safe country which they reached. If individuals arrive here who could have safely claimed asylum elsewhere on their way to the United Kingdom they will be sent back to that country for the claim to be dealt with there. The only exception is where the applicant has such close links with the United Kingdom that his or her claim should be considered here. In particular, applicants who arrive from other European Community countries should claim asylum there. The Asylum Convention which we signed in Dublin last year deals with these matters. We shall strengthen procedures at sea ports and airports, particularly at Dover, to identify such applicants.
Secondly, the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987, through charges on airlines, discourages the acceptance of passengers who do not have valid travel documents. My right honourable friend and I recognise that many carriers have tried to comply with this, but in other cases carriers are simply not doing enough. My right honourable friend is therefore laying before another place today an order doubling from £1,000 to £2,000 the charge payable by the carrier for each passenger who fails to produce valid documentation. We shall increase our programme of training for the staff of airlines to implement this Act.
Thirdly, my right honourable friends the Foreign Secretary and the Home Secretary are exploring, with the co-operation of host governments and airlines, other ways to improve document checks at certain overseas airports. We are willing to provide document specialists to advise carriers about the authenticity of travel documents, perhaps taking photocopies of travel documents for later verification. The police will continue to seek out corrupt agents who are operating in or through the United Kingdom. Some of these have already been prosecuted and convicted.
Fourthly, my right honourable friend and I are particularly concerned that asylum seekers can arrive here with no passport or other means of identification and have to be admitted while their claim is considered. Evidence is coming to light that some asylum seekers have made multiple applications for asylum and have claimed social security benefits in a number of different identities. This is not acceptable. We have recently required asylum seekers to provide photographs of themselves. My right honourable friend is considering the contribution which finger printing might make in such cases. My right honourable friends the Secretary of State for Social Security and the Home Secretary are considering how the opportunities for such fraud can be reduced. They will consider whether any further powers are needed.
Fifthly, the present system for handling refugee applications is excessively cumbersome. The system is now completely overloaded. There are 50,000 undecided cases and the backlog is growing at over 3,000 cases a month. The average decision time is already over 16 months and is getting worse. On 26th April my right honourable friend announced
916
proposals to speed up the whole process. Accelerating the process will bring early justice to the genuine applicant and bring about the speedier removal of many more bogus applicants. We are now recruiting up to 500 staff for the immigration department at Croydon so that the initial determination can be made more rapidly. At the earliest parliamentary opportunity we will introduce a Bill to allow a substantial acceleration and simplification of procedures. The present opportunities for delay through repeated representations and litigation will be substantially pruned away.
Some asylum seekers already have the right to appeal to the immigration appellate authorities before removal; some do not. The Bill will make it clear that all those who are turned down in the determination process will be able to appeal while they are in the United Kingdom. In addition, there will be new procedural rules which will impose time limits for the submission of material in support of claims. Decisions on cases will take into account such matters as the deliberate destruction of travel documents and entry by deception. We will also carefully examine the credibility and good faith of applicants who make claims for asylum after they have resided in this country for some time.
I will be recruiting extra adjudicators and other support staff to the appellate authorities to ensure that asylum appeals will be heard more quickly. In order to assist the process of improving and streamlining adjudications, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary and I also propose to change the publicly funded arrangements for advice and representation in asylum and immigration cases. At present, advice and assistance, but not representation, are available to those whose means qualify them under the legal aid green form scheme. We propose that in future advice and assistance, and where necessary representation before the immigration appellate authority, should instead be provided by the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service. We believe that this will enable those who genuinely need it to be given such help more economically and effectively than under the green form scheme. When the necessary arrangements are completed, I will bring forward regulations to effect the change, which will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
In consequence, and as a result of the extra work which will flow from the changes that my right honourable friend and I have announced today, we intend to increase substantially the Home Office grant to the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service. I am grateful that UNHCR continues to contribute to the costs of the refugee unit of the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service.
Our aim will be to decide all cases within a matter of months from start to finish. But in some cases it will be clear from the outset that the applicant has no claim to our protection. The Bill will provide for accelerated handling of clearly unfounded cases. An adjudicator will be able to dismiss an appeal without an oral hearing upon deciding that there is manifestly no substance to the claim. I believe that the rapid rejection of a large number of unfounded claims, and

917
the early departure of those applicants from this country, will play a major part in deterring further abuse of the process and allow us to tackle the dramatic growth in the number of applications.
The Government recognise their obligations to refugees, but they also have an obligation to the British people to control immigration. Those obligations can pull in different directions. Our aim is to arrive at a balance between them which is in line with the realities of the modern world. I believe that the measures we have announced today represent such a balance.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Richard: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will recognise that this is, on any view of the matter, a restrictive Statement. As he said in the last paragraph, the object of the exercise is to produce what he considers would provide a better balance than is the case in the present situation. I must confess that I am slightly mystified as to why the Statement is being made now. As I understand it, there has teen no consultation with any of the refugee authorities. None of them has been consulted as to whether this is the right time to make such changes. Moreover, the authorities have certainly not been consulted as to whether the proposed changes are the right ones.
The noble and learned Lord said in the Statement:
"I am of course discussing the problem with our EC partners. In the United Kingdom we have decided to take the following action".
Have the proposals been discussed with our EC partners? Is this to be part of some co-ordinated policy within the European Community for dealing with the problem of asylum seekers and refugees? If it is not, I am bound to say that the implication of those words is that the matter is being discussed with the EC, "but we have decided to take the following action, without waiting for the reaction of our Community partners". If that is the situation, it seems to me a somewhat extraordinary way to approach the matter.
As to some of the more detailed provisions, I am bound to say, looking at the document and listening to the text of the Statement, that I have concerns. I believe that they are reasonable concerns. Perhaps 1 may express them to the House. The noble and learned Lord said that there is to be some increased initial screening. Of course, it is unacceptable that there should be multiple applications for asylum and that there should be multiple claims for,
"social security benefits in a number of different identities".
That is absolutely true. However, nowhere is the mechanism for this initial screening spelt out. I should be most unhappy if it ended up by being the decision of an immigration officer at one of the ports or airports of entry.
The Statement refers to the contribution which finger printing may make. What is that contribution? I know not, except that it could apply once the individual is in the country. At that stage, I can see some grounds for suggesting that perhaps finger printing may be of some use. However, as part of an initial screening process, I am bound to say that I do not see how the mechanism could possibly work.
918
If one moves further into the substance of the Statement, one sees that there is provision for reinforcement of the immigration department at Croydon with another 500 staff. That is most welcome. Moreover, the Government tell us that there is to be a Bill,
"to allow a substantial acceleration and simplification of procedures".
When can we expect to see the Bill? Will it arrive before the Summer Recess? If there is such urgency that the Statement has been made at short notice after no consultation with any of the responsible organisations, are we to expect sight of the legislation this side of the Recess? I hope that we will.
The part of the legislation which causes me the greatest problems is that which deals with the abolition of legal aid in respect of advice in asylum and immigration cases. I am by no means convinced, as the Statement says, that the necessary representations before the immigration appellate authority should be provided solely by the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service. However, perhaps the key to the issue appears in the next sentence:
"We believe that this will enable those who genuinely need it to be given such help more economically".
If the object of the exercise is really an attempt by the Treasury to save money, I must tell the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that this part of what the Statement justly claims is our proud tradition, so far as concerns asylum seekers, will end up sullied.
Finally, as regards the details, we are told that the Bill —whenever it appears—will provide,
"for accelerated handling of clearly unfounded cases".
We are then asked to consider the following proposal:
"An adjudicator will be able to dismiss an appeal without an oral hearing upon deciding that there is manifestly no substance to the claim".
Surely, that cannot be right. In such situations, when one is dealing in some cases with the lives of individuals, I believe that it would be very wrong for an adjudicator to be able to dismiss an appeal without a proper hearing after having decided that there is,
"manifestly no substance to the claim".
Under the terms of the Statement, we know not whether it will be possible to appeal against that decision. Indeed, there is a strange sentence in the Statement which states that while someone is in the country he will be entitled to appeal. I hope that the accelerated screening procedure will not mean that such people will be whipped out of the country so fast that there will be no proper opportunity for them to exercise a proper right of appeal.
As a country our openness towards genuine asylum seekers is something of which we should be proud. Successive governments have always claimed that they are proud of it. If it is part of our heritage, perhaps I may leave this thought with the House: the danger is that these measures might mean—I do not say that they will mean, because it is too early to say when we have not seen the fine print of the legislation—that genuine asylum seekers will not in future receive the fair treatment to which they are entitled and which they have received in the past. We on these Benches will therefore scrutinise the forthcoming Bill with extreme care.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Richard, I welcome the Statement made by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. I am sorry that it has to come on his birthday, upon which I congratulate him heartily. I wish that I could congratulate him on the Statement with the same heartiness. It appears that some of the wording of the analysis of the problem is taken straight from the tabloid press. That is unfortunate. We must be careful over the words we use when we deal with these serious matters. Anything that creates the impression in this country that refugees, or people seeking refugee status in this country, are rogues and vagabonds is to be deplored, because if we are not careful it will feed through later into race relations in this country.
We hear that only in a small minority of cases in the United Kingdom are the applicants shown to have a well-founded fear of persecution, as required under the terms of the 1951 United Nations convention. It is nevertheless true that between 1979 and 1989, 87 per cent. of applicants were allowed to stay in this country. It is agreed that 25 per cent. only of those were given refugee status and 62 per cent. extended leave to remain. I suppose the difference in view between ourselves and the Government is that they believe that many of those 62 per cent. were not proper people to stay and that they stayed only because the process was taking so long. We take the view that a large proportion of that group should be given the right to stay.
I agree with the statement that we must not allow the institution of asylum to be undermined by abuse. Any steps that can be taken genuinely to root out abuse and to ensure that such people do not undermine the position for genuine refugee seekers is to be applauded.
We have no quarrel with the suggestion that people who fail to claim asylum in the first safe country they reach should not be allowed to stay here. As the Statement rightly says, that is agreed under the asylum convention signed in Dublin last year. We have no complaints about that.
When it was going through this House the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987 was opposed vigorously from these Benches, as it was from the Labour Benches, for reasons that I do not intend to rehearse again. I doubt whether the increase from £1,000 to £2,000 will make any difference. Once again I must say that the inability of people to produce valid documents is not necessarily an indication that there is anything wrong with those people. Genuine refugees find it difficult to obtain valid travel documents. Some people who travel on forged documents could well be genuine refugees.
The Statement says that the police will continue to seek out corrupt agents operating in or through the United Kingdom and that some have already been prosecuted and convicted. One would like to know how many cases there have been and how successful the police have been in this matter. We are told that evidence is coming to light of asylum seekers making multiple applications. That should be stopped but
920
again people in such circumstances may easily be tempted to do that and yet still remain genuine asylum seekers.
The noble Lord, Lord Richard, has already queried finger printing. If the whole population were to be finger printed, there might be some validity in the suggestion. If there is to be a great central computer in Brussels to exchange fingerprints throughout the whole of the Community, that would be one thing, but to pick out a group of people and subject them to finger printing on the assumption that they are somehow more likely to be social security fraudsters is divisive and discriminatory.
We unreservedly welcome the methods proposed to speed up the process of producing early justice. Provided that it is justice that we are talking about and not just saving money, as the noble Lord, Lord Richard, said, that proposal has our full support. The recruiting of an extra 500 staff in Croydon should go some way towards helping.
The Bill will receive the most careful scrutiny when it comes to this place. I ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to give us an indication of when we may expect it. I hope we shall not find ourselves suddenly putting a Bill through at the end of a long year, waiving all the normal procedures of the House. I hope that the Government will go through considerable consultation before they produce the Bill.
The fact that the noble and learned Lord is recruiting extra adjudicators and other support staff is also to be welcomed. The United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service will be glad of any assistance in improving its resources. I am pleased that the UNHCR is given a pat on the back. The noble Lords, Lord Ennals and Lord Clinton-Davis, and I, had an interesting discussion with Mrs. Ogata, the commissioner, this morning on the whole refugee problem. We were not at that stage aware that the Statement was to be made or we might have asked her opinion of some of its contents.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Richard, about the dangers of the adjudicator being able to dismiss an appeal without an oral hearing. That is a peculiar proposal. But underlying everything is the need to know the criteria that such an adjudicator will operate. They need to be spelt out in considerable detail. Behind all this is the need for us never to send back to any country people whose lives are likely to be endangered or who face persecution. It is far better that some people—not vast numbers—should slip through the net than that anyone should be sent back to death, persecution and torture in their country of origin.
Once again I say that we must not allow the feeling to grow that refugees are in some way third or fourth class citizens from whom we have something to fear, because if we do that the whole of race relations in this country will be in jeopardy.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords for their remarks, especially in so far as they are supportive of the Statement. The purpose of the principal part of the Statement is to indicate what we are doing to bring speedier justice; that is to

921
say, to determine the case of the genuine refugee and to distinguish that from those who are not entitled to refugee status here.
Perhaps I may deal with some of the points that have been raised. The Statement points out that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary regularly deals with these matters and is discussing them with our EC partners. Obviously asylum arrangements are necessarily part of the agenda in that discussion. However, immigration controls in the United Kingdom remain the responsibility of the Government. Of course the arrangements for determining whether someone is a refugee are very much matters for the Government. That is why the Statement is concerned with them.
The Statement is made now in order to give your Lordships, and also those who will hear it from my right honourable friend the Home Secretary in another place, the thinking of the Government so far on the matter. A good deal of detail is required, as the Statement indicates.
Questions have been raised about the purpose of photography and finger printing. The idea would be to provide identification in respect of those who as they come into the country have none. It is in order to deal with situations where documents that are presented may not he reliable. It would also obviously help to make it more difficult for people to make multiple applications. A number of other countries have already adopted such measures. I think it is right that your Lordships should know that we are considering to what extent they may be useful in the circumstances of the United Kingdom.
The noble Lords, Lord Richard and Lord Tordoff, both asked in slightly different ways when the Bill would be introduced. I shall not elaborate on what was said. I had better stick to the phraseology of the Statement:
"At the earliest Parliamentary opportunity we will introduce a Bill".
The noble Lord, Lord Richard, was kind enough to mention the part of the Statement that deals with green form legal aid. He read out part of a sentence dealing with it which stated:
"We believe that this will enable those who genuinely need it to be given such help more economically … than under the present system".
However, I did not stop at "economically". I said: "more economically and effectively". In other words, I believe that money given to UKIAS in the circumstances will be a more effective method of helping the community which is affected by the legislation than money under the green form scheme. That is the belief on which the proposal is founded.
Both noble Lords spoke of the suggestion in the paper of a procedure under which an adjudicator would be able to dismiss an appeal without an oral hearing. The criterion is provided in the Statement:
"upon deciding that there is manifestly no substance to the claim"
That is quite a high standard and one with which the courts are perfectly familiar. The system of dismissing claims when they are manifestly without substance is a reasonable one and in the interests of the proper and efficient administration of justice. One does not want
922
the system to be clogged with cases awaiting determination if they manifestly have no substance. That is an important step in getting to the heart of claims that have substance so that they may be properly adjudicated. People should not have to wait an unnecessarily long time because the system is clogged with unnecessary cases.
The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, summarised well the purpose of the latter part of the Statement when he said that if it was directed to early justice he supported the proposal. It is manifestly directed to early justice and I believe that it carries that aim out well and in the right direction.
4.34 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I congratulate my noble and learned friend. It seems that Her Majesty's Government have thought ahead. It is worth remembering that the world at the moment is a particularly nasty place. The Serbs are cutting the throats of the Croats, the Armenians are having their throats cut by the Azerbaijanis, the Sikhs and Hindus in the Punjab are doing the same. The world, to mix metaphors, is wall to wall with people being persecuted by others.
I know that this may sound illiberal, but we must not allow the country to become the sole repository of political and persecuted refugees. Perhaps we may remember that if we had been slightly less liberal in the 19th century we would not have given refuge either to Marx or to Lenin. We could have sent them back to the tender mercies of the Romanov or Hohenzollern police force. That may not have been a bad thing. I see that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, finds that nearly as amusing as I do.
We must think about the problem; it is a complicated situation. My noble and learned friend and the Government have put prior thought into the suggestions and that must be good.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I believe that my noble friend did not intend asking a question. I am extremely grateful to him for what he said about the Government's purpose in seeking to secure speedy justice. That is the purpose of this—to distinguish between the genuine refugees who are entitled to be here and those who may apply without having a proper basis for doing so.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I am the rapporteur of a Council of Europe committee concerned with the arrival of refugees at airports. I confirm that the problem is common throughout Europe. It is a great problem and I should have thought that the greatest need was for co-ordination of policies among the countries of Europe before 1992 when the internal frontiers will cease to exist.
One of the points in the Statement which I believe is a step in the right direction is sending documentary experts to the airports of departure of refugees. I confirm that the rackets are universal. All over the world people have seized on the opportunity and charge large amounts of money to instruct refugees and to forge passports and other documents. The experts are organised into committees.

923
I ask the noble and learned Lord whether the practice of sending documentary experts abroad could be extended. It would surely be much cheaper and quicker to have more people in our consulates and embassies abroad who are expert in these matters than have the laborious business of collecting information after people arrive here. It is not only laborious; it is difficult and sometimes impossible. In this way, at least the Government would have definite knowledge on which to base the first check on whether people are genuine asylum seekers.
The need is known in the areas affected, particularly in places such as Liberia, Somalia and other areas where certain people are genuine refugees. They could be identified on the spot. I should be grateful if the noble and learned Lord could give his views.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he said about the extent of the problem. He is quite right that these matters require to be discussed and should be the subject of international consideration. As I said in the Statement, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary is engaged in discussions. The steps we take on control within our own country are primarily a matter for us and that is what we seek to deal with in the Statement.
In trying to identify situations abroad, there is scope for developing the policy, which is one of the aims we have in mind to try to help airlines in particular to identify those passengers who may have difficulty or may cause difficulty. The Statement points out the desirability of increasing our programme for training the staff of airlines to implement the Act and for considering what other help can be given. That is important.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, as an officer of the British Refugee Council, perhaps I may first ask for an assurance that there will be full consultation with the refugee council as well as with the UNHCR and other bodies which are intimately concerned.
Secondly, I sympathise with the Government's wish to draw a distinction between economic migrants and genuine refugees. I ask the noble and learned Lord whether he can give an assurance that those who are genuinely fleeing from oppression will have the opportunity of stating their case, even though they may be a minority of those seeking to come to this country.
Finally, is it not clear that genuine refugees fleeing from oppression or fear of oppression are unlikely to have adequate documents with them to present to the carriers? Is that not one of the weaknesses of the present legislation?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, if we can take the last point first, it is true that a genuine refugee may well have difficulty with travel documents. It is not at all clear that that would necessarily be the case, but it would be rather unlikely that a genuine refugee with no travel documents would come from one international airport to, say, London Heathrow. If
924
somebody has embarked at an important international airport abroad and then travels to Heathrow, that is a rather unlikely scenario for a genuine refugee without documents. If he was without documents at the beginning, particularly in a country where persecution is to be feared, it is unlikely that he or she would present himself or herself at the international airport in that country. Of course the system would require us to take account of the possibility to which the noble Lord has referred.
So far as consultation is concerned, the Government are in regular contact with organisations that are active in the asylum and immigration field. Their views will certainly be taken into account as we develop the proposals outlined in the Statement. The Statement, as the noble Lord, Lord Richard, recognised, is one of principle and the detail has still to be filled in. We shall certainly take account of continuing consultations with the relevant organisations.
As to the third point which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, the object of this exercise is indeed to have a proper procedure for ascertaining whether people who present themselves as refugees are genuine and to try to decide that in a fair way but sufficiently speedily so as to enable the decision, once taken, to be made effective. One of the difficulties of the present system is that people present themselves as refugees and even if it is later decided that they are not refugees they are still enabled to remain because the procedures have taken so long that it would not really be feasible to give effect to the decision. This is a very important, indeed a major, issue and the latter part of the Statement is primarily directed to that.

Atomic Weapons Establishment Bill
4.43 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 1.
Lord Mayhew Lord Mayhew moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 23, after ("him") insert ("and in which the Secretary of State shall have a majority shareholding").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 2. This amendment would inject a much needed element of public service into an excessively commercialised concern. It would require the Secretary of State to own a majority of the shares in the company actually carrying out the contract —probably and almost certainly a subsidiary of the company negotiating the contract. For example, if Vickers had negotiated the contract, it is certainly not the intention of the amendment that the Secretary of State should acquire a majority of shares in Vickers: the shares would be held in the subsidiary of Vickers which would carry out the contract.
It is extraordinary that the Government should decide to hand over this particular industry to private enterprise. I think it is fortunate for them that at the time the matter was dealt with in the other place the Gulf War was on; otherwise there would have been a stronger public reaction against the proposal, which is purely ideological—Thatcherism at its worst and possibly, we hope, at its last gasp.
The amendment does not go the whole way towards public service but it dilutes the element of commercialism. It is a compromise which attempts to get e best of both worlds; and if we had a consensus government supported by the majority of electors that government should welcome a concept such as this. Unfortunately, we have a doctrinaire government, elected by a minority of electors and probably supported by only a third of them at the present moment.
The first effect of the amendment would be to increase the degree of ministerial responsibility. It is the profound conviction of noble Lords on these Benches that the production of weapons of mass destruction and the associated research and development are matters for which Ministers should be answerable in Parliament. This issue was discussed at some length at Second Reading, and I must say that I did not think that the Government made any effective reply to the powerful arguments in favour of it.
The second major advantage of the amendment is that it would dilute conflict between the requirements of security on the one hand and the hopes of profit on the other. This conflict does exist and the Government admit that, because they are offering financial incentives to the contracting company to maintain the highest security standards. They are saying in effect that the contracting company needs financial incentives if it is to maintain the highest standards of safety. However, a company which needs in effect to be bribed to maintain the highest standards of safety deserves to be disqualified on that ground alone.
The amendment would at least ensure that the majority shareholder had no incentive but to produce the maximum security for all. There would be many other advantages. A feature of almost all the privatisation projects has been the excessively generous terms bestowed by the Government on the new private shareholders. Unfortunately, there is no reason to suppose that the Government will not again reward their friends with over-generous terms in the proposed contracts. Our amendment would mean that at least one-half of the excess profits would return to the taxpayer and not to the private shareholders. It also opens the possibility, to which the Government have not referred, of offering shares to the workforce. This is a concept which we on these Benches have been advocating year after year, and it could be applied in this Bill were it not for the doctrinaire approach of the Government.
The amendment also enables the Government to prevent excessive pay rises to the chairman and chief executive of the privatised company. The first aim of a privatised company nowadays seems to be to siphon off its assets into the pockets of its chairman and chief executive. This amendment would prevent that scandal happening in the case of the privatisation of the production of nuclear weapons.
I do not think it is necessary for me to go into great detail on this matter. I admit that it is a matter of principle; but we say that this is not a proper sphere for unrestricted private enterprise. It is necessary to introduce the national interest, the public interest, and that would be achieved by this amendment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: We should like to support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew. I do not want to reiterate all the arguments he has brought forward in its support. However, there are two on which I should like to lay emphasis. The first is that, as the Committee will know, my party is wholly opposed to the principle of the Bill although your Lordships agreed to the principle of the Bill on Second Reading. Nevertheless, I shall continue, on suitable occasions, to make clear our opposition to the principle of the Bill.
If the Bill goes forward, the amendment would at least provide for government majority interest in the continuing operation of the Atomic Weapons Establishment. As the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, has quite rightly pointed out, it would prevent the prime contractor from putting commercial and profit-related interests before concern for safety and security. That must be exactly what the Government want in view of what the noble Earl said in an earlier debate.
My second point is that, furthermore, it would ensure for all time—at least until Parliament decides otherwise—that it will be the British Government who will be responsible for production of our nuclear warheads and for the research into their development and effects. Ultimately it will be the majority shareholder who will make sure that the priorities of the British Government prevail over commercial priorities.
I would add one more word in support of the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew. It is extraordinary how, when any form of privatisation occurs - and this is a form of privatisation —the board of directors immediately receive large increases in salary and the workforce lose their jobs—and we shall come to that point later in the Committee stage. I believe that on a question of national interest such as this the amendment is proper and right. I hope the Committee will accept it.
Lord Kennet: What we propose from this side of the House is a compromise since we realise that rejection of the whole Bill is impossible after it has been through the other place.
Twenty or 30 years ago—when what was then laughingly called Selsdon man began to emerge—we used to make jokes about how far privatisation could go. In retrospect he seems quite pink. At that time I advanced the hypothesis that if we continued long enough in that direction it would not be long before the Army, the Navy and the Royal Air Force were privatised. They have not been yet but the Government appear to be embarking on the slippery slope towards precisely that.
Perhaps I may introduce an element into this debate which has not been mentioned so far and which I hope the Committee will not find irrelevant. I believe it is comparable. At the moment British soldiers are directly employed by a private company, as if they were a workforce picked up in the labour market. That company is Royal Ordnance plc, which has recently been privatised. Royal Ordnance plc has a contract with the Government of Kuwait. The noble Earl sent me a series of Written Answers on that subject yesterday from which it appears that the Government are quite satisfied with the terms of the

927
contract between Royal Ordnance and the Royal Engineers: that is, the British soldiers concerned. That is good. However, the Government are not aware of the contents of the contract between Royal Ordnance and the Government of Kuwait. They are prepared to hire out British soldiers to a British company to work for a foreign government on they know not what terms.
Unless the amendment is passed, the Government would be prepared, on a comparable basis, to hire out the fabrication and design of British nuclear warheads to a company which might or might not be foreign and about which the Government might or might not know anything, under a contract of whose implications they might or might not be fully aware. If they show no more interest in such a contract than they have in the case of the Royal Engineers in Kuwait, that would be the end of the line in the privatisation of British military establishments.
Therefore, I commend the amendment to the Committee as a half-way house which retains an element of public control and introduces the private capital and private skills which the Government judge to be necessary, though we do not.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: Perhaps I may add one word to what my noble friend Lord Kennet said. One cannot be entirely surprised that this most mercenary of governments should finish up virtually converting our soldiers into mercenaries. Therefore, perhaps my noble friend ought not to have been surprised.
The Bill is a triumph of ideology over common sense. What is proposed in the amendment must commend itself to the Committee. I believe that while a number of the Members of the Committee may be enthusiastic about a form of economics about which we on this side of the House have considerable reservations to say the least of it, there may be a point at which they say, "No, it is not right that in this case the sole consideration should be financial". That reservation, which we are endeavouring to assert in the amendment, must, I feel sure, commend itself to some noble Lords on the other side of the Chamber. If that were not the case, it would seem that Thatcherism still rides; and although the face is less aggressive than it use to be underneath, it is much the same. I hope that the Committee will prove that wrong this afternoon.
Lord Chalfont: I must express my puzzlement as to the way in which the nuclear weapon is apparently being separated from all other forms of armament production. Since I have been interested in these matters I have always railed against any suggestion that the nuclear weapon is entirely different from all other weapons. It is a weapon of war. However, let us not become involved in philosophical discussions. I rise simply to make the point that weapons of war for Her Majesty's armed forces have always been made by private companies. Indeed, the company of which I am presently chairman makes the Trident submarine.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but is he declaring an interest?
Lord Chalfont: I have declared that interest many times before and I declare it now.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Is the noble Lord declaring an interest today?
Lord Chalfont: Yes, I declare an interest. As chairman of the company which makes our Trident submarines, I point out that it is a public limited company owned, except for one special share, entirely by the public. There is no conflict of interest, in spite of the somewhat minatory attitude of the noble Lord. I simply make a point of fact.
I am not making any special pleading but simply pointing out that for many years, right up to the present, weapons of war for Her Majesty's armed forces have been made by private companies—or by public companies, however one wishes to describe them. In other words, they have been made by companies which are not nationalised companies. I am simply expressing puzzlement that a distinction should be made from those companies which make submarines, guns, or tanks. I am seeking to determine whether in my mind I can create any intellectual difference between the manufacture of those weapons and the manufacture of nuclear warheads. I find that I cannot.
5 p.m.
Lord Wilson of Langside: I do not know whether what I have to say is relevant but I found the statement that the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, has just made quite extraordinary. I remember the day I was sitting in a train at Victoria Station, or wherever it was, and I heard that the first atom bomb had been dropped. I was returning to Germany after leave. I was half asleep when I heard two fellow soldiers discussing the news. I thought what they were saying was pure invention. Then the following day I learnt all about the bomb. That bomb changed the history of warfare and perhaps the history of the world.
That recollection came into my mind as the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, made his statement. Perhaps he is right and I am wrong but I considered the atom bomb to be the beginning of the end of the history of warfare. The Committee will have to decide whether the noble Lord is right and whether I am wrong. Members of the Committee will recall the history of that extraordinary weapon and will have to decide whether those of us who are concerned about the concept of different treatment in this sphere are right or wrong.
Lord Chalfont: With the leave of the Committee, I hope I may reply to that somewhat apocalyptic intervention. It was never my intention to suggest that the nuclear weapon has not constituted a fundamental revolution in the history of warfare. I was talking about the matter of public and private ownership of companies producing weapons. In that context I do not see the difference between a nuclear weapon and any other weapon. I am otherwise in full agreement with what the noble Lord said. There is no need for the Committee to decide whether the noble Lord is right or whether I am right. We are both right.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: With the leave of the Committee, I should point out that we are discussing a special type of weapon. If it is a special type of weapon, it needs special protection. That is precisely what the amendment seeks to achieve.
Lord Zuckerman: Knowing the views of the noble Lord. Lord Chalfont, I assume he was not differmitiating between the production of conventional weapons by industry and the production of nuclear weapons, which are not necessarily the same as other weapons. If that is his view—I sincerely hope it is not—I dissociate myself utterly from his comments.
The Earl of Arran: The effect of this amendment would be to provide for my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to hold a majority shareholding in the contracting company. We are, however, far from persuaded for the need of such a requirement. Our aim in contractorising AWE is to allow fully flexible and efficient private sector management of the establishment—
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am sorry to intervene at this stage but the Minister refers continually to his right honourable friend the Secretary of State. That, however, is not the effect of this amendment. The effect of this amendment would be to give a power to the Secretary of State. It is neither here nor there whether that Secretary of State is the right honourable friend of the Minister or any future Secretary of State. We are talking about the Secretary of State.
The Earl of Arran: I take the noble Lord's point. At the moment I am referring to the present Secretary of State but I accept that there will be other Secretaries of State in the future. As I said, we are not persuaded of the need for the requirement in the amendment. Our in contractorising AWE is to allow fully flexible and efficient private sector management of the establishment. We are hardly likely to realise the full potential of that if we insist upon AWE being run by a company in which the Government retain a very substantial shareholding—in other words, a nationalised company. Such an arrangement would also be unlikely to encourage private sector companies to come and bid for the AWE management contract.
In any case, the whole point of contractorisation is to introduce best practice and experience from the private sector, which implies that those managers must have freedom to manage. This will not be achieved by a part government-owned company. I must emphasise that we do not need a government majority shareholding to make the contractor comply with our requirements at AWE. On those issues where it is necessary for us to keep a tight control on what is happening—such as safety and security—we will do so.
The noble Lords, Lord Mayhew and Lord Williams of Elvel, have commented on the fact that the Government, in providing financial incentives on safety performance for contractors, have thereby admitted that there is a conflict between the profit motive and safety. The Government have made clear that the contract will be drafted in such a way as to ensure that the contractor will have no financial
930
incentive to compromise on safety practice. This does not imply any conflict between the profit motive and safety. It simply ensures that the profit motive will reinforce safety.
The Compliance Office has strong sanctions against inadequate safety performance, including the right to order the cessation of any process or facility which the Compliance Director may feel is not fully safe. However, to help ensure that such problems never occur in the first place, the contract will provide that it will not be in the contractor's financial interest to put production or other output requirements before safety. It is for those reasons that I urge the Committee not to accept the amendment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Before the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, decides what to do with his amendment, I must press the noble Earl on his statement that it is difficult to have a government-majority owned company which is well managed. I believe I have interpreted him correctly. Is the noble Earl saying that because the Government own a certain percentage of British Telecom that company is not well managed? Is the noble Earl saying that because the government have had a majority stake in BP for almost 50 years that company is not well managed? What point is the Minister trying to make?
The Earl of Arran: This is an extremely important matter as the noble Lord, Lord Williams, stated. It is important from the point of view of national security and the defence of the realm through its nuclear deterrent. The whole point of contractorisation is to introduce best practice and experience from the private sector. As I have already said, that implies that managers must have the freedom to manage. In this case we feel that would not be achieved by a part government-owned company.
Lord Mayhew: I wish to take up the point made by the noble Earl on whether there is a conflict between safety requirements and the hope of profit. I stated that the Government were offering financial incentives to the contracting company to observe high standards of safety. The noble Earl seemed to deny that. He said the Government were ensuring that there is no financial motive for the contracting company not to observe the highest standards of safety. One does not have to be a logician, a grammarian or a barrister to appreciate that if one takes the Minister's statement literally he is saying exactly what I have already said; namely, that to encourage the contractor to observe the highest standards of safety, we must ensure that he has no financial motive for not doing so. That is ridiculous. It is perfectly plain to everyone that safety in the production of nuclear weapons and research and development are all extremely expensive. There is duplication of men and materials and back-up of all kinds to cover contingencies which almost certainly will never occur. A private company is bound to require a financial incentive before undertaking such expenditure. The Government recognise that that is the case and have said so.
However, by recognising that fact the Government are saying that if the financial incentive is not provided

931
we cannot rely on the contracting company to observe the highest standards of safety. No one can deny that that is the position. My simple amendment dilutes that conflict by making the Government the principal shareholder. My amendment does not remove the conflict altogether, but it dilutes it and that is one of its advantages.
I am sorry to find myself in disagreement with the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont. My case is—as I stated in introducing the amendment—that the production of weapons of mass destruction should not be entrusted to a private company. I would feel the same way about weapons of biological warfare and the production of gases. It is highly inappropriate that such production should be undertaken even by such a magnificent company as that over which the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, presides. I hope the noble Lord would not claim that it would be appropriate for his company or similar companies to manufacture biological weapons. I was delighted with the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, who reminded us of an ancient ideological dispute on how far privatisation should go, and how nobody dreamt that it should include the production of nuclear weapons.
I was reminded of an ideological discussion before the war at the Oxford University Labour Club when we debated how far nationalisation should go. It was decided that it should stop short at the nationalisation of ladies' hat shops. What a restrained attitude we had to nationalisation compared with the attitude of the Government to privatisation—privatising the means of mass destruction! It is a ludicrous misjudgment.
I feel that there is a big point of principle involved. We cannot hope to persuade everybody but in view of the magnitude of that principle, I believe that I should ask the House to divide on the amendment.
5.10 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 80; Not-Contents, 124.

Division No.2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Airedale, L.

Grey, E.

Ardwick, L.

Hamwee, B.

Aylestone, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Hollick, L.

Bottomley, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Broadbridge, L.

Hooson, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Jacques, L.

Carter, L.

Jay, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Jeger, B.

David, B.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Dean of Beswick, L. [Teller.]

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Desai, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Kennet, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Longford, E.

Gallacher, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Galpern, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Gladwyn, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Glenamara, L.

Mayhew, L.

932

Mellish, L.

Shackleton, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Shepherd, L.

Molloy, L.

Stallard, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Stedman, B.

Mulley, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Ogmore, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Thurso, V.

Prys-Davies, L.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Rea, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Redesdale, L.

Underhill, L.

Richard, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Whaddon, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

White, B.

Seear, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Serota, B.

Zuckerman, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Holderness, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Hood, V.

Alport, L.

Hooper, B.

Arran, E.

Howe, E.

Astor, V.

Jeffreys, L.

Attlee, E.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Auckland, L.

Joseph, L.

Beloff, L.

Kimball, L.

Bessborough, E.

Kinloss, Ly.

Blyth, L.

Lawrence, L.

Boardman, L.

Liverpool, E.

Borthwick, L.

Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Lytton, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Butterworth, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Caithness, E.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Carnock, L.

Mar, C.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Margadale, L.

Chalfont, L.

Marlesford, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Merrivale, L.

Coleraine, L.

Mersey, V.

Colnbrook, L.

Mottistone, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Mountevans, L.

Craigavon, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Munster, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Nelson, E.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Norrie, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Denham, L.

Onslow, E.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Orkney, E.

Dilhorne, V.

Pender, L.

Dundonald, E.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Elton, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Flather, B.

Pym, L.

Fortescue, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Reay, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Renton, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Rodney, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Sharpies, B.

Gisborough, L.

Sherfield, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Gray of Conlin, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Greenway, L.

Stockton, E.

Gridley, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone,

Strathclyde, L.

L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne,E.

Halsbury, E.

Sudeley, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Swinfen, L.

Harlech, L.

Swinton, E.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Teviot, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Henley, L.

Tombs, L.

Hesketh, L.

Tranmire, L.

Hives, L.

Tryon, L.

933

Ullswater, V.

Wedgwood, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Wise, L.

Waddington, L.

Wynford, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.18 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 24, leave out ("or another").
The noble Lord said: This is a probing amendment. As we understand it, the Bill as drafted would allow another company to become the employer of the existing workforce of the Atomic Weapons Establishment. If that is the case and the Government's intention, we should first of all wish to know it and secondly to warn that such a separation could cause problems. The employing company could be an organisation which exists only as an agency. Anyway, it would be extremely odd for the prime contractor not to employ the workforce as it exists at the moment at AWE.
I am sure that the noble Earl will agree that it is import ant that if there is to be contractorisation the workforce at AWE should be perfectly happy with the terms and conditions under which they will be employed in the future. It is part of a series of amendments that I shall move to try to ensure that. I beg to move.
The Earl of Arran: The effect of this amendment would be to rule out the possibility of transferring AWE's staff to a separate employing company, rather than to the contracting company itself. I believe that the amendment stems from a misunderstanding of the "two company" structure which we propose to operate at AWE. Perhaps it would be helpful, therefore, if I explained the two company structure in more detail.
On vesting day, AWE's staff will be transferred out of the Civil Service and will become employees of a company formed by the Secretary of State for that purpose. The company or consortium which is successful in the competition for the contract to operate AWE will be required, as a condition of the contract, to buy this employing company. For the duration of the contract, therefore, the employing company will be owned by the contracting company and will be indistinguishable from it for all intents and purposes. There is no question of any potential division of executive responsibilities between the two companies—the sole function of the employing company is to be the employer of AWE staff.
The reason that we wish to have a separate employing company rather than transferring AWE staff directly to the contractor is that there might come a time when we wish to change the contractor. If the staff were employed directly by the contractor it might be difficult to remove him—for without him there would be no staff to carry out AWE's work. But the employing company eliminates those problems. If a contract is terminated and not renewed, the incumbent contractor will be required to sell the employing company to his successor, who can thus
934
take over responsibility for operating the establishment with the same staff and minimum disruption. The employing company also makes it possible for the Secretary of State to take back responsibility for running AWE himself should he choose to do so; for example, in the event of a gap between the end of one contract and the beginning of the next.
That is the same arrangement that was adopted when contractor operation was introduced at the royal dockyards. I can assure the Committee that the two company structure has worked well at both Devonport and Rosyth.
The two company structure has considerable advantages, not only for the Ministry of Defence, but also for the AWE workforce, for which it provides continuity of employment. If there were to be a change of contractor, AWE staff would remain employees of the same employing company, but that company would be acquired by the new contractor.
If this amendment were made, AWE staff would have to be employed directly by the contractor. What would happen then if the contractor failed to perform satisfactorily and the Ministry of Defence wished to appoint a new one? The entire AWE workforce would still be employed by the old contractor, who would have little incentive to co-operate with his successor. Similarly, if the Secretary of State wanted to take back direct responsibility for operating AWE in some emergency, the mechanics of arranging it might be difficult. With a two company structure, however, he would simply take back the employing company, and with it the entire staff of AWE.
In short, the one company structure which this amendment imposes on AWE would effectively be handing the AWE workforce to the contractor for good, rather than for the duration of his contract. That would cause difficulties for both AWE and its workforce. For that reason, I urge your Lordships to reject this amendment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am most grateful to the noble Earl for his explanation. Did I understand him to say that if the prime contractor were changed for one reason or another the prime contractor whose subsidiary employs the workforce would be required to sell the company which employs the workforce? I hope he will confirm that I heard him correctly. At what price, under what circumstances and for what consideration will the prime contractor sell the employing company to the future contractor? What is the price of the workforce? We cannot treat people like cattle. They have to be properly employed under proper conditions.
Perhaps I may refer to the example of Rosyth. I am afraid that the two company structure has not worked particularly well. There are more redundancies coming up. There was a 50 per cent. loss on start-up of the company. It seems to us that the workforce should be properly protected by being employed by the prime contractor.
If the Government wish to take back the contract from the prime contractor, it follows axiomatically that they take back the contract and the workforce in

935
the same way that they propose to privatise the contract and the workforce. There seems to me no difficulty in writing that into the prime contract.
I am not sure that Rosyth and Devonport are good examples. I am uncertain about the conditions that the Government propose for this putative sale of a company employing the workforce on a change of prime contractor. It is still an area of great uncertainty. I hope that the noble Earl will be able to clarify the matter before I decide what to do with the amendment.
The Earl of Arran: The answer to the noble Lord is, yes, a contractor would be required to sell an employing company to its successor at the same price for which it bought it. At Devonport and Rosyth it was a nominal figure of £50,000.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am not sure that the noble Earl has fully met all my points. The nominal figure of £50,000 is therefore just a device for ensuring that there should be another employer company other than the prime contractor. What is wrong with having a one company structure? The two company structure in our view does not work particularly well at either Rosyth or Devonport. The noble Lord is hoist by his own petard. If the contractor is required to sell the employer company at the figure for which he bought it,—namely, £50,000—he then says, "This will be written into the contract." It is therefore not a sale but a straightforward transfer. Therefore, why should not the sum be £1? Rather than a subsidiary, why should not the prime contractor be responsible for the whole matter, thus avoiding all those difficulties? I cannot see the logic in the Government's argument.
The Earl of Arran: Perhaps I may repeat and try to clarify that which I have already said. The reason that we wish to have a separate employing company rather than transferring AWE staff directly to the contractor is that there might come a time when we wish to change the contractor. If the staff were employed directly by the contractor it might be difficult to remove him, for without him there would be no staff to carry out AWE's work. But the employing company eliminates those problems. If a contract is terminated and not renewed, the incumbent contractor will be required to sell the employing company to his successor who can thus take over responsibility for operating the establishment with the same staff and minimum disruption. The employing company also makes it possible for the Secretary of State to take that responsibility for running AWE himself, should he choose to do so. The precise terms of the contract have not exactly been worked out. But of course that will be done with considerable care and caution.
Lord Williams of Elvel: The noble Earl repeats what is in his brief. That does not help us. I am interested to know why there should be a separate company when any contract—and I shall offer my services to draft the contract if the noble Earl wishes—can perfectly easily say, "Under such and such circumstances the workforce will go back to such and such". It is
936
a perfectly easy contract to draft. I do not understand why the Government persist in this structure which has not worked well elsewhere.
Furthermore, there are considerable problems. Who will be the directors of the employer company? Will they all be members of the prime contractor company, which is the parent? Will there be employee directors? Will there be union representatives who are directors of that board? Will terms and conditions for the directors of that board be different from those of the directors of the prime contractor? We have no idea of the answers because the Minister continues to refer to the contract which we have not yet seen. Will he consider those points and let the Committee know his feelings?
5.30 p.m.
The Earl of Arran: I shall certainly consider them. As I said, the actual terms and conditions of the contract have not yet been fully worked out. However, all the issues to which the noble Lord draws attention will be taken into account when drawing up the final terms of the contract.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: Before my noble friend makes a final decision about his amendment, perhaps the Minister will clarify a further issue. Would it not be a more simple procedure if upon the change of contractor the Secretary of State automatically became the temporary employer on the same terms that existed with the original employer? Thereby the position of the employees will be safeguarded in the interim period before a satisfactory secondary employer is found. Is not the idea of setting up a company to carry out that task unnecessary? There would be many difficult and dangerous problems which the Secretary of State, acting as pro tem employer, could avoid. Members on this side of the Committee who have knowledge of what has happened in similar situations are filled with considerable perturbation and frankly we do not like it.
The Earl of Arran: The transfer of staff is not as simple as the noble Lords, Lord Williams and Lord Jenkins, make out. I must remind them that TUPE 81 provides for the transfer of staff from one employer to another. It is a complex business which is now being considered. However, as the Committee stage progresses I believe that I shall be able to give clear instances of the transfer of staff meeting exactly the conditions that are now encountered.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am well aware that TUPE 81 will apply. We shall come to its provisions later in Committee. However, the important point is that the continuity of employer is essential. One simply cannot have staff being shoved around from one employer to another, to another and yet again to another; there must be continuity. If there is a change in the status of the employer company the contracts may well change without knowledge of the trade unions or anybody else. The Government may wish to think about the matter again.

937
Of course I shall read what the Minister has said, but I remain wholly unconvinced that the Government are adopting the right solution. Perhaps the Minister has received by courier extra messages that he would like to convey to the Committee. If so, I shall listen to him before deciding what to do with my amendment.
The Earl of Arran: I can finally say to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, that the two-company structure ensures continuity of employment in AWE work.
Lord Williams of Elvel: We are not getting very far. I must read carefully what the Minister has said and take advice. I reserve our position: at a later stage I may wish to return to the matter. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, line 8, at end insert:
("( ) Such a company shall have a duty to consult and agree with recognised Trade Unions as to the establishment and maintenance of suitable machinery for negotiation and consultation on terms and conditions of service, to provide reference to arbitration, conciliation or mediation in the event of dispute, and to discuss other matters of mutual interest to the company and its employees.").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 5 is designed to ensure that the workforce is properly treated at the point of transfer. As the Committee is aware, the workforce now within the atomic weapons establishments as part of the Ministry of Defence is within the Civil Service and is therefore covered by the Whitley arrangements. My amendment seeks to ensure that suitable and acceptable joint negotiating and consultative machinery is established by the new companies once they are under commercial management.
The present Whitley arrangements ensure that management and recognised trade unions—both industrial and non-industrial—meet on a regular basis to consider problems of mutual concern and to deliberate on their resolution. That covers health and safety, which is an extremely important issue in the AWE, as the Minister will recognise. Between such formal meetings there are many informal contacts which are possible largely because of the formal framework of the existing procedures.
The Civil Service is also covered by an arbitration agreement which provides for either side to seek to put an issue to arbitration if agreement cannot be reached by negotiation. That is a vitally important mechanism in avoiding industrial conflict and dispute. I am sure that the Committee will wish to enshrine in legislation the avoidance of any industrial dispute or conflict which could jeopardise this extremely important activity.
I have no doubt that in reply the Minister will say that negotiating and consultative arrangements will transfer under TUPE 81. However, two problems arise. The first is that at present TUPE 81 applies only at the moment of transfer. After that, it is all up for grabs. Secondly, negotiation arrangements will have to be changed because there can be no reference to a higher level from the new employer company. One
938
imagines that access to the Civil Service arbitration tribunal will be lost. Therefore the workforce will be considerably disadvantaged by the transfer unless the Government accept the thrust of my Amendment No. 5.
I need not emphasise to the Committee the importance of this issue. As a nation we cannot afford to have industrial disputes at the point of manufacture of our nuclear warheads. On any occasion, industrial disputes are undesirable but in this instance they are wholly wrong. We seek to ensure that the workforce has the proper protection that now obtains and to ensure that proper negotiating machinery is in place after transfer and continues to be in place after TUPE 81 stops operating. I beg to move.
The Earl of Arran: The aim of this amendment is to impose a duty on the AWE contractor to negotiate and to consult with the recognised trade unions on terms and conditions of service. The Government's chief concern is with the welfare of the workforce at AWE as well as its proper management. We believe that contractorisation will benefit AWE as a whole and its staff.
I hope that relations with the unions will be as close and constructive as possible, and I am sure that both AWE management and the trade unions will work towards that end. The fact that AWE staff will no longer be civil servants does not mean that they will no longer be trade unionists. No private sector company in the defence industry has ever done away with the unions. Other major firms in the defence industry such as Rolls-Royce, British Aerospace and Hunting Engineering all recognise the unions. It is firms such as these or others of similar stature which would be involved in running AWE.
We are thus not disposed to accept the amendment. The facts are that under TUPE 81 the contractorised AWE will inherit the establishment's existing consultative machinery and all currently recognised trade unions. Any subsequent change that the contractor may wish to make through the employing company must be by negotiation. If there is to be any change it must involve full consultation with the workforce. Like any good employer, it will be very much in his interests to consult and negotiate with staff. If he does not consult properly and fails to carry through what has been inherited, he can be taken to an industrial tribunal.
The fear lurking at the back of some trade unions' minds might be the possibility, however remote, that the workforce may decide that it does not want to be represented by unions. In fact we believe that the workforce at AWE wants to have a constructive relationships with the unions; but in the end it is for the workforce to decide. We should not impose on AWE any statutory obligation relating to the role of unions that does not apply elsewhere in industry. In the light of that explanation, I hope that I have persuaded the Committee not to accept the amendment.
Lord Mayhew: The amendment does not merely require a company to consult, but it requires it to agree with recognised trade unions. That seems to go

939
a little further than may be regarded as desirable. It is one thing to consult and another thing to require agreement by law.
I am slightly worried too by the feeling that although the future workforce will certainly wish to carry on the excellent traditions of the present AWE, and will be loyal to its unions, it seems to me that if we pass this amendment we are pre-empting its view. It may be that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, can reassure me; but it seems to me that the amendment is imposing on the future staff which I am sure should be and will be loyal to their trade unions but should not be told to be loyal by legislation.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the noble Earl and to the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, for their comments. My problem remains as it was when I moved the amendment. There is a long-established negotiating procedure. So far as I understand it, that has worked extremely well. At present, that is being by-passed to a certain extent by Hunting-BRAE under phase 1 by means of something called team briefings which are not part of the negotiating machinery.
Furthermore, I am advised that trade unions are finding it difficult to obtain information and hence are finding it difficult to represent the interests of their members.
The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, raised a point about whether the company shall have a duty. At present the company has a duty to conform to Civil Service arrangements. I do not believe that it is sufficient for the noble Earl to say simply that if unions or representatives of the workforce have a grievance, they can take matters to the industrial tribunal as they can in other industries because here we are dealing with a special case. With numerous contractors about the place, we may well be in a position in which the industrial relations machinery which has worked extremely well to date—and I hope that the noble Earl will agree that it has worked extremely well to date—will be cast aside without some sort of provision of this nature.
I do not wish to press the amendment to a Division. However, I should be grateful if the noble Earl could reassure me more than he has at present that the Government recognise that contractorisation is different from privatisation. The contractorisation of the production of nuclear warheads requires an industrial relations machinery which is smooth, efficient and avoids disputes. That is what I am trying to impress upon the Government. I believe our interests are at one. However, I believe that if the noble Earl says that the matters can be taken to an industrial tribunal, then we shall be in some sort of trouble.
5.45 p.m.
The Earl of Arran: As the noble Lord, Lord Williams, said, this is a special case from the point of view of many aspects. This particular instance is special from the point of view of the transfer of the workforce being smooth and efficient. That is what one hopes will happen. After transfer, the employer
940
cannot change conditions without the consent of the workforce. That is part of the normal consultative process.
Lord Williams of Elvel: When the noble Earl says that the new employer company cannot change the terms and conditions of employment without the consent of the workforce, what does he mean?
The Earl of Arran: I mean that there must be a consultation process in order that the transfer can be agreed, as in all circumstances of this sort. I do not believe I can add to what I have said.
Lord Williams of Elvel: The noble Earl used the expression "without the consent of the workforce". By that does he mean that after TUPE 81, which we agree applies at transfer, any change in those arrangements must have the consent of the workforce? In what form will that consent be expressed? Will that be by a unanimous or majority decision? What does the noble Earl have in mind when he uses the expression "without the consent of the workforce"?
The Earl of Arran: The trade unions will still have a role to play at AWE after contractorisation. The negotiation machinery is in place now in the form of joint consultative committees on which those matters are discussed. The department remains ready to meet the trade unions to discuss any specific issues which may be of anxiety.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Do I take it that the expression "consent of the workforce" means exactly what it says; namely, that the workforce, in some procedure to be discussed, must deliver its opinion and consent to any changes in the arrangements which have been passed over under TUPE 81? If that is the case, will the noble Earl give an assurance that that will be written into the contract?
The Earl of Arran: I have said that a very close consultation process will take place between the workforce and the unions. Every employee must agree any change made by his employer to his terms of service otherwise it is a breach of contract.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I believe we are gradually getting somewhere on this matter. We do not want that consultation, which is always very valuable, to be something like, "We will tell you what you are doing". We do not want it to be said that that is consultation. If the noble Earl says that the consent of the workforce is required—and I noted carefully his words—then we are getting somewhere. I shall study carefully what he said and I may come back to this at a later stage, having received advice on the matter.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 2, line 8, at end insert:
("( ) In pursuance of the arrangements made hereunder the Secretary of State shall ensure that the redundancy provisions applicable to all employees of any company shall be equivalent to those presently embodied in the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme and will set up out of monies provided by Parliament a redundancy fund for the benefit of all qualified employees declared redundant after the transfer of the undertaking.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall weak also to Amendment No. 7. Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 deal with any possible redundancies which may result as a consequence of contractorisation. At present there is no provision in the legislation for the Ministry of Defence to fund any redundancies caused by its relationship with AWE. That relationship with AWE will be crucial in the future. These will be difficult and important issues. The Ministry of Defence will be the one monopoly buyer of the prime contractor's products. Therefore, there is a monopoly buyer—the Ministry of Defence—and a monopoly provider of the products—the prime contractor.
If the prime contractor or the employer company decides in its wisdom that there must be redundancies, in our view money should be available from the Ministry of Defence to fund any redundancies. The Government should make it clear that they will ensure that that happens.
Amendment No. 7 would allow the setting up of a scheme which will be properly funded. It will ensure that the argument which I have put forward as regards redundancies. If there are to be redundancies, then qualified employees should be properly protected by a funded programme set up by the Ministry of Defence. In our view that is not something that should be left to the private contractor. I beg to move.
The Earl of Arran: The effect of these amendments would be to write into the statute book that redundancy provision after contractorisation was equivalent to that in the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme, and should be funded under arrangements made by the Secretary of State. Amendment No. 6 also requires that a redundancy fund should be set up out of moneys provided by Parliament.
We cannot guarantee that no redundancies will ever occur at AWE, or in the Ministry of Defence, or in the Civil Service generally. But the introduction of contractor operation at AWE will not itself cause redundancies. The relevant factor is workload, not the status of the workforce. However, on contractorisation, a new redundancy payments scheme will be set up that will, when taken together with the pension scheme benefits, provide redundancy conditions at least as good as at present. That requirement will be written into the contract and the AWE contractor will be obliged to comply. That assurance has been given previously by Ministers in another place and I am pleased to repeat it today in your Lordships' Chamber. There is no need for legislation on this point; we shall cover redundancy conditions in the contract. I should perhaps add that in this Bill, as with all legislation, we try to avoid including material which is superfluous, however benign its content and intention.
The amendments, moreover, show a misunderstanding of the concept of redundancy. Redundancy money is not paid from a fund as such, as pensions are paid from a pension fund. It is paid as part of a pay and provisions package. I believe, however, that the point behind the amendments is to guarantee redundancy payments should the AWE
942
contractor be unable to meet his obligations to do so. We have already met this point in the Bill, albeit in a slightly different way to that proposed by the noble Lord. Let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that the worst happened and the contractor went bankrupt. I stress that this is a very unlikely scenario, but it is a useful illustration. The employing company, as the noble Lord will recall, is separate from the AWE contractor, so that company would not itself be in difficulties. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State could then simply take back the employing company into his sole ownership. In that way, staff pay, and if necessary redundancy payments would be fully safeguarded.
In summary, my arguments against these amendments are not so much with their aim—we also intend that redundancy benefits should be fully safeguarded—but rather with the means by which they seek to achieve those aims. We have already given assurances that redundancy conditions, when taken with pension scheme benefits, will be at least as good as at present. Similarly, in the very unlikely event that the AWE contractor could not meet his obligations, the Bill already allows the Secretary of State to take back the employing company into his ownership, thus safeguarding pay and redundancy. It is for those reasons that I invite the Committee to reject the amendment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the noble Earl for that explanation. This Committee appears to be leaving a great deal to the contract. I have no doubt that the contract will do exactly what the noble Earl says it will do. I have not previously dealt with a contractorisation Bill, but I have dealt with privatisation Bills. As with other Bills—indeed two Bills I am taking through your Lordships' House from the Opposition side at the moment—we seem to produce an enabling Bill and everything else is left to the contract, the articles of association or something else which Parliament never sees.
The noble Earl is saying that we shall not see the contract because it is not yet ready. In that case, I can see no problem in including a provision in the Bill. However, I would be perfectly satisfied with what the noble Earl says if he will be kind enough to write to me to that effect and enclose a copy of what he said. That will enable me to advise the trades unions involved that that is the Government's position and that what he said will be in the contract. That is an important matter.
Obviously I accept what the noble Earl says. But I should like further confirmation. It seems to me that the Bill cannot properly be discussed without some sight of a draft contract. Will a draft contract of any sort be available to the Committee before we reach Report stage? If not, we shall have a series of discussions somewhat in vacuo, which could be resolved if we were able to see the draft contract. I do not wish to press the amendment to a Division. However, we need confirmation. I hope that the noble Earl will be able to give us some reassurance in regard to the contract, and that he will use his best endeavours to place it before the House before we reach Report stage.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: Before the noble Earl speaks, perhaps I can say a few words. The Home Office made available a draft contract in regard to the private sector remand establishment in Humberside. There was no difficulty. A copy of the contract was placed in the Library of the House. In my view, that was the correct thing to do. If it could be done by the Home Office, why cannot it be done by the department of the noble Earl? Perhaps he could tell us.
The Earl of Arran: My understanding is that there will not be a draft contract available in the time that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, suggests. I have stood at this Dispatch Box and already given assurances that redundancy commissions, when taken with pension scheme benefits, will be at least as good as they are at present. Those guarantees will certainly be included in the draft contract.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Is there not already a contract for phase 1? Is Hunting-BRAE not already operating under a contract of some sort?
Lord Harris of Greenwich: Perhaps the noble Earl can give me an answer to my question. The noble Earl spoke but he did not deal with my question. It is the expectation of most of us that when questions are asked of Ministers they are answered.
The Earl of Arran: I do not wish to be unforthcoming to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich. Perhaps I need not take up the time of the Committee and I can write to both the noble Lords, Lord Harris and Lord Williams setting out our principles and the state of play on the draft contract.
Lord Williams of Elvel: We can do better than that. I intend to continue with the amendments which will no doubt refer to the contract. During the course of those amendments, I am sure that the noble Earl will take whatever advice he feels appropriate and allow us to have information on what the state of play is on the draft contract. I know not whether the question of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, will be answered in the course of this debate, nor my question regarding whether under phase I Hunting-BRAE is operating under a contract. If it is not, is there a contract? All those questions remain for the moment in the air. We shall certainly come to them as we go through the amendments before the Committee.
The Earl of Arran: Perhaps I can be of a little further help to the noble Lord, Lord Williams. I understand that this is a contract of considerable size and length. It is a classified document and it will not be available until the end of next year.
Lord Williams of Elvel: The contract will not be available until the end of 1992. Therefore the noble Earl is asking the Committee to discuss a Bill which enables the Government to do certain things, the realisation and the principles of which will not be known at all, and not known to the participants, until the end of next year. We are at least clear on that matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 7 not moved.]
6 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 2, line 21, at end insert:
(""premises" means any buildings that are fit for the purpose for which they are constructed.").
The noble Lord said: The amendment refers to "premises", which are referred to at page 2, line 21, of the Bill and are to be designated by the Secretary of State. It is my understanding that there have been some problems with premises, particularly at Aldermaston. The object of the amendment is to ensure that radioactive materials and equipment are stored in proper facilities, with due regard to the full safety standards and requirements which at present exist. We wish to ensure that the contractor is obliged to uphold these standards and that stores, materials and equipment are kept in purpose-built buildings and facilities which are adequately shelled with lead or concrete.
The Committee may be aware that there was an accidental release of tritium gas at Aldermaston. The Atomic Weapons Establishment plans to build special facilities there affording primary and secondary containment which will in theory prevent the release of tritium gas outside the plant. But they will not be ready for about five years. We need to have assurances that that construction will go ahead.
There is some suggestion that substandard materials have been used in the construction of the A90 complex. The substandard items were in the ducting and ventilation system. As I understand it, the complex was not accepted by the Ministry of Defence and subsequently it was refurbished using proper materials. I believe that the noble Earl knows what "proper materials" means. The concern is that the contractor may well accept substandard construction and materials which may not contain the hazardous products. The object of the amendment is to make absolutely certain that the contractor will be under an obligation to continue the work which is being done at the moment and also that he makes absolutely certain that the highest levels of safety will be maintained in the installation in which he is operating. I beg to move.
The Earl of Arran: The amendment states that the premises to which the Act will apply would be,
"any buildings that are fit for the purpose for which they are constructed".
We all recognise that it is important to have the right buildings at Aldermaston and the other establishments. Indeed it is very right. During the 1980s problems of cost escalation and delay were experienced with the Aldermaston capital programme. This is a billion pound programme of investment in new buildings and facilities, the centrepiece of which is the new A90 building for the manufacture and processing of fissile components for nuclear warheads. These matters were considered in detail in successive reports by the Public Accounts and Defence Select Committees in another place.
Against that background, the National Nuclear Corporation Limited was appointed in 1988 as the overall project manager of the AWE capital programme. It has great experience in managing such

945
programmes and in the commissioning of civil nuclear facilities. Its appointment did not imply that staff at AWE were incompetent but rather that nuclear scientists are not adept at managing building programmes; it is not their expertise. Shared responsibility for capital projects between the PSA and MoD also contributed to the difficulties.
I am pleased to say that the A90 problems are now firmly in the past. Construction work is complete. Equipment installation is largely complete and commissioning of the building and equipment is under way. We shall be able to meet the requirements for Trident production, and I am pleased to say that the Trident programme is on course to meet its in-service date of the mid-1990s.
Another major new capital facility at Aldermaston is the A91 building for the treatment of radioactive liquid effluent. Like A90, this is built but not yet commissioned. Commissioning involves running the various treatment processes under simulated operational conditions. No radioactive materials have been introduced into the building. This major step was planned to take place at the end of 1991 following completion of the commissioning programme. However, earlier this year during commissioning some of the stainless steel pipework and filter vessels of A91 were found to be leaking; that is, leaking non-toxic, non-radioactive test fluid. Initial inspection revealed the cause to be corrosion from the inside, mainly adjacent to the welds. Commissioning was stopped and an investigation launched. The detailed report is yet to be completed.
One of the purposes of commissioning is of course to ensure that any such problems are discovered before the new facility is used operationally. There is no connection with previous welding problems with the ductwork in A90 which were reported to the Defence Committee in 1989 and which have long since been solved. We are confident that the A91 corrosion problem will also be solved, and there is certainly no threat to Trident.
As the noble Lord, Lord Williams, mentioned, a tiny amount of the radioactive gas tritium was released at Aldermaston on 19th February. That has nothing to do with A90, A91, NNC Ltd., Hunting-BRAE, contractorisation or this Bill. There is no tritium in A91. The release occurred in a research, not a production, facility. The work within this facility and the personnel employed there have not been e langed or affected in any way by the interim management contract. The release was minor and the maxim urn dose that could result to any member of the public would be less than one microsievert. Members of the public receive every year on average over 2,000 times as much radioactivity from natural and background sources. The resultant dose to the workforce would also be extremely small; no greater than that to the public in this instance.
In summary, there is no need for this amendment as all buildings at AWE are fit for their intended use. For that reason I seek the Committee's rejection of the amendment.
Lord Kennet: Before my noble friend decides what to do about the amendment, can the noble Earl say
946
whether these matters in general—that is to say, the fitness of the buildings for the purposes for which they are constructed, what they are lined and roofed with, the question of tritium and so on—will be within the province of the director of the Compliance Office, or will they remain under the direct jurisdiction of the Secretary of State as the owner of the premises throughout the establishments?
The Earl of Arran: Our plans are that land facilities and other assets—namely, capital facilities—will remain in Crown ownership but they will be operated by the contractor. The Government will ensure that capital facilities are appropriate for the task.
Lord Mayhew: In what way will these matters come under the control and monitoring of the compliance officer? Can the noble Earl say whether the report on corrosion will be published and, if so, when?
The Earl of Arran: The compliance officer will be absolutely insistent on and very much responsible for matters such as safety and security during the operation. That will certainly be the case, as is most appropriate.
Lord Kennet: Will the Secretary of State have any source of information on such matters as these other than the Compliance Office?
The Earl of Arran: I am not absolutely certain of the answer to that. It is a good question. Perhaps I may write to the noble Lord and make sure of the duty of the Secretary of State in these particular circumstances.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the noble Earl for saying that he will write to all of us. We all enjoy letters from him.
Serious questions need to be addressed about the premises which are now under consideration. The noble Earl quite rightly referred to the A91 stainless steel pipework. He was right to say that there was a corrosion problem. It had been reported to the local press so it was no particular news to anybody. Is this corrosion problem to be patched up before contractorisation, or will it be properly repaired to the highest standard required in the industry before contractorisation? Who will pay for that? Will it be the Ministry of Defence, or will it be a charge on the new contractor when he takes over these desirable premises? That is what he wants to do.
Before the appointment of NNC, the facilities project management contractor, it is my understanding that this package of work was in the hands of the PSA and not the nuclear scientists at Aldermaston. Can the noble Earl confirm that? Finally, if the A90 complex is delayed, will not production work continue in outdated buildings? The example, from the United States, is terrifying about what happens when production of these very important and difficult products takes place in outdated buildings.
The Earl of Arran: I do not wish to be patronising, but these are obviously important and sensible questions which need to be addressed very carefully. The Compliance Director will monitor everything a

947
contractor does, including anything which relates to the premises. If there are questions which I have not answered I shall advise the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, as soon as possible.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am most grateful to the noble Earl. I do not wish to hold up the Committee. We have to get on with business. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 9 not moved.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 10:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
("Inspection of accounts by Comptroller and Auditor General
Subject to section 1(2) above an account of the contractor shall be open to the inspection of the Comptroller and Auditor General.").
The noble Lord said: This is a very simple but really quite important amendment. If approved, it will allow continuing parliamentary scrutiny of AWE's finances and the finances of the prime contractor. This is particularly important because of the valuable work that has been carried out by the Public Accounts Committee in another place in its scrutiny of these premises, as of the whole establishment, and the fact that AWE's work will be derived entirely from the Government. Again we get back to this thought that the Ministry of Defence will be the sole purchaser of the product of the prime contractor. It is therefore of vital interest that the taxpayer and the taxpayer's interests should be properly protected. I beg to move.
Lord Kennet: Before the noble Earl says that the Bill will be all right without this amendment—which I expect it will, though I hope it will not—perhaps I may ask whether he or the Secretary of State has called for a detailed account of all the reasons why things went wrong in the United States on the environmental pollution front and on the fraud front. The United States Government are the victims of massive fraud and massive malpractice. That has called for the most heroic remedies by the incoming Secretary of Energy. Every one of those malpractices, frauds and mistakes—no doubt some honest mistakes, too—could have been found out, prevented or, learnt about in advance, or at any rate at the moment that they were happening, if there had been a sufficient and sufficiently immediate auditing procedure in the United States. Clearly there was not, otherwise those disasters would not have occurred. What steps have the Government taken in advance in preparing the Bill and in preparing their minds for operating it to ensure that we do better when we have to cope with private contractors here?
6.15 p.m.
The Earl of Arran: The effect of this amendment would be to open the accounts of the contractor to the inspection of the Comptroller and Auditor General. The facts are that the Comptroller and Auditor General can currently look at the MoD's relations with any defence contractor to ensure that the
948
taxpayers' money is being wisely spent. He already has the right to do this, and to have access to departmental papers, without specific legislation in every case. Consequently, we do not need this Bill to give him that right in respect of our relations with the AWE contractor.
The amendment relates specifically to access to the contractors' accounts. These will, naturally, be prepared in accordance with the Companies Act and thus publicly available. Once again, we do not need the Bill to specifically provide for that to happen.
If, however, the amendment is seeking a wider remit for the Comptroller and Auditor General in respect of the contracting company, to enable him to see all their internal papers, then I must say that I believe it would be wrong to attempt such an effect. The contractor operating AWE will be in the same position as any other defence contractor. It would be inappropriate and unfair to provide for any greater access to background, or commercially confidential information, than is currently available to the Comptroller and Auditor General. Furthermore, the wording of the proposed amendment does not parallel that of the National Audit Act 1983 so it would not, in any event, have that effect.
However, under the National Audit Act 1983 the Comptroller and Auditor General does have rights of access to documents in the control or custody of the Ministry of Defence, including those originated elsewhere. It will therefore be up to him to use the power that he already has to go into the Ministry of Defence and obtain the papers that he requires. These arrangements work satisfactorily in other cases like the royal dockyards and there is no reason why they should not do so in this instance.
I conclude, therefore, that the additional powers envisaged by this proposed amendment are superfluous, in so far as the contractor's accounts will be published in accordance with the requirements of the Companies Act and the necessary powers already exist for the Comptroller and Auditor General to consider the MoD's relations with the AWE contractor. If, however, the principle behind this amendment is that the contractor should be subject to audit by the Comptroller and Auditor General then I see no reason for putting him in a different position from any other defence contractor, including the dockyard contractors, in respect of whom such a requirement does not exist. It would be unfair to insist that it did so in this case. It is for that reason that I urge your Lordships not to accept this amendment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the noble Earl for his response. It is my belief that the prime contractor to be set up as a result of the passage of this Bill is in quite a different position from any other defence contractor. Other defence contractors have other business; they can sell their products elsewhere. This is a contractor which is to be set up for the unique purpose of running premises owned by Her Majesty's Government, for no other purpose, and, it will have no other business whatever. Therefore, I do not accept the argument that this is to be treated as any other defence contractor. Nevertheless, I shall read very

949
carefully what the noble Earl said. I may well wish to come back to this matter at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 [Provisions applying to the transfer of certain employees]:
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 2, line 29, at end insert:
("(1A) The Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981, in their application to the transfer of the undertaking or any part of it, shall have effect as if, for regulation 10 (duty to inform and consult trade union representatives), there were substituted the provisions of subsections (2A) and (4) below, and the remedies by way of complaint to an industrial tribunal provided for by, and the other provisions of, regulation 11 shall be available and shall apply in relation to those subsections as they would in relation to regulation 10 or any corresponding provision of it.
(1B) Long enough before the transfer to enable consultations to take place between the Secretary of State and the representatives of the independent trade unions recognised by him in respect of the employees, the Secretary of State shall inform those representatives of—

(a) the fact that the transfer is to take place, when approximately it is to take place, and the reasons for it;—

(b) the legal, economic and social implications of the transfer for employees;

(c) the measures which he envisages he will, in connection with the transfer, take in relation to those employees or, if he envisages that no measure will be taken, that fact; and

(d) the measures which the company which is to become their employer envisages that it will, in connection with the transfer, take in relation to those employees or, if the company envisages that no measures will be so taken, that fact.

(1C) The company which is to become their employer shall give to the Secretary of State such information at such a time as will enable him to perform the duty imposed on him by virtue of subsection (1B) (d) above.
(1D) The Secretary of State, where he envisages that he will, in connection with the transfer, be taking measures in relation to the employees in respect of whom an independent trade union is recognised by him, shall enter into consultations with the representatives of the trade union and in the course of those consultations shall—

(a) consider any representations made by the trade union representatives, and

(b) reply to those representations, and, if he rejects any of those representations, give his reasons.

(1E) If in any case there are special circumstances which render it not reasonably practicable for the Secretary of State to perform a duty impressed on him by subsection (1B) or (1D) above, he shall take all such steps towards performing in the circumstances.").
The noble Lord said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak also to Amendment No. 13. The noble Earl will have recognised the purpose of this amendment. It is to put the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations specifically in the Bill. I believe that was done, although I have not checked, in the Dockyards Services Act 1986. I think it was the successful initiative of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, that brought that about. The noble Earl might wish to consider that proposal.
I turn now to Amendment No. 13. Although the Bill says that TUPE 81 should apply to the transfer, there is at present no effective remedy if there is a breach of TUPE. This amendment would give the trade union concerned the ability to take the Secretary
950
of State to the court to challenge any breach. That is an extra protection which the trade unions, because of the sensitivity of this industry and the sensitivity of contractorisation, need and deserve. I beg to move.
The Earl of Arran: The effect of Amendment No. 11 would be to enshrine in the Bill a statutory duty on the Secretary of State for Defence to consult and inform the trade unions on the scheme for transfer of the staff; to consider their views; and, if rejected, to explain why. Amendment No. 13 also allows a legal challenge by the trade unions to the High Court on the adequacy of such information and consultation.
The amendments rightly draw attention to the need for close consultation with AWE staff as contractorisation proceeds. In replying to the debate, it may be for the convenience of the Committee if I outline our approach to consultation and then explain why the Government believe the proposed amendments to be unnecessary.
We are committed to consultation and have established joint consultative committees with the trade unions to discuss, prior to vesting day, those matters which affect their members. These act as the fora for discussion between MoD management and the national trade union sides on all matters which affect AWE staff. We remain ready to meet the trade unions to discuss any specific issues which may be of concern to their members.
We also issued, on 5th December 1989, a consultative document detailing the Government's proposals for AWE. The trade unions commented on this, and we issued a second consultative document responding to their comments. A further document was issued to the industrial and non-industrial union sides on 10th January 1991 dealing with pensions and redundancy arrangements. This has been made available to all staff through an in-house newsletter Insight which has been set up to keep staff informed of progress towards full contractorisation.
Insight is an important part of our consultation programme and shows how seriously we take our obligations in this respect. It is produced by the implementation group at AWE, which reports to the compliance director. Its aim is to explain and present the facts so that staff have a clear view of developments. Any member of staff is welcome to put questions or suggestions to the editor so that Insight can respond to them. In addition, a number of letters have been sent to AWE staff giving detailed information on matters which affect them.
The requirement for consultation between employer and staff is set down in the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981. Paragraph 10 of those regulations imposes a duty on the employer to inform and consult trade union representatives on the details of the transfer. These regulations have been laid before Parliament and represent the Government's considered approach to the question of transferring staff.
Clause 2 of the Bill already makes it clear that the safeguards of TUPE 81 will apply to the transfer of AWE staff and so we are obliged to comply with them. Amendment No. 11 duplicates requirements which are already enshrined in TUPE 81—indeed, much of its

951
wording is lifted directly from TUPE 81 itself—and which we do not need to spell out any further; to do so would be unnecessary and potentially confusing. We do not need to cover the point twice in the same legislation.
We acknowledge that a similar requirement for consultation was included in the Dockyard Services Act 1986 following consideration in your Lordships' House. That does not, however, alter our view that it is unnecessary in this case; indeed, the fact that it has made no difference in practice to the consultation procedures in the dockyard contractorisation exercise provides a sound reason, based upon experience, not to insert it in this Bill.
Amendment No. 13 also provides for the unions, where they allege failure by the Secretary of State to fulfil his duties in consultation, to bring an action in the High Court to seek a declaration as to whether or not this is so. Similar provision was inserted in the Dockyard Services Act 1986 and was used by the trade unions to pursue a High Court case. They lost, having spent a lot of their members' money in the process. The Government consider that such a provision is, in any event, misplaced because Paragraph 10 of TUPE 81 provides for such a complaint to be presented to an industrial tribunal, with the right of appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal. The same regulation provides for "appropriate compensation" to be awarded if the tribunal finds the complaint well founded.
I presume that the noble Lord may be seeking to use these amendments and the suggestion of High Court action as a kind of threat over the Government. But staff at AWE need have no fear. We are committed to consultation on all detailed aspects of contractorisation as our record shows. The requirement to consult is laid down in TUPE 81 and we shall adhere to those rules which are the laws of the land. We do not need a gun held to our heads in order to play fair. If anyone wishes to allege otherwise, their remedy is already there in TUPE 81, through the industrial tribunal. With that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the noble Earl for his reply. I am sure he recognises that these are complicated matters—indeed, his reply demonstrated that. The whole question of TUPE 81—how it will apply and what will be the status of the staff in terms of their employment—needs to be digested fully before we continue the debate. I should like to read what the noble Earl has said. These are complicated matters and I do not want to continue to move amendments which are centred around the same point. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 12 to 15 not moved.]
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Privileges and immunities: application of certain enactments]:
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 3, line 8, leave out subsection (3) and insert:
("(3) No order shall be made under subsection (2) above unless a draft thereof has been laid before and approved by a resolution of both Houses of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment stands in my name and in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew. Clause 3(3) refers to the power given to the Secretary of State under Clause 3(2). This is an exceptionally important order. We believe that such an order should be fully discussed in Parliament before it is made. I beg to move.
Lord Mayhew: From my reading, the provision in the Bill will cover rather wider matters. I entirely support the idea behind the amendment. We have not had sufficient discussion and knowledge of the contract and of the possible future actions of the Government in relation to the schedule. I therefore warmly support the idea that, before any changes are made in the schedule and in the orders issued by the Government, Parliament should have another chance to discuss it.
Lord Kennet: Irrespective of its merits as a whole, and indeed of its merits piece by piece in the various clauses, the Government will agree that, as Bills go, this is rather a sketchy one. It is a bit of a skeleton. There are a good many areas not yet filled in. For instance, as we shall see in a moment, the compliance office does not appear anywhere in the Bill. A new regime is to be launched on the basis of primary legislation which is fairly skeletal. In that case it seems to me, as it seemed to my noble friend, that the case for not relying on a take-it-or-leave-it yes or no order to determine the situation as history unfolds is a strong one. The more skeletal a Bill is, the stronger is the case for insisting that amendments to its schedules or to the regime that it sets up should be debatable and amendable in Parliament. I strongly support the amendment.
6.30 p.m.
The Earl of Arran: The amendment before the Committee would require defence Ministers to return to both Houses of Parliament for approval to make an order repealing or amending the schedule. The current wording of the subsection allows such changes to be made through the statutory instrument and negative resolution procedures.
The schedule confers a number of privileges and immunities upon the contractorised AWE. These are necessary for security, and in some cases for practical reasons. However, as I said during the debate on Second Reading, it is the Government's policy that immunities and exemptions from legislation should only exist where absolutely necessary. I am sure that Members of the Committee will support that view. The schedule to the Bill was examined in detail during its passage through another place, and a number of amendments were passed which reduced its provisions considerably.
The schedule as it now stands has been reduced as far as we consider possible at the present time. However, should development occur in the future which might enable us to reduce the schedule still

953
further without adversely affecting security or any other major concerns, we would still wish, in principle, to do so. The purpose of Clause 3(2) of the Bill is to enable us to do just that.
Clause 3(2) enables the Secretary of State to repeal any item in the schedule. It also allows him to amend the schedule's provisions, but states clearly that this power shall not be exercised so as to extend the application of privileges or immunities. In other words, under Clause 3(2) we could not add to the list of exemptions or immunities even if we wished to do so. The only changes that we can make is to delete, or reduce, a provision.
I am a little surprised that, in such circumstances, the noble Lords, Lord Williams and Lord Mayhew, should table an amendment requiring us to come back to Parliament for an affirmative resolution. It would be quite unnecessary and a waste of parliamentary time. For those reasons, I urge Members of the Committee not to accept the amendment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: It is all very well for the Minister to talk about,
"a waste of parliamentary time".
But we on these Benches have to try to find out what the Bill is all about. If we do not get the chance to do sox—and we know that the contract will not be produced until the end of next year—it makes life on the Opposition Benches rather difficult.
However, I accept, as I hope the noble Earl does, that we have a genuine problem on this side of the Committee in understanding the full purport of the Bill. It is most important that we should be given opportunities to understand what is going on as it goes on. However, at this stage, I certainly do not wish to press the amendment. I hear what the noble Earl says; but, nevertheless, I must express some dissatisfaction that are not being given all the details about how the whole process will operate before this Bill receives Royal Assent. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 3, line 10, at end insert:
("(4) Schedule (Compliance Office) to this Act shall have effect for the purpose of providing means of monitoring and supervising the designated and other activities of any contractor appointed under section 1 above, and providing advice to the Secretary of State on the incurring of expenses under section 5 above.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall, for the convenience of the Committee, speak also to Amendments Nos. 18 and 19. All these amendments stand in my name and in that of the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew.
There has been a good deal of debate about the Compliance Office. At present, I am quite unclear as to what the responsibilities of the Compliance Office really will be, what authority it has and what its size will be. Further, I am worried that the Compliance Office may be contractorised at the end of the day if that is what the Government are set on. In our view, it must be firmly within the Ministry of Defence and responsible only to the Secretary of State. If the noble Earl can help us with some views on what the
954
Compliance Office might have as its responsibility, what authority it might have and what size it will he, we may perhaps be able to make some progress. I beg to move.
Lord Mayhew: We have had considerable discussion both on Second Reading and today in Committee on the question of safety. I believe that a study of Hansard would show that the noble Earl in fact agreed this afternoon that there is a conflict between the requirements of the highest standards of safety on the one hand and the hopes of profit on the other. For that reason, it is of the utmost importance that we should embody in legislation the duties, the obligations and the constitution of the Compliance Office.
Frankly, I do not know even now—although perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, knows more about this than I do—what the Compliance Office is, what it does and how many people belong to it. I should like the Minister to tell us something about it. It should certainly be mentioned in the Bill. We should know something about the duties and the size of the Compliance Office. The Minister may well say, "Well, you can trust us. We will see to it. We have said over and again that we shall look after the safety of the new contracting company". We do not doubt the Government's goodwill on the matter. However, this is not a matter that Parliament should devolve. It is not a matter that we should shuffle off and leave to Ministers and their orders; the duties and constitution of the Compliance Office should be stated quite clearly and fairly in the Bill.
Lord Kennet: After the two amendments upon which the Committee divided, this amendment is, in my opinion, by far the most important left for us to decide. We heard just now that the contract will not be available until the end of next year. I do not know what "available" means in this context. However, it is to be a classified document so, presumably, it will never be available to Parliament. Therefore, it must mean that the contract will only be available to the contractor at the end of next year.
I cannot quite remember, but I believe that the noble Earl told this Chamber on one occasion that the programme is that the contract, which does not yet exist, will go out for tender in the middle of next year. In other words, a contract competition will take place in the middle of next year and the Government hope to award the contract to someone at the end of next year. However, it will be a difficult competition if the text of the contract is not available to competitors. Like much else, this aspect of the matter requires further thought by the Government.
I turn now to the question of the Compliance Office. It is amazing that a Compliance Office (which is an American phrase) should be part of the scenery without being mentioned in the Bill. We only have the Government's word for it—which of course we accept; but governments change as has been said a thousand times—that there will be a Compliance Office. It ought to be mentioned in the Bill. Therefore, in general, this amendment ought to be accepted. That much is very clear.

955
However, as regards greater detail, "compliance" with what? We have not even been told about that yet. Will the Compliance Office monitor only the compliance of the contractor with the terms of his contract, or will it also monitor the compliance of the contractor with the law of the land? That will be quite a job as most of what the contractor does will be classified as top secret and the ordinary inspectorates, the police and so on, who one would expect to enforce compliance with the law of the land, will not be able to go in and do so.
Let us assume, for example, that the compliance director will be responsible for both compliance with the contract and compliance with the law of the land. I believe that that is more likely to be the case. Where will his staff come from? He will need a very large staff. It may be that the size of his staff will approach in magnitude the staff that the contractor will bring to the job. It is important that we should have an answer to that question. Further, who will pay for this large staff? Of course, one assumes that it must be the Secretary of State as there can be no question of it being the contractor because that would mean the privatisation of the Compliance Office. Moreover, and perhaps most important of all, how is this important and, in certain respects, supreme authority at Aldermaston going to fit with the existing authorities which will govern the place and the contractor? I have in mind, in particular, the chief scientist of the Ministry of Defence and the head of the Defence Procurement Executive.
Further, who will talk to the Americans? I refer now to the American administration. Who will talk government to government on behalf of the Secretary of State and the Cabinet about day-to-day questions on the procurement and design of nuclear warheads? Is it, as it was always going to be, the chief scientist who will know everything and control most things? Will he still be the chief adviser to the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister?
Alternatively, will it be the head of the Defence Procurement Executive? If so, will that official have sufficient clearance to enter into such matters fully and freely with the American Defense Department as an equal, or will he not? We need to have an answer to that question. Or, is it conceivably in some respects going to be the director of the Compliance Office? Moreover, what security clearances will the director and his staff have and how far down the heap will that extend?
On the relationship between these three men, who are all servants of the Secretary of State, will depend the efficient functioning of the design and production of nuclear warheads in this country, far more, I submit, than on any question of whether it is a private company that undertakes the management or direct state employees as has been the case hitherto. Perhaps we shall be lucky enough to have some answers from the Minister before we leave the amendment.
The Earl of Arran: The effect of Amendments Nos. 17, 18 and 19 would be to write the functions and powers of the Compliance Office on to the statute book and to bind the Secretary of State for Defence to
956
comply with any of the Compliance Director's recommendations for payments by the ministry to the contractor. I must resist the amendments not because I have any fundamental disagreement with the noble Lords, Lord Williams and Lord Mayhew, about what the functions and powers of the Compliance Office should be, but because provision in the Bill is neither necessary nor appropriate in order to define them.
In so far as the amendments reflect the noble Lords' concern that the contractor should be regulated effectively by the Compliance Office, I am in full agreement with them. We have always intended that the Compliance Office will have thorough oversight of the contractor's activities and the power to enforce environmental, health and safety standards and compliance with the terms of the contract. That has been made clear in repeated public statements.
The Secretary of State already has the power to establish a Compliance Office and define its functions. After the repeated statements that I and other Ministers have made of our commitment to establish a strong Compliance Office, I am surprised that the noble Lords, Lord Williams and Lord Mayhew, feel that we cannot be trusted to fulfil that commitment without a statutory obligation to do so. The Secretary of State for Defence is constitutionally responsible for all that happens within the sphere of his department's function, including the activities of AWE, for which he will remain accountable irrespective of the fact that its operation will be contracted out, and he will be called to account before Parliament if the Compliance Office fails to regulate AWE satisfactorily.
The Compliance Director is, and will remain, a senior MoD civil servant responsible to the Secretary of State. Consequently, it would be inappropriate to give him statutory powers enabling him to force upon my right honourable friend a particular course of action, such as withholding contractual payments. The constitutional position is, and must remain, that civil servants are responsible for offering advice to Ministers, who take the decisions and are in turn answerable to Parliament. Although I should find it hard to conceive of a situation whereby my right honourable friend would not accept the advice of the Compliance Director, it is MoD Ministers and not civil servants who are answerable to Parliament for the activities of the department. Ministers will remain accountable for what happens at AWE and for meeting the nuclear weapons programme, irrespective of contractorisation. It would be quite wrong to bind Ministers to accept a decision of their civil servants.
It is misleading to draw parallels with the statutory bodies, such as Oftel and Ofwat, which have been set up to regulate privatised industries. When an organisation is sold off completely, the Government's responsibility for it is discontinued, and therefore, if the organisation is to be regulated at all it must be by statute. But that will not be the case at AWE. I must repeat that we are not privatising AWE as the gas and electricity industries were privatised. The Government will continue to own the assets and the property, and will still be ultimately responsible for the establishment. All that we are doing is bringing in a contractor to carry out the activities of AWE for a fixed period of

957
time and under strict contractual control. It would be wrong to attempt to qualify by statute the Secretary of State's continuing constitutional responsibility for the establishment, as the amendment seeks to do.
I do not propose to discuss the content of the proposed schedule in detail, since my main objection is to the principle of making the Compliance Office a statutory body. I will merely say that in some respects, the duties which the amendment seeks to impose by statute upon the Compliance Office correspond approximately with those that it will actually fulfil. In particular, I stress that the Compliance Office will ensure that when a particular activity is covered by an exemption under the existing schedule to the Bill, the contractor must not only achieve safety standards at least as good as those required by statute, but will also maintain the higher standards which it is the ministry's policy to achieve. On the other hand, there are parts of the proposed schedule which would be objectionable even if the principle behind it could be accepted. In particular, I note that it seeks to wrest responsibility for the enforcement of health and safety legislation away from the Health and Safety Executive. In fact, the HSE is already responsible for enforcing the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act and associated enactments at AWE, and will continue to be so after vesting day.
We are also considering Amendment No. 18, which would prevent the Bill from coming into force until six months after a Compliance Director has been appointed. I have to say that I believe the amendment to be seriously misconceived. There is already a Compliance Director at AWE, who is presently monitoring the performance of the interim management contractor, Hunting-BRAE, and establishing the methodology and staffing requirements for the larger Compliance Office which will monitor full contractor operation. The Compliance Director was appointed at the commencement of the interim management contract, which began on 1st October 1990, so he has already been in office for more than six months. The amendment would therefore make no difference to the date upon which the Bill would come into force, since the condition which it lays down has already been met.
To sum up, the Government have made abundantly clear their intention that a strong Compliance Office will regulate the contractor-operated AWE, with particular attention to environmental, safety and health considerations. It is completely unnecessary to write the terms of reference of the Compliance Office into the Bill. Moreover, it would be wrong to interfere with the Secretary of State's continuing constitutional responsibility for AWE, or to give a civil servant statutory powers over the Secretary of State. Finally, to delay the date on which the Bill will come into force until six months after the appointment of a Compliance Director would be pointless since the Compliance Director has already been in place for more than six months.
I shall deal with the points made during the debate. Compliance relates to compliance with the contract, but the contract will require the contractor to comply with all relevant statutory regulations. Except where
958
the contractor is exempt from legislation, legislation will be enforced by the normal authorities as it is now—the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act will be enforced by the Health and Safety Executive.
The Compliance Office will be adequately staffed fully to undertake its responsibilities. It will be staffed and paid for by the Ministry of Defence. With those explanations, I hope that I have persuaded the Committee not to accept the amendment.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: That reply does not take us very far forward. The Minister said that we lack a certain amount of trust by trying to have the provision included in the Bill. If I may say so, we do lack a certain amount of trust, because time and time again the Government have said that there will be a Compliance Office inside the MOD which will be strong and powerful. They continually refuse to give to either House of Parliament any details about the size and authority of that Compliance Office. We are aware that the Compliance Office in the dockyards is a one-man affair. That is not a Compliance Office. It is one man in the MoD. We know that the only person who has been trained in safety at AWE who has been asked to participate in the existing Compliance Office left the safety section some 10 years ago. That is not even the bare bones of a Compliance Office. It is a nothing.
In the amendments we want to ensure that the safety standards, through the Compliance Office about which the Government keep trumpeting, are no less rigorous than they now are at AWE. That is the principle of the amendment. The Minister must consider carefully what I and my noble friend Lord Kennet and the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, have said. When we return on Report, we shall need much more detail about this supposedly strong Compliance Office than we have had this today. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clauses 4 and 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
[Amendments Nos. 18 and 19 not moved].
Clause 6 agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.

Police Custody (Time Limits) Bill H.L.
6.50 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time. First, I wish to say on behalf of all in the House how much we look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu.
The Bill is designed to implement an important recommendation of the report of Lord Justice Woolf on the prison disturbances in 1990. The recommendation is that police cells should not be used as an

959
expedient to prevent overcrowding in our prisons. That recommendation is contained in paragraph 11.152 of his report on the disturbances.
I shall deal briefly with the Bill. The first clause has the objective that I have just described. Clause 2 empowers the Secretary of State to direct that the time limit of four days should not apply in the specified area in the event of serious disturbances in the prison system.
Before I come to the substance of the matter, it may be desirable if I deal with the background to the current situation. We learn that over 800 prisoners are still being held in police cells, despite the size of the Government's prison building programme, about which no doubt the noble Viscount will tell us in his reply. It is also despite a reduction in the size of the prison population.
Until 1980, Home Office prisoners—as I shall describe them, since that is what they are—were not put into police cells at all. In the five years that I was at the Home Office I can recall no occasion when Home Office prisoners were held in police accommodation. Indeed, it never occurred to anyone that this should be done unless there was some form of calamitous national industrial dispute in the prisons. However, even then it was considered that this burden should be shared with the armed forces. There was another reason for it not being contemplated: it was by no means certain that the police had any lawful right to detain such prisoners.
That situation changed in October 1980 when the present Government were confronted with widespread industrial action in the prisons. In large numbers of prisons, prison officers refused to receive prisoners remanded or sentenced by the courts. I quote from a Statement of the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, (as he now is) in the House of Commons on 27th October 1980 (at col. 38):
"[They] also [declined] to undertake certain other duties which are necessary to maintain conditions for prisoners, and to provide the facilities to which they are entitled".
As a result of that dispute in October 1980, the military were called in to establish a number of camps in which prisoners were held under the direction of governors and assistant governors. Somewhere in the region of 3,500 prisoners who should have been in prison were held in police cells.
In his Statement of 27th October, the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, announced that he proposed to introduce an Imprisonment (Temporary Provisions) Bill to deal with an emergency situation. It was truly an emergency situation, as recognised by the Opposition in both Houses, who gave the Bill facilities. It was on the statute book within 48 hours.
Many of these powers lapsed after the end of the dispute, but one important provision of the Bill did not lapse. That was a declaratory provision making it clear that the police had the power to hold sentenced and unsentenced prisoners.
As I have indicated, most of us would agree that it was an emergency in October 1980 and in that situation it was right for the police to hold prisoners for a strictly limited time. However, unhappily, the emergency appears to have gone on for more than 10
960
years and it shows not the slightest indication of coming to an end. The noble Lord, Lord Knights, unfortunately cannot be here today because of an accident involving a member of his family. He has made his position clear in a letter which he sent me and I have his authority to quote it. In October 1980 the noble Lord was Chief Constable of the West Midlands, the largest police force in the country outside the Metropolitan Police. He states in his letter:
"It still concerns me that what started out in 1980 as a concession on the part of chief constables to help the Home Office in an emergency has now become an accepted way of life".
He adds:
"Police officers [are being] diverted from their proper duties and at a time when everyone is calling for them to be more productive and efficient in stemming the tide of crime. It really has become a farce if it were not so tragic".
The concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Knights, were echoed by Mr. David Owen, Chief Constable of North Wales, who is president of the Association of Chief Police Officers. At the ACPO summer conference he warned the Home Secretary of the deep anxiety of the police service about the current situation. He warned not just about the current situation but a situation which has gone on for over 10 years.
The blunt reality is that since October 1980 there have been Home Office prisoners in police cells on every single day, if I except a period of either 24 or 48 hours when there were none, following a remarkable interview given by the then Home Secretary, Mr. Brittan, to The Times. He proudly announced, to the embarrassment, I suspect, of his department, that there were no prisoners in police cells, although there were within 24 hours or so of that statement being made by Mr. Brittan. With the exception of that limited period, ever since the dispute of October 1980 we have had substantial numbers of prisoners in police cells.
Not only has this policy led to a deplorable misuse of police resources, but it has been extraordinarily expensive. As I said on a previous occasion when debating this matter, as we know, in the Metropolitan Police area holding a prisoner in a police cell costs well over £300 per night, which is 50 per cent. more than the cost of a double room at the Ritz Hotel. The number of prisoners in Metropolitan Police cells last week was significant.
According to paragraph 11.154 of the report of Lord Justice Woolf, in the first six months of the last financial year the Home Office had to pay police authorities over £25 million. That was the cost of holding their prisoners in police cells. Given the large number of prisoners who were held in police custody for the rest of the last financial year, it seems obvious that over £50 million will have to be paid to police authorities for carrying out this responsibility on the part of the Home Office. Given the number still held in police custody, it is unlikely that the bill for this year will be any less. I hope that during the course of his speech the noble Viscount who is to reply to this debate will explain to us how this extravagant, wasteful and damaging policy can be related to the Government's repeated statements that they are determined to secure value for money.

961
I turn now to the conditions in which many of these prisoners are held. In our debate on this issue during the Committee stage of the Criminal Justice Bill the noble Lord, Lord Richard, and I both reminded the Government of what Lord Justice Woolf said at paragraph 11.152 of his report about conditions in the central police detention centre in Manchester. For the purposes of this debate I shall quote just one or two sentences:
"While police officers appeared to be doing their best to make the prisoners' conditions tolerable, the conditions were in fact wholly unacceptable. The night before the Inquiry's visit, 101 prisoners had been held in 73 police cells. The cells had no natural light, they were small, they had an objectionable smell, they were over-heated and without sanitation. The amount of exercise which the prisoners could have each day was limited to 20 minutes. The exercise area was a cage of modest size on a flat roof patrolled from above by a dog handler. The prisoners spent the major part of the day locked in their cells. They were not allowed radios".
I ask the noble Viscount, quite apart from the dreadful conditions just described, whether prisoners are still being held in those conditions in Manchester. From a reply given to me by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrets, I understand that over 200 prisoners are still being held in police cells in the Greater Manchester area. I have given the noble Viscount advance notice of my question and I hope that he will tell us during the course of his speech what is the current situation.
I have mentioned Manchester only by way of illustration: the situation in Manchester is replicated in many other police stations and magistrates' courts. These cells are intended to hold prisoners for a few hours before a court appearance, but Lord Justice Woolf found that some of the prisoners had been held in these really squalid conditions for over two weeks. I repeat that they have 20 minutes exercise a day, for a period of two weeks, and many of these prisoners have not been convicted of any criminal offence whatever. It is a scandal that we are prepared to tolerate conditions of this sort. However grave an offence a prisoner may have committed, we have a duty to hold him in civilised conditions. As I have indicated, the majority of prisoners held throughout the country in these cells are remand prisoners who have been convicted of no offence whatever.
The noble Viscount will no doubt ask us to await the Government's White Paper on Woolf, as did his noble friend Lord Ferrers when we discussed this matter during the Committee and Report stages of the Criminal Justice Bill. But this House will rise for the Summer Recess in only three weeks' time and it looks as though we may have no opportunity of discussing the Government's response to Woolf until somewhere around November of this year.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, may I interrupt? I am grateful to the noble Lord. I should point out that I have an Unstarred Question down which should give us every opportunity for discussing what I am told will be the Government's response by that time.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I very much hope that that will be so. The noble Earl has information that is not available to me. I did not know about that, but no doubt the noble Viscount will confirm in due course whether the Government's
962
response to Woolf is to be published before the debate in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Longford. No doubt he will clear up that point.
As the Government are fully aware, the real explanation for the conditions in which many prisoners are currently being held is the appalling industrial relations situation in our prisons—a judgment confirmed by Lord Justice Woolf. In his report Sir Harry Woolf reminds the Home Secretary of the recommendations in Sir John May's report—a report commissioned by the Government of which I was a member. In paragraph 13.230 the Woolf Report says:
"Unhappily the May Committee's exhortations and recommendations did not result in any long-term improvement in industrial relations".
Indeed, he says that they have become even worse since the publication of the May report. So I should like to ask the noble Viscount what precisely Ministers are prepared to do about the situation. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, in a Written Answer given to me last night said that 404 prison cells were not in use on 24th June of this year because of industrial disputes and the prison service management was unable to use further cells on that particular day in prisons at Liverpool, Pentonville, Cardiff, Shepton Mallet and Hindley. I should have received a remarkably similar answer had I asked precisely the same question about the industrial relations situation on almost any day in the past 10 years. Sometimes the numbers might have been more modest but on the majority of occasions they might well have been even larger.
It is wholly unacceptable that prisoners should be kept in these deplorable conditions in tiny, cramped police cells, with wholly inadequate opportunities for exercise and to talk to their legal representatives and to their families simply because of these never-ending industrial disputes in the prisons. It is quite wrong that this heavy burden should be placed on the police service simply because Ministers have found themselves incapable of dealing with the situation. Sir Harry Woolf made his position clear in his report on the Strangeways disturbances. He has recommended that no one should be kept in a police cell for more than 10 days. That is the objective of this Bill and I commend it to your Lordships.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
7.8 p.m.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I was a little surprised, if I may say so, at the last sentence of the noble Lord, who ringingly told us that Sir Harry Woolf s recommendation was for not more than 10 days. I read it as four.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, the noble Lord is entirely right.
Lord Richard: My Lords, this is in many ways a brisk and simple Bill. It has certain admirable qualities. It is clearly drafted; its language is understandable; its purpose is clear; and if it were to be enacted the results would be obvious within a relatively short time. The only thing that we lack tonight, I suppose, compared to the debates we had on

963
this matter during the course of the Criminal Justice Bill, is the presence of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. No doubt we shall have the opportunity of at least listening to his words later this evening, even if we are to be deprived of his actual presence. I nearly said that it is a little like "Hamlet" without the Prince, but it is not. It is like "Hamlet" without the captain of the guard. However, there it is and we must make the best of it.
I do not believe that anyone who has followed this issue over the months and indeed the years during which it has been going on can really be left in any doubt as to the merits of the argument. They are clear and unarguable. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, quoted a few sentences from Lord Justice Woolf's report describing conditions in police cells in Manchester. Conditions in police cells under Camberwell court in London have also been described. To any of us who have practised in the criminal courts in London and who have been to magistrates' courts and seen clients in cells under the magistrates' courts, the idea that people will be kept locked up there for 23 hours out of 24 is incredible. Those conditions have been described in this way:
"The conditions in the cells underneath Camberwell Court are by far the worst in which I have ever seen prisoners held in this country. Two prisoners are held in a cell which seemed to me little more than half the size of a Victorian-built prison cell. One sleeps on a mattress placed on a bench along one wall while the other sleeps on a mattress on the floor. They are kept in these tiny cells for over 23 hours out of every 24, being allowed out in groups for half an hour's association in a room along the corridor if police manpower allows. There is no daylight anywhere on this floor, and all the light is artificial".
Are those conditions acceptable in this country in 1991? I cannot imagine that any noble Lord in this House would say that that is right. It clearly is not.
Not only are the conditions in which people are kept in cells under the courts frankly appalling. We are also asking the police to do a job for which they are untrained and unfitted. I say that not in any pejorative sense but in a sense of reality. It is quite wrong that society should ask them to carry out such a task. They are not prison officers. They are not meant to be prison officers; they are meant to be police officers.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, quoted the speech of Dr. David Owen—I beg his pardon—Mr. David Owen, the chief constable. It is a natural error for those of us who have been involved in politics for some years. When the name Owen is mentioned there is an inevitable spasm reaction. In a press statement the Association of Chief Police Officers said:
"The effect on the Police Service is damaging for a number of reasons. First and foremost is the simple fact that even though the costs may be reimbursed by the Home Office, precious police manpower, already too thin on the ground, is tied down in looking after prisoners at the expense of patrolling the streets of our towns and villages where the challenge of hooliganism, violence and disorder is becoming more evident. This situation has been going on for so long now that it is increasingly damaging to efficiency and morale. It is quite unreasonable to expect police officers, who are untrained to carry out the duties of prison warders, to be continually involved in this sort of work and in conditions which are totally unsuitable for the job in hand. Even the best
964
of our police cells were never intended for more than short term accommodation and the design of the majority of police stations makes administration and supervision a nightmare".
On grounds of both the effect of the conditions on prisoners and the effect of the conditions on those who look after prisoners in police cells, the arguments in favour of the Bill are irresistible and unanswerable. One then has to ask the question: why are the Government resisting it and attempting to answer it? I fear that, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, indicated, this has now become built into the fabric of the system. Whatever the problems in regard to industrial relations and whatever the problems of overcrowding in our prisons, conditions, which were totally unacceptable and unthought of before 1980 when the emergency provisions were introduced, have become not only acceptable but part of the normal way in which we treat prisoners on remand. That is wrong. It is an appalling state of affairs and has to be rectified.
I do not believe that the situation will be rectified unless and until there is some compulsion on the Government to rectify it. I do not believe that, if nothing is done now, within a year or so all will be well and the practice will stop. I suspect that it will not. If nothing is done, and if perchance this unhappy country were to be governed again by the same party which is at present in power, I suspect that I shall be standing at this Dispatch Box in a few years' time and, along with the noble Lord Harris, making the same speech on the same issue and encountering the same blandness from the Government by way of response.
There is a sense of urgency about the issue. If the Bill does anything it will at least tell the Government that the present practice is totally unacceptable and that people should not be lawfully detained for a period exceeding four days. If the Secretary of State needs some time to organise affairs in Clause 2 a period not exceeding six months is given to him whereby he can contract out an area from the operation of the Bill.
The compulsion for legislation in this area is proven by the fact that although emergencies have come and emergencies have gone nothing has been done to rectify the position since 1980. We on these Benches wholly support the Bill.
7.16 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, as I have very little to add to the two powerful speeches which have been made it will be good for everyone if I am brief so that we can arrive more quickly at the occasion to which we are all looking forward—the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu. All of us want to hear that.
When I put my name down to support the Bill I had no illusions that I could add anything to the case which has been so powerfully presented. However, I could not remain silent in the face of the crying scandal which my noble friend has portrayed in which untried prisoners on first arrest are treated in the disgraceful way which has just been described. It is as shameful as any of the shames for which we have had to attack the Government in the melancholy history of their treatment of people in their custody—not this

965
Government alone in the case of local prisons but this Government exclusively as regards the particular case of police cells.
To hold newly arrested prisoners in police cells for more than a night, or at most two, on the way to prison is unacceptable, for the reasons which have been given: the almost complete lack of facilities for prisoners, the difficult and taxing diversion of police time and the cost, which is double the cost of prison. The Bill embodies one of the recommendations set out in Lord Justice Woolf's invaluable report. I believe that he has been uncharacteristically mild in suggesting a maximum of four days. The practice should be eliminated altogether, and in my opinion two days' licence would be quite enough. However, as so often, we have to settle for the best that we think we can achieve, so I support the Bill without reservation.
However, I cannot refrain from telling the noble Viscount what the Government ought to do to stop these harmful practices, even though I know that even if he takes notice the Government will not do so. What happens is this. An individual is arrested and taken to the police station for custody until he can appear before the magistrates' court. There either the charge is dismissed, he is given bail, he is remanded in custody to await trial or, if sentenced on the spot, he is remanded in custody to await allocation to the prison where the sentence is to be served.
We are concerned here only with the last two cases and most frequently with the prisoner remanded awaiting trial and, therefore, presumed innocent until proved guilty. He should be sent directly to the local prison and held there until trial. However, as the average level of overcrowding in local prisons is 32 percent. and in nine of them is over 50 per cent., prison governors sometimes very reasonably say that they cannot cope with any more. Sometimes, and more frequently recently, it is the staff rather than the governor who stand out against receptions and refuse admission. Without approving of such action, one cannot help but have some sympathy with the members of the Prison Officers' Association who have been complaining about overcrowding for years and have seen very little movement towards a solution. In any case, the wretched prisoner is simply stuck back in his police cell and remains there until the prison department can find a prison to accept him. As the noble Lord, Lord Richard, pointed out, sometimes a prisoner is not even left in the police station but in the cell in the magistrates' court, which was never meant to provide overnight prisoner accommodation. At least police cells were meant to fulfil that function.
At this stage I believe that the Secretary of State should say that enough is enough and should use his power of executive release—I believe that was given to him two Criminal Justice Acts ago—to release a prisoner in the prison concerned to make room for the new arrival. The prison governor would choose the man or woman who was nearest to his or her release date. That release date would normally only need to be anticipated by a day or two. No damage would be done to the effect of the sentence by knocking a couple of days off the end of it and the present scandalous state of affairs would be ended.
966
I do not flatter myself that the noble Viscount will jump at this proposal, even though it is based on a paragraph in the May Report to which my noble friend referred. We all considered that most of the report's recommendations were sensible. I fear that my proposal may be too obvious and too inexpensive to convince the Government of its value. However, I venture to prophesy that within 10 years—the average gestation period for any proposal that is made to the Home Office—something of the kind will become the practice. I hope that the Government will accept this very modest anticipation of the Woolf Report. The present situation in which nearly 800 prisoners are kept in police cells is entirely unacceptable. I am sure the noble Viscount is as fully aware of that fact as we are. Having said that, I fully support the Bill and I join with others in wishing the best of luck to the noble Baroness who is to speak next.
7.22 p.m.
Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, I am most grateful to those noble Lords who have offered such kind words of encouragement to me. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, both for providing me with this opportunity to make my maiden speech and also for introducing this Bill which Lord Justice Woolf considered to be a matter of considerable urgency. There can be no one in this House who is not aware, whether from first-hand knowledge or from the report drawn up by Lord Justice Woolf and His Honour Judge Stephen Tumim, that the conditions in which many remand and serving prisoners are currently being kept deserve to be called atrocious. They are atrocious substantially because of serious overcrowding. We all deplore those conditions.
I have spent the past 21 years practising at the Criminal Bar. I have visited cell areas in the courts and elsewhere and prisons almost daily. I believe that to use police cells or court cells for such prisoners—except in the real emergencies for which this Bill provides—is counter-productive and is in effect a cure which worsens the original ill. I say that for two reasons, which I ask noble Lords to bear in mind when considering this Bill. First, it may be a truism but the ultimate object of sentencing anybody must be to reduce crime. In the past 30 years we have come almost full circle in our assessment of the effect of prison sentences on the crime rate. Back in the 1960s it was rule one of the prison rules that rehabilitation was the primary underlying objective of a prison term. By the late 1970s the May Report—to which reference has already been made—effectively conceded that prisons could not achieve that object. Despite the work of many committed and dedicated members of the prison service, understaffing, poor conditions and, above all, overcrowding made that object of rehabilitation almost impossible.
Throughout the 1980s the primary object of a prison sentence was seen as one of deterrence. There was public pressure for more and longer sentences to counter rising crime. The courts responded to that demand with a consequential increase in overcrowding in prisons and a further deterioration in prison

967
conditions. In the early 1990s both the recent Government discussion documents preceding the Criminal Justice Bill appeared to accept that imprisonment reduces offending only by restricting the opportunity to commit crime for a limited period. The documents also accepted that imprisonment is likely to add to the difficulties which offenders encounter in living a normal law-abiding life after they are released. The worse the conditions are in custody, the greater the difficulties of adjustment later and the greater the likelihood of reoffending.
Cells in police stations, and even more so in courts, were never designed to be used for more than a few hours. I understand from what has been said today that those cells house about 800 prisoners. Many of those cells—as many noble Lords know—have wholly inadequate facilities for sleeping, exercise, washing, bathing and changing clothes. Many have no natural light or proper sanitation. Despite the best efforts of the police officers concerned, remand prisoners kept in those conditions are often denied some of the facilities which are granted to those on remand in prison. In effect, bad conditions in overcrowded prisons are being replaced by even worse conditions elsewhere.
The greatest deterrent of all to committing crime is the certainty of being caught. It cannot make sense to require police officers who are already overstrained in their work of crime prevention and the apprehension of offenders to leave the job for which they have been trained and assume a role for which they have not been trained. They are often asked to undertake such roles in near impossible conditions. That is a waste of police time and training and of public money. At the end of the day it is likely to result in increased rather than decreased crime.
I am well aware that I must not stray into the area of controversy which I might well do if I were to embark on the causes and the solutions to the underlying problem of prison overcrowding. Today I must leave that discussion to others. I hope that this Bill is only the first of many designed to improve our penal system which will come before this House in the coming years. During that time I hope, with a little luck, to be an active Member of this House.
7.28 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I am sure I express the convictions of the whole House when I express our far more than conventional admiration for the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu. The speech was a wonderful example of conciseness from which many of us would no doubt benefit.
I cannot express myself in the terms that a gifted friend of the noble Baroness did in the current edition of the Spectator. I should like to quote from that article in the Spectator by John Mortimer, the famous writer and QC. He writes:
"It seems only yesterday that I was leading Annie Mallalieu"—
I suppose that that is the intimate way of addressing her and perhaps in time some of us will be allowed to use that form—
"in defence of those publications which were fortunate to come to the attention of Mrs. Mary Whitehouse"—
968
whom I greatly admire, but that does not seem to be true of John Mortimer.
"Our first acquittal, if I recall, was a little spanking magazine".
I hope that I am not being unfair in suggesting that a lot of the noble Baroness's work was in defence of spanking magazines. At any rate, that is what John Mortimer writes. He goes on:
"She's a beautiful"—
we all confirm that—
"compelling advocate with an excellent voice and juries thought that if a nice girl like that couldn't see anything wrong with it, it must be all right"—
that is, the spanking magazine. I am quoting a great friend and admirer of hers.
"No doubt she will perform the same admirable service for the Labour Party in the House of Lords".
I am sure that if a Labour Government ever brought forward —which God forbid!—a spanking magazine, it would be eloquently defended by the noble Baroness. At any rate, we all much admired her speech tonight, which, incidentally, was full of profound wisdom.
I am very happy that for the first time my speech will be followed by that of the noble Viscount, Lord Astor. His father was a great friend of mine. I remember his father selecting me as the most promising Conservative whom he knew as a suitable journalist on the Observer, which his grandfather owned. I was chosen to meet his grandfather, Lord Astor, who ran the Observer. It was a dinner invitation. Unfortunately I had acquired concussion of the brain that afternoon in a race which was won, incidentally, by the noble Viscount's father. When the Peer who owned the Observer questioned me closely about the future of the House of Lords, all I could do was splutter and, as a change, giggle. So the grandfather of the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, felt that the young Oxford was not what it had been in his time. At any rate I am sure that the noble Lord will not splutter or giggle but will answer coherently.
I support strongly the measure introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Harris. I follow him fairly slavishly on most issues of this kind. Certainly I do so tonight. I agree also with my acting leader, the noble Lord, Lord Richard, and the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson. I should add that I am not quite such an enthusiast for the Bill as possibly are some other noble Lords. It is all right so far as it goes; but it does not go very far.
When one talks with the police one finds that they do not want any of these prisoners in their cells. Holding them there for four days is far from welcome. I hope that we shall not be excited by the thought that we are bringing forward some great change. The genuine improvement would be to ban altogether such prisoners from police cells.
I have one small suggestion to make. I should like to propose what might be considered an amendment at a later stage. I put it forward following some very relevant discussion with police officers. I suggest that no prisoner who has been detained in a police cell for four days should then be brought back again; in other words, prisoners should only be detained once in a police cell. That is a modest suggestion as a modest amendment to a modest Bill. I hope that it will be considered. So far as concerns the police, it is an

969
infernal nuisance to hold prisoners for four days and then bring them back again for four days. I hope that the noble Viscount will consider that point at the next stage of the Bill. We must all agree that it is a small improvement, but it is worth doing.
To pursue the thoughts of other speakers, particularly those of the noble Baroness who has just spoken, a tremendous revolutionary change has to be brought about in the prison system in this country before we can be proud of it instead of, as now, somewhat ashamed. When we read what she said about the history of this legislation, it will help us to realise that this is a parting of the ways. The Government have a tremendous opportunity. I said the other day, and I shall say it again when we have a debate on the Woolf Report, that I am far from being optimistic about the effect of the new Bill. It could all work out very well. Let us hope and pray that it does. Mean while, let us back the Bill and congratulate once again the noble Baroness.
7.35 p.m.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I apologise for intervening without having put my name on the list of speakers. I do so first to say that I support the Bill and, secondly, to invite the noble Viscount who is to reply for the Government to give us whatever good news there may be on three specific points.
The first point relates to the question of bringing into England and Wales the time limits that have applied since time immemorial in Scotland on the number of days during which a person may be detained on remand. Secondly, I should like to ask the noble Viscount whether he has any good news about bail hostels, a topic on which both the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, who was here earlier this evening, and I have spoken on numerous occasions. Thirdly, I ask him whether there is something to be said tonight about the extension to the whole of England and Wales of recent bail and remand experiments which, to my knowledge, have been going on in certain counties of England and Wales. I believe that they have teen making good progress. We hope that they will eventually come to cover the whole country.
7.37 p m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, first, perhaps I may also offer my congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, on her maiden speech. We all look forward to her Future participation in this House—spanking or no spanking. As the noble Lord, Lord Harris, explained, this Bill seeks to give effect to proposal 109 in the Woolf Report. This was that there should be a new prison rule placing a limit on the amount of time in which prisoners could be kept in police cells before being admitted to the prison service establishment to which they had been committed by the court.
Lord Justice Woolf suggested that four days might be the appropriate limit and this is reflected in Clause 1 of the Bill The Bill does not propose to use the prison rules as the mechanism by which to give effect to the proposal. Instead, it seeks to limit the power to hold prisoners in police cells or court accommodation by direct application of the statute. If I may say so, I
970
think that this would be the most appropriate method of giving effect to Lord Justice Woolf's proposal. But I am bound to explain to your Lordships that the Government could not support this approach to the police cells problem.
We are all in agreement that keeping prisoners in police cells is fundamentally wrong. That is not what police cells are for. Not only, as the Woolf Report brings out, is it a very expensive way of providing accommodation; it also means that policemen, who should be out on the streets protecting the public, are stuck in police stations acting as gaolers for people who should be in prison and not in police cells. That cannot be right. I agree with the noble Lord that the police do not like it; they do not see it as their job.
There is also the human cost. There have been cases in which prisoners have been held in police accommodation which is totally unsuitable to the purpose. Conditions vary. Indeed—and this has much to do with the ingenuity of the police officers concerned—many prisoners who are in police cells are held in decent accommodation and are given what amounts to a reasonable regime.
But none of this detracts from the central issue. It is the duty of the prison service to care for people who are committed by the courts. It is not the duty of the police.
That duty of the prison service is spelt out in the prison service's statement of purpose. It states:
"Her Majesty's Prison Service serves the public by keeping in custody those committed by the courts. Our duty is to look after them with humanity and help them lead law abiding and useful lives in custody and after release."
If that is the prison service's mission statement, the noble Lord is perfectly entitled to ask—as, in effect, he does —"How is it that so many prisoners have been held in police cells for so long? And why is it that the Government remain opposed to the idea of placing a time limit on the length of time in which this type of accommodation may be used?"
I can assure noble Lords that neither the Government nor the prison service management regard the present position as in any way acceptable. There is no question of relying on police cells as a routine source of extra accommodation, although I accept that the extent of their use has led some people to take that view.
It is a fact that police cells in various parts of the country have been used for this purpose for many years. But the present position is somewhat different from that which has applied in the past. Against the background of the Bill, perhaps I may explain the legal position and the reason why we need to have this source of emergency accommodation. I shall then explain what we are doing about it.
The Imprisonment (Temporary Provisions) Act 1980 was passed by Parliament in order to cope with the lengthy Prison Officers' Association dispute in 1980, as was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Harris. The Act allows the police to hold prisoners where, for any reason, it is not practicable to secure their admission to a prison service establishment.
Prisoners have frequently had to be held in police cells in recent years. This has sometimes been caused by periods of industrial action by prison officers. At

971
other times it has been caused because there have been insufficient prison spaces available in the system. This was especially so in London and the South East, where the prison estate was simply unable to cope with the numbers which were committed to them by the courts.
Pressure was particularly great in local prisons and remand centres. But, as new accommodation has begun to come on stream as part of the Government's prisons building programme, there has been a welcome overall fall in the numbers of people who are held in police custody.
As a result, by the beginning of 1990 police cells were used only in very exceptional circumstances. Indeed, in March 1990—the month before the Strangeways riot—there were no prisoners in police cells.
I should inform the noble Lord, Lord Harris, that prisoners have not been held in police cells every day since 1980. For example, in the first three months of 1990 prisoners were in police cells on only two occasions—16 and 10 prisoners respectively.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I had not wished to intervene. However, given what the noble Viscount now tells us, and accepting the number of days involved since October 1980, it would be interesting to know how many days there have not been prisoners in police cells.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I cannot tell the noble Lord at this moment but I shall certainly try to answer the question before the end of the debate.
The April 1990 disturbances have radically changed that situation, and I very much regret to tell your Lordships that the situation has been made considerably worse by the actions of the Prison Officers' Association.
Following the disturbance at Manchester Prison alone last April, over 1,600 places were lost to the system. Those people had to be housed elsewhere and, inevitably, many had to be housed in police cells. It simply was not possible to accommodate the inmates, who were displaced by this loss of accommodation, in other prison service establishments.
The situation was made more difficult through further action by prison officers in other establishments. What they said, in effect, was that they were unwilling to take Manchester inmates into their prisons because that would have led to further overcrowding of their own prisons.
When this kind of thing happens it makes it look as if the long-term use of police cells is endemic, but that is not so. The Government's investment in new prison accommodation had begun to pay off and, had it not been for the Strangeways incident and the loss of accommodation in the North West, we would not be in anything like the situation in which we found ourselves now. Without the industrial action and the inflexibility which that has generated, there would be no need whatsoever for prisoners to be in police cells on a regular basis.
972
During most of the time, during which we have had so many prisoners in police cells, there have been spaces elsewhere in the prison estate. But the vacancies have not coincided with where the requirement is.
The difficulty was that the loss of accommodation at Manchester was a total loss of local prison accommodation. A local prison such as Manchester is one which serves the courts. Local prisons hold a proportion of sentenced inmates, but their primary function is to service the courts —by holding prisoners who are remanded in custody and those who are awaiting trial. In order for local prisons to do so, they must clearly be close to the courts which they serve. We cannot therefore use the spaces which may be elsewhere in the prison estate, such as training prisons or other local prisons which may be some way away.
This has not been a question which can be resolved by commandeering military camps. That option is available to us in an emergency when we may have to deal with severe population pressure, but the need now is to use accommodation which is near the courts.
Other local prisons in the North of England, for example, Liverpool and Leeds, are overcrowded; but there have been spaces within the operational capacity —in other words, "overcrowded capacity"—of these establishments which we have wanted to use. But the unwillingness of prison officers to accept Manchester prisoners from outside their local prisons' court catchment areas has been a major obstacle to the resolution of this problem.
I would not wish to underestimate in any way the anxiousness to which the April disturbances gave rise, in those establishments. Both Risley and Manchester have seen major disturbances and acts of gross violence and vandalism. One is of course sympathetic to the anxiousness of staff in those establishments. But the plain fact of the matter is that their unwillingness to accept Manchester prisoners from outside their court catchment areas has led directly to a large number of remand prisoners being held in entirely unsatisfactory conditions in police cells, and to the police being diverted from more productive work.
When a riot, such as occurred at Strangeways, takes place, it is inevitable that a considerable burden is placed upon the police and their resources—and especially on manpower. I can assure your Lordships that we are determined that the police should not have to shoulder such a burden for any longer than is necessary, and I should like to place on record my sincere appreciation, and that of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, for the work which is being undertaken by the police and, in particular, for the professional manner in which it is being carried out.
In no way do we underestimate the burden which such work has placed upon them. Nor do we underestimate the unwelcome effect of diverting so many police officers from other duties. The task now is to take all possible steps to reduce the scale of this problem and to eradicate it.
As I have explained, 1,600 prison places were lost at Manchester. An extensive refurbishment programme has been undertaken, and 200 refurbished places came back into use in December. These places are being used to hold remand prisoners.

973
The prison estate in the North West was reorganised. Preston prison became a local prison receiving prisoners from all courts in Lancashire. Changes were made at Liverpool so that the prison could take inmates from all courts in Cheshire. As a result the only prisoners in police cells in the North West are those who have appeared in court in Manchester itself.
At the beginning of November the number in police cells in the North West was over 1,000. By the end of December it had fallen to below 500. At times it went down to 400. We have recently run into difficulty, as the result of a short-term surge in the prison population. But the plans which the prison service has have been unable to be put into effect because of the inability to use accommodation which actually stands empty. At Full Sutton there are 192 new places lying empty, and at Acklington there are 152 empty places.
Last year there was an agreement with the Prison Officers' Association to reduce the population of Leeds to 970. That figure still represented overcrowding, but it represented a substantial reduction. But that reduction was made on the assumption that Full Sutton prison in York would be available to take sentenced prisoners. That cannot now be done because of disagreements over staffing levels.
The Prison Officers' Association agreed to use the Full Sutton accommodation in order to hold Iraqi detainees temporarily, but it refused to use it for the purpose for which it was intended—holding prisoners. I am glad to be able to tell your Lordships that agreement has now been reached for the occupation of at least one of those wings, and that should give us the opportunity of taking at least Leeds inmates out of police cells.
The second wing is also critically important because it will enable us to reorganise the dispersal prison estate and it will also give crucial additional training places which will provide further relief to prisoners in police cells in the north. But I regret to tell your Lordships that there is as yet no agreement with the Prison Officers' Association for the opening of the second wing.
The new accommodation at Acklington offers 152 spaces. After protracted negotiations with the Prison Officers' Association, it now appears that we shall be able to use that accommodation. That will have an important effect on the police cells problem.
The next 150 refurbished places at Manchester Prison are in the process of being commissioned. This should give us, in a few weeks' time, sufficient places to take all the remand prisoners out of police cells.
The Government have been especially concerned about the plight of young offenders in police cells. The loss of Manchester has meant that we have had to rely almost entirely on Hindley remand centre for taking young men on remand. This again has not been without industrial relations difficulties. However, by careful management of the young offender estate it has been possible to clear more space in Hindley and therefore we hope to see the last young offender in Manchester police cells in the next few weeks.
Until recently this problem was being confined to the North West. Its spread to Leeds has been most
974
unwelcome. The next important development will be the opening of Moorland young offender institution and remand centre later this month. This will enable us to clear all young men from Leeds and Hull and it will create space for prisoners who are being held in police cells.
The opening of Belmarsh provides us with the opportunity of rationalising the London prison system. Belmarsh Prison in Woolwich was the first local prison in the Government's prison building programme. It began operating in April and so far two of its wings are in use. The third unit will come into use shortly.
Wormwood Scrubs has provided remand accommodation and Brixton has provided accommodation for prisoners who are awaiting trial. It has now been decided to turn each of the major London prisons into a local establishment with its own court catchment area. The first phase of this involves extending the local role of Pentonville and for Pentonville to take over some further courts. Unfortunately, the local branch of the Prison Officers' Association at Pentonville has been unwilling to agree to this change because of disagreements over a range of issues including the time at which the reception at the prison should close. This can hardly be described as a grave issue but although it is inconvenient to the police management has agreed to change the opening time. Unfortunately, the Prison Officers' Association has refused to agree to the change of catchment area. As a result there are now more than 100 spaces at Pentonville which could be put to better use. As a result London prisons are having to use police cells.
There has been a further worrying development. Although it is well known that the plight of remand prisoners will be transformed as 10 new local prisons and remand centres come on stream between April this year and 1994, the Prison Officers' Association has been pressing to have the operational capacities of existing local prisons and remand centres reduced. It is quite appalling that the Prison Officers' Association at Cardiff has decided that it will not accept prisoners above the uncrowded capacity of that establishment. It took industrial action without involving the disputes procedure. And it has refused to accept management's offer to reduce the population and to work to produce a resolution of the issues by the end of August. As a result more than 100 inmates will have to be housed in police cells in South Wales and Gwent.
I have described in some detail the extent of this problem. Put simply, the question is: can we legislate against it? Can the imposition of a time limit in the way which is envisaged by the noble Lord's Bill remove this problem? It is with the greatest respect that the Government do not consider that merely by taking away the power to hold prisoners in police cells beyond four days the problem will be resolved.
We are dealing with a situation which has two regrettable facts. The first is the loss of a large local prison. The second is industrial action by the Prison Officers' Association. These two factors have led to this most regrettable situation. It is not lack of action or initiative on the part of Prison Service management which has brought this about. It is a fact of life that

975
Manchester prison was lost. It is also a very regrettable fact of life that the Prison Officers' Association has chosen to use the combined strength of its members with total disregard to the consequences for the inmates concerned, for their families, for the police or indeed for their duty as prison officers.
If the noble Lord's Bill were passed into legislation what would happen to the prisoners who are at present held in police cells? They would still have to be held somewhere. The army would not be the right body to turn to. The fact is that, whatever the merits—and they are few—the deliberate action of the Prison Officers' Association has exacerbated the very practice which the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, so correctly points out.
The Government are completely in agreement with the intentions of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich. The holding of prisoners in police cells is an intolerable situation and must be ended. However, I regret to tell the noble Lord that a change in the law of itself will not resolve the problem.
I now turn to some of the issues raised by noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, asked about the figures since 1980. I do not have them available but shall write to the noble Lord. He also asked me about Manchester central detention centre. Clearly the conditions in the centre are not suitable for holding remand prisoners. The prisoners are being held two or three to a cell and exercise arrangements are severely restricted. To reduce the pressure on the prisoners, the police are moving them out to be held temporarily in other police stations where conditions are better and are returning them where necessary when they appear in court again. This morning 227 Home Office prisoners were held at Manchester.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, also asked about lockouts. The present level of industrial action is preventing the full use of available prison accommodation. It dates from the Strangeways incident and has not been a permanent feature of the past 10 years. Much of it stems from the anxiety of staff about holding large numbers of prisoners displaced as a result of the loss of Strangeways.
The noble Earl, Lord Longford, and the noble Lord, Lord Harris, asked about the White Paper. It is being prepared and will be published in due course. It is not possible to give noble Lords a specific date for publication. The Woolf Report has necessitated considerable work and a premature response would not be useful. I believe that at present approximately 400 cells are empty. Noble Lords also asked about the suitability of police cells for holding prisoners. Given the constraints of holding prisoners in accommodation for which it was not designed, I am generally satisfied with the treatment that prisoners receive.
The noble Lord, Lord Richard, likened the absence of my noble friend Lord Ferrers to Hamlet without the Prince. I do not wish to make Shakespearian analogies; but I am tempted to say to the noble Lord that perhaps the debate could be Henry V without Falstaff—but perhaps I should not.
976
The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, raised various issues. We do not accept that executive release is the right solution to the problem. We should have access to places which already exist in prisons.
The noble Earl, Lord Longford, mentioned that he was a great friend of my father. I was told with great authority by my father that when the noble Earl met my grandfather not only was he suffering from concussion as a result of a fall while riding in a point-to-point race but that when he remounted on a right-handed course he went the wrong way. My father always said that the noble Earl has been going left ever since.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, asked about time limits. It is a crucial aspect; 17 per cent. of prisoners are on remand and custody time limits are being introduced throughout England and Wales. The noble Lord also asked about bail hostels. More than £36 million has been allocated by the Government to increase the number of bail places by 1,000 from April 1988 to April 1993.
I am a mere novice compared with noble Lords who have spoken this evening and who have wide experience of the subject. However, I hope that at the very least the noble Lord, Lord Harris, will consider releasing me on bail. I repeat that we are in agreement with his intention but believe that this is not the Bill for it.
Lord Richard: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Harris, rises to his feet, perhaps I may congratulate my noble friend Lady Mallalieu on her maiden speech. It was skilful and fluent; it came from experience and it held the House. Would that more speeches to which we listen in this House were similar.
8 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I too share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Richard. It is always a pleasure to hear him make his second speech on the Second Reading of a Bill. However, it was rightly directed at the quality of his noble friend's speech. I agree entirely with what she said.
I was not surprised by the noble Viscount's speech. I believe that speeches on police cells come off a word processor because they are all so similar when the arguments are put before us. First, there is the statement that there is total support for the principle of what one is saying when one is complaining about the use of police cells. I am sure that the noble Viscount was wholly sincere, but that has been said on about 12, 13 or 14 previous occasions by people sitting where he now sits.
The noble Viscount then went on to say, first, that it is not the duty of the police to perform that function; secondly, that the police do not wish to do it; and, thirdly, that it is not right that that function should be carried out by the police on a routine basis, as of course it is. At the end of all that he said that all that being so, the Government are not in favour of the Bill.
The Bill contains a recommendation of Lord Justice Woolf. The debate is notable for one particular reason—this is the first recommendation of Lord

977
Justice Woolf which has been rejected by the Government. Last weekend or perhaps the weekend before we heard that the Government were contemplating rejecting further recommendations of Lord Justice Woolf dealing with the overcrowding of prisons. If a report such as the one for which Lord Justice Woolf was responsible is to be faced with such constant rejections, there will be serious public disquiet. In my view there is overwhelming support for the recommendations he has made in the report, and this evening's explicit rejection of what Lord Justice Woolf recommended is deeply depressing.
The noble Viscount then went on to tell us about previous industrial relations difficulties in prisons. He talked about the problems at Leeds, Full Sutton and Pentonville. I am sure that that is all true, but what are Ministers doing about it? How many trade union Bills have there been in this House from the present Government? I am not a statistician. I am not sure whether there have been more trade union Bills than local government Bills, but there has been a substantial number.
At the end of it we are told by Ministers that they have transformed the industrial relations climate in this country; and yet in that area for which Ministers are directly responsible the only defence which the noble Viscount can find is to give a list of prisons where the industrial relations situation is nearly out of control.
Many of us wish to know, as do the police in particular, why they should be given the responsibility for dealing with the situation simply because of the incapacity of Ministers to run the prison service
978
efficiently. That is quite disgraceful. I suspect that the noble Viscount is aware that the police service has become increasingly annoyed about the way in which it has been treated. In particular it believes that in 1980, when it was asked to co-operate as it did, it was never given a wholly accurate account of the Government's intentions. It was implied that it would be a temporary affair. It has now become permanent.
I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Richard, said. One matter about which we can be quite certain is that if by chance the present Government are re-elected next year, we shall be having the same debate that we have had this evening. Ministers will be reading out lists of prisons where there is a dispute with the POA and there will be no indication whatever that they are capable of dealing with that crisis situation—a crisis situation which has now lasted for well over 10 years. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Cattewater Reclamation Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and referred to the Examiners.

London Local Authorities (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons with amendments; the amendments were considered and agreed to.
House adjourned at five minutes past eight o'clock.