Lords Sitting of 11 June 1997

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

Lord Steel of Aikwood
The Right Honourable Sir David Martin Scott Steel, KBE, having been created Baron Steel of Aikwood, of Ettrick Forest in the Scottish Borders, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Mackie of Benshie and the Lord Jenkins of Hillhead.

Lord Shore of Stepney
The Right Honourable Peter David Shore, having been created Baron Shore of Stepney, of Stepney in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos and the Lord Clinton-Davis.
Several Lords—Took the Oath or Affirmed.

"Britannia": Promotion of Exports
2.58 p.m.
Lord Ashbourne Lord Ashbourne asked Her Majesty's Government:
By how much British exports have increased as a result of sea days and export conferences held on board HMY "Britannia", since sailing from Portsmouth in January.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Gilbert): My Lords, since leaving Portsmouth on 20th January, Her Majesty's Yacht "Britannia" has visited 23 ports in 15 different countries. All but two of those visits have included significant commercial and diplomatic receptions. Regrettably, I am unable precisely to quantify the value of these events, but I can confirm that they have all been well attended and well received by representatives of industry in the ports of call. Contract signing ceremonies were held on board "Britannia" in India, Thailand and Japan.
Lord Ashbourne: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. Will he accept that I am a little disappointed that he was unable to quantify the exports which the Royal Yacht will have generated since sailing in January? Particularly observing that the President of the Board of Trade was on board the Royal Yacht in Tokyo within the last few days, so that she personally will have witnessed the Royal Yacht in action, one might say, I wonder whether the noble Lord could tell the House what are the Government's plans for a replacement for Her Majesty's Yacht "Britannia".
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, first of all, I pay tribute to the noble Lord for the persistence and eloquence with
882
which he has pursued this enthusiasm of his. Perhaps I may just explain that one of the difficulties about quantifying the benefits of "Britannia" or any other type of sales promotion is that very often the benefits accrue many months, if not years, after an event has taken place. That is why it is quite impractical to try to assess these matters.
So far as concerns a replacement for "Britannia", we have had four or five very interesting proposals. They are currently being studied by officials and will, I believe, be sent to Ministers before very long.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, would the Minister like to tell the House why there should be any problem about getting a replacement for the Royal Yacht "Britannia"? If the enormous success in commercial contracts claimed for "Britannia" is true, should not private industry be queuing up to pay for a new one? Can the noble Lord say whether the department is undertaking any research in order to discover why countries as diverse as Germany and Japan or the United States and Taiwan manage to have enormous commercial success without a royal yacht? If we could find the secret, would not it mean, by definition, that we should be world beaters every time?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I listened closely to the noble Lord and am still not sure whether or not he would like us to have a successor. However, there is no question but that "Britannia" has been enormously valuable to this country in export promotion terms and we all recognise that.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, does not the noble Lord agree that it is only right that the Government should provide a royal yacht for Her Majesty the Queen, quite apart from the commercial aspects? Is that not the most important point? Is it not something that generations of governments have done over the past 200 or 300 years? Surely this is not the right moment to stop.
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord recognises that it is not a question of Her Majesty's Government providing the yacht; it is a question of Her Majesty's taxpayers providing the yacht. We must assess the priorities of whether we would rather have a yacht with the high running costs of "Britannia" or her successor against other provisions in the public service.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that in Scotland we would be happy to have a royal yacht, provided it was built on the Clyde?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I am always open to commercials from my noble friend.
Lord Charteris of Amisfield: My Lords, I had the privilege of seeing "Britannia" operate with the Queen on board over many years. Does the Minister agree that I am right in my recollection that HMY "Britannia" was built under the socialist government of Mr. Attlee? Does he agree also that they were extremely sensible in doing that?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I am delighted to have the noble Lord's endorsement of all decisions taken by previous Labour Governments. I have no doubt that he will have no difficulty in endorsing those taken by this one.
Earl Howe: My Lords, despite what the Minister says about spending priorities, is he aware that there is a widely held feeling in the country at large that not only should there be a replacement for the current royal yacht, but that that replacement should be publicly funded in order best to be a focus for national pride and to uphold fully the dignity of the sovereign? Will the Government undertake to think again about this matter?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I am not at all sure that there is widespread public support for the proposition that a successor be publicly funded. That is why Her Majesty's Government are at the moment considering the many alternative options being put forward, none of which involves recourse to public funds.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, in dealing with the question of proper priorities, does my noble friend agree that the priority of this specific expenditure is more beneficial to the United Kingdom than the waste of money on the tobacco regime in Europe, which costs twice the amount per annum?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, my noble friend is tempting me along paths down which I would be tempted to follow him. But now is not the time nor the place.
Lord Elton: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the interest he attributed to my noble friend Lord Ashbourne is shared widely both in this House and outside it? It was stimulated in myself on a recent visit to Oslo to see the royal yacht of Norway—a country the population of which is less than that of London—riding proudly at anchor. Does the Minister realise what an enormous commercial and political benefit to this country a replacement would be?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, as I hope I made clear to your Lordships, there is no doubt about the value which "Britannia" has produced for the country over the past 40 or so years. The only question is whether there should be a successor, what form it should take and how it should be financed.

Unemployment and the Minimum Wage
3.5 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they anticipate that the numbers of unemployed will continue to decline, and, if so, what contribution to this decline will be made by the proposed minimum wage.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Clinton-Davis): My Lords, there are still far too many people without jobs and skills and
884
Her Majesty's Government are committed to tackling this blight on the lives of so many and getting young people and the long-term unemployed back to work. The national minimum wage will be introduced at a sensible level taking into account the economic circumstances of the time and with the advice of the independent Low Pay Commission. It will help by removing the worst excesses of low pay, by improving our competitiveness and encouraging companies to compete on quality rather than low wages.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Though I do not agree with the benefits of the proposal he enunciated, can he say when he expects the new low wage arrangement to be brought into force and when we shall hear what the minimum wage is to be?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, the chairman of the Low Pay Commission has been appointed—Professor Bain. We are hoping that it will be able to start work round about the summer. That work, after due diligence in ascertaining the facts, will be brought before Parliament in due course.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, does not the Minister agree that the sooner we can put these provisions into operation the better? It would give hundreds of thousands of women who are extremely poorly paid and on shamefully low wages a decent standard of living for once in their lives.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right. Too many people are suffering from excessively low pay. That is a blight on this nation's name.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, in his original Answer the noble Lord referred to skills training being required. Does he agree that at this stage in the economic recovery we are extremely short of skills, particularly in the area of high technology? Many firms are now having to recruit abroad. What urgent measures are the Government taking to overcome that problem?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, the House will be familiar with the fact that this Government are committed to that specific policy. I agree with the noble Lord, and he has heard this House agree with him on that issue on many occasions in the past. Now that we are in government we intend to give this matter the highest priority.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, does the Minister agree that his Government are extremely fortunate in inheriting a first-class, healthy economy? Not only is it the envy of Europe; it is the envy of all our competitors. Does he further agree that that is in sharp contrast to the shambles in the economy that the Conservative Government took over in 1979?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, no. No.
Lord Henley: My Lords, would the noble Lord like to take the opportunity of announcing to the House what

885
today's unemployment figures are? In case he does not have them, perhaps I can help him. There is a further fall of 18,400 which is a result of the policies that we pursued over the past 18 years. Bearing in mind the noble Lord's commitment to youth employment, can he comment on levels of youth unemployment in countries with a minimum wage such as France, Italy and Germany? How do they compare with this country?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, the Government take the view that the current level of unemployment is unacceptably high. It is 50 per cent. above the level in May 1979—a fact which the party opposite significantly ignores. In making comparisons, why does not the noble Lord refer also to the United States, Japan and other countries where minimum wage legislation is in place? That is another fact which he chooses significantly to ignore. However, I must remember that I am not supposed to be asking questions at this time.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the recommendation of the expert committee of the Council of Ministers puts the minimum wage at just over £5 an hour? Can he give an assurance that whatever recommendation his Government may accept it will be nothing of the order of that?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, surely it is appropriate to await the Low Pay Commission: the work that it undertakes, the assessment that it makes, the analysis that it undertakes and the conclusions that it reaches. I am certainly not prepared at this stage to pre-empt that decision.
Lord Henley: My Lords, will the noble Lord answer my question about comparisons with other countries?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, the fact that unemployment is higher in some countries is due not simply to a minimum wage but to a whole range of different factors. I have also adverted to the experience of two countries which the noble Lord seeks to dismiss from his calculations. I refer in particular to the United States, which has a rather healthy economy.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, my noble friend referred to the other factors involved. Is he in a position to give us an estimate of what effect the job seeker's allowance has had on the current reduction in unemployment?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, that is one of the factors that has been omitted from a proper calculation of the unemployment figures. My noble friend is right to draw attention to that factor.
Earl Russell: My Lords, may I take it that the Minister agrees with the view I have often heard expressed by his colleague, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, that jobs paying below a likely minimum wage owe their existence to government subsidy in the form of in-work benefits? While I would not expect him to hold the view held by the ideological
886
bedfellows of the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, that all jobs created by government subsidy are bogus jobs, does he agree that this is not a particularly carefully targeted subsidy?
Lord Clinton-Davis: Yes, my Lords.
Lord Acton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the United States of America adopted a minimum wage in 1938 and that unemployment there dropped annually for the next six years? Is he further aware that the most recent increase in that minimum wage was from four dollars and 25 cents to four dollars and 75 cents in October of last year and that unemployment has come down since then? Bearing those facts in mind, does he agree that a minimum wage does not necessarily lead to an increase in unemployment?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, who has quite correctly drawn the inference that he has. It seems extraordinary that the party opposite—I do not know what the Leader of the Opposition is iterating from that sedentary position, but I do not even care—does not seem to have become aware of the fact that it lost an election in which we placed this issue fairly and squarely before the electorate and received its commendation.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, does the noble Lord therefore disagree—
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Richard): My Lords, I think we should move on to the next Question.

Teenage Pregnancies
3.14 p.m.
Lord Northbourne Lord Northbourne asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they endorse the target set in The Health of the Nation (1992) to reduce the rate of conception among under 16 year-olds to 4.8 per 1,000 by the year 2000.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, the Government consider pregnancies among under-16s to be a matter of great concern. Noble Lords will know that progress on The Health of the Nation targets has so far been disappointing. We are currently reviewing those targets as part of the development of a public health strategy which will emphasise the role of social and economic factors in problems like pregnancy in young girls. We also want to ensure that all young people have access to effective and appropriate health and social education.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for that encouraging reply. Do the Government accept that an important contribution towards solving this problem could be made through education for parenthood in schools both for girls and

887
for boys? In that context, is the noble Baroness aware of a report published yesterday by the Gulbenkian Foundation dealing with a study of 1,200 children in five schools who undertook for a year a programme of education for parenthood? The study shows both the popularity and effectiveness of the programme.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am aware of that publication not least because the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, was kind enough to send me an early copy of it. It is an enormously helpful piece of work and demonstrates the considerable benefits to pupils, teachers, parents and, potentially, society in general of good parenting education in secondary schools. The noble Lord may be aware that my honourable friend Ms Estelle Morris, one of the Ministers for Education, launched the report yesterday. We believe that schools have a part to play in teaching pupils about the responsibilities of parenthood. The Government are considering how best this can be done, including the recommendations of this very important report.
Baroness David: My Lords, does the Minister agree that school nurses also provide helpful advice and education? Is she aware that there have been cuts in that service in a great number of local authorities? Is she prepared to try to reverse that situation?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am aware of the role school nurses have played in this important work. I am also aware of the way in which the service has been cut back in certain places. My noble friend will know that we are considering the whole issue of children's health and particularly the role of schools in the health of children. We shall want to look carefully at the role school nurses can and should play in that.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, do the Government agree that it is important to help teachers to work in this area. It is a difficult and delicate task to perform. Are the Government contemplating extending the mainstream training of teachers so that this important area of helping young people understand the problems of young single parenthood can be developed?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, the noble Baroness raises an important point. The whole issue of sex and health education in its wider context is not that it should simply be about practical advice; for example, on contraception. It is, as she said, a delicate and difficult issue. It is difficult for teachers and indeed for some parents to deal with. It is appropriate that teachers should be properly supported both in their training and in their in-service work in this way. I am sure that my honourable friend the Minister for public health, who is considering this matter as part of a public health strategy, will be conscious of those concerns.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, will the Government issue guidance stating that family planning advice should emphasise the benefits of lifelong stable unions between parents?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, the noble Lord raises some of the same issues as those raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy. The whole issue of sex education, particularly for the very young, should be seen in the context of a broader social approach to growing up, to parenthood and to stable family relationships. It is inappropriate simply to offer them practical advice on contraception. We shall do everything we can to ensure that that is not the message which is being given.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I welcome the Government's commitment to dealing with what I think we all agree is a very serious issue. Does the noble Baroness agree that one of the most important points to be made is the significance of marriage and stable family life, as they underpin everything that is required in this area?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Young, has made some important contributions to other debates in your Lordships' House on this subject. I very much appreciate her point of view. When one is dealing with very young people—one could say children if one is talking about 13 and 14 year-olds—sometimes the concept of marriage seems very remote. What is important is to deal with these issues in a broad context of general support and counselling about relationships and hope that that will develop into stable marriages.
Earl Russell: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that the tendency of the evidence is to show that sex education reduces teenage pregnancies rather than increases them?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, that is certainly the international evidence, particularly in Holland, where the programme of sex education in the broader context that we have been discussing is conducted from what we would regard as an early age. There has been a very substantial reduction in the number of teenage pregnancies.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the noble Baroness said that this would become a part of the policy on health. Does she accept that in fact it would not be taught unless it becomes part of the policy of the Department for Education and Employment? Can she take steps to ensure that it does become part of that department's policy?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for making that very important point about the structure of government relationships on this issue. Of course, the whole issue of public health and the broader aspects of healthy schools is being discussed already between my honourable friend the Minister for public health and colleagues in the Department for Education. This must be a broad approach. Frankly, it is my view that it is just as important to try to encourage liaison and co-operation at local levels as well as between departments in Whitehall.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, bearing in mind the Minister's initial response to the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, is my noble friend aware that the World Health Organisation cited The Health of the Nation Programme as a strategy which other countries should follow, which is not surprising since we have met the vast majority of targets and that only two out of 27 are causing problems? With that glowing endorsement, are the new Labour Government going to pursue the strategy in its entirety and, if so, how do they propose to monitor, measure and inform the public as to progress?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, as I have already said, we are reviewing The Health of the Nation programme because we believe that in some areas—and I believe the question of teenage pregnancy is one—success has not been as glowing as the noble Baroness suggests. For example, perhaps I may quote the statistics. In 1994 there was a 0.3 per cent. increase in pregnancies among 13 to 15 year-olds and in 1995 a I per cent. increase in abortions. I do not believe that that is a satisfactory record and it is something that we want, in the broader context of a public health policy, to attack.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, we are very pleased that the Government have endorsed The Health of the Nation, but can the Minister explain why it is that when I received a letter from her the other week the inscription on the back of the envelope "Improving the Health of the Nation" had been deleted? When I telephoned the department the explanation was that it was no longer government policy. Can the Minister explain that?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I cannot account for decisions about stationery in the Department of Health. They were certainly not passed by me. I am surprised that both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, have taken from my remarks a firm endorsement for The Health of the Nation policy. In response to two if not three noble Lords who have raised the matter, I said that we are reconsidering the whole strategy. It obviously has some important factors, but we do not believe that as an answer to public health it is the total and most satisfactory solution.

Scotland: Migration Figures
3.23 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie asked Her Majesty's Government:
What are the gross migration figures between Scotland and other parts of the United Kingdom for the past 10 years, or for the most recent comparable period for which figures are available.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sewel): My Lords, between mid-1986 and mid-1996, it is estimated that 527,000
890
people moved from Scotland to the rest of the United Kingdom. That is the gross out-migration figure from Scotland to the rest of the United Kingdom.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his Answer and at the same time perhaps I may congratulate him on his appointment as a Minister within the Scottish Office. I am sure that he will recognise the sincerity of my congratulations when I set them in the context that it is the policy of his Government to remove him from that remit and, indeed, to take the portfolio away entirely from this Parliament. I am sure that we all wish him a long and successful tenure in that position.
The noble Lord has had a distinguished academic career. Does he recognise that the gross figure that he has given of over 500,000 people reveals some very significant ebbs and flows of people moving from Scotland to other parts of the United Kingdom? Does it not give him a moment's unease that in pursuit of consultation of the Scottish people, as the Prime Minister determined it, the only people who are to be consulted are those who were resident in Scotland on 1st October not of this year but of 1996?
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his kind words. I look forward to a very short career in the Scottish Office. I also congratulate him on the ingenuity of his supplementary question. The test of who should vote in a consultative referendum is clearly based on residency and not on any idea of ethnicity. If the noble Lord reflects, I am sure he will agree that it would be extremely bad practice to have a test of ethnicity entering into a view about who should participate in electoral politics.
Lord Renton: My Lords, do not the figures which the noble Lord has given confirm the advice given by Dr. Johnson that the finest prospect that the Scotsman ever sees is the high road to England? Is the Minister aware that many Scots still accept that advice, including those who come to the English Bar and become High Court judges? Indeed, one of them has become a famous noble and learned Lord Chancellor.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I say nothing about what happens to Scots lawyers—it usually costs me money! I have to observe that although 527,000 people may have moved from Scotland to the rest of the United Kingdom, 536,000 moved from the rest of the United Kingdom to Scotland.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is it not a fact that the figures for migration show the necessity for a centre of power in Scotland which will ensure that people will stay there and make Scotland prosper instead of England?
Lord Sewel: My Lords, we always seek to retain our best.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I believe that the statistics produced by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, demonstrate beyond peradventure the weakness of English management which has gone on for 300 years or so. I would like to urge—
Noble Lords: Ask!
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I ask my noble friend on the Front Bench whether he would like to be urged to consider the circumstances of such a person as myself—who, although of the pure blood, has lived in England to the advantage of that peninsula to the south of the mainland for 40 years or so—taking part in the referendum? I do not wish to ask him to look up Hansard so that he may see the speech that I made on the subject in this House 19 years ago.
Noble Lords: Question!
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I believe that very serious consideration should be given to Scots of the first generation living in England, and no other part of the world, taking part in this very important matter—
Noble Lords: Question!
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, you may shout and yell. I welcome the referendum and the consequences of it.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, perhaps I may tell the noble Lord that I have many urges that come over me from time to time and I do not require any more. I give one simple piece of advice to him and that is to return to Scotland, to be resident there and vote.
Noble Lords: It is too late!

Business
3.29 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, after the debate on dependent territories and before the debate on pensions and compensation to ex-service men and women, my noble friend Lord Haskel will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on a comprehensive spending review. I take this opportunity to remind the House that the Companion indicates that discussion on a Statement should not exceed 20 minutes from the end of the Minister's initial reply to the Opposition spokesman, and that contributions in the discussion should be confined to brief comments and questions for clarification.

Education (Schools) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Hybrid Instruments: Select Committee
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider hybrid instruments and that as proposed by the Committee of Selection the following Lords together with the Chairman of Committees be named of the committee:

L. Brougham and Vaux,

L. Burnham,

L. Carmichael of Kelvingrove,

V. Craigavon,

V. Oxfuird,

B. Thomas of Walliswood.—(The Chairman of Committees.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Personal Bills: Select Committee
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider personal Bills and that as proposed by the Committee of Selection the following Lords together with the Chairman of Committees be named of the committee:

L. Astor of Hever,

L. Meston,

L. Strabolgi,

L. Templeman,

L. Wilberforce.—(The Chairman of Committees.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Standing Orders (Private Bills): Select Committee
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the third Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That a Select Committee on the Standing Orders relating to private Bills be appointed and that as proposed by the Committee of Selection the following Lords together with the Chairman of Committees be named of the committee:

V. Bridgeman,

V. Falkland,

L. Gallacher,

V. Hood,

E. Lloyd-George of Dwyfor,

L. Monkswell,

L. Wade of Chorlton.—(The Chairman of Committees.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

The Dependent Territories
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper rose to call attention to the current status of the United Kingdom's dependent territories and to plans for their long-term future; and to move for Papers.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, my good fortune in the ballot means that this debate, the first balloted debate of the new Parliament, comes at a most opportune time. We are able to bid farewell to Hong Kong and at the same time to draw attention to the status and long-term future of the remaining 11 inhabited dependent territories and ask the new Government to inform us of their intentions. Some 160,000 people scattered throughout the globe will therefore be noting what we say today. That is the combined number of those who remain overseas citizens of the United Kingdom. Perhaps I should emphasise that this does not mean that we shall forget the 6 million people of Hong Kong. I am glad that your Lordships will be discussing the rights and freedoms and law and order issues on Thursday of this week in a separate and specific debate.
Today, we are talking about those territories which range from Gibraltar, the only European dependent territory, with a population of some 30,000 people, to the far away Pitcairn Islands with a population of only 58. In between, we have the Caribbean dependencies of Anguilla, the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, Monserrat, the Turks and Caicos Islands, as well as Bermuda, the Falkland Islands and St. Helena. In addition, a further three dependent territories are uninhabited—the British Antarctic Territory, the British Indian Ocean Territory, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands—but I do not propose to dwell on those today.
We last held a debate on a similar Motion in 1994 and I cannot let this moment pass without regretting the absence of the late Lord Pitt of Hampstead who made such a forceful contribution on that occasion. particularly on the Caribbean dependencies. I hope that that debate gave reassurance to the peoples and governments of the dependencies, and I hope that today's debate will do the same.
I am anxious today to ascertain how things have moved forward since 1994, as well as to ask the new Government about their plans and actions on certain general and constitutional issues. I know that a number of other speakers will tackle more specific issues.
One thing that I know has happened since 1994 is that the Dependent Territories Association, which was formed in 1993 and which organised a major conference that year, has provided a successful co-ordinating mechanism. The members hold regular meetings and understand each other better. As a result, they have a stronger voice. They now plan a second conference in January 1998. I very much hope that the Minister will be able to assure us that the Dependent Territories Association will have the wholehearted support of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in arranging the conference, as it did last time, and that the new Foreign Secretary will follow the precedent set by my right
894
honourable friend Douglas Hurd in showing high level involvement by himself addressing the conference. That would be a welcome signal of the new Government's intentions.
Two other issues are, I know, of particular concern. One involves the question of the status of the dependent territories within the European Union. Gibraltar is the only territory which is, as it were, a practising part of the European Union and which is affected by the particular pressures applied by Spain in the formulation and application of European Union policies. However, others are also affected by, for example, the banana regime and the rice regime—that is, apart from the question of aid—and it is hard for them to see the overseas territories of other European Union member states, such as France and Spain, being treated differently.
There is also the irritation of visas. Residents of the dependent territories (other than those of Gibraltar and the Falklands who hold British passports) hold what are called "British Dependent Territory passports", which not only give no right of abode in the United Kingdom, but also mean that the holders need to apply for separate visas to visit other European Union countries for business or holiday reasons. Again, that contrasts with the freedom of movement within the European Union enjoyed by citizens of French and Dutch overseas territories.
In this context, the other important issue—this may come as a surprise to many—is that although encouraged to participate in Commonwealth events, the dependent territories are denied full membership of the Commonwealth. That limits their direct participation in many key Commonwealth events, such as Commonwealth ministerial meetings. They would like to participate in the Commonwealth on a more systematic basis although not necessarily through full membership. It has been pointed out to me that Tuvalu, for example, which is not a dependent territory but is a member of the Commonwealth, has special conditions of membership. Since countries like Mozambique and even Palestine are talking about joining the Commonwealth, we must assume that the situation is flexible and that there is room for movement with regard to the dependent territories. After all, we live in a changing world. Although the United Kingdom Government have always represented the interests of our dependencies, would it not be appropriate to find some way to give those albeit tiny territories more opportunity to speak for themselves? A direct voice in the European Union and within the Commonwealth would surely be one way of doing that. Incidentally, I am also informed that the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association apparently has exactly the right relationship.
While on this theme, and in the great scheme of things, when we are being asked to look at the future role and composition of the House of Lords, should we not consider appointing to this House Members representing the dependent territories? I do not see that as supplementing or suppressing the developing role of the territorial governments, but rather as being an additional way of making their voices heard.
I should now like to make some further brief points on matters about which much more could be said. Sometimes common solutions are proposed for the dependent territories, but they may not necessarily be appropriate to all. The level of regulation of financial services that is appropriate for the Cayman Islands—the fifth largest banking centre in the world after London, New York, Tokyo and Hong Kong—may not be appropriate for the Turks and Caicos Islands which have a much smaller and less significant financial services base. Similar points could be made—and I am sure that they will be—in relation to Bermuda which leads in the insurance field. We should look imaginatively at special issues and special needs and try to find very specific solutions to them.
Sometimes, too, solutions to problems, particularly the jobs problem, envisage people moving away to find work, but that is not necessarily what people from the dependent territories want. Tourism could obviously bring jobs, but communications are vital. St. Helena, for example, desperately needs a new airport and landing facilities. When considering this particular request from St. Helena one should not forget that the Cayman Islands were once described as the islands that time forgot. That was before the coming of civil aviation when their population was very small. Today, in addition to population growth the Cayman Islands have about 1.5 million tourists each year.
I should also like to explore ways of tackling the special expertise of the dependent territories that has been developed in the environmental and financial services fields. One takes the example of the Falkland Islands and the licensing and regulation of fisheries. I believe that our relationship with the dependent territories should be very much a two-way process. Perhaps the most important aspect is the requirement to review the British Nationality Act 1981, particularly in relation to the right of abode. Given that the citizens of Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands already have that right, one is now talking of about 150,000 people. Surely, that should not deter us from giving a greater welcome to the people of the dependent territories.
I am delighted that so many of your Lordships have chosen to speak in this debate without any special urging from me. I know that there are others who would have wished to speak had time allowed. I am aware that those who are listed will speak from personal knowledge and experience about individual territories and specific issues, not least my noble friend Lord Waddington fresh from his governorship of Bermuda. We all look forward to hearing the noble Earl, Lord Iveagh, for the first time.
I end by asking the noble Baroness to respond fully and frankly so that we can demonstrate to our many friends in the dependent territories that we appreciate and value them and very much regard them as part of the family. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.42 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to participate in the debate so ably opened this afternoon by the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper. The
896
dependencies may be left over, as it were, from the days of Britain's imperial past but they are not colonies in the way that we used to think about colonies. They are not populated by oppressed people who are anxious to throw off the colonial yoke. On the contrary, in most instances the people concerned are very anxious to maintain their status under the British umbrella.
I was recently in Gibraltar with a number of other noble Lords at the invitation of the Gibraltar Tourist Bureau. As I am sure all noble Lords are aware, Spain has been campaigning for some time for the Rock to become Spanish. On the face of it, this is understandable. It is a small promontory at the foot of the Iberian Peninsula which owes allegiance, as they see it, to a foreign power. It is not surprising that Spain should feel that Hong Kong provides an example. Here it is being handed back to China in a month's time. But Gibraltar is not Hong Kong. There is a leasing arrangement in regard to Hong Kong which expires this year. The British Government are rightly honouring that. But the Treaty of Utrecht ceded Gibraltar to the British in perpetuity, and in the almost 300 years since a population of mixed ancestry has grown up which regards itself as Gibraltarian rather than Spanish, although many speak Spanish as well as English.
During my recent visit I learned a good deal about Gibraltar's troubled past and the loyalty of its people to Britain. I was given the opportunity to talk to leading representatives of all political parties. I found that they were all in agreement on one vital issue: that the future of Gibraltar and its sovereignty must be a matter for the population as a whole. The last referendum in 1967 indicated an overwhelming vote in favour of retaining its present status. But there are major problems.
Spain has stepped up its campaign to acquire sovereignty. There are difficulties about passports. Gibraltarians as EU citizens should not be denied freedom of movement across Europe, but they are. For Spain, British passports issued in Gibraltar are not valid travel documents. This gives rise to problems at the land frontier and at Malaga and Barcelona airports. Britain and the European Commission maintain the validity of Gibraltar-issued passports, but Spanish immigration officers continue to harass the holders of such passports. This leads to difficulties and queues at crossing points along the frontier. Spain refuses to allow a ferry service between Gibraltar and Algeciras. Gibraltar is excluded from participation in the EU air liberalisation "Open Skies" policy, with resultant problems for the use of the airport. There are many other examples of Spanish harassment in pursuit of its ultimate objective.
In the meantime, changes in the economy of the Rock consequent upon decisions made in this country, notably by the MoD, have given rise to employment difficulties. The decline of dock work is one example; the down-sizing of the British military presence is another. Attempts are being made to build up alternative sources of employment. Tourism is one possibility. However, the difficulties of access arising from Spanish hostility ensure that this is likely to be limited. More success seems likely in the area of financial services. The Rock

897
is already emerging as a strong and competent financial services centre in its own right; but there are problems here too.
In 1969 several thousand Moroccans were offered manual jobs, mainly dock work. They and some of their descendants are still there, but they cannot easily be retrained for white collar employment. There is now no work for them. The government would like to be able to offer them compensation and resettlement grants, since many wish to return to Morocco where they still have their families, but this costs money, which the present Gibraltarian Government do not have. Therefore, they look to this Government for assistance, since it was at the behest of the then British Government that the Moroccans were invited to Gibraltar in the first place.
The Spanish Government claim that Gibraltar is a money-laundering centre, but this is hotly denied by the authorities to whom I spoke. There are admittedly drug smuggling problems, but it is claimed that policing is effective. While there with other colleagues I witnessed a police launch intercept a boat, the skipper of which immediately attempted to jettison his cargo, which in itself was a suspicious circumstance. He and his crew were later arrested for attempting to smuggle drugs, which were found on board.
The political leaders we met included an old friend of mine and of many Members of this House. I refer to Joe Bussano, who was once an official of the Transport and General Workers' Union. He is now leader of the official opposition and until last year was chief minister. Both he and his colleagues indicated that they would like a review of the 1969 constitution with a view to modernisation, as they put it. As I understand it, they seek the kind of status that is enjoyed by the Channel Islands. All were keen to emphasise their commitment to self-determination. That is not to say that they do not understand how important it is to strive for better relations with Spain. So far attempts in this direction have not met with success, but surely it should be possible to deal with these difficulties under the umbrella of the EU since self-determination is accepted as a principle within the EU and of course by the present Government.
3.48 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Baroness for introducing this debate, inadequately short though it may be. This may well be an historic debate. It is the first debate dealing with the dependent territories to be held within spitting distance, if I may so put it, of the disappearance, for good or ill, of Hong Kong from their number. That will bring the number of citizens of the dependent territories to a size that should not daunt legislators or civil servants.
It is also the first debate held under a new Government. If they are to live up to the expectations of those who voted for them, many of them tactically—they might otherwise have voted for my party—they should be prepared to take new and fresh decisions. Some of these are small.
898
I believe that the FCO should have one department to deal with the dependent territories. They have different problems depending on where they are in the world, but what unites them is greater than what divides them. One also needs regulation of their status within the European Union.
Some of the problems and some of the steps which should be taken are moderately big. The time has come for the citizens of those dependent territories to be given full British citizenship, or rather to have it restored to them. It was understandable why that should not be done while the weight of the population of Hong Kong was poised above it. But now let right be done.
Your Lordships will be aware of my special interest in St. Helena—like several other noble Lords I have visited the island—and of the unfortunate events which have happened there recently. I do not want to go into the details of that now. I want to say merely that British citizenship would go a long way towards solving many of the problems. In that context I greatly welcome the maiden speech of the noble Earl, Lord Iveagh, who I understand is to talk about St. Helena.
It is not that the Saints would want to emigrate here en masse: they are sane people. They have the example of the islanders of Tristan da Cunha who tried it and who, following Gandhi's example—when he came here he was asked what he thought of civilisation, and he said that he thought it would be a good idea—rejected it and went home. But the freedom and justice that it would represent and would give to the spirits of the people of the dependent territories must not be underrated by a party which has always stood for those things.
There is the problem of Ascension Island, which, as noble Lords will be aware, is itself a dependency of St. Helena. It needs help in the promotion of a tourist industry in that part of the world. A fresh start is required in the renegotiation of the Bahamas Agreement which would enable Ascension and St. Helena to set up such a tourist agency. The present governor, addressing the South Atlantic Group recently, said that he could not envisage St. Helena not having an airport by 2025. If that is so—almost any reasonable person would agree with that—let us start now.
I wish to pay tribute—it would be wrong not to—to the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, who in her dealings with the dependent territories, and in particular with St. Helena, showed great imagination and sympathy and tried as hard as she could. But the situation is different now. We have a new Government. We have the chance of a new start. Let us start in the way we mean to go on and put things right. I hope that at the end of the debate the Minister will be able to tell us that this has been an historic debate and that the Government are prepared to move along the lines suggested.
3.53 p.m.
The Earl of Iveagh: My Lords, it is with great trepidation that I make my maiden speech. I am a farmer in East Anglia. I have very little experience of the south-west Atlantic, I must confess, but the more I read into the subject, the more interesting it became and the

899
more important the ethical and moral situation seemed to be. The situation needs to be put right. I feel that the UK has let down St. Helena.
It is also with great trepidation that I follow the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, with his great wisdom and knowledge of the subject. The St. Helenan population was put on the island by the British in 1659. There was no settlement on the island before then. In 1673 its Royal Charter was granted by Charles II. That charter incorporated various freedoms and rights.
The Saints of course speak English. Their religion is predominantly Christian. Since 1659 the island has been continually occupied by the British, although the Dutch occupied it for a few months. They have never stated that they wanted to be anything other than British. Throughout history they have shown themselves to be pro-Britain. For instance, they helped the supply ships en route to the colonies in days gone by and they voluntarily gave their supply ship "RMS St. Helena" to the Falklands conflict in the previous decade.
Have the Government done enough to help the island? Are they showing signs of creating a vision for St. Helena? A joint development paper states:
"A prosperous and peaceful democratic society for all should be achieved through sustainable economic, environmental, and social development".
What is the island's infrastructure? I am afraid that it amounts to just a few decent roads. Landing rights for ships entering its waters are prohibitively expensive. It has no wharf big enough for commercial ships to dock. It has no air-links to the outside world. The nearest human contact is on Ascension Island which is two days' sailing time away.
The burning issue for the islanders to whom I have spoken, and which I have been researching, is their lack of representation in Parliament and potentially in this country. They are of course represented through Whitehall. The island is almost as much on its own as it ever has been during its history.
There is a major constitutional issue involved. The inhabitants have limited access to work permits in this country. The Saints can obtain a two-year non-renewable work permit, but other than that they are limited to a maximum of a six-month visitor's visa. Although they have British passports, these do not do a great deal for them.
Development initiatives have been undertaken by the Government. Although the percentage of people employed by the Government has fallen in recent years, it still amounts to between 60 and 75 per cent. of the working population. The people have low real incomes. The cost of living is high. Much of their food has to be imported. However, there is an 18.2 per cent. unemployment figure for the island, which is rather shaming.
I believe that the Government have tried to introduce some new ideas and initiatives, but, sadly, there has been a long history of government initiatives coming to nothing. Perhaps I may give two examples. First, Andrew Powell made recommendations on the creation of bathing and toilet facilities for the less advantaged.
900
Secondly, Alan Cheetham made recommendations on conservation and the restoration of listed buildings. In the same vein, another initiative, the elderly care scheme, came to nothing because it was too expensive. There have been great leaps and bounds in regional aid in many of Britain's territories. We might consider the success of the Scottish regional and enterprise boards. Perhaps the Government might take a leaf out of their book.
What potential is there on the island? There is potential for tourism, for coffee production, for agricultural seed production and for banking. Another example of the island being let down was the banking system, which failed to materialise on the island. A large banking group—I believe the 70th largest in the world—was willing to open a branch on St. Helena, thus creating opportunities for the island. However, due to the protracted negotiations with the then regulator of the bank, they came to nothing.
I conclude by making a plea that this Administration helps the St. Helena islanders to help themselves. They need help to fulfil their modest expectations and to give hope to the young.
4.2 p.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, it falls to me to be the first to congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Iveagh, on his maiden speech. He spoke very movingly and from the heart about the problems of St. Helena. I am sure that we all have great sympathy with what he said and we hope that we may hear from him on this and other subjects many times in the future.
I thank my noble friend Lady Hooper for introducing the debate. I am glad that it follows a debate that she introduced on a similar subject some two or three years ago. In the time allowed, I wish to confine my remarks to the dependent territories in the Caribbean. In doing so, I must declare an interest as President of the West India Committee. The terms of the Motion before the House today refer to the status of the dependent territories. I wish to begin with their status. At present, most Caribbean dependent territories have been given advanced constitutions. They have a ministerial system of government based on a universal franchise and an ever increasing control over their legal affairs.
However, it seems to the dependent territories that London has sought to develop an ever more complex system of management and control. In the case of the Caribbean, this is exercised through a Whitehall committee, a significant proportion of the time and resource of the West Indian and Atlantic Department of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Dependent Territories Regional Secretariat and enhanced governor's offices in dependent territories. At the same time, we have sought to exercise residual control, though making it clear that we will maintain reserve powers, exercising them only where they are necessary.
Quite clearly, it is important that Britain, which has a responsibility to the dependent territories, should ensure the maintenance of good governance. However, I believe that there is an opportunity to try to simplify the current system of management. Perhaps I may make

901
the following suggestions for areas of consideration. I understand—and I hope that the noble Baroness will correct me if I am wrong—that the Government are considering changing the name of the dependent territories and in doing so perhaps reviewing their status and their relationship with Britain. It is important that important recommendations in constitutional reviews, such as that carried out in the British Virgin Islands, are fully implemented.
We should develop a public education programme in all overseas territories so that governments and people alike understand the exact nature of the relationship with London and why decisions are taken. We should involve chief ministers more in the decision making process by ensuring that governors not only consult and exchange views on a regular basis, but have a two-way reporting function on political, management and commercial issues. I wonder whether in the course of a general review we might reconsider the present basis for selecting and appointing governors; whether it is an appropriate way; and whether there is a better way in which to inform chief ministers of decisions taken in London.
I long ago suggested that we might well consider bringing senior civil servants from dependent territories to work in London or in Brussels in order to gain wider experience of good government. I wonder whether anything has been done about that suggestion. I hope that we will explain decisions quickly and in a transparent fashion to elected governments.
That is important because there are real anxieties about the dependent territories in the Caribbean. In the next seven years, Caribbean overseas territories are likely to be marginalised by the free trade area of the Americas and a post-Lomé arrangement if it leads, as a growing body of opinion suggests, to an EU/Caribbean free trade area within the ACP partnership. It is therefore crucial that government not only consider the status of the overseas territories, but also their relationships with the wider world.
Dependent territories in the Caribbean have a good working relationship with the Commonwealth Secretariat and the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. However, I believe that that could be improved if elected members from the dependent territories could participate in an appropriate manner in meetings of, for example, Ministers of Finance, or Ministers of Legal Affairs. My noble friend Lady Hooper touched on that issue.
As regards the European Union, there is a pressing need to consider now with the governments of all our dependent territories the nature of a post-Lomé arrangement in respect of both their own position and that of the region in which they are located. Since a post-Lomé arrangement would have a direct impact on the future fortunes of the overseas territories and the Caribbean region, it will not be sufficient to consult after a British position has been put to Brussels. I support the suggestion made by my noble friend Lady Hooper that the Secretary of State might take an early opportunity for a meeting with elected leaders of dependent territories in order to define policy and to understand the anxieties of elected governments.
902
Finally, none of the Caribbean dependent territories has any wish for independence. They are seeking an advanced relationship with London in which their maturity, relatively high levels of development and their desire to co-operate in good government are fully recognised. The Caribbean overseas territories effectively lock Britain into the Caribbean. Perhaps in reply the noble Baroness can say whether there is a possibility that the guardship in the Caribbean will be removed during a review of the defence policy. If she cannot answer today, perhaps she will write to me; but it is a serious matter in view of the difficulty concerning drugs in that area.
In my opinion, Britain needs to balance more closely its rights and responsibilities towards overseas territories and to build a new relationship as part of its overall approach towards the problems of the Caribbean region.
4.10 p.m.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, my wife and I are deeply grateful to the people of Bermuda for the many kindnesses shown to us during our time there. I also received nothing but kindness from those in the Foreign Office with whom I dealt during the nearly five years that I was governor.
But I suspect that there are still some in that establishment who believe that the dependent territories are something of an embarrassment, presenting Britain with unwelcome contingent liabilities and attracting unwelcome attention from the UN Decolonisation Committee and that it would be a great relief if we were shot of them. In my view, that is a rather short-sighted and very mean-minded view when Bermuda, for example, has so recently demonstrated its wish to maintain the British link.
Whether the present relationship survives in the long term will be for the people of Bermuda to decide, but as recently as 1995 they voted convincingly—by 73.7 per cent. to 25.6 per cent.—against independence. I do not believe that they did that out of a sentimental attachment to the mother country. It was far more a matter of them believing that those minded to do business in Bermuda looked upon the British connection as a guarantee of Bermuda's stability and security. But whatever the reason, the people voted convincingly for the status quo.
Most of the press stories about Bermuda during my years were either plain silly, plain wrong or both. But the press reaction to the referendum had an entirely different flavour. Most commentators seemed genuinely delighted at what had occurred and reflected in their articles the pleasure felt by people in Britain that there were some in the world who were actually proud of and wanted to maintain the British connection.
Perhaps the British people could see what in recent years too many politicians and officials have failed to see or allowed themselves to forget: that when Britain has an influence, she has an influence because she has world-wide interests; because the Queen is head of the Commonwealth; and because of the historic relationship with America. It is not because we are an island off the coast of Europe.

903
And then your Lordships will be well aware that in recent years Bermuda has become a great international business centre, with insurance business in the lead. The links with the London insurance market are growing ever stronger and Britain has a clear interest in the continued expansion of that market and its development in a stable environment.
Nothing that I have said should be taken to suggest that if at some time in the future Bermuda decides to go it alone, it does not have the leaders capable of making an enormous success of an independent Bermuda. After all, Bermuda has for a long time been in almost complete control of its own destiny. It has the third oldest parliament in the world and a constitution which gives it as wide a degree of self-government as is possible short of complete independence. Under its own government, Bermuda has prospered, with its people enjoying a standard of living as high as almost anywhere else in the world. No, I am certainly not saying that Bermuda could not go it alone. But I am saying that at present the relationship with Britain is seen by Bermudians as advantageous and the British should feel the same way about their relationship with Bermuda.
Of one thing I am certain. It would be shameful if any British Government, out of antique, outdated and fundamentally ignoble notions that the process of decolonisation should continue to the very end, regardless of the wishes of the people concerned, were to bully, bribe and cajole Bermudians (or for that matter the people of any other dependent territory) into going independent against what they believed to be their own best interests.
I do not believe for one moment that that is in the mind of the present Administration. However, perhaps I may give one piece of advice. Sometimes steps are taken by government here with little appreciation of their likely effect on public opinion in Bermuda and at the risk of those steps being understood there as evidence of Britain's wish to abandon the relationship.
I shall give your Lordships one or two examples from the past few years. There was the decision to close the tiny naval station in Bermuda, HMS Malabar. The MoD hoped to achieve a saving of £1 million gross and I was assured that the announcement would not cause the row that some expected but that it would be a two-day wonder. In fact, and predictably, it caused Sir John Swan to launch his independence campaign. That campaign had a seriously destabilising effect on the island for more than a year and a half before, in August 1995, the referendum took place, with the result that I have mentioned.
Secondly, the people of Bermuda simply cannot understand how Britain, while remaining ultimately responsible for the island's defence, adopts the stance that when members of the Bermuda Regiment come to Britain to train they must be treated just like any other foreign soldiery wishing to avail themselves of Britain's training facilities. They are charged the full cost of the training. The result is that the Bermuda Regiment is cutting its reliance on Britain's training facilities, with
904
the risk of a fall in the efficiency of the Bermuda Regiment, on which Britain relies to carry out—I stress this—Britain's own legal responsibilities.
Lastly, and most important, there is the question of rights of admission to Britain. I too congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Iveagh, on his maiden speech and I do not doubt that there is a strong case to be made for the granting of the right of entry to those who live in St. Helena. The case for the rest of the dependent territories cannot be put quite as strongly, but it is still quite powerful and was put powerfully by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley.
Many, though by no means all, white Bermudians are British citizens or have the right of abode here. The vast majority of black Bermudians are BDTCs and subject to immigration control. Not surprisingly, that causes resentment. It has already been said that the return of Hong Kong to China will mean that there will be a total of only 160,000 people left in the remaining dependent territories, and there will no longer be any immigration control justification for those people to have a different citizenship from those who belong to the mother country. Britain could win enormous credit and make a great contribution to the maintenance of a harmonious society in Bermuda by righting what is perceived to be an obvious wrong. The Government should secure a common citizenship.
By giving Bermudians and others the right to live and work in Britain, we shall be giving them a right which, of course, is afforded already to the Falkland Islanders and the Gibraltarians. I assure the Government that the change would not result in hordes of Bermudians flocking here. Their homeland is far too beautiful and prosperous for that. But that step, or simply an easing of the work permit restrictions, would allow Bermudians, and young black Bermudians in particular, who have business ambitions to gain experience in a wider environment than Bermuda and fit themselves for senior management. Above all, it would cement the mutually advantageous relationship to which I have referred.
I am deeply grateful to my noble friend Lady Hooper for initiating this debate.
4.18 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness for initiating the debate and, in my case, for giving me an opportunity to ask some very specific questions about Montserrat. As the noble Baroness anticipated, I am one of those who wishes to ask questions on a fairly narrow basis.
As your Lordships will know, Montserratians have spent the last 22 months waiting for disaster as the volcano there threatens to explode or overflow. I must declare something of an interest (not a financial interest by any means) because I work closely with someone who comes from Montserrat and who is much involved in the work in this country, in conjunction with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and previously with charities, in assisting people in Montserrat and people who come here from Montserrat.

905
I see the reports which are faxed to my office on a daily basis from the Government in Montserrat. Perhaps I may quote briefly from the report of the 6th June which starts by warning and strongly urging anyone still in the revised no-go area to leave immediately. It states:
"Pyroclastic flows and surges are extremely hot and travel at very high speeds, they may occur with no notice and cannot be outrun."
I have quoted that because it seems to me to represent very vivid and very appropriate language for a government report.
The island is divided into zones which denote comparative danger. A recent press report refers to the most dangerous zones—one, Zone A, is closed to everyone but scientists who will only
"enter the area when a helicopter is standing by to pick them up in an emergency".
There is also Zone C, which includes the capital and the airport. It is the area which has in the past been the most productive agriculturally and has been designated for "complete evacuation". However, with a special permit, residents can go in during daylight hours,
"provided they have transport available to make a rapid exit".
They are advised to wear a dust mask and to listen to the radio for advice on a more or less continuous basis.
It seems that almost any outcome is likely to be quite appalling for the island. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office reported in November that there were three possible outcomes: the least likely was a gradual end to the problem; the most likely was a major explosive or perhaps climactic eruption of the volcano, with little or no warning, which would destroy much of the infrastructure of the southern and most important part of the island; or, alternatively, continued growth of the dome of the volcano which might overspill in any direction with an explosion destroying it again.
Currently, there is quite a high level of alert with changes of activity anticipated soon; for example, pyroclastic flows—I believe that the technical language probably obscures what must seem to be a very unhappy reality—the ash fall, and the high level of seismic activity. Normal life is now impossible. It has been said that there is nothing good to say about the housing in Montserrat. I refer to the temporary housing that has been built for those who have had to be evacuated from the southern part of the island.
After only a moment's reflection, your Lordships will realise that the problems with environmental health regarding waste disposal among a group of people crammed together into quite primitive shelters on a long-term basis are very substantial. Again, a moment's reflection will enable your Lordships to understand the difficulties of continuing education for those who are still struggling to learn and take exams, not only because of the local environmental conditions but also because the evacuees from the island include a number of teachers. The teachers who are left are perhaps not as many in number as one would need to cope with the situation. Indeed, the environmental problems are substantial and the general health facilities are very limited.
906
Moreover, on an island where the crime rate has traditionally been very low, the strains which arise from a capital being evacuated have led to an increase in crimes of violence and burglary, and the criminal justice system is creaking. I have seen reference to the fact that the two police cells available are fully occupied by convicted prisoners. The temporary prison is a local library and community centre which is probably not adequate to contain the problem.
I have spent some time describing the issues because I believe that the citizens of our dependent territory deserve to have their plight mentioned. However, I gave the Minister notice of a number of questions that I would ask. I hope that the little time I gave her was adequate to enable her to give some answers in her reply today. First, there is a newly constructed jetty in the designated safe area. Can the Minister comment as to its capacity to deal with a mass evacuation? Secondly, can the Minister make any comments as to the preparations being made for a complete evacuation at short notice, if that proves to be necessary? I am mindful of the panic that is likely to be engendered if groups of people are required to leave in a very peremptory fashion. Thirdly, I have mentioned the long-term temporary housing, but I should add that the hurricane season is approaching and there is an increased danger in the island of mud slides as the area becomes deforested. Can the Minister say what assessments have been made regarding the robustness of that housing?
I turn now to matters of immigration. Can the Minister say what attitude the Government would take to an extension of the exceptional leave to remain in this country, which was granted to Montserratians who came here the best part of two years ago? Can the noble Baroness say what is to happen when that period expires? Further, what assistance is to be made available to those who are now in the United Kingdom on that basis to enable them to settle here? I use that term in its widest sense, because there are now about 1,000 Montserratians in this country.
It is only those who have been able to afford to come to the United Kingdom who have done so. Can the Minister say whether any assistance can be given to those Montserratians who cannot afford the fare? Further, can the Minister say what negotiations there are with other governments in the Caribbean to ensure the well-being of the Montserratians who are evacuated to other islands? Finally, I turn now to a matter which is of concern to the community resident in this country. Can the Minister say whether the Foreign and Commonwealth Office can assist in keeping records of the initial destination of the Montserratians who come to this country? The community is keen to retain that community so that the island can eventually be repopulated.
As I said at the beginning, I am very much aware through a personal link of the contribution which is being made by individuals in this country to the plight of their compatriots—relatives in many cases—who are in Montserrat. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has indicated that it cannot provide a full-time officer to act as a liaison person on the basis that the statutory services in the country are adequate. However, liaison

907
is badly needed in order to ensure that those statutory services are used to their greatest effect to help these people in their plight.
4.26 p.m.
Lord Bethell: My Lords, I should like to join with others in welcoming the debate and in congratulating my noble friend Lady Hooper on her introduction to it. I am put in mind of the days in the early 1980s when my noble friend and I served as unofficial parliamentary representatives of Gibraltar in the European Parliament. We did so because, at that time, the territory of Gibraltar had no representative—and that is still the case—in the European Parliament, even though it is part of the European Community. I shall return to that matter later.
I was struck by the wealth of experience exhibited during today's debate by noble Lords who have spoken, not only as regards Gibraltar and St. Helena but also as regards other dependent territories. I should like to join with others in congratulating the noble Earl on his maiden speech which, as has been said, was delivered from the heart and made some very cogent points to which we look forward to hearing the Minister's reply.
I have visited Gibraltar on many occasions and, like others, I understand why it is that many people in Spain feel strongly that they would like to repossess the Rock for Spanish sovereignty. However, what is not comprehensible to me—and, indeed, not acceptable—is the anger and the strength of purpose which they endeavour to put on achieving that end. There is very little attempt on the part of the Spanish authorities to achieve the absorption of Gibraltar into Spain by osmosis, by persuasion, by wooing or by encouragement; it is done by threats, by beating the Gibraltar people about the head, metaphorically, and by imposing as many restrictions upon them as can be properly devised.
A number of those points were mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, who recently visited the Rock. I could add that there has been a whole range of restrictions imposed by the Spanish such as the prohibition on the entry of Gibraltar taxis into Spain, restrictions on the use of Gibraltar hire cars in Spain, and a recent work to rule by customs and immigration officers which resulted in the ticking off of spare equipment and spare parts for every vehicle against a list which meant that each car had to be examined for some 30 minutes before it was allowed to proceed. That was, of course, done for political reasons in order to impose a semi-blockade.
We all know that Gibraltar was fully blockaded for some 13 years from 1969. I still have as a reminder of that, a cutting from a Madrid newspaper, ABC, dated June 12th 1969 which states,
"Spain will cease every activity which directly or indirectly helps the life of the colony … Spain has it in her power to make life on the Rock very unpleasant".
That, I am afraid, is true. Spain has it within her power to make life on the Rock unpleasant and from time to time she exercises that option and does her best to discomfort the people of the Rock in the vain hope that
908
they will fall into Spanish hands like a ripe plum. However, that, I believe, will not happen. Even after the recent siege Gibraltar emerged not as a bedraggled community but as a defiant community determined to remain British and to preserve her independent link with this country.
It used to be said during the Cold War that East/West relations could be gauged by the speed at which traffic was allowed by the Communist powers to pass through or into or out of the German Democratic Republic of those days. By the same token the state of the frontier between Spain and the Rock is a measure of the general relationship between Spain and the UK. During the recent fishing dispute between Spain and the UK Spanish sources made clear their determination to make Britain pay for its attitude and to make it pay in Gibraltar. At that time for some weeks the frontier became a seething mass of distressed people, many of whom had to wait five or more hours in the summer heat to cross the line. Holidaymakers from Spain could not get back to Gibraltar airport, as a result of which many of them missed their flights and were deprived of large sums of money. Anyone who visits the Rock risks spending many hours in long queues of people and cars going into and out of Gibraltar. Why this should be allowed between two European Union territories I do not quite understand.
I have given the Minister notice of two points which I shall mention in conclusion. Spain does not allow any other airline to fly out of Gibraltar airport into continental Europe or to other parts of the European Union. The only flights permitted are from Gibraltar to the UK. One will not find any flights between Gibraltar and the main continental centres such as Amsterdam or Frankfurt. This is the result of pressure on the part of the Spanish authorities. I know that Gibraltar is excluded from the present directive on free air travel within the European Union; nonetheless I believe that Gibraltar has a good case before the Court of Justice in Luxembourg as regards this restriction on free movement. I wonder whether the Government will encourage Gibraltar to bring such a case against the Spanish authorities and enforce the free use of Gibraltar airport.
The other point on which I have given the Minister notice concerns voting in European elections. That is where, if you like, my noble friend Lady Hooper and I came in in the early 1980s. We are not the only country with dependent territories. There are the Canary Islands, Guadeloupe, the Azores, St. Maarten, and there was Greenland. Citizens of those areas were and are entitled to vote for the European Parliament just like other citizens of Spain, France, the Netherlands, Portugal, or, in the case of Greenland, Denmark. I very much hope that the Government will bring in provisions to allow Gibraltarians to vote in the elections of June 1999. I thank all those who have taken part, and especially my noble friend for introducing this debate.
4.35 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, unlike the other speakers in this debate I can claim no specialised knowledge of the dependent territories. I was moved to speak by

909
a reference in the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, to bananas. Bananas are an interest of mine. The banana regime affects not merely dependent territories in the Caribbean, but also other islands which have a Commonwealth status. It is one of the occasions where we have been neglectful of possibilities open to us in the way of manipulating—to the advantage of people who are dependent upon us in part for their livelihood—the legal situation that exists.
As noble Lords will be aware, the preferences which are available for Caribbean bananas, and which are due to expire in a short time, are allowed on the basis of previous access to markets. However, the likelihood appears to be that the French islands will continue to enjoy the preference because as they are legally speaking part of metropolitan France they are not regarded as outside the European Union. I did not give the Minister notice of my next suggestion because I do not expect an answer today. I seek to launch an idea which has come to me. Perhaps we ought to think of reversing part of our decolonisation. Would it not be possible, by agreement with some of these territories, to say that they are from some points of view part of the United Kingdom? I do not think many of us would object to their having a number of representatives not merely in this House but also in another place. If the French say, "That is not right" we could say, "You say the French islands are part of France because they are represented in the French Assembly; these territories are part of the United Kingdom because they are represented in our much older and more prestigious Parliament".
Of course there will be objections, but when we hear—as we have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Bethell—about the way in which Spain, which is one of our partners in Europe, violates all the principles of the European Union as regards free movement in pursuit of its territorial demands on Gibraltar, I do not think we need worry about being accused of being somewhat legalistic. I put that proposal to your Lordships because I think there is a moral case—it was put by the noble Earl, Lord Iveagh, in his maiden speech—for saying that as regards people in countries which in one way or another have been associated with this country (whatever their legal status now) we are under some obligation to look after their material interests. To enable a few thousand people to continue to grow excellent bananas seems to me to be an unanswerable case. I hope that the FCO will look into that possibility.
4.40 p.m.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, we are all especially grateful to my noble friend Lady Hooper, with her expert knowledge on the subject, for raising the issue of dependent territories, particularly at this time of the hand-over of Hong Kong. I should also like to congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Iveagh, on his very heartfelt speech on St. Helena.
My intervention, which, mercifully for your Lordships, will be brief, is to be about the Falkland Islands, but I was tempted by my noble friend Lord Bethell, when he talked of the difficulties of getting through the Gibraltar-Spanish border, to mention an
910
occasion when we had to abandon our Gibraltar-based taxi in Gibraltar because it was not allowed to set its wheels on Spanish soil, drag our heavy suitcases, which did not for some reason have wheels, through the pouring rain to the other side of the border, where the queuing Spanish taxi drivers then proceeded to fight each other with their fists in order to drag us into their rival taxis. It was not an easy way to pass from one part of the common market to another.
However, to turn to the Falklands, my eldest son served in the conflict in 1982 and I have subsequently visited the islands. Like all dependent territories the Falkland Islands wish to remain under the sovereignty of the British Government, where they have been, with a brief interregnum in 1982, for the last 163 years. Eleven years after the conflict the Argentines again attempted to claim sovereignty—which of course makes it difficult for the Falkland Islanders to work amicably with them as they would like to do. How can you work with someone who does not believe that you exist? It may be a little longer in the time schedule, but I have not noticed Britain claiming sovereignty over Poitiers and Anjou, nor indeed Calais; and Austria is keeping pretty quiet about Bosnia-Herzegovina.
The fundamental principle of self-determination is enshrined in the Falkland Islands constitution. They also have friendly relations with both Chile and Uruguay, where they now have air and sea links. The Falkland Islands now have a healthy and well-managed fishing industry, which keeps them financially buoyant, and they hope in the next 20 years or so to develop the oil potential in their offshore waters. Already they are self-supporting, building new roads, a new hospital, which I have visited, and a splendid hydroponic farm in which they grow all their own lettuces and cucumbers. There is a new school, a new indoor swimming-pool, and they already contribute to our defence costs. When the oil comes on schedule, as it will do early in the millennium, they are optimistic that they will be able to cover the whole cost of our military presence there.
This is a success story, and a very happy one. But we must always remember those who made it possible: my noble friend Lady Thatcher, the Falkland islanders themselves, all the men and women of our services who fought there, their back-up teams at home and, above all, those who are still suffering from that combat—those who gave their lives, and their parents, widows and children. Without them, none of this would have happened.
4.43 p.m.
Lord St. John of Bletso: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, for having introduced today's debate, and join other noble Lords in congratulating my noble friend Lord Iveagh on a very moving maiden speech. When, at his age, I gave my maiden speech in this House I had an acute stutter. I was absolutely petrified, but could not have had a more sympathetic audience. I hope that we shall hear a lot more from my noble friend.
As most speakers mentioned, today's debate is extremely opportune, coming on the eve of the hand-over of Hong Kong to China later this month. That

911
has resulted in a resurgence of tabloid coverage on the current status of the United Kingdom's dependent territories, with headlines ranging from:
"Imperial relics happy to he pink",
to,
"No honour left in what is left of the Empire",
to the recent Financial Times heading on 30th May:
"Outposts of Empire still a burden".
Despite their geographical mix across the globe, one point about the dependent territories made quite clear by previous speakers is that none of the remaining territories appears likely to demand independence, and all appear to value their links with Britain.
I was fortunate to be a member of the all-party group led by the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, which visited Gibraltar last month. It provided an extremely worthwhile insight, not merely into the views and concerns of all the political parties there, but also into the major obstacles to the ability of Gibraltar to establish itself as a thriving financial services centre. I shall touch on a few of my concerns in my closing remarks.
It is acknowledged fact that this House has played a key role in addressing and representing many of the concerns of the citizens of the dependent territories and has been successful in a number of cases in securing full citizenship for some of the dependencies.
In preparing for today's debate I drew up five themes that I felt should be addressed. Unfortunately, some have not been addressed and time precludes me from elaborating on them. After listening to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, on bananas, I must add a sixth. The issues I thought should be raised are: the ramifications of the British Nationality Act and the likely calls for full British citizenship by some of the territories; the United Nations resolution on the eradication of colonialism by the year 2000; the right of self-determination, an issue raised by almost all speakers—I am pleased that the noble Lords, Lord Iveagh and Lord Beaumont, raised the current problems being experienced on St. Helena; and finally, the important issue of the contingent liabilities of the dependent territories to Her Majesty's Government.
There appears to be a feeling in the territories that to varying degrees they are misunderstood and to a certain degree neglected by the Foreign Office. Will the Minister clarify whether the dependent territories will now fall under the responsibility of the new Minister for International Development, Ms. Clare Short? I hope that the Minister will also answer the question raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Hooper and Lady Young, as to whether the Government will be pressing at the Commonwealth Summit in October for the dependent territories to have representation within the Commonwealth.
One of the conclusions of the recent National Audit Office report into contingent liabilities in the dependent territories was:
"the United Kingdom remains exposed, especially from financial sector failures, corruption, drug trafficking, money laundering, migrant pressure and natural disasters".
912
Against those concerns it should be recognised that in the past five years there have been considerable improvements in the administration of most of the territories—I say the past five years as during that time there has been a considerable tightening of financial supervision regulations. It is also a fact that all major financial centres are vulnerable to international commercial crime.
Most of the dependent territories, with the marked exception of St. Helena, are financially self-sufficient. I am sure that in her closing remarks the Minister will address the measures that Her Majesty's Government will continue to take to encourage all dependent territories to introduce legislation equivalent to the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act to extend co-operation to all criminal investigations.
I should like to make brief mention of Gibraltar. When the new government was elected last year, the Chief Minister, Peter Caruana, extended an olive branch to the Spanish Government, inviting a relationship of co-operation and dialogue. His attempts at establishing a friendly relationship have, as several noble Lords have already mentioned, been firmly blocked by the Spanish Government. It should also be recognised that his government have taken strong measures to eradicate drug trafficking and have introduced tight money-laundering legislation. However, the territory remains a siege economy, continuously being harassed and blockaded by Spain.
Chief Minister Caruana has called for a change in the constitution to allow for a new status, not unlike that of Guernsey and Jersey, a point already raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner. This change in status would certainly not breach the Treaty of Utrecht. Will the Government give some consideration to this suggestion and outline their policy for resolving the impasse in Gibraltar?
Finally, I should like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, for giving us this opportunity to discuss this wide-ranging issue today.
4.52 p.m.
Lord Merrivale: My Lords, I propose to confine my remarks to Gibraltar and two issues with a distinct human element which recently culminated in peaceful demonstrations. I refer to the closure of the dockyard and to Spain's denial of European Union rights to the people of Gibraltar.
On 28th May a representative group of former dockyard workers held a silent demonstration outside the House of Assembly to expose the plight of 138 men and their families. It is now over four months since the labour force received their redundancy notices. I would therefore recall the agreement between the Government of Gibraltar and Her Majesty's Government on the closure of the Royal Naval Dockyard and associated measures dated 26th July 1983.
When the dockyard reopened as the Gibraltar Ship Repair Company, it was managed by A & P Appledore International Ltd. They closed down, as did the later managing firm, Kvaerner. On 3rd June I received a Written Answer to my Question as to what assistance

913
Her Majesty's Government were prepared to give towards reopening the dockyard. The answer was that they had offered to help the Government of Gibraltar find a new operator. The matter is urgent. I regret that there was no mention of financial assistance, bearing in mind the plight of the redundant, fully qualified, trained labour force and taking into account, too, that in Gibraltar there is no welfare state.
I turn now to the demonstration (by means of a march of 10,000 citizens of Gibraltar) on 13th May, which included a petition to our Prime Minister through His Excellency the Governor. It states:
"We the people of Gibraltar being British citizens of the European Union have all united today in a public demonstration to protest against the policies of the Government of the Kingdom of Spain which amount to a blatant disregard and denial of our fundamental European Union rights".
Her Majesty's Government are well aware of those rights, and I will mention some of them. Spain operates a land frontier with Gibraltar in a most unconventional manner, with restrictions and capriciously caused delays. Gibraltar is excluded from air liberalisation measures on account of Spain's attitude. Spain alone refuses to recognise Gibraltar's international telephone area code (350). Spain objects to an air link between Gibraltar and Madrid and to a maritime link between Gibraltar and Algeciras. Spain refuses to recognise Gibraltar's identity cards, which have been accepted by the Commission. Spain insists that Gibraltar should be excluded from the proposed European Union convention on external frontiers. Finally, Spain advocates the exclusion of Gibraltar from certain directives. It is therefore interesting that Senor Javier Perez-Griffo should state last Friday before the United Nations Committee of 24 that:
"Spain had no intentions that were harmful to the people of the colony of Gibraltar".
These are issues of considerable concern to every Gibraltarian. When the Minister replies, will she say which of these issues are currently being raised by Her Majesty's Government in Brussels and Madrid with a view to an acceptance by Spain of some of her Community obligations vis-à-vis Gibraltar?
4.57 p.m.
Lord Holderness: My Lords, over the years I have been lucky enough to visit a number of our remaining dependent territories and, in common with the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, and perhaps one or two other Members of your Lordships' House, I am one of the few Members who have been even more fortunate to visit the Island of St. Helena. I was delighted that the noble Lord and the noble Earl, Lord Iveagh, mentioned some of the problems of the island.
I greatly enjoyed the maiden speech of the noble Earl, Lord Iveagh. He may not know it, but I should like to claim him as my noble kinsman. However, when I confess that I am a first cousin not of his father but of his grandfather, it rather suggests that I am getting a little ancient. I was delighted to hear his speech and I hope we shall hear from him again. He made a number
914
of very constructive suggestions about economic opportunities on the island which I hope the Minister will follow up when she replies to the debate.
When I was in St. Helena I examined some of the economic possibilities, particularly agriculture, fishing and tourism. I found all of them rather more promising than I had expected, and I think that that remains the situation. However, as noble Lords will readily understand, I found that all the economic possibilities facing the island are dogged by its geographical position as a small island in the middle of the vast south Atlantic ocean, which only Almighty God can change. Despite the wishes, and no doubt the prayers, of the Emperor Napoleon, so far the Almighty has shown no disposition to do so. It is therefore something that the island has to put up with.
The associated problem of inaccessibility is obvious to all of us, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont. When I was on the island, I examined the possibilities of reducing that inaccessibility. Certainly, the airport and air travel was one possibility. I looked at the site where an airport or a big landing strip might be constructed. The conclusion to my ignorant mind was that it was possible technically but that the problems of infrastructure, weather and long distance, even supposing complete co-operation from Ascension Island, which is the nearest point, would all be fairly difficult to overcome.
I was still left with the opinion that the existing RMS "St Helena" which took me there and took me away is probably the best alternative suggestion that exists at present and probably will exist in the future. The "St Helena" is very comfortable, friendly, well administered and, considering the technical difficulties that it had, remarkably reliable. I hope that the new schedule that has been introduced will meet the travel needs of passengers and the import/export need for goods in and out of the island which are so essential to its well-being.
So far, I have resisted the temptation to press the obvious question that the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, and other noble Lords have asked about the possible future of the island's status. I hope that this afternoon the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, will give us answers which are as satisfactory and constructive as the answers that I have heard her give to questions over the past two weeks. If she can do so, a number of us will be extremely satisfied. I should like her to give firm hope to the just claims of the islanders—or the Saints—for the restoration of the right that they enjoyed for 300 years and for them to be met without delay.
I bear some responsibility and a little guilt because the Government of whom I am a supporter allowed St. Helena only dependent territory citizenship. Like a number of other people, I judge that the claim of the island for full citizenship is at least as strong as that of the Falkland Islands or Gibraltar, if not stronger. Let us not have any misunderstanding. For the life of me, I cannot see that the restoration of that right and the grant of full citizenship would lead to a large proportion of the very small population of the island suddenly deciding that they wanted to come and settle in this country. St. Helena is a very pleasant place. I do not

915
believe that many people are tempted to leave the delightful surroundings which they enjoy in St. Helena in order to live in a more sophisticated, more complicated and less tranquil society. I do not believe that restoration would lead to wholesale migration.
However, I do believe that the psychological importance of moving, as they see it, from what they consider now to be second-class citizenship would transform the present loyalty that they feel into a deep affection, which, to people like myself who take pride in past empire, present commonwealth and the achievements of Britain all over the world for the past 200 or 300 years, would give enormous pleasure. It would, I believe, be a proper reward.
5.5 p.m.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I start by congratulating the noble Earl, Lord Iveagh, on his maiden speech. I was the same age as he when I made my maiden speech and it was one of the most terrifying events that I have ever lived through. I also want to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, for initiating the debate.
I should like to reflect on what the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, started to say in his speech. He used the words "fresh start". I think it is quite a good time to bring forward the issue of dependent territories when we are so soon to discuss the subject of devolution in Scotland. We on these Benches support devolution in Scotland and wish the Government every success in the forthcoming referendum and the Bill to follow.
But devolution in Scotland should not be equated immediately with independence. Independence is quite different and is not something that most of the colonies have shown that they either wish or actively seek. Devolution means moving power to the regions. In the case of the dependent territories, self-determination is an issue that goes to the core of the debate this afternoon.
The noble Lord, Lord Waddington, mentioned the issue of Bermuda. I confess that I did not realise that Bermuda has the third oldest parliament. But the very success of Bermuda and the stability that it has shown, which is reflected in the financial community that has adopted Bermuda, shows how important self-determination can be. Other dependent territories also seek self-determination, particularly the Falklands and Gibraltar.
Although mismanaged rather badly before the conflict, the Falklands has transformed itself in the past 15 years. It now has a vibrant fishing industry. Indeed, it is building up an economic reserve for the hard times ahead, should the fishing industry happen to fail. It is also building up a rather impressive tourism industry—though I understand that to reach the Falklands one has to take a rather basic Tristar and it is a rather expensive and uncomfortable flight. But it is not just that, potentially the Falklands is one of the oil states of the next century. Even though the Falklands is on the brink of becoming a very wealthy state, the fact that it is so keen to remain under the aegis of Britain should give an indication of how closely it views those connections. Indeed, the Falklands now attracts immigration from
916
this country. I have a personal friend who immigrated to the Falklands in the past year. He has married and has added by one to the population.
One of the issues that both the Falklands and Gibraltar both raise is the importance of Britain—not just Britain itself but Britain in its place within the European Community. It seems strange that most people outside Britain can easily see the importance of Britain being a member of Europe whereas that seems to be lost on many people within Britain itself.
There are many important issues associated with our access to Europe, not least of which is trade. But the territory which has most to gain from closer access to Europe has to be Gibraltar. Although Gibraltar is on the continental land mass of Europe, it seems to be having more difficulty than any other dependent territory. I was recently part of the delegation led by the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, which went to Gibraltar. Many different issues were brought home to me about the difficulties that Gibraltar faces, not least the difficulty it has with its borders. It seems that the Spanish, by making access through the border checkpoint as difficult as possible, are intent on killing any tourist industry that wants to enter and grow in Gibraltar. Indeed, it is hardly coincidental that the longest queues seem to follow the rush hour traffic. The queues are greatest entering Gibraltar in the morning and leaving Gibraltar in the afternoon, which can hardly be coincidental. I ask the Minister, as did the noble Lord, Lord Bethel], what action the Government are taking to push Spain into easing those problems.
The other issue of great importance is that concerning passports. It seems outrageous that people carrying British passports issued in Gibraltar should have difficulty in airports around the world. Another issue is telephone access. The noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, mentioned the code of 350. If Gibraltar is to have a growing economy, it is unbelievable that it should be allowed only 30,000 telephone lines. I realise that its population is under that figure, but anybody who runs a business will know that there is a vast need for an increase in the number of telephone lines.
If the economy of Gibraltar is to grow and flourish in the future, there will need to be a change of attitude on the part of the Spanish. I hope that the Government, with their new and improved relations within Europe, will press the Spanish to ease the problems that they are causing.
The position of the dependent territories has changed markedly over the past 15 years. The economic position of many has grown significantly. The fact that Bermuda and the Cayman Islands are now financial centres and the Falklands is on the brink of becoming a wealthy oil state means that we can no longer treat them as we have in the past. According to most members of the dependent territories our treatment gave them the sense of not being wanted. In many cases that charge of mismanagement is justifiable.
I hope that the Government will look carefully at the issue of the nationality Act. It may be time to review the situation and go forward and give full British

917
citizenship to those dependent territories that wish it. Greater access to the Commonwealth is also an issue on which the Government could take immediate steps.
I should like to conclude by reflecting the sentiments put forward by my noble friend Lady Hamwee on the appalling situation in Montserrat. I hope that the Minister will look closely at the situation there. It is an issue that has been raised many times in this House. It seems that what were short-term solutions to the crisis are turning into unacceptable long-term solutions.
5.13 p.m.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, if one ever wanted evidence of the value of the existing skills of the House of Lords, I believe that today's debate has encapsulated it. It would be difficult to devise a system that would introduce more expertise into a debate such as this. I add my congratulations to the noble Earl, Lord Iveagh, on his excellent maiden speech.
We have been given such an excellent overview of the whole situation regarding the dependent territories that I do not intend to repeat all the arguments—I am sure your Lordships will be delighted to hear—made by those far more qualified and experienced than myself. I should perhaps mention that I too took part in the recent visit to Gibraltar and will return to that subject shortly.
It frightened me the other day when I read that in 1982 Tony Blair was clear on his policy on the Falkland Islands. The Sunday Telegraph reported him as saying:
"I want a negotiated settlement and I believe that, given the starkness of the military options, we need to compromise on certain things. I don't think that ultimately the wishes of the Falkland Islanders must determine that position".
We are told now that Labour's attitude is that,
"Labour has consistently re-affirmed its position that the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands is a matter for the islanders themselves".
The two statements are hardly consistent. Can we believe the latest version? The Government of Argentina certainly do not take recent declarations at face value. The Argentinian Minister of Defence, Senor Jorge Dominguez, stated on 23rd April this year in Jane's Defence Weekly,
"We believe that the English stand will be modified … I believe that after the 1st May, a new phase of review of the Malvinas with a new Labour administration will start".
He also confirmed that his colleagues at the Argentine Foreign Ministry had already had meetings with "several" politicians, including Tony Blair. Does that show consistency and confidence? Perhaps the Minister could comment on that.
My noble friend Lady Young made a definitive speech on the situation in relation to the Caribbean dependent territories. One major concern must be that the threatened economic collapse—brought about by the banana problem referred to by my noble friend Lord Beloff—may result in a significant increase in criminal activity and those territories close to US territories could well become the front line in a drugs war.
My noble friend Lord Beloff rather stole my thunder on the situation between the French islands in the Caribbean and our own. Perhaps I may add one point to
918
his remarks; that is, as overseas departments of France and being in the EU, they receive handsome subsidies from the common agricultural policy, to which of course the British taxpayer contributes.
In the reducing days of our influence in Hong Kong, I and everyone else would greatly appreciate from the Government today a commitment that they will make every effort to protect the human rights of those in Hong Kong and indicate how they intend to go about it. After all, the Foreign Secretary stated in his highly expensive presentation of the new "mission statement"—£58,000 is the reported cost of that jamboree—
"Our foreign policy must have an ethical dimension and must support the demands of other peoples for the democratic rights on which we insist for ourselves … human rights will he at the heart of our foreign policy".
Perhaps the Minister will comment on those remarks. We will watch closely that commitment in Hong Kong and other areas.
As many noble Lords have stated, Gibraltar is an enigma. Others have spoken at length on that territory and we would like to know where the Government stand on the rights of Gibraltarians, particularly on the aspect of Spain's intransigence. Perhaps the suggestion of the Chief Minister that Gibraltar might take on a status similar to Guernsey merits consideration.
I am aware that I have not been able to mention every dependent territory. I hope that those not mentioned individually will not believe that they are unimportant to us in any way. I thank my noble friend Lady Hooper for tabling this well-timed debate and congratulate her on the way in which she introduced it. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say in reply.
5.18 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, on raising this important and highly topical issue. When the noble Baroness spoke she urged me to reply fully and frankly and I shall certainly attempt to do so. However, she will appreciate that a wide range of issues have been raised and some in great detail. If I am not able to cover everything, I shall write to noble Lords who raised points I am not able to cover.
With the transfer of sovereignty over Hong Kong fast approaching and the publication on 30th May of the National Audit Office report on the dependent territories, it is right that this House should have an opportunity to debate and consider the current status of the dependent territories and plans for their longer-term future. At this point I thank the noble Earl, Lord Iveagh, for his extremely well researched and well informed speech. He spoke with real feeling about St. Helena.
A successful transition for Hong Kong is one of the Government's highest priorities. We are committed to doing all we can, with China, to secure Hong Kong's continued stability and prosperity on the basis of the 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration.

919
I do not wish to pre-empt parliamentary examination of the NAO report. But the NAO found that, while the UK remains exposed in a number of areas, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has undertaken a number of significant initiatives since the NAO's first report in 1991, to identify and minimise the risk of contingent liabilities in the dependent territories. Indeed, the noble Lord, St. John of Bletso, drew our attention to that.
The remaining 13 British dependent territories are dependent territories because, in all cases where there is a permanent resident population, that is the clear wish of the overwhelming majority. We should, I believe, be proud that those people continue to place their trust for their well-being, defence and security in the United Kingdom.
The populations of these territories will number only 180,000 people. But, despite their tiny populations, the dependent territories will continue to rank high in the United Kingdom's external policy priorities. Their reasonable needs are a first charge on UK aid funds; the defence of the dependent territories is in the forefront of the Ministry of Defence's tasks and objectives. Their governments enjoy a degree of access that is much higher than independent countries of comparable size, and Her Majesty's Government's representatives in the territories are intimately involved in the daily lives of these communities.
Of course, the territories vary dramatically in their geographical location: from Pitcairn to the British Indian Ocean Territory, from Gibraltar to the Falklands, from Cayman to the British Antarctic Territory. They vary greatly in their degree of economic development; from Bermuda, with a per capita GDP of 28,000 dollars, to Montserrat and St. Helena, with incomes respectively of just 6,000 and 3,500 dollars per head, and aid programmes amounting to many millions of pounds.
And they vary in the threats they face to their short-and long-term stability and viability. Some, as we have heard, are the subject of territorial claims. The Caribbean dependent territories are on the narcotics routes to the United States. Their rapidly expanded offshore financial services sectors are at risk from funds with dubious origins. Cayman and Turks and Caicos are faced periodically by waves of illegal migration. As we have heard today, much of Montserrat has been rendered uninhabitable by a volcano. St. Helena's isolation and limited resources oblige special consideration. The Government are alive to all these challenges and threats and, through the deployment of diplomatic, material, financial and legislative resources, are committed to assisting the territories to counter them.
Our governors, commissioners and administrators, as representatives of Her Majesty's Government, in all cases save the Falklands remain responsible for defence, external relations and security. However, elsewhere in the constitutional area there is variety. In some territories our representatives retain greater reserve powers than in others, and the legislatures are variously constituted. A common feature of all is a very high degree of internal self-government and in most instances, where there is a permanent resident
920
population, power lies with locally elected Ministers and councillors. The degree of central control which permeated nearly all levels of government in the former colonies is a thing of the past. The relationship is now much more one of partnership.
In all good partnerships there are obligations and expectations. The UK side is committed to ensuring the good administration, economic and social development of the territories, as well as to guaranteeing their security and defence. We also have the right to minimise the extent to which the UK is exposed to contingent liabilities in the dependent territories, and to expect high standards of probity, government and adherence to the international agreements to which the UK and the dependent territories are party. The governments of the dependent territories recognise that it is in the interests of both the United Kingdom and the territories that there should be a positive and collaborative relationship. An atmosphere of uncertainty and confrontation damages confidence, essential to the survival of the global economy of which the dependent territories are very much a part.
Looking forward to the future, I wish now to assure the House that the transfer of sovereignty over Hong Kong will not lead to any decline in the level of the Government's interest in or concern for the remaining dependent territories. There will be no change in our policy towards them. We will continue to support the principle of self-determination, exercised in accordance with the other rights and principles of the UN Charter, as well as other treaty obligations. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, that we will not seek in any way to influence opinion on independence, but we will remain ready to respond positively wherever this is a clearly and constitutionally expressed wish, and where it is an option.
Similarly, I wish to assure the noble Baroness, Lady Young, that there are therefore unlikely to be any fundamental changes in the relationship between the United Kingdom and the dependent territories for some time to come. However, we shall nevertheless shortly be looking at ways of improving our administrative structures in the light of the NAO report and the creation of the Department for International Development. The purpose will be to arrive at arrangements which serve both the requirements of the UK and the interests of the dependent territories. However, in response to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, I assure the House that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office will continue to retain overall responsibility for the territories.
I wish to pick up some of the detailed points made by noble Lords in their speeches. I begin by assuring the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, that we recognise the valuable work undertaken by the Dependent Territories Association. Foreign and Commonwealth Office officials regularly attend meetings of the DTA, with which they enjoy a very good working relationship, and we are supporting the DTA's plans for its second conference, which will be held in London next year.

921
EU immigration and labour policies towards non-EU nationals are a matter for individual EU governments. It is open to the dependent territories to pursue bilateral arrangements with individual states and we remain happy to assist through diplomatic channels.
On the question of the Commonwealth, it is for member states of the Commonwealth to agree the criteria of membership and participation. Membership of the Commonwealth is confined to independent sovereign states, but the dependent territories can and do participate at Commonwealth ministerial meetings as part of the UK delegation when the subject matter is relevant to them.
A number of noble Lords raised the question of UK and EU citizenship. I should be clear on this point. Her Majesty's Government have no plans at present to grant British citizenship to remaining dependent territories after Hong Kong returns to Chinese sovereignty. To do so would require reciprocal action in the territories, where we believe the governments are not keen to allow unrestricted access to British citizens. It is wrong to draw an analogy with the Falklands or Gibraltar. The Falklands gained citizenship through a Private Member's Bill and Gibraltar through its position within the EU as part of UK membership. It is also wrong and misleading to compare citizenship of the dependent territories with that of the French territories, whose constitutional status is different and which involves reciprocity.
It is important on this point to remember that there will still be 3.5 million British nationals in Hong Kong who would argue that any such change should include them. It really would be seen as highly cynical if we waited until sovereignty over Hong Kong had passed to China and then granted British citizenship to the remaining dependent territories.
A number of noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, and the noble Lords, Lord St. John of Bletso, Lord Redesdale and Lord Bethel], raised the issues surrounding Gibraltar. The Government stand firmly by the commitment made to the people of Gibraltar in the preamble to Gibraltar's 1969 constitution. We will never enter into arrangements under which the people of Gibraltar would pass under the sovereignty of another state against their freely and democratically expressed wishes. But of course we want a constructive relationship with Spain across the board, including issues surrounding Gibraltar. The Foreign Secretary met his Spanish counterpart in Luxembourg on 2nd June in the margins of the General Affairs Council. They discussed subjects of mutual interest, including Gibraltar. The Spanish Foreign Minister has given a public assurance that Spain has never questioned—and will not do so in future—the right of Gibraltarians to free movement in the EU and of course we expect Spain to respect that.
Allegations have been made too about money laundering. Gibraltar has introduced tough legislation. It is fully up to UK and EU standards. The Gibraltarian authorities have set up a regulatory mechanism, which we believe is being rigorously enforced. The noble Lord, Lord Bethell, raised questions about Gibraltar airport.
922
Since 1987 Gibraltar has been suspended from EC air liberalisation measures, including open access to air routes within the EU. We believe that the development of the airport would contribute significantly to the development of Gibraltar's economy and we are prepared to consider any practical proposal.
The noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, raised questions concerning Gibraltar dockyard. We are of course aware of the concerns felt by Gibraltarians on this issue. We have offered help to the Gibraltar Government to find a new operator. We will consider any other requests for assistance. The noble Lord also raised the issue of the Gibraltar demonstration. The Government recognise and understand the concerns about Spain's denial of their EU rights expressed by Gibraltarians in that demonstration. Gibraltar is part of the European Union by virtue of UK membership. It is important that Gibraltarians' rights are fully and clearly respected.
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, the noble Earl, Lord Iveagh, and the noble Lord, Lord Holderness, spoke about St. Helena. We recognise the difficulties imposed by St. Helena's isolation. It is a beautiful and unique island struggling to develop a viable and a self-sustaining economy. The Department of International Development provides £8 million in budgetary aid annually and subsidises the Royal Mail ship, which is the only regular means of communication. We have set up a special UK training and work experience scheme to build up St. Helena's skill base. We are discussing with other Whitehall departments the possibility of extending the scheme to allow some to obtain work in the United Kingdom. We hope to secure European funding for a major wharf improvement project and we are discussing with our American allies the possibility of opening Ascension Island to commercial traffic. That might allow an air link to St. Helena to become a commercially viable proposition. We have also been encouraged by the response to our Business Forum, which aims to support the work of St. Helena's Development Agency in attracting new investment to the island. All these measures are aimed at bringing real improvement to the people of St. Helena.
The noble Lord, Lord Waddington, raised issues about Bermuda. We all thank the noble Lord for his service to Bermuda as Governor and Commander-in-Chief. But may I tell him that the murmurings that he heard in the Foreign Office about "getting shot of"—I believe that those were his words—the dependent territories are not murmurings that I have heard. Indeed, as the Minister responsible for a number of dependent territories, I would be very shocked and disturbed to hear them. As the noble Lord pointed out, the island of Bermuda overwhelmingly rejected independence in a referendum in 1995 and the Bermudians have put this issue behind them.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, spoke well in a very detailed way, about conditions in Montserrat. I see detailed reports about Montserrat almost every day and I recognise all too well the appalling problems which she detailed to the House. She raised a number of extremely detailed points and I hope that she will forgive me when I say that I shall write back in detail to her about all the points she raised and put a copy of

923
my response in the Library of the House. Time does not permit here for me to answer in as much detail as I would wish.
The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, drew our attention to the problems surrounding the banana industry in the Caribbean and he gave us a rather ingenious plan for the future. We are examining the implications of the panel report of the World Trade Organisation, which remains confidential. It looks likely that some of the findings will be tested at an appellate body, but it is too soon to say what the eventual outcome of the dispute might be. We shall aim to minimise any disruptive effects on the fragile economies of the ACP banana producers. We are all too well aware of the possibilities of that going badly wrong.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young, raised a number of issues about the appointment of governors. Noble Lords should not be in any doubt about this. When we appoint governors we take particular care to establish that they will have a good working relationship within the dependent territories and we draw on a wide range of backgrounds. We shall continue to do so.
A number of noble Lords raised issues about money laundering in the Caribbean. I assure the House that the Government are working with the dependent territories to introduce a number of measures to strengthen their legislative and regulatory regimes and to improve their ability to co-operate with overseas law enforcement agencies and the appropriate regulatory authorities.
I cannot close without returning to the issues of the Falkland Islands and Hong Kong, particularly in the light of the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Chesham. I would like to assure the House of the commitment to uphold the right of self-determination and the security of the Falkland Islanders, which remain unchanged. Her Majesty's Government are not prepared to discuss the transfer or sharing of sovereignty in the Falklands. Similarly, the House should not be in any doubt of Britain's strong commitment to Hong Kong beyond the handover. We shall be reporting to Parliament at six-monthly intervals about the implementation of the Joint Declaration until at least the year 2000.
There are some who contend that the dependent territories are an anachronism at the end of the 20th century and that the United Kingdom has no business to be involved with such places at this time. Let there be no mistake. That is not this Government's view. We accept our responsibilities to these far-flung territories because it is the express wish of their people to continue to have the protection of the United Kingdom. The territories are an important part of the United Kingdom's history, which deserve to be, and which will be, appreciated and valued.
Finally, I would like to say how much I am looking forward to the conference which the Dependent Territories Association is organising next year and to which the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, referred. It will be an opportunity to affirm the importance of the dependent territories and to explore ways further to secure their future. I will myself be taking a very close interest in the remaining dependent territories, starting,
924
as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, may be pleased to learn, with a visit to Montserrat next week and a meeting with the governors of the Caribbean dependent territories at the same time.
Lord Bethell: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, perhaps I may say that I did give her notice of the point that I raised on the voting rights of Gibraltarians in European elections. Has she a note on that?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am sure that in the enormous volume of excellent briefing that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has given me, I probably have such a note. But perhaps I may write to the noble Lord and place a copy of my answer in the Library of the House as it is such an important issue.
5.39 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I have been fortunate and have visited some of the dependent territories, but by no means all of them. This afternoon, however, I feel that I have had a whirlwind tour because between us I believe that we have touched on every dependent territory. I thank all noble Lords who have participated in the debate, who have given us the benefit of their specialised knowledge and who have made some most constructive suggestions. I congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Iveagh, on his masterly maiden speech. I feel sure that all those contributions will be much appreciated by all those who read Hansard —and not only in the dependent territories.
I am glad that we were not too constrained by time. I am sure that if they had realised that, other noble Lords who may have wanted to participate would indeed have been present to express their point of view. As there is a little time remaining, perhaps I may pick up on one or two points which have been made, some of which were to be anticipated. Nevertheless, it is important to draw the Government's attention to them and to ask for an early response. Indeed, I am grateful for the response that we have been given.
It is clear that the impact of the Government's policies in other fields which are outside the direct responsibility of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office—obviously, that covers the European Community—is also important. I refer, for example, to defence policy and to the slimming down of garrisons, as well as to various constitutional proposals within the United Kingdom, not to mention law and order issues both in terms of the regulation of financial services and the battle against drugs, all of which could have an impact on the dependent territories. It is important that they are given a high profile to ensure that their importance is appreciated throughout government.
I believe that today may have marked the Minister's first reply to a debate from the Front Bench—it is certainly her first reply to a balloted debate—and I congratulate her on covering so much ground and on giving us so many positive answers and assurances. Perhaps I may pick out one or two of her responses and say how glad I am that she has given the dependent

925
territories the go-ahead to pursue bilateral relations with individual EU countries. If I heard the Minister correctly, the dependent territories may also try to alter their status within the Commonwealth. I believe that the noble Baroness said that there was nothing to prevent that, so I hope that the dependent territories will have the Government's support in doing that.
Finally, my plea to the Minister is that she maintains the momentum which has, I hope, been created by this debate. When she returns to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, I hope that the noble Baroness will convince her ministerial colleagues and any officials who may need convincing that all the issues and suggestions raised in this debate should be given the highest possible priority. This is a good time to consider a fresh start. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Comprehensive Spending Review
5.43 p.m.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should now like to repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Financial Secretary in another place. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Madam Speaker, I would like to make a short Statement about our approach to public spending in the medium term and the Comprehensive Spending Review promised in our manifesto.
"We set out our spending plans for this year and next in our manifesto. We made it clear that tough decisions would be needed but that such an approach was essential. We shall maintain that approach. This Statement looks beyond the next two years to the medium term.
"We will deliver prudent and sound management of the public finances to provide a stable platform for investment and growth. And we will ensure that public spending achieves the objectives we have set ourselves—objectives which are based on our key principles of opportunity, fairness, employment and investment. To achieve that, we must put the public finances into proper shape.
"Since 1990, public sector debt has almost doubled as a proportion of national output. In 1994 we were told there would be Budget balance in 1998–99, in 1995 we were told it had slipped a year to 1999–00, and last year it slipped again to 2000–01. As a result, after five years of growth, we are still borrowing to cover our current spending; the current deficit was about £20 billion last year and the last Budget forecast that we would stay in deficit for the next two years despite making some questionable assumptions. In order to rebuild public trust in the management of the public finances, my right honourable friend the Chancellor has asked the National Audit Office to review the forecasting assumptions he set out in the House on 20th May.
926
"The public has a right to know not just that total spending is affordable and prudent but that their money is being spent on their priorities; that it is being spent efficiently; and that the spending is effective. The Government spend over £300 billion, equivalent to over £5,000 a year for every man, woman and child in the country. We will reorder that £300 billion to meet our objectives, which were endorsed by the people on 1st May.
"Public spending needs to be clearly focused. And we will achieve that objective. There is no better time for a root-and-branch reappraisal of public spending priorities than at the start of a new government. We showed the way when we were in opposition. We said that we would provide nursery places for all four year-olds. We will find the money by scrapping nursery vouchers. We promised to cut waiting lists in the NHS. We will release the funds by releasing savings from red tape and bureaucracy. We promised to reduce class sizes for five, six, and seven year-olds. We will find the money to pay for it by abolishing the assisted places scheme. And we have already made a start in delivering these promises just weeks after the election.
"We will continue this approach in government. stripping out ill-targeted spending programmes that benefit only the few, and redirecting spending towards the priorities of the many.
"The Comprehensive Spending Review which I am announcing today will carry on that process. It will set out clear objectives for all departments. It will examine how we can achieve our objectives of modernising the welfare state, getting people into work, improving standards in education—in short, delivering our manifesto commitments as efficiently and effectively as we can. Every department will scrutinise its spending plans, in detail, from a zero base, and ask: how does each item of spending contribute to the Government's objectives as set out in our manifesto? Why are we spending this money? Do we need to spend it? What is it achieving? How effective is it? How efficiently are we spending it? Every objective will be costed—and departments' effectiveness in achieving them will be scrutinised. We will make sure we know how much we are spending on each objective—and that we can demonstrate to the public what we have achieved as a result.
"We will consider how best to provide services: what should be provided by the public sector, the private sector, or a combination of both in public-private partnerships. As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has said, "What counts is what works."
"As well as looking at spending in each department separately, we will also look at issues which cross departmental boundaries. These cross-departmental reviews will ensure we are not hidebound by the existing structure of government. The review will be co-ordinated by the Ministerial Committee on Public Expenditure, which will look at spending across departments. We will look in particular at

927
departments' efficiency at making the best use of their assets. We have asked departments to draw up an inventory of their assets—something no government has ever achieved before. We need to know what the Government own and whether they need these assets. If not, we shall reallocate the proceeds where they are needed most.
"This review will be thorough and far-reaching. All departments and all Ministers will be involved. It will take 12 months to complete, and its conclusions will inform a new set of public spending plans for the rest of this Parliament—a set that reflects our priorities and meets the country's needs beyond that. It will take the long term view.
"The review process is already under way. Terms of reference for the departmental reviews will be published shortly. The Government have already shown their determination to achieve their objectives. The Comprehensive Spending Review will provide us with a clear sense of direction and the long-term view that every government needs. We will ensure that the Government spend public money wisely and fairly, so that public spending matches the people's priorities."
My Lords, that ends the Statement.
5.51 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House is grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, for repeating this Statement. I very much appreciate the trouble to which he has gone to get up to speed with a Statement from a department for which he has no ministerial responsibility. I am a little puzzled as to why the responsible Treasury Minister is not here to deliver the Statement this afternoon.
If I had seen this Statement earlier in the day I am not sure that I would have troubled the scorer in having it repeated (to use a cricketing term). It is simply a series of soundbites and statements with which we can all agree.
"We will deliver prudent and sound management of the public finances to provide a stable platform for investment and growth".
I suspect that I too said that on innumerable occasions.
"The public has a right to know … that total spending is affordable"—
too right it has—
"[and] that their money is being spent on their priorities, that it is being spent efficiently, and that the spending is effective".
"Efficient and effective spending" were words that passed my lips on a fair number of occasions when I spoke from the opposite side.
"Every department will scrutinise its spending plans in detail"
Of course they did. They did it every year; it was called the public expenditure round.
"We will ensure that the Government spend public money wisely and fairly".
The number of occasions on which I said that when I led for the Department of Social Security was almost without number.
928
Perhaps I may deal with some of the other parts of the Statement to see whether they have any meaning. I look at the part that deals with the public sector debt which appears quite early on the first page of the Statement. I draw the noble Lord's attention to table 4.2 in the red book which shows the public sector finances. The noble Lord will see the decline in the PSBR forecast in the last Budget. Is he able to confirm that the decline is faster than is predicted in table 4.2, partly because revenues have been a good deal more buoyant and partly because unemployment has fallen at a very fast rate, including another 18,000 in the announcements today?
I should like to know whether the critical words in the Statement about the borrowing requirement mean that the Government intend to take steps to make it fall faster than table 4.2 indicates, even as revised on the basis of the better figures recently produced. If so, how will they achieve that? Will they cut government spending or increase taxation? In the Budget on 2nd July will taxes be increased in order to cut the borrowing deficit quicker? Does that include income tax, against the background of election promises to the British people that income tax would not be increased? Perhaps the noble Lord can put flesh on the bones of that particular part of the Statement.
Further on the Statement refers to a review of government assets and the work of government to be shared between the public and private sectors. One wonders how this Statement—which, if it means anything, gives support to the private finance initiative—squares with the considerable cut in the PFI hospital programme that one reads about in this morning's Financial Times. As I have said before from this Dispatch Box—in this new configuration, as I have described it—how is that to be squared with the views of the Scottish Labour Party and some Ministers in the Scottish Office on the Skye bridge? They continue to attack that project of privately-funded infrastructure. If the Statement meant anything, I should have thought that that would be something that they should applaud. If so, will they tell their friends in Scotland to stop attacking that example of privately-funded infrastructure?
Perhaps the noble Lord can also tell me whether I am to read into this review of the assets that, for example, there will be a halt to the PRIME project in the DSS which is about the disposal of assets. That project is now under way. When one looks at the decision on national air traffic control, does it mean that the Government intend to proceed with the privatisation of that activity?
I have another question that perhaps looks forward to next week's debate on the referendum in Scotland and Wales and all the other debates to come. The Statement says that all departments and Ministers will be involved in this review. Further, it states that every department will scrutinise its spending plans. I presume that that includes the Scottish Office. If the Scottish Office scrutinises its spending plans, what happens if it comes to a different conclusion from that arrived at according to the Barnett formula? Let us assume for a moment it concludes that spending in Scotland is markedly ahead

929
of spending in England; indeed, the same is true in Wales. If it concludes that spending in Scotland from that zero base does not meet what the Barnett formula suggests should be given to Scotland, will the Barnett formula be reviewed down the way to make sure that the Scottish budget is reduced to meet the spending plans arrived at from this zero base?
Finally, I refer to table 2.1 in the red book which is the important table indicating the Government's general expenditure as a percentage of GDP. If the noble Lord refers to that he will see that on our spending plans that percentage of GDP was predicted to drop to 40 per cent. in 1997–98 and then to proceed downward until it reached 36.75 per cent. in 2001–02. Nothing is said about that important part of the test of government expenditure; that is, affordability, effectiveness and sensible control of government expenditure. Is this review to be consistent with table 2.1 of the red book? Further, are the Government determined to get government expenditure down below 40 per cent.?
These are serious questions that require answers. They should have been answered in this Statement. Instead, the Statement looks like many of the other answers given both in this House and the other place. When one comes to asking about policy, all the answers are about reviews. It looks like the Windmill policy—the review that never closes.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, from these Benches we welcome the fact that the Government are to embark on a comprehensive spending review. We believe that it is right that at the start of their period of office they should do so. We hope that it will be possible for us to be kept informed of progress and to have a major debate at the end of the review.
We are told that the objective is to re-focus the spending of public funds. I hope however that it will not just be a cost-cutting exercise and that there will be identification of those areas not only where expenditure can be properly reduced but where additional expenditure is urgently required. In particular, when one talks of additional expenditure one is bound to have in mind the health and education sectors. I take it that in making their assessment the Government will take full account of public/private participation—indeed, it was mentioned in the Statement—and make a realistic reassessment of what private funding and services can provide. Very shortly a report is due out on this. I believe that a reassessment is called for.
Do the Government also recognise that there is another major sector where additional expenditure is urgently required; that is, the housing sector? The noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, asked two days ago about the release of capital receipts. Poor housing is costing us much more than would be expended were we to try to put that housing right. These are costs in terms of health, education and crime prevention. I hope that those aspects will be taken into account in the review. I conclude by saying that we support this concept. We
930
hope that it will cover areas where costs can be reduced, identify where additional costs are required and indicate how those costs might be met.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, for his comments. Although to him what I had to say amounted to soundbites, the difference between our soundbites and his soundbites is that we mean it and we will do it. I believe he knows that when taking over a new organisation every responsible management has a comprehensive spending review. It is a prudent thing to do. That is why we are getting on with doing it. He asked about public sector debt and whether we shall be raising money through taxes to adjust the PSBR. This review is about spending. It is not about money raising. We will consider the position once we have all the details from the review.
The noble Lord asked about the PSBR and hospitals. He mentioned the article in today's Financial Times. He will be aware that we have taken the decision that all PFI projects do not have to be assessed from the point of view of public/private finance, and that we have taken 11 of the 45 NHS projects, because they are the ones that seem to be the most viable, to have the best chance of success and to be the most affordable.
The noble Lord asked about the Scottish Office and the Barnett formula.
Lord Barnett: A very good formula, my Lords!
Lord Haskel: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Barnett will be aware that that formula has been in place for some 20 years. There is no intention to make any alternation to the Barnett formula until the review has been completed.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I am delighted to hear that.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, it shows that my noble friend was very sound when he introduced his formula.
The privatisation of air traffic control is already in the financial plan. It is the Government's intention to continue with the plan.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackay, referred to table 2.1 in the red book. He asked whether we are going to reduce the percentage of GDP taken in taxation to below 40 per cent. In our manifesto we target 40 per cent. as being the objective that we are determined to achieve. We shall try to achieve it. One important step towards achieving that objective is to have this comprehensive review.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, welcomed the review, and I thank him for that welcome. This is not a cost-cutting exercise; it is a simple, straightforward exercise in determining what is the expenditure. As such, it will be up to each departmental Minister to decide how to reallocate his or her resources. There is no intention that this should be a cost-cutting exercise. So far as concerns additional expenditure on health and education, there is a slight increase in the health budget in the two-year spending plans to which we are committed to adhere, and that will be carried out. On education, as I said in

931
the Statement, by eliminating nursery vouchers we will increase expenditure in education to reduce class sizes for five, six and seven year-olds. Any further education expenditure will be a matter for the department to reallocate its expenditure.
So far as concerns the release of capital receipts from housing, we will honour our manifesto commitment to reinvest the receipts from the sale of council housing received but not spent by the councils. Spending will be phased to match the capacity of the building industry and in the interests of prudent economic management. A Bill has been published paving the way towards the implementation of that initiative. The review will address the policy framework for reinvesting the receipts. I shall make just one final point about housing receipts, because it is something to which the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, has referred in the past. It is not part of the PSBR because it is outside the control total.
I return to privatisation of air traffic control. We will look at the options on their merits. Our approach will be pragmatic rather than the doctrinaire approach of the previous government. We shall be reviewing air traffic control, and I am sorry if I misled the House.
6.8 p.m.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister will be kind enough to answer a few questions. I agree with my noble friend Lord Mackay that this seems to be a Statement full of policies but short of facts on how the action will be taken. Will the inventory that is to be produced include the cost of whichever asset is on the inventory? Will there be an estimate of the amount that might be obtained from the sale? Presumably the reason for obtaining an up-to-date inventory is to sell off some of the assets; that is, privatise them. Will the Minister explain why it was that when the Conservative Government were privatising, the Labour Party opposed it tooth and nail?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, the purpose of the inventory is to inform the Government as to what assets are available. There is no question of it being a matter of privatisation. If those assets are not being used efficiently, they will be reallocated.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, in the early part of the Statement, the Minister repeated his party's promise to reduce class sizes. Obviously that will mean that a large number of new teachers will be required. Where do the Government intend to get those new teachers? Will they give the House an undertaking that they will not do as I understand from a man who was at that time a lecturer at Nonington Teacher Training College was done and instruct the colleges not to fail students who were applying to become teachers, no matter how bad those students were?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot answer the last part of the noble Lord's question within the context of this spending review. As regards where the money will come from to pay extra teachers, my right honourable friend the Minister for Education will
932
have to reallocate resources within his department and find the money to pay the teachers. He will do so in the way he believes to be best.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, it was not a question of where the Minister will find the money but where he will find the teachers. Far more teachers will be needed in order to reduce class sizes.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, many teachers were recently made redundant and therefore there may be a pool of teachers. Furthermore, presumably the teacher training colleges and the universities are training teachers.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the Statement indicated that the Government will be harsh on ill-targeted spending programmes. I hope that when they rearrange the cheques on the deck of the Treasury they will be equally harsh on ill-targeted savings cuts. The Minister will be well aware—I have reminded noble Lords of it many times—that a Treasury guideline states that those who are planning reductions in spending in one department must consider the cost implications for other departments. I hope that the Government will observe that guideline much better than their predecessors did. In particular, I hope that they will interleave this review with today's welcome announcement of a review of the territory covered by the Black Report. I hope that if they contemplate any savings in the Department of Social Security they will consider any possible costs that those savings may create for the Department of Health.
Finally, I hope that they will consider a paraphrase of the advice which my honourable friend Mr. Foster once gave to Mr. John Patten; they should not think that jam the day after tomorrow will get them out of a pickle today.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I am sure that we will not be thinking about jam getting us out of a pickle! As regards the targeting of savings, I am not sure that that is a matter for this review. It is a matter for taxation. As regards the last part of the noble Earl's question relating to the Black Report, one of the purposes of the review is that it will take an approach across government departments.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, when as a director or chairman of a company I have been involved in the takeover of another company, what was set out in the books at the time has been accepted. However, afterwards it is the custom and practice to review the books in order to see whether they are correct and to make sure that everything is in order. It is common custom and practice. Surely, the Statement reiterates what is a common practice in most companies which have been taken over by a new organisation. That new organisation makes sure that what is in the books is correct. That is all that the Statement does.
The things that have been said by the Members of the Opposition—and I hope they remember that they are Members of the Opposition and that they were in power

933
for 18 years—are rightly being checked by us. After all, they did little during the past 12 months and we are making sure that everything in the books is correct.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that comment. When a company takes over an organisation it certainly does as he suggests. The whole purpose is to re-target the expenditure to the objectives of the new management—to the objectives of this new Government.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as this is the first time that I have spoken in the House since the election, perhaps I may take the opportunity to congratulate the noble Lord and the Opposition Front Bench team on their appointments—
Noble Lords: Government!
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I refer to the former Opposition. It is difficult after 18 years suddenly to realise that there are changes for the noble Lord's party as well as for mine. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, that one is duty bound to look at the books. However, I say to the Minister that there is nothing new in the Statement. As my noble friend Lord Mackay said—and as the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, will know—we have all done this exercise before.
I take issue with the Minister that it will be "a simple and straightforward exercise". It will be anything but simple and straightforward because we know how difficult it is. However, the noble Lord's party will do it.
Will the Minister ask the government departments to take a more private sector view of what is capital and what is income? I believe that the public are concerned to know more about that. Secondly, will he ask departments to take a more long term view; longer than three years? I do not believe that many private sector companies take a three-year view but must take a longer-term view. Thirdly, the private finance initiative has implications for what is revenue and what is capital, in particular when the terms of the agreement come to an end after 20 or 25 years. Will the review highlight what will be capital and what will be revenue? What will be the effect on public expenditure at the end of the term of the various agreements? Finally, if the Government are serious about being effective and taking care of public finances, as they have said, surely they should take full and sole responsibility for creating the money supply.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his kind words. He inferred from my comment that this was a simple review, that there would be nothing new. I respond by saying that we are carrying out the review with new objectives. The Government have come to power with policies to which public spending must be adapted. The purpose of the review is to start carrying them out. The difference between this review and all the others is that we are undertaking it with those objectives in mind.
934
Regarding the noble Earl's comments about capital and income, I am not qualified to get into an argument over the minutiae of accountancy. However, I would point out that we are introducing resource accounting, which the noble Earl has mentioned on previous occasions, and I remind him that it was the Tory Government which reduced the budgeting period from five years to three years.
Lord Desai: My Lords, first, I congratulate my noble friend on his role in this House. Contrary to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, I believe that it does not matter. My noble friend is sufficiently versatile to handle the Treasury as well as any other department. I know that a spending review will not deal with the question of capital and revenue. However, will he say to his right honourable friend the Chancellor that it is perhaps time to undertake a thorough review of the definition of the PSBR so that we are clear that capital and revenue accounts are kept separately and when we spend on the capital side, we do not have to add it to the PSBR? That should relate only to revenue deficit.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his remarks. I shall certainly pass on his comments to the Chancellor. The difference between capital and revenue will be dealt with by the introduction of resource accounting and budgeting.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, does the Minister agree with me that the use of the PFI to build infrastructure in remote areas, such as the Skye Bridge, is rather misguided policy? Does he agree that the creation of a viable economy in a remote area such as North West Scotland is not helped in any way by a return toll charge of more than £10? Can he assure me that the PFI will be used only for infrastructure projects in well-populated areas?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I cannot undertake to say where a PFI project will or will not take place. The noble Earl believes that the Skye Bridge project is misplaced. I do not know whether that is true or not. We are committed to proceeding with the PFI but it will be more selective and will be used for those projects where there is a proper return. It will be used only for worthwhile projects. I cannot say where the location of those projects will be.

Armed Forces Pensions
6.21 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy rose to call attention to the case for extending public awareness of the availability of pensions and compensation to ex-service men and women and their dependants in respect of injuries or impairments attributable to service in the Armed Forces; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
I start by congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, on her appointment, and I am glad that she is to reply to this debate. She and I have taken part in many debates from different positions in this House, on social security, health and especially on disabled people. I wish the noble Baroness all good fortune. She is now in the same field as that which she shadowed but she now has to provide the answers instead of putting the questions and complaints. I expect to continue asking questions from this side of the House.
Two debates in your Lordships' House have drawn attention to situations affecting ex-service men and women. Three years ago, a debate was initiated by my noble friend Lord Haig, who I am glad to see is to speak today. In January of this year, a debate was initiated by the noble Baroness, Lady Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde. Both of those debates were time limited to one hour so that except for the first speaker and the Minister, the speakers were restricted to about three minutes each. I am glad to say that today, with two-and-a-half hours, we can more easily raise matters within the Motion without being cut off in full flow.
I am grateful to those intending to speak. I mention in particular the noble Lord, Lord Ashley. We have known each other for many years and have participated in many a debate in both Houses of Parliament. The noble Lord joined the other place seven years after I did and he could then hear me before he was struck by deafness. On all sides of the other place it was hoped that he would decide to continue in Parliament and we were delighted when he bravely took that decision. He has recently submitted himself to a comparatively new treatment for hearing impairments and that has encouraged others. He tells me that he can now hear me again faintly but that I sound like a Dalek with laryngitis. I am glad too that my noble friend Lady Strange is to speak because of her position in the war widows' organisation.
I must declare an interest as a war pensioner. I was severely wounded 52 years ago, just before the ceasefire in Europe the day before Hitler committed suicide. I then spent a long time in hospital. I had started to be a regular in the Army just before the outbreak of World War II. I have since been involved with disablement subjects of all kinds and have kept in touch with other servicemen and in particular those in the area of Northern Scotland where my home is and which was also my constituency. For most of the war, I was in a Scottish infantry division which had been in the Territorial Army before the war, including the Scottish field battery that I commanded. Some of the units were recruited from my area; for example, Seaforth and Gordons. Therefore, although 50 years ago a medical board pronounced that I was no longer able to carry out military duties, I hope that I have managed to keep in touch with service matters.
The main subject raised in the two previous debates was whether a special unit should be established in the Ministry of Defence or Whitehall to deal with ex-service matters. At present, about 17 government departments are involved which leads to confusion and duplication
936
for individuals and the voluntary organisations. I shall not concentrate on that today but I merely make an inquiry.
The then Labour shadow Secretary of State for Defence is recorded as having stated towards the end of last year that a Labour Government would set up an ex-service affairs unit. That was the right honourable gentleman, Dr. David Clark, who is now Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. Is anything now being planned by the Government in that direction? Some of us were surprised when the new government appointments were made last month that for the first time for 23 years, no Minister with responsibility for disabled people was designated. We naturally wonder whether a Minister or a unit is now intended by the Government for ex-service people's problems.
Two changing situations have affected former members of the Armed Forces and those now still serving. First, as regards former members, their numbers are dwindling because World War II ended as long as 52 years ago. During that war, the Armed Services were at their maximum number since World War I. The Army was a citizens' army and the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force were at very high strengths. Numbers have been decreasing. I shall illustrate that with an age example. A 20 year-old serviceman at the end of World War II in 1945 will now be 71 or 72 years old. The large majority of wartime service men were older than that. Many of those who survived World War II have since died from natural causes or for ordinary reasons. It is not surprising that the membership of the Royal British Legion is reported to be declining. That is a reflection of the passage of time and the fact that there has not, mercifully, been another world war.
The total number of ex-service people is declining for natural reasons and that is only to be expected. However, that is no reason for reducing or relaxing the arrangements for pensions and compensation. Those who have served in our Armed Forces in a variety of circumstances—long service or short, in war or peace, in distant lands and seas or near home—merit continuing care and attention as individuals. I draw particular attention to those still alive today who were prisoners of war of the Japanese and who endured severe hardship and cruelty for nearly four years. I am glad to learn that other speakers are to say more about prisoners of war during the debate.
The second changing situation applies to our present Armed Forces. The numbers have been reduced, largely owing to the end of the Cold War. We still need fully trained and operational units in all three services prepared for the most modern forms of warfare, although we must hope that they will never have to be used for a major war again.
Our forces have to carry out also very different tasks. For example, one is peace-keeping, usually by lightly armed soldiers standing between, and separating, opposing military groups. There is also a special duty in Northern Ireland, unfortunately made necessary again when the ceasefire ended.
I shall not go into arguments about whether reductions have gone too far or whether units are over-stretched by commitments and probable calls for

937
other deployments. In this changing situation I also urge the Government to ensure that there are adequate, fair and rational arrangements for pensions and compensation for those now serving who will in due course become ex-service men and women. There have been schemes at times encouraging early retirement—the equivalent of golden handshakes—when contraction was required. Such schemes should be administered with clarity and with plenty of notice given.
On service pensions, I hope that the Government will try to avoid the anomalies which have justifiably given rise to grievances. For example, at a time of high inflation—and 1977 was the prime example—those who retired received less than expected because a pay freeze had limited their final salaries. At the same time, someone of the same rank who retired two or three years earlier did better because his pension, which was already being paid, was increased by over 17.5 per cent. following the retail prices index. While we hope never to see galloping inflation of that kind again, to be fair to our forces now serving, they must be given confidence in their future both while serving and afterwards.
The last war in which this country was involved was the Gulf War, six-and-a-half years ago. It might have caused many battle casualties. In the event, there were very few—about 10 British for which we are thankful. I need not remind the House that casualties occurred of other kinds and that illnesses and "the syndrome" have persisted. At Question Time last week, I was glad to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, confirm that the number of cases still to be examined were down to about 120. I declare a small interest in that respect as one of my sons was in Operation Granby. He was flown to the Gulf at two days' notice that August (when Saddam invaded Kuwait) by the MoD, because of his previous service in the Middle East and his fluency in Arabic. In a Highland regiment, he went as a lieutenant colonel in a staff job and stayed for eight months. I was able to see him off. His main baggage when he left this country was a massive anti-chemical warfare suit and his bagpipes which go with him everywhere.
As regards ex-service people, the most serious cause of misunderstanding to which I must draw attention is the fact that the description of "war pensions" is used for all forms of compensation arising from disabilities or ill-health incurred in peace time, as well as in war, while on duty with the Armed Forces. Many war pensioners have never been involved in a war or hostilities of any kind. They fully deserve generous disability pensions. It is the description of "war pensions" that misleads. Moreover, the agency which makes these payments is at present named the "War Pensions Agency".
The term "war pension" is not only inaccurate because it includes many peacetime impairments of health, but it is also emotive for those who do not realise that it does not apply only to wounds or injuries received in war time. I have suggested instead, "Armed Forces disability pension" and the agency could be renamed accordingly. That would help the media and the public and would also be fairer to ex-servicemen and women. We have been fortunate in avoiding a world war for
938
over 50 years. Conflicts since the war in Korea have produced few war disabled in comparison to the world wars.
A reply in Parliament to a Question tabled by me a few months ago stated that it is now virtually impracticable to distinguish recipients of what are known as "war pensions", between those resulting from service in war time operations and those arising from service unconnected with a war. I have therefore made my own estimate. From my knowledge and experience, I judge that well over half of the war pensions now being paid are to the second category, involving people not connected with any war. They are due compensation and are fully deserved. I shall give your Lordships an example. A soldier in barracks in Britain in peacetime, performing a task on duty, falls off a ladder and breaks a leg. After retiring he suffers serious arthritis from the accident. He rightly qualifies for compensation, but it is called a "war pension". The unfortunate effect of this is that some ex-service men have not applied. Indeed, I know cases of that kind where, when told that he may be entitled to a war pension, a retired serviceman has not pursued the matter. He thinks that that cannot apply to him because he has not been near any war and has served only in Britain in peace time.
Misunderstandings can also arise over war widows. Their eligibility for pensions covers fatal accidents on duty, in training or other peacetime activities. They should of course be awarded generous pensions. What appear to be unusual situations can arise. For example, if the soldier that I mentioned on the ladder had been killed as a result of his fall and was aged 22, he would have left a widow aged 20 who would have been described as a war widow, although she was only 14 at the time of the Gulf War—the last war in which there were British war casualties. In contrast, most of the public and the media consider that the term "war widow" denotes the wife of a man who lost his life in war time operations, probably in World War II and who is probably now in her seventies.
I am conscious of the time that is left to me, but I simply want to say that my message to all ex-service people is to apply for a pension and other payments if they have any reason to think that they could be eligible. I advise them not to be deterred by the word "war". I hope that the Government are considering changing the name. However, if that is found to be too difficult, even though the word "war" is becoming increasingly irrelevant as time passes, I hope that more can be done to spread the facts on eligibility. I am, nonetheless, concerned by reports that nearly 20,000 cases are waiting for War Pensions Appeal Tribunal hearings, with possible delays of up to two years.
My advice to applicants is, "do not be disheartened or despair". These tribunals can be understanding and generous. I have here the example of a war pension approved under the system. It relates to someone who did his national service in the Royal Air Force in the 1950s. He hurt his knee playing football for his squadron. Many years later his condition deteriorated. He was then awarded a pension—called, of course, a war pension—which I consider to be justifiable compensation, though some may not. Although there

939
was intense and vigorous rivalry between his squadron and the unit that they were playing against, I understand that it did not amount to war. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
6.37 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, it is always a pleasure to cross swords with the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, but it is an even greater pleasure to fight on his side as I do tonight. I should like, first, to thank the noble Lord, for the very kind personal words that he addressed to me in his speech. Secondly, I should like to congratulate him on bringing forward a Motion of such tremendous importance to ex-service personnel and on giving the House the opportunity to discuss this most important subject.
In fact there is no substitute for personal experience. The noble Lord obviously speaks from deep personal experience with his very distinguished war record. We are all familiar with it and we all admire it. We also admire the way in which he advocates the cause of ex-service personnel. Of course the noble Lord speaks on many other subjects, but on this issue he is regarded as an authority. We are delighted that he has tabled such a convincing and, indeed, moving case today.
I hope that my noble friend the Minister will recognise the arguments put forward by the noble Lord. Lord Campbell, first, about the need for ex-service personnel to apply for pensions and, secondly, about the nomenclature of calling such things war pensions. Indeed, it is not only absurd, it is also misleading and induces people not to apply for them.
The best reason for this debate is that the Royal British Legion—rational and experienced advocate of the rights of disabled ex-service personnel—believes that large numbers of ex-service people are unaware of their entitlement to pensions for disabilities or medical conditions. The British Legion has campaigned on this issue and it has had some considerable success but it still believes that there are many more people who are unaware of their entitlements. That is totally unjustifiable. This House now has an opportunity to do something about that. I believe that unless that concern can be met there is a case for addressing the Government and the public to persuade them to try to do something.
I have a high regard for Colonel Terry English and his colleagues in the Royal British Legion. However, it must have been much easier for them to campaign after the war when people's memories of the war were vivid. There was great public awareness of the mass slaughter during the First World War—that was part of my childhood—and people were brought up with the terminology of Passendale, the Somme and Verdun. After the Second World War it was very much the same. However, fighting now is of a different nature. The services are concerned more with preventive activity rather than with fighting dramatic wars. That activity is less visible but it is no less important. The British Legion believes that the distance of time from the major
940
wars means that fewer members of the public and the Government have experience or understanding of these issues. The British Legion is quite right in that regard.
It is a matter of real regret that at a time when public interest in these problems is falling, appeals for help from ex-service men to the British Legion are growing because their injuries are being exacerbated by old age. It would be a terrible irony if some of the young men who defended us in the early part of this century were left defenceless in old age. It is incumbent upon Parliament and the country to make sure that these men who were our saviours in the early part of the century should not be spurned at the end of the century. They are entitled to our consideration. But this can happen only if we win more understanding from the public and from the Government. I believe that that understanding should be two-pronged. It is not just the public who should understand the position, there is also a need for understanding on the part of the ex-service personnel themselves of what is available to them. There are many ways in which Parliament can help.
First, we should recognise that the nature of awards is changing. Yesterday I referred in the House to a landmark judgment by the Law Lords that can affect claims for benefit of many disabled people. Those people need to know about the new and improved law. Like the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, I, too, believe that they should be encouraged to apply for the benefit. If they do not apply for it, they will be deprived of their legitimate rights. There is now wider consideration of the implications of disability. Rather than focusing on the necessities of existence, people now seek a fuller, more normal life for disabled people. That is not before time.
Similarly, events relating to ex-service personnel are moving quickly. Service related disability is no longer so blindingly obvious as in previous years. Nowadays it is not always a case of bullet wounds or loss of limbs. Often it is a case of damage to the nervous system which shows itself later. As the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, has said, the classic examples are Gulf War veterans and also nuclear test veterans. Much more is known and understood about the Gulf War. The use of organophosphates, vaccinations and possible leakages of poison gas are being investigated, and, it is to be hoped, more speedily and sympathetically under this Government than was the case before. As more evidence emerges, ex-service personnel should be encouraged to apply for pensions or compensation where appropriate.
A number of us, including the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, have actively campaigned for a long time in another place and in this House on behalf of nuclear test veterans. Things now look brighter for those veterans, especially after the European Commission on Human Rights recently found that the convention had been violated and said that,
"satisfaction should be given by Government".
That issue has now been referred to the European Court of Human Rights.
Another issue that we need to watch and eventually act upon is the government review of medical evidence on noise-induced deafness of ex-service personnel. Has

941
my noble friend on the Front Bench considered that matter since our previous exchanges in the House? What has she done about it? Can she tell us anything about that matter today to take us forward? If we agree that ex-service men need more information we must agree that it was a retrograde step by the previous Government to stop sending out reminders to return claim forms or to seek increases in entitlement. I go further. I think that was a shabby and disgraceful step on the part of the previous Government which deliberately impeded the capacity of ex-service personnel to claim entitlement. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, will be able to find half a second to comment on that rather disgraceful step of impeding ex-service personnel. I also hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, will be able to comment on that matter as I believe it was one of the worst actions taken by the previous Government as regards ex-service personnel. I hope that it will be reversed by the present Government.
I also hope that the Government will accept the Royal British Legion's proposal—ably advocated by the noble Baroness, Lady Dean—for an ex-service affairs unit at the Ministry of Defence. That has already been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell. The knowledge and expertise of such a unit would be invaluable in informing ex-service personnel of their entitlements and in focusing public attention on these issues.
I think that the House is broadly agreed on the need to do something for ex-service personnel. Their injuries are different from most disabilities because they were incurred in the service of the nation. We should lean over backwards and always give them the benefit of the doubt and urge them to apply and keep on applying—and issue reminders when they do not apply—for their entitlements. If that involves bureaucracy and problems for civil servants and Ministers that is just too bad. The ex-service personnel are entitled to make their applications for benefit. They have the right to do that. We owe a debt of honour to service personnel. This debate is a wonderful opportunity for us to articulate our views. It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Campbell. I thank him again for initiating the debate and I look forward to hearing a response from both Front Benches in this House.
6.49 p.m.
The Earl of Effingham: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, for introducing this important subject in the Chamber today. I must declare interests. I am an ex-service man and I work for the Royal British Legion, the country's leading ex-service charity. We receive no financial help from the Government and are able to provide assistance and advice only because of the generosity of the public through donations to the annual poppy appeal. I am responsible for managing 39 county field officers in England and Wales. These officers co-ordinate welfare work, promote year-round fundraising and assist the Royal British Legion's pensions department with claims, war pensions disregards and local authority matters.
942
In 1995, the nation celebrated and commemorated the Year of the Veteran, the 50th anniversary of World War II. I know that I repeat remarks made by the noble Lords, Lord Campbell and Lord Ashley; however, I believe that what I am about to say is important. There are among our veterans those who are unaware of their entitlement to a war disablement or war widows pension. We believe the figure not to be measured in hundreds but thousands. The 1994 "Legion Awareness Campaign" reported "the missing millions" and culminated in the biggest rise in applications for war disablement pensions ever received by the Legion.
From Gallipoli to the Gulf, Burma to Bosnia, or wherever or whenever one served, if still suffering from an injury, wound or medical condition related to service, a claim can and should be made. There is no time bar, except that a successful claim will be paid only from the date the claim was lodged. By reaching the remaining thousands the debt will have been paid. The War Pensions Agency is responsible for administering the war pensions scheme. Decisions on policy remain firmly with Ministers.
The war pensions welfare service takes the War Pensions Agency into the community. Its responsibility towards war pensioners and war widows does not end with the award of pensions and allowances. The underlying purpose of its work is to help them meet and overcome the difficulties and stresses occasioned by their disablement. The service was therefore created to give pensioners advice and assistance on any matters which concern their welfare and with which they need help. It works closely with statutory and voluntary bodies, such as those concerned with bereavement, and also with local authority social services and housing departments. Welfare staff will also be in touch with the Armed Forces authorities and the various ex-service organisations such as the Legion and the Soldiers', Sailors' & Airmen's Families Association. The service also works closely with war pensions committees, which take a keen interest in the welfare needs of the pensioners in their areas.
The war pensions committees meet three or four times a year. They will hear and consider complaints made by persons receiving or claiming a war pension, supplementary allowance or war widows pension. If they think fit, representations about the complaint will be made to the Secretary of State. County field officers now co-ordinate the operation of obtaining replacement Legion members on war pension committees when vacancies occur. They also serve on local committees themselves.
As I am sure your Lordships are aware, there is no national government policy on total disregard for war and war widows pensions. The Legion has always maintained that these pensions are not state benefits as such but compensation for loss of amenity or the death of a husband in the service of his country. Therefore, they should not be categorised as income and should be totally disregarded for the purposes of entitlement to housing benefit and local authority charges. These authorities are obliged by statute to disregard £10 of the war pension, £10 of the war widows pension and £62, which is the supplementary pension to those widows

943
whose husbands served prior to 31st March 1973. Circumstances and local authority policies change, but it is estimated that around 90 per cent. of councils now apply a total disregard. The remaining 10 per cent. apply either the statutory minimum or a local scheme.
The Legion has campaigned for many years for a national policy on total disregard, also for a substantial increase in the levels of disregard in the absence of such a policy, based on a retail price index as applicable to war pensions and allowances. The position has improved at local level thanks to the efforts of both Legion formations and field officers, who have managed to persuade a number of authorities to adopt a more generous attitude to the war pensioners and war widows resident in their counties.
Some claimants and appellants for war and war widows pensions have used the services of solicitors, for which a fee is charged. In recent years, solicitors have become more involved in war pensions casework, probably in consequence of the large rise in claims for noise induced deafness. The majority of cases were successful and were often rewarded with a lump sum gratuity. Now, as a consequence of legislation, no such gratuities are paid and many claimants are exercising their right of appeal. Several firms of solicitors are advertising their services and offering representation at tribunals.
Solicitors who act in such cases are not acting outside the law. Indeed, in other compensation cases legal qualifications are mandatory in the actual litigation process, the Legion usually acting as a go-between. Having said that, however, an assessment appeal is decided on the medical evidence rather than the powers of advocacy of the representative, which cannot increase the minimal effects of deafness.
Many noble Lords will be aware of the new changes governing deafness entitlement and the controversy these have caused. The Legion has welcomed the promise, made by the new Minister for war pensions, to hold an independent review of all the medical evidence. However, the Legion is conscious of the cost of current appeal procedures and the need to avoid unnecessary cases through positive counselling. That would save considerable sums of money which could be used more effectively in other areas of welfare.
The Legion's pension department now handles the majority of war pension claims and appeal cases. The Legion and other ex-service organisations are currently in the process of publicising the fact that these specialist services are free of charge, though donations are welcome. The efforts of county field officers in assisting with this publicity, particularly in those areas where solicitors are involved, is warmly commended and appreciated.
However, in the final analysis it will be for each individual claimant and appellant to decide whose services to use. The Legion's task is to ensure, wherever possible, that the individuals concerned are aware of the options available.
944
I trust that the House will forgive me for presenting some statistics. In 1995–96 the Legion handled some 58,200 cases, of which 10.181 were new; 2,913 claimants were represented at appeals tribunals to prove entitlement and 2,893 for assessment. The Legion represented 84 per cent. of the total 6,902 tribunal cases and 54.8 per cent. of entitlement appeals were successful; 483 new cases, claiming compensation against the Ministry of Defence for negligence, were activated. The cost of this service was in the region of £865,000 and donations from those who were helped amounted to approximately £65,000.
In conclusion, the Royal British Legion provides a free help and advisory service for all ex-service men and women and their dependants seeking war and war widows pensions and associated allowances. It also provides free representation at war pensions tribunals.
The Legion considers that there is a strong case for a national scheme for a total disregard. But the fact remains that local authorities in England and Wales continue to have discretion as to whether they choose to apply more generous disregards for these categories of pensioners.
Benefits and allowances to enhance war pensions are not automatic. Even if qualified for benefit, it is up to the individual to claim. Therefore a potential claimant must have access to information so as to realise his full entitlements. The War Pensions Agency must work in tandem with the Legion. Desk-level, day-to-day administration operates very well, but I believe that the real problem lies with the policy-makers, who must extend public awareness of the availability of war pensions. My Lords, has the debt been paid?
7 p.m.
Earl Haig: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy for initiating this debate. He has devoted many years to public service, in spite of his war disablement. I share with many of your Lordships a great admiration for his wonderful courage. He made a good speech, with which I concur and which covered the subject fully.
I was interested in the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Effingham. It is good that an official of the British Legion is a Member of this House. He speaks on behalf of ex-service people from the horse's mouth.
I congratulate the noble Baroness. Lady Hollis, on her appointment as Minister with responsibility for war pensions. Her responsibilities include all the Scottish ex-service men and women, with whom I too have been actively involved over the years. She succeeds a long line of Ministers whom I have known, amongst them women such as Miss Margaret Herbison and my noble friend Lady Trumpington. I am sure that her task of stewarding the work performed by the War Pensions Agency and the various voluntary ex-service organisations will be rewarding to her. Among them are the Royal British Legion Scotland and the Earl Haig Fund Scotland which runs the poppy appeal in Scotland. I assure her that we shall give her a very warm welcome when she comes to Scotland.

945
The noble Baroness and I share neighbouring coat pegs. Until recently her lovely hats cheered up our dark corner. I hope that the burden of her office will not mean an empty peg below her name.
On the subject of her office, I believe that the noble Baroness would benefit from the support of an ex-service affairs unit established within the Department of Social Security. At present the War Pensions Agency publishes a number of excellent pamphlets with instructions about how and where to apply for pensions. However, these are not enough to inform all those numbers of ageing veterans whose wounds and disabilities make life hard for them. They should have a co-ordinating point where they can go for advice about pensions and welfare.
Perhaps I may remind the Minister, as have preceding speakers, that in a recent debate her party, while in Opposition, supported the idea of a special unit, as did my noble friend Lord Howe on behalf of the Government. Is that idea still on the government agenda?
On the subject of pensions, all the proposals in a package of improvements to legislation made by my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish in April were very welcome. Those included proposals to create the automatic right of a widow to a war widow's pension if her husband had been 80 per cent. disabled. I pay tribute to my noble friend for his splendid work on behalf of ex-service men and women. I know that among the ex-service community in Scotland he is extremely popular. Thanks to his efforts and those of his predecessors, most of the unfair anomalies of the past have been removed.
Looking to the future, ex-service men and women must be able to rely on pensions which will give them a sense of security and which will be adjusted according to the cost of living. This is particularly important for men and women leaving the forces who also need guidance over problems with housing and jobs. The right of ex-service people to war preference over pensions and medical care is self-evident. This goes hand in glove with good communications—as the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, said—and full information when it comes to serious disablement resulting from battle or military service where modern weapons and technology are concerned.
All ex-service people should be entitled to social benefits on the grounds of the particular nature of their service. As the British Legion has put it:
"They are required to serve anywhere in the world at a moment's notice and permit themselves to be subjected to almost any measures that will safeguard the interests of the nation. In the preparations and training for any dangerous activity their health can be subjected to pressures and conditions not experienced by other groups".
The legion is particularly concerned about two issues which have been raised by your Lordships and which need to be addressed with some urgency as they have dragged on for far too long. The regulations about noise-induced deafness, which were changed by my noble friend Lord Mackay on 5th December, need to be looked at again. The Prime Minister has agreed to an independent review of the changed criteria.
946
Perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness for information on three points. First, when is the review to start? Secondly, in addition to Professors Lutman and Davis, who have been consultants over hearing cases, who will be the other members of the review team? Thirdly, when does the noble Baroness expect the team to be in a position to report?
The other problem which needs redressing concerns the disregard of war pensions when paying council house rents. That matter was also mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Effingham. Although this is not an issue in Scotland as local authorities there disregard war pensions over housing and other matters, in the rest of the country many ex-service people are affected. This disregard should be mandatory on all local authorities. Your Lordships pressed the previous Government on this matter many times. The legion calls on the Government to introduce a statutory national 100 per cent. disregard. I hope that, if she cannot give a positive answer this evening, the Minister will at least take the matter away and look at it.
Apart from those two particular needs, I believe that ex-service people are well cared for by the state. There will always be small anomalies in ex-service matters but I am sure that, if the present system which has evolved over the years is maintained by the Government, there will be no grounds for serious complaint. We in this country have a good welfare system, whose costs to the taxpayer have to be carefully husbanded. It is vital that, when any reforms to the system are considered, the present level of support for ex-service men will continue.
My noble friend Lord Campbell and the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, referred in their speeches to those who were disabled in the services but not in war. I would refer in particular to overseas ex-service men who did fight in war for our freedom and who do not deserve the poverty which they suffer today.
Last year my sister, Irene Lady Astor of Hever, my wife and I were privileged to attend the 75th anniversary conference of the British Commonwealth Ex-Services League in Cape Town in the presence of Prince Philip and President Mandela. The opening ceremony took place in the same hall where the founders, General Smuts and my father, sat in 1921. The League continues to provide much needed aid to impoverished ex-service men who fought under our flag. It is supported by our own funds, by the Army Benevolent Fund and other service funds and by the larger constituent organisations from Canada, Australia, New Zealand and ourselves. It is good that wars, which brought such suffering to the Empire and the Commonwealth, have provided a real feeling of goodwill. I have attended a number of conferences over the years and have always come home enriched and inspired by the delegates I met and by their spirit of comradeship. This is a reminder that, providing we get the matter of welfare right, we are cultivating an asset which brings great benefit to society as a whole.
7.10 p.m.
Lord Sempill: My Lords, I must apologise for deviating from the main thrust of the Motion this evening. But the subject that I wish to raise is totally appropriate. It was raised again in this weekend's Sunday Times under the headline:
"Forgotten POWs await the millions they were denied".
As we seek to extend awareness and debate the issue of compensation to ex-servicemen and women and their dependants in respect of injuries or impairments attributable to service in the Armed Forces, I wish to highlight an outstanding issue of compensation to the National Ex-Prisoner of War Association and the Justice for Prisoners of War group.
I do not believe that this debate can be concluded without the realisation that there is an outstanding debt to many thousands of servicemen and their dependants for their contribution and subsequent incarceration in the defence of this realm and the liberty of many others over 50 years ago. Many of them, my father included, have since died. The issue of their derisorily low pensions and lack of compensation has been discussed before. It was reviewed and rejected in the early 1980s. However, owing to the persistent and, I may add, dogged actions of certain individuals determined to see justice done, the issue is being reviewed again and, I am reliably informed, is soon to be resolved. Therefore, I wish to take this opportunity to reinforce their claim for compensation. I bring to your Lordships' attention a debate in the other place on this subject on 15th January this year. It was generally accepted that, however the situation arose, however complicated it may be and however many years may have passed since then, it is straightforward: people serving in the country's Armed Forces were not paid the money due to them. That is the current position and it must be resolved.
A matter of principle is at stake. When we ask men and women who serve in the forces of the Crown to undertake certain risks, an obligation is placed on our government, regardless of their political persuasion, not just to provide them with resources to complete their tasks and minimise their risks but to take care of them should they suffer as a result of those activities. In this case, the obligation, 50 years after the events took place, appears never to have been discharged.
What is the cost of that compensation? According to a City accountancy firm quoted in the very same article that I mentioned earlier, it could amount with interest to some £90 million, a sum which the former prisoners of war believe is unlikely to be paid, especially in view of the new Government's intention to hold down public spending. However, I believe that a reasonable sum could be found—dare I add, from the lottery or other sources?—to compensate if not the remaining few then some appropriate service charities.
Finally, I take this opportunity to quote from the speech of the then Minister of State for the Armed Forces in the debate that I mentioned earlier. He concluded the summation of the debate by saying:
"I acknowledge the sense of what has been said by all who have spoken today, and the admirable way in which hon. Members on both sides of the House have expressed the feeling that this is a debt
948
of honour that must be resolved, that the work must he finished and that there must be a satisfactory outcome".—[Official Report, Commons, 15/1/97; cols. 256–257.]
I therefore request the Minister please to update this House on the current situation regarding this issue and the likely date on which her Government will provide a satisfactory outcome.
7.15 p.m.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, I am particularly grateful to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy for raising this issue. He is always a stalwart supporter of our Armed Forces and their pensions and I am honoured to speak in his debate. I should also like to support what my noble kinsman Lord Effingham said about total disregard. It is particularly pleasing to have someone in this House from the Royal British Legion who is so supportive of the war widows.
The War Widows' Association of Great Britain has for some time been seeking a way of publicising the recent changes in legislation, brought in by the former Conservative Government, which may affect war widows who will now qualify for a pension. Despite all the publicity which we and other ex-service organisations mounted at the time of the Victory Widows Campaign in 1995, we are still finding widows who are not aware that, as a result of the end of their second or subsequent marriage either through death or divorce, they are now eligible for reinstatement of the war widow's pension. This gives me a chance to say to the ladies out there to whom this could apply, or if there is someone who knows that such a person could be entitled, "Please apply to the War Pensions Agency."
Secondly, changes in legislation brought in by my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish (who, I may say, is also very popular with the war widows) which came into effect on 7th April this year mean that widows of war pensioners who were in receipt of an 80 per cent. war pension and where unemployability supplement was also in payment now have an automatic right to a war widow's pension. Widows of such war pensioners in the future will be notified by the War Pensions Agency. But widows whose husbands have already died are not recorded by the agency. So, unless the information is widely publicised, many current widows will not be aware of their eligibility.
There is a limit to the publicity that the ex-service community can give. I am now trying to extend this knowledge to as many ladies out there as I possibly can. Like the lottery fingers, I am pointing in their direction: you, too, may be entitled to a war widow's pension! If you believe you are, write to the War Pensions Agency.
Finally, I believe also that there is a need for a government-sponsored scheme to advertise these changes. Otherwise, many widows may be unaware of the benefits that they can justly claim. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, may consider doing something about this.
7.18 p.m.
Lord Napier and Ettrick: My Lords, I intervene only briefly in this most important short debate this

949
evening, as I wish to highlight one particular problem in the War Pensions Agency, where I believe there is room for improvement. It concerns the delays that can take place in the agency when it is reviewing cases.
I am sure we all agree with the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, that every possible effort should be made to bring to the attention of all those men and women who are so entitled their rights to pensions and compensation. But I have to add that, even when that has been acknowledged, it is not necessarily the end of their problems.
I must declare an interest. I receive a war disability pension, and I must apologise to your Lordships at the outset if I talk rather too much about my own experiences. It is because of my personal dealings with the War Pensions Agency that I am aware of the problems.
Over 46 years ago, after a somewhat arduous six-day patrol on active service in the dense jungles of Northern Selangor in Malaya, I suddenly and literally collapsed in a heap, unable to move. I subsequently discovered that I had been poleaxed by infantile paralysis, or poliomyelitis as it is more commonly known today. Some eight years later I retired from the active list of the Regular Army, because I knew that I had a residual disability and that I could never again be given that military medical grade FE—fit for everywhere.
In 1961, after a bit of a tussle, I was awarded a modest, but nonetheless most welcome, war disability pension. In those days it was £85 a year; it is a bit more today. But some of your Lordships may not be aware of what happens thereafter. From time to time, usually at intervals of about four or five years, one receives a letter from the Pensions Agency saying that it has been decided to keep the assessment of one's disablement at whatever percentage it is for a further period of years. But they do add that if the individual thinks his or her condition has deteriorated—perhaps with advancing years—he or she should say so and the case will be looked at again. That is where the problems can arise. The delays can be horrendous.
One is told that a review may take two to three months, six months, a year or even longer. After six months, during which time eight or nine computer driven letters have been received, I am absolutely no wiser as to when I will be seen by an agency doctor or go before a medical board.
I have to say that, while I am sure they do not intend this, both the Ministry of Defence and the Pensions Agency can give the impression that their job is to put up a barrier and to give away as little as possible. That in itself can have a depressing and frustrating effect on the disabled applicant. Of course the Pensions Agency must carry out its checks and balances; but I question whether such delays are conducive to instilling in the disabled individual a feeling of confidence in the whole system and its organisation. Are those delays really acceptable? I can wait, but I know there are hundreds of others less fortunate than I who certainly should not.
No blame for that state of affairs should be laid on Her Majesty's Government, who, after all, have only just assumed office. But, believing as I do that we may
950
now have a caring government, particularly in this field, I ask the Minister who is to reply whether she will be kind enough to have a look at this particular problem to see whether there is any way in which procedures can be speeded up and thus greatly assist many deserving cases that have been left out in the wilderness for too long. Some of them may be coming towards the end of their days.
In conclusion, perhaps I may say how much I agree with what my noble friend Lord Sempill said.
7.23 p.m.
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: My Lords, on behalf of many surviving prisoners of war, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, for resurrecting this debate—an issue upon which my late father spoke in 1981 and 1982. My father's first-hand experience—having been wounded at the Battle of Knightsbridge Box and imprisoned in Italy before escaping and fighting behind the lines for 15 months—led him to be a responsible and honourable supporter of claims such as those made by Group Captain Ingle, querying a shortfall in refunded income of prisoners of war.
Your Lordships may remember the great celebrations held in this country to mark the 50th anniversary of VE-Day and VJ-Day. The capital outlay and the cost of the hours lost at work—national holidays—ran into millions of pounds, but that was a justifiable recognition of what had been won for us—freedom, free speech and freedom of choice.
But who won that freedom? Many of your Lordships sitting in this noble Chamber deserve the gratitude of my generation and every generation since the last world war. "Time dulls the memory" so they say; not a bit of it! While the country celebrated victory in 1995, there were some, like Group Captain Ingle, who has already been mentioned, whose happiness was tainted by memories of despicable treatment in prisoner of war camps and the on-going dishonourable treatment of his like by governments and civil servants who are benefiting from the freedom for which he fought.
Protected personnel—prisoners of war—received money from the detaining powers as a matter of right under the 1929 Red Cross Convention, to which Great Britain was a signatory. As officers in Italian prisoner of war camps had to pay for part of their meals, the Italians paid that money out. But that did not happen throughout the world war zone and appellants such as Group Captain Ingle and Captain Bracken harbour regressive grievances against civil servants in the Ministry of Defence for sending reports to the Minister about applicants' cases for just treatment without even allowing applicants the opportunity of vetting a report's contents. The contents were taken from written evidence and were often highly inaccurate when related to prisoner of war conditions thousands of miles away.
Another grievance is the evident bad manners displayed in responding to claims made by ex-prisoners of war; even a letter of acknowledgement is better than nothing. Group Captain Ingle submitted a claim in 1995; the report landed on the Minister's desk the day that Parliament was prorogued.

951
Bearing in mind the millions of pounds spent on the 50th anniversary celebrations in 1995, we ask the newly appointed Minister of State for Defence Procurement, Dr. John Reid, to recognise that outstanding debt of honour to the long-suffering ex-prisoners of war.
7.27 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I too express my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, for bringing this debate before the House. I am not sure that I am awfully grateful; he does it so well and stirs the conscience so that one feels a little guilty that one has not done more.
I too receive a war pension, though not for very much. Mine is one of the deaf cases caused by flying too high in an unpressurised aircraft due to a craven desire to put as much space as possible between oneself and the hostile natives on the ground. I therefore receive a small pension which is very welcome. I hope that it will continue for a number of years and that I will draw it until I am 100 or thereabouts.
But that is one of the problems that faces the noble Baroness, in that in normal times and with the advancement of medicine, far from decreasing, I understand that the need for pensions to care for the old becomes greater as time goes on. The trouble is that not enough of us die off. Perhaps the noble Baroness can say what the projection is as to when the pensions for the First World War will begin to decline; I believe they are still rising.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell, wanted to change the name. That would be an appalling mistake. If one is to change anything, one should call it the War Pensions and the Armed Services Disability Agency, but the greatest weapon in the hands of a Minister is the term "war pensions" in fighting his or her corner for money from the Treasury in order to do this very necessary job.
The noble Lord, Lord Ashley, as always, went straight to the point. He made the point which I have been making, about old age. The problems expand in old age. The problem of deafness becomes greater in old age. I am sorry to be speaking before the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, who has put forward the extraordinary argument, backed by research, that when a man becomes deafer as he gets older it is purely a question of old age and nothing to do with a war disability. I trust that the Minister will look at the matter in a different light.
The noble Earl, Lord Effingham, made a very good speech, in which he detailed the work that is going on in the British Legion. It also goes on in the Royal Air Forces Association and other organisations and in smaller units such as the Polish airmen's charity, to which I subscribe in a small way. They do a great deal of good work but their responsibilities are growing as people get older. The veterans do not need help when they are young but in old age they need more. We need to be aware of that point and to be pushing it at the Minister all the time. I hate the word "review" but I hope that the independent review will look at all the needs as well as at the usual purpose, which is to contain expenditure.
952
The noble Earl, Lord Haig, made a good point when he said that the pensions have to keep up with the cost of living. I would ask him to go a little further and say that pensions ought to keep up with the standard of living. In the Council of Europe I have some German friends who are interested in the matter of pensions. German war pensions are of a much higher standard than ours. I understand that they are related to the standard of prosperity in Germany, which, funnily enough, despite the protestations of the Tory Party, appears still to be a great deal higher than the standard of prosperity in this country. That is an important point.
The noble Lords, Lord Sempill and Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, referred to prisoners of war. There is no question but that they have been shabbily treated. Some effort should be made at this late stage. The same point applies: they are now becoming older and they are feeling the effects of their imprisonment much more than they did immediately after the war.
The question of reviews, which the noble Lord, Lord Napier and Ettrick, brought up, is a perennial one. I am the Liberal Democrat member on the committee which listens to and advises the agency under the guidance now of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, and previously the noble Lord, Lord Mackay. It has made tremendous efforts to speed up the procedure and has introduced modern business methods into it. That has obviously helped greatly. However, I do not think it can do as much as the ex-service agencies and the War Widows Association, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, referred: their efforts are essential in promoting knowledge among people who are ageing that help is available and should be available.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, has a job on her hands. It is a very worthwhile job. I hope that she will fight her corner hard for the money which this deserving cause needs and that she will get it.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, he may like to know that, actuarially, the year of maximum demand both in terms of requirements for service charities and also of pensions is 1997.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord.
7.35 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, we have had an interesting debate which was ably introduced, as always, by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy. By getting this debate so early on he has given the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, an opportunity to come out and have a canter around this interesting field. The noble Baroness will occasionally find it a tinge frustrating but on other occasions she will find a great deal of satisfaction in it. I think of occasions when, I expect, she will be invited to join my noble friend Lady Strange on the day before Remembrance Sunday with the war widows. On the three occasions I attended I found it a very moving experience and a reminder of the sacrifices that were made in the Second World War.

953
My noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy also reminds us daily, if I may say so, not so much in word but simply by being here, of the sacrifices that many other people made. I do not know whether it can really be said that my noble friend's injuries prevented him from reaching the peak of his career—unless he had harboured ambitions to be the Prime Minister. He certainly managed to get a good deal higher than I managed to get in the great pecking order of politics. He fought against disability and overcame it to be a prominent politician and a senior member of the Government. I am glad that he has raised some of these issues. I want to take one of them up particularly seriously, but I shall do that a little later.
Before I reach that point, I want to say that there are many organisations working in this field which deserve a thank-you, a thank-you not just from the people they work for but from the wider community. I think in particular of BLESMA, which looks after the limbless ex-service men; of St. Dunstan's, which looks after the people who were blinded; of the Ex-Services Mental Welfare Society, which looks after people who were psychologically damaged and continue to be psychologically damaged, for example in the difficult area of service of Northern Ireland; and of the War Widows Association, to which I shall come a little later on. Any group of ladies which I am told loves me has to be given a special place in my remarks. Another group was not mentioned by name but the people it looks after have been mentioned. I refer to the National Federation of Far Eastern Prisoners of War, led by the indefatigable Mr. Harold Paine. All those organisations—SSAFA has groups all round the country with many volunteers—work very hard for ex-service men, and especially the ones I have mentioned work for ex-service men who were seriously injured in battle.
Perhaps I may mention just one other organisation to the noble Baroness. I refer to the Officers Pension Society. It works extremely hard as well. I caution the noble Baroness that, if she finds that it is running a campaign against her, she had better be pretty careful. As I found to my cost, it is quite the most effective of ambushers, as perhaps it should be, of any organisation I have come across. All these organisations work very hard for those injured in war and in some cases injured in ordinary non-wartime service.
There are two other organisations which I want to mention. One is the War Pensions Welfare Service which has a network throughout the country which gives advice, help and aid. The noble Lord, Lord Mackie, quite rightly drew our attention to the changes that have been made in these organisations. The War Pensions Welfare Service is now connected to the War Pensions Agency by the magic of computer link, which means that it is much more able to give fairly quick advice to anyone who wishes to talk to the organisation.
The last organisation I wish to pay tribute to is the War Pensions Agency and its staff. Some remarks have been made about the time it takes to decide a case. It has to be said that often in order to explore a case records have to be obtained from the Ministry of Defence. They may be over 50 years old and they have to he gone through. In some cases they are incomplete
954
and in others they are extremely difficult to read because of the passage of time. The agency then has to try to relate what it finds there to the condition of someone it sees in front of it. It must distinguish between the problems of advancing years and those which may have been triggered by military service. That is quite a difficult distinction to make as time goes on. I pay tribute to the agency.
The retirement age from the Civil Service is 60 and as my noble friend Lord Campbell pointed out about ages, none of the current people served in the Second World War. The noble Baroness may have already found, if she has visited the War Pensions Agency in sunny Blackpool—which is a trip to the seaside for the Minister for pensions—that the tower at Blackpool is not usually thrown in, nor is the big dipper, which is perhaps just as well. Each time I went I ensured that the big dipper was closed and so nobody ever suggested that I should go on it to test my bravery. However, if the noble Baroness goes there, I am sure she will find that the young people there are very dedicated and interested in the cases they see before them. One young lady said to me that it brings history alive to read some of these cases. I pay tribute to them.
My noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy and one or two others asked the Minister where the Government were at the moment in relation to the promise they made before the election to have a Minister or a department for veterans' affairs. I say to the noble Baroness that I was never convinced of the argument in favour of having one and I remain unconvinced—but I did not give any promises. The noble Baroness's party gave promises. I looked through the press handout from Downing Street to see whether the noble Baroness had been appointed the Minister for veterans' affairs or whether someone else had been. But I looked in vain. Perhaps she can tell us whether that is one promise which was made too hurriedly. I would not blame the Government if that were the case. On further investigation they can see that there is really no comparison between the situation in this country and, for example, in North America or Australia, where they have such departments because they have a positive job to do as regards health and so on as there is no national health service as we know it. That is something I look forward to hearing about from the noble Baroness.
The noble Lord, Lord Ashley, implied, as I believe did the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, that there were thousands of people who were due war pensions. I am never entirely sure about these claims. My recollection is—the noble Baroness may be able to help me over this—that on previous occasions when a lot of interest has been stimulated over these issues many inquiries are made. Forms are sent out, but few are returned. I suspect that when people read them they realise that they do not qualify, and even those who do have had quite a low success rate. If the claims are paid, they are usually paid at quite a low level.
That always encouraged me to believe that the organisations I have mentioned have clone their job over these many years and made sure that all those people who were seriously injured and were living with the

955
results of their service had been picked up. I accept that there will always be a few not picked up. But the idea that there are thousands without pensions is not right.
I do not have to defend the previous Government's record particularly, but the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, could have mentioned that all the pensions and allowances are tax free. That is unlike anything else in the social security system, and rightly so. I must guard against sounding like a government Minister defending a position. But people have to realise that it is quite a concession to have such allowances tax free. If a person has been able to work after military service, as many of them did, or has been able to retire with a reasonable pension, it is quite a significant addition to their income if it is not counted for tax. The noble Earl, Lord Effingham, might have paid tribute to the generosity—rightly—of the scheme as regards both the war disabled and war widows.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Haig for his kind words about me and the job I did. I always tried to ensure that anomalies were removed, as he rightly said, and that the help that was given was going to those who were most seriously and obviously disabled. If I was looking the taxpayer straight in the eye I could defend these people having the special privileges that they do. I tried to do that. I like to believe that I managed on a number of occasions.
For example, I was very pleased that we were able to award automatic war widows' pensions where the husband was of 80 per cent. disablement and in receipt of UNSUP. By and large, these ladies had to look after their husbands more than the average wife has to, and during their lifetime they were probably unable to accumulate much money because of injuries. They deserved the automatic passage into war widowhood.
The noble Lord, Lord Sempill, and I believe the noble Lord, Lord Clifford, raised the special issue of former prisoners of war. The noble Lord, Lord Napier and Ettrick, made mention of it at the end of his speech. I believe that it is more a matter for the Ministry of Defence. I do not know very much about it and I am not sure whether the noble Baroness will be able to answer us this evening on that point. I shall certainly be interested to listen to her answer if she can reply.
My noble friend Lady Strange raised a similar question to that of the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, about the number not receiving benefit. The noble Baroness may be able to help me when she sums up in case my recollection is not right, but I recall that the number of people who had actually applied for restored war widows pensions and had received them was coming very close to our original estimate. I believe that I would just be taking figures out of the air, but my recollection is that we were within 1,000 or so of our estimate, which suggests that very few war widows would be left unpensioned who were deserving of pensions, although I accept that there will be some.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackie, mentioned Polish airmen. Perhaps he will chide me by saying that it was a fairly costless reform, but it was one of the reforms that I was very pleased to deliver in putting Polish
956
ex-service men, after all this time, on the same footing as British ex-service men when it came to appeals. As I say, I do not believe that it made much difference in the pounds and pence column to anybody, but it was something which was long overdue and I was pleased to be able to do it.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackie, disputed with my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy his assertion that perhaps it was time to differentiate between war pensions as originally envisaged at the end of the Second World War and war pensions as they are paid to service men over the past 20 or 30 years and perhaps to servicemen who have never heard a shot fired in anger. I believe that my noble friend has a point here. I say to the noble Baroness that we ought to give serious thought to the matter. I suggest a review—although I was attacking them earlier on. But this issue needs to be reviewed.
When one reads the regulations, the basis of the war pension scheme was very much geared to the Second World War. It is my view that if a currently serving service man is injured, perhaps going to and from work, on the sports field, in a road accident in Bosnia or whatever, that should be the responsibility of the MoD. It should be part and parcel of the wages and conditions package and the pensions arrangement. The MoD ought to be responsible for today's and tomorrow's service men when it comes to injuries received. The war pensions scheme should deal with the past but not any longer be dealing with current and future service men.
Exactly the same situation arises with regard to war widows' pensions. As a result of the Bett review, I believe that the Government have an opportunity, which I hope that they will take—I certainly pressed my Ministry of Defence colleagues to do this—to look again at the superannuation schemes for the military and at the provisions for invalided-out ex-service men and incorporate them firmly within an employment, wages and conditions package run by the MoD rather than look to the Department of Social Security for help.
A few service wives still become war widows, perhaps as a result of accidents. Indeed, two of the most formidable ladies in the organisation were widowed young as a result of aeroplane crashes. It seemed wrong to me that they should not be given their pension for life. I knew, understood and argued about all the difficulties in that that does not fit well with the DSS system—and that is one of the reasons why I think that, for the benefit of current and future service men, such matters should be transferred to the MoD. The MoD—and that means the Government and all of us—should then take its responsibilities as an employer seriously and award widows' pensions to those who are widowed as a result of their husband's—or perhaps now, their wife's—military service in the same way as happens in other superannuation schemes for other occupations—that is, for life.
I have used up all the time that is available to me, so I conclude by saying that we have had a useful debate. I welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, to this part of her empire. I am sure that she will find it most stimulating and interesting. I commend her to

957
visit—my noble friend Lord Haig has invited the noble Baroness—the annual conference of the Royal British Legion in Scotland. It normally holds its annual conference in some of the more beautiful parts of Scotland—and normally manages to arrange excellent weather.
7.52 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): My Lords, as the relatively newly appointed Minister with special responsibility for war pensions, I very much welcome this opportunity to speak about the pensions and compensation available in respect of injury and illness attributable to service in the armed forces. In particular, I welcome the invitation to explain the availability of benefits under the war pensions scheme, as it is under the provisions of this scheme that the majority of disabled ex-service men and women, including those who served in the world wars, receive compensation.
We are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, for bringing this matter to the House. I in particular thank him for his good wishes. It is regrettably the case, as the noble Lord implies, that the generous compensation provisions in this country for injury or illness sustained as a result of service in the armed forces are not generally appreciated. I hope that this debate will go some way towards extending public awareness.
Currently, some 325,000 people are receiving war pensions, of whom 60,000 are war widows. Three-quarters of those pensioners are aged over 65. Nonetheless, we receive something like 32,000 claims a year—not only because service in our armed forces continues, but also because there are no time limits for the claims.
As a war pensioner himself, wounded 52 years ago, the noble Lord has had close links with disability organisations which include many service people, and he has spoken in this place only recently about the considerable misunderstanding that arises from the description "war pension", pointing out that many such pensions are compensation payments for injuries sustained during service with no connection with a war. He is, of course, absolutely right, but it is a fact that surprises many people, and it is worth re-emphasising, that a war disablement pension may be awarded in respect of any disablement suffered as a result of any service in the armed forces, war time or peace time. The noble Lord suggested—my noble friend Lord Ashley agreed—that a better description might be "armed forces disability pension". While I understand the logic of his recommendation, I rather agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie: I do not think that it would solve the problem.
It is not generally recognised that under the war pensions scheme, while most awards are made in respect of service in the armed forces (some in respect of war service and others, not) awards may also be made to certain people who did not serve in the armed forces, but who were injured as a result of war. Examples are
958
civilians injured as a result of enemy bombing during the last world war, or merchant seamen injured as a result of enemy action. It could be very difficult to come up with a description which would cover adequately all these groups. Also, I have some doubts as to whether a change of title, after all these years, would find general favour among current war pensioners.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, who has considerable experience in this field, suggested that provision for compensation for future ex-service men and women disabled as a result of service should not so much be renamed as be handled instead by the MoD. That is an interesting view. At the moment, such compensation may be provided both under the war pensions scheme administered by the DSS and by the Ministry of Defence under the occupational Armed Forces pension scheme. In practice, however, because the attributable benefits under the latter scheme did not exist prior to March 1973, and because they are awarded only where the service man or woman is invalided from service, relatively few war pensioners receive pensions from both departments.
That is the current position. I am aware of course of the recommendation of the last Select Committee on Defence that there should be a thorough re-examination of the system of compensation for service personnel injured while on duty for their country. The Government are considering carefully this recommendation and we will respond to that point as part of the Government's formal response to the Select Committee on Defence.
Service personnel who are unfortunate enough to be invalided out of the armed forces are advised that their service papers will be referred automatically to the War Pensions Agency for consideration as to entitlement to a war pension. Others who are discharged without a war injury at the time are given an information pack which advises them that, should they later suffer disablement which they believe is due to service, they should claim a war pension as and when disability occurs.
The War Pensions Agency also does much to extend public awareness of war pensions; for example, posters about the scheme are sent directly to regimental museums, and are distributed locally to libraries and citizens advice bureaux. Several explanatory leaflets are available—the noble Countess, Lady Mar, pressed me on this the other day—and as part and parcel of its publicity role, the War Pensioners Welfare Service promotes and provides information by way of dedicated advice and information days. If there are any other ways in which the Government can extend knowledge of the benefits and pensions available, I shall take them up and seek my officials' advice on them.
As my noble friend Lord Ashley emphasised, this debate is about extending public awareness. Like the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, I pay tribute to the invaluable work of the ex-service organisations in this respect. At the moment, the noble Lord has a much greater awareness of what they have done than I have, but I know that those organisations work tirelessly in the interests of ex-service men and women and, in common with many other people, I have the greatest possible regard for their work.

959
In my short time as Minister with special responsibilities for war pensions, I have already met informally representatives of many of these organisations, including some from the Royal British Legion, the Royal British Legion (Scotland) with which the noble Earl, Lord Haig, is closely associated, the British Limbless Ex-Servicemen's Association and the War Widows Association of Great Britain. Like the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, I have been greatly impressed by their dedication and experience. We have seen some of that today in the welcome contribution from the noble Earl, Lord Effingham.
There will he many future opportunities to discuss matters of concern with the ex-service men's organisations and I look forward to a challenging and constructive dialogue with them. I know that it will be challenging because I have already been pressed—tonight by the noble Earl, Lord Effingham—as I imagine that the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, was pressed, on the question of disregards for council tax and housing benefit. There is already a statutory disregard of £10 for those benefits. I regret that I cannot help noble Lords any further tonight on the issue of disregards. This is a matter for local authority discretion. I understand that, were it to be made statutory, the cost would be some £95 million.
The current war pension scheme has a long pedigree. The first formal scheme for disabled soldiers and seamen was established during the reign of Queen Elizabeth I. Prior to the First World War, responsibility for war pensions was vested in the War Office for army officers and all widows, the Chelsea Commissioners for other ranks in the army and the Admiralty for all naval ranks. The Great War, however, changed our response. The vast numbers of volunteers, conscripts and their dependants had no access to occupational disablement pensions or private insurance and there was then no comprehensive social security system to provide for maintenance. While the Government tried to keep the same structure, the huge number of casualties made it clear that arrangements had to be changed. As a result, the Government took unified responsibility for war pensions in 1917 after the battle of the Somme, with the establishment of the Ministry of Pensions in February 1917.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, asked about the numbers of surviving First World War pensioners. As at March 1996, there were 211 such men; as of March of this year there were just 142.
Following the First World War, the new Ministry took over all powers and duties in respect of disablement and death arising from service in the Army and Navy during the Great War and also in respect of members of the Air Force and Mercantile Marine. After the end of the First World War, responsibility for casualties arising from that conflict remained with the Ministry of Pensions. Further responsibility was assumed by the Ministry at the outbreak of World War II in 1939. These and other responsibilities for war pensions in respect of the period prior to the First World War, between the two world wars and after the Second World War are now vested in the Department of Social
960
Security and are administered at Norcross, Blackpool, which I hope to have the privilege of visiting fairly soon.
Over the years, the provisions of the War Pension Scheme have been much improved and extended to include not only preferential pensions in respect of disablement and death but a dedicated welfare service and a wide range of supplementary allowances, many of which are paid at preferential rates when compared with the social security civilian benefits also administered by the DSS. I have found that the war pensioner enjoys many advantages over his or her social security counterpart.
Noble Lords may already be aware of the extent of the compensation that may be received under the War Pensions Scheme. As this debate is about extending public awareness of these pensions, I make no apology for describing, albeit briefly, that compensation. A severely disabled single ex-service man or woman can receive currently a total tax-free war pension of over £386 a week. Of that, £107.20 is the basic war disablement pension. The rest of the award is made up of supplementary allowances in respect of unemployability, age and care and mobility needs. There is a wide range of allowances available, most of which are awarded at preferential rates and some of which are peculiar to war pensioners. In addition, where the person was invalided from the forces on or after 31st March 1973, an occupational pension may be awarded by the Ministry of Defence. Prior to that date there were no specific benefits under that or any other public service occupational pension scheme in respect of disablement or death suffered as a result of service. For example, a former private who had served five years in the Army, had been invalided as a result of a training injury to his back and whose disablement had been assessed as 100 per cent. could now receive a tax-free attributable pension from the Ministry of Defence of almost £4,000 a year. With the war pension, that would give the former private, based on five years' service, a total annual income of some £24,000, all tax free.
To put the level of the total war pension of about £386 into perspective, noble Lords will wish to know that the total equivalent social security benefits that could be received under the industrial injuries scheme by someone similarly disabled as a result of an accident at work would be some £53 a week less. A person whose injury was neither service nor employment related but who was entitled to incapacity benefit and disability living allowance in respect of both the care and mobility components could receive total benefits of £160 a week—less than half the total sum received by someone with the same injury who was entitled to a war pension.
The same principles apply to war widows' pensions. Under the scheme, a war widow's pension may be awarded where the late husband died as a result of service. That does not have to be wartime service. For example, a peacetime training accident could give rise to a tax-free war widow's pension. The majority of war widows receive currently a total weekly pension of over £151. That comprises the basic war widow's pension of £81 a week, an age allowance and a supplementary

961
pension of £52.80. The supplementary pension is payable where the husband's death was due to service before 31st March 1973. Consequently, no attributable forces family pension is paid by the Ministry of Defence under the occupational scheme. To put the total pension into perspective, the standard National Insurance widow's pension is £62.45, some 30 per cent. lower than the standard war widow's pension. That is before the war widow has age allowance and supplementary provision, to which the amount paid to a civilian pensioner does not correspond.
I am delighted to confirm the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, a true champion of war widows. War widows who lost their pensions on remarriage can now regain it should they lose their second husband. The memory of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, as to the statistics serves him well. At the time, he estimated in debates in this House that some 16,500 war widows would be eligible for this pension. So far 16.000 have claimed. The War Pensions Agency and the War Servicemen's Association have done much to advertise these claims, but the noble Baroness is right that it is important that every war widow should avail herself of these changes in benefits.
So far, I have concentrated on the generous compensation that may be received under war pension schemes. However, noble Lords may not be aware that the onus of proof for war pension claims is very favourable, as is the compensation. For deaths arising or disablement claims lodged within seven years of termination of service the onus lies on the Secretary of State to show beyond reasonable doubt that disablement or death is not due to service. Apart from being required to show disablement and, where there is no record in service documents, to provide reliable corroborative evidence of a service injury or incident, there is no onus on the claimant to show any link between current disablement and service. He or she will still receive a pension. It is this provision which applies to all claims received so far from people who served in the Gulf. Even where a claim for disablement is made more than seven years after termination of service, or where death occurs more than seven years after service, the onus of proof is very generous. Unlike the civil burden of proof, which applies the test of a balance of probabilities, war pensions law provides that it is necessary for the applicant only to raise a reasonable doubt, based on reliable evidence, that death or disablement is due to service. The benefit of any reasonable doubt is always given to the claimant.
I have said that it would be impossible during this debate to describe all the preferential provisions attributable to war pensioners, but I have highlighted two: first, the very generous level of pensions compared with their civilian equivalents; and, secondly, the very real distinction that operates in favour of war pensioners in terms of the burden of proof. I give just two more examples that may be of interest to noble Lords. First, war disablement pensioners may receive priority hospital treatment under the NHS for their pensioned disablement, not where there is an emergency case but in terms of the waiting list. Secondly, help may be given with the cost of dental treatment and glasses if required
962
on account of the war pensioned disablement; thirdly, the cost of accommodation in a nursing home may be met for war pensioners needing permanent nursing care because of their disablement.
My final example is one which was quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, and one which is much treasured by war pensioners; it is the existence of the discreet War Pensioners' Welfare Service to help war pensioners, war widows, their dependants and carers with personal confidential advice, help or support. As the noble Lord said, its work is invaluable and much appreciated.
My noble friend Lord Ashley and the noble Earls, Lord Haig and Lord Effingham, asked me about the independent review into hearing loss. We stated at the time that we were determined to be satisfied that the medical evidence on that is clear and unambiguous and that any decisions made on war pensions in that respect are made in accordance with the legislation.
As noble Lords will know, on 23rd May I wrote to Mr. Graham Downing, national chairman. of the Royal British Legion, informing him that I would be arranging a meeting of independent experts in the field of hearing loss in order to review the scientific basis of the approach to the assessment of this condition.
In reply to my noble friend Lord Ashley, I am delighted to announce today that the Government's Chief Medical Officer, Sir Kenneth Calman, will chair the review. Professors Mark Lutman and Adrian Davis, who have advised the Royal British Legion, are being invited to join the review, together with two other independent experts, whose replies we are awaiting. A departmental medical adviser will also be part of the team.
The present approach to the assessment of claims to war pensions for noise induced sensorineural hearing loss is based on the war pensions medical adviser's conclusion on the current medical understanding. The review will therefore investigate the scientific basis of that conclusion and will address the two questions on which the current approach is based. Those questions are: what is the progress of noise induced sensorineural hearing loss following removal from the source of noise; and is the combination of noise induced hearing loss and subsequent sensorineural hearing loss due to age more than additive? I hope and expect that the review will be able to come to a speedy conclusion. The outcome will be made public.
We discussed Gulf War-related illnesses, known popularly as Gulf War Syndrome, during Question Time a few days ago. As a result perhaps it has not been much referred to today. Other questions were asked today, and I shall do my best to respond to them. First, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy and the noble Earl, Lord Haig, asked me about the veterans' unit. For some time that was being urged upon us by the Royal British Legion, but more recently it has written to us saying that it wished to consider that matter further. So it is of course still under review.
My noble friend Lord Ashley talked about nuclear test veterans. He will know that is essentially an MoD matter. I gather that the issue is not about compensation

963
but about access to records. I am afraid I have to tell him that the Government will contest the case because they do not accept that lack of access to records prevented nuclear test veterans from receiving a fair hearing before the Pensions Appeal Tribunal. If my noble friend wishes to write to me, I shall try to give him any additional information on that that he may be seeking.
Other noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Campbell of Croy and Lord Napier and Ettrick, mentioned the backlog of appeals. They are now down from some 20,000 to fewer than 10,000. But noble Lords are right, that is still too slow. The House will understand the difficulties referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, in assessing the situation where the injury occurred some 50 years previously. It is too slow and we are keeping it under review. I shall do as the noble Lord, Lord Napier and Ettrick, asked, and urge greater speed.
Finally, the noble Lords, Lord Sempill and Lord Clifford, raised the issue of prisoner of war compensation. I understand that a long and detailed report is currently being considered by the MoD. It is of course a matter primarily for that department. It hopes to inform Parliament of its decision on that report as soon as possible. I will ensure that the noble Lords, Lord Sempill and Lord Clifford, learn of that decision as soon as is practicable.
To summarise, in this country pension and other provision for disabled ex-servicemen and women and their dependants is properly both wide-ranging and generous. I am sure noble Lords will agree with me that given the circumstances of disablement or death, that is only right. However, those facts are often not understood or are overlooked by those often too ready to criticise. I am pleased that, thanks to the initiative of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, we have together during the debate been able to put the record straight. On behalf of the House, I thank him.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank all who have participated in this debate. There are still a few minutes as a result of the creditable conciseness of the speakers. So I shall comment briefly. I am glad that the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, took part and spoke of the unsubsidised work of the Royal British Legion. I welcome him to these debates as a former member of the Royal Navy.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackie, would like to keep the word "war" in "war pensions", but I presume that he accepts my estimate that more than half the present recipients have never been involved in a war. That is no secret to the Treasury. The danger is that it could use the misnomer as a pretext for being less generous to the total of disabled ex-servicemen. That is clearly a matter of opinion upon which we differ.
Where deafness is concerned, most of the war pensions are being paid to former members of the Army for impairment from firing their own weapons—many in peacetime on practice ranges. They are rightly
964
awarded as compensation for damage from our own friendly cordite propellant. Those injuries are different of course from damage to ears caused by high explosives; for example, from close bursts of enemy shells and bombs. Those wounds could be serious and include not just deafness but perforated ear drums and damage to the brain. That happened to some of the soldiers under my command.
In 1942, half way through World War II, as a field battery commander I insisted that the relevant soldiers manning my field guns—those nearest to the breech blocks—wore ear plugs. After the war I was told that I was among the first, if not the first, to do so. Later it became compulsory.
My noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish was inclined to agree with me about the war pension being renamed. I am grateful to the Minister for her full reply. She pointed out some of the objections to my suggestion. I have not suggested that changes would solve the problem—the words she used—but it would avoid public misunderstandings. For example, on 5th December last it was clear from Hansard that Members of the other place assumed that war pensions, then suddenly in the news that day, were restricted to veterans of wars. Most of the media made the same error. My alternative to changing the name, which I made in my opening speech, is that there should be a campaign to spread information about these pensions so that those who have not been in any kind of war realise that they are entitled to something which is misnamed a "war pension".
It is too early in the life of the new Government for the Minister to be able to reply fully to questions such as whether a unit for ex-service personnel will be set up or to possible changes in the longstanding system of government actions responding to independent medical advice. She has told us that those must await the result of reviews. I am sure that those and other issues will be raised again in your Lordship's House. Again I thank most warmly all who have taken part in this debate. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Co-ordinated Universal Time Bill [H.L.]
8.20 p.m.
Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
First, I wish to thank Her Majesty's Government for allowing time for this Bill to be given a Second Reading. It is also a happy coincidence for me that the day selected is the one on which the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, took his seat in your Lordships' House. I trust that it will not be considered out of order if I say now that I have no doubt that the House will benefit in years to come from the contributions that he will make to it, in just the same way as I have benefited from his friendship and good counsel these past 40 years. I wish the noble Lord well in his new surroundings.

965
The Co-ordinated Universal Time Bill, which is before us tonight, is in part a short technical Bill which will correct an oversight in the Act of Interpretation 1978. This oversight could possibly be due to this particular Act of Parliament having been passed in Committee upstairs rather than on the Floor of your Lordships' House. Nevertheless, the Co-ordinated Universal Time Bill will also be in part a correction of the popular misconception that when a clock, watch or any other timing device is set it is set to the GMT time-scale. This is not the case. The BBC "pips" on the radio, or the speaking clock service provided by BT, do not transmit GMT, but co-ordinated universal time, or, as it is more generally known, UTC.
It is quite impossible, for the reasons which I am about to give, to set a watch or clock to Greenwich Mean Time. However, the legal definition of time, as set out in Chapter 9(1) of the Interpretation Act 1978, is still Greenwich Mean Time. The Bill before you simply replaces GMT, which has been a redesignated time-scale since 1975, with UTC, the current world time-scale for all civil and legal use.
The reason for the change in the Interpretation Act 1978 is twofold. First, the 1975 Recommendation TF460 of the International Telecommunications Union—sometimes known as the ITU—stated:
"Greenwich Mean Time (GMT) should in future be taken as equivalent to Universal Time (UT)".
Secondly, in the same year—1975—it was also agreed in principle by the International Weights and Measures Act, or BIPM—which, for those who are interested in these things, stands for Bureau International des poids et mesures—that Co-ordinated Universal Time (UTC) should become the accepted time-scale for civil and legal use throughout the world. I understand that the United Kingdom was a signatory to this agreement at the time.
I will be describing the fundamental difference between the two time-scales—that is, Universal Time (UT) and Co-ordinated Universal Time (UTC)—at an appropriate moment.
Meanwhile, my Lords, the Co-ordinated Universal Time Bill reaches back through the Interpretation Act 1978 to the original Definition of Time Act 1880. This Bill is its legal antecedent. Furthermore, the Bill before us enshrines universal principles of the measurement of time and place from Greenwich, as was agreed in the First International Meridian Conference 1884. This is its scientific antecedent.
I am pleased to report that when the noble and learned Lord the Master of the Rolls was made privy of the contents of the Bill before this House he was able to indicate to me in writing that he considered the change from GMT to UTC "a sensible" measure. I hope and trust Her Majesty's Government will take the same considered view during the Bill's passage in the other place.
In supporting this change-over in the legal time-scale, I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord was aware that he was merely carrying on a long tradition of his profession's interest in horology? No more so is this apparent than in the Palace of Westminster, where the
966
famous K.C., Edmund Beckett Denison, who became the first Lord Grimthorpe in 1886 designed the gravity escapement of the Great Clock of Westminster (popularly referred to as "Big Ben").
Lord Grimthorpe's invention has maintained the accuracy of the Great Clock at three seconds a week up to the present day, which most experts of the time said was quite impossible.
I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Shannon, who I am glad to see will be speaking after me, will remind noble Lords of the day when Lady Shannon made the presentation of an exact model of the gravity escapement to the Palace of Westminster. It is now on display in the clock tower for the benefit of all to see.
The reason I have mentioned the Great Clock is that I can personally vouch that since the mid-1970s it has always been set to UTC not GMT. I can also say that when Big Ben, which is the hour bell named after Sir Benjamin Hall (who was Commissioner of the Office of Works at the time), strikes in the new millennium it will be UTC time not UT or GMT. This will be regardless of whether or not this Bill, which changes the legal time-scale from GMT to UTC, ever reaches the statute book.
The question will no doubt arise as to why there is any necessity to change the law from GMT to UTC when in practice the maximum difference between the two time-scales (UTC and UT) can never exceed 0.9 of a second. This question cannot be answered properly unless there is, first, a clear description of Co-ordinated Universal Time (UTC) and Universal Time (UT) and the fundamental differences between them explained. I shall use the initials from now on, which will be much easier.
In 1967 the General Conference of Weights & Measures adopted the fixed atomic second using the regular vibrations of caesium-133 atoms in a clock at sea level as a regulator. These atomic clocks form the basis of International Atomic Time (TAI) and are accurate to less than one second in a million years. In 1967 the new atomic time-scale replaced ephemeris time, which, fortunately, does not concern us this evening.
In 1975 the International Conference of Weights and Measures (BIPM) to which I have already referred, recommended that Co-ordinated Universal Time be derived from the more accurate TAI and become the accepted civil and legal time-scale for all nations. UTC would be transmitted from more than 200 atomic clocks around the world with an accuracy of plus or minus two milli-seconds. Most industrialised countries, with the exception of the United Kingdom, have accepted this recommendation made 22 years ago.
I believe the decision to accept this recommendation of the BIPM can no longer be postponed. The reason for this is that in the not-too-distant future all clocks, PCs and other IT devices, will almost certainly become directly linked to the UTC time-scale through their ability to receive UTC "pips" direct.

967
This could mean, by the turn of the century that all legal documents, (including birth or death certificates) will have as a matter of course UTC time with tenths of a second accuracy printed on them.
However, if the legal time-scale continues to remain as UT—that is, old GMT which is not accessible by the general public and which can only be accurate to the nearest second—many unnecessary problems could arise in the future regarding tax claims, to name but one. There could also be increasing problems with law and business conducted over the Internet if there were apparently two differing legal time-scales.
Some noble Lord might ask whether the two time-scales could not be reduced to one. This would avoid the current confusion and therefore the need to change the one which has served the country and its public so well for the past 117 years. The reason why this cannot be done is that UT—that is old GMT since 1975—is a general designation of all time-scales based on the Earth's rotation and therefore becomes ambiguous in that the term represents more than one time-scale.
The UT time-scales are of differing refinement and include UTO, which is the mean solar time of the prime meridian obtained by direct astronomical observation. There is UT1, which is UT0 corrected for the Earth's polar variations, and then there is UT2, which is UT1 corrected for the seasonal fluctuations in the Earth's rotation rate. Your Lordships will see from the complexity of this that these matters do not belong in the public domain of timekeeping.
The rate of the earth's rotation is calculated by the International Earth Rotation Service—IERS—which provides the information regarding the difference between UT and UTC which decides when to insert a leap second as and when the difference between the two time-scales approaches 0.9 seconds. Incidentally, such a moment will occur at 1 a.m. BST on 1st July this year when it has been decided that UTC, which is transmitted by atomic clocks around the world, will add one extra second in order to match the slowdown of the Earth's rotational speed. This process is currently the scientifically-acknowledged basis for all time on Earth.
I hope that, by going into some detail of the scientific work that goes on behind the scenes to produce UT—old GMT—it will be recognised that UT cannot possibly be the basis of an accurate or predictable time-scale that is suitable for use by the legal profession or the general public.
In short, I am saying that atomic time with a fixed second is best suited for civil and legal time and is accurate to about one second in a million years, whereas Universal Time—old GMT—based on the Earth's rotation (which can only be calculated by scientists) is best suited for astronomy and related subjects.
UT can never be as accurate as UTC in that any small variation in the Earth's rotational speed, which is, incidentally, about 1,030 kilometres per hour at the point at which we are sitting cannot be anticipated as the Earth makes its annual journey around the Sun at speeds approaching 106,000 kilometres an hour. Meanwhile,
968
the entire solar system, of which our planet is a part, is apparently circumnavigating the Milky Way incredibly at some 8 million kilometres per hour. For my part, once the scientific facts behind the celestial mechanics on which Universal Time is based were made known to me, I was left with a sense of wonderment and deep humility at the true reality of nature and the fine balance on which all life here on Earth depends.
I should now like to draw your attention down to the Earth's surface, in particular to Clause 2 of the Bill before us. Noble Lords will note that in that clause, I am attempting to ensure that by changing GMT (UT) to UTC, the scientific uses of UT will not be affected when applied to other direct and indirect references to GMT in other Bills, for example, the Summer Time Act 1972. I am taking advice on this point and it may be that some minor amendments may have to be made in Committee. However, perhaps I may explain that the Bill changes all references in other Bills from GMT to UTC. I believe that that does not affect the law as it stands but I am taking advice and if necessary, I shall produce the appropriate amendments in Committee.
I made mention in my introduction that this Bill enshrines the universal principle that the measurement of all time and place on the Earth's surface will be taken from the prime meridian at Greenwich. This was agreed by the First International Conference held in Washington DC in 1884.
As some noble Lords will be aware, this historic conference was called:
"for the purpose of fixing a meridian proper to be employed as a common zero of longitude and standard of time-reckoning throughout the globe".
The exact place chosen and agreed was:
"the meridian passing through the centre of the transit instrument at the Observatory of Greenwich as the initial meridian for longitude".
The instrument referred to here was, of course, the Airey transit telescope which can still be seen in its place at the Old Royal Observatory in Greenwich.
The conference then went on to agree the international adoption of a universal day which begins:
"for all the world at the moment of mean midnight of the initial meridian".
The time and method of calculation of the universal day is precisely what I have described as UTO; that is, the mean solar time of the prime meridian obtained by direct astronomical observation and corrected to mean midnight on zero. That was all that was available scientifically at that time. If they had had atomic time or UTC available to them then, they would have undoubtedly started the Universal Day on UTC and not UT. That is the point I am trying to make.
The reason I am looking backwards in time to those events and definitions in so much detail is that as we approach the millennium, many others will be doing likewise. The previous Administration and the new Government have both agreed to spend an incredible sum of public and private money—I think approaching £600 million—to build a monumental dome at Greenwich in order to celebrate the occasion.

969
Furthermore, I understand that this complex is to be built along the prime meridian with 12 satellite pavilions, the main theme of which will be the history and dimension of time. As a part-time horologist, I can only applaud such inspiration and foresight. However, I sincerely hope that on completion, all time will be displayed correctly as UTC and not pretending to be GMT, as is the case today outside the Maritime Museum at Greenwich.
When the eyes of the world are focused on Greenwich and its history at the start of the new millennium, it would be a very sad event indeed if we, as a nation, failed to display the correct time when the moment came.
I feel that a theme park is different from a museum. Science as shown in a theme park need not necessarily be real science. But we are very proud of the Greenwich Museum and the names of the people associated with it—Herschel, Harrison and Tompion—because they were all British. They were scientists. They were not part of a theme park. I feel that we should try to get the time right as the millennium approaches.
The Astronomer Royal, Professor Sir Martin Rees, having had sight of this Bill, was kind enough to indicate to me that its passing would be a service to the community at large. I have received support from many other quarters including the Master of the Worshipful Company of Clockmakers and the British Horological Institute.
The only hesitations I have met so far about the effect of the Bill have been from those who might regret the passing of the historic term "Greenwich" from the national time-scale. I share a certain sadness for the same reason, and wonder if a new term for the world time zones including the word "Greenwich" can be devised in time for the millennium. That is not something for the law or for your Lordships' House to decide. But the scientists who got us into this problem may be able to help us in that direction. Meanwhile, the abbreviation GMT would continue to be used by the BBC World Service and BT to describe the world time zones once this Bill was passed and until a replacement term was found.
I have suggested in an article on this subject, which was printed in the May edition of the Horological Journal and which is available in your Lordships' Library that "Greenwich Meridian Time" might be adopted for that purpose. However, I have been persuaded subsequently that this may create confusion due to having the same abbreviation as Greenwich Mean Time. Other suggestions have been made to me including "Greenwich World Time" which I rather like. That is another possibility to be considered. If this Bill manages to reach the statute book I hope that something along those lines will be discussed outside the Palace of Westminster, but nevertheless in time for the millennium.
Finally, I wish to thank the staff of the National Physical Laboratory at Teddington—in particular Dr. John Laverty—and Drs. Yallop and Penston of the Royal Greenwich Observatory at Cambridge and
970
Jonathan Betts of the Old Royal Observatory in Greenwich and many others for all their help and advice in the preparation of this Bill. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time—(Lord Tanlaw.)
8.39 p.m.
The Earl of Shannon: My Lords, the House should be very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, for introducing this Bill and also for the quite brilliant exposition he gave of why it is needed as we stand today.
Here we are dealing with the inevitable and irresistible march of history and, as the noble Lord suggested, the possibility of a legal tangle which is just waiting to happen. We have had a very brilliant exposition of the technical reasons but I wonder whether, in order to put the matter into context, we might perhaps have a short historical sketch. Every system quantifying time must have a standard or a time-base from which to operate. To primitive man, the sun in its apparent passage appeared to be a fairly regular traveller across the heavens, and was of course the obvious choice.
About 4,000 years ago sundials were developed to show, more accurately than just the guesswork of looking at the heavens, the divisions of the day as the sun moved round. With the advent of mechanical horology, and especially the pendulum, as the time-base, which operated conveniently at night as well as by day—which the sun did not do—it then started to become apparent that the sun itself was not so regular. That is because the earth does not go round the sun in a perfect circle, but in a rather lopsided, egg-shaped, elliptical course, making the sun either fast or slow by round about a quarter of an hour at some times in the year. That led to the preparation of a table of constants and that became known as the Equation of Time and was used by those who checked their clocks by sundials. Noble Lords should remember that there were no BBC pips in those days; indeed, one had to go out to one's sundial and calculate whether the sun was fast or slow and then check one's clock accordingly. One could then make the necessary corrections to give an average or mean time.
I suspect that in the 18th century there were very many more people in this country who understood the Equation of Time and how it came about than there are today. Indeed, if one mentioned the Equation of Time, how many people in the street would have the slightest idea of what one was talking about? Sundials, even when corrected, gave the local time, which varied across the country depending of the longitude and the place where the sundial happened to be. The increasing speed of transport over the years, first by stagecoaches and then by trains, started to show that journeys at the same speed from east to west appeared to be quicker than the same journey at the same speed in the opposite direction. Thence, legally, we had to have a national time which applied over the whole country, based on the Zero longitude of Greenwich. That became known

971
as Greenwich Mean Time. It was later made more universally accurate by the electric telegraph and then by radio time signals.
However, this was still a calculated average. As the pendulum with temperature and barometric compensation became more accurate, it started to show that the dear old earth did not make such a steady, albeit egg-shaped, course around the sun but tended to wobble a bit. Hence we had Polar Variation—another additive to the equation, small but significant. Now we have an even more nebulous, more averaged time standard—which is still called Greenwich Mean Time—based on the earth wobbling around the sun. Moreover, the pendulum itself was related to the earth and its timed swing depended on gravity. But that is not constant, as it varies up hill and down dale and according to whereabouts one is on the surface of the earth.
Fortunately, in this century, we saw the emergence of entirely new time bases which were totally divorced from the old earth/sun relationship with its much-manipulated and much-averaged attempts to get an accurately standard product. I refer of course, first, to the vibrations of a quartz crystal of certain dimensions, though these were still rather temperature sensitive. Secondly, in this century, we have, as has been mentioned, the resonance of the caesium atom—a fixed, definitive and totally accurate, given a million years, time-base which is devoid of all the complicated averaging and general messing about inherent in trying to make the best of the old earth/sun relationship into Greenwich Mean Time or Universal Time.
One may ask: "Why bother to make legal allowances for such small variations?" With the exponential advances in things such as computer technology, where millionths, and even smaller fractions, of a second are of importance, surely in the not too far distant future there is the possibility that legal cases could emerge where a clear and distinctive standard of time will be an essential requirement. We had better be ready for it now and not try to duck the issue in the belief that we can wait until the actual disaster happens.
Our present so-called Greenwich Mean Time signals to which the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, referred, are already having to be corrected by Co-ordinated Universal Time, although, legally, GMT itself is just an outdated and somewhat indefinite standard in today's world. Of course, as a matter of national pride, we wish to try to retain something of the old term "Greenwich Mean Time"—indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, suggested one or two possible alternatives—but it is still possible to keep Greenwich, and perhaps something to do with mean time, for normal everyday use.
For this purpose, we do have an exact precedent. Traditionally, a very early English king defined the English yard as the distance between his nose and the tips of the fingers on his outstretched right arm. That was probably sufficiently accurate for his day as a standard, provided that His Majesty could be retained looking straight to the front. It was later defined as the distance between two scratches on gold plugs in a metal bar at a definite temperature. That was getting a hit more accurate, but an even greater accuracy was called for in
972
the middle of the last century. The English yard was eventually defined, not in terms of a bar of metal or anything like that, but in terms of the metre. The metal bar then became redundant and was dumped under a staircase down the passage here in 1853. But that did not stop us, until very recently, retaining the English yard almost universally in everyday use, despite the fact that it was now legally defined in terms of something quite different.
Therefore, why not have Greenwich Mean Time or something similar although, for legal definition, time could be more accurately defined by the atomic time of Co-ordinated Universal Time? I believe that Her Majesty's Government ought to welcome the opportunity offered by the Bill of getting into today's world and the new millennium as regards a legal time standard.
8.50 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, a sorry rumour reaches me that in their rush to clumsy constitutional change the Government propose that the role and the breadth of the participation of the Cross-Benchers in this House might be restricted in the same way as it is proposed that the contribution of hereditary Peers might be restricted. Having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, and the noble Earl, Lord Shannon, I hope that the Government might reflect more deliberately upon that because if there is a worthwhile contribution that your Lordships' House might offer more generally to the deliberations of the nation, it would seem to me that this is such an occasion.
This is a subject that does not immediately command the attention of those who are travelling home on the Tube tonight or on buses the length and breadth of the country. But given the variations that have grown up around the world, it seems to me entirely appropriate that a matter such as this should be discussed in your Lordships' House, and indeed that the noble Lord's Bill should be given a Second Reading.
I recall with something approximating to horror the exchange that I had with the noble Lord on 27th November of last year. That debate is recorded at cols. 257 to 260 of Hansard. Subsequent to that exchange at Question Time I was advised by a number of noble Lords that it was regarded as being one of the most fascinating and erudite exchanges that had taken place in your Lordships' House. I wish I could claim that the erudition of that exchange was entirely my own work. However, I have to say in all modesty that I owed my transient grasp of this extraordinarily complicated subject of Greenwich Mean Time, Co-ordinated Universal Time and Atomic Time, not just to the erudition of my officials in the DTI. That erudition was remarkable but it was exceeded only by their patience in explaining to me what the subject was all about. I cannot say that we quite had resort to the matchsticks that the late Lord Home was considered notorious for as regards his grasp of economics. But certainly round my table a number of coffee cups were moved rather quickly to explain to me exactly what were the difficulties in trying to reconcile the erratic elliptical

973
movement of the earth round the sun and the extraordinary accuracy that can now be secured by the use of some 200 atomic clocks around the world.
The reconciliation of those different approaches to time involves complex issues. I do not believe that I have the expertise to understand them in their entirety. I indicated to the noble Lord during the exchange on 27th November that such was the correction that was allowed in Co-ordinated Universal Time in relation to Greenwich Mean Time, that it did not seem to me for legal purposes—which is what we are primarily concerned with in the Interpretation Act to which the noble Lord addresses his amendment—there was any necessity to adjust Greenwich Mean Time. As I said then, I was astonished to discover that some 29 leap seconds had been introduced into our calendar since 1958. That seems to me a rather remarkable extension of time. However, it did not seem to me to offer any significant legal impact or change. For that reason I suggested that the then Government would not support the change that the noble Lord now proposes.
From these Benches that remains our view. However, I have listened to what the noble Lord has said. I agree with the noble Earl that it was a quite extraordinary exposition. I cannot say that I understood every passing phrase of it in its entirety but it has been an extremely interesting exposition of why it might be desirable to introduce a change. I regret that there are not more noble Lords present in your Lordships' Chamber to grasp what is being proposed. I certainly suggest that there should be an opportunity further to discuss this Bill in your Lordships' House.
8.55 p.m.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, this has been a fascinating debate. I did not quite understand the reference of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, to our restraining the Cross-Bench Peers in your Lordships' House. I start by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, on his tenacity in returning to this subject and on the erudition with which he introduced it. He may recall that this is not my first brush with Co-ordinated Universal Time because I participated in the erudite exchange of 27th November to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, referred. This is rather like a re-run of that exchange but our roles are reversed.
In his speech moving the Second Reading of this Bill the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, has most eloquently explained the complexities of the difference between Greenwich Mean Time and Co-ordinated Universal Time and why the time may not be exactly what we think it is. He is an horological expert. I congratulate him on that. I understand that he was interviewed this evening on local radio at Greenwich. People there seemed to be not too concerned about whether the time should be Co-ordinated Universal Time or Greenwich Mean Time.
One point to make clear at the outset is that this Bill will not in any way outlaw the use of Greenwich Mean Time, nor will it have any effect on Summer Time. The noble Earl, Lord Shannon, told us that the earth is a cog in a giant clock. Its rotation regulated our days and its
974
path around the sun defined our seasons. He spoke of a sundial. I suppose that ancient man put a stick in the ground and used its shadow to get a fair approximation of the time. As the noble Earl, Lord Shannon, told us, we progressed to mechanical clocks. As he also told us, these revealed a problem with using the sun's passage across the sky to tell the time. The earth's orbit is elliptical and its axis is tilted, so depending on the time of year, the actual position of the sun against the background of stars appears a little ahead or behind the expected position. The noble Earl referred to a period of about 15 minutes. To be precise, the accumulated error varies from 14 minutes slow in February to 16 minutes fast in November. Therefore we have invented the concept of Mean Time.
Improved communications and better clocks revealed another problem with using a sundial as a clock. The local time according to the sun in different places depends on how far east or west they are of each other. Therefore, if the trains were to run to any sort of timetable, and if it was to be clear whether the assizes were to convene at the time shown on the judge's watch set in London or at the time on the town hall clock, it was necessary to adopt a common timescale. The timescale adopted in Great Britain was that based on the local time, according to the mean sun at Greenwich.
The use of Greenwich Mean Time for scientific purposes duly died out, although the term lives on in everyday parlance. One reason the scientific community no longer uses the term GMT—as the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, explained to us—is that we are no longer really sure what GMT is. However, Universal Time is hardly more certain. It has three separate definitions depending on which corrections have been applied for the earth's rotation. The noble Lord told us about that.
The noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, and the noble Earl, Lord Shannon, told us about the development of atomic clocks at the UK's National Physical Laboratory in the 1950s. These opened the way for yet another more stable timekeeping method and subsequently a new definition of the second. The simple timescale based on atomic clocks is International Atomic Time. This scale is measured by the weights and measures bureau using data from the 272 clocks in 43 national laboratories, to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, referred.
Like mechanical clocks before them, atomic clocks revealed another problem with using the sun to set our timescale. Because of the irregular motion of the earth, International Atomic Time moves out of step with Universal Time. To get round this difficulty, leap seconds are occasionally added or subtracted from International Atomic Time to keep it within 0.9 seconds of one of the three forms of Universal Time. The timescale created in this way is Co-ordinated Universal Time—the timescale selected by the noble Lord. As he told the House, to date, 30 leap seconds have been added from the reference point for the beginning of International Atomic Time since 1st January 1958. Another will be added at the end of this month.
The noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, is right. Although we still talk of Greenwich Mean Time, it is in fact Co-ordinated Universal Time that we use in our

975
everyday life. The timescale maintained by the National Physical Laboratory and transmitted by it as a radio signal is Co-ordinated Universal Time. This time signal is then used in turn to set the BBC "pips", British Telecom's speaking clock, the digital clocks on railway platforms and, indeed, the Great Clock at Westminster.
The effect of the Bill will be to replace a reference in the Interpretation Act to a timescale which we know reasonably well and which is familiar with one that we know very well but which is less familiar. It does have the advantage of referring to Greenwich, the home of astronomy and navigation, and there is no evidence that the continued use of GMT creates a problem. We actually use UTC but, confusingly, call it GMT.
However, the Bill would not in any way outlaw Greenwich Mean Time, nor would it prevent its use in Acts of Parliament or for legal purposes. The rationale for the provision in the Interpretation Act is merely to establish the conditions which apply should there be no specific statement as to the timescale to be used. The Bill would increase certainty in such circumstances by specifying Co-ordinated Universal Time rather than the less certain Greenwich Mean Time. In situations where the very small difference between Co-ordinated Universal Time and Greenwich Mean Time matters, it would be wise always to make an explicit reference to which is intended. For legal purposes that would be necessary. Nor will the Bill affect the move to summer time and back each year. The Interpretation Act will, as now, provide for the one hour shift.
The Government take a neutral view on the Bill. Nevertheless, given the limited impact it would make, I would caution against allowing it to occupy too much parliamentary time.
9.4 p.m.
Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who took part in the debate. I appreciate that this type of contribution is extremely difficult to listen to, for it is complicated. I have tried to simplify the information without distorting it. The debate has been positive and I am grateful for the contributions and the apparent support for my Bill.
I should like to say a brief word to the noble Earl, Lord Shannon, on the Equation of Time. I remember as a boy looking at a sundial and finding that, having set it correctly, after about a week or a month it moved. I always thought that the gardener had moved it. I did not know that it was the sun. That was probably my first lesson on how we relate to nature and the celestial mechanics that I mentioned. It is an important matter, for a whole number of reasons.
976
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, as did the noble Lord, Lord Haskel in replying, made the point that, if there is such a fine difference in the time, perhaps we should merely clarify which timescale is being used for the purposes of legal documents and so on.
The driving force behind my Bill has been that of the first conference on longitude in Washington: the universal day and universal time. It all began with the railways. As the noble Earl, Lord Shannon, said, GMT had to be introduced as a timescale in order to enable everyone to catch the trains. Today we have the Internet, which almost overnight has reduced the world to the global village about which people used to talk. For the cost of a local call it is possible to talk to anyone in the world and become involved with that person in great detail, whether legal or technical. Everyone is a neighbour now.
For the same reason that the universal day and universal time were considered in 1884, it is essential that we all have the same timescale. The systems on our PCs and computers are quite inaccurate at present, but they will soon indicate the same time. That is why we should address our minds to the matter, and why in this country we should be prepared, so as not to be at any disadvantage. This matter is not comprehended by either the legal profession or those who conduct business.
I saw a little on television about Greenwich—I was not there. I am worried by the lack of concern at Greenwich regarding the device on the Greenwich Meridian giving the wrong information. It is producing UTC, but says it is producing Greenwich Mean Time. For children who want to learn science and want to learn about the world and nature, as I tried to explain in my contribution tonight, the fundamental difference between those two timescales is fascinating. I believe that children in the future will find it fascinating when they understand it. I do not believe that they want a "quick fix" answer because they have been to Greenwich and have seen something saying "Greenwich Mean Time". The subject is far more exciting than that. If the noble Lord's Government are keen on education, as I am, perhaps this measure will be examined with a view to helping in education and in the encouragement of scientific thinking among our young people.
Once more, I am very grateful for the support expressed and the contributions made. I have every hope that, with the help of this House, the Bill will at least proceed to its next stage. I ask noble Lords to give the Bill a Second Reading. I commend it to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at eight minutes past nine o'clock.