Lords Sitting of 14 November 1991

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Chelmsford.): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Regional Aid and Job Creation
Lord McCarthy Lord McCarthy asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they intend to publish reliable data on whether regional aid helps to create jobs, given recent criticism by the Comptroller and Auditor General.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Reay): My Lords, we shall publish information on the employment created or safeguarded in projects supported by regional selective assistance in the next annual report on the Industrial Development Act 1982. The information will cover the period from 1st April 1982 to 31st March 1990.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. But will he assure the House that when the Government publish the information they will take into account the report of the National Audit Office which calculates that there have been serious gross mistakes in the way that the figures have been collected in the past? I refer to a 50 per cent. slippage, and to figures relating to 31 per cent. more jobs than planned and 69 per cent. less jobs than planned. It is therefore impossible at present to decide whether projects that have been initiated are good or bad for job creation purposes.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I can give the noble Lord the assurance that he seeks. The Government are studying the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General. We shall seek to ensure that everything necessary is done to ensure that all forms of public expenditure continue to give good value for money. Significant progress has already been made in ensuring that the database used for recording the number of jobs created and safeguarded is accurate.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, is the Minister aware that large sums allocated by the European Community for regional development in Scotland and elsewhere are being held up by the Treasury because of the additionality rule and are not being paid to the regions concerned? Will he comment on that factor; or will he expedite the procedures?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I am happy to look into what the noble Lord says. The Question relates to criticisms by the Auditor General. To my knowledge that was not one of the criticisms he made.
Lard Elliott of Morpeth: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that while data can be produced on regional development which will obviously show some factors being more effective than others, regional
648
development has contributed greatly to the essential regeneration of industry in the North-East of England?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that comment. We are committed to an effective regional policy with a substantial and continuing budget. There is provision for £567 million to be spent over 1991–92 to 1993–94 for England alone.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, with regard to an effective regional policy, will the Minister explain to the House why Her Majesty's Government are refusing to receive £100 million from the European regional aid commissioner under the RECHAR programme destined for the coal and steel communities? What is the squabble about? Why do not the Government solve the matter and obtain the money that is urgently required in those communities?
Lord Reay: My Lords, if the noble Lord puts down a Question on that subject I shall be happy to answer it. But it is wide of the Question on the Order Paper.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, is it not true that regional aid has generally been beneficial? However, would it not also be a good idea to ensure that there is proper monitoring of the aid to make absolutely certain that real jobs are created and that a lasting improvement results?
Lord Reay: My Lords, we believe that there is adequate monitoring and that value for money is achieved by our policy of targeting assistance on selective schemes with the results that I have given.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the noble Lord explain Her Majesty's Government's position, which becomes all the more inexplicable in this regard since they already pay into the Community regional fund far more than they ever take out? Will he also explain why their regional policy within the Community has proved to be the failure that is revealed by the annual report of the Commission?
Lord Reay: My Lords, as an example, our regional assisted area map has to be drawn up with the agreement of the Commission. However, we pursue our own regional policy. The measures are designed to help redress regional imbalances and they are succeeding in so doing.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that the purport of the statement by the National Audit Office is that there has not been, as there should be, adequate monitoring? It is no good the noble Lord stating that there has been adequate monitoring. The report states that that is not so.
Lord Reay: My Lords, one of the criticisms which the Comptroller and Auditor General made was that the inadequacy of the database made it difficult to establish reliable, acceptable figures. However, as I said, significant progress has already been made in improving the situation. The data on jobs achieved have already been completed and corrected up until April 1982, ambiguities in the definitions of jobs

649
created or safeguarded have been removed and various other improvements have been made to meet the criticisms of the Auditor General.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I was interested in the noble Lord's response to his noble friend Lord Elliott of Morpeth. He stated that the Government conducted an active regional policy. Does he accept that under the administration of my noble friend Lord Callaghan of Cardiff, in constant prices regional aid stood at £1.8 billion a year? That was halved when the present Government took office to £989 million per year and slashed even further to reach an annual £242 million in the late 1980s. Is that an active regional policy?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I have stated that we are pursuing an effective regional policy aimed at redressing regional imbalances. There has been a change in our policy. For example, we abandoned the regional development grant scheme, which gave grants automatically, in preference for a policy which was more selective and is therefore proving more successful.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, when the noble Lord responded on the difficulty of achieving accurate results from the monitoring he said that it was difficult to establish accurate and acceptable figures. Will he tell the House where the greatest difficulty lies? Is it in obtaining accurate figures or acceptable figures?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I do not recollect using the word "acceptable". However, we shall have to verify that in Hansard.
The important point that I should like to emphasise is that the database to which the Auditor General refers on which the department records the jobs is not the database used for deciding whether individual claims for payment should be met. It is used for recording statistical information and for evaluation and forecasting purposes. Steps have been taken to improve it in that regard.

MoD Supply Systems: Bar Coding
3.10 p.m.
Lord Erroll of Hale Lord Erroll of Hale asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they are taking to introduce bar code systems for the more efficient control of navy, army and air force stores at all levels.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (The Earl of Arran): My Lords, all three services are working towards early introduction of bar code based systems. A bar coding implementing steering group was set up in 1988 to co-ordinate the implementation of bar coding in MoD supply systems.
Lord Erroll of Hale: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that forthcoming Answer. Will he arrange for the publication of a progress report in the near future so that we may be better informed about the admirable developments that are taking place?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the bar coding implementing steering group to which I have referred already produces an internal annual report. We shall consider whether it is appropriate to publish that. The steering group is in regular contact with industry, especially with the Automatic Identification Marking Association.
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, can the Minister explain why it would be inappropriate for the report to be made available to Members of this House?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I have said that we shall consider that.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, will my noble friend tell me what a bar code system is? I always thought that it was concerned with the conduct of barristers.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I am happy to be able to tell my noble friend that a bar coding is a form of automatic identification of information. The required information is printed on to a label in such a manner as to allow reading by machine and subsequent transmission to a computer data base. The information contained within the bar code is decided by the user.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, will the Minister accept that this is not a frivolous matter? It is important. Is it not the case that the Ministry of Defence has bar coding systems different to those used by other government departments and private industry? Is it not in the national interest that there should be compatibility between electronic data systems used by producers, manufacturers and all government departments? Does the noble Earl believe that the Ministry of Defence bar coding systems conform to the international article number standard, which is the fundamental standard used by everyone else?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the Ministry of Defence has agreed a standard bar code symbology—that is code 39—which is used by the United States Department of Defense and by NATO.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, is that bar coding system compatible with international standards as approved by the Article Number Association which runs standards in private industry? Is it not most important that the Ministry of Defence should be in agreement with private industry? It is, after all, a major procurer of private equipment.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I cannot now tell the noble Lord precisely whether the system accords with recommended international standards; I shall advise him at a later date. However, it is used by NATO and by the United States Department of Defense, which I believe is just about the right criteria.
Lord Erroll of Hale: My Lords, is the NAAFI introducing bar codes?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the NAAFI is not introducing bar codes. It has a different system which operates a computerised floor management system in its principal warehouses.

Medway Tunnel Project
3.13 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil asked Her Majesty's Government:
What are the reasons for the delay in the construction of the third Medway crossing.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, the Medway tunnel project is to be financed primarily by Kent County Council, which is therefore responsible for its progress. Kent County Council has applied to the Department of Transport for resources in the form of transport supplementary grant and credit approvals. We expect to announce decisions on the distribution of resources to local highway authorities in the usual way just before the Christmas Recess.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that Answer. Does he agree that the project affords an interesting commentary on the somewhat costive nature of our procedures? First, there was an Act of Parliament authorising the tunnel; then the present project, which is at the top of Kent County Council's list of grants. Still nothing has happened. Can my noble friend be sure that something will happen this Christmas?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I cannot tell my noble friend whether the project will qualify for the transport supplementary grant which is necessary for it to proceed. It would be wrong to make an announcement on one particular project when about 108 other local highway authorities are awaiting announcements on schemes.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, does the Minister appreciate that Members on these Benches fully recognise the importance of this third crossing both as regards general economic development and tidying up the area around the Isle of Sheppey. What measure of agreement had been reached before the new direct route from the Channel Tunnel to Stratford was agreed upon? Are we still awaiting agreement? Is it not right that in a Written Answer on 11th November the Minister, Mr. Freeman, said that discussions will be taking place directed by British Rail for public consultation on the new link. Will that vitally affect the crossing? If so, how long must we wait before the crossing is determined?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am not aware, nor do I believe it likely, that the proposed route for the Channel Tunnel will have any bearing on the tunnel under the Medway. It is a local road scheme, necessary for improving access to the Isle of Grain and to the Chatham maritime estate.
Lord Pender: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that because of strong local disagreement about the proposed approach roads to the crossing, the resulting public inquiry is likely to be prolonged?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, my noble friend refers to the approach road. I am unaware of any opposition to the project. Kent County Council would like to begin work on the tunnel in April next year.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, will my noble friend arrange for consultation with his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, who has an interest, even a responsibility, for the prosperity of Chatham dockyard? The tunnel will make a great deal of difference to it.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we are well aware of the importance of the tunnel not only because of the interest of the Department of the Environment but also that of the Department of Trade, which sponsors English Estates.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, is there any danger of the EC objecting to the project once it has been agreed? Will my noble friend ensure that it is not suspended as was the Winchester bypass?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, that is another question and one that should be directed to Kent County Council, which is responsible for the scheme.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, will the Minister assure the House that there will be an environmental impact assessment on the tunnel before agreement is reached? I understand that such an assessment has been carried out in respect of roads leading to the tunnel but not for the tunnel itself. There are important environmental considerations.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, that is a matter for Kent County Council, which is the promoter of the scheme.

Unemployment
3.18 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the total number of unemployed at the latest available date.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Viscount Ullswater): My Lords, in October 1991 seasonally-adjusted unemployment in the United Kingdom was 2,472,900.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that that is the 19th consecutive monthly increase? Does he agree that with such a massive number of people now unemployed and with further increases to come there will be no decrease in that number during 1992? Is the Minister aware that the two greatest worries at present are the continuing and substantial increase in youth unemployment and the continuing increase in long-term unemployment? Both are most serious matters. As present policies are manifestly unsuccessful, will the Government consider and implement the many constructive suggestions made from these Benches in yesterday's debate on unemployment?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I will confirm that this month's rise in the seasonally adjusted number of unemployed is the smallest for over a year. It is the third consecutive month that the rate of increase in unemployment has fallen. The figure for seasonally adjusted unemployment rose by 15,700 in October compared with 32,300 the previous month and 55,900 the month before that. In addition, over 400,000 people left unemployment in October, more than in any month in the past three years.
I should also point out that the numbers on the claimant count fell last month. That run of figures provides clear evidence that the worst effects of the recession on the labour market are behind us.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, does my noble friend recall that as recently as yesterday your Lordships' House had a full-length debate on this subject? Is it really necessary to continue this today, even on the weekly Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, my noble friend reminds me of a debate which took place yesterday. During that debate I was glad to have his support from the Bench on which he now sits. We had that debate and I believe that the Government gave a full reply.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, will the noble Viscount confirm that the unemployment percentage which we have in this country is well below the national average of the EC, particularly when unified Germany is included, and is among the lowest in the world? That is not at all bad considering we are in the middle of a world recession.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I cannot tell the noble Lord that. The European Community figures are muddled at present because of the impact of eastern Germany. We only have a figure for western Germany and, therefore, the figures are not complete. The figures for the United Kingdom are about average within the EC.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, is not the Minister aware that the recent figures show a serious and disturbing trend in the manufacturing industry? Is he not aware that in the month of September jobs in manufacturing fell by 18,000 and in the past 12 months they fell by 348,000, which is 280,000 more than the previous year? Does not the noble Viscount agree that that is an extremely serious trend in manufacturing which is the backbone of the nation? What do the Government intend to do to stop that rot?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I have answered that on a number of occasions. I agree with the noble Lord that his figures are correct. However, jobs in manufacturing have been reducing since 1966 during the governments of both parties. Therefore, it is not a question of one party reducing the numbers.
The percentage of GDP of manufacturing has remained consistent over the past 10 years. That indicates that manufacturing output is being
654
effectively carried out. Many of the jobs are being reclassified as service jobs because many services have been contracted out.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, if we all wish to help the unemployed—and I am sure we do—is it not right to stop denigrating every aspect of this country's economy so that we create a little more confidence?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I agree with my noble and learned friend. This Government have put forward more provision to help the unemployed than any other previous government.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, is not the Minister aware that the effects of unemployment are now being felt throughout the economy? Is he aware of the report which appeared in the newspapers today of massive underwriting losses in the insurance industry? The bulk of those are apparently due to UK mortgage problems. Those arise because of repossessions as people who are unemployed cannot afford to keep up their payments. What will the Government do about that situation?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, we receive conflicting reports. Recently the CBI and the IOD surveys showed increasing business performance and optimism consistent with increasing economic activity. Only yesterday a further CBI survey showed that manufacturers from nearly all regions expect a recovery over the next four months.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, will the noble Viscount agree that the constructive suggestions that were made in yesterday's debate on unemployment did not emanate only from the Labour Benches?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I do not believe that any of us have the entire wisdom on this matter.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: My Lords, does the noble Viscount accept that the fall in claimant count to which he referred results more from the massage of the statistics than from the generation of genuine jobs? Does he further agree that the number of genuine job seekers is far above the figure to which he has referred?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, no, I do not accept either of those propositions.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, despite what the Minister said earlier about conflicting reports, can I draw his attention to the Stock Exchange and the Financial Times today which have expressed grave anxieties about the smallest increase in employment for some time? As they both agree, that is a very dangerous sign for the future. Will the Government take cognisance of the Financial Times and the Stock Exchange as well as the wisdom of these Benches? Will they try to correct their policy in order to reduce unemployment?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I am not certain that the Government drive their policies on the back of the Stock Exchange. I believe that one reflects the other. We have put in place sufficient assistance so that

655
those who are unfortunate enough to lose their jobs have the best possible help in finding another job, and quickly.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, can the Minister give the up-to-date statistics of how many people are working today and how many people were working 10 years ago?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the workforce in employment is over 26 million, which is 800,000 more than there were in 1979. There has been an increase of 2.6 million jobs since March 1983.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I trust that the noble Viscount will confirm, as he did a week ago, that the figures for employment which he now gives include 6 million part-time workers?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, yes, they do. It is important that part-time workers are in the economy. That is a sign of increased market flexibility. The survey carried out by my department shows that only 6 per cent. of those working part-time do so because they could not find a full-time job. The majority prefer part-time work.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the lack of interest shown by the government Benches in yesterday's debate and the complacency with which they deal with this matter each time it is raised is causing a great deal of anxiety outside this Chamber? Is he not aware that in the first nine months of this year over 33,500 firms collapsed, which is a 71 per cent. increase? Firms are collapsing at the rate of 200 every working day. Is that not a matter of anxiety for the Minister? Does he recognise that the price which is being paid for that part of government policy is hundreds of thousands of jobs and lost businesses and homes? Does he agree with his right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that that is an acceptable price to pay? Will he tell us what price will be paid before we reach a solution?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I do not believe that any government enjoy seeing increasing unemployment figures, and yet that is what most governments have seen. It will not be a new situation for any Labour Government. Those figures have increased each time the Labour Party has been in power. At present we are trying to make certain that we create a climate for businesses of all sizes to thrive. We are trying to do that. There are more small businesses in this country than ever before; at the end of 1989 there were 1.2 million more businesses in the United Kingdom than there were in 1979. That is a measure of our success.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the catering, leisure and tourist industries are good examples of his last statement? They present enormous job opportunities at the present time.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I am happy to agree with my noble friend. The leisure industry has seen an increase of some 25 per cent. in the number of jobs
656
available. Some noble Lords have said that those are not real jobs. My goodness, the people working in them feel that they are real jobs.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, will the noble Viscount confirm that the figures issued today show that in London the rate of unemployment is now above the national average? Will he also confirm that the figures show that there has been virtually no increase in the number of vacancies? Is he aware and does he agree that there is no prospect of a fall in unemployment over the next year mainly because the Government insist on maintaining interest rates, in real terms, at double what they were last year? If the Government want to do something about unemployment, will he advise his colleagues substantially to reduce interest rates immediately.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the rate for Greater London is approximately the same as for the total of the United Kingdom. I agree with the noble Lord. However, what is important is not the number of vacancies but the flows out of unemployment. They have been averaging 275,000 over the past few months, they reached 359,000 in September and are over 400,000 this month. That shows that many people are obtaining jobs.
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many people in your Lordships' House believe that the way in which he has answered some difficult questions in regard to a difficult problem deserves the thanks of the House?

Business
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lord Caithness will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on terrorism.

Offshore Safety Bill [H.L.]
3.32 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
I need briefly to describe the purpose of bringing this Bill before your Lordships and then I will describe the main provisions of each of the clauses. The Piper Alpha disaster was the most serious accident to occur in the history of offshore development. It was a dreadful reminder that safety can never be taken for granted. We must never forget the tragedy and distress that it brought to the families of those who died or were injured, to all the survivors and to those who took part in the rescue operation. All our energies must be harnessed to the prevention of accidents offshore.
The public inquiry before the learned judge, Lord Cullen, into how the disaster occurred and what could be done to prevent similar disasters was extensive and thorough. The fact that the Government immediately accepted all 106 recommendations in his report is a tribute to its breadth and quality. The offshore industry itself also accepted the report in its entirety.

657
Since the report into the Piper Alpha disaster was published in November last year, much has already been done to implement the report's recommendations as soon as possible. I mention three points by way of illustration of progress so far.
First, on 1st April responsibility for offshore safety was transferred from the Secretary of State for Energy to the Secretary of State for Employment, administered on his behalf by the Health and Safety Commission and Executive. The transfer was agreed on the basis of a substantial increase of resources to the commission rising from £13 million in 1990–91 to £35 million 1994–95. This will allow for a fourfold increase in the number of HSE people working on offshore safety.
Secondly, a revised code of practice on standby vessels was published jointly by HSE and the Department of Transport in July. It incorporates improvements in design and provision of equipment on those vessels as recommended by Lord Cullen.
Thirdly, many of the 106 recommendations require action from the offshore industry itself. For example, the preparation of an evacuation, escape and rescue analysis for each installation. HSE is in regular contact with the industry to monitor progress and to ensure that those analyses will be completed by the end of the year.
But much still remains to be done, in particular to improve and reform the existing health and safety legislation which applies to offshore installations. Lord Cullen saw two main elements to that. First, regulations should be made to require the operator of every offshore installation, fixed or mobile, to submit a "safety case" for acceptance by the HSE. The safety case would need to demonstrate that the risks of a major accident from the installation and connected activities had been adequately assessed and suitable measures applied to control the risks and ensure the safety of personnel. The Health and Safety Commission are making this their first priority, and plan to issue a consultative document, with draft regulations and guidance, in the new year. The new regulations would be implemented progressively for new and existing installations starting in 1993.
The second main element recommended by Lord Cullen was that existing offshore health and safety legislation should be progressively replaced by new regulations. Those new regulations should set the objectives to be achieved rather than the detailed measures which an operator should take to counteract the health and safety risks posed by their offshore operations. Lord Cullen called them goal-setting regulations. They will underpin the new safety case regime by defining the necessary standards to apply to every installation.
The purpose of the Bill is to pave the way for the second of these main legislative tasks—the reform of the existing offshore health and safety legislation. It marks an essential step towards constructing the new goal-setting regulatory regime. It will not of itself alter the existing regime. It deals with the technical legal
658
changes which are necessary to allow the development of the goal-setting regime to take place. It is an important first stage in a process.
Clause 1 of the Bill has three objectives. First, it extends the general purposes of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 to offshore safety. That means the Act will cover both the safety, health and welfare of persons on offshore installations or engaged on associated pipeline work, and the safety of installations and pipelines and of their construction and dismantling.
The second objective is to bring present offshore safety legislation within the main body of health and safety legislation by making it into what the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 refers to as "existing statutory provisions". That will allow the existing offshore safety legislation to be enforced by the HSE. And it will also allow the existing statutory provisions to be progressively replaced by new regulations made under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act.
The third objective is to ensure that the existing statutory provisions can be repealed or modified by health and safety regulations made under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act and to allow such health and safety regulations to be made about any matters covered by the extended general purposes of the Act.
Each of those objectives must be met in order to implement Lord Cullen's recommendations for the reform of the existing offshore safety legislation. It is the Government's intention, should the Bill receive parliamentary approval, to introduce new goal-setting regulations on a rolling programme over the next three to five years. The regulations will be made following wide consultation with all interested parties.
The Government have taken the opportunity presented by the Bill to bring forward additional measures dealing with important aspects of safety and security of the oil and gas industry and also important changes to penalties for certain offences under existing health and safety law. Clauses 2 to 5 cover those changes.
Clause 2 deals with the proper construction and safe operation of onshore pipelines and prevention of damage to them; and it also deals with the protection of the public from dangers arising from the transmission, distribution, supply or use of gas, including the supply of liquid petroleum gas through tanks.
I deal first with the safety of onshore pipelines. Although most legislation concerning safety of pipelines onshore is already "existing statutory provisions" under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act, two important parts are not: the avoidance of damage to pipelines and the notification of accidents involving escape or ignition of the contents of pipelines. Part of Clause 2 therefore extends the scope of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act to cover the proper construction and safe operation of pipelines onshore. Clause 2 makes Sections 27 to 32 and 37 of the Pipe-lines Act 1962 "existing statutory provisions" and allows their repeal or modification by health and safety regulations. Again, as in Clause 1, health and safety regulations may be made for the purposes of the

659
extended scope of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act. These provisions will be enforced by the pipelines inspectors who transferred to the HSE on 1st April.
I turn to the second part of Clause 2, the safety of gas supplies. Since 1st February 1984, HSE has been responsible for most of the consumer gas safety law. But the Secretary of State for Energy retained the powers to prescribe certain standards of pressure, purity and odour of gas. These standards are set out under the Gas Quality Regulations 1983 which have effect as if made under Section 16 of the Gas Act 1986. The standards of pressure, purity and odour are in essence safety standards. For example, pressure is important because if it is not sufficiently maintained, appliance flames may go out with possible escape of gas creating a risk of explosion. The opportunity is now therefore being taken to transfer responsibility for these safety standards to the Health and Safety Commission and Executive.
The opportunity is also being taken to deal with a difficulty on the use of liquid petroleum gas-LPG. The existing general purposes of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act cover only gas supplied through pipes. LPG is supplied to a large number of users through refillable or replaceable tanks and cylinders kept at or near the users' premises. These are not covered consistently by existing regulations which protect consumers from incompetent gas installation work.
Clause 2 therefore extends the general purposes of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act to cover the protection of the public from dangers arising from the transmission, distribution, supply or use of gas, including LPG. It also makes Section 16 of the Gas Act and regulations made under that section so far as they relate to safety, "existing statutory provisions" under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act. Again it allows the legislation to be enforced by the HSE. Regulations can be made to repeal or modify this law and such regulations can be made about matters covered by the extended general purposes of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act.
Clause 3 contains a number of provisions consequential on Clauses 1 and 2. The principal changes are those necessary to make a clean break between the Secretary of State for Energy's petroleum exploration and development licensing and health and safety. Currently licences for offshore exploration and development contain model clauses on health and safety. The clause will allow those model clauses to be revoked and removes any requirement on the Secretary of State for Energy when exercising his licensing functions. In future the Secretary of State for Energy will grant licences solely on the basis of economic development of petroleum resources. But Clause 7(3) provides for revocation to come into force only by order of the Secretary of State. That will not he done until the safety case regulations and the new goal-setting regime is in place. There will be no diminution in safety standards. The safety regime, which will operate once the model clauses are revoked, will be considerably strengthened since it will be illegal to operate an installation without a safety case having been accepted by HSE.
660
Clause 4 deals with penalties for certain health and safety offences. For some time both the Government and the Health and Safety Commission have been concerned at the level of penalties levied in magistrates' courts. In the year 1989–90 the average fine for all health and safety cases taken by HSE in any court was £732. That figure must be seen in the light of a maximum fine of £2,000 in a magistrates' court and unlimited levels of fine in a Crown Court. The Government have concluded that they must make provision for higher maximum penalties for certain health and safety offences. Some action has already been taken; the Criminal Justice Act will have the effect of increasing the maximum fine in magistrates' courts from £2,000 to £5,000 from October 1992 for all health and safety offences.
This Bill makes further provision for higher penalties in a number of ways to demonstrate the Government's continuing commitment to good health and safety standards supported by significant penalties for those who fail to meet those standards. The further provisions are in two categories.
The first category of offence is under Sections 2 to 6 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act for which the maximum fine a magistrates' court may impose will be increased to £20,000. Offences under these sections are likely to be more serious than other offences because cases are brought when there is a general failure to manage health and safety adequately. This failure to manage health and safety could be a general company failure; it could be a failure to properly control a specific hazard; or it may be a deliberate decision not to comply with these general duties under the Act. Whatever the reason, failure to manage properly health and safety is likely to lead to a number of accidents over time, which could be serious or fatal. It is therefore more serious than a one-off failure to comply with a specific health and safety duty. That is why we want these general duties under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act to carry higher penalties.
The second category of offence is failure to comply with an improvement or prohibition notice or to comply with a court remedy order made under Section 42 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act. For these offences, the penalties on conviction will be increased in a magistrates' court from the current maximum of £2,000 to a maximum fine of £20,000 or six months' imprisonment or both. On conviction on indictment these offences will carry a maximum penalty of an unlimited fine or two years' imprisonment or both. These offences are especially serious because they show at best culpable neglect and at worst deliberate flouting of a duty under law by the employer despite specific issues having been brought to his attention by an inspector.
The clause also deals with certain offences under present offshore health and safety legislation. The penalties on conviction on indictment for some offences may be up to two years' imprisonment or an unlimited fine or both. The first part of the clause will also allow these penalties to be maintained in future regulations dealing with offshore safety. Maintenance of the penalties takes account of the distinctly separate

661
situation offshore where failure to follow certain health and safety regulations could prejudice the whole installation itself together with all those who work on it.
Every accident is a tragedy not just for the person injured but for the family, friends and colleagues. Accident prevention must be the first priority for employers, workers and the regulatory bodies such as HSE. But those who break the law must realise that they run the risk of very serious and substantial penalties. These new penalties are a signal to those with health and safety duties that the Government mean business.
Clause 5 deals with security of oil and gas installations. Similar statutory provisions already exist in respect of the telecommunications, electricity and water industries. The purpose of the clause is to empower the Secretary of State—in this case the Home Secretary—to issue directions to operators of an offshore installation, onshore terminal or oil refinery to preserve their security. Before issuing any such directions the Home Secretary would be required to consult the operator concerned and the Health and Safety Executive. Consultation with the HSE is necessary to avoid any possible conflict between safety and security. Operators would have to comply with such a direction, notwithstanding any other duties. A direction will be laid before Parliament unless the Home Secretary judges disclosure may prejudice national security or the commercial interests of any individual. In such circumstances, following notification from the Home Secretary, persons are prohibited from making disclosures about any such directions.
Directions could be general or specific in nature. General directions might reflect a warning that the industry faced a particular threat or they might address some widespread shortcoming which had been brought to light. Specific directions might be given to an individual operator if the Secretary of State came to the conclusion that there were particular shortcomings in security measures at the site which needed to be rectified.
The Government and the oil and gas industry take the subject of security at onshore and offshore installations very seriously. Arrangements already exist to give advice to operators on the measures necessary to protect the site adequately. I hope that your Lordships will understand if I do not go into too much detail on what those arrangements or measures may be.
I am glad to say that, by and large, operators are generally ready to take action in response to such advice. But some operators have not been so in the past. Necessary improvements can be deferred or overlooked. This can lead to varying standards so that some sites have very good security while at others there is room for improvement. It is these circumstances that the clause will cover ensuring that the Home Secretary can act to remedy matters where necessary.
I turn now to Clause 6 of the Bill. This deals with the parliamentary mechanism for extending the provisions of the Bill to Northern Ireland. Your
662
Lordships will wish to note that the Bill does not extend to Northern Ireland and the definitions in the Bill reflect this. Clause 6 will enable the corresponding Northern Ireland legislation to be enacted with the minimum possible delay soon after the Great Britain legislation becomes effective. This will be achieved by the negative resolution procedure.
I turn to the final clause. For the most part the Bill will come into effect on Royal Assent. The exceptions are those parts dealing with the model clauses—to which I have already referred—and those parts dealing with gas safety. Clause 7 also, as I said earlier, limits the application of the Bill to Great Britain.
This Bill is an important part of the implementation of the Cullen Report on the Piper Alpha disaster. I have, of necessity, concentrated on the main provisions in the Bill. I look forward with interest to your Lordships' views on the Bill. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(Viscount Ullswater.)

Lockerbie Disaster: Investigation
3.52 p.m.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs about the conclusion of the Lockerbie investigation and its implications. The Statement is as follows:
"Mr. Speaker, with permission, I should like to make a Statement about the conclusion of the Lockerbie investigation and its implications.
"My noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate has today announced the issue of a warrant for the arrest of two Libyan intelligence officers against whom, on the basis of the evidence available, the Procurator Fiscal has brought charges alleging their involvement in the destruction of Pan Am Flight 103 on 21st December 1988. The American authorities have taken similar action. The text of the warrant and of the Lord Advocate's announcement are being placed in the Library of the House.
"Two hundred and seventy people were killed at Lockerbie. The relatives and friends of these victims have suffered and continue to suffer great pain and sorrow. The House will be thinking of them today.
"As the Lord Advocate has said, a demand is being made of the Libyan authorities for the surrender of the accused to stand trial. I repeat that demand on behalf of the whole Government. I know the House will unreservedly endorse it.
"The accusations levelled at Libyan officials are of the gravest possible kind. As the warrant which the Lord Advocate will be making public makes clear, the charges allege that the individuals acted as part of a conspiracy to further the purposes of the Libyan intelligence services by criminal means

663
and that those means were acts of terrorism. This is a mass murder which is alleged to involve the organs of government of a state. Libyan officials have been accused of such a crime not only in Scotland and America but also in France where arrest warrants were issued on 30th October over the destruction of Flight UTA 772 in September 1989. We are consulting the United States and other friendly governments, many of whom lost nationals in Pan Am Flight 103, about the next steps.
"I understand that the investigation has revealed no evidence to support suggestion of' involvement by other countries.
"Let me pay tribute to all of those whose untiring work under the direction of the Lord Advocate over almost three years has produced this remarkable outcome. In particular, I salute the work of the Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary and all those in many parts of the world who have helped with the gathering of evidence and information. The Government are grateful for all the help given to the investigation in many countries.
"We expect Libya to respond fully to our demand for the surrender of the accused. The interests of justice require no less. This fiendish act of wickedness cannot be passed over or ignored." My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.55 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Earl for repeating the Statement and vie welcome this important development which takes place after nearly three years of intense and dedicated work by all concerned. The relatives and friends of the victims of this dreadful crime are very much in our minds at this time.
As the House will appreciate, it would not be proper for us to discuss the merits or otherwise of the charges at this time. That will be decided by a court when and if those who are accused are brought before a court. We do of course strongly support the demand of the Lord Advocate that the accused be surrendered to stand trial.
I have one short question to put to the noble Earl. The position is that the sheriff in Dumfries has issued a warrant and further that an indictment has been handed down by a grand jury in Washington. Can the noble Earl say how the warrants will be enforced if Libya refuses to hand over the two individuals named? If he is not in a position to answer that question now, may I assume that his right honourable friend will keep us informed of developments over the next few days?
Lord Hooson: My Lords, I share entirely the sentiments expressed so adequately by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, on this matter and also repeat the hope that the Libyan Government will co-operate. It was a dreadful thing for 270 people to be killed in a terrorist attack of this kind and we think of the implications for their families everywhere.
664
I have a different question to ask the noble Earl. The Statement claims that there was evidence of a conspiracy but that there was no evidence to support suggestions of involvement by other countries. Can he, however, tell us whether there was evidence of the involvement of individuals of other nationalities; that is, of nationalities other than Libyan? Was there any evidence of assistance being rendered in other countries by people of nationalities different from the two Libyans concerned?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful for the words of the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, and of the noble Lord, Lord Hooson. Our thoughts are very much with the families. I am grateful for the strong support that both noble Lords have given to the actions of my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate.
With regard to the question posed to me by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, as a first step we expect Libya to respond promptly and positively to our demand for surrender of the accused and we await that response. Today the announcement concerns the judicial process. We shall then have to decide urgently—and we are considering this—what further steps may be needed. We are in close consultation, as I said, with the Americans on this. I can, however, assure the noble Lord that we shall keep the House fully informed as matters progress. I can also confirm that copies of the warrant and of the Lord Advocate's announcement, to which I referred in the Statement repeated on behalf of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, will be placed in the Library of this House.
With regard to the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, we have no evidence about individuals from other countries being involved.
4 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am sure that no Member of your Lordships' House can ever forget the unfolding horror of that evening, especially those who know Lockerbie. Does my noble friend agree that our noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate, for the tenacious manner in which he has pursued this case, deserves our congratulations, as indeed does the very small police force of Dumfries and Galloway, on which the awful event was visited that night? The police dealt not only with the immediate aftermath but also carried out the investigation. I would mention particularly the chief constable, John Boyd, who was at the time responsible, and also George Esson.
While today's announcement is certainly successful in so far as it goes, we shall only really have success in this affair when the two Libyans responsible are in the dock being tried, either in Scotland or in the United States of America. Will my noble friend ensure that not only this country and the United States but all civilised countries bring every possible pressure to bear on Libya to release those two evil men up to justice, and that if Libya does not do so she will be treated as an international leper?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am most grateful for the words of my noble friend Lord Mackay, who knows the area well. I shall certainly pass them on to my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate. In addition to congratulating the Dumfries and Galloway police I should also like to mention the forensic service, without which the Lord Advocate would not have been able to take matters as far as he has. I can assure my noble friend that we are working closely with all friendly governments on the matter. It is worth recalling that there were not only Americans and Britons on the plane; there were French and German nationals among the victims as well as citizens of other countries.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, I endorse everything said by those who have contributed. It is unfortunate that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate is not in his place but I fully understand why he is not here. He is simultaneously issuing a statement in Edinburgh, as Scotland has been, to use the jargon phrase, the nerve centre of this inquiry. It is quite understandable that he should be there dealing with the interest expressed in this event which he himself described as a unique criminal inquiry.
In his statement the Lord Advocate describes the work of the forensic scientists as "extraordinary". From the little knowledge I have of that work, "extraordinary" may be too modest a word for the meticulous work which has been carried out by the scientists. I do not propose to substitute another word, but "extraordinary" is perhaps rather modest.
During the three years of this inquiry we on this side of the House have taken extreme care not to do or say anything which might in any way have prejudiced the course of the investigation and any subsequent proceedings. We shall continue to pursue that course as matters develop. It would be wrong to let this occasion pass without congratulating the Lord Advocate on his part in the investigation. I endorse the words of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay. The Lord Advocate has supervised not a local inquiry but an international investigation and has done so with diligence and dedication while under many pressures from various sources, press and otherwise. The dignity and authority with which he has conducted the public aspects of the inquiry have brought great credit to the office of Lord Advocate, and the whole proceedings to date have, I am certain, enhanced the reputation of the Scottish police and the Scottish legal system not only in the United Kingdom but throughout the civilised world.
Before I conclude my remarks, perhaps I may make two points. The Lord Advocate closed his statement in Edinburgh today with these words:
"I must remind the media that, for the purposes of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, proceedings became active when the Sheriff granted warrants for arrests. The chief constable and I cannot and will not comment on the evidence on which these charges are based".
I draw that to the attention of the House in case some extravagant words are used in the course of exchanges on these charges which could seriously prejudice any trial which may take place in the future.
I have one final point. We heard in the Statement that,
666
"Libyan officials have been accused of such a crime not only in Scotland and America but also in France where arrest warrants were issued on 30th October over the destruction of Flight UTA 772 in September 1989".
I presume that that is another aircraft and not Pan Am Flight 103. What response has been received from the Libyan authorities in respect of the arrest warrants which have been granted in France?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful for the kind words of the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, regarding my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate and all those involved in this international investigation. I can confirm that Flight UTA 772 was a different flight from the Pan Am flight. The incident occurred some 10 months after the Lockerbie disaster. Some 170 victims were involved. Warrants for the arrest of four Libyan officials were issued by the examining magistrate on 30th October and the French authorities are pursuing the matter. I am unable to tell the noble Lord any more at this stage.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, does that mean that there has been no response from the Libyan authorities?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, it means that I am unable to tell the noble Lord more at this stage.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, perhaps the noble Earl will keep me in touch.

Offshore Safety Bill [H.L.]
4.6 p.m.
Debate on Second Reading resumed.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of the Bill, which is fairly non-controversial. We on this side of the House support the Bill but I should like to make some comments on it.
We all know that getting oil from the seabed is a very dangerous business. That, as the Minister said, was brought home to all of us as a result of the horrendous Piper Alpha disaster. But the workings in the North Sea have been taking a toll in human lives and injuries ever since they started. Only on Saturday, the press carried a report of what is the longest hearing in Scottish legal history—the inquiry into the accident and fire on an oil rig operated by Arco British and owned by Odeco which resulted in the death of an employee. The report indicated that this could have been prevented had those in charge of the rig exercised proper control. The principal witnesses did not show up at all, thus occasioning sharp criticism from the Sheriff Principal. That accident took place three months after the Piper Alpha tragedy when everyone should have been very sharply aware of the hazards. It is not surprising that the union involved should be calling for the owners and operators to be prosecuted.
It is as well to remind ourselves when considering a Bill of this kind just how horrific the Piper Alpha tragedy was. On the evening of 6th July 1988, the lives of 165 people out of a total of 226 on board were lost. Two more lives were lost in a rescue attempt. Some bodies were never recovered. It was a total disaster for

667
the families and the communities from which those men came. In so far as we can through legislation we have to try to ensure that nothing like it can happen again, although it is of course true that the operations are themselves inherently hazardous.
As the Minister said, following the Piper Alpha disaster the Government set up an inquiry under the Honourable Lord Cullen. Some of the recommendations of his report are carried through in the Bill. Lord Cullen recommended that there should he a single regulatory body and, on balance, favoured transfer-ring responsibility to the Health and Safety Executive. That, as the Minister explained, has now been done. Clause 1 extends the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 to cover safety, health and welfare of persons on offshore installations or engaged on associated pipeline work. It would appear that inspectors will in future be able to institute proceedings for offences committed outside Great Britain. There are increased penalties for breach of the regulations. There are, however, some aspects of Lord Cullen's report which are not addressed in the Bill.
One of the most important sections of the report is that dealing with the need to establish a "safety culture". Paragraph 18.45 states:
"Companies with a good safety record arc dedicated to the proposition that safety starts with the unfailing commitment of the most senior management, and that of the chief executive officer in particular".
In paragraph 18.46 we find:
"It is essential to create a corporate atmosphere or culture in which safety is understood to be, and is accepted as, the number one priority".
Paragraph 18.47 says:
"Safety objectives have to he built into both short and long term plans, and achievements against those defined objectives have to be part of personnel performance assessment".
From this, according to Lord Cullen (at paragraph 18.48) it follows that:
"It is essential that the whole workforce is committed to and involved in safe operations".
I should like to emphasise the latter. Yet, the inquiry received evidence from the unions representing employees that this was not done. Employees who identified safety hazards were often afraid or unwilling to come forward with the information because of fear of victimisation—the fear that their contracts might not be renewed. Many of the companies concerned strongly opposed the recognition of the unions to which their employees belonged, even though it was acknowledged in the report that unions play a key and constructive role in training safety representatives elected by the workforce. Indeed, at Piper Alpha, the safety representatives do not appear to have been elected at all; they were the supervisors themselves.
The unions drew attention to the Norwegian practice, where union recognition is automatic and safety representatives play a key role in evolving health and safety policies. Lord Cullen, although saying that his remit did not extend to industrial relations—and this, of course, was understood—was clearly impressed by the evidence given by the unions. One of his recommendations specifies that safety representatives should be protected by legislation
668
against victimisation. He also endorses the idea of a review of the 1989 regulations on safety representatives and safety committees.
Lord Cullen was also very critical of the inspections which preceded the disaster. He described them as "superficial" and clearly felt that there was a need for more thorough inspection. However, I note that the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum to the Bill says that there will be no increase in expenditure or manpower as a result of this legislation. Nevertheless, the Minister said in his opening speech that resources had been made available to ensure that there would be increases in the inspectorate. But I understand that the Health and Safety Commission may have difficulty in attracting the right number of properly qualified people, because private industry can offer salaries which are so much higher. It is essential that resources are made available to ensure that the intentions of the Bill are carried out.
Of course I understand and support the need for the clause relating to security. However, I should like to see some wording inserted in the Bill indicating that health and safety considerations are paramount and will take precedence over other concerns, including that of security. We may, perhaps, follow up this issue in Committee.
So far as concerns penalties, I welcome the proposals that these should be increased. I also accept the Minister's assurance that these are indications that the Government take the whole health and safety issue very seriously. However, £20,000 is not a great deal of money for a multi-million concern and the two-year prison sentence—which may or may not be imposed—may not be all that much of a deterrent. It has always seemed to me to be somewhat anomalous that a director can be disqualified for a fiduciary misdemeanour, but that this sanction is not applied if the company of which he is a director is responsible for death or injury to employees or members of the public. I believe that the possible loss of office would concentrate the mind more effectively and would, perhaps, help to bring about the creation of the kind of "safety culture" so strongly urged by Lord Cullen.
Finally, I believe that the Bill is a step in the right direction. We shall seek to explore some of these issues in Committee, but in the meantime, we support the Bill.
4.14 p.m.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, from these Benches I should like to join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, for explaining the Bill so clearly. I should say at once that our general attitude to it is one of support, in so far as it follows the recommendations of the Cullen Report on the Piper Alpha disaster. As has been said, the Bill's main provision is that responsibility for offshore safety should now be transferred from the Petroleum Engineering Division of the Department of Energy to the Health and Safety Executive. The reasons why Lord Cullen recommended that change are set out in his report. I need say no more than that we are in full agreement with them.

669
However, like the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, I should like to highlight two or three of the recommendations in the report. They are not included on the face of the Bill, but in my view it is important that they should be faithfully implemented by the new regulatory body. First, as the noble Viscount said, the report recommended that the principal regulations in regard to offshore safety should take the form of requiring that stated objectives were to be met—they were referred to as "goal setting regulations"—rather than prescribing that detailed measures were to be taken.
In the foreword to the last available annual report of the Health and Safety Commission, the chairman noted that,
"the European Community has now to be regarded as the principal engine of health and safety law affecting the UK",
and that directions concerning occupational safety may now be introduced on the basis of qualified majority voting. I was glad that he went on to say:
"We have made clear to our European friends some of the difficulties we see in an over-hasty provision of new law, particularly without assurance that it can be enforced with equal determination in all Member States. We have also sought to insist that Member States should make their own arrangements for subsidiary detail, subject to European agreement on general principles".
In my view, the Health and Safety Commission here struck just the right note, for, committed Europeans though we on these Benches are, there is the danger that in this matter the European Commission could overstep the mark.
Next, there is reference in both the summary and recommendations of Lord Cullen to the importance of training. Indeed, management was severely criticised in the summary for its failure to ensure that training for emergencies was in practice provided as was intended. I had so much to say on the subject of training yesterday during the debate on unemployment that I shall spare your Lordships any further comment. However, it is of literally vital importance that the report's recommendations on that matter are actually implemented.
That brings me to the subject of employee involvement. I believe that the noble Baroness has already quoted from paragraph 18.48 which, if I may paraphrase it, says how essential it is for the whole workforce to be committed to, and involved in, safe operations. It continues to say that the first line supervisors are a key link in achieving that aim, as each is personally responsible for ensuring that all employees not only know how to perform their jobs safely but are convinced that they have a responsibility to do so.
As has been said, Lord Cullen went on to stress the value of a safety committee system as a means of providing for new ideas and solutions to safety problems to be brought forward and for passing verbatim and uncensored safety comments up the management line. He also said that the system helps to reinforce the principle that each employee is responsible for his own safety and that of his fellow workers. I agree with the conclusion of Lord Cullen that the employee representatives on these committees need not be drawn from trade unions. The essential
670
point is to ensure that all employees are involved in the promotion of safety at work. I should have liked to see some reference to that issue in the Bill. It is possible that we shall return to the matter in Committee.
Indeed, the question arises as to whether there is more that the Government should be doing to improve employee involvement more generally.
On a number of occasions in the past I have argued that the time has come to make it a statutory requirement that in every organisation employing a certain number of people there should be consultative bodies of some kind. In that connection—I hope that I do not digress too far from the Bill—I was interested to receive from the Institute of Personnel Management last week a consultative document in which, while reiterating its preference for a voluntary approach to that matter, it nevertheless says that in view of the relatively slow progress made during the past decade action should now be taken:
"to place the employer under a statutory duty to disseminate to all employees certain types of information which relate to matters affecting their security and well being, and which is not commercially confidential".
It is only fair to add that the institute does not consider that the current situation warrants an extension of that duty to include an obligation to consult, believing that the requirement that the employer should regularly provide information to employees is likely to prove a sufficient stimulus in that respect. Nevertheless, the fact that the IPM has now decided to advocate the introduction of limited legislation on employee involvement is most significant. I realise that the subject is a broad one, but if the Minister can—I fear at very short notice—say anything positively encouraging about that matter I should be glad to hear it.
I now turn briefly to a consideration of one or two of the Bill's features. Clauses 1 to 3 have, I hope, been covered adequately by what I said at the outset. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, I welcome the provisions of Clause 4 which increase substantially penalties for offences relating to contraventions of the regulations.
The next comment I wish to make about the Bill relates to its financial and manpower effects as set out in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum. There it is stated:
"There will be no increase in public expenditure or manpower in consequence of the Bill."
That surprises me because it raises the whole question of whether the resources, including staff, needed to enforce the Bill's provisions will be adequate for that purpose.
The Minister will be aware that in the debate on health and safety at work initiated by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, last January, several noble Lords questioned whether the number of HSE inspectors was adequate for the duties that they were required to fulfil. Specifically, and I hope that I am not stealing his thunder, the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, claimed that judging from the figures contained in the previous year's HSE report, inspectors were in a position to make, on average, only one visit per day, and that in the previous 10 years the number of inspectors had fallen from 759 to 554. At the time, the

671
noble Earl, Lord Strathmore and Kinghorne, was unable to refute that allegation. In his conclusions, Lord Cullen stated that the need for adequate resources to meet the changes involved in transferring responsibility for safety to the Health and Safety Executive was obvious.
I appreciate that some, at least, of the people now employed by the Petroleum Engineering Division of the Department of Energy may be transferred to the executive, but if before the assumption of the heavy additional burden there is doubt as to the adequacy of resources available to the HSE to carry out inspections, how much more justifiable may those doubts now be. I should be grateful if the Minister would tell us what the Government are doing to satisfy themselves that the manpower available to the HSE will be sufficient to enable it to discharge its new responsibility in such a way as to enhance the safety of all those who work at risk offshore. We may also wish to pursue that matter in Committee.
In conclusion, I merely repeat that my noble friends and I are happy to support the Bill, subject to the reservations that I have described.
4.24 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I too thank my noble friend Lord Ullswater for so clearly explaining the purposes of the Bill, which I welcome. The Bill carries out many of the recommendations of the inquiry undertaken by the learned judge, Lord Cullen, following the Piper Alpha disaster. It was clear at the time that his inquiry would take many months. When the Statement was made in your Lordships' House I said that we could not expect to have the recommendations in less than a year, or more probably two years. I am glad that no time has been lost by the Government and that they have introduced the Bill in what has to be a shorter than usual Session.
I must declare an interest. As some noble Lords will be aware, I have been with an international oil company in a non-executive capacity since 1975. I am glad to say that it is one that has a good safety record. It is only a week since the Bill was published. My impression is that the oil industry as a whole is glad to see it. It is generally accepted that the Health and Safety Executive should in future take over responsibility for safety from the Department of Energy. In any case, the Department of Energy is losing many functions because of gas and electricity having departed, and it may well lose its separate identity after the next election. The way in which the present Permanent Secretary's appointment was announced encourages that speculation.
Piper Alpha was a platform permanently in place over the oilfield. In addition to that disaster, there was also a bad accident on a mobile drilling rig. The inquiry into that rig blow-out was published a few days ago only. It was the Ocean Odyssey to which the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, referred. There was one death in that incident. It could have been very much worse.
I was probably the member of the Cabinet at the time most concerned when North Sea oil was discovered in 1970–71, and then on to 1974, because
672
no Department of Energy existed in those days. I have been anxious about safety ever since. In the early days it was the divers who suffered most casualties. They were voluntarily taking too many risks. That position has been much improved since. It was a new industry which has brought many benefits to Britain, but it is undertaken in hostile and harsh conditions. The offshore structures and the diving, pipeline and supply boat operations require safety, and that is best maintained if every individual involved is encouraged to participate.
The best practice includes inviting from everyone involved suggestions for alerting people to dangers and for making improvements. Everyone working on a platform or a rig should feel authorised to speak up and to share in promoting optimum arrangements for safety. Such team work should combine well with the framework now being created through the HSE which I am glad to know will be expanded for the purpose. It is important that the new members of the HSE will be well-trained people, qualified to carry out those functions. I hope that my noble friend will be able to say some more about that matter when he replies.
I should like to add a few words about a recently formed body—the Oil Industry Liaison Committee—which has been much in the news. It is based in Aberdeen and has been issuing statements about safety. Its status is still obscure as it does not appear to have been recognised by the trade union movement, although it purports to represent those working on offshore installations.
What has not been made clear in press reports—and I make no criticism because the oil industry is one which the press still find difficult to understand—is that the the Oil Industry Liaison Committee does not represent the employees of the oil industry. It is trying to speak for the employees of the contractors, the firms working on platforms. These men very often carry out maintenance work on the platforms for a period of weeks during the summer. Others—for example, plumbers or welders—employed by construction firms based onshore, are doing particular jobs on platforms under contracts. They are working for their own employers who are not the oil companies.
It is important that these itinerant members of a platform's complement, like the crew of a ship, should be well versed in safety along with the oil companies' own employees. In the press, they have been referred to as "oilmen". That is an easy description, but it is misleading because the impression is given that they work directly for the oil companies. They do not.
Of course, it is also important that the employees working for contractors should feel confidence in the safety measures applying to the installations on which they are working. As my noble friend Lord Ullswater said, the companies have been taking action in various fields while Lord Cullen's inquiry has been going on. For example, my own company has been installing new sub-sea valves and making other investments in failsafe measures.
The discovery of North Sea oil 20 years ago led to a new British industry being created with considerable benefits to this country. However, it is a fairly recent

673
industry in the world as a whole. We must adapt quickly to the exigencies and phenomena which accompany that industry. The Bill is one important step in the right direction.
4.32 p.m.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, like other speakers in this debate, I thank the Minister for the clarity and conciseness with which he explained clauses in the Bill. I also wish to congratulate the Department of Energy on appointing Lord Cullen to conduct this inquiry. I do not believe that that has been done sufficiently at least on this side of the House. It was a quite outstanding way of conducting an inquiry; I have never read the report of an inquiry which was done in such an outstanding way. It moves magisterially from proximate causes to underlying causes. It shows that this is not an isolated mistake, that it is the result of unsafe practices, unobserved procedures and inadequate and underfunded inspection. It lays the blame where it should lie and then with great mercy it does not name those who have direct, immediate blame. That is a civilised thing to do.
The report ends with comprehensive recommendations—wide-ranging but nevertheless relevant to Lord Cullen's remit. It is a quite outstanding piece of work. Anyone wishing to know how to write a report of an inquiry on such a subject should read this one from start to finish.
I do not believe it has been mentioned in the debate so far that the report also stresses that not all the recommendations are for the Government. In many ways most of them are not: they are partly for the authority that is to be established to run the safety concerns, the HSE, as it is to be. Many recommendations are directed at the authority and many more are directed at employers and relate to the practices that they should introduce. Some recommendations have significant implications for the workers in the industry and for the unions that represent them. It is a magnificent report.
Which then are the areas where we disagree or have reservations which we hope we can take up when the Bill comes into Committee? Many have been mentioned by previous speakers. I believe the Minister will discover that there is a fair degree of unanimity on this side of the House about how the Bill needs to be improved. One area which has not been mentioned on which I hope the Minister can give guidance and clarity refers to Section 2 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. Clause 1 of the present Bill adds something to Section 1 of the 1974 Act. It says that the Act now covers the health, safety and welfare of persons on offshore installations. That is to be added to Section 1 of the 1974 Act.
Many of us believe, however, that one of the most important aspects of the 1974 Act is Section 2 which states:
"It shall be the duty of every employer to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare … of all his employees".
I wish to ask the Minister this. Are we to take the view that, although this is not mentioned on the face of the Bill, Section 2 of the 1974 Act, which puts a general
674
obligation on employers to promote health, welfare and safety, applies just as much to the offshore areas as to the existing ones? Even if it does, why should it not be on the face of the Bill? Why should not that important clause be put into the Bill?
Further, to repeat something which has been said before but bears repeating, I wish to deal with the duties of the inspectorate. I could burden the House—but I will not—with long quotations from the Cullen Report which perhaps we should discuss in Committee. Lord Cullen goes through what happened: the inspector; what the inspector did; how the inspector did not have enough time; how the inspector was not given enough information; how the inspector was well known, and how it was known by the employers that he was coming because that is the way offshore inspection works; how in general inspectors are insufficiently trained. Most important of all, there was a shortfall: repeated inquiries had been made through the Health and Safety Executive to the Department of Energy asking whether it would increase the members of the inspectorate; and how that was not possible, partly for reasons of money and partly for reasons that are not clear.
When we examine what Lord Cullen says about the way in which the inspectorate should operate in future, and the fact that there should be a senior inspector who should have access to the management board or be a member of it responsible to the director general; when we examine the job to be done, the implementation of all the safety case legislation, surely there must be more staff for the HSE? Surely, we cannot accept a situation—despite the encouraging words of the Minister in his opening speech—where on the face of the Bill we are again told that there is to be no increase in expenditure. That cannot be right.
If we are to take what Lord Cullen says seriously—and the Minister told us that the Government accept every recommendation in this report—it cannot be done without further expenditure. Can we be told that the Government accept that? Can we be given some idea of how much it will involve?
Finally, I wish to say something about the safety committees and safety representatives. Again, there is provision in the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 for statutory regulations enforcing upon employers some form of safety committee at the place of work. The Cullen Report is quite clear that the workers on the rig knew that the rig was unsafe. They had made representations to make it more safe. They required an effective consultative system with the protection of their representatives, in order to make their position clear. Although that matter is, in precise and specific terms, outside his terms of reference, Lord Cullen goes a long way to suggest that there should be some improvement in the present inadequate forms of safety representation. Surely that is a matter on which the Government could give us some undertaking tonight. However, with all those reservations, we welcome the Bill. We wish it God speed and we think it will do good.
4.40 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, this has been an interesting and informative debate. Your Lordships have made a number of general points on the Bill. It is perhaps better to leave discussion of the more detailed technical points to Committee. However, your Lordships raised a number of more general health and safety issues which I shall attempt to deal with. The noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, said initially that what is required is a safety culture. I entirely agree with her. It is intended that we should have safety culture. However, we cannot provide for that culture in legislation. The learned Lord Cullen strongly recommended that there should be separate provision for the introduction of the safety case. That will require an operator to demonstrate clearly and in great detail the adequacy of his management system and its ability to cope with the provisions of the Health and Safety at Work Act.
The noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, and the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, asked about safety representatives and safety committees. The provision for the appointment of safety representatives and committees is made by regulations under the mineral workings Act. Those regulations are the Offshore Installations (Safety Representatives and Safety Committees) Regulations of 1989. A comprehensive review of their effectiveness is about to get under way. This fulfils the commitment by Ministers made in 1989—endorsed by Lord Cullen—to review the regulations after two years of operation. Therefore to a certain extent I feel constrained from saying anything further on that matter.
The noble Baroness drew to our attention the problem of victimisation of employees if they make comments on safety matters. She drew our attention to the fact that that matter was mentioned in the recommendations made by Lord Cullen. I repeat that the Government have accepted all the recommendations of the Cullen Report. We intend to amend employment protection legislation to ensure that any representative who has been dismissed or otherwise victimised for this reason can gain redress through an industrial tribunal. However, such legislation falls outside the scope of the Bill we are discussing. This Bill deals with safety matters rather than employment issues We shall deal with the matter of victimisation as soon as a suitable legislative vehicle presents itself.
For the present, victimisation of workers who raise safety concerns is completely unacceptable to the Health and Safety Executive as it undermines the objective of increased safety awareness. If there is any evidence of intimidation, HSE will look into it. The name and address of an offshore inspector is displayed in every offshore installation and anonymity is guaranteed to those who raise safety issues if they request it.
The noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Rochester—I am glad that the noble Lord welcomed the introduction of the Bill—inquired about the availability of inspectors and about the problem of financial resources. The recruitment of specialists in the petroleum field is constrained by a limited and highly competitive market. In addition new recruits
676
will require at least six months' training in specialist inspection techniques. Obviously there is a limit to the number of people who can be trained at any one time. HSE will aim to recruit new staff at the fastest possible speed commensurate with those constraints. The offshore safety division aims to increase specialist cadres by about 75 a year for the next three years. I believe those recruitment targets are ambitious. A review of pay and grading of offshore specialists has been put in hand with a view to achieving the targets and to ensure that realistic rewards can be offered.
The noble Baroness said she felt a fine of £20,000 was not much of a deterrent to a multinational company. Magistrates will of course still be free to commit cases to higher courts if they feel the penalty of £20,000 is inadequate in any particular case. In addition magistrates will be able to fine multiples of £20,000 in cases where more than one charge is laid against a company at any one time. In the meantime the Bill seeks to ensure that the rise in fines should be a signal to the industry. The Government welcome the higher fines as an indication of their intention in this area.
As regards the disqualification of directors, that is already possible under the disqualification Act where directors have been convicted of an indictable offence. Section 37 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act also allows prosecution of individual directors where an offence has been committed with their consent or connivance, or where the offence was attributable to neglect on a director's part. I believe the Bill takes care of a number of the concerns the noble Baroness mentioned. I have listened carefully to all the comments she made.
The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, asked me whether Section 2 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 applies offshore. It already applies offshore by virtue of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act's application outside Great Britain under the order of 1989. I am afraid that many of the clauses I discussed today are not particularly intelligible to the layman as they extend other parts of Acts. However, I am certain I have dealt with that concern of the noble Lord. The Health and Safety at Work Act covers most of the operations offshore and in this goal setting formula, it is appropriate that this legislation is brought about for the review of the regulations.
The noble Lord paid tribute to the work of Lord Cullen. When the Cullen Report was published the Government also paid tribute to that report. Having read the recommendations and parts of the report, I consider it is an outstanding piece of work.
I have commented on the inspectors and their operations and the number of inspectors that we are recruiting. However, I am sure that we shall need to return to any detailed points in Committee. We shall also need to return to the matters that caused concern to the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, on the involvement of people in the operation of the Act.
I must re-emphasise the importance the Government place on improving offshore safety in the aftermath of the Piper Alpha disaster. We have already seen considerable improvements in safety provision and attitudes to safety, not least in the

677
acceptance of the fact that responsibility for safety is in the hands of everyone concerned: employers, operators and the workforce. My noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy has long experience of this industry. He emphasised the important part that suppliers to the industry and those contracted to work in it can play in safety matters. We have a considerable task ahead of us to put in place the new legislation that will underpin safety offshore. This Bill, albeit a technical one, is an essential step forward. It needs to be enacted as soon as possible so there is no unnecessary delay in developing new safety standards offshore.
I look forward to further constructive debate in the next stages of the Bill's progress. I commend the Bill to the House.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, before the noble Viscount sits down perhaps I may ask him this question. How does he reconcile his very welcome statement that more inspectors are to be recruited and that they are to receive salaries commensurate with their responsibilities with the sentence in the paragraph setting out the financial and manpower effects of the Bill that:
"There will be no increase in public expenditure or manpower in consequence of the Bill"?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, it is my understanding that the duties of the HSE already include the duties of the inspectors offshore. That responsibility has already been transferred from the Department of Energy to the Department of Employment. I indicated in my opening remarks that further resources will be made available in the future to the HSE in order to increase the number of inspectors. Therefore, the implication of this technical Bill, which is required to put everything in place, does not increase the financial burden.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Magistrates' Courts (Remands in Custody) Order 1991
4.51 p.m.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th July be approved [26th Report from the Joint Committee Session 1990–91].
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this order gives effect in all petty sessions areas in England and Wales to Section 128a of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 which enables magistrates' courts to remand defendants in custody for up to 28 days. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th July be approved [26th Report from the Joint Committee Session 1990–91].—(Viscount Astor.)
Lord Richard: My Lords, I knew that the noble Viscount was going to be brief but that was almost invisible. I have only two points to make regarding the order, which we do not oppose from this side of the House. The Minister will know that anxiety has been expressed that as a result of the order prisoners will spend longer periods of time in custody. The order
678
extends to the whole of the United Kingdom the provision which has been applicable in four experimental areas that magistrates' courts should be able to remand prisoners for up to 28 days. In particular, I understand that the Prison Reform Trust has expressed its anxieties to the Government quite forcefully.
Will the Government give an undertaking to monitor the impact of the order on the number of prisoners being remanded in custody and also the length of time for which prisoners remain on remand prior to being brought to trial? As I said, anxiety is being expressed by reputable organisations. I hope that the Government will at least give the undertaking I have requested.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Richard, is right to say that anxieties have been raised about people spending longer on remand. The main fears were that defendants would spend longer in prison and that opportunities for bail would decrease.
It was made clear to Parliament that the Government would not extend the arrangements nationwide if the experiment showed the fears to be justified. However, the results of the evaluation of the trials published earlier this year in Home Office Research and Planning Unit Paper 62 showed that the anxieties expressed in the debate on the 1988 Act have not been realised. There was on average no increase in the length of time spent in custody nor in the proportion of cases in which bail was refused after an initial remand in custody.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Scottish Regiments: Reorganisation
4.54 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what is their provisional timetable for the future reorganisation of the Scottish regiments.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
I suggest that we can all rejoice over the changes which have taken place in the former Soviet Union and in Eastern Europe. The Cold War has ended and reductions in the burden of armaments can be undertaken safely. I welcome in particular the decisions taken at the end of last week at the NATO summit meeting on the reduction of nuclear weapons.
Today I propose to raise one element of the British Government's proposals for the Army and in particular within the infantry, namely the future of the Scottish regiments. It is a subject of limited scope suitable for a debate of this kind.
I remind your Lordships that it is proposed that four regiments carry out two amalgamations—one Highland and one Lowland—and that the 2nd Battalion of the Scots Guards be placed in suspended animation. When amalgamations occur, in England as well as in Scotland, there are bound to be objections and anxiety in the recruiting areas of the regiments concerned. That is to be expected and is understandable. As regards the Scottish regiments I have to tell the House that reaction against the proposed

679
amalgamations comes from the whole of Scotland. The Government have been left in no doubt about the streng1h of feeling. Many signatures have been placed on a petition and numerous representations been made to Ministers. The main reasons for the objections are that the Scottish regiments have excellent recruiting and that despite this it seems that Scotland is to suffer a disproportionate reduction.
Today I hope to explore the Government's timetable. It appears that about three years will elapse before the two Scottish regimental amalgamations will be undertaken. I noted what my noble friend Lord Arran said in the debate on the Address on 4th November. At column 134 of Hansard he said that the amalgamations of the Scottish regiments will be implemented over the next three to four years.
"Of course if, over that period, we find that we have taken on a large number of commitments … which the Army at its then site cannot meet, we shall clearly have to look again at the decisions that have been taken".
That seems to be a realistic and sensible attitude, as I would expect. I hope that during the period mentioned the Government will bear in mind the considerations which I am about to put forward. I urge them to maintain a continuing assessment of commitments and defence requirements as world events unfold during the next three years.
On Tuesday, the day before yesterday, a Written Answer was published in the other place. In that reply 1994 was confirmed as the year in which the Government propose that the two Scottish amalgamations should take place.
There are informed views, which must be respected, that the proposed reductions will severely overstretch the Army, especially the infantry, in carrying out our present commitments, requiring as they do tours abroad and in Northern Ireland. I refer to the speech of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, on 16th October, and also the letter in The Times of 18th October from General Sir Martin Farndale. Both have recently held key defence appointments, one as Chief of the Defence Staff and the other as Commander in Chief in Germany. They doubt whether an Army of 116,000, of which 12,000 men will always be in training, can effectively meet our commitments. I shall not expand now on their warnings.
Comparisons with EC partners of similar size are misleading. We should not try to compete with Germany or France in reductions. Britain is much more likely to have to contribute forces to deal with breaches of the peace or brushfire situations in different parts of the world because of our role in the past. Germany is in any case limited in military action to Europe by a section of the basic law upon which we in the United Kingdom insisted in 1950 when we were anxious to curb military aspirations in the new Germany. I believe that that is now to be changed. Nonetheless, Germany has been, and will be, preoccupied with defence in Europe. The same applies to the other European countries, although I hope that they will contribute increasingly to United Nations forces when they are required.
I must declare interests in speaking on the Scottish regiments. My home is in the regimental home of the Queen's Own Highlanders and one of my sons is in
680
that regiment. He was put down for it at the age of 10—not unusual in Scotland—and joined 12 years later, after Oxford, nearly 20 years ago. I was not myself in one of those infantry regiments, being a gunner. That means that I can speak about them all without being partisan.
Having started in the Army just before World War II, I served for most of it in a Scottish division and for three years commanded a Scottish field battery. In that capacity I worked for weeks at a time with individual battalions from all the regiments under discussion today. My operational place as a battery commander was with a battalion—usually the leading company—often on foot, with the small forward gunner teams carrying radios to control my guns and others some distance behind. At different times I was in various actions during the war with Seaforth and Camerons—now the Queen's Own Highlanders—Gordons, Royal Scots and King's Own Scottish Borders.
Also in the division was a battalion of Scots Guards in Churchill tanks. Later, when it was decided to take that tank brigade out of the division it continued to be assigned to operate with our division. More than once, I have gone into action with the Scots Guards in a tank provided by the squadron commanded by my noble friend Lord Cathcart, again with my vital radio sets with me. My noble friend the Duke of Norfolk intends to speak in the debate. His brother, Lord Michael, also a general, was in the Scots Guards and was for a time in that tank battalion that I have mentioned. I presume that my noble friend will address the subject of the Guards and I can confidently leave that to him.
The Scots Guards are not to lose their name and identity. That is the most painful part of the amalgamations for the other regiments. Let us consider the Royal Scots. They are the first regiment of foot in the whole British Army. South of the Border, where third battalions of English regiments are to be disbanded, the pain is not nearly so acute because the name and the identity are not now affected.
Noble Lords will see that by chance I have been very close to all the Scottish regiments now affected, in action in war. Such is the ubiquitous role of the gunner, that I have also been in similar situations with non-Scottish battalions.
British infantry excel in their adaptability, tact and skill in dealing with local people in areas of tension, as well as with terrorism and difficult communal disturbances. That has been proved over the past 40 years since World War II in different parts of the world. Another outstanding quality is the infantry's dependability in extreme adversity. What is it that keeps groups of ordinary men—not a carefully picked elite—hanging on and fighting back, although exhausted and crippled by casualties, running out of ammunition and supplies, knowing that plans have gone wrong because of enemy successes, outnumbered and surrounded, continuously shelled in atrocious conditions of cold or mud and with no sign of relief? It is the resolve that their regiment will not falter or fail

681
in its allotted tasks. The Scottish regiments have exemplified the qualities required by infantry in extreme conditions of strain and duress.
What has surprised informed observers about the Government's proposals is that little notice appears to have been taken of recruiting and retention. The Scottish regiments have good recent records of recruiting and the soldiers stay in the Army on average for longer—a factor in cost-effectiveness. The highest rate of recruiting per eligible head of population in regimental areas has been achieved by the Queen's Own Highlanders. They are now faced with another amalgamation. The last one was only 30 years ago from two famous regiments—the Seaforth and Camerons. Their regimental area is the size of the whole of Wales and about half of that again will be added by the Gordons' area.
The recruiting situation appears to have been reflected in Operation Granby in the Gulf war. First, I remind the House that the Royal Scots were engaged in the fighting that took place on land and received several awards for gallantry. Mercifully, the casualties in that war were much fewer than we could have expected. However, it will be remembered that nine casualties were reported in the battalion of Royal Fusiliers as a result of friendly fire. A little later we discovered that three of the dead were in fact Queen's Own Highlanders, young men whose homes were near mine in northern Scotland. Virtually the whole battalion of Queen's Own Highlanders was deployed in the Gulf from Germany, not as a unit but in packets, in order to bring other units, including the Royal Fusiliers, up to establishment. We would not have known they were there if there had not been those casualties.
I am reminded of another debate on Scottish regiments in which I took part. That was in another place in July 1968. I wound up that debate as an Opposition Front-Bench spokesman on defence. The Argylls and the Scots Greys were at that time destined for disbandment and the 2nd Battalion Scots Guards again destined for disappearance. Two years later, we came into office and I moved from the Shadow Cabinet to the Cabinet. The Argylls' disbandment parade, which had been fixed for a certain date, was cancelled. They and the other regiments in the same slice were reduced to company and squadron strength while we looked into defence requirements. A year later it was possible to restore the position because it was found that more infantry were needed. All the regiments affected in that slice—not just the Argylls—received equal treatment. The three Scottish regiments—the subject of that debate—were all reprieved, the Greys preferring the option of amalgamation with the Carabiniers. Of course, the situation is different today. Nonetheless, I hope that the result of that debate may now augur well for the future.
In a remarkable and unique way, the Scottish regiments have historically helped to unite both Scotland and the United Kingdom. The last battle on British soil was fought at Culloden, four miles from my home. A Colonel Wolfe, on the Hanoverian side,
682
was the general who later won the battle of Quebec. In doing so, he was assisted by the newly formed Highlanders who stormed the Heights of Abraham. A great deal had changed during the intervening 13 years. There are other examples which I shall not go into now.
I do not need to tell my noble friend Lord Arran that there has been dismay in Scotland since July, not least among supporters of the Government. However, they realise that they are unlikely to fare any better with the alternative government. Prominent members of the Labour Party urge greater reductions, and the period from 1967 to 1970, to which I referred, is still remembered. The Scottish National Party is primarily concerned with Scotland and some of the public may look in that direction.
However, I remind noble Lords that at the annual conference of the SNP in 1967 a Motion deploring disbandment of Scottish regiments was defeated by a huge majority. Reasons given by speakers in the debate and reported in the press on the following day were that the regiments had been formed by London governments to hold down the Scots and to build the British Empire. That has been the SNP's traditional and fundamentalist attitude to such matters, but it is totally unrepresentative of Scottish opinion.
In a recent Written Answer the framework of a programme is set out. When my noble friend replies perhaps he will fill in more particulars with regard to the Scottish regiments. Is it intended that the regiments to be amalgamated should be stationed in Britain at the time—that means not in Northern Ireland? Is that proposal in the programme? Is it also planned that the Royal Scots and the KOSB go to Hong Kong in the meantime? Will they be amalgamated in Hong Kong or will they return home before that occurs?
The Government tell us that they will be assessing commitments during the next three years. I hope that if more infantry are required they will not try to convert gunners or sappers. I speak as a gunner. Of course gunners have to be able to act as infantry. The small forward teams of gunners always had to be well trained in small arms to join with the infantry in war in situations where everyone was needed—for example, to repel a counter-attack. I was wounded in such a situation when engaged in infantry fighting. It would be a false economy, however, to try to make gunners and infantry interchangeable. The infantry soldier is an all-rounder, but his training is not as simple now as it used to be. The Royal Artillery is being equipped with very effective new weapons. That is good news. However, special training is needed. The reduced ranks of the gunners will be required to meet the tasks presented by adequately manning their technological hardware.
If while carrying out their continuing assessment the Government find that they need more infantry, I urge them to remember the contribution which the Scottish regiments make and to recognise that they are parting with an asset, which may be intangible, but is of immense value to the country.
5.12 p.m.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, it seems to me that the Scottish regiments are to be cut due to the dictates of the Treasury against the advice of the Army. When one considers that the Army has developed with a specific purpose in mind—the efficient conduct of war—that is worrying, to say the least. In a full scale defence review, we must start by analysing the changing threat, consider Britain's obligations and responsibilities, and finally make a financial judgment about the resources needed to meet them. The latter must be the last step, not the first as this Government seem to believe.
On these Benches we wish to see a peace dividend, but not at the expense of crippling the Army. At preset there is increasingly clear evidence that a reduction in numbers to a fighting force of 116,000 will not enable us to meet our present and prospective obligations. If the Government wish to save money they should consider scrapping the tactical air-to-surface missile programme which, even before construction, is obsolete in purpose due to the changes in Eastern Europe.
On my calculations the projected production costs of £3 billion at the higher end could feasibly release enough money to pay for 20 infantry battalions for 10 years. If infantry battalions are to be cut, it should be the weaker regiments that are cut—those which find it difficult to recruit and have few links with the local community. However, the Scottish regiments are among the best in those respects. They have contributed much to the strength of the Army in the past. That is why my party has been able to give a commitment to save the Gordon Highlanders.
With regard to the peace dividend, one can collect the dividend only if one has peace. As has been demonstrated in the past few years during which the British Army has gone to war twice, we live in uncertain times, especially with regard to the changing situation in Europe. To change the existing Army into a more technically-based army could prove in the long term to be more expensive than keeping an infantry-based army.
I admit to a personal interest in the Army, having recently been commissioned at Sandhurst. I was commissioned into REME which is a corps and not a regiment. In tactics lectures at Sandhurst we learned that the Army relies heavily on flexibility to meet its commitments. The financial constraints imposed on the Army will in the future apply a straitjacket on its ability to act freely. An article in the Daily Telegraph today referred to the situation at Sandhurst. The situation has become desperate. It has run out of blank ammunition. Wooden rattles have to be used to simulate machine-gun fire. During our infantry attack—it was farcical—we undertook flowing movement attacks, yet we used heavy machine-guns with links joining the bullets together. Having fired the machine-guns, we had to stop to pick up the links because none was available. If we required to fire the guns again we had to use those same links.
Financial restraints on a larger scale will force our hand. When one considers our future and perhaps growing commitments they will make it difficult for us
684
to act. The growing pressure can be seen in Northern Ireland. As the situation becomes more unstable the natural reaction will be to send more troops. That will put manpower constraints on other areas. We have instability in Eastern Europe, and in Yugoslavia. The proposed peace-keeping forces will need manpower from somewhere.
It is difficult to understand the financial cuts when one considers that the reappraisal of our position in Europe has not been fully justified politically. We are still negotiating with our political allies. We must re-evaluate the Army's position after such negotiation.
I wish to digress a little from the subject of the Scottish regiments. If the Army is to be cut—and the cuts in the Scottish regiments are but one aspect—there will be a growing commitment for the Territorial Army to be used. I should like the role of the Territorial Army to be fully explained. If the Army is forced into another Gulf situation, the Territorial Army might have to be used. At present the Territorial Army is suffering financial constraints. It is allowed to train only 35 days a year. The level of experience might make members unsuitable for the task.
When cuts in the Territorial Army are proposed, I should like the Government to consider the workings of the Queen's Order. The Queen's Order is the method by which the Territorial Army is called up. If that army is to be used, much groundwork needs to be done with regard to protection of the jobs of members of the Territorial Army and recompense for their employers.
The timetable for the cuts in the Scottish regiments has not been totally expressed. I hope that our future commitments will be fully evaluated before the regiments are cut and it is then found that there are not enough troops to carry out the tasks we hope to perform.
5.20 p.m.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, on 16th October in the debate on the defence estimates I spoke at some length on the defence cuts in general and the incidence of these on the Scottish regiments in particular. I declare an interest in so far as I live in the recruiting area of the Gordon Highlanders and members of my family have served in that fine regiment.
I shall not repeat what I said then, with one exception. It was made plain when cuts in the Army were considered that those regiments with a good recruiting record and low wastage would be retained in preference to those which had difficulty in maintaining their strength. Why then have four Scottish regiments to which both those criteria apply been selected to be halved instead of others which have difficulty recruiting and where wastage is high, some of which have one battalion? That does not make economic sense for wastage is very expensive. The noble Earl did not really answer that question on 16th October so I am asking it again.
What I want to ask the Government this evening is to initiate immediately a thorough review of the defence of this country and of our military

685
commitments worldwide or to give an assurance that the Select Committee on Defence in another place, sitting now, will do just that, so that as the world situation changes there will be a realistic basis on which future requirements may be assessed.
The prospect of the amalgamations of the King's Own Scottish Borderers with the Royal Scots and the Gordon Highlanders with the Queen's Own and of the so-called suspension of the 2nd Battalion of the Scots Guards is affecting the morale of those regiments. Uncertainty about their future careers will most adversely affect the older men, NCOs and Officers for whom service in the Army is their chosen career and not just a short-term job or a stepping stone to another career. Inevitably they will be looking to safeguard their future and that of their families and cannot afford to let slip any opportunity of starting a new career which may present itself between now and 1993 or 1994.
Apart from that, planning for the suspension or amalgamations will have to start no later than next year. If as a result of a defence review it were to become apparent that the proposed suspension and amalgamations should not go ahead, it could well be difficult or impossible to return to the status quo if a number of the more senior and experienced personnel had already left or arranged to do so. That has happened before and could happen again. Therefore, a thorough review of our defence requirement is of considerable urgency.
5.23 p.m.
The Duke of Norfolk: My Lords, I wish to thank my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy for tabling this Unstarred Question on the future programme for Scottish regiments including the Scots Guards. I wish to deal with the proposed plan for reorganising so many infantry regiments. I understand that there has been no in-depth analysis of the Army's ability to carry out its proposed commitment. The Government are shamefully advocating cuts in its strength which will leave it 10,000 men below the requirement.
I turn, first, to the Household Division. It is proposed to put the 2nd Battalion Grenadier Guards—my own regiment—2nd Battalion Coldstream Guards and 2nd Battalion Scots Guards into suspended animation. It is a well-known and incontrovertible fact that in the Brigade of Guards we must always balance our London duties with our full share of the operational role, whether overseas in the Rhine Army or elsewhere. Our battle honours added to our Colours in World War II bear witness to our pride in being rated eminent among other brother infantry battalions. We must never allow the pomp and circumstance image of our activities in London District to predominate.
It is universally agreed that the Household Division provides the finest pageantry in the world. A recent London Tourist Board report estimates that we contribute between £500 million and £1 billion to tourist revenue per annum. At present we are squeezed to carry out these functions with eight battalions. It would be utterly impossible for us to be reduced to five
686
by placing the three 2nd battalions in suspended animation. We would then have only two battalions overseas and attempt to perform London duties with the three remaining battalions. We would have to discontinue the Tower Guard, which 2 million tourists visit each year. The Queen's Birthday Parade would have to be reduced by 400 guardsmen, which of course would make it a much less glamorous spectacle. I understand that the Household Brigade arms plot might mean that a battalion would serve more than eight years in London District. That is totally unacceptable and wholly undesirable. I have commanded a battalion in London District and know that one year, two at the most, is enough.
I now turn to the Household Cavalry. Your Lordships may have read the letter written by the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, to The Times earlier this summer. It set out clearly the present neat and tight balance in the strengths of the three regiments of the Household Cavalry. The Life Guards are an armoured regiment in Rhine Army. The Blues and Royals are an armoured reconnaissance regiment at Combermere Barracks in Windsor. It is found that 40 per cent. of the troopers joining those two regiments can be persuaded to volunteer to join the mounted regiment in London. One cannot order people to ride horses. If one does they merely mount the horse on one side and fall off the other. It must be a desire that they wish to have kindled by the regiment.
The mounted regiment in London consists of a squadron of the Life Guards and a squadron of the Blues and Royals. The Ministry of Defence proposes to form a union of the two Household Cavalry regiments, making four squadrons; that is, two from each regiment. That would make it impossible to maintain the mounted regiment at present strength and efficiency. The best plan would be to keep the present two Household Cavalry regiments, one in Germany and the other at Windsor, and make both armoured reconnaissance regiments so that they could interchange between the overseas posting and Windsor. That would grant the wish of the Ministry of Defence to have one further armoured reconnaissance regiment.
After much thought and consultation with many officers, some very senior, I offer the following possible solutions to the Government. Naturally I have an enduring admiration for the Royal Air Force. During World War II I was often supported by tactical air forces, by fighter commands and even bomber commands at Caen. How right we are to bring forward the provision of European fighter aircraft to enhance its present capacity. However, I cannot see how three battalions of the RAF Regiment can be justified in the present climate. They were only created in the last war and their present function can surely be carried out by normal infantry battalions.
Secondly, I challenge the wisdom of retaining two Gurkha battalions in the United Kingdom order of battle. I fought alongside the Gurkhas of the 8th Indian Division when I was in 4th Armoured Brigade at the crossing of the River Sangro in Italy. I am full of admiration for their bravery. As your Lordships

687
know, by night they are particularly fearsome. However, the Gurkhas cannot be employed in Northern Ireland, nor were they used in the recent Gulf war. After 1997 there will be no place for the Gurkhas in Hong Kong. We should cease employing Gurkhas as part of the British Army. But let us offer to help the Gurkha battalion with the Sultan of Brunei, which I have seen when I have been there on banking tours, and those in the Kingdom of Nepal. We can offer training assistance and courses in England and perhaps we can send out an infantry battalion or smaller unit to train in Nepal. We should keep our long historical liaison with the Gurkhas and the Kingdom of Nepal. However, I see no place for them in the order of battle after we have given up Hong Kong.
Thirdly, I cannot think it wise to keep as many as three battalions of the Parachute Regiment. It may be that two would now suffice. Finally, as a suggestion, I wonder whether we need as many as three commando battalions of the Royal Marines.
I note that the timetable published last Tuesday does lot begin seriously until mid-1992 so there is time for the Secretary of State to digest those simple and self-evident enduring truths and amend his programme. When the noble Earl replies I hope that he will bear in mind that there is considerable disquiet on this subject among these normally loyal Back Benchers.
5.33 p.m.
Viscount Allenby of Megiddo: My Lords, although I am not a Scotsman and I only received part of my education in Scotland, I have a certain deal of sympathy with the Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, as many Scottish battalions served under my great uncle in the First World War. I had the honour of serving for two years with the Gordons in Malaya some 20 years ago.
As the amalgamation of the Queen's Own Highlanders with the Gordon Highlanders and the Royal Scots with the King's Own Scottish Borderers is now planned for 1994, there is a distinct feeling within the Army that it may never happen. That is so for two reasons: first, there could be a change of government and with that, a change of heart; secondly, as the tail end of the reduction is reached the Government, despite being told often enough, will find that there are not enough infantry battalions to meet all the commitments which currently exist.
I found it distressing to read in the Sunday Times on 10th November that the Government plan to buy a sub-strategic nuclear missile called TASM at a cost of more than £2.5 billion. The report, if correct, goes on to state that it is not clear just who Britain plans to attack with such a nuclear weapon and under what circumstances. I find that particularly galling when one knows all too well that for a lesser sum of money we could preserve regular Scottish infantry battalions which carry out an excellent job. We need to preserve them.
This evening, I wish to restrict my comments to the Territorial Army in Scotland. The effects of the options for change as regards the Territorial Army are
688
still under discussion and the final decisions have yet to be made. Unlike the regular Army, where both jobs and housing are the principal anxieties during the rundown, in the Territorial Army if a battalion or company is to disband, the volunteer quickly loses interest and the cohesion of the unit is lost.
In Scotland the TA reorganisation appears both logical and rational. However, the loss of some 1,200 posts in Edinburgh and Glasgow, including the 15th Parachute Battalion, except for one element appears particularly harsh. I wonder whether the Minister is prepared to assure the House that when a decision is finally agreed, the implementation will follow quickly and will not be delayed due to lack of funds or further indecision, otherwise volunteers will leave and not return.
Generally, TA battalions in Scotland are to be reduced from four or five companies to three companies and a headquarter company. It is most disturbing to learn that 21 per cent. of the new establishment is to he made up of regular reservists. If the battalion is not up to strength, that percentage will increase.
The problem which will face commanding officers in the future is how they will get the regular reservists in to train other than on the one mandatory day per year when they must have their kit checked and their fitness assessed by the medical officer. That is all part of the mechanism of the calling in and training of reserves. No commanding officer can expect to train his soldiers efficiently unless a high proportion of his TA soldiers come in. I hope very much that the number of regular reservists will be much reduced in TA battalions and that the current study being undertaken will be acted upon. If, as I believe, the law must be changed then I hope that parliamentary time will be made available for that to happen.
I must express anxiety also about the new infantry TA battalions in Scotland. There is a belief that those battalions committed to the RRC and general reserve will not receive the support weapons—both milan and mortars—with which they need to train in order to carry out their role effectively. I very much hope that the battalions will receive the equipment which they need to train and they will not have to resort to flags and rattles or—should I say? —pikes, staves and bagpipes.
If Britain is to continue to play a leading role in NATO and to be the backbone of the RRC, its strength must be credible and its forces properly equipped. The servicemen from Scotland are the best quality men and women which we have anywhere in Britain. They are the bravest and most dedicated and the best recruited. They are our security and deserve our strongest support either as regulars, reservists or volunteers while they are in uniform and serving the nation.
5.39 p.m.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy on his magnificent speech. He has had considerable experience of the Armed Forces. I have not had very great experience. I went into the Army because when

689
I was at Oxford my father, quite rightly, thought that I would spend most of my time hunting. Therefore, I was shipped off—I am not sure if that is the right word—to the Black Watch depot where I was extremely fortunate. I must say that I greatly enjoyed myself at the depot and did all the necessary things that one had to do there.
I then found myself in not such a pleasant place, the St. Mary Hill barracks in Glasgow. It must have been one of the oldest and worst barracks in the British Army; it has now been pulled down. However, I enjoyed that experience.
I was in the Black Watch. Though the Black Watch is the senior Highland regiment, much of its recruitment in those days came from the factories and especially from the jute mills in Dundee. The Jocks were small men. They were not like the Highlanders. A lot of our NCOs were tall but the Jocks were small; but by heavens they were tough. The Germans in the First World War used to call the Highlanders, "The women from Hell". However, it would be right to call the Black Watch Jocks, with whom I was fortunate enough to serve, "The women from Hell". The reason for that name was of course because they wore kilts.
It is appalling that the Secretary of State decreed on 1st July—although I hope that it will not be carried out—that four regiments of the Highland Brigade are to be amalgamated. It is terrible that the Queen's Own Highlanders are to be amalgamated. The Seaforth Highlanders were amalgamated, I believe, in 1960, so it has happened before. I hope it does not happen again.
The Highlanders have always had fame in the British Army as being tremendous soldiers. They have probably fought in more wars than there are letters in the alphabet. However, I hope that the Secretary of State will change his mind and will not carry forward the amalgamations.
In this time of high unemployment it is foolish of the Government to allow the Secretary of State for Defence to amalgamate the regiments. It will mean throwing people onto the labour market and will cause a great deal of unemployment. As noble Lords are aware, at this time we are not popular in Scotland in that regard. Unemployment is hard on many Jocks in Scotland, especially in the north where it is not easy to find work. I can only say that I hope that that will not come to pass.
I have not told your Lordships much about the Army. As I was always a junior officer I have not had tremendous experience in the Army. I have had experience in other spheres but my experience in the Army was only for three or four years. I hope that I have not detained your Lordships for too long.
5.46 p.m.
Lord Wedgwood: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy for giving me the opportunity to speak on this subject today. As a past regular soldier in the Royal Scots, I can declare an interest.
Along with a growing multitude of people I am convinced that by the summer of 1994 the inequities to
690
Scotland on the proposed amalgamations will be corrected. The recent request from the King's Regiment, (which belongs to the unscathed King's Division) for support from the Scottish Division during its next tour in Northern Ireland is a strong signal that we need more Scottish soldiers, not less.
Yesterday I attended the defence Select Committee in another place and heard that there are options in the Options for Change. Proposed amalgamations are geared over a period of several years so corrections and changes can be made. In view of the request from the King's Regiment, perhaps corrections should be implemented soon.
Yesterday, in the same committee in another place I heard that the strategy for proposed amalgamations was based on recruiting. I must ask how that is justified for the Scottish Division—maybe it is a special case. The subject of recruiting has been well addressed in the debate. However, I must add another aspect—the potential. It is thought that one of the criteria for recruitment was population. Are we aware that more Scotsmen per capita take the Queen's shilling than in any other area of the country? Surely we should give Scotland better treatment, not worse.
The training of our future officers will be as important as ever, and more so in an Army that requires greater flexibility. A good yardstick of the quality and professionalism of a regiment is often geared by the amount of staff representation at the Royal Military Academy, Sandhurst. The Scottish Division is better represented in all areas of training except perhaps one—drill—where we defer to the experts, including in my case the poor soul who was responsible for my performance at Sandhurst. He was of course a Scots Guardsman.
Sadly, the effects of these uninitiated proposals are already taking their toll. Our future military leaders are indicating by open choice, as they always have, that they are going for regiments with a certain future. I heard it rumoured that the Secretary of State for Defence considers that the Army in Scotland will be greater following the amalgamations than before. His argument about labelling various artillery regiments as Scottish cuts no ice. Gunners join the Royal Regiment of Artillery not the Scottish artillery, and the level of their representation will remain the same as before. Regiments of the Royal Armoured Corps, the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards (which is half Welsh) and the 4th Regiment of the Royal Tank Regiment, add nothing to this particular equation.
It was recently reported in the press as an argument for the inequities of the proposed amalgamations, that anyway the Scottish regiments have been amalgamated umpteen times in the past. In over 350 years of loyal service, the Royal Scots have never been amalgamated or merged or whatever and neither have the King's Own Scottish Borderers. This arranged marriage was uncalled for and unwarranted. I was appalled to learn that these fine and well-recruited regiments were never even consulted about the proposals.
I will say again in this House that the officers and soldiers of these great regiments have agreed under loyal oath not to express their views publicly, but in private they feel immense betrayal. It is time for the

691
Secretary of State for Defence to admit that the Scottish Division is a special case and before any more damage is done he should exercise his options in Options for Change. As my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy mentioned earlier, it is worth remembering that in these unstable and potentially dangerous times, Scottish regiments have in the past helped save the Union. If the by-election in Kincardine and Deeside last week is any indication, these great regiments may be required again.
5.52 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I am sure that the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, for putting down this Unstarred Question. The turnout on a Thursday at this time is an indication of just how strong feelings are on this subject. Personally, I have no intention of becoming an amateur strategist in company such as we have here tonight. There are many experts present. From the speech that I have heard and from my knowledge of him, I do not believe that anyone has any greater knowledge than the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, who raised the subject.
However, no one could be anything but anxious at the very great uncertainties that the Government have managed to create in dealing with the Scottish part of the defence review. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, and others, referred to the reply given the other evening by Mr. Archie Hamilton, the Minister of State for the Armed Forces. For the first time an absolute indication was given of how the regiments would amalgamate, which regiments would cease to exist or be put in abeyance. We discovered that it will be 1994 before positive action will be taken concerning the Scottish regiments. However, I hope that the army is sufficiently concerned for its men that there will be much planning taking place concerning what may happen about family housing for those soldiers who may be made redundant and that some training will be available to help them in to civilian jobs.
Mr. Hamilton puts the Scottish changes into 1994. I can hardly believe that responsible Ministers did not know the date and were unable to be privy to the thinking of the Ministry of Defence. They prevaricated and spoke with many voices which caused quite unnecessary confusion. The Secretary of State for Scotland, Mr. Ian Lang, and the previous Secretary of State for Scotland, Mr. Malcolm Rifkind, who is now the Secretary of State for Transport, clearly suggested—and this is the difficulty—that the plan for a merger between two of the Scottish regiments would be positively reviewed. That was strongly implied in The Times of 2nd November. They were the two regiments which were mentioned in the Kincardine and Deeside by-election.
Mr. Hamilton, the Minister of State at the Ministry of Defence, said that "a lot could change" between now and the planned mergers of 1993–94. That was said in the run-up to the by-election in Kincardine and Deeside. Noble Lords may be aware that we were to have a candidate there whose slogan was to be "Save the Gordons". Somehow or other it appeared that
692
some tacit understanding was reached with the group of people who were intending to put up such a candidate which persuaded them to think again.
As the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, said, a very large petition containing 800,000 signatures was presented to another place on 16th October. In a debate in your Lordships' House the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, said that the Scottish regiments felt betrayed. The noble Lord, Lord Wedgwood, said that there was a feeling of betrayal in some of the Scottish regiments. In our debate, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, said that the Treasury was at the bottom of the changes which were finance-led rather than defence-led.
Rather unusually, I wish to put up a plea for the Secretary of State for Defence whom I knew very well in the other place. He is one of the most conscientious Members. I disagreed with him on very many things. I sat with him on committees for very long periods. I believe that he is perfectly clear in his own mind that he examined the matter very fully and that he did the best he could with the decisions that he had to make. If one returns to what he said at the Conservative Party Conference, one will get an idea of the quality of the man. For all my disagreement with him, I believe that he is a man of great courage, strength of character and with a strong sense of duty.
A lobby at the Conservative Conference, led by Lieutenant General John MacMillan, who is the most senior recently retired general officer commanding Scotland, protested at the plans which would lead to the demise of some of Scotland's most famous regiments. I am referring to the Guardian of 11th October. That states:
"Mr. King argued that change had to come. Britain could not go on as before, when there were now two million fewer people facing us as adversaries in the Warsaw Pact. He sought to reassure by pointing out that Britain's reduction of 21 per cent. were less than those of several of our allies".
Mr. King said:
"What people want to know is where they stand. That's why we haven't ducked it;"—
I would not expect Tom King to do that—
"that is why we didn't pretend it wouldn't happen. Of course, I know it's politically inconvenient to face up to it now, but we have put our duty to our servicemen first".
I believe that to be a perfectly reasonable and understanding attitude on the part of the Minister of Defence. He works out with his experts what he believes must be done. Whether the issue is Treasury-led or by common sense and the fact that the world has changed is less important. The fact is that the Minister made a decision with all the knowledge that he had.
The noble Viscount, Lord Allenby of Megiddo, made a suggestion which I notice was also referred to obliquely in the Daily Telegraph of 23rd October. With this quotation I shall finish:
"Defence ministers have assured Scottish Tories—furious about the merger of famous Scottish regiments—that their outfits will not lose their cap badges until the summer of 1994. Then the Queen's Own Highlanders will link up with the Gordon Highlanders and the Royal Scots with the King's Own Scottish Borderers. The delay, of course, could allow the electorate some say in their fate".
And as the noble Viscount, Lord Allenby, has also suggested today:

693
"A Labour government might just reprieve them at the expense of the fourth Trident submarine or fewer Tornados.
Should Labour reverse the Scottish cuts, defence boffins believe it will serve the Tories right. 'The Government could not have timed the cuts worse', says one. 'The whole plan has been scuppered by their dithering over the election. All these announcements, you see, were supposed to take place after the election, in the early days of the new Tory government"'.
I am very pleased that someone of the calibre of Tom King, the Secretary of State, decided that it had to be done and that the election was an irrelevance.
6.1 p.m.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, your Lordships will be aware that the timetable for implementing changes in the Army's regimental structure, part of our programme for Defence in the 90s was announced in another place last Monday.
I shall attempt to address most of my remarks this evening to the situation on the Scottish regiments, as opposed to the whole defence debate in general, since think your Lordships will agree that we have debated the matter two or three times in the past two or three weeks. Although I shall attempt to pick up some of the questions which noble Lords have raised I shall make most of the points concerning Scottish regiments. The changes will be phased in gradually over a period of four years. As far as Scottish Infantry is concerned, it is planned that the amalgamation of both the Royal Scots and the King's Own Scottish Borderers and of the Gordons and the Queen's Own Highlanders, will take place in 1994. In the case of the Gordon Highlanders, this timing will allow the regiment's bicentenary to be celebrated before amalgamation with the Queens's Own Highlanders. In the Royal Armoured Corps, the 4th Royal Tank Regiment, recruited from Scotland, will amalgamate with the 1st Royal Tank Regiment in 1993.
It is important to view these changes in the wider context of the very far-reaching changes in Eastern Europe and the consequential effect upon the size of the future Armed Forces of the NATO and other allied nations—a point to which my noble friend Lord Campbell referred. Your Lordships will be well aware of events in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, which have led us and our NATO allies to restructure our Armed Forces. We are all agreed that we need to restructure in a prudent fashion: we still live in an uncertain world. The development of ideas on the future size and shape of the Army has therefore been approached with suitable caution and in consultation with our NATO allies. The alliance is in agreement that we need to maintain flexible and effective forces. But it is the consensus of the alliance that it would not be appropriate to maintain forces at present levels. All nations of the alliance understand the need to reduce the size of their forces. And once again I have to make it quite clear that our reductions were based on our strategic requirements, not —I repeat, not—for financial reasons. The reduction in the British Army will be considerable. Indeed it is of a magnitude which does not make it possible to meet the wishes of all those who are anxious about the future of particular regiments or other units.
Nevertheless, we have paid particular attention to
694
regimental anxieties—whether the regiments be Scottish, Irish, English or Welsh. I can assure you that our decisions have not been taken lightly, nor without heartache. They have been taken with care and consideration. No regiment wishes to lose its cherished identity and there is not a regiment in the British Army which would not provide a compelling case for its retention. That is part of the strength of our system. I am not blind to the fact that our decisions have been met with considerable disappointment, but unless we deny the need for any response to the events of the past three years, that was inevitable. Your Lordships will know that amalgamations are not new and that the regimental system has always evolved and never remained static. Change is as much part of the tradition as is continuity. New regiments arise; but if the will is there, they will preserve within them the identities, the loyalties and affiliations of the old.
I recognise the depth of feeling among those associated with the Scottish regiments and the degree of support they receive from the local community. These affiliations will be the backbone of the new regiments.
I must at this point be quite clear. Scotland has not been singled out to bear a disproportionate share of the reductions. Despite the understandable sadness, the fact is that the proportion of Scottish units in the Army as a whole will increase rather than decrease. Four of the other five Infantry Divisions will be reduced by a greater percentage than the Scottish Division. Although the Scottish infantry will represent broadly the same proportion of the infantry as a whole as they do now, the Royal Armoured Corps Scottish representation will increase. The Royal Scots Dragoon Guards remain unaffected and there will continue to be a Scottish presence in the amalgamated 1st and 4th Royal Tank Regiment. In much the same way none of the three Scottish artillery regiments will be affected. The 19 and 40 Field Regiments and the 16 Air Defence Regiment will continue as before. In short, Scottish units will provide a bigger share of armour and artillery—to dispute the point that my noble friend Lord Wedgwood has made.
Turning to the timetable in general, while the overall driving force behind it was an operational necessity, wherever possible we have tried to accommodate the wishes of regiments themselves. As I have already said, by amalgamating in 1994, the Gordons will be able to celebrate their bicentenary.
I should now like briefly to pick up some of the important points made by your Lordships this evening. I shall take first the Question asked by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy about when amalgamations will take place. Although it is not our policy to comment on future deployments of individual regiments, it is planned that both amalgamations will take place in the United Kingdom. As regards recruiting—which again my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy mentioned, as did the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun—the past and present recruitment patterns was just one of the many factors which the Army board considered in coming to their conclusions. The board also considered future

695
recruitment predictions, past amalgamations and the need to maintain appropriate regional representation across the country. These and many other factors relating to individual regiments had to be balanced by the board with the needs of the Army as a whole when coming to their decisions.
The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, asked about a defence review. We have carried out a comprehensive review of our commitments in the light of enormous changes in the European security situation. There is no need for further review. I can say from my visits to military establishments that I have detected a very clear determination among our servicemen and women to help ensure that the reductions in the Armed Forces are implemented quickly and successfully It is now important for the well-being of all servicemen and women that we do just that.
It is not helpful to regiments to attempt to prolong this debate. That only gives false hope and continuing uncertainty which could be very damaging to the welfare of those currently serving and to the future of the new regiments.
My noble friend the Duke of Norfolk was concerned about the Household Cavalry. The structure of the combined regiment will mean that the Household Cavalry mounted regiment will be made up, as it is now, of two sabre squadrons, one from each cap badge, plus a jointly manned headquarters squadron. The Household Cavalry reconnaissance regiment will be one of two regular reconnaissance regiments. It will consist of four reconnaissance squadrons, two of each cap badge, plus a jointly manned headquarters squadron.
Each of the present cavalry regiments will have three squadrons, two of which will be in armoured reconnaissance and one in a mounted role at any one time. A second regular reconnaissance regiment will be formed through the amalgamation of the 13th/18th Royal Hussars and the 15th/19th King's Royal Hussars. The regiment will act in support of the ARRC and he based in Germany, and the order of batty identical to the Household Cavalry reconnaissance regiment with which it will exchange roles and
696
station on arms plot moves. Two regiments will reduce from a total of eight sabre squadrons to six in line with reduced operational requirements. The corps TA reconnaissance regiment role is in support of the corps commander of the ARRC. It will consist of four reconnaissance squadrons and a headquarters squadron.
Several noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, and the noble Viscount, Lord Allenby, referred to the Territorial Army, which I know is an important subject in your Lordships' House. Since decisions have yet to he taken, as the noble Viscount, Lord Allenby, is perfectly aware, we are not in a position at this stage to comment specifically on its future role or on individual units. I can assure the House, however, that the essential role of the reserve forces will be maintained in our new force structure and consultations are going on at present with the TAVR associations. We hope to be able to make an announcement before the end of the year on the way ahead for the TA.
In drawing to a close, I must emphasise that the decisions we have taken are firm and final. We will need to reconsider our decisions only if there are major changes in future commitments which require additional long-term deployment. It would he misleading to those concerned if we were to suggest otherwise. In the years to come I am sure we will feel equal pride in the regiments which have risen from the old and which are the successors to traditions that will not be lost but will evolve. On many occasions the British Army has shown that it can adapt successfully to change and we have absolute confidence in its ability to make a grand success of the new structure.

London Underground (Safety Measures) Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons with amendments, the amendments were considered and agreed to.
House adjourned at twelve minutes past six o'clock.