Sitting of 22 January 1987

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS

  BRITISH RAILWAYS (STANSTED) BILL (By Order)
  Order for Third Reading read.
  To be read the Third time upon Thursday 29 January.

  YORK CITY COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time upon Thursday 29 January.

Oral Answers to Questions
  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Food Surplus
    Mr. Powley: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what further action is being taken to reduce surpluses of food in Europe, beyond that announced on 17 December.
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Michael Jopling): I continue to take every opportunity to promote necessary reforms of common agricultural policy regimes which are for products in surplus or which involve excessive expenditure.
    Mr. Powley: Will my right hon. Friend accept the congratulations of the whole House on the settlement that he recently achieved in distributing surpluses of butter, beef, milk and sugar? Does he agree that this is a practical demonstration of a caring Government? Will he tell the House how he intends to achieve the distribution of the food surpluses and when that distribution will take place? Will he also assure me that constituents in Norwich will receive their allocation of the surpluses?
    Mr. Jopling: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind words. We are moving as fast as we can to make this food available. I cannot say exactly when it will happen in Norwich, but we hope that the first food will be made available next week. Only today I heard from the Commissioner's office in Brussels that, subject to availabiltiy, the products concerned are to be provided to a collection point convenient to the organisation—that is, the charity—in the quantities and in a form that it can use, and all reasonable costs up to that point will be borne by FEOGA.
    Mr. Hardy: Has there not been the most astonishing negligence on the part of the Government in their
    1010
    preparations to deal with this nettle of surpluses? What steps has the Minister taken to ensure that, when the nettle is grasped, Britain and British farmers will not be stung far more than their continental competitors?
    Mr. Jopling: As the hon. Gentleman's question was rather vague, I am not too sure whether he was referring to the food that we are making available or to the general agreement that we made in December. The December settlement was an extremely good one for Britain. We were able to preserve many of the most valuable parts of our support system, not least the continuation for two years of the beef variable premium scheme.
    Mr. Shersby: I welcome the scheme to distribute EEC food stocks to those in need, but why is it proposed to transport thousands of tonnes of sugar from intervention stocks stored in 50 kg bags in Italy when there is an adequate supply of sugar in Britain to enable British companies to supply consumers with 1 kg bags? Also, how is it proposed that the charities concerned will distribute the stocks of meat and butter that are held in cold storage?
    Mr. Jopling: I am glad to tell my hon. Friend that we had our first meeting with the charities on Tuesday—the day that the Council of Ministers agreed the matter. We have had a further meeting with the charities today and they are enthusiastic about making the scheme work. In relation to sugar, the plans are still being worked out, so I think that my hon. Friend is a little premature.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Has the Minister seen the amazing story that Lord Avebury wishes to donate his body to Battersea Dogs Home?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Is this a food surplus?
    Mr. Banks: It is indeed, Mr. Speaker. In the event of this practice catching on, will the Minister give an undertaking that we shall not have an EEC mountain of dead Liberals?
    Mr. Jopling: As I have been in the House a little longer than the hon. Gentleman, I had the misfortune to sit here with the noble Lord. Having heard what he had to say when he was in this House, no nonsense that he talks now comes as any surprise to me whatsoever.
    Mr. Alexander: I do not wish to embarass my right hon. Friend, but does not my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Powley) have a point? What guarantee can I give my constituents in Newark that any of the surpluses will reach them, and soon?
    Mr. Jopling: I had the great pleasure of addressing farmers in my hon. Friend's constituency only a very short time ago. We hope to have the food moving next week. We are awaiting the final rules and regulations from the Commission. Until we receive them, we are not in a position to move. My hon. Friend may have read in the press, however, that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State was present when the first butter was taken out of the cold store yesterday to start the thawing out process.
    Dr. Godman: Is it not economically stupid to accept sugar imported from Italy when we have enough sugar in Britain to supply people in need? There is a cane sugar refinery in my constituency that would be able very effectively to package and distribute sugar in 1 kg bags.
    Mr. Jopling: As there is no sugar in intervention stores in this country, no plans have been finalised as to how the scheme will work in relation to sugar, but I shall bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman has just told us.
    Mr. Gale: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement, although why the elderly and those in need should be denied access to wine and cheese I am not quite sure, as in some parts of the Community they are regarded as staple diet. My right hon. Friend said that the food would be distributed through charitable agencies. As many people are unable to get to those agencies, will he ensure that there is adequate publicity to make sure that those in need receive the goods that will become available?
    Mr. Jopling: Perhaps I can correct my hon. Friend. Cheese is part of the scheme [HON. MEMBERS: "What about wine?"] We can all make jokes about wine. They have been made for many years in this House. As for the rest of my hon. Friend's question, we shall do our utmost to get things moving as soon as we can.
    Mr. Foulkes: Is the Minister aware that this morning I was in touch with my successors at Age Concern, Scotland and that they were under the impression that the scheme involved the delivery of all the foodstuffs to centres where there were cooking facilities, with the implication that meals or cooked food would be provided for the elderly and those in need? Our understanding, however, and the impression created by the Minister, is that food will be delivered to individual old people. Will the Minister clear up that point? Will deliveries be made to the homes of elderly people and those in need, or will those involved have to go to food centres and have it doled out to them as though it were some kind of poor law soup kitchen?
    Mr. Jopling: Many of the hon. Gentleman's colleagues have asked for this food to be made available to needy people. I am sorry that when we have such a scheme the only thing that the hon. Gentleman can do is to carp about it. We are hoping to distribute this food to people through, for instance, the meals on wheels service and in other ways. We are working as quickly and as hard as we can with the charities responsible for doing this. I remind the hon. Gentleman of the statement that I received earlier today from the Commissioner's office. It said that the food would be provided at a collection point convenient to the charity in quantities and in a form that it could use.
    Mr. Harris: In looking to the future and devising means of controlling surpluses, will my right hon. Friend reject out of hand the crazy suggestion by the Leader of the SDP for a two-tier system for grain? Has my right hon. Friend taken note of the immediate reaction of the president of the National Farmers Union, Mr. Simon Gourlay, who told the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) that he did not even begin to comprehend the SDP leader's scheme and that it would lead to the annihilation of British farming?
    Mr. Jopling: I think that my hon. Friend has repeated almost exactly the words of the president of the National Farmers Union about the extraordinary comments made in the Bledisloe lecture by the leader of the SDP. My only comment is that it must have been the most damaging policy proposal in living memory by any party in this country.
    Mr. John: Understandably, the House does not yet have details of the food distribution scheme, but am I right
    1012
    in understanding that the total amount allocated for the scheme Europewide is £38 million? If that is right, it means that our share, both for the amount of food and for the cost of preparation of that food into a form in which it can be distributed, is about £3 million.
    Mr. Jopling: The Commission announcement earlier this week said that there would be a review if the cost of the scheme appeared to be going beyond 50 million ecus, which in pounds sterling is not far from the figure that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. There is no expecific allocation to any one country. At the moment it is on a first-come-first-served basis. I do not think that any other Community country could show that it is further ahead with its plans than we are.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Has my right hon. Friend yet had an opportunity to study in detail the proposals by the Labour party, which seem designed to remove the surpluses by levying a rates tax on agricultural land? In Scotland that would certainly be a most effective way of driving farmers off the land.
    Mr. Jopling: I am glad that my hon. Friend raised that matter. While the Labour party proposal does not compete for one moment with the horrors for the farming industry contained in the speech by the SDP leader the other day, I hope that our farmers will look carefully at the implications of the Labour party's policy on the re-rating of agricultural land, the nationalisation of agricultural land and stringent new planning policies.
    Mr. Maclennan: Does the Minister not recognise that his existing policy on cereals, relying as it does upon continuing high levels of production, and his record of total failure to bring supply and demand into anything like balance, is a disastrous policy which fails to discriminate between users and producers and has not protected British farmers? Is it not time that he brought new thinking to the problem of surplus cereal disposal?
    Mr. Jopling: I suppose that the hon. Gentleman was one of the architects of his right hon. Friend's absurd speech. The leader of his party said that the vast majority of grain farmers in the community would be unaffected. He did not say that 44,000 of the 94,000 United Kingdom producers would be affected. That is a most discriminatory policy for British agriculture. It means that annual revenue for the average United Kingdom grain producer with 42 hectares of cereals will drop by £6,000 a year.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I have allowed a long run of questions on this because of the implications for hon. Members' constituents, but we must now move on more rapidly.

    Fertilisers
    Mr. Weetchasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what studies have been conducted by his Department on the use of nitrogen-based fertilisers on farms and their effects on water catchment areas.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Donald Thompson): My Department is undertaking a number of studies aimed at enabling nitrogen fertilisers to be used more efficiently and reducing the nitrate available for leaching to water.

    1013
    These include studies specifically designed to provide better information on leaching losses from a range of different crop and management practices.
    Mr. Weetch: I thank the Minister for that answer. Does he realise that there is widespread and growing public concern about the level of nitrate pollution in parts of this country and that an important source of that pollution is nitrogen-based fertilisers? Is he aware that in a study by the Department of the Environment published last December East Anglis was classified as one of the worst polluted areas in the country? Does he agree that as the need for massive surpluses is well and truly over the Government should be maintaining stringent controls on the level of nitrate pollution? What is he going to do about that?
    Mr. Thompson: I know of the hon. Gentleman's great interest in this matter, both within his constituency, which is probably why he asked the question, and on a wider basis. The Ministry fully understands the implications of nitrogen pollution and has already set in hand a series of studies, including work on the efficiency of the use of fertilisers and the uptake of soil-derived nitrogen, the response of grazed permanent grassland to nitrogen fertilisers, predicting fertiliser needs for individual farms, modelling the interaction of nitrate leaching, the need for denitrification of agricultural soils and leaching losses from different crop rotations, management practices and soils. We are working with the DHHS, the NFU, the Country Landowners Association and others along the lines suggested by the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Alan Howarth: Will my hon. Friend acknowledge the importance of the work being undertaken at the National Vegetable Research Station in computer modelling of nitrogen usage by crops, which is pointing the way to reduced pollution? Is he aware that as a result of the arrangements it has made with the growers, as things now stand the Horticultural Development Council will have available to fund this and other important areas of research only half the amount previously indicated by the Ministry? Will the Minister restore the missing £1 million?
    Mr. Thompson: I fully understand my hon. Friend's concern about the horticulture industry and the institute which I believe is based in his constituency. Research and development are important, and it is doubly important that those who benefit from research and development also contribute to it.
    Mr. Randall: Will the Minister tell the House which parts of the country are unlikely to comply with the EEC directive?
    Mr. Thompson: The way in which we implement EEC directives will mean that all parts of the country will comply with them.

    EC (United Kingdom Presidency)
    Mr. Jacksonasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was achieved during his presidency of the Council of Agriculture Ministers.
    Mr. Keyasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress in the reform of the common agricultural policy was made during his presidency of the Council of Agriculture Ministers.
    Mr. Jopling: The Council in December took an important step towards the necessary reform of the common agricultural policy. During the course of our presidency the Council also agreed on a number of measures contributing to the completion of the internal market.
    Mr. Jackson:Will my right hon. Friend accept warm congratulations from Conservative Members on his success in securing further steps towards realism in the common agricultural policy? With regard to recent proposals for a two-tier pricing system for cereals, does my right hon. Friend agree that while a social policy for European agriculture is necessary, if it is to be acceptable and equitable it cannot be based on the sort of flat rate concept that appears to be advocated by the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), but must be tailored to the particular circumstances and structures of each member state?
    Mr. Jopling: My hon. Friend has made his point accurately. If the policies outlined by the alliance leader the other day were put into effect, 75 per cent. of the Community's grain production would qualify for the full support price, but in the United Kingdom only 30 per cent. would qualify.
    Mr. Key: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, as well as being a successful start to tackling the problem of surpluses, his set-aside scheme has a welcome environmental impact?
    Mr. Jopling: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has said, because in December we agreed, among other things, the general principles of the socio-structural package, which opens the door much further than before to the implementation of our ideas for putting land aside from producing grain that we can neither eat nor sell.
    Mr. Deakins: Why was there no mention in the Minister of State's statement on that agreement to the House on 17 December of the fact that the bulk of the saving in the milk sector will come from delayed reimbursement to member states of the cost of disposing of surplus dairy produce? There is not a word about that. Why did the Minister seek to mislead the House on that important issue when more than 100 per cent. of the saving is being thrust on to member states and is not a net saving to the policy?
    Mr. Jopling: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman says that. If he looks at Hansard he will see that my right hon. Friend made it clear in his statement of 17 December that the cost of the additional programme of stock disposal for butter would be met over the four years beginning in 1989. The provision in the proposed budgets for 1987 and 1988 for those disposals will not, therefore, be used. That will result in a saving this year and next. From 1989 there will be large and increasing savings to the budget as a result of the milk package, even when the certificate of disposals has been met.
    Mr. Livsey: Will the Minister consider the plight of beef suckler cow producers? Will he match the £6 that he obtained from the Community with the £6 that he is allowed to give per head on the beef suckler cow premium in Britain? In particular, will he reverse his decision on hill livestock compensatory allowances for beef suckler cows?
    Mr. Jopling: We shall certainly consider the hon. Gentleman's point on the suckler cow subsidy, although

    1015
    we have already made our announcement about the hill livestock compensatory amounts. I am not surprised that the hon. Gentleman is pitching his question about beef when everybody else is particularly interested in his party's policy on grain.
    Sir Paul Hawkins: I sincerely congratulate my right hon. Friend on his tremendous achievement in the EEC, but what does he believe the fall in the value per carcase of beef will be over the next couple of years? It is estimated by some people that it will be £50 per carcase. Will he do anything to fill the gap for those two years so that we do not lose our stock of beef up to that point?
    Mr. Jopling: I remind the hon. Gentleman that some tough steps were taken with regard to the beef sector, which has been costing an enormous amount of money and considerably overreached last year's beef budget. I remind my hon. Friend that as part of the settlement that we achieved in December we managed to obtain a 6 per cent. devaluation of the green pound for beef. By the harmonisation of bull and steer prices, that figure was equivalent to a price rise for British beef producers of about another 3 per cent. The effect of the weakening of intervention, which has always been a system barely used in Britain compared with other countries—2 per cent. in Britain compared with 25 per cent. for beef in Ireland—puts the hon. Gentleman's point in rather better perspective.
    Mr. John: Necessary as the 17 December decisions were as a start, will the Minister confirm that that merely cuts the overrun on the agricultural budget from 3·5 mecu to 2·5 mecu next year?
    Mr. Jopling: Yes, I would not attempt to deny that the hon. Gentleman is entirely right, but we still have a long way to go to deal with the danger of overspending on the agricultural budget during 1987. No doubt Ministers will be very much applying their minds to that during the price-fixing negotiations in the next few weeks.
    Sir Adam Butler: Will my right hon. Friend say a little more about the set-aside proposals? What form will they take, and when are decisions likely to be made? In particular, will my right hon. Friend accept that there should be a voluntary element in any scheme, whereby farmers with good land are able to participate just as well as those with poor land?
    Mr. Jopling: Yes, we have always envisaged that our scheme would be voluntary at farm level, but that the whole scheme must be compulsorily available in each country within the Community. We believe that it should be available for any farmers who feel that it would be in the interests to take it. However, I envisage that farmers who find grain-growing to be at only marginal levels of profitability would find it more attractive.

    Dairy Products
    Mr. Torneyasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what percentage of national consumption of dairy products is met by domestic production.
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Selwyn Gummer): The extent to which our consumption of dairy products is met by domestic production varies from product to product. But in 1985
    1016
    domestic production of butterfat and solids not fat, the two main components of milk, was equivalent to 89 per cent. and 113 per cent. respectively of total domestic production.
    Mr. Torney: Why did we have 269,000 tonnes of United Kingdom butter in intervention in August 1986—a 33 per cent. increase on the previous six months? Why do we still import some 70,000 tonnes of butter from fellow EEC countries when we are cutting milk production in Britain?
    Mr. Gummer: Because we live in a democracy and people are allowed to choose the butter that they want to buy. If the British housewife chooses to buy butter made in another country, she must have the right so to do. I want to see an attempt in Britain to get the British housewife to realise that British butter is the best in the world.
    Mr. Cockeram: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, according to the figures for the last year for which they are available, over 40 per cent. of butter produced in Britain was sold into intervention? Therefore, is it not time that the Milk Marketing Board gave less emphasis to computers and statistics and more emphasis to the purpose for which it was set up, which was incorporated in its title, marketing, thereby better serving the hardworking British milk producer?
    Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend has made a most important point. How can we argue against cuts in quotas in Britain if we put such a large amount of the milk that we produce into intervention?
    Mr. Home Robertson: In the course of the negotiations on milk, has there ever been any consideration of special provision for those regions which are net importers of milk? Does it not add insult to injury for regions, or in some cases nations, to see reductions and losses in jobs on dairy farms and in creameries at the same time as they see more and more imported butter in their shops?
    Mr. Gummer: I think the hon. Gentleman will accept that many of the countries in the EC make such arguments. We have decided that we must bear the burden of Community costs right across the Community, not only because so many could argue in that way, but because we find ourselves wishing to export our surpluses in other products to other Community countries.

    Agricultural Support
    Mr. Conwayasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the effect on agriculture of supporting only standard quantities of production.
    Mr. Gummer: I assume that my hon. Friend is referring to the ideas put forward by the SDP/Liberal alliance whereby farmers would get a support price for only a certain quantity of production. As outlined, this scheme would mean that CAP support would go to only about one third of United Kingdom cereals production, yet would apply to as much as 80 per cent. of continental production. Under the scheme two thirds of our cereal production could well become uneconomic. The effects of the proposals of the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) on our rural economy would be catastrophic.
    Mr. Conway: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his reply. Will he assure the House that any idea of

    1017
    introducing quotas on cereals or limitations on a per farm basis would be damaging to British farming interests? While he and his right hon. Friends have been most tenacious in defending British interests in the European negotiations, [Interruption]—irrespective of how boring or embarrassing this may be for Members of the alliance—may I ask him to spell out clearly to the farming community the effect on its income if it follows the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman?
    Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend might be interested to know that the likely effect on the annual cereal income of British cereal farmers would be £850 million. That would be the effect of the policy put forward by the SDP and supported by the Liberal party spokesman for agriculture when he spoke to the Farmers Union of Wales.
    Mr. Maclennan: Why do Agriculture Ministers this afternoon find it necessary to misrepresent the speech made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) and fail to draw attention to the fact that he made it clear that any such scheme would depend crucially upon a tough negotiating stance on the issue of the British share of the cereals market? Does he not realise the weakness of the Government's position on national shares in the light of their failure to secure a fair share for British milk producers?
    Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friend made absolutely clear exactly the point at which the cut-off would take place, in advance of the negotiations. He told us the figures. All we have done is to work out the figures which he gave at Cirencester to an audience which included the president of the National Farmers Union, who said about the right hon. Gentleman that he clearly did not understand the matter at all and that his proposals were utterly catastrophic. The hon. Gentleman must go back to his right hon. Friend and ask him why he is not here to defend himself.

    Agricultural Land and Buildings
    Mr. Moynihanasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the effect on farm incomes and food prices of de-rating agricultural land and buildings.
    Mr. Donald Thompson: I estimate that in broad terms the value to the farming industry of the derating of agricultural land and buildings might amount to some £430 million. However, if agriculture was brought into the rating system the effect on farm incomes, and on food prices, might be very different, as this would depend on the response of individual farmers to such a massive additional burden.
    Mr. Moynihan: Will my hon. Friend confirm that any policy that sought to rate or tax agricultural land, as evidenced by the policies of the Opposition parties, would substantially increase the cost of food to the consumers, which should be a matter of importance to every hon. Member in this House?
    Mr. Thompson: I confirm that if agricultural land were to be rated or taxed in the ways that the alliance say there would be an additional burden, lower profits, more unemployment and higher food prices.
    Mr. Allen McKay: Would the Minister care to give an assessment of the effects of de-rating in Lewisham, East?
    Mr. Thompson: The people of Lewisham are eating more cheaply because agricultural land in this country is not yet rated.

    Milk Quotas
    Mr. Harrisasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures will be taken to compensate dairy producers for cuts in quota and related measures.
    Mr. Jopling: Compensation under the European Community outgoers scheme has been increased by 50 per cent. to a total of 27·5p per litre, payable over seven years. In addition, compensation of 6·5p per litre per year will be paid for the 4 per cent. temporary suspension of quota.
    Mr. Harris: Although I in no way minimise the impact of quotas and the toughening up of quotas on the farming industry, and indeed on the whole rural economy, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend agrees that the compensation to which he has referred provides something of a reasonable cushion for the problems presented by those cuts?
    Mr. Jopling: That is right. The compensation of 6·5p a litre for the temporary suspension must be compared with the profitability of milk at 3p and 4p a litre. As my hon. Friend says, the compensation is generous by any standard.
    Miss Maynard: Does the Minister agree that not only dairy farmers but dairy workers on the farm suffer from milk quotas? Does he accept that, in 1984–85, there was a threefold decrease in the full-time labour force in the counties with the highest milk production compared with previous years? Is it not high time that farm workers who lose their jobs because of milk quotas were compensated beyond the redundancy payments scheme, especially as some of the older farm workers will never get another job?
    Mr. Jopling: The purpose of quota cuts is to eliminate surpluses and to secure a viable future for the dairy industry as a whole. I accept that that will be a painful process. It could involve job losses, but the extent of job losses is not yet clear. I do not think, according to the evidence of the changes during the previous round of quotas and the reduction in milk production, that there was a huge number of redundancies among farm workers. There were some, but I think that the hon. Lady will agree that it was not a huge number.
    Mr. Hicks: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that should the existing voluntary outgoers scheme for milk fail to achieve the objective of a 2 per cent. reduction producers would still receive the 27·5p a litre payment under any subsequent compulsory scheme?
    Mr. Jopling: No. I think that that would not be possible under the Community's rules. I hope that the new arrangements and the increased outgoers payments—whereby a producer with a 40-cow herd would receive £7,800 a year for seven years compared with £5,200 a year for seven years under the previous arrangements—will allow us to spend all this money paying people to go out of milk production so that we do not need to reduce the quotas of those who wish to remain in it.
    Mr. D. E. Thomas: Will the Minister and his agriculture colleagues address the issue of the transfer of quotas

    1019
    between regions and nations in the United Kingdom? Is he aware of the concern that the increased potential number of bankruptcies among farmers may result in quotas being sold separately from farms, thereby increasing the transfer of quotas?
    Mr. Jopling: The hon. Gentleman might like to study the settlement that was made. He would find that, although the Commission proposed that the transfer between regions should be eliminated, in the end we agreed to allow those transfers to remain.

    Farm Incomes
    Mr. Andy Stewartasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what will be the effect on farm incomes of the changes in arrangements for intervention buying of beef and support of production.
    Mr. Gummer: The agreement reached in December reduces the price levels at which intervention buying is triggered and will set buying prices at levels related to market prices. But we in the United Kingdom have relied more on the operation of the variable premium to secure our producers' returns. This is being extended for two years and payments have already been increased by 5 per cent. as a result of the devaluation of the green pound.
    Mr. Stewart: My right hon. Friend has given some figures which will mean that farmers will receive £35 a head less. Farmers have always lived in the real world, but they would like to know why Irish farmers have access to our deficiency payments, thereby undermining prices here?
    Mr. Gummer: The situation is difficult, but it appears that the price of Irish beef will decrease by £70 a head, compared with the figure given by my hon. Friend. German farmers will receive £119 a head less, Italian farmers about £115 a head less and French farmers between £85 and £45 a head less, depending on whether they are bulls or steers. In this difficult situation the United Kingdom has come out very much better than other countries in the European Community.
    Mr. John: Has the Minister calculated by how much it will accelerate self-sufficiency in the sheepmeat regime if beef producers switch to sheep production?
    Mr. Gummer: Various things cause people to move into sheep farming, so the direct effect cannot be shown. The hon. Gentleman is right. So long as there are major surpluses in some areas and not in others there will be a tendency to create surpluses where they do not presently exist.
    Mr. Colin Shepherd: Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge that the House is grateful for the devaluation of the green pound which was secured in the December negotiations in the Community? Does he recognise the important part played in the rural economy by the hill livestock farmer and the hill suckler cow herd? Will he monitor carefully the consequences on farm incomes in this particularly valuable sector of the rural economy?
    Mr. Gummer: We shall certainly do that carefully. I hope that my hon. Friend will remind the farming industry that the United Kingdom Government achieved a better deal for beef farmers than did any other Government in the European Community.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Butterfillasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 22 January.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Butterfill: Does my right hon. Friend recall that when, on 29 July last year, the Financial Services Bill and the insider provisions in it were being debated by their noble Lordships, the noble and learned Lord Silkin described the insider trading investigation provisions as both enormous and draconian? So draconian were they that he thought they exceeded the principles of natural justice. Does my right hon. Friend not find it surprising that Opposition parties should take the attitude that they do over revelations of insider trading today which would probably never have come to light if the legislation had not been enacted?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes his own point. I remind the House that this Government are fully committed to rooting out financial wrongdoing wherever it occurs, because this Government made insider trading a criminal offence and provided that upon conviction it should carry a prison sentence.
    Mr. Kinnock: You will know, Mr. Speaker, that during the course of this morning you, and we, took what action we could to uphold the Government's view that the showing of a particular film would prejudice national security. It is now apparent that earlier today a magazine published what we understand to be the substance of that film and that the 1 o'clock ITN news covered the matter in illustrated detail. Given the failure of the Government to take effective action to prevent publication of material prejudicial to national security, will the Prime Minister tell us what she now proposes to do to try to mitigate the effects of the Government's incompetence?
    The Prime Minister: I understand the position to be as follows: yesterday the Attorney-General obtained in the High Court an interim injunction restraining Mr. Duncan Campbell or his servants or agents from disclosing or publishing or causing or permitting to be disclosed or published to any person all or any of the information within his knowledge about a defence project. You, Mr. Speaker, have ruled upon this matter. With regard to the specific matters which the right hon. Gentleman raised, my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General is giving consideration to the New Statesman article. I should point out that, in any case, one action that undermines national security does not justify another. In the meantime, I am sure that the whole House will wish to uphold your authority, Mr. Speaker, Furthermore, I understand that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will have something to say about this matter later this afternoon.
    Mr. Kinnock: I agree fully with the Prime Minister that one breach, or threatened breach, does not justify a further breach. Yesterday the Government properly took out an injunction against Mr. Campbell, but if they thought that

    1021
    it covered all eventualities, why did they have to go back to court this morning? Is it not the case that the injunction covered neither publication nor the showing of the film? I repeat my question: what will the Prime Minister do now to mitigate that incompetence?
    The Prime Minister: I am not sure that the right hon. Gentleman heard the terms of the injunction. The interim injunction was granted restraining Mr. Duncan Campbell or his servants or agents from disclosing or publishing or causing or permitting to be disclosed or published to any person all or any of the information within his knowledge. Regarding matters in the House, as the right hon. Gentleman is aware, there are specific circumstances when the courts will say that the matter is for Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker has ruled and I hope that the House will wish to uphold his authority. I feel sure that the right hon. Gentleman will wish to uphold the authority of the Speaker and that he will carry all his party with him. Unfortunately for all of us, some people seem to be more interested in trying to ferret out and reveal information of use to our enemies than in preserving—[Interruption.]—our defence interests and thus the freedom which we all enjoy.
    Mr. Kinnock: Naturally, we fully uphold your ruling, Mr. Speaker. As the Prime Minister knows, this morning we did whatever was possible with complete readiness to try to ensure that if the Government sought to take action in court it would not be impeded by proceedings in the House. On that basis I must ask the Prime Minister why the Government took no action when it was clear for days that there was a strong possibility of the usual habit of the viewing of a film in the House? Why was that delayed until this morning? Why did the Government delay until yesterday seeking to take action against Mr. Campbell? Why did they fail to secure the prevention of the publication in a magazine? Those details are now out. What will the Prime Minister do to mitigate the effects on national security?
    The Prime Minister: The Government took out and obtained an interim injunction yesterday, the terms of which I have made clear. A question arose about matters relating to the House upon which it was necessary to take action this morning, and the Government took that action. The matter was referred to Mr. Speaker, who made a ruling which I understand the right hon. Gentleman will uphold. I hope that he will carry all his party with him. As I haw said, my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General is giving consideration to the New Statesman article.
    Mr. Heseltine: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that we are concerned, not with the competence of the Government, but with the irresponsibility of an organ of Left-wing opinion? Does she further recognise that this is one more example of the failure of the Left to distinguish between the privilege of freedom of speech and a licence to peddle the nation's security?
    The Prime Minister: I wholly agree with my right hon. Friend. Unfortunately, there are people who try to use freedom in order to destroy freedom.
    Mr. Wrigglesworth: Reverting to a previous question, may I ask whether the Prime Minister is aware that the director of corporate finance at Morgan Grenfell, who resigned recently, is a former director general of the
    1022
    Takeover panel? Is she further aware that the chief executive at Morgan Grenfell who resigned—[Interruption.] is a former member of staff of the Bank of England? If people from these backgrounds—[Interruptions.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the House to allow the hon. Gentleman to finish his question.
    Mr. Wrigglesworth: If people from these backgrounds can be responsible for such serious shortcomings in that institution, does the Prime Minister not agree that there is an overwhelming case for more independent supervision of the City now that the Government have allowed untrammelled competition there, after the big bang? Will the Prime Minister consider introducing more independent supervision than that contained in the Financial Services Bill?
    The Prime Minister: With regard to what the hon. Gentleman said about a particular bank, he knows that these matters are under investigation, and if he has any information to lay he should lay it before the appropriate authorities.
    With regard to the action that this Government have taken, we have done more than any previous Government to try to root out fraud, wherever it occurs. In that regard we are still putting amendments through the House to current Bills to take further action, and in some places those amendments are being criticised for their severity. We shall take every action that we can to try to root out fraud, wherever it occurs.
    Mr. Franks: Bearing in mind the debate earlier this week on the north-south divide and the Opposition's proposals to tackle unemployment in the north, is my right hon. Friend aware of the recent decision by Barrow district council to declare Barrow, of all places, a nuclear weapon-free zone? What words of comfort can my right hon. Friend offer to the 3,000 people and employees in the area who last month added to their existing shareholdings in Vickers?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend has made his point very effectively. I may add the point that the shipyard flourishes. It is in charge of and responsible for building the new Trident submarines which will hold the nuclear deterrent that is vital to our security. Those employees, along with many other people if they are interested in defence and national security, must be interested in returning a Conservative Government for a very long time in the future.
    Mr. Cabornasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 22 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Caborn: Is the Prime Minister aware that on the ITN lunchtime news yesterday there was report about the arrest of Kelvin Chapman in connection with the vicious stabbing of the little girl down at Margate? In that broadcast it was said that the media had been asked to keep the name confidential. Unfortunately—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should bear in mind the sub judice rule, in respect of this case.
    Mr. Caborn: I will. Only one newspaper in the country released that name, The Sun. Despite the fact that it had

    1023
    been specifically asked not to release the name, The Sun newspaper did so. Will the Prime Minister join with me in condemning this Murdoch publication for releasing that name and undermining the police operation? A quotation from the Maidstone police was that
    "the police are furious with The Sun newspaper".
    Will the Prime Minister condemn that Murdoch publication for this irresponsible action?
    The Prime Minister: I understand that the case is sub judice, but I make it clear that when requests of that kind are made I believe that they should be honoured.
    Mr. Rowe: In the light of yet another horrific and fatal accident on the M2 yesterday, will my right hon. Friend take time today to commend the majority of heavy goods vehicle drivers who drive with care and discretion, and condemn those who seem to think that it is either clever or funny to harass smaller vehicles by driving much too close to them?
    The Prime Minister: Yes. I gladly join my hon. Friend in thanking and congratulating those lorry drivers, and others, who have driven carefully, as we all should, on the motorways. I should also like to thank the many people who, during the very severe weather, made great efforts to get to their places of work to carry out their jobs.
    Mr. Snapeasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 22 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Snape: Was the Prime Minister aware of, and will she comment on, the telephone call made last Sunday by the press office at No. 10 Downing street to Mr. David Stevens, the chairman of United Newspapers, berating him for the publication in the Star of the roll of dishonour of Ministers and Conservative Members who defeated the private Member's Bill last Friday? Does the Prime Minister think that it is a proper use of public funds for a civil servant such as Mr. Bernard Ingham to bribe, berate and blackmail—[Interruption.]—to bribe, berate and blackmail that small section of the Fleet street press which does not already kowtow to the right hon. Lady?
    The Prime Minister: I know of no such telephone call. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Snape: I do.
    The Prime Minister: As I understand that hon. Members—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister.
    The Prime Minister: As I understand that hon. Members who ask such questions are responsible for the facts which they allege, I challenge the hon. Gentleman to give me the evidence. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."]
    Mr. Snape rose—
    Mr. Robin Cook: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: Does it arise out of questions?
    Mr. Cook: You will be aware, Mr. Speaker, that you served a ruling on me this morning preventing me from proceeding with a private showing to me and colleagues of the BBC banned film. Your ruling turned on the injunction which was granted yesterday against Duncan Campbell. You will be aware that I and my colleagues
    1024
    have, of course, observed your ruling, but now that the chance to discuss that ruling with you has come round, you will understand that we wish to put to you considerations why we would invite you to reflect on that ruling. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I believe that I am perfectly in order if I put such considerations to you, Mr. Speaker. May I put to you two considerations which may not have been available to you when you made your ruling this morning?
    First, this morning, an application was made by the Attorney-General for an injunction against me and 14 other named Members of Parliament to prevent the showing of this film. That application, which may have been made quite rightly, was also quite rightly thrown out by the courts. As the same judge who granted yesterday's injunction has declined to grant a specific extension of that injunction to encompass those named Members of Parliament, may I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that it might be open to you to reconsider your ruling, as the judge who granted the injunction on which you found has chosen not to specify the Members of Parliament covered by that injunction?
    The second consideration that I should like to put to you, Mr. Speaker, to invite you to reflect on your decision, is that, since you made your ruling, it has become patently clear that the information in the film that we were about to see is public knowledge and is widely disseminated, and not merely through the medium of the New Statesman. It was also the lead story at lunchtime today on a private sector television channel.
    It is clear from the information now in the public domain that the film raises matters of considerable public concern, such as, was the expenditure an appropriate charge on the Defence budget, and were undertakings to Parliament contravened? These are matters that Parliament should have an opportunity to consider and to make up its mind about. More important, it would be eccentric if Members of Parliament were to deny to themselves the opportunity to consider information which is now widely available to our constituents and which may be obtained on any bookstall in any railway station in Great Britain.
    In the light of these two developments, Mr. Speaker, may I invite you to consider your ruling and, if necessary to reflect upon it overnight and come back, I hope, with a decision that will enable the House to consider the very important issues of public policy raised by the matter.
    Mr. Hayes: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. We heard the Leader of the Opposition say a few moments ago that he abides by your ruling. We have heard as well that he abides by the injunction that was applied for by Her Majesty's Government. Yet now we have heard from one of his closest advisers, the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), who seeks to challenge your ruling. Perhaps we could have a full statement from the Labour party.
    Mr. Speaker: This is a matter of very considerable importance to the whole House. Perhaps the House will allow me to say a word about it.
    I was told yesterday evening that hon. Members intended to show a film in the House which had been the subject of a High Court injunction preventing its showing. This raised issues which I believe the House will itself wish to determine in relation to the rooms in the Palace under

    1025
    the control of the House. To provide time for this to be done, I gave instructions that nothing should occur to prejudice the position until the House itself had an opportunity to discuss the matter.
    As I say, this is a matter for the House, but the House was not sitting at 11 o'clock this morning when it was intended to show the film. Therefore, urgent administrative action had to be taken, and that is what I authorised. The House should now consider the matter in due course and make its own determination.
    1026
    The precise application of an injunction is a matter of law. What I was doing was to ensure that, whatever the scope of its application, the injunction should be observed within our precincts until such time as the House makes its own determination on the matter.
    The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): It might he helpful if I indicate that the Government recognise that this is a topic of the utmost importance which the House should have the opportunity to debate at an early date. The matter is now being prosecuted through the usual channels.

Business of the House
3.37 pm
Mr. Neil Kinnock: May I ask the Leader of the House to tell us the business for next week?
The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 26 JANUARY—Timetable motion on the Local Government Finance Bill followed by completion of remaining stages of the Bill.
TUESDAY 27 JANUARY—Opposition Day (6th Allotted Day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion entitled "The Failure of the City to serve the Nation".
Motions relating to the Dockyard Services (Devonport) (Designation and Appointed Day) Order and the Dockyard Services (Rosyth) (Designation and Appointed Day) Order.
WEDNESDAY 28 JANUARY—Second Reading of the Ministry of Defence Police Bill (Lords) followed by Second Reading of the Parliamentary and Health Service Commissioners Bill.
Motion on the London Regional Transport (Levy) Order.
THURSDAY 29 JANUARY—There will be a debate on a Government motion to take note of the White Paper on developments in the European Community January-June 1986 (Cmnd. No. 9911).
FRIDAY 30 JANUARY—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY 2 FEBRUARY—There will be a debate on the Royal Navy on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Mr. Kinnock: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman.
The Leader of the House has announced that the Government will next week introduce a guillotine motion to curtail scrutiny on a local government Bill that is highly technical and contains unprecedented provisions that place the Secretary of State for the Environment above the law and afford him both retrospective and future protection from further legal challenges. How can the Government justify proceeding with such haste when they have already tabled over 40 substantial amendments to their Bill and are even now compiling more? Will those further amendments be tabled today so that they can be properly scrutinised and, if necessary, amended on Report? If they are not tabled today, how can the House fairly give attention to them on Monday of next week?
Today's Order Paper gives notice of a further rate support grant Bill. I understand that the Vote Office is saying that the Bill will not be available to hon. Members until tomorrow. That treats the House with contempt, and makes nonsense of the Government's claim last year that the Rate Support Grant Act that received Royal Assent in October would clarify the law on rate support grant settlements. All this creates a climate of great uncertainty for local government of all political colours, and makes the delivery of vital community services even harder than it has been hitherto. Is this not another example of the incompetence and arrogance of the Secretary of State for the Environment? Will he, even at this late stage, reconsider the way in which the House is to proceed with this legislation, and withdraw the guillotine for next week?
Mr. Biffen: We all have our distinctive rhetoric to fit a situation, and what the right hon. Gentleman calls "curtailing scrutiny" I would describe as proceeding to measured debate on this important Bill. Much time has already been taken on the issue, and it will be possible on Monday for the House adequately to consider the contents and the arguments.
As to the rate support grant, the right hon. Gentleman's anxiety about the prospects for the consideration of the legislation will not be fulfilled.
I shall look into the right hon. Gentleman's point about the amendments to the Local Government Finance Bill, and see what can be done to meet it.
Mr. Robert Key: Will my right hon. Friend find time to arrange a debate on industrial relations? Given that the former chairman of the Brent trades council, who was largely responsible for engineering the Grunwick strike in 1976, has now turned up again as the campaign leader in the Devonport dockyard, would not the interests of the economy be served by discovering what is behind such a move?
Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend raises an interesting and specific point to exemplify his general concern. Industrial relations would be a good topic for debate if the House had that amount of time, but I can hardly admit that we have such time when I am announcing a guillotine. Perhaps my hon. Friend might seek an Adjournment debate on the narrower point.
Mr. David Alton: Has the Leader of the House had time to reflect on the reports that the South African Government have had discussions with the Isle of Man to pursue the taking over of the freeport so that they can evade international trade sanctions? Will the right hon. Gentleman be able to report to the House on this matter in the next few days, or can we expect a statement?
Biffen: I shall look into the matter of a statement and let the hon. Gentleman know the result.
Dr. John G. Blackburn: Will my right hon. Friend give serious consideration to an early debate in connection with early-day motion No. 390? [That this House regrets Her Majesty's Government's decision not to award the £1·41 weekly increase to elderly police widows; notes that the total cost of the increase would have been less than £500,000 per annum; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to review urgently the decision, especially as this was the amount agreed by the Police Negotiating Committee.]
It refers to police reserved rate widows, whose average age is 84 years. Since agreement was reached by the Police Negotiating Board on 25 February, 1986, 1,000 of those pensioners have died. This is an urgent matter that should receive the compassion of the House.
Mr. Biffen: I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point. Initially, perhaps it would be helpful if I referred the matter to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
Mr. Roland Boyes: Has the Leader of the House had an opportunity to read articles in the newspapers about the serious crisis in London and other cities as a result of the failure of the water system? It has been reported that up to 1 million Londoners are not getting a proper water supply, water tankers are having to take water into hospitals and over

1029
90 water mains burst every day. As this is due purely and simply to the Government's policies not to allow water authorities to invest in infrastructures, to reduce borrowing requirements and, when authorities such as Thames Water make a profit, to turn authority chairmen into overt tax collectors, will the Leader of the House arrange a statement on the crisis early next week?
Mr. Biffen: I am not confident that the responsibilities can so simply and sharply be allocated as the hon. Gentleman suggested. Of course, I shall mention the matter to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.
Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: May we again have a debate on the philosophy of the future of the Westminster Parliament in relation to the European Parliament? Is my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House aware that Sir Henry Plumb, whom we were all pleased to see elected President of the European Parliament—we were almost as pleased as he was—said two alarming things upon his election? One was that he was born an Englishman and wished to die a European, but he also said that the European view must prevail over national views if the European Parliament is to make real political progress as the legitimate and sovereign state of Europe. Does he not agree that those views would reduce Westminster to the status of a parish council? Should not this Parliament express the clear view to Sir Henry, before he becomes too entrenched in Europe, that he was born English, that many of us want to remain English and we shall fight to remain English?
Mr. Biffen: I note that my hon. Friend stands in the way of Sir Henry and his ambitions. That is a happy situation.
Mr. Greville Janner: Is the Leader of the House aware that, as a result of the repeal of the Truck Acts which came into force on 1 January, many hundreds of thousands of people now have bank accounts who never had them before? While the country is quite rightly concentrating on major inequities of the City, we have not had a debate about the way in which ordinary banks are entitled to charge ordinary people interest that can range up to 25 per cent. without informing them how much is being charged. May we soon have a statement from the Minister with responsibility for consumer affairs or from the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, or at least a warning to people to be careful about how they are treated by their local banks?
Mr. Biffen: I am most grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for drawing our attention to the fact that countless thousands of working class people today have savings habits that once were the possession of the bourgeoisie. I shall certainly draw the hon. and learned Gentleman's point to the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for consumer affairs.
Mr. Michael Latham: In view of the great importance to many hon. Members of the Common Market agricultural settlement shortly before Christmas, will my right hon. Friend say whether next Thursday's debate will involve agriculture and, if so, whether an Agriculture Minister will speak in it?
Biffen: obviously, the scope of the debate essentially will be within the judgment of the Chair. I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friends to the anxiety that my hon. Friend expressed. I am grateful to him for
1030
making the point about Thursday's debate. Of course, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark) will be able to argue all that he succinctly said and at great and welcome length on that occasion.
Mr. Frank Cook: Will the Leader of the House assure us that, during the debate about the Devonport dockyard order, an opportunity will be afforded to discuss the company's refusal to accept responsibility for the operation of Devonport dockyard and the radioactive wastes already stored there? To facilitate a full discussion on that aspect, will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that, before the debate, full details are released about the Government's intention to build a rad-waste dissolution treatment plant close to Devonport dockyard and what the Government intend to do with it after that is done?
Mr. Biffen: Clearly, the width of the debate will depend upon the judgment of the Chair. I have a sufficiently robust faith in the hon. Gentleman's skills as a parliamentarian to know that he will make whatever speech he intends to make. I shall draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the information that the hon. Gentleman seeks.
Mr. David Gilroy Bevan: Will my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House note early-day motion 439 urging the introduction of identity cards with bearers' photographs?
[That this House notes the use of identity cards in various Commonwealth, European and other countries, and the requirement in Northern Ireland that driving licences shall carry the driver's photograph; believes that the universal issue of identity cards in the United Kingdom would assist the prevention and detection of crime, including social security fraud and illegal immigration and that, far from lessening civil liberty, it would protect the law-abiding from troublesome and unnecessary inquiries by police and security officers; and therefore urges the Secretary of State for the Home Department to consider the early introduction of identity cards bearing the holder's photograph.]
Will he speak to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department so that an early statement can be made and the House given an early opportunity to debate this matter further?
Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend refers to a highly controversial topic, but I shall most certainly convey his request to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
Mr. George Foulkes: Further to the matter raised by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton), will the Leader of the House accept that there is a great deal of concern about the revelations in today's Independent about the secret deal between the Isle of Man Government and the Government of South Africa to set up some kind of sanctions-busting operation? Since the freeport is set up with the authority of Her Majesty's Treasury and since the Home Office has ultimate responsibility for the good government of the islands, when some scandal like this happens there ought, surely, to be some arrangement for the appropriate Minister to make a statement to this House of Parliament so that we can ask him questions.
Mr. Biffen: I cannot in any sense endorse the hon. Gentleman's rhetoric. I have already said that I shall refer

1031
to my right hon. Friend the point that has been raised. In doing so, I shall also draw his attention to the point that has just been made.
Mr. James Hill: My right hon. Friend will recall the debate last Friday on television licences for the elderly. However he views the outcome of that debate, it has created a great deal of resentment among elderly people. In particular, they have mentioned that hotels pay for only one television licence, yet they may have many hundreds of rooms with television sets. There is also a great deal of unrest about the structure for the collection of the licence fee. I think that it is time that we began a major review of this subject.
Mr. Biffen: I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point. I shall certainly convey those considerations to my hon. Friends.
Mr. Tony Banks: I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 473 on the anniversary of the Wapping dispute.
[That this House applauds the fortitude and resolve displayed during the last 12 months by the men and women on the Wapping picket lines; notes that in successive ballots they have rejected offers of redundancy hand-outs; supports the call for Mike Hicks to be released from prison as advanced by the recent Labour Party National Executive Council resolution; condemns the Tory-backed Murdoch's systematic use of money earned by British workers to finance his multi-national business ventures; and believes that the House of Commons should debate these issues of civil liberty, undemocratic control of the media and workers' rights.]
Will the Leader of the House tell us whether there is to be an early opportunity for this dispute to be debated in the House so that the Government can tell us why they have failed to intervene in the dispute, which up to now has cost London ratepayers about £14 million in excess police costs? Indeed, it is no more than a very expensive exercise to get filthy, disgusting Murdoch rags out of Wapping.
Mr. Biffen: I note that that is the hon. Gentleman's jaundiced view of such a great and historic newspaper as The Times. However, I am disinclined to accept his view that there is a Government responsibility on anything like the scale that he suggests. No provision has been made for Government time to be devoted to this subject. It will be interesting to see whether the Opposition provide any of their time for such a debate.
Mr. Richard Alexander: Has my right hon. Friend had time to note the publication today of a document by Lincolnshire county council and others on the safe disposal of nuclear waste? It relates to Britain's method of dealing with it and to the methods used by France, Sweden and West Germany. Bearing in mind the widespread concern of many people in this country about the disposal of low-level nuclear waste, not least the concern of my Newark constituents, and bearing also in mind the fact that we have not debated this matter for probably a year, will my right hon. Friend offer a debate on this subject to assuage the anxieties of many hon. Members?
Mr. Biffen: I acknowledge at once the importance of this topic and the skill and pertinacity with which my hon. Friend has represented the interests of his constituents. There is no immediate prospect of a debate on this subject, but I shall certainly bear his observations in mind.
Mr. John Home Robertson: In view of the failure at Question Time of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to clear up the considerable confusion about the handout of intervention stores of food to elderly and needy people, both in relation to the quantity to be distributed and the manner in which it is to be distributed, and in view of the worry that there must be about the ability of voluntary organisations to distribute these stores of food to needy and elderly people all over Britain, may we expect next week an oral statement on this subject from the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food?
Mr. Biffen: Of course I shall pass that request to my right hon. Friend, but I should observe that on Thursday we will debate developments in the European Community, and it may well be that in his speech the hon. Gentleman can—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman takes a typically reserved view about the success of the Government or the success of the Community. He must be immensely pessimistic if he does not think that his arguments will have matured by Thursday.
Mr. Andrew McKay: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is a sad yet significant occasion when a party feels that it is necessary to relaunch itself? We learn from the newspapers that the Liberal party and the SDP, which are somethimes in alliance, propose to relaunch themselves next week. Through the normal channels, will my right hon. Friend find an opportunity, if not next week certainly the week after, to allow a Liberal-SDP Supply day so that they can explain why it is necessary for then to relaunch themselves and so that other hon. Members can make contributions which may well be of assistance to those parties?
Mr. Biffen: That is a fair, charitable and Christian request. I am all that lies between the request and its being fulfilled. I will of course draw it to the attention of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton), because I know that he will be as anxious as anybody to explain why a low flying aircraft engaged in intermittent and wholly random attacks can ever claim to be that highflying success promised by the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins).
Mr. David Winnick: Since the word "hypocrisy" is out of order in this House, how would the Leader of the House describe a situation in which the Prime Minister has 13 television sets at Downing street and pays no licence fee at all, while at the same time she sends her Ministers, including the Leader of the House, to vote down a Bill which would have provided some assistance to many pensioners? Is it not disgraceful that the payroll vote was used last Friday against a private Member's Bill? Does the Leader of the House accept that what happened on Friday is understandably not appreciated by a large number of people in Britain?
Mr. Biffen: If it will add to the sum total of human happiness, I shall make the investigations that the hon. Gentleman asks for. Meanwhile, in a spirit of compatibility perhaps he would like to tell the House on an appropriate occasion why he was happy in February

1033
1969 to join in a Labour payroll vote with members of a Labour Government to defeat the improved pension provisions for disabled people.
Mr. Winnick: Fifty years ago.
Mr. Biffen: There is no point in the hon. Gentleman saying, "Fifty years ago". We know that he is faithful to Socialism and has not changed one jot in those 50 years.
Mr. Richard Holt: The announcement by my right hon. Friend of a debate on the Royal Navy is welcome. May I draw his attention to last week's request and my request, repeated today, for a debate on the merchant marine, shipping and shipbuilding and all that goes with them, especially in the light of the strike by Austin Pickersgill shipyard workers at Sunderland which began on 5 December, finished after five weeks, and started again yesterday.
Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend makes a point of both general and specific interest to the House. Clearly the terms of debate for Thursday will be set by the Chair. However, there is a good case for arguing the interdependence of the marine fleet and the Royal Navy and I wish my hon. Friend all success when he develops that argument.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: I am always reluctant to curtail Back-Bench opportunities during business questions, but may I ask for brief contributions, please?
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Will my right hon. Friend consider the wisdom of holding a major defence debate late on Monday week? Is he not aware that one of the most popular and convivial Members of the House, the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies), was taken so seriously ill yesterday that he was unable to present his private notice question? Because his illness must be of the most serious nature, would it not be fairer to the right hon. Gentleman to give him sufficient time to be able to recover rather than have him undergo the rigours of such a major debate at such short notice?
Mr. Biffen: We assume that the Lobby would observe its normal conventions.
Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend arrange an early statement from the Home Secretary on the Metropolitan police decision to tackle racial attacks in Newham and in the London borough of Ealing? Is he aware of the importance of that, in view of the fact that it is said on high authority that Ealing Labour council is considering refusing to allow the police to deliver literature relating to their work in that operation to council property, including council houses? Is he also aware that Ealing Labour council has so far totally failed to meet the Ealing community relations council since it was elected, although there were regular meetings between those two bodies when Ealing council was Conservative controlled? The Conservative council cared about race relations.
Mr. Biffen: Although we have a debate upon the European Community next week, we do not have a debate
1034
upon Ealing. My hon. Friend puts me in some difficulties on this matter, but I shall certainly report his anxieties to my right hon. and hon. Friends who have a responsibility in this matter.
Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Does my right hon. Friend share my concern and that of many people in Britain about the continuing abuse of diplomatic immunity? Does he think that it is time to have a debate to look at the terrible figures that show that in the past five years more than 50 diplomats who have been charged with offences have managed to get out of the country without suffering the consequences of their acts? Does my right hon. Friend agree that diplomats should behave as gentlemen and that that should apply to the spouse of a registered diplomat. When they come to Britain they must represent their country responsibly and if they break the law they should suffer the consequences in Britain?
Mr. Biffen: I understand my hon. Friend's point. He will appreciate that that is a matter of some delicacy in our relationship with those who work here as diplomats. However, I shall convey his points to my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary.
Mr. Richard Hickmet: May I remind my right hon. Friend that the British Steel Corporation has moved into profit for the first time For 10 years? I remind my right hon. Friend that state subsidies to steel industries have not been allowed since December 1985 and in that light would he consider the Opposition's proposals to put a 1 per cent. levy on the turnover of BSC to pay for training and to oblige the BSC and other nationalised industries to recruit labour they do not require after all the agonies it went through to get that industry into a proper state? Will my right hon. Friend comment upon that and the effect it will have on jobs in the steel industry, which would be eliminated, and the fact that the bonuses of steel workers would also disappear?
Mr. Biffen: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is heartening to see the great basic industries now serving the cause of liberal economics and not of state Socialism. Clearly that is a development of great distress to the Labour party as it gets left behind in our economic and political evolutions. I shall take account of what my hon. Friend has said.
Mr. Michael Brown: I should like to refer to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander). The document to which he referred, which was also compiled by the county of Humberside, has been produced today and requires urgent consideration by the House. Would it be possible to rearrange today's business in the House so that it can be debated today, bearing in mind the fact that the Opposition's defence spokesman cannot he here today? It is an important document and it should have urgent consideration and today might be a useful opportunity.
Mr. Biffen: Proper and prudent consideration will be given to the document, but I would mislead my hon. Friend if I said that there was much chance of it being debated later today.

Lloyd's
4.3 pm
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Paul Channon): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the report of the committee of inquiry into regulatory arrangements at Lloyd's.
I have today laid before the House, as a Command Paper, the report of Sir Patrick Neill and his colleagues. I am sure that the House will wish to join me in expressing warm appreciation of their work.
The committee was set up by my predecessor a year ago to consider whether the regulatory arrangements being established at Lloyd's, under the Lloyd's Act 1982, provide protection for the interests of members of Lloyd's comparable to that proposed for investors under the Financial Services Act 1986. The committee recognises the major contribution Lloyd's makes to the national economy. The report notes that the council of Lloyd's has strengthened the regulation in its market by putting into effect a major programme of reform since the 1982 Act entered into force.
The committee makes 70 recommendations, which should bring the two levels of protection into line. The committee does not believe that the solution to the problems it has identified is external supervision of Lloyd's, or an extention of the role of my Department. It recommends, instead, a change in the balance of representation on the council of Lloyd's by increasing the number of nominated independent members. They and the elected non-working members would then command a majority.
The committee also recommends an enhanced role for the nominated members in Lloyd's, for example, through their chairing of important committees.
The committee's conclusion is that its recommendations will make the protection of Lloyd's members comparable to that provided under the Financial Services Act. The committee has, moreover, taken care to strike a balance between the safeguarding of members' interests and the protection of Lloyd's policyholders.
The Government believe that the report provides a good basis for the further development of measures to protect the interests of Lloyd's members. I shall, of course, be discussing the report with Lloyd's. I shall want to hear its proposals and timetable for action. I expect Lloyd's to take all the necessary steps to bring the protection offered to members up to the standard of the Financial Services Act. I shall therefore be following closely with it its progress in this matter.
Mr. John Smith: The Secretary of State referred selectively to sections of the report. Why does he not tell us that, although the report notes that Lloyd's has made approved changes since 1982 it also reaches the conclusion in paragraph 1·5 that, notwithstanding the changes, progress has not been sufficient and it goes on to detect some shortcomings?
Is it the case that the Government did not draw our attention to that because it would invalidate, to some extent, one of their arguments for excluding Lloyd's from the Financial Services Act 1986? Will the Secretary of State bear in mind the narrow terms of reference given to the committee? The terms of reference were to consider
1036
whether the protection for names was comparable to the proposed protection for investors under the Financial Services Act. Surely the terms of reference should have been what measures are necessary to restore confidence in Lloyd's? If that question had not been put properly a much more interesting report might have emerged.
Is the Secretary of State aware of the well-expressed comment in many of the newspapers that the chairman, Sir Patrick Neill, wanted much stronger action in the recommendations but was out-voted by his colleagues on the committee? Is it not the case that the proposed changes in the council merely amount to a re-jigging of the membership and not to any fundamental change in Lloyd's? Is it not surprising that although the report identifies the importance of the independence of the chief executive, it proposes no action to secure the independence of the chief executive? That is an important matter in view of the fact that Mr. Hay Davison, a former chief executive, found it impossible to maintain his integrity in the position he had taken up. Is it not clear that the answer is to bring Lloyd's simply and clearly within the provisions of the Financial Services Act so that the same standards apply throughout all of our financial institutions?
Will the Secretary of State tell us how many references there have been from Lloyd's to his Department about persons in respect of whom prosecutions might be taken? How many proposed prosecutions are under consideration by the Department of Trade and Industry? What action will be taken to bring offenders to book, bearing in mind that some major scandals have occurred in Lloyd's? Does the Secretary of State think that it is scandalous that Mr. Peter Cameron-Webb and Mr. Peter Dixon, who have committed gigantic frauds, have not only escaped prosecution but are apparently conducting insurance broking business in Florida?
Mr. Channon: The Director of Public Prosecutions is looking at several cases and my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General made a statement to the House on 20 November, to which I refer the right hon. and learned Gentleman, which deals with the point he has in mind. On the matter of insufficient progress, the whole purpose of my statement is to say that we wish to provide for Lloyd's comparable arrangements to those under the Financial Services Act. Simply to bring it within the terms of the Act would be wrong and that was widely recognised during the passage of the Bill through the House. It is true that some hon. Members, including some of my hon. Friends, took a different view. I think that what the new report suggests are comparable arrangements that should be satisfactory to the House.
I have no evidence to believe there is a shred of truth in the suggestion that Sir Patrick Neil was out-voted. It is certainly not reflected in the report. I shall now study the report with great care and I shall study any comments made by the House before coming to final conclusions. I want Lloyd's to take all the necessary steps to bring the protection offered to members up to the standard of the Financial Services Act at the earliest opportunity. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will recognise that it says on many occasions in the report that the council has transformed self-regulation for Lloyd's. Indeed, paragraph 1.4 says:
"We know of no profession or equivalent organisation which has accompished such a major programme of reform in such a short timescale."
Mr. Leon Brittan: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the carping about the terms of reference in seeking to probe the internal workings of the committee by the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), is a classic example of sour grapes because the committee did not come to the conclusions to which he wanted it to come? Will he further agree that the conclusions of the committee amply confirm the view that was formed that, although changes were needed at Lloyd's, it would be wholly inappropriate to bring about those changes by amending the Financial Services Bill to include Lloyd's? Will he also agree that the time has come, in the light of the positive but substantial recommendations of the committee, for him to urge Lloyd's strongly to proceed with the further changes that are necessary and appropriate to put matters in order?
Mr. Channon: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend—who was responsible for setting up the committee. I entirely agree with his criticism of those who criticise the terms of reference, as the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) did a few moments ago. My right hon. and learned Friend is entirely right to say that it would be inappropriate—as the report makes clear—to bring Lloyd's within the terms of the Financial Services Act. We must look to Lloyd's to act with urgency and to come forward with measures, in the light of the report, to provide protection comparable with that under the Financial Services Act. I shall be discussing the matter with Lloyd's, and I hope to arrange a timetable that will be agreeable to all parties in the House.
Mr. Brian Sedgemore: Will the Secretary of State assure the House that the Government will insist that Lloyd's takes up two recommendations—one on compensation for the names and the other on the appointment of an ombusdman to settle internal disputes? Equally important, will he tell the House about the political shenanigans that occured in the preparation of the report and the pressure, expressed and implied, that was brought on Sir Patrick Neill to stop him following his natural inclination to bring Lloyd's under a wider statutory purview, for which the Opposition have constantly argued?
Mr. Channon: The hon. Member must take responsibility for his own comments. I have no evidence that what he says has the remotest bearing on the truth. Sir Patrick Neill can answer for himself; he has given a press conference this morning, and no doubt he will consider what the hon. Gentleman has said and answer it in any way that he likes. I do not believe that what the hon. Gentleman says is the truth, but Sir Patrick must speak for himself. Neither I, nor, as far as I know, anyone else, has put any pressure on Sir Patrick Neill to come up with any solution. Anyone who knows him knows that it would have been totally counter-productive to make any effort to do so.
As to the question of compensation and the ombudsman, we shall look carefully at all the recommendations in the report and I shall keep the House informed of our thinking on these matters.
Sir Peter Tapsell: While we all look forward to reading the 70 recommendations of this report with the greatest care and interest, may I put it to my right hon. Friend—I am sure that he shares this view himself
1038
—that it is a matter of concern that certain cases of really serious alleged irregularities—which have been very publicised in great detail—have still, after a very long passage of time, not resulted in even the launching of a prosecution? This does seem to contrast rather mysteriously with the relative speed with which, for instance, the Securities and Exchange Commission was able to act in New York in the case of the Boesky scandal.
Mr. Channon: I have some sympathy with what my hon. Friend says about prosecution. However, that is a matter for the Director of Public Prosecutions, and, as I said, my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General made some comments to the House in late November about that matter. I shall draw what my hon. Friend has said to his attention.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: If the Prime Minister's recent remarks about the Tory Government taking tough action against the City are to mean anything at all, the Minister should have come to the Dispatch Box today and said that the cosy club, self-regulated atmosphere at Lloyd's would end. What he is really saying is that Lloyd's can do as it likes. The Government will have a few words on the quiet, but the Minister will not change the arrangements. We shall return to the Cameron-Webb and Dixon days, when they got away with £39 million. The Berlin wall mentality will continue to operate at Lloyd's, where nobody else can interfere, including the fraud squad. Why should that area of the City be a no-go area, when 138,000 claimants on the DHSS are done by those same fraud officers?
Mr. Channon: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, he cannot have studied the report with care—[Interruption.]
Mr. Skinner: I read it before today.
Mr. Channon: I read what the hon. Gentleman said in The Guardian, but what he says bears no relation to the truth. This was an independent committee, and the House will have to consider its decisions. The committee agrees that that is an acceptable basis on which to go forward, but I want to make sure that there is a proper timetable and that Lloyd's makes the necessary changes. I believe that is what the House wants to see, and that is what we shall do.
Mr. William Cash: Will my right hon. Friend agree that the keynote of the recommendations—the increase in the independence of the governing body—should be accepted to ensure that all parties involved in Lloyd's, and the public, can have confidence in Lloyd's. Furthermore, the key question is whether one can strike a balance—as the report accurately does—between self-regulation, which has to be maintained for practical reasons, and tough regulatory action for defaulters.
Mr. Channon: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is important that the change in the composition of the council should take place. I shall discuss that point with Lloyd's at an early date. Lloyd's have issued a statement on its preliminary views, and at first sight that seems encouraging, but I take note of my hon. Friend's views.
Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth: is the Secretary of State aware that that undertaking is most welcome, because the recommendation to increase the number of independent members is of importance in trying

1039
to ensure that there is public confidence in the way in which Lloyd's will be regulated in the future? Will he ensure that that recommendation—while being brought in quickly—does not only refer to Lloyd's? Does it not also imply that there is a case for having the same sort of independent majority on the Securities and Investment Board, which is covering the work of the rest of the City?
Mr. Channon: On the first point, I welcome the hon. Member's remarks and I am glad to have his support. However, I do not think that the situation is on all fours with the SIB, but it is open to me to keep under review the number of lay members that there will be on the SIB. I shall keep that under continuing review. If it proves necessary to make a change, we shall make a change, but I do not think that there is any need for that at present.
Mr. Anthony Nelson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that many of the 70 recommendations in the report are significant in terms of constitutional change, investigatory powers and monitoring? The question for the Government must be whether they can be accommodated from the inside by simple changes of rules within the council, or whether they should be introduced from outside by some means or another. It has always been the view of many of us that it would be wholly improper for this matter to be part of the Financial Services Act. However, will he ensure that he does not close the door on the possibility of introducing changes by a public or private Bill, as many of us still feel that that would restore and enhance the respectability and confidence of both policyholders and members of Lloyd's?
Mr. Channon: I do not close off any possibility at present, and I shall bear my hon. Friend's views in mind. However, I am anxious to proceed with some speed and if that can be done without legislation, which is bound to cause delay, we shall be able to act much more quickly. I want to see investor protection. I agree with what the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth) said about comparability with the SIB. We all want comparable investor protection to be achieved at the earliest possible moment and that is what we shall work for.
Mr. Austin Mitchell: Is it correct that one of the reasons for appointing the committee with its limited terms of reference was to take minutes and waste years and thus fob off the possibility of regulation under the Financial Services Act? Further, is it correct that the wish of the chairman was for a similar framework of regulation for Lloyd's but that he was overruled by the other two members? Is it also correct to say that in wanting comparable arrangements for Lloyd's the committee has conceded the case for regulation under the Financial Services Act, and should not the Secretary of State's proper course now be to rewrite that Act, put it on a statutory basis, and bring Lloyd's within it?
Mr. Channon: I do not agree with anything that the hon. Gentleman says. There is no evidence of the chairman being in a minority, but he can speak for himself. I have no evidence that what the hon. Gentleman says bears any relation to the truth—
Mr. Skinner: The right hon. Gentleman is in a minority.
Mr. Channon: I am not in a minority.
Mr. Skinner: Yes—even in the Cabinet.
Mr. Channon: No, I am in a strong majority, and a strong majority of hon. Members is in favour of the report.
The committee was not set up to waste a lot of time. It has reported reasonably quickly and we shall take action quickly.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. There is another statement to follow but I shall call those hon. Members who are standing, but I ask them to put their quesions briefly.
Viscount Cranborne: My right hon. Friend has stressed the importance of speed in this and the House will welcome that, particularly in view of the lack of action so far in prosecuting the perpetrators of the many scandals that have bedevilled Lloyd's over the past few years. Therefore, will my right hon. Friend help the House a little more by saying how fast he would like Lloyd's to act and whether he would expect some action within six or 12 months, or when?
Mr. Channon: I want to have urgent talks with Lloyd's and to be in a position shortly to come back to the House with an agreed timetable for action. I hope that that will happen shortly and I shall keep my hon. Friend in touch.
Mr. Tim Smith: If Lloyd's is to be placed on an equal footing with self-regulating organisations under the Financial Services Act, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State must inevitably have the same powers as the Securities and Investment Board already has under the Act. I understood my right hon. Friend to say that Neill had recommended no addition to the Secretary of State's powers. Can he confirm that he already has the same powers to interfere in the affairs of Lloyd's as the SIB has to interfere in the affairs of SROs?
Mr. Channon: What I have are powers under the Companies Acts and under the insurance regulatory Acts to deal with the affairs of Lloyd's. There have been a number of investigations into groups at Lloyd's in the past and I believe that I have the necessary powers in that area. I also believe that we can now work together—I hope that I am right in thinking that there will not be substantial disagreement between the various parts of the House—so that we can agree a timetable for action on the report so that we shall see progress shortly.
Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Will my right hon. Friend remind Lloyd's that it has conducted a public discussion about how it can institute self-regulation at least since the Fisher report in 1980, and within the next year will he tell it that either it does the job itself and does it properly or else Parliament will legislate?
Mr. Channon: Yes, Sir.
Mr. Tim Yeo: I welcome the Government's decision to set up the inquiry, and the main conclusions of the report, as steps towards the maintenance of public confidence in Lloyd's, which is, after all, an important earner of overseas exchange. Would not an even more important step towards rebuilding that confidence be the early prosecution, and preferably conviction, of those wrongdoers whose notorious, and as yet unpunished, activities remain a source of considerable public concern?
Mr. Channon: Yes, I understand and share my hon. Friend's view about that matter. I have already said that

1041
I shall draw the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General to what has been said in the House. This is a matter for the Director of Public Prosecutions and I shall draw his attention to that.
Mr. Robert McCrindle: How does my right hon. Friend square the idea of a compensation fund for investors with the traditional unlimited personal liability of names at Lloyd's?
Mr. Channon: That is something to be discussed by Lloyd's. It is a suggestion in the report. I am not accepting every detail of the report today. I am saying that, so far as I can judge, it is an acceptable basis for discussion with Lloyd's so that there can be an urgent review and a timetable drawn up on how to proceed. That will be among the matters which I shall wish to discuss with Lloyd's and I would welcome my hon. Friend's views on the topic.
Mr. Michael Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend accept that those of us who sat on the Committee that considered on the Lloyd's Bill believe that there is a need to be consistent in the House? We should bear in mind that the House came to the view that the case for self-regulation was powerful. Speaking as a name, I am bound to say that the report points the way forward.
Mr. Channon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I think that in broad terms I share his views and I shall certainly bear them in mind.

Maternity and Funeral Payments
4.25 pm
The Minister for Social Security and the Disabled (Mr. John Major): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about a technical defect which has emerged in part III of the 1986 Social Security Act.
The Act introduces, among other things, a social fund to provide better targeted help with exceptional expenses to people on low incomes. Most payments from the fund will start in April 1988, but, as the House knows, we intend help with maternity and funeral costs to begin in April 1987. These payments will replace the universal maternity and death grants, and the existing supplementary benefit single payments for maternity needs and funeral expenses.
The Government's clearly stated intention has always been that the social fund maternity payment should be a flat-rate sum, and that the reasonable specified costs of a funeral would be met from the social fund. We always intended to define not only those low income groups eligible for such payments, but also the amounts payable. Those intentions were recognised in debates here and in another place during the passage of the Social Security Act.
The Social Fund Maternity and Funeral Expenses (General) Regulations 1986 were laid last month to give expression to that policy. It is now clear, following consideration of the regulations by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, that there is a defect in the primary legislation. This is because the Act gives powers to prescribe the "circumstances" in which maternity and funeral payments may be made but does not provide, as had previously been understood, a specific power to prescribe the amount of such payments.
We propose to correct this defect immediately and shall introduce a short amending Bill to the House tomorrow. In the meantime we shall revoke the general regulations and intend, subject to the agreement of Parliament, to make and lay a fresh set under the powers to be provided by the proposed amending Bill. These will enable the new arrangements for help with maternity and funeral costs to be implemented as intended from April this year. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will be making corresponding provision. Our policy of directing help where it is needed most is clearly right and we intend to carry it through.
Mr. Michael Meacher: Is the Minister aware that this blunder over the regulations, together with the current debacle over the Local Government Finance Bill, is the second time this week that the Government have demonstrated crass incompetence in the pursuit of highly objectionable legislation? Is he aware that, after his climbdown over cold weather payments, this is his second apology to the House within three days, and, after the shambles of repeated court action over the illegal board and lodging regulations, it only enhances the Government's growing reputation for bungling ineptitude in the handling of their business?
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the botch-up has occurred only because the Government were so impatient to vote down thoroughly reasonable amendments in another place on the rights of independent appeal from social fund decisions, so reckless in forcing through the Bill in the last hours before the summer recess, that in their indecent haste they rushed the drafting?

1043
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is only because the Government are so anxious to reduce expenditure by £200 million a year on single payments such as funeral and maternity expenses, which are so essential to pensioners and poor families, that Ministers are embarrassed by this legislative gap which would otherwise prevent them from cutting payments to the poor?
How can the Government claim to believe in the family when they are going to such lengths to replace grants by means-tested loans for maternity and funeral expenses? Even more important, what is the morality of abolishing at a stroke the death grant, which is an insurance benefit for which people have paid all their lives? Is the Minister aware that, by insisting on taking powers to cut funeral payments to pensioners and others, he is forcing more and more of them to build up savings for their funerals and thus disqualify themselves from cold weather payments because their savings exceed £500?
Is the Minister aware that, instead of insisting on further legislation to enforce cash-limiting the relief of poverty, the Government ought to be taking action to reduce poverty, which has doubled under their regime until it now involves more than 10 million households?
Mr. Major: The hon. Gentleman has somewhat overplayed what has happened. I fear that he is being characteristically pedantic. We are discussing an error, I concede that, but it is a technical error and is in no sense a policy change. It is regrettable that there is an error, but it is most certainly not unprecedented. It may have happened under many other Administrations and may happen under future Administrations, whoever are in government.
The hon. Gentleman should not be so critical of mistakes because he rarely gets anything right himself. This provision targets help more directly on the people whom we believe most need it and we believe that judgment to be correct. As for means-tested loans, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that the change to which we are referring established a regulatory system for maternity and funeral payments that will be of particular help to people on low incomes.
Mr. Robert McCrindle: I regret the legislative slippage to which my hon. Friend the Minister has referred. Does he accept that the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) is wrong in maintaining that the way forward is to maintain small and largely meaningless payments of death grants? Is my hon. Friend aware that most Conservative Members endorse the policy that the Government introduced into legislation last year, under which much more substantial assistance is paid where need exists and that, notwithstanding the delay, he is heading in the right direction and should not be deterred?
Mr. Major: I am grateful to my hon. Friend; he is right. We propose to correct the defects and proceed with the policy that we enunciated some time ago. If the hon. Member for Oldham, West believes that the present system is so inadequate, it is surprising that the last Labour Government did not upgrade the death grant or the maternity grant.
Mr. Charles Kennedy: I express to the Minister my sympathy on the onset of a
1044
political condition that the doctors call Ridleyism. I hope that it proves not to be terminal. As he is now looking again at the death grant and proposes to use new regulations to correct this fault, would it not be more sensible to increase substantially the value of the death grant as presently constituted but make that money reclaimable from the estate of the deceased—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes. The money would therefore be targeted on those most in need and give more substantial help to them.
Mr. Major: The hon. Gentleman has shown that he may have misunderstood the policy. We are concerned with targeting funeral assistance most appropriately on the people in greatest need. I believe that it is possible to proceed in the fashion suggested by the hon. Gentleman under the provisions before us.
Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Although one regrets this error, would my hon. Friend keep the matter in perspective? The death grant of £30 has become almost meaningless when funerals cost several hundred pounds. Neither grant has been upgraded for nearly 20 years. It is extremely important to give realistic help to those in genuine need.
Mr. Major: My hon. Friend is entirely right when she describes most acutely the policy that we have enunciated and propose to follow.
Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones: Since low weight pre-term babies are likely to be handicapped and this can be forecast, and since there will be flexibility in the system, will the Minister give increased maternity grants to mothers at risk of producing disabled babies?
Mr. Major: The proposition is for a flat rate maternity grant, which I announced some days ago, of £80 in respect of the groups who qualify. The underlying proposition about which the hon. Gentleman is concerned is met in a number of ways in social security and social services legislation but is not particularly appropriate to the change of the sort that I believe he has in mind.
Mr. Roger Sims: Surely we all want to ensure that resources are directed to those most in need in the most appropriate quantities. Is that not what the Bill is designed to do? Is not the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) making a mountain out of a molehill?
Mr. Major: My hon. Friend is precisely right on both counts.
Mr. Allen McKay: Does the Minister not realise that his statement is regrettable in that seeking to put right what is wrong seems to be the Government's classic disease in their legislation? The words used by the Minister—"targeting" and" guiding towards those on low pay"—are emotive words to give an impression of compassion and efficiency, when this is only a major rescheduling of money from the poor to the poorer still and is taking money out of the welfare state.
Mr. Major: The hon. Member might like to bear in mind the substantial increase in directly targeted help to those people on relatively low or very low incomes. We believe that that policy is correct and we shall pursue it. Insofar as we can target the help most adequately in that direction, we can deliver a greater measure of help than would otherwise be the case.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Does not my right hon. Friend find it remarkable that the one complaint that can be made here is in relation to a purely technical error on the part of a draftsman which now has to be corrected? Instead of addressing himself to that problem, the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) harks back to a time when tiny death grants were dished out to people who for the most part, did not need them, instead of looking forward to a time when help is going to be targeted to those who most need it.
Mr. Major: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those remarks. Ministers must accept responsibility for the error in the Bill. We are content to do that and to correct it without delay.
Mr. Sydney Bidwell: Are not the Government likely to keep landing in the cart, making errors and over-taxing the law people, civil servants and draftsmen with their proposed revolutionary changes, tearing up the Beveridge report, as they are consistently doing with the death grant and insurance right? Why does not the Minister try to return to the real core of traditional Toryism, that of gradualistic change, instead of bringing in these revolutionary measures?
Mr. Major: The hon. Gentleman is exceedingly tempting. I shall confine myself to saying that, after 40 years, there is general agreement, whatever differences exist, that a substantial number of changes are required in the social security system.
Mr. Michael Latham: Will my hon. Friend go back to his Department and tell his draftsmen that the House of Commons is getting fed up with these errors, that, if they cannot get it right, they need not expect their CBEs in the Honours List and that we would rather put the work out to contract?
Mr. Major: My hon. Friend is characteristically forthright, but I must reiterate two points. First, the error arose as a result of an attempt to reflect quickly the will of the other place. Secondly, when a Bill is presented to Parliament, the Minister is responsible for any mistake.
Mr. Gordon Wilson: Although the Minister generously accepts responsibility for the follies and foolishness of his lawyers, does he not think that it is time that the DHSS sacked the lot of them and exposed them to the market economy for failure to deal with the job that they have been given? More to the point, since we are talking about general expenses, is it not time that the Minister relaxed the £500 capital disregard in relation to grants made for fuel allowances? It is unacceptable to the House that that should remain in force unadjusted while we are moving into the new system.
Mr. Major: Although I understand that the hon. Gentleman would not have meant it personally, he is being very unfair to the many lawyers who worked on the Social Security Bill it was a substantial, difficult and technical Bill to carry through. I regret the fact that this error has occurred, but it has. Insofar as the £500 capital limit is concerned, I can add nothing to what I had to say on Tuesday.
Mr. Dennis Skinner:Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, during the past half hour, we have seen the two sides of the ugly face of Toryism? The Neill report was treated with disdain by Ministers after a £100 million swindle at Lloyd's in the City. Now another junior Minister has come along to tell us that a mistake has been made, and he does not have the decency to allocate a proper funeral allowance without applying the means test, despite calls from both sides of the House for such an allowance. It is no wonder that Lubbock's body is going to the dogs.
Mr. Major: The hon. Gentleman is being characteristically obnoxious. Frankly, he needs a verbal straitjacket.
Mr. Skinner: Even your vocabulary is not very good.
Mr. Tony Banks: I am just waiting for my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) to finish.
I am intrigued that the Minister should come to the Dispatch Box and accept ministerial responsibility for this mistake. This is in stark contrast to the attitude of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, who came to the Dispatch Box and tried to share the blame among a range of people—in fact, to put the blame on anyone but himself. Will the Minister tell the House who spotted the mistake?
Mr. Major: That is clear from my statement. It arose as a result of the consideration of regulations made under the primary legislation by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR MONDAY 9 FEBRUARY
Members successful in the ballot were:

Mr. Michael Brown

Mr. Peter Pike

Mr. Sydney Chapman.

BILLS PRESENTED
  RATE SUPPORT GRANTS
  Mr. Secretary Ridley, supported by Mr. Secretary Hurd, Mr. Secretary Edwards, Mr. John MacGregor and Dr. Rhodes Boyson, presented a Bill to make further provision as to the calculation of entitlement to block grant under Part VI of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 53.]
  SOCIAL SECURITY (COLD CLIMATE ALLOWANCE)
  Mr. Gordon Wilson, supported by Mr. Dafydd Wigley, Mr. Donald Stewart and Mr. D. E. Thomas, presented a Bill to provide for more equitable heating allowances to reflect the increased costs of domestic heating in colder climates; and for purposes connected therewith: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 24 April and to be printed. [Bill 51.]

  Statutory Instruments, &c.
  Motion made,
  That the Cardiff Bay Development Corporation (Area and Constitution) Order 1987 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Ligthbown.]
  Mr. Walter Harrison: No.
  Mr. Speaker: Has the right hon. Member the support of 20 hon. Members?
  Mr. Harrison: Last night, unsolicited, there were 171 hon. Members in support of the first vote that I called and 10 in support of the second. That is an average of 90·5. I am certain that I shall get 20 supporters, so I say no.
  Mr. Speaker: I shall put the Question.
  Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 186, Noes 18.

  Division No. 69]

  [4.45 pm

  AYES

  Alexander, Richard

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Alton, David

  Durant, Tony

  Amess, David

  Eggar, Tim

  Ancram, Michael

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Ashdown, Paddy

  Eyre, Sir Reginald

  Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.

  Fallon, Michael

  Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

  Favell, Anthony

  Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Fletcher, Sir Alexander

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Forman, Nigel

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Blackburn, John

  Forth, Eric

  Body, Sir Richard

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Franks, Cecil

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Freeman, Roger

  Brinton, Tim

  Freud, Clement

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

  Gale, Roger

  Bruinvels, Peter

  Galley, Roy

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Budgen, Nick

  Gorst, John

  Burt, Alistair

  Gow, Ian

  Butcher, John

  Greenway, Harry

  Butterfill, John

  Gregory, Conal

  Callaghan, Rt Hon J.

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon

  Carlisle, John (Luton N)

  Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Harris, David

  Carttiss, Michael

  Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW)

  Cartwright, John

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Cash, William

  Hayward, Robert

  Chapman, Sydney

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Chope, Christopher

  Heddle, John

  Churchill, W. S.

  Hickmet, Richard

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hill, James

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Hind, Kenneth

  Colvin, Michael

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Conway, Derek

  Holt, Richard

  Coombs, Simon

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Cope, John

  Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)

  Corrie, John

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)

  1048

  Howells, Geraint

  Page, Richard (Herts SW)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Powley, John

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Price, Sir David

  Hunter, Andrew

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Rathbone, Tim

  Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)

  Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)

  Jessel, Toby

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Kennedy, Charles

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Key, Robert

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

  Rost, Peter

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Rowe, Andrew

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Ryder, Richard

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Lang, Ian

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Latham, Michael

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Lawler, Geoffrey

  Shersby, Michael

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Silvester, Fred

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Sims, Roger

  Lester, Jim

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Lightbown, David

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Lilley, Peter

  Speed, Keith

  Livsey, Richard

  Spencer, Derek

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Lord, Michael

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Stern, Michael

  McCrindle, Robert

  Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

  McCurley, Mrs Anna

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.

  MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  Maclennan, Robert

  Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

  McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

  Thurnham, Peter

  McQuarrie, Albert

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Major, John

  Trippier, David

  Malone, Gerald

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Marlow, Antony

  Walker, Bill (T'side N)

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Wallace, James

  Mates, Michael

  Ward, John

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Warren, Kenneth

  Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

  Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

  Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

  Wheeler, John

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Whitney, Raymond

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Morris, M. (N'hampton S)

  Wilkinson, John

  Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

  Wood, Timothy

  Moynihan, Hon C.

  Yeo, Tim

  Neale, Gerrard

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Neubert, Michael

  Newton, Tony

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Mr. Francis Maude and

  Ottaway, Richard

  Mr. Michael Portillo.

  NOES

  Beckett, Mrs Margaret

  Nellist, David

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Parry, Robert

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Pike, Peter

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Redmond, Martin

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Evans, John (St. Helens N)

  Wilson, Gordon

  George, Bruce

  Winnick, David

  Hardy, Peter

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Lamond, James

  Mr. Walter Harrison and

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Mr. Dennis Skinner.

  Question accordingly agreed to.

  Royal Air Force
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lightbown.]
  4.52 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Archie Hamilton): This is the first Royal Air Force debate that I have had the privilege to open. It is an especial privilege in this the 75th anniversary year of the founding of the RAF's precursor, the Royal Flying Corps. From those early days the RAF has played a crucial role in the defence of the nation. Today the RAF is one of the best equipped and most professional air forces in the world. It can project awesome air power in all its forms, wherever and however it may be ordered to do. The House well knows the importance of air power. The German blitzkrieg campaigns of 1940 and 1941, the Battle of Britain, Pearl Harbour, and, more recently, the Arab-Israeli wars and the Falklands conflict have all demonstrated the essential prerequisite of air superiority if other battles are to be fought and won.
  Mr. George Foulkes: The Minister mentioned the Falklands conflict. On several occasions some of my colleagues and I have asked the Ministry of Defence to tell us about the deployment of naval and air forces, as well as personnel, in the south Atlantic. We are always told that we cannot be informed of that because it is a matter of national security. Does the Minister believe that the deployment of our forces is unknown to Argentina and to the Soviets, or to whoever else wants to find that out? Why is it that the only people who are not told how much deployment there is in the south Atlantic and what we are getting for the huge sums that are being spent there—the only people who are left totally in the dark—are the British Parliament and the British taxpayers, who must foot the Bill? Why can we not be told what we must clearly expect our enemies to have information about? Why can we not be told what the deployment is in the south Atlantic?
  Mr. Hamilton: I cannot speculate on how good the Argentine intelligence services are, but it must be right to keep secret exactly what our deployments are, because we are trying to deter any future adventurism in that area. Therefore, the less specific we are about our troops and deployment there, the better.
  Land and sea forces are naked without air cover and can rarely complete their tasks without air superiority. That point is not lost on the Soviet Union, whose defence expenditure, huge as it is, has been focussed in this direction, with the introduction in the past decade of the Foxbat, Fencer, Flogger, Fulcrum and Flanker fighters, The Backfire and Blackjack heavy bombers and its own AWACS, the Mainstay airborne early warning aircraft.
  During our debate on the Army last week the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies), accused my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces of fearing to look forward. The accusation was quite unjustified. We do not pretend that maintaining an effective, credible and balanced defence within reasonable resources is easy, but it is much easier for us than it would ever be for the Labour party, bearing in mind the increasing influence of the hard Left.
  I look back gladly on the substantial increase in expenditure in real terms which we have achieved in the
  1050
  last eight years and which has given the RAF its biggest re-equipment programme for 30 years, with the build-up of the Tornado GR1 force nearing completion, the Tornado F3 entering service and the Harrier GR5 to follow shortly.
  Those and other systems, which I shall describe, will provide the backbone of our air power as it enters the next decade. Range of operations, mobility and speed of response define the key characteristics in each of the major roles which the RAF undertakes. Modern attack aircraft, such as the Tornado, can carry a wide range of weapons by day or by night and in all weathers, and can even perform two or more different roles in the course of a single mission. Their range of action can be extended by in-flight refuelling and they can be re-targeted in the air. Air transport is vital for reinforcement both within the tactical environment and strategically. For example, Mount Pleasant airport now gives us the ability to reinforce the Falklands by air in a matter of hours.
  Now I shall address some aspects of Britain's air power in greater detail. I shall deal first with air defence, which is air power in its own right, and our protection against the air power of any potential aggressor. Air defence of the United Kingdom not only secures the protection of our national territory, but plays a vital role in NATO'S ability to defend western Europe from any attack by Warsaw pact countries. The United Kingdom provides a forward base for maritime operations in the north-east Atlantic and north Norwegian sea, a rear base for operations on and over continental Europe, and a main operating base for maritime operations in the Channel and eastern Atlantic. The United Kingdom would play a crucial role in any conflict as a staging post for reinforcements from North America. The RAF's air defence capability will greatly increase in key areas during the next few years.
  One hundred and sixty-two of the air defence variant of the Tornado have now been ordered. In 1985 the operational conversion unit was formed to train pilots on the new F3, and the first squadron will become fully operational later this year. Thereafter, squadrons will form every six months until 1990. The F3's excellent range and loiter capability—which can be extended by air-to-air refuelling—is ideally suited to the role of air defence of the United Kingdom because it allows us to fly long combat air patrols far out of the North and Norwegian seas and the Atlantic to intercept enemy aircraft before they can launch long-range missiles.
  I have to acknowledge that some difficulties have been experienced with the development of the F3's sophisticated airintervention radar, Foxhunter, which does not yet meet the requirements of the RAF in full. However, I am glad to say that we are defining a programme of work with the contractor to pursue a resolution of the problems and the achievement of an acceptable standard for the radar.
  There is no dispute that airborne early warning is an essential component of air defence. In the jargon beloved of the Ministry of Defence it is a "force multiplier", which allows the best use of the resources at our disposal. It can evaluate threats over a wide area and direct fighters to where they are most needed. As the Warsaw pact develops its capability for operations at low level, including its deployment of cruise missiles, so the ability of the AEW aircraft to look down on and detect potential targets becomes more and more important. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said to the House last month, the need to have absolute confidence in the system adopted

  1051
  to fulfil this crucial role was central to the Government's difficult decision to select the Boeing E3A rather than the Nimrod system.
  The third key improvement is in the area of radar systems and command and control of the air defence battle on the ground. The House will not be surprised to know that the Ministry of Defence has yet another acronym for this, but it is the ugliest of them all: the United Kingdom air defence ground environment—known as UKADGE. It gathers information primarily from a chain of ground radars and from AEW aircraft and enables RAF controllers to direct out interceptors towards enemy aircraft or cruise missiles. Installation of the improved UKADGE is continuing well. Six new transportable radars have now been delivered and preparation of new command and control systems is under way. This represents the most radical improvement to UKADGE since the early 1960s, and will provide the United Kingdom with a sophisticated automated system in which the computing capability of a single new radar control console will exceed the entire capability of the old system.
  For some time now the RAF has been a leading exponent of air-to-air refuelling techniques. The Falklands conflict underscored the value of air-to-air refuelling both to extend the range of an aircraft and to increase its loiter time. It is another important force multiplier.
  Since 1982 we have introduced a squadron of VC10s and purchased six ex-British Airways TriStars, of which the first three are in service. As a result we were able to disband one of the two remaining squadrons of Victor tankers in June last year. We plan to replace the remaining Victor squadron with a further five VC10s and three converted TriStars in the 1990s. The TriStar is particularly effective because it offers a vastly increased fuel capacity and long range, and can carry fuel, passengers or freight. This new fleet will enable the RAF to support its refuelling requirement well into the next century.
  In NATO's central region the fundamental requirement is for mobility, both in the air and on the ground, in order to concentrate firepower quickly and to counter-attack in depth so that the momentum of a Soviet attack can be broken.
  This is the key to the new concept of operations for Northern Army Group, of which BAOR is part. It is described in page 33 of last year's "Statement on the Defence Estimates", which the right hon. Member for Llanelli seems to have missed when he accused us last week of having forces
  "pinned down in a linear forward defence."—[Official Report, 13 January 1987; Vol. 108, c. 183.]
  The right hon. Gentleman confuses NATO's strategy of forward defence with the tactical conduct of the battle.
  Mr. Paddy Ashdown: The Minister will recognise that the role of the helicopter is vital in this context and I wish to press him on two matters relating to that. First, he has said that a decision is pending on future helicopter policy. Can he be more specific about that, bearing in mind how eagerly the decision is awaited in Yeovil by Westland? Secondly, does he recognise that if he gives in to a temptation to drip feed orders for helicopters he will not meet the needs of our armed forces in the central plain of Europe and he could do enormous potential damage to the integrity of the Westland work force and the technologies required to support that?
  Mr. Hamilton: I recognise the interest of the House in the future of helicopters. I shall come to that, but I cannot give any of the hard undertakings which the hon. Gentleman seeks.
  The Royal Air Force in Germany has the task of providing aircraft for strike-attack, offensive support and reconnaissance roles in the central region.
  The Tornado GR1 strike-attack aircraft is a superb system. Its terrain-following radar enables the GR1 to penetrate enemy air defences at low level and high speed, and to deliver weapons accurately at long ranges. When the RAF last took part in the United States air force strategic air command bombing competition in 1985, Tornados won two of the three major trophies for which we competed and came second in the third. This was the second year in succession that our crews achieved outstanding results against the best crews and aircraft in the USAF. We can be proud of the professionalism and skill demonstrated by the RAF.
  The formation of nine squadrons of GR1 was completed towards the end of last year. This build-up, with one squadron declared to NATO every four months since the end of 1983, went according to plan and reflected the highly successful introduction into service of this aircraft. Already we are looking forward to a planned mid-life improvements package to enable the Tornado to continue to meet the evolving threat into the next century and to remain the backbone of our long-range attack force.
  Mr. Michael Latham: My hon. Friend will know that the Tornado pilots originally trained at RAF Cottesmore in my constituency and that there has been considerable concern, on which I have regularly corresponded with him, about the length of time that it is taking the Government to conclude their survey on noise compensation. Will my hon. Friend tell the House when the results of the survey will be announced?
  Mr. Hamilton: If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I shall leave that to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces. I am sure that he will refer to that when he replies this evening.
  Offensive air support is provided by the RAF's Harrier aircraft. The Harrier GR3 currently in service will be replaced by the GR5, beginning next year. The Harrier GR5 has been developed jointly with the United States, and although similar in appearance to the GR3, is a wholly new aircraft with a greatly superior capability. It is equipped with highly sophisticated electronic counter-measures, which make it much more likely to survive over the battlefield. It has a much more advanced set of avionics, and double the payload or radius of action with a greater variety of weapons. Finally, the GR5 will be capable of operating at night and in poor weather.
  RAF (Germany) also operates Chinook and Puma helicopters, so I cannot pass by without referring to the Department's study on the future military requirement for support helicopters which is nearing completion. We recognise the need to resolve this issue as quickly as possible and we hope to be in position to take decisions during the next month or so.
  I have no doubt that many hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), will want answers to questions such as "When will we know?" and "Why have the Government not already decided?" It is because we understand the importance of the issue so well

  1053
  that we are addressing it with care. We would much rather take the time to come to the right decision than rush into the wrong one.
  Mr. Ashdown: The Minister will be aware that Sir John Cuckney has told the Government of the extreme importance to Westland, in order to maintain the integrity of the work force and its ability to meet the future needs of the EH101 productions, of making the decision before March. Will the Minister at least assure the House that the Government have registered that request and intend to provide a decision at last by that date?
  Mr. Hamilton: We recognise the urgency of the position for Westland and I hope that a decision will be made by March.
  Mr. Tony Marlow: These decisions normally impact on more than one service at a time. Can my hon. Friend tell the House what the Government's current assessment is of the viability and effectiveness of the helicopter in a tank-busting role? We hear a great deal about investment in tanks. I wonder how much we shall invest in tanks in future, and how much in helicopters.
  Mr. Hamilton: I am well aware of my hon. Friend's interest in the balance between helicopters and tanks, and this is being considered and reviewed continually. I do not believe that we are seriously entertaining a proposal that the balance should be much changed. It is unlikely that we shall see a great disbandment of tank regiments. We must bear in mind that the Soviet Union has a vast number of tanks in the Warsaw pact.
  I now turn to maritime operations, in which air power is essential to the efforts of the Royal Navy and our NATO allies in the Atlantic battles to defend vital sea lines of communications and in the forward battles in the Norwegian sea. Shore-based aircraft with rapid reaction times, a long range air-to-air refuelling and the ability to locate, track and attack both surface ships and submarines all contribute.
  The name Nimrod is now firmly linked in the public mind with the AEW project, but we must remember that the original Nimrod is the long-range maritime patrol version, which is one of the world's best anti-submarine aircraft. In 1986 the modification of the RAF's force of four squadrons to mark 2 standard was completed, giving them an effective capability through to the mid-1990s.
  I am pleased to report that it is not only tornado crews who win prizes, as a Nimrod from 120 squadron won this year's Fincastle trophy, held in southern Australia. The competition, between maritime patrol aircraft of the RAF and Canadian, Australian and New Zealand air forces, consists of day and night sorties against a target submarine. The Nimrod crew were clear winners and were the only competitors to carry out successful attacks in both missions.
  Turning now from the theory of air power to the practice, one of the high points in RAF training this year was Exercise Saif Sareea—Swift Sword.
  Mr. John Wilkinson: Before my hon. Friend embarks on that interesting adventure, will he say whether studies have been undertaken by the Ministry to convert the old air frames of Nimrod mark 3—presumably they will now he surplus—into badly needed additional mark 2s for maritime patrol aircraft?
  Mr. Hamilton: The existing surplus Nimrods will almost certainly be used as a back-up for the maritime, reconnaissance role, but there are 11 of them, and I do not think they will all be used for that purpose.
  Exercise Saif Sareea was an out-of-area joint force field training exercise held in Oman, in conjunction with the Sultan of Oman's armed forces, during the period 16 November to 8 December 1986. It was the first major venture of its kind mounted since the Falklands operation and was designed to demonstrate the United Kingdom's capability for rapid deployment overseas and joint operations with the host nation. The Royal Air Force contributed Tornados, tankers and air transport aircraft. Royal Air Force history was made when a fully loaded VC-10 passenger transport aircraft refuelled in mid-air from a VC-10 tanker en route to Oman, which it reached after a non-stop flight.
  The exercise also illustrated the dual transport-tanker capability of the RAF's new TriStar aircraft. Supported by TriStars and VC-10 aircraft in the tanker role, four Tornado GR1 and two Tornado F3 aircraft deployed from the United Kingdom to Masirah in a non-stop flight of over 10 hours and were airborne again on a combat mission within 35 minutes of landing there—a striking testament to Britain's ability to project its airpower. During the exercise, Tornados flew 40 representative sorties in Oman, including a demonstration airfield attack, and Hercules aircraft completed 80 sorties in support of 5 Airborne Brigade, including a formation air drop of 443 paratroops from seven aircraft, including an Omani Hercules.
  Visitors to the exercise included my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, the Chief of Defence Staff, the Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief Strike Command and hon. Members from the Select Committee on Defence. This exercise exceeded expectations in all areas, not least in the degree of combined and joint co-operation that had been achieved. The exercise also demonstrated convincingly the speed and efficiency with which, given a secure airfield and host nation support, the United Kingdom is able to put a sizeable force into a remote theatre through airpower. I am sure that those hon. Members who were able to observe parts of this exercise will wish to join me in recognising its success and to congratulate all concerned.
  Mr. John Ward: Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to pay tribute to the dedication, skill and indeed co-operation of the Omani forces which took part in this exercise?
  Mr. Hamilton: Yes, indeed. I pay great tribute to the Omani forces. I know that the exercise could not have been a success without their co-operation.
  Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: I was interested to hear my hon. Friend's comments, and the success of that operation is beyond doubt. Is the Ministry aware of the need for futher exercises in that part of the world, where there is so much tension, and where British troops would always be welcome?
  Mr. Hamilton: We are aware that many of our friends in that region were very impressed by this exercise, and I am sure that they would like other exercises to take place there in the future.
  To be effective, the Royal Air Force has to fly and fight on the leading edge of technology. Looking forward then,

  1055
  the next major aircraft requirement is for a replacement for Phantoms and some Jaguars, which we intend to fill with the European fighter aircraft, or EFA. Warsaw pact aircraft coming into service from now and through the 1990s are expected to be much more manoeuvrable than existing types. EFA is intended to be a highly agile combat aircraft, optimised for gaining local air superiority against enemy fighters, but also possessing a good air-to-ground attack capability, where its agility will help it to avoid enemy defences.
  Project definition for EFA was completed in September and we and our partners signed the general memorandum of understanding. We are all currently evaluating the outcome of the definition phase and have agreed a short period of further work to refine the design and prepare the ground for full development that is planned to be launched later this year, subject to national approval procedures.
  Weapons as well as aircraft must keep pace with new threats. The next generation of air-to-air missile must also be capable of locking on to and destroying highly manoeuvrable targets at greater ranges than today. The United Kingdom, Germany and France have signed a memorandum of understanding with the United States whereby the European signatories, together with Norway, are to develop an advanced short range air-to-air missile ASRAAM, while the United States is developing an advanced medium range air-to-air missile AMRAAM.
  Both missiles will be "fire and forget", and aircraft carrying them will be able to engage several targets at the same time. The military advantages are obvious. The ASRAAM-AMRAAM "family of weapons" agreement is another example of the way in which members of the Alliance are striving to obtain maximum value from their defence resources by avoiding the duplication of expensive development work.
  In the year since the House last debated the Royal Air Force, the importance and flexibility of air power has continued to be demonstrated in practical operations. Only last week the RAF provided desperately needed helicopter flights to move the sick and the injured through the worst weather this country has seen in recent years.
  The United Kingdom is not the only place where such help has been rendered. The House will, of course, recall the magnificent efforts of the RAF in Ethiopia, where it won the admiration of the world. Less publicly but no less important, the RAF ferried equipment, medical supplies and medical teams in E1 Salvador following the disastrous earthquake there. In June, Puma helicopters from Belize, together with a Hercules, carrying relief supplies arrived in Jamaica to help in the mopping-up operation after the serious flooding which followed two weeks of rain.
  Nearer home again, the RAF search and rescue force continued to provide invaluable safety cover. I will mention just two examples showing the ability to project this capability at considerable distance from base. In November, RAF Sea Kings rescued the 28-man crew of the Kowloon Bridge, which eventually sank off the coast of south-west Ireland, hundreds of miles from their base in Wales. Despite the fact that the call for help was made at midnight, and in a force 11 gale, the rescue was made within two hours. On Christmas day a Nimrod found the survivors of the Icelandic freighter Sudurland in a water-logged lifeboat and dropped them a survival kit which included a new lifeboat and almost certainly saved their
  1056
  lives. Again this was done hundreds of miles from the home base with a very short response time. I am sure that all hon. and right hon. Members will join me in a tribute to the bravery and skill of all those in the RAF's rescue services.
  I have spoken so far about the varying roles that the RAF is required to perform and about the equipment available, or under development, for meeting those roles. None of this would be possible, of course, without dedicated and professional personnel.
  As for reserve forces, both the Royal Auxiliary Air Force and the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve are expanding at present. The role of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force was widened by the formation, in 1985, of an air defence squadron, and the strength of the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve, which last year celebrated its golden jubilee, has recently been increased through the creation of a second intelligence flight.
  Three trials are under way on possible further expansion, covering the viability of a support force, similar to the Territorial Army's home service force, and the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of using the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve reservists in two flying roles. In one trial, reservists will fly in Nimrod marine reconnaisance and VC10 aircraft; in the other, part-time instructors will train students in university air squadrons. If the latter scheme is a success, regular qualified flying instructors could be released to the front line.
  There is nothing new in the quality of those who serve in the RAF. I sit in the room which previously belonged to the old Secretaries of State for Air, and I have on the wall a framed letter from the late King George VI, written in 1943 on the 25th anniversary of the RAF's formation. The RAF was then at war, and the King attributed its successes primarily to
  "the spirit which inspires each and every member of the Force—the spirit which attains the stars, however hard the way may be".
  There are many examples today of this spirit, and I should like to look back on one as a tribute to the personnel of the RAF.
  In Belize in August, an RAF helicopter pilot was sent deep into the jungle to evacuate a soldier with a broken back. When the helicopter arrived at the scene, it was dusk. Despite low fuel and treacherous surroundings, the pilot manoeuvred his aircraft over the casualty. It took several attempts to winch him safely on board, and by the time it was done, darkness had fallen and the pilot then had to return to base. Throughout the operation the pilot demonstrated anticipation, courage and flying skill of the highest order, and the injured soldier almost certainly owes his life to him. The pilot has been awarded the Queen's Commendation for Valuable Service in the Air.
  Another operation demonstrated the RAF's flying skills in a very different way last year. Many hon. Members will have seen for themselves the extraordinary skills, daring and sheer bravura of the Red Arrows. For five weeks last summer they toured the middle and far east. It was the biggest project ever mounted by the team and resulted in a 19,000-mile round trip, with displays in 17 countries. The tour culminated at the inaugural Indonesian air show in hot and humid conditions, where a lesser aircraft might have encountered problems of serviceability so far away from home. That did not prove the case with the Hawk.

  1057
  The tour was an unqualified success and strengthened the RAF's relations abroad through the superb flying displays, which we have come to expect from the Red Arrows, and the professionalism of the team members and their support crew. The tour also enhanced the prestige of our aerospace industry and improved the prospects of further sales of the Hawk.
  There can be no doubt that, like the Red Arrows, Britain's aerospace industry is one of our great success stories. The Rapier missile system operated by both the RAF and the Army has won over £2 billion-worth of overseas orders. The RAF's Hawk trainer is already in service with, or ordered by, many air forces across the world. As recently as last week hon. Members will have seen press reports that the Swiss Defence Ministry has selected the Hawk for its advanced jet trainer requirement, after a direct competition with the Franco-German Alpha jet.
  The Swiss were impressed by the technical and operational advantages of the Hawk and the competitive terms which British industry were able to offer. This is a classic example of how to succeed abroad—the right equipment, coupled with the right marketing, and the strong support of the Government. Hawk also cracked the hardest market of all when it was selected by the United States Navy. Given the strength of the indigenous defence industry in the United States, this is a highly significant achievement.
  Sir Anthony Buck: Can my hon. Friend tell us about the prospects for sales of Hawk to Venezuela? They were lined up, but there was a period of desuetude during the Falklands crisis. I understand that there is a substantial chance of sales being revamped. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces can give a reply in his winding-up speech.
  Mr. Hamilton: I shall refer that question to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces.
  The outstanding success of recent years has undoubtedly been the sale of Tornado. The House will recall that Tornado forms part of our biggest-ever export deal. On current estimates, the sale to Saudi Arabia is worth at least £5 billion. The Ministry of Defence, the RAF and a number of members of the Government, not least my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister herself, have worked hard to secure that deal. It will bring 9,000 extra jobs directly to workers at British Aerospace at Warton, Brough, Kengston and Dunsfold, and indirectly to sub-contractors over the country, and, of course, there will be substantial benefits to the balance of payments.
  Mr. Robert Atkins: Will my hon. Friend confirm that, even if one excludes that magnificent deal involving the sale of aircraft to Saudi Arabia, defence sales in the aerospace industry last year were as high as they have ever been?
  Mr. Hamilton: Yes. Sales in the aerospace industry are running high, as are sales of other defence equipment. Such sales are an important part of British industry and our export performance.
  I would have hoped that all hon. Members would welcome the Saudi deal as good news for Britain, but it seems that some in the Labour party are not enthusiastic.
  1058
  The document, "Statements by the National Executive Committee" produced for Labour's last party conference, seemed to take a jaundiced view of the sale. It said:
  "Even the massive £5,000 million deal to export military aircraft to Saudi Arabia, apparently agreed earlier this year, now appears to be in jeopardy."
  I hope that the Opposition will now give unqualified support to the Saudi deal and welcome the fact that it is not in jeopardy.
  As for future sales of Tornado, the exceptional performance of the aircraft has attracted the interest of a number of other countries, which can expect their inquiries to be met by enthusiasm and co-operation from a Conservative Government.
  Regrettably, I have to tell the House that such sales might fall foul of a Socialist Government. The 1986 statement by the National Executive Committee makes it clear that the Labour party expects
  "inevitably a major reduction in Britain's current arms sales".
  Labour also expects to diversify the jobs of those in the industries involved into
  "products vitally needed in Third world countries".
  How somebody involved in the manufacture of guided missiles can start to make ploughshares I do not know, but that is the proposal.
  In addition, there is a proposal to abolish the Defence Export Services Organisation, which has done much to promote Britain's defence industry abroad and help our defence manufacturers to clinch orders in the face of ruthless foreign competition. Such a policy would certainly increase the prices which our own armed forces would have to pay for equipment, by shortening production runs and discouraging private venture development. More important than that, I hope that the Labour party will not shirk its responsibilities and will make it clear to the electorate that its proposals for defence export sales will undermine the job security of many of the 120,000 British workers who depend on the export of defence equipment for their livelihood.
  The House will need no reminding of that extraordinary moment in our history when our very survival depended on the men and machines of the RAF in the battle of Britain. I am confident that if we called upon them today, the men of the RAF would display the same courage and dedication as their predecessors. However, 1940 was also characterised by an overwhelming political will—a will to survive and a will to win. By its unilateralist defence policies and its inevitable commitment to a neutralist Britain—in every way—the Labour party of today demonstrates that it does not have the will to fight to defend Britain whereas, by contrast, this Government have demonstrated that they have. Not only that, but—as I hope I have shown today—they have given, and will continue to give, the RAF the hacking it needs to do its job today and tomorrow. The Opposition have chosen to ignore what the Government have actually achieved through the years of real growth of resources since 1979. That expenditure has not vanished; the benefits which it has brought are there to be seen today in improved equipment and improved morale in all the services.
  Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones: The hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins) and I fought a long battle in the House to get the EFA off the ground by 1991. We both said that although we had the Spitfire and the Hurricane, we did not have enough of them when they were needed.

  1059
  That was the problem at that time. If the EFA programme is allowed to slip any more, our good pilots will not have the aircraft at the appropriate time, which is 1995. Will the Minister address himself to that? Secondly, will he kindly deal with an omission? We applaud the airframe, but he has left out the RB199, which will play a significant role in future.
  Mr. Hamilton: I fully accept the value of the RB199 and also the need for the RAF to have the EFA. I paid great tribute to that earlier.
  The Labour party offers instead a declared intention to abandon our strategic guarantee and to rip out of NATO the theatre nuclear weapons which are essential if we are to have available the full range of weaponry to deter potential aggressors. Labour has made it clear that it wishes to cut our defence expenditure as a proportion of GDP by about a third. It is incredible that the Labour party does not plan on the basis of what Britain and NATO need to meet the threat. Instead, Labour plucks an arbitrary figure out of the air—the average of our major European allies spending as a proportion of national income. We know what that will mean—real defence cuts year after year.
  Mr. Kevin McNamara: As the Minister has made the point about the nuclear deterrent in the British area, will he tell the House which nuclear weapons are in the possession and control of British first call? Which can be used simply under the direction of British first call or by the Royal Air Force on the central front? Can he tell us whether, in fact, we have control of those weapons?
  Mr. Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman knows well that we do not release that sort of information.
  Even the most impressive capability in the world has little value without the will to use it. The Labour party does not have that will; nor does it have any likelihood of delivering the resources that our armed forces need; nor does it even show any understanding of what defence in the nuclear age really demands.
  The electorate knows that the Labour party of today cannot be trusted with the defence of the realm. The Government have demonstrated by their actions that when it comes to resources, political will and maintaining the morale of our armed forces, there is no contest.
  5.32 pm
  Mr. Kevin McNamara: After that withering attack upon the Labour party's defence policies, I almost get the whiff of electoral grapeshot in the air, but coming from the Under-Secretary, it was more like a grapefruit.
  I should like to join the Minister in paying tribute to the work of the Royal Air Force and in particular in recent weeks to the work of the helicopter crews. Those of us who represent coastal constituencies have become used to, and almost take for granted, the fact that, whenever there is an accident or incident at sea, the RAF will be on the scene to rescue holidaymakers or ships' crews from danger. Over the past few weeks we have seen examples of the courage and skill of helicopter crews flying in hazardous, arctic conditions. We should recognise and pay tribute to them, and I join the hon. Gentleman in doing so.
  Mr. Bill Walker: I trust that the hon. Gentleman will remember the rescue squadrons near mountainous areas who every winter have to fly in the appalling conditions that were commonplace for the rest of the United Kingdom recently. Every winter we expect to get help from the rescue squadrons, and they never fail us.
  Mr. McNamara: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. As I said, sometimes we almost take them for granted. The Under-Secretary drew attention to particular acts of heroism. We echo his support and admiration of those involved.
  If we are to pay tribute to the RAF in its anniversary year, and if we accept its training and dedication, we believe that any Government, whether this Government or a Labour Government, have to keep their side of the bargain. They have to make sure that the men get the necessary training and equipment so that they have the ability to do an increasingly difficult job.
  I am afraid that the Government have not always kept their side of the bargain. That is reflected in the number of people who have left the service since 1980. I very much regret that the Minister did not pay some attention to the important problem of pilot training and of pilots leaving the RAF—something that has been referred to by Service chiefs as the RAF's black hole. The position seems to be getting worse. The latest figures show that the number of officers and men voluntarily leaving the three services early rose by one fifth, to 6,365, between April and December 1985 compared with the corresponding period in 1984.
  Service men are not happy. They are showing their disapproval in the only way they can in an organisation without trade unions; they are voting with their feet and leaving the services. We cannot afford to allow this expensive trained manpower to go. It costs nearly £3 million to train a fast jet pilot and £1 million to train a navigator. Aircrew are almost literally worth their weight in platinum. Yet we are losing them faster than we can train them and faster than they can properly be replaced.
  In 1985, up to 5 December, 147 pilots left the RAF, 58 before completing their engagement. During the same period 89 pilots indicated a wish to leave early. Yet only 171 pilots graduated from the training school. In 1986, 175 pilots left the RAF, 114 without completing their engagement. Another 213 have said that they want to leave, of whom 184 have not yet completed their engagement.
  Mr. Bill Walker: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would care to examine carefully how those figures reflect the position within the civil aircraft operating industry. It has ever been thus. In all the years that the Royal Air Force has had a problem, it has always occurred when the civil airlines have themselves been short of pilots. They always poach from the Royal Air Force, and have done so successfully. The real answer is to retain these gentleman in a volunteer or auxiliary capacity so that the RAF does not lose them.
  Mr. McNamara: I take on board what the hon. Gentleman has said; I was just coming to that point.
  Many of the pilots who are leaving are going to Saudi Arabia or joining airline companies. It will be interesting to see how many will take early retirement in response to the generous offer just made by British Airways. I agree

  1061
  with the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) that we must have some way of keeping these people in an auxiliary or reserve air force. I am sure that could be done. It happens frequently. For example, in the United States most of the airline pilots are members of the national guard. We could have a similar system. We know that at the moment British Airways alone wants 100 qualified pilots.
  If the RAF wants to keep its pilots and navigators, the Ministry of Defence will have to do something to make it more attractive for them to stay. The local overseas allowance for forces stationed in Germany will have to be re-examined. The Ministry might consider offering its aircrew a retention bonus, which is what the Australians are doing to solve their shortage of pilots. It might do something about the RAF married quarters, 70 per cent. of which are in a lamentable state.
  We know that the Ministry has at last started to look at the problem. Air Vice Marshal Bobby Robson has been given this task. I hope that he is successful, but I understand that his last duties were as a public relations man. Public relations are not what is needed. What is needed is a positive reassessment of the role of the pilots, their value and the need to retain them within the service. Not enough urgency is being attached to this problem, which we have been raising over the years in question, of the rundown of experienced personnel and flyers in the RAF.
  Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: As it is the policy of the hon. Gentleman's party to spend money not on nuclear weapons but on conventional forces, and as I understand that 200 extra Tornado aircraft are one of its options, where will it get the money for the pilots, or even the pilots to fly the aircraft? What sum of money is it setting aside to cover that extra cost?
  Mr. McNamara: I cannot answer that question in the precise financial terms in which I would like to answer it, because the Government do not produce line-by-line budgets for the House to examine where expenditure has gone. The hon. Gentleman's question cannot validly be asked of me until Ministers are prepared to give us the detailed breakdown of the defence budget that will enable us to do so. All they will give us are rounded sums by which we can calculate what one could do by savings from Trident on the basis of the figures given by the Department for the training, running, purchase, capital and spares costs over 20 years. If the Minister would give us the complete defence budget so that we could see exactly what is going on, I would be in a position, and would be delighted, to give the hon. Gentleman precise details of every item of expenditure. He knows that he has bowled a no-ball—and if he had sent it down to the Minister, it would have yorked his middle stump, because the Minister could not have given him the information either.
  Mr. Carter-Jones: The hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) would love to have intervened at this point because he has always advocated the supply of auxiliary Air Force members, and he has fought his corner well, while the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) has not taken this point. In 1939, the Air Force was kept going not just by the regulars but by substantial numbers of people who had a little "A" on the side of their arms, meaning that they were auxiliaries and a substantial number who had "VR", who
  1062
  were from the volunteer reserve. My hon. Friend must bear in mind that the Government, despite the pleas of several Conservative Members, have never pursued this point.
  Mr. McNamara: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He takes me back five paragraphs to when I drew attention to the national guard in the United States as a way in which people who go into the civil airlines can be maintained in military personnel. One of the interesting points about some of the recent NATO exercises have been that the United States army and air force have had squadrons staffed by national guard officers. We should take that on board.
  Our pilots are now training in a basic trainer aircraft that is often 10 years older than the student pilots. Our air defences are dependent on aircraft that could have been placed in Hendon museum long ago.
  Mr. Marlow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. McNamara: Yes, I shall give way. However, I have now given way at least five times and I should perhaps get on with my speech. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to interrupt me, that will only delay matters and I always try to ensure that hon. Members who wish to speak have the opportunity to do so.
  Mr. Marlow: I am extremely grateful, for the reasons that the hon. Gentleman has given, that he has had the courtesy of giving way. The hon. Gentleman is talking about problems of morale, and he is talking about the problems of losing personnel. The hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies), sadly, was indisposed yesterday. Can I ask the hon. Gentleman, if the Secretary of State for Defence had been indisposed yesterday when he had been expected to be at the Dispatch Box, is it not the case that the hon. Gentleman would quite rightly and quite persistently ask, in view of the nature of his awesome responsibilities, what that indisposition was, in case it should interfere with his carrying out his duties? I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman is in a position to tell us what is the matter with his right hon. Friend and when he will be better.
  Mr. McNamara: I regret that my usual attempt to be courteous to hon. Gentlemen resulted in that interruption.
  I was speaking about the rather old machines that some of our Air Force personnel are required to fly. The problem will get worse. In March last year, Grieveson Grant and Co., one of London's leading stockbrokers, forecast that, up to 1989, the RAF budget is to be squeezed by 5 to 6 per cent. each year. A consensus has grown up among economists and defence experts on both sides of the political spectrum that further cuts will be made, and the expenditure survey published last week or the week before shows that for roughly two years, about £1 billion will come off the defence budget. That will put a further squeeze on what we can achieve.
  As the Minister spoke about the number of aircraft, I shall ask him for some information about some of them, and perhaps we can have some answers from the Under-Secretary later. I refer first to the continuing saga of the Tucano. The Minister has told us that the RAF has officially just received its first production of the Short Tucano aircraft after four months of slippage and extreme modification. We know, however, that it has not gone to a flying school to start to train our pilots. Instead, it has

  1063
  gone to the Empire test pilot school at Boscombe Down for evaluation and certification trials. In other words, it has not yet been given the release for service. If Boscombe Down is not happy with it, further changes will have to be made, which will mean more money being spent and further delays.
  The Provost jet is over 30 years old and is one of the most expensive aircraft to fly. However, our trainee pilots are having to use this jet, which entered the RAF service in 1956 and in many cases is a decade older than its student pilots. Furthermore, it continually has to be patched up and maintained, which is expensive. We also know that the training manual for the Tucano has not yet been written and cannot be because the Boscombe Down trials have not yet been completed.
  We know about the pilots being trained in the Royal Saudi air force. It is receiving its PC9s at the rate of two a month. Most of them are put together in Brough, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Beverley (Sir P. Wall), where a good job is being done. We know that the PC9s do not need changes, modifications or further trials by test pilots. If the Ministry of Defence had opted for the PC9s, it would have had two aircraft in service by the end of 1986 and 12 in service by mid-1987. The Saudis will have 14 in service by mid-year and 28 in service by the end of the year.
  How many Tucano aircraft will be in RAF service by the middle of this year and by the end of this year? I do not mean undergoing trials but actually in the service of the RAF, training our pilots. I suspect that the answer will be less than half a dozen, if that, because our aircraft are continuing to experience problems.
  It was interesting to hear what the Minister had to say about Hawk and the fact that it had gone to the Swiss. The way in which the Ministry of Defence tried to sabotage the PC9 to claim credit for the Swiss taking the Hawk takes a lot of beating. Credit for that goes to British Aerospace and must be recognised as such. The ability of British Aerospace to work with Swiss companies has enabled it to be successful. It is a sad reflection that the Saudis, with their important budget and their important order with us, took the PC9, the one that the Government were not prepared to take for the RAF.
  I welcome also the fact that, eventually and finally, the Hawks have been fitted with side pylons that will enable them to carry their Sidewinder missiles for emergency point defence in the event of war. The fact that this has been demonstrated will show many countries the effectiveness of the Hawk as a defence aircraft. We should welcome that fact.
  Over the past years, there has been much controversy in the House about AWACS and Nimrod. I do not wish to reopen that controversy. I am concerned about the situation that still exists. The Shackleton still has a 1941-designed radar—updated, refitted and so on, but basically 1941 technology. Very brave, dedicated men fly Shackletons. They are old aircraft. As one expert recently told me, for all the good that Shackleton radar will be against modern Soviet aircraft such as the long-range fighter, the Fencer, the Backfire nuclear bomber or the latest Blackjack, the crew of the Shackleton might just as well stand in the astrodome with a pair of binoculars.
  Our interceptors, including the new Tornado F3, will be of little use against a low-flying Soviet aircraft unless
  1064
  they can be guided to their targets by adequate airborne early warning which the RAF would have had, perhaps much more quickly and much more satisfactorily, had it gone for Nimrod. The decision has been made to go for AWACS. We know that it cannot he replaced until 1991 at the earliest. The system that replaces will not be capable of meeting all the specifications set out in ASR400. Air Chief Marshal Sir David Craig has made it clear that such aircraft will not be enough to meet the patrol specification of four aircraft on station and that even if another two are ordered, there still may not be enough to provide adequate coverage of Britain's north-east flank. This means that perhaps 2,000 jobs have been sacrificed and nearly £1 billion has been wasted, and still we will not have the full adequate early warning capability that we need.
  What will happen to the Nimrod frames? The Under-Secretary of State said that some may be used for maritime reconnaissance—we welcome that—and some might be used for electronic intelligence. There are many frames. Presumably, over the years, some could be cannibalised, but it would be a terrible waste of what has proved to be an effective reconnaissance aircraft. Does the RAF have more precise plans than perhaps the hon. Gentleman was prepared to state earlier?
  The Tornado F3 is important. It will be the mainstay of our air defences in the 1990s. However, I understand that the aircraft is known to RAF crews as a Blue C ircle fighter because it must fly with a concrete weight in the nose while it awaits the Foxhunter fire control radar. Despite the Minister's reassurances last year and the year before, he has said, "We are still redefining the programme." Have the Government set a time scale—a limit? Can they give us a firm date when this important piece of radar will be installed in the aircraft? Basically, until they have that radar, they will be at least 50 per cent. below their capability, if not more. Although it is right to praise the aircraft, as the Minister did, if they do not have the Foxhunter fire control radar, defence capability will be limited indeed.
  The Minister said that the Opposition was jaundiced about the Saudi contract. I was not jaundiced, I was delighted, as the Ministry was, but for different reasons. The Ministry was delighted because it meant that it did not have to pay for them for the RAF, and that it could postpone the payment. I was delighted because it showed the prowess of the design and expertise of the countries and the men involved. If the Ministry had wished to show its belief in the worth of the RAF, it would have opened another line to make sure that the RAF got its aircraft at the same time as the Saudis.
  Mr. Jonathan Aitken rose—
  Mr. McNamara: With the greatest respect to the hon. Gentleman, I promise that, if Mr. Deputy Speaker allows me to catch his eye when the debate is wound up and the hon. Gentleman still wants to make his point, I shall give way. [Interruption.] I have not even started.
  The Minister said that we shall have the Harrier GR5 at the beginning of next year. I presume that that is the first batch of the 62 aircraft that will come into operation then. What will happen—the hon. Gentleman did not mention this—to the second batch? We recall the debate on the Defence Estimates. The Secretary of State gave signs that, whilst some matters were being ordered for long lead items, there was some concern. Will we go ahead with

  1065
  the second batch of GR5, and when? If we are to do so, what is to become of the present group of GR3s in Germany?
  I refer to the European fighter aircraft to be certain that it is safe and will not be cut because of Trident. EFA is essential to our ability to provide adequate air cover for our forces on the central front, and our ability to produce a combat aircraft well into the future depends upon EFA going ahead. By the time EFA is meant to enter RAF services in 1995, Soviet Fulcrum and Flanker aircraft will be well into their mid-life update. At the moment, they are more advanced than any British aircraft of a comparable role. We must be certain not only that we are to get EFA but that there will be no slippage in the time scale for getting it into operation with our Air Force. Therefore, we welcome the fact that the Nato European Fighter Management Agency, NEFMA—not quite as ugly an acronym as UKADGE—has been set up. We welcome the fact that the agency has put out for tender the two most crucial items, the interim engine and the radar. But the pressure must be maintained. We cannot afford slippages with an aircraft as important as this.
  Last week, we heard that after only three months, the experimental aircraft programme has been grounded due to lack of funds. EAP is the technology test bed for EFA, or for the British components within EFA. Unless funds are made available by the Ministry of Defence, British chances of winning a share of contracts in EFA could be jeopardised, particularly Rolls-Royce for the RB199 interim engine. Therefore, I urge the Minister to look carefully at financing EAP and to see whether it can be used more continuously.
  The tragic loss of the space shuttle Challenger has resulted in our Skynet satellite remaining earthbound. If the HOTOL system goes ahead, Britain will never again be plagued with such a problem. HOTOL is one of the most exciting projects in United Kingdom aviation. It seems to be years ahead of any alternative system and will be much safer. It combines the technology of British Aerospace and Rolls-Royce and, as far as one can find—this information is classified—the revolutionary concepts involved. It is something of which we must be proud and something that we must also keep inside the country. Therefore, we hope that the Government will continue to support it, as they have done until recently.
  The space shuttle disaster was due to a leak in the external fuel tank of one of the external booster rockets. Engineers have explained to me that HOTOL would have internal engines and tanks. To a degree, therefore, they would be safer. I understand that that cannot be said of the French and German alternatives. If HOTOL is realised, it will put Europe years ahead of the Americans, whereas Hermes and Saenger will be the poor man's version of the shuttle and will become obsolete. Therefore it is imperative that we should get together with our European colleagues, if the price proves too much for us to sustain by ourselves, to demonstrate the advantages of our system and obtain European collaboration on it. All sides of the House agree about the need to build up a strong European technology pillar for both defence and civil purposes. If this system could be used, we should try to develop it.
  Is there more precise information about the Skynet I, II and III satellites? When are they likely to go into orbit? I have seen the film that caused controversy earlier this
  1066
  afternoon. I saw it long before there was any mention of an injunction. As the injunction has been granted, I do not intend to pursue the matter further.
  Mr. Archie Hamilton: Why then does the hon. Gentleman mention it?
  Mr. McNamara: I mention it because some people know that I have seen the film. Therefore, I thought it essential to explain the circumstances in which I had seen it—long before there was any mention of an injunction.
  Mr. Robert Atkins: The hon. Gentleman is showing off.
  Mr. McNamara: The hon. Gentleman must realise that I do not show off. He knows how naturally modest I am. He may say that I have a great deal to be modest about, and I agree with him, but perhaps I do not have quite so much to be modest about as he.
  Helicopters featured largely in our debate last week. The Opposition specifically asked for an undertaking from the Government about the future of the supply helicopter. Today the Minister said that there will be a decision by March.
  Mr. Hamilton: I hope that there will be a decision by then.
  Mr. McNamara: I hope so, too. There is probably more chance of a decision by March than there is of a decision by next December. In March we shall be approaching the witching season. There are many marginal seats in the south-west. Nothing concentrates the mind of any Secretary of State more than marginal seats, when some of his hon. Friends might be at risk. Because of the pressure that has been exerted over the future of the helicopter industry and the Government's role in it, the Government will want to make a specific and early decision.
  Since the capital reconstruction of Westland, a £95 million loss have been converted into a £26 million profit. However, two thirds of that profit came from the non-helicopter side of the company, whereas two thirds of the company's expenses related to helicopters. That poses problems for the management. During the past 25 years the helicopter industry has been mainly built up and sustained by the Ministry of Defence, and we look to it to find a way to fill the gap between mid-1988 and 1991 so that the company can sustain and maintain its expertise and technology instead of it being dissipated and drained away, as might happen if there were to be three years of uncertainty. I hope that the Minister will be able to announce that the EH101 utility version will go ahead. It would meet some of BAOR's present requirements. However, I hope that it will be forthcoming not on a drip-feed basis but on a basis that will sustain the company and lead to exports.
  One of the problems over helicopters is that for the Royal Air Force they are an afterthought. According to the RAF, helicopters provide a support role for the Army. Last year, the Royal Australian air force decided to hand over its support role to the Australian army. Only the British Army and the Greeks now maintain helicopters in a supply support role for the land forces. It would make sense to consider transferring the RAF's supply support role for the land forces to the Army Air Corps. That would lead to a proper balance in the Army Air Corps.

  1067
  Then the fast fighter pilots, the air commodores and those who make the decisions in the RAF would not treat helicopters as a Cinderella service. I am sure that they try not to do so—that they try to be objective—but when it comes to the allocation of resources within the RAF, I am sure that they are somewhat loth to put the same amount of money into helicopters as they put into other services. Therefore, I urge the Minister to consider that point. It would not be a great loss to the RAF if it lost its helicopter service, but it would provide an enormous boost for the Army Air Corps and the Army generally. It would also make much more sense.
  Having consigned the RAF's helicopter service to the Army, the RAF might think that I am being a little ungracious. I merely remind the RAF of the compliments that have been paid to it by all hon. Members for the service that it has provided this winter and in previous years. We wish the RAF well. Whether the service is wearing khaki or RAF blue, we know that we shall be well served. Hon. Members in all parts of the House are proud of the RAF. Whatever the outcome of the general election and the strange meanderings of the Minister, who spent more time on the Labour party's defence policy than upon his Government's defence policy, we must have a Royal Air Force.
  The country that puts the Alliance at risk is the country that is unable to carry out the basic conventional role of the Alliance. We have already heard that the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes to cut the defence budget. Secretaries of State for Defence, whether it be the previous Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), or the present Secretary of State, are afraid to come before the House and deal with our defence strategy in terms of the financial constraints that will be imposed upon them. It does not matter by how much they may have increased the amount of money that is spent upon defence, important though that may be in terms of the Services. Unless we are able to maintain men in the Services and the conventional role of the Services, we are as nothing. The Minister is afraid even to say whether or not the RAF controls the actual use of nuclear weapons. He knows that it does not.
  Mr. Archie Hamilton: Will the hon. Gentleman please explain to the House how even the finest conventional forces can face up to an enemy that has nuclear weapons when we do not?
  Mr. McNamara: The enemy would not use nuclear weapons against us because he knows that that would kill his own forces. Chernobyl showed us that. Not even the Russians can control the elements, or prevent a backflow of nuclear waste over their own territories.
  6.9 pm
  Mr. Jerry Wiggin: My hon. Friend the Minister and the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) rightly paid tribute to the personnel of the Royal Air Force. It is worth observing that of our three Services the Royal Air Force has the fewest front line fighting men and the largest number of Service men and Service women in support. Out of approximately 93,000 service men and women in the Air Force, by the very nature of things only a handful can be flying crew.
  1068
  I am privileged to have in my constituency the No. 1 radio school of Royal Air Force, Locking. I know that I speak on behalf of many of my constituents when I say how proud we are to know many of the serving personnel, who enjoy a close relationship with the town. We welcome the great honour paid to RAF Locking in the summer when Her Majesty the Queen paid a whole day visit to inspect the forces there.
  Inevitably, I should like to speak about the thorny subject of helicopters. I hope that the Government will come to an early conclusion about them so that I can make speeches about something else. For once, I agree with the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North in his comments about the operational direction of support helicopters. I have been convinced for many years and have spoken in the House on several occasions of the clear view of those who are supported by the Royal Air Force, the soldiers in the field and to some extent other Service personnel, that in practice it is not operationally efficient to have a different service operating such a vital supply route.
  My hon. Friend the Minister spoke about the whole philosophy of helicopters. The first step that the central staff should take is to make certain that those forces which need helicopters for whatever purpose have control over them from the very start. The Royal Navy, which has such control, stands out internationally as the finest operator of helicopters at sea. It has in many respects led the world and much of its success is due to its complete operational control over the training of pilots and the acquisition of aircraft right through to their manning in the ships.
  There is a lesson to be learned there and it is extraordinary that, year after year, we dodge this decision. I know exactly why that happens. It is because the short-term, one-year cost of transition will no doubt be expensive. In addition, there will be pressure from air marshals who do not want to see the numbers of their forces reduced because that would mean fewer officers, fewer promotions and other problems of that sort. Now that we have the central staff, surely that is the sort of barrier that can and must be broken down.
  There is a further argument that some pilots who train for fast jets and cannot make the grade are transferred to helicopter training in the RAF. I see no difficulty in cross-Service transfers with RAF pilots going to the Army Air Corps. Some pilots already do cross-Service training and it should be encouraged. I repeat my personal view based on my own experience and on the experience of listening to other hon. Members and talking to many Service men, that this is crucial for our armed forces.
  As for the future of helicopters, there are two reasons why we are short of helicopters and short on decisions about them. First, there is the tactical reason. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates) has left the Chamber. The Minister said that he saw no immediate prospect of a change in the ratio between expenditure on armoured vehicles—I assume that he meant armoured personnel carriers as well as tanks and on helicopters. That is sad because it means that we are miles behind in our thinking. The tank is increasingly becoming a priority target on the battlefield and it is increasingly vulnerable to attack by sophisticated weaponry held by the infantry and the armour of our potential enemies. Experience shows that although the

  1069
  helicopter cannot withstand much fire, its mobility and flexibility more than counter this. For this reason, a better balance must be achieved.
  Mr. Marlow: My hon. Friend says that the helicopter cannot withstand much fire. A tank, if it is hit by a modern missile, will not withstand much fire either. Has my hon. Friend heard the expression that a battalion in time is worth a division too late? With a support helicopter, one can get a battalion there very quickly but with obstacles and bridges down tanks would take forever in today's circumstances to get to where they are needed.
  Mr. Wiggin: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, and I have argued that case in as much detail as time permits. I urge Ministers to harass their Service advisers until they get a better answer. I say this deliberately because it is not a decision that the military seem inclined to take at the moment. For reasons of their own, neither the air marshals nor the generals will take it. The Americans, the Russians and the armed forces of many other countries have made the decision and they are right.
  The second reason why the Government's dilatoriness on helicopters is important is, inevitably, industrial. I make no bones about the fact that Westland has its products support factory in my constituency and is the largest employer there. I should like to read a short extract from the statement by the chairman of Westland plc. It is worth mentioning that from near-bankruptcy some 12 months ago, Westland has, as a result of a capital restructuring—the House knows what took place—become a prosperous company making reasonable profits, but it is left with this one question hanging over the helicopter division.
  I think that there is unanimity in the House that it is unacceptable for Britain to be without a helicopter manufacturer. Indeed, the Secretary of State has said that he would abhor such a prospect. The chairman of Westland is clearly a responsible and most competent business man. He has led the company through difficult times and is improving its efficiency by the hour. I am sad to say that there is still some way to go, and I shall say the same to the trade union representatives who are to see me on Friday night. An improvement has already been effected but the chairman of the company says:
  "Although studies and development programmes often lead to production orders eventually, they do little to sustain current order books. We have always made it clear that although our production lines are currently very busy in the Helicopter Division at Yeovil, we do face an order book gap some two years hence. The dominant position of the Ministry of Defence as a customer makes its long term helicopter policy of critical importance in planning the future shape and size of this division and we eagerly await the outcome of the last MoD studies.
  These studies should be concluded this month and the Secretary of State for Defence said in the House of Commons in October 1986 that a decision would be taken in the new year. It may help to put this long time scale into perspective if I say that the Staff Target, which was generated first in 1978 for the replacement of the RAF Wessex and Puma fleet, is in abeyance and the Secretary of State has now, some eight years later, stated that the fleet will approach the end of its cost effective life 'within the next ten years'. Coherent planning against such widely moving target dates is frankly impossible."
  Early in the Minister's speech, the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) intervened and rightly reiterated the problems that will face the management at Westland unless a decision is forthcoming very shortly.
  1070
  It is worth pointing out that the current problem was first revealed in July 1985 or perhaps even earlier. The company put its case to those of us interested in aviation. That was when the campaign started and, when air staff target 404 became a subject of attention in the House, but more than a year and a half later we are still awaiting a decision. We all know that the Secretary of State is sympathetic and is awaiting a solution from his advisers. I say this to Ministers—let us have a proper solution. We do not want half orders or a dribble of orders, but a proper order. What about 35 or 40 Black Hawks? What about showing the world that we can manufacture that helicopter in Somerset?
  Once the RAF has that helicopter other countries will be interested, but we need that lead. The great benefit of the Sikorsky tie-up, the ability to sell Black Hawk in large areas of the world, will be negated if we do not manufacture and buy the aircraft ourselves. It is a fine helicopter and there are plenty of uses for it within our armed forces. It would be a good example and good value and, so long as Westland can deliver—I do not ask for any concessions—I believe that the money will be available from other programmes within the Department.
  The concept that Westland should go out of helicopter production is totally unacceptable to me and to many of my hon. Friends. I am reluctant to raise the matter again, but we insist that the dates that have been mentioned this afternoon should be adhered to. If there were any question of there being no decision before Easter it would be catastrophic.
  6.22 pm
  Mr. John Cartwright: Although Woolwich is traditionally an Army town, Woolwich arsenal, the future of which is dear to my heart, provides a home for three RAF establishments. On that tenuous basis, I should like to add my tribute to those already given to RAF personnel to whom we owe so much for their contribution to the essential defence of Britain.
  I was one of those in the 1970s who strongly supported the AEW Nimrod early warning system. It is right to say that hon. Members from both sides of the House would have been much happier if the contract could have gone to a British firm and to British technology, provided that the British solution could have fulfilled the job that was being asked of it. Sadly, on the basis of the evidence we have seen, it would have been too much of a gamble to go on hoping that the problems with the AEW Nimrod system could have been put right in time to enable it to provide what was required. It would have been wrong to undertake any such gamble with something as vital as an early warning system. Therefore, on the basis of the evidence available to us, I have to say that I believe that the Government made the right decision by choosing the Boeing AWACS.
  Mr. Archie Hamilton: If that is so, will the hon. Gentleman explain to the House why, when it came to a critical vote on that matter, the alliance was able only to abstain?
  Mr. Cartwright: The position was made clear by our spokesman at the time. We were critical of the Government's handling of the operation. We thought that they had reached the correct decision at the end, but their handling of the matter before it came to that final decision

  1071
  left a great deal to be desired. That view was taken by more than just the alliance. As the Minister knows, some of the Government's own supporters took a similar position.
  I shall now move onto something a little safer. The Minister did not mention recruitment and retention in the RAF, but I assume that the Minister who is to reply will deal with those matters. It is worth recalling that in February last year the then Minister of State accepted that there were problems with the recruitment of officers and aircrew. The levels of recruitment were lower than had been hoped for and only 87 per cent. of target was expected to be achieved. The Minister accepted that there was increasing competition from civilian employers, especially in areas where there was a national shortage of specialised skills. It is clear that those are the areas in which the RAF can least afford to lose key personel.
  The Minister also said that the rate of premature voluntary retirement among aircrew officers was on the increase. He suggested that applications were then running at a rate of 3 per cent. of trained officer strength. However, he did not tell us how many of those seeking premature voluntary retirement were fast jet pilots and navigators. As the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) has reminded us, it costs over £2·8 million to train a fast jet pilot and £1 million to train a navigator. Therefore, in those areas, the RAF cannot stand much wastage.
  I noticed that Jane's Defence Weekly on 17 January contained an interesting article by Air Vice Marshal Mason. It dealt with the general problem of personnel retention in the RAF. It was a balanced article and he reached the conclusion that there was not the crisis of retention that was being suggested in some quarters. However, he went on to say:
  "Nevertheless there has been a noticeable increase in PVR applications over the two years which, although now apparently levelling off, cannot be regarded with complacency."
  We are aware of the increased competition from civil airlines, which are apparently facing a pilot shortage because of their failure to train pilots over a 10-year period in the 1970s. As we have seen in the press, British Airways has said that it will be advertising for over 100 qualified pilots in the autumn, and other airlines are expected to follow suit.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: I cannot let the hon. Gentleman's last comment pass. Does he agree that it would have been inappropriate and wrong for British Airways to recruit people when there simply were not jobs available for them? It was one of those unfortunate questions of supply and demand and the demand for pilots was not there. It would have been wrong to recruit pilots simply to have them waiting around.
  Mr. Cartwright: I did not intend to be critical of the civil airlines. I was merely pointing out the facts. I was not criticising the airlines for not having trained. The hon. Gentleman is right—the demand was not there. As a result, there was a 10-year dead period. However, there obviously comes a time when one has to try to attract trained pilots in order to meet what has become a growing demand. The obvious way of doing that is to obtain some of those already trained at substantial public expense by the RAF.
  1072
  Retention is not a simple issue, and many factors are involved. However, like the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North, I have seen suggestions that the condition of married quarters leaves a great deal to be desired. It would be helpful if the Minister could tell us whether the figure of 70 per cent. of RAF married quarters not coming up to a reasonable standard is a generally accepted figure; whether reports that the cost of bringing the married quarters up to a satisfactory standard, put at some £400 million, is an accurate assessment; and whether there are, as some people suggest, difficulties in guaranteeing that sort of investment.
  I should like to concentrate the rest of my remarks on air defence, especially defence against tactical ballistic missiles. That subject has raised substantial debate in the United States and Europe but it has not yet really surfaced in Britain. The argument took off as a result of the celebrated article by Manfred Worner, the German Defence Minister, which appeared in the Strategic Review in February 1986.
  The scenario set out in that article was chilling. He argues that the latest generation of Soviet short-range ballistic missiles has a much greater accuracy than its predecessors, has improved target acquisition and can carry the so-called smart submunitions. He went on to argue that these missiles would give the Soviet Union the capacity to launch a conventional attack against hundreds of key NATO targets across western Europe. Among the vital facilities that he suggested would be at risk were airfields, aircraft, ammunition stockpiles, radar installations, command and control centres and vital NATO reinforcement facilities such as ports and bridges.
  Hans Ruhle, the head of the German Defence Ministry's planning staff, has estimated that between 200 and 300 key NATO targets destroyed by a Soviet short-range missile attack would prevent NATO building up a cohesive forward defence, prevent NATO from mobilising reserves and prevent NATO from landing reinforcements. He suggested that the use of Soviet short-range missiles in that role would free thousands of Warsaw pact aircraft that are now assigned for use against these vital NATO targets. Those aircraft would then be available for deployment against ground forces in combat along the frontier.
  Thus, the use of tactical ballistic missiles would give the Soviets an ability to impair or destroy NATO's central front defences without having to cross the nuclear threshold. NATO commanders would then have to face the appalling choice of using nuclear weapons or accepting defeat.
  As a result of that scenario, the Germans are understandably active in promoting the case for what they call extended air defence. They want defensive systems capable of destroying short-range missiles as well as aircraft deployed at the earliest possible opportunity. A lot of work is proceeding in that direction; the upgrading of the Patriot system to enable it to engage missiles as well as aircraft has been proceeding for some time.
  There are also a number of more advanced projects in the United States with exotic titles—the flexible agile guided experiment and the homing overlay experiment are both directed to providing short-range missile defence. In Isreal the Rafael vertical launch missile is in existence and undergoing trial. In France the Aster system is being studied.

  1073
  More fundamental research on defence is taking place in Europe against short-range and tactical ballistic missiles. The European defence initiative is aimed at producing a European ATBM system capable of defending hardened military targets. A number of studies under that umbrella are being carried out under the aegis of the NATO Air Defence Committee. The argument for the Europan defence initiative offers the chance to develop the European pillar of NATO to provide opportunities for the European defence industrial base and to encourage European technology in the field.
  There is also growing interest in the United States in the idea of extending the strategic defence initiative to provide missile defence in Europe. Congress has allocated $50 million to the co-operative development of an ATBM system. The Ministry of Defence has been awarded a contract to conduct an architecture study in that area. The Supreme Allied Commander Europe, General Rogers, has regularly given his support to the concept of a defensive system against a Soviet short-range missile threat. After Reykjavik, we have serious propositions on the table to remove all intermediate-range nuclear missiles from Europe, and possibly to phase out strategic ballistic missiles over ten years. It is therefore inevitable that more attention will centre on the question of short-range ballistic missiles.
  Four issues arise from the ATBM debate which are worth consideration. First, how seriously do we take the Soviet threat? Can short-range missiles be given the sort of accuracy that will threaten specific individual targets? Some experts argue that they cannot, that the main danger to Europe will continue to come from Warsaw pact aircraft, and that it would be unwise to switch resources away from traditional air defence to missile defence.
  What sort of anti-tactical ballistic missile system do we look for? Destroying any missile in flight is a complex and expensive business. Also, we know that tactical ballistic missiles have shorter flight times—between six and 12 minutes, as compared with 30 minutes for a strategic system. Mobile missiles have more complex and less easily identifiable trajectories than the longer-range strategic systems. We are therefore in a difficult and extremely expensive area.
  Before we rush down the road of exotic technologies, it is sensible to examine the role of passive measures. Target hardening, dispersal, improved runway repair facilities and other unexciting but effective systems might offer a more cost-effective method of defending against the short-range missile threat.
  How would the Soviets respond if Europe was to deploy an ATBM system? They might simply increase the number of missiles and warheads they throw against the defensive system to overwhelm it. They might depress the trajectories of the missiles to make tracking and destruction more difficult. They might add electronic countermeasures to protect the missiles. There will certainly be some Soviet response. We must never lose sight of the fact that it will always be cheaper and easier for the attacker to improve the effectiveness of a ballistic missile attack than it will be for the defender to cope with that improved onslaught.
  Lastly, and perhaps most worrying, there is the question of a link which a European anti-ballistic missile system would have to the American SDI and its impact on the ABM treaty. There is considerable United States interest in the whole area of European ballistic missile
  1074
  defence. Some people suggest that that is because it would be used as a stalking horse for SDI. The exotic technologies could be tried out in Europe to see whether they worked and they could then be deployed in the United States after the ABM treaty has collapsed.
  This view is reinforced by the fact that Europe is not constrained by the ABM treaty, which applies only to the two super-powers. The ABM treaty deals only with defences against strategic missiles, and therefore does not appear to rule out defence against shorter-range systems. However, systems designed to defend against shorter-range tactical missiles could be used against longer-range systems. The trajectory of a submarine-launched ballistic missile is similar to that of a short or intermediate-range missile. Therefore, a system deployed and designed to tackle short-range systems may have an inherent capability to deal with strategic systems as well. There are also clauses in the ARM treaty that ban the export of United States ABM technology.
  These issues are important, because the Government have committed themselves to the ABM treaty. They have also rightly supported the original, narrow interpretation of that treaty, which severely limits what is permissible beyond the stage of pure research.
  Ministers in this Government have said little or nothing about the Government's attitude to the threat of tactical ballistic missiles, and we are entitled to ask whether the Government share the growing enthusiasm for the whole ATBM system that is now apparent in the United States and West Germany. It is important that the Government make their position clear, because there is a risk that an understandable anxiety to obtain as many SDI contracts as possible may result in Britain being sucked into the world of exotic technology, which is of doubtful military utility and will involve massive expenditure.
  The alliance takes the view that, where resources are scarce, priority must go to essential and long overdue improvements in our bread and butter defences, not chasing a costly dream of a European star wars system.
  6.38 pm
  Mr. Robert Atkins: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright), who speaks for the alliance on these matters. It is a pleasure also to welcome him back to an official responsibility. These debates are always interesting and the hon. Gentleman dignifies them by his participation, but, I must tell him that the Liberals in Lancashire do not look upon his attitude to defence in the same way as I do. However, despite their incipient hostility to the hon. Gentleman's views on defence, he is welcome to come to Lancashire and talk about defence matters.
  I usually like to speak about procurement and equipment matters, because of my constituency interest, but I want to touch briefly on what the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), and, indeed, the hon. Member for Woolwich said about problems with premature voluntary retirement. I read the same article in Jane's Defence Weekly and was particularly concerned to see that PRV has risen substantially in the past two years. That is not something to be extremely exercised about, but it causes some concern. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North suggested that turbulence, the problems of the increasing desire of service wives to have their own careers and a widespread dissatisfaction with service accommodation were matters

  1075
  to which the Minister should address himself when he replies. If he does not do so then, perhaps he will talk to us about it subsequently.
  I want to deal with two particular success stories in my constituency. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) is not present. He is an old sparring partner of mine in debates on the RAF. I wanted to tell him of a particular success story in my constituency. In British Aerospace, Samlesbury, over the past few years 100 apprentices, in batches of between eight and 10, have completely restored a mark 19 photo-reconnaissance Spitfire which used to be the gate guardian at RAF Brawdy and is to be delivered to the RAF Memorial Flight. This is an astonishing achievement, because they maintain that it is now better than it ever was. It flew between 1945 and 1957. I believe that it is to be handed over either today or tomorrow. It is a great tribute to those apprentices that that aeroplane looks so fine and will continue to fly for many years because of their work.
  It is the same apprentices, perhaps a little older, together with the more adult work force at British Aerospace, who have devoted so much of their time and energy to the experimental aircraft programme—EAP. This is the first British fighter for many years, and many hon. Members will have seen or heard of it flying at Farnborough this year. It is of brilliant design, with excellent production, support, and, above all, display, which again emphasises the excellence of the work force.
  I join the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North in his question about funding for the EAP. It is now grounded and there is some talk that it will not fly at Paris against the equivalent French aeroplane, or rather the less than equivalent French aeroplane. I want to add to the weight of the hon. Gentleman's questions about funding because of its importance to the European fighter in the future.
  In the Federal Republic of Germany there is some concern. Negotiations are going on between Ministers here and other partners. I understand that the equipment and avionics companies in Germany are keen for the EAP to be used within Eurofighter, but that the airframe and engine manufacturers are not. Therefore, will my hon. Friend consider the matter and come back to us as soon as he can with some information about the Ministry of Defence's commitment to the EAP.
  I am a little concerned about meeting the August deadline on the Eurofighter. As I understand it, theree is to be a formal launch in about August, with a development and production programme following therefrom. The German elections—I believe that they are this Sunday—have caused some delays and may cause further delays if there should be a change of Ministers. That is entirely a matter for the winners of the German elections, but, none the less, it is important that, if there were to be a delay, Ministers in Britain should do all that they can to ensure that the learning curve is speeded up so that we do not have further delays.
  I support the bidding rules that have been talked about by the Eurofighter consortium in relation to the United States. I know that the United States is getting a little upset because of its belief that it is being excluded from some of the equipment programmes because of our concern within the consortium as a result of the experience on Panavia, and presumably other programmes, over restrictions by
  1076
  the United States Government on potential sales abroad, particularly to Warsaw pact countries, and, to a lesser extent, but important here, to non-aligned countries. I know that American companies have expressed their concern and we should tell them that they have done the same to us in the past. We must not be prepared to give way without firm guarantees.
  By the same token, I support the demand of Eurofighter to ensure that if American companies wish to participate they do so through equipment companies within the four participating nations. That is important to emphasise and to support, and I hope that Ministers will take it on board.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) and others may want to speak about matters relating to the Eurofighter engine. Rather than delay the House, I invite my hon. Friend to develop that point if he catches your eye. Suffice it to say that if it is to be a Eurofighter it should have a European rather than an American engine. That is worth emphasising. I am also concerned about the radar, because there are delays on that. I emphasise strongly that for it to be a European fighter we should have European involvement.
  I make yet another plea. Please, can we find a name for this aeroplane? The French have found a name for their experimental aeroplane. It is, for those who are not experts in French, Rafale, which means a gust of wind. Many of us here could draw scatological conclusions from that suggestion. We need a name for the aerople to give it some style and romance. My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) suggests Typhoon, but perhaps this is not the time to go into that. We need to give the aircraft a name, to get it off the ground in every sense of the word, and for the sake of people in my part of the world who are likely to be building the aeroplane, the RAF and those interested in it. It needs a name, some syle, and some romance, and as soon as possible.
  I have one or two questions on Tornado. First, I join those hon. Members who have already spoken to say that I am extremely worried about the delays on Foxhunter radar, and I know that many in the RAF are also worried on this score. The House should continue to press my hon. Friends, with the greatest possible deference, perhaps, but none the less, to press them hard, to get this sorted out. It is no earthly good having Nimrods, AWACS, Shackletons, or whatever, if the Foxhunter radar in the F3 does not work properly. We must have that sorted out quickly.
  I want to ask about the attrition orders. So far, we have had only small attrition orders for Tornado. We shall not be content with eight, nine, 10 or whatever it is. It would help if those orders were forthcoming. By the same token, I want an unequivocal assurance that these aircraft taken out of the Saudi Arabian deal will, quite rightly, be replaced at the end of the contract, so that we do not just conveniently lose them and forget them. The RAF will still need them and we shall still need them within the order.
  I am delighted, as many hon. Members will be, at the success of Hawk. As a result of the rather sad potential closure of British Aerospace, Weybridge, much of that work will be transferred to the Warton division. Therefore, I am taking an increasing interest in Hawk. I am delighted that the Swiss preference should yet again have outdone the French in that context. Anyone who knew anything about the aeroplane would know that it ought to, and it has done so. I hope that we shall follow that through.

  1077
  Ministers will know that the contract has not yet been signed, and we want to ensure that the French will not come back in and try to undercut in the way that they always do. Let us not miss this one.
  By the same token, we need to ask some questions about what is being done by the procurement executive over the potential order for Hawks for the United States air force. There is a big order there which is being worked upon and we need to pursue that.
  Let me deal now with a perennial problem which exercises many hon. Members—what is known as NIS, NATO identification friend or foe system, or IFF, as it used to be called. I want to know where we are on this. It is a scandal that it has taken so long to resolve the issue. It needs resolving. I know that there has been much discussion about this and all the various radar bands, and so on. I want to know whether we are on stream and when there will be a final solution to the difficulties.
  The hon. Member for Woolwich talked about radar generally and airborne early warning. I have been particularly fascinated by some work in the United States, particularly by the United States air force, on what it calls OTH radar—over-the-horizon radar. This is fascinating work. Can my hon. Friend give me any information about that, if not now, in writing later? What work are we doing? Have we developed any areas, and are we working with the United States air force?
  The other matter of great interest is SEAD—these dreadful acronyms, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement is so right—supression of enemy air defence. There is some interest in this because of the potential contract that could arise for Tornadoes. Hon. Members will be aware that the F4Es and F4Gs are being used together with the F16Cs and F16Ds, but that, with the German demand for development of the ECR Tornado, using either the HARM missile or ALARM missile, this potential contract for more Tornadoes has to be worked on. I hope that Ministers are putting their minds to this, and perhaps they will be able to give me some information about the project.
  While on the question of the ALARM missile, I do not want to say any more than to ask: what has happened to it? It is becoming a matter of concern, especially in the context of British Aerospace perhaps being involved in negotiations with Royal Ordnance and the product liability problems that might arise.
  We have heard that the Phantoms are to be re-winged at though. How many are to be re-winged? Is it the lot? If so, will this affect the F4Gs that we purchased recently?
  I share hon. Members' concern about the Tucano. Although I am entirely happy that Short, being the magnificient company that it is, will meet the contract deadlines, I should like to know how it will do so. What is the delay on wing redesign? Is there a delay on the engine? When will delivery come back on stream?
  I turn now to the general context of procurement. I am concerned about the Foxhunter radar. We have all been concerned about the Nimrods. Questions need to be asked on a continuing basis. I hope that the Select Committee on Defence will turn its attention in general terms to procurement, if only to update the excellent report that was produced under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) when he was in charge of that activity. That investigation exercised the minds of many hon. Members and was, if I may say so in the context of a RAF debate, a much cooler and calmer
  1078
  inquiry into procurement than when other matters, such as Westland and AWACS, featured in the broad political arena rather than in the specific RAF arena. We need to look at some of these areas, and the Foxhunter and Alarm give an ideal hook on which to hang questions.
  I am delighted that at long last my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, together with, I presume, the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces, has devoted some attention to small firms in competitive procurement. His initiative on the small firms advice division and the research initiative is to be warmly welcomed, particularly the possibility of representation at Ministry of Defence research establishments, which has been offered to many small firms. I know that the Defence Manufacturers Association, so ably represented by Brigadier Dick Purvis in all its activities, would welcome this move. I am sure that the association would want more to happen. I extend congratulations on where we have got so far, but say, please keep it up.
  Procurement is the subject of the future. What is going on with advanced STOVL, short take-off and vertical landing? We had a lead in short take-off with the Harrier, and so on. I recognise that we needed to go to America because of the major deals that were offered by the United States marines. I do not take kindly to anyone in the industry suggesting that we should retain this initiative entirely. We needed to go abroad, but having done so we should not lose the initiative in terms of advanced short take-off and vertical landing.
  There is much to be done. A lot of work in being done in the United Kingdom on the type of engine that should be used in the future. Hon. Members who are specialists in these matters may wish to talk about the many variants. I am concerned that Rolls-Royce is quoted as saying that it is receiving official interest from the Ministry of Defence and is wondering what is to happen. Is this true? If it is true, why are we not showing official interest? I do not pose that question in any pejorative sense, but I should like to know what has happened and what is happening. There is a probability of a five-year delay before advanced STOVL can be expected to be active. We need some measure of commitment, even if it is only a nod and a wink.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: Last summer I was in California and visited the Aimes research laboratory, a NASA establishment. Is my hon. Friend aware that scientists at Aimes are undertaking work into advanced STOVL and are very concerned at the lukewarm attitude of the United Kingdom? They told me that it would be most unfortunate if the United States were to go ahead with this alone without the United Kingdom. Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a severe risk that unless we show a commitment from the United Kingdom Government the initiative could be wholly seized by the United States?
  Mr. Atkins: My hon. Friend, who is a specialist in these matters, reinforces the plea that I make to Ministers that we make a commitment. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will be able to say something about this.
  I dare to raise the chemical weapons problem in the absence of the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies), who always cocks an eye when I talk about chemical weapons. This matter concerns me and is

  1079
  relevant to this debate, just as it is to a debate on the Army, Navy or defence generally. We know that the Warsaw pact has chemical shells. I guess that there is a possibility that it also has chemical missiles or chemical warheads within missiles. If it can use them with shells, it can use them from aircraft. I pose this question again, not believing necessarily that we need a defensive capability, but believing that we do need some understanding and some capability to recognise that this is a very real threat.
  There are some who argue within the military mile—my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State may well hear them more often than I do—that there will not be a nuclear war because the Soviet Union needs only to flip across a few shells or missiles, which will cause dificulties in terms of nuclear, biological and chemical warfare, the equipment that our soldiers, sailors and airmen would have to wear, and all the rest of that argument. I pose that question again, because it needs posing and it needs some sort of answer.
  I am concerned that the United States Navy, admittedly with its economies of scale, is looking very hard at another British initiative, the airship. Does the Ministry of Defence have an interest in the airship? Does it have any connection with it now? Does the Ministry have a role for it, or will it go abroad and be lost because we cannot produce a requirement for it?
  The Ministry of Defence has a large usage of helicopters which have an impact on civilian activities. With the closure of the Trigg Lane site, the usage and conjestion of the Battersea heliport, which is used greatly by the Ministry of Defence, is causing concern. I know that the Ministry of Defence and the Minister of Transport are keen to do something about that. Is my hon. Friend the Minister able to say anything about any delays that there may be in the Department of the Environment or anywhere else, and what pressure he is exerting to resolve the problem?
  I have been asked by the Society of British Aerospace Companies to ask what is happening at Farnborough. Have the problems over the enclave been resolved? Has the society been able to see plans on the division in Farnborough? What is the future of this great air show, the window that we provide as the best possible demonstration of the virtues of the British aerospace industry, of those who participate in and produce goods for it and of those who sell for it? It is crucial that Farnborough develops and that any difficulties between the MOD and the SBAC on the future of Farnborough are resolved to everyone's satisfaction.
  I have spoken for too long as usual, but my plea is that I only ever speak in this debate and therefore try to concentrate on it. There is an enormous amount of good news in the aerospace and aviation industries, and the RAF is often the beneficiary of it. A remarkable amount has been done with defence sales, as I said in an intervention, with the exports that the aerospace industry has provided and the quality of work done by RAF pilots and aircrew the length and breadth of the world in a variety of environments. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister and ask him to pass those congratulations on to the RAF for the work that it does, coupled with the enormous regard and respect that we have for the aerospace industry, its engines, airframes and equipment. We have done pretty well so far. Keep it up.
  6.59 pm
  Mr. Bruce George: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins). He asked about 25 questions and if the Minister sought to answer half of them we should need an extension of the debate until midnight. The hon. Gentleman kindly suggested how the Defence Committee should organise its itinerary for some time into the future. The Committee already has so many subjects that require consideration, so many films to watch and so many procurement foul-ups to analyse that the hon. Gentleman should perhaps advise us on how long we should take on those studies. Parliament might need to be extended until at least 1992 before the Committee could consider half the subjects that it wished to investigate. It is a shame that the hon. Gentleman is not a member of the Committee and that he cannot indulge his enthusiasm among hon. Members with similar interests.
  I shall ask not so many questions as the hon. Member for South Ribble, but I wish to consider three problem areas. The first concerns the vexing, continuing, but not fatal, problems affecting NATO. The second, which relates to the first, is the growing divergence not only between the American element of the Alliance and the European element but between those who see themselves as democratic Socialists and those who see themselves as Liberals or Conservatives. Unless both sets of problems are resolved, there will not be a real compromise and the aspirations of those who view NATO in apocalyptic terms may be realised. It is in the interests of all hon. Members that those differences are resolved.
  Transatlantic frictions have been with us since NATO's origins. It is often forgotten that the impetus for setting up NATO came from Socialist parties in Europe, led by such people are Ernest Bevin and Spaak. For many years, the Socialist parties in NATO countries have helped to sustain the Alliance. It is therefore imperative that the differences which have emerged in recent years should somehow be sorted out.
  Discussions on the current validity, future directions and strategy of NATO are taking place at a time when there are signs that the transatlantic differences over a range of security and foreign policy issues are becoming wider. Those criticisms do not emanate simply from the Left. Many people in the United States and in the Rightwing and centre parties in NATO are expressing some reservations about NATO's directions.
  I shall mention only a few of the transatlantic differences. There are differences over economics, trade, arms control, nuclear weapons and nuclear strategy, chemical weapons and neutron bombs, about foreign policy, for instance, on central America about the response to terrorism—for instance, the American bombing of Libya—and about out-of-area activity, burden sharing and decision making. One could spend a long time enumerating the many other differences besetting our Alliance. One author recently epitomised these differences when he said:
  "In recent years, an air of crisis has hung heavy across the Atlantic. Americans have accused Europeans of harbouring anti-American thoughts and of risking self-Finlandization. Europeans have countered with charges that the US has turned into an irrational ally with a fascination for military power whose follies could drive Europe into an unnecessary and devastating war."

  1081
  The differences are expressed by many sources and many political parties. If they are not addressed and contained, the Alliance will face fragmentation.
  I belong to that group of people—as, I hope, do the majority in the Labour party—who believe that the future security of this nation, Europe and America is bound up in a continuation and strengthening of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. It has served this country and many democratic nations well and I hope that it will continue to do so for many years.
  In recent years, Socialist parties have emerged which were in the van of setting up NATO and which helped to sustain it. Nevertheless, perceptions have diverged. New policies have not burst forth or come from a vacuum. Indeed, for a number of years, Socialist parties have been questioning NATO strategy in many different forums that have emerged. Their policies can almost be seen as alternative or Social Democratic security policies. These emerging parties include Socialist International, Scandilux and Eurosud. It is important to point out that, although all these parties—that of the Danes, the SPD in Germany and the British Labour party—are critical of NATO, they begin their policy documents by reiterating their parties' support for the continuation of a north Atlantic Alliance.
  The people who advocate those policies—I view them from an objective, even dispassionate, perspective—are only one side in the argument. One can look at the other and see those who believe that NATO's current security policies exacerbates the threat to the Alliance. They propose policies which some people view with considerable anxiety. American initiatives such as SDI, opposition to nuclear-free and chemical-free zones and concepts such as deep strike are encountering criticism. Unless there is some compromise in NATO and other forums, the future of the Alliance is a worrying issue.
  An acid test of the efficacy of the alternative policies might be the West German elections in the near future. The SPD, which is similar to the Labour party, is pursuing policies similar to those of the Labour party, although it appears to be less unilateralist than the Labour party. The German electorate's verdict on a range of SPD policies, including security, will be interesting. It might give some pointers to the British Labour party on the future direction of electoral opinion in this country.
  My third point has had some publicity this week. Rumours have been circulating for some time that Britain is reviewing its commitment to NATO in Denmark and Schleswig-Holstein in the form of the United Kingdom mobile force. Some people might say that Denmark is a faraway country in which we have little interest. Some might ask, "Why should we worry about stationing troops in Denmark?" One must obviously add that, in terms of the military balance, Denmark occupies a strategic position of critical importance to NATO's future. We spend a great deal of time looking at the central region and perhaps less time than we should looking at the northern and southern flanks. In view of Soviet military strategy, the flanks are in many ways indistinguishable. British forces in the central region could be outflanked via Denmark and the Baltic, so the northern and central regions must be seen as inextricably entangled.
  Denmark may be a minor military power but it is of overwhelming geo-strategic importance. British forces committed to that country in time of tension or war are
  1082
  vital to our security. What are our commitments to Denmark? Paragraph 432 of the statement on the 1986 Defence Estimate states:
  "The United Kingdom Mobile Force (1 Infantry Brigade and logistic support) is earmarked for deployment in tension or war to the Allied Forces Baltic Approaches, where it would reinforce either Denmark or Schleswig-Holstein. The RAF's recently strengthened Air Transport Force could be available to assist with the deployment of reinforcement forces."
  Obviously, in any crisis the Royal Air Force would have a major role operating above and around the Baltic approaches. Therefore, as a previous Secretary of State for Defence said when he admonished the Danes a couple of years ago, some 20,000 young British men may be putting their lives at risk for the security of Denmark. Therefore, we have a great interest in what that country does, just as it has in what we do.
  If there is any truth in the strong rumours circulating that the Government, to match commitments and resources, seek to curtail, withdraw and cut the United Kingdom mobile force, hon. Members on both sides of the House should resist that strongly because it is not subordinate or superflous to our interests. What happens to our security in the Baltic approaches is as important to our defence as what happens on mainland Britain. I have put a number of formal parliamentary questions to the Minister for written answer. I should like a reassurance, following the words of the Under-Secretary of State last week, that there are no plans to revise that policy. I hope that that statement will prove to be correct.
  Many people, not least in Denmark, are obviously worried about this and it is important that that reassurance is given. If it is not given, the Government must be prepared to accept a great deal of criticism, and rightly so. This is not a debate on the Danish White Paper, but if one looks at the vulnerability of NATO in that area and the volume of Soviet and Warsaw pact forces that may be directed against Denmark, the timely arrival of 20,000 British forces would be absolutely essential. Denmark is a small country. Despite its home guard and small forces it could not sustain a defence effort for any time without the timely arrival—indeed, the arrival before a conflict starts—of the British and the Americans. Unless we arrived in time, that country would be lost and Britain's strategic vulnerability would be adversely affected.
  We should consider what the Soviet armed forces have. The Baltic fleet consists of 24 amphibious warfare vessels and 100 amphibious assault craft. It also has 135 tactical strike aircraft such as Backfire, Badger, Blinder, Fitter and Forger. These could be joined by a possible 200 aircraft from the Soviet air force. Many other forces are available to Warsaw pact countries. Indeed, from reading literature emanating from the Soviet Union it is obvious that it appreciates the importance of Denmark for British forces and for NATO. The Soviet Union fully realises that, if it could acquire Denmark in time of conflict, it would win game, set and match.
  What is Denmark's alternative defence view? Seeking some aid and comfort, I have read the bible—the alternative defence prospective, or defence without the bomb. That is the report of the alternative defence commission. On page 124 it states:
  "The Soviet Union could either adopt two approaches to a full-scale attack on western Europe. The first is one which does not figure largely in present NATO planning but which appears in principle plausible. The Soviet forces would attack the relatively vulnerable Norway and Denmark first, go on to Britain and only then concentrate on central Europe. In that

  1083
  case Britain could mount a military resistance in the hope of eventual victory and, even if overrun by Soviet forces, could still harry them by partisan tactics and sabotage."
  Although many people may question the concept of deterrence, I should like to see an alternative concept to deterrence put rather more formidably that it has been in recent years before I am prepared to abandon the concept of deterrence as the only means of protecting this country and the rest of the Alliance.
  Mr. D. E. Thomas: The hon. Gentleman referred to a report of which I was one of the signatories. Will he explain the political context in which he envisages the Soviet Union invading Denmark?
  Mr. George: The hon. Gentleman may look at a whole variety of scenarios. I am not saying that a conventional conflict is imminent, because if NATO is strong there will be no conflict. When one considers the vulnerability of NATO, the growing sophistication and numbers of Soviet and Warsaw pact forces, and some allies who are decidedly vulnerable on their own, if the hon. Gentleman thinks that a defence policy can be devised simply on the basis of hoping that the Soviet Union will never have any aspirations to expand, he is naive beyond words. I do not belong to the gang or group who would argue that somehow we must challenge the Soviet Union, but I should want our defences to be viable and reasonable, so that if there were a likelihood of conflict, any adversary would be neutralised.
  Mr. Thomas: That is no answer.
  Mr. George: There are several scenarios. If the hon. Gentleman cares to discuss this in more detail, I shall be only too willing to do so.
  Mr. Frank Cook: Will my hon. Friend cast his mind back to the point that he made about a possible Soviet strike across the Norwegian border? If we needed to resist that possibility, would it not be better for the Norwegians to take the electricity that lights that frontier from their own sources rather than from the Soviet Union, or is the Soviet Union such a great threat in those circumstances?
  Mr. George: I do not think that denying the Soviets electricity will slow them down especially. If we are to devise a defence strategy, some aspects of the alternative defence approach should be considered carefully. Increasing the lines on reserve is important, but several of the strategies that one reads about—not just in Britain but elsewhere—must be ancillary to a conventional strategy of deterrence and not a substitute for them.
  From the literature, one gains the impression that guerrilla warfare and fighting in the streets is seen as a substitute. There is certainly a history of resistance to aggressors in the part of the country from which the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Thomas) comes, but in other parts of Britain there is certainly no Yugoslav partisan tradition. As someone once said, "All that would slow down the Soviets if they reached England would be the contraflow system on the motorway."
  Defence policy must be proper, balanced and conventional. The majority of Labour Members would argue that we do not need to shelter behind the American nuclear umbrella. Nevertheless, until it is proved to me that Britain would be safe without NATO, I shall rest on
  1084
  the past attitude of the Labour party since 1949, which has been a balance between NATO and its array of weapons and a major contribution to NATO's conventional defence.
  In conclusion, we are entering upon a period in which the defence debate will enter the minds of politicians and the public. In some ways an electoral atmosphere distorts things and causes more problems. Undoubtedly, all parties are in difficulties with their defence policies: the Government simply cannot match their commitments and their resources; the Labour party, according to opinion poll data, does not have the overwhelming support of the electorate for many of its proposals; and as for the alliance, I am not quite sure what its policies are. Whatever happens in the election, it is important to reaffirm our commitment to NATO until such time as the Alliance can be disbanded. I repeat, as chairman of the political committee of the North Atlantic assembly and as one whose commitment to NATO is high, that I have no sense of shame whatever in wanting to see NATO survive until such time as Britain's security is at such a level that alliances could perhaps fade away, but that will not be in the near future.
  Mr. McNamara: I congratulate my hon. Friend on explaining so emphatically to the House the basic principles of the Labour party's defence policy.
  Mr. George: I am delighted that my hon. Friend finds my views so akin to his own.
  I hope that the distortion of an electoral campaign will not blind the public and the parties to the essential problems besetting the United Kingdom and its allies. Unless it is possible to reconcile those differences, and unless concessions are made both by those on the Socialist wing and by the United States and those who share its perception of security, the Alliance will face a crisis far deeper and more dangerous than it has experienced at any time since 1949.
  7.19 pm
  Mr. Bill Walker: First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) on the courage, interest and honesty that he has shown in defence matters.
  Mr. George: In the light of the last speech that I made and the consequences of receiving the plaudits after it, will the hon. Gentleman be so kind as to straighten the record and say how much he disagrees with much of what I have said?
  Mr. Walker: I was touching on the hon. Gentleman's honesty and integrity, which does not necessarily mean that I was agreeing with him. One must never think that simply because I say that someone has integrity and is honest that I necessarily agree with him. Obviously, there will be disagreements in matters as complex as these. Indeed, I do not always agree with my hon. Friends. We have a responsibility and duty to the nation to be honest in these matters and if we cannot be honest in defence debates, when can be honest?
  I wish to remind the House that I have an interest to declare. A few days ago the RAF advised me that it was extending my commission to my 60th birthday, so perhaps I shall continue to make that declaration for some time.
  I congratulate the Government on selecting an airborne early warning system which works. More than anything,

  1085
  the RAF wanted a system which worked. The system will provide the eyes for our air defence. However, I cannot say that I am 100 per cent. satisfied with it, because I am not. None of the systems would do the job as we hoped, but of the systems available now, we have undoubtedly chosen the best.
  My hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins) touched on the problem of the NATO identification of friend or foe system. It is important that that is dealt with soon. It is interesting to talk about the difficulties that are being faced in all our high technology areas as we seek to reach parameters of the achievable in an attempt to operate equipment and systems—for example the difficulties with the Foxhunter radar. The Tornado is a fine aircraft, but if we cannot get the radar to function, it will not be the fine aircraft that the crew require.
  Hon. Members with any knowledge of aircraft know that most of the unserviceability that occurs in operational fighting conditions is not with the aeroplane or the engine, but with the gubbins—the stuff that is put in. Inevitably, we have found the radar, radio and electronics to be faulty at some time. One can live with some faults, but not with others.
  I am worried that we hear so much today, especially from the Labour Front Bench, about how conventional forces will provide a deterrent to the Soviets. I remind them that there is not a single area of modern high technology where we have not had some difficulties. We seem to be growing ever more dependent on complicated radar and communications equipment and the more we depend on them, the more vulnerable we shall be if the equipment is in any way suspect. As yet, there is no known viable alternative to the nuclear deterrent capability. I have yet to meet an air marshal who is opposed to Britain having a nuclear deterrent capability and who says, "We should not have Trident." The RAF recognises that Trident is an essential part of our deterrent capability.
  We must look carefully at the next generation of aircraft. I was delighted to see an experimental aircraft flying at Farnborough. I am sorry that there appear to be short-term difficulties and that the aircraft is not being used as extensively as we would wish. I remind my hon. Friends on the Front Bench that it is not only the Harrier GR5 which must survive over the battlefield day and night, but, more important, the European fighter aircraft, which is to be the air superiority aircraft—the first since the Hunter—which must fly and survive in battlefield conditions. It is important that we get the right aircraft and equipment on time. I also remind my hon. Friends that the F16, the world's most formidable air superiority aircraft, began life as a demonstrator. Therefore, I hope that that is sufficient incentive to get our demonstrator aircraft back into the air.
  At the beginning of the debate, mention was made of the role of helicopters in rescue squadrons. I add my congratulations to those rescue squadrons to whom we also owe a great debt. They regularly fly in the hills in my constituency to remove unfortunate people who have got into difficulties on the mountains, especially in ski areas. They do a splendid job and we must never take it for granted.
  Although it is important to have a viable, working relationship on the battlefield with helicopters it is not easy to marry the needs of Army helicopter pilots with the needs of RAF helicopter pilots. RAF helicopter pilots
  1086
  must do more than fly into a battlefield. That is why their training is longer and more expensive. Therefore, in considering the use of helicopters, we must not forget that the most important ingredient in the helicopter is the chap who flies it. We must make certain that we do not undervalue him and I am sure that the RAF will not do so. If there were a merger, someone might think that an RAF pilot would get by with the Army's less expensive training programme, but I would caution against that.
  I agree with what was said earlier about the problem of replacement helicopters. I should like to see a decision soon on the future of replacement battlefield helicopters. I should also like soon to see the auxiliary helicopter squadrons that I was promised some time ago. I am still waiting for them and hope that they are not far away.
  Most hon. Members who live in rural constituencies will from time to time receive complaints about low-flying aircraft. I should like to place on record my views which I regularly give to constituents who complain. Indeed, my wife is convinced that the RAF uses our house as a turning point. It is essential that we continue to train our pilots to the high standards necessary to survive in modern conditions. We cannot do that without training them continually in low flying. If they are to avoid detection and being shot down, they must be able to fly fast and low.
  I remind the House that people selected for this kind of task must have ability and what is called an aptitude to fly, but the most important single ingredient is motivation—a love to fly. There is no way in which one can have a fast-jet pilot constantly on duty who does not love flying because, quite frankly, he would be totally unsuitable and, for a variety of reasons, a danger to himself and everyone else. We must try, as early as we can, to instil in young people a love of flying. I shall give my further suggestions on how to do that later on.
  I am pleased that the auxiliary missile squadrons, which do a splendid job, have expanded recruitment and that that is going well. Those of us who remember the days of RAF Transport Command are pleased to note that, at long last, we have developed this capability and ability to deploy overseas. I congratulate all those who were involved in the recent exercise in the Arabian gulf. Having served in that region as a young man, I know that it is not a part of the world that I would recommend for a vaacation. However, it is an important area for the defence of the United Kingdom's oil interests and we have to make sure that we can get a force out there to do a job in a short time. The deployment exercise made those who are interested in this aspect of operations very happy. We were delighted at the use of the TriStar tankers and how well they operated.
  I have been interested in some of the observations by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) with regard to a non-nuclear capability. I have one question. How do the Nimrod aircraft, acting in their anti-submarine role, sink a deep-running Soviet submarine, once located, in the absence of nuclear depth charges? I want to know how those submarines will be sunk if we are relying on a non-nuclear capability. If the Opposition can answer they will be on the way to convincing me that somehow they can look after our maritime interests effectively. As yet, I have not had an answer from the Opposition—I do not believe that they know the answer.
  I was pleased to hear my hon. Friend the Minister advise the House of the use of reserve officers on the

  1087
  VC10s and the use of reserve QFIs at the university air squadrons. Those units should be encouraged and I have pleaded for that for years.
  Perhaps Ministers will be able to give some details of aircrew and pilot training and how the Tucano, which was rolled out last week, has progressed. Are the Government satisfied that they can maintain the Jet Provost fleet at an operational level and an acceptable cost? If there are any exceptional costs, will these be charged to Shorts? The requirement, as I remember, is that they should deliver on time.
  How is the programme going for the Chipmunk refurbishing? If we are to consider a replacement aircraft for the Chipmunk, it must be an aircraft that can excite, and be enjoyed by, not only the cadets who must fly it but also the volunteer pilots. The Chipmunk is unique. It has a tail down. It was designed in 1948 and it is reminiscent of the aeroplanes that I knew in my younger days. The people who fly the Chipmunk love it. If another aeroplane is put in its place, please let it have the attractions of the Chipmunk.
  An important area to consider, and one of importance to me, is that of air cadet studies. I am very pleased at the interest that the Front Bench has shown in this and I would also like to include in my thanks previous Ministers at the Ministry of Defence for their interest. May I also take this opportunity to place on record the thanks of the Air Cadet Organisation to Air Marshal Sir John Sutton, C-in-C of Support Command and the support of Air Vice Marshal Don Spottiswood of Support Command. They have taken a keen day-to-day interest in the affairs of the cadets. It is marvellous that senior officers are interested in the young men who are the future Royal Air Force. Thanks should also be given the staff at the headquarters of Air Cadets RAF Newtown and thanks for the continuing interest of the staff of the Central Gliding School at RAF Syerstom and also the volunteer officers of the air experience flights, the volunteer officers of the volunteer gliding schools and the volunteer officers of the squadrons.
  In the debate on 1 July last year I raised some specific questions. Although I do not expect the Minister to answer those questions this evening—I understand, in the time available, that would be unlikely—but I should be grateful if the Department could give me some information soon.
  I wonder if the Minister has been advised of the situation at 661 Volunteer Gliding School which is based at Kirknewton? The United States air force plans to take over that base. We welcome the United States forces and it is my experience that when a volunteer gliding school has operated from a United States air base, the United States has always been a good host. At that base there is a need for Falklands-type hangars to house the gliders. At present, portakabins are having to be used and it is difficult to maintain morale when gliders have to be kept in trailers. There is also no accommodation for the staff; they are doing their best in what might be called a "current category" situation but it is extremely difficult.
  I also wish to know what is happening with 641 Volunteer Gliding School—I raised this matter in our last debate in the House—concerning the possible use of a former RAF base at Anston, which is now an Army base. The aircraft flying from that base could use the radio to
  1088
  satisfy Newcastle airport for air control purposes. Modern sailplanes are well equipped and can be controlled just like any other aircraft. That would be a viable way of activating that unit. There is some doubt about the security of tenure at the Volunteer Gliding School at West Mailing. Perhaps the Minister will encourage the local authority to give the Air Force a lease longer than twelve months.
  What is the situation with regard to Land Rover replacements and winches? There is no doubt that the present winches are not good enough for launching modern sailplanes which are too heavy for the winch. This is a particular problem when there is a light wind. What has happened about my previous plea for a few more self-launching gliders? Unlike conventional gliders, the self-launching glider can operate off the runway. I suggest the Grobb 109, which is a less expensive aircraft but could do the job.
  What has happened about the advanced gliding site, on which a decision was reached some time ago, and what should happen about the second gliding centre, a decision which was also agreed? We should make use of air experienced pilots who have previously qualified on different aircraft such as the Hercules, the VC10 and other transport and communication aircraft. It would be a viable proposition that those who fly the Chipmunks—some senior ex-RAF officers—should be encouraged to do two or three-week courses so as to renew their flying knowledge of those aircraft for which they previously held a licence.
  I said that I would return to the Volunteer Reserve officers who man the air experience flight, the volunteer gliding schools and the squadrons. I remind the House that these gentlemen get no pay. The only time that they are paid is when they attend full-time courses. They give all their time voluntarily and unpaid. Many have given 20 or 30 years' service. Indeed, some are now up to 40 years' service. They attend units, often for every weekend of the year. How many hon. Members know people who give almost every weekend of their life to something other than golf?
  I ask the House to give this matter deep consideration because 20 or 40 years of attending volunteer weekend gliding schools and air experience flights, and possibly three evenings a week for the squadrons, is a great deal of work. Is it not time that we reviewed the way in which we award honours to this unique group of people?
  My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces will find that less than a handful of honours are awarded to this group of people each year. Somebody can serve 30 years voluntarily, giving up every flyable weekend, and receive no more recognition than a "thank you" letter. Ought we not seriously to consider rewarding these people in the honours system? Many people receive honours or awards for their everyday job. That is true of the Services. Should we not give more to volunteers? I am not suggesting that we take anything away from anybody, but that volunteers should get a bit more.
  I hope that I have not kept the House too long, but these are important matters. I am the only hon. Member who speaks up for this group of people in the House and I hope that the House will bear with me when I make their case. I should like to thank my hon. Friends on the Front Bench—the way in which they look after our cadets is appreciated.
  7.41 pm
  Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones: This may be a sad occasion for me, as it might be the last time that I take part in a debate on the Royal Air Force—it all depends on when the Prime Minister decides to call the general election.
  I have always enjoyed these debates. It is fascinating to reflect on the fact that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I are the only Members in the Chamber who served in the 1939–45 war. In the 22 years that I have been here, there have frequently been substantial numbers of hon. Members facing me who also served in that war.
  I draw the Minister's attention to the fact that the hon. Members for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins), for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) and for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) made speeches from which he will draw little comfort, because they told him what is not available in the RAF. I sometimes think that if Back Benchers who are involved in aviation and RAF matters were heeded, we would have a better equipped Air Force.
  This also happens to be the anniversary of the Save-the-Baby campaign, in which I have been involved. In the recent extremely bad weather, great rescue services have been provided by the Armed Forces using helicopters. Today, I tabled a massive number of questions in connection with that campaign concerning perinatal death and disability. Could the RAF help one stage further by providing facilities for pregnant women who are at risk? The RAF might get them into appropriate units early. The job would be well worth while—it would prevent handicap and form a useful training exercise for the RAF. [Interruption.]
  Mr. John McWilliam: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am having great difficulty hearing my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) because of the conversation that is going on on the Front Bench below the Gangway.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I hope that if hon. Members wish to conduct a conversation, they will do so outside the Chamber.
  Mr. Carter-Jones: I assure you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that they were not troubling me. They would not have stopped me speaking.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hogg): I am very sorry.
  Mr. Carter-Jones: The Minister took great credit for the new European fighter aircraft, but the battle for the aircraft was fought on the Back Benches on both sides of the House. The Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces ought to be told of the services rendered by Back Benchers who persuaded the Government that the aircraft was essential. The right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) and the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan), who were Secretary of State for Defence and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry respectively at the time, will bear that out.
  While we were bringing pressure to bear on the Ministry, we were worried about slippage in time, as we were about late ordering. If we wanted to have an agile fighter for, say, 1993, that opportunity has gone. The right hon. Member for Henley eventually decided to go it alone with the Germans and the Italians. The Spanish joined us later. That was as much a Back-Bench effort as one made
  1090
  by the Secretary of State for Defence. There has been tremendous collaboration across the Chamber on RAF matters.
  Mr. Bill Walker: We will miss the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Carter-Jones: Thank you.
  We are anxious that the hon. Member for South Ribble can express anxieties about the EFA slipping further away. My little homily has changed a little from my early days in the RAF, but there are three parts of an aircraft nowadays—the power plant, the airframe and the avionics. If we supported our aircraft industry strongly enough, our technology base would be that much stronger. Unfortunately, that is not always understood by the procurement department of the Ministry of Defence. It causes me more worries than our potential enemies. I sometimes wonder whether it is our friend.
  We have experienced anxieties about the on-costs of Nimrod. I support the idea of fixed-price contracts, but we should not be too rigid, as technology in this area tends to progress rapidly. If we stick too rigidly to a fixed-price contract, we will miss opportunities to enhance the quality of the aircraft being built.
  Perhaps the Minister will take a message back to the Ministry. It is that Mr. Levene may be doing a good job in terms of achieving competition, and he may be trying to eliminate the cost-plus principle, but he ought not to be too rigid or we might find that good developments, which ought to be incorporated, are left out. We have to guard strongly against that.
  We have several worries about the EFA. People are hedging their bets. The Germans are not quite so keen and do not have the correct sense of urgency. If we have 1995 in mind as the date when the EFA will be brought into service, we are in danger of losing that target. It is then suggested that we can refurbish Phantom. That seems to be the solution which the Germans have in mind. There is grave danger in that, but it is the sort of thing that happens here. Certain decisions are influenced by things called general elections. It is a funny old world, but that happens all over the place.
  As I have said before—this may be the last time I say it in an RAF debate—the Department is heavy on reviews. We have had more than enough of reviews but we have not had the aircraft. We have not had the engines, because decisions are deferred again and again. A distinct slippage is appearing in the European fighter programme. British Aerospace is doing a good job and I am convinced that it is ready and willing to continue. We also have a proven engine for the aircraft, the one that powers the Tornado, the RB199. Initially that would be a very good engine for the launch of the EFA. Coming up in the background we have the EJ200, which will be the European jet engine for the EFA.
  I must give a warning. I hope that I am not too pro-British about all this, but I am getting worried about people pushing forward American engines, American airframes and American concepts. Unless we are careful, we will find that other nations say that they want a General Electric engine in the EFA.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: The hon. Gentleman knows that I share entirely his patriotic view of the importance of buying British. However, does he not agree that we have a substantial two-way street between ourselves and the United States, and that even a former Labour Secretary of

  1091
  State for Defence, Fred Mulley, said that it was not always possible to buy British. Whilst we must be patriotic about these matters, does not the hon. Gentleman agree that it is a valuable two-way street and that a vast amount of British equipment—for example, the Hawk, the Harrier and other weaponry—goes to the other side of the Atlantic?
  Mr. Carter-Jones: The hon. Member is wise to remind me of that. He is right, of course. All I am saying is that where we have the appropriate supplies available for manufacture in this country, they should be bought in this country. I have not gone for any alternatives. I have stuck with the view that there is available a superb British engine and its derivative. I accept that this is also the case with the airframe. We talk ourselves down far too much. I reiterate the request of the hon. Member for South Ribble that this project is not allowed to slip. I understand that tomorrow there has to be a submission for the new engine.
  I have mentioned the ordering policy. I ask the Minister to bring to the notice of his Department the concern expressed by several of his hon. Friends about the way in which procurement proceeds. It is always tomorrow, never today. Lots of things are not ordered for reasons not always of defence. Perhaps the hand of the Treasury comes in. But the Secretary of State, not the Treasury, is responsible for defence.
  On the Tucano, people say over and over again that the Royal Air Force must have the choice to buy what it wants. People say that when it is convenient. It was said, for example, when it applied to Nimrod. But it did not apply to Tucano. I am not saying that the Tucano decision was incorrect but it was not the choice of the Royal Air Force. There has been massive slippage. If the Minister were prepared to say, "We have a problem in Northern Ireland and there is a regional need to supply some economic support," I would accept that argument. I think he will find that on cost and on delivery time the Tucano will come late and more expensive than the Pilatus.
  The Minister will have a chance to give us details. I ask him not to hide behind security. There are some questions I want to ask. What is the continuing operating cost of the Jet Provost? That question was raised first in the debate on the Conservative side. The Minister should tell the House about the recent subsidy of £36 million to Shorts. Was that for the Tucano? Quite a few replies should be given before the Minister shakes his head. Many people would like to know the answers.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) developed the theme of Pilatus. If it is a case of regional help, the Department should bear in mind the fact that Hull and Humberside are as much in need of regional help as other places.
  On the controversial issue, if low-level fast aircraft coming into this country constitute a danger, they are a danger now. The Government decided to buy AWACS. The first one will be delivered in 1991 and the others will come in succeeding years.
  Mr. Frank Cook: Maybe.
  Mr. Carter-Jones: As my hon. Friend says, maybe. In any case, there are doubts about whether sufficient have been ordered. Again I come back to procurement. I believe
  1092
  that the Nimrod debate was the least informed debate that I have ever attended in the House. The open contract with GEC was a mistake.
  I accept that GEC did not perform all that well, but the trouble with the Department responsible for defence procurement is that it does not know when it has won. The Department made up its mind earlier and, as with the fixed-wing aircraft, it could not change. It stuck with its previous decision. However, the improvements which took place in the avionics of Nimrod within the last six months were dramatic. At that rate of progress, it would have been an extremely successful aircraft. If we have no defence at present by way of an early warning system, I am sure that two or three Nimrods, fitted with early warning systems, could provide at least some defence.
  The disadvantage of clutter was referred to in that debate, but the clutter was in the arguments that were put forward in the House. People's minds were cluttered and they believed that the procurement section of the Ministry of Defence knew best. Some quite insulting observations were made. I find it strange that people should say that highly skilled Royal Air Force radar navigators are unable to distinguish between a moving target and a lorry. I have never heard so much balderdash in my life. They were comparing something moving at 60 mph with something at mach 2. Any skilled operator could detect the difference. Even I, at 66, with bifocals and glaucoma in my right eye, could spot the difference. GEC is owed an explanation. Just in case somebody feels that because I am throwing around names, I point out that I have no commercial interest in any company in this country.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: Shame.
  Mr. Carter-Jones: It may be a shame, but I am proud of it. It allows me to say what I want.
  The Royal Air Force was not well served on this occasion. I am proud of some of our technical achievements in this sector. It would have been a good launch pad for our new technology in the wider civilian world. We tend to be making false decisions.
  The helicopter story is even more disastrous than the Nimrod story. Years ago, Back Benchers on both sides of the House went to see the Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement warning him of Westland's cash flow problems. We thought we were warning him. At least we cleared our consciences and told him. I am convinced that he knew already. That company was cruelly deceived. I repeat what I have said before. There was a tremendous row. No. 10 was seething and when the dust had died, two Secretaries of State had departed. However, there are fewer helicopters now than when the row had first started, but the demand and need for helicopters is always there.
  How do I end what will probably be my last debate on the Royal Air Force? We should have faith in it. If we spend money training the aircrew, we should give them the best. Do not let some pen pusher in the Treasury make the decision. Do not start having further assessments of the situation. We know the needs. They are loud and clear.
  Mr. Bill Walker: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, in every instance where the Royal Air Force has been required to purchase a political aeroplane, it has always turned out to be a flop and has had to be replaced expensively later on?
  Mr. Carter-Jones: I shall not be tempted down that path because my knowledge is not good enough, but I have

  1093
  a suspicion that the hon. Gentleman may be right. The Ministry of Defence is the trustee of the nation's security. If it trains the staff, it should make sure that they have the appropriate equipment at the appropriate time.
  8.2 pm
  Mr. Michael Stern: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) in these debates, not least because he usually manages to cover at least half the points that I intended to cover and enables me to speak more briefly. Like my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins) I shall concentrate largely on procurement issues. Therefore, I apologise to the House for the fact that I shall be adding to the library of acronyms that have been used so far.
  My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement rightly referred to the Harrier GR5 as one of the more exciting technological prospects open to us as a nation. However, it is not just the aircraft that is in the forefront of technology. A number of aspects of the development of the aircraft and the equipment that will go on it are themselves keeping British technology at the sharp end of where aerospace technology is going.
  In particular, I am thinking of the Pegasus 11–16 engine, which was successfully tested last year and is expected to be available in a production prototype in 1990, which has been proposed to the United States Secretary of Defence and on which a reply is expected shortly. I should be grateful for any pressure that the Government can bring to bear to ensure that this latest state of the art engine will be used, not just in the GR5, but for further developments in the Harrier.
  In equipment terms, and again looking both at the Harrier GR5 and the Tornado, I should like to draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister to the development of TERPROM, the British Aerospace terrain reference navigation system, which has been successfully demonstrated on both the F16 and the Tornado. It has huge export potential, especially in the United States of America and other NATO nations. It would be suitable for the Tornado and GR5, and again is British technology at its best. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will look closely at this project, particularly as I understand that it could be ready for demonstration on the Tornado in the current year.
  My hon. Friend the Minister was warned that the flavour of the night in the speeches of some of my hon. Friends is advanced short take-off or vertical landing aircraft. I do not wish to repeat the comments already made by my hon. Friends the Members for South Ribble and for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth). However, many Conservative Members are anxious at what appear to be developing—delays and possible lack of interest. We look forward to the most positive reassurance that my hon. Friend can give.
  The project that has occupied much of the debate is the European fighter aircraft and its engine. My hon. Friend the Minister will not be surprised to learn that I wish to push him fairly hard tonight on the engine for the European fighter aircraft, both in its preliminary version and in its eventual version, because I hope that both engines will largely be built at Rolls-Royce in my constituency. Few people in this country believe that the logical choice for the initial engine for the EFA can be
  1094
  anything but the RB199. It is a proven engine with 500,000 flying hours. By the time of the first flight of the EFA prototype it will have notched up 1·5 million flying hours.
  When the experimental aircraft project was flying, the RB199 was performing to specification within that project. I thought when I visited Farnborough last year that the sympathies of the audience went out to the manufacturers of the French plane, the Rafale, which, unfortunately, on the day that it was being shown against the experimental aircraft programme did not perform to specification. These things happen, and I am sure that we do not wish to make too much of it. In its existing version, the RB199 is European high technology which represents European employment and competitiveness. Its likely development into the EJ200 will continue to keep us at the forefront of technology.
  Work has already started at Rolls-Royce on the development of the EJ200 and I know from speaking to the work force there that they have the highest hopes for this engine. They believe that this engine, with Rolls-Royce's reputation and the technical specification that has been agreed, promises to be a world beater. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will apply all the pressure that he can to ensure that the RB199 is given a fair crack of the whip, subject to satisfactory quotes for the initial engine—I understand that the quote from Turbo-Union is highly competitive—and that we can proceed as soon as possible with the EJ200 engine.
  So far, this debate has been relatively friendly. Therefore, I apologise for now wishing to introduce a note of controversy. I am particularly sorry that, having been in his place for most of the debate, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) is no longer in his place, not least because I wrote to him at the end of last week and advised him that I intended to raise the subject of a speech that he made in my constituency and attack him about it. I am sorry that he is not here to take the opportunity to respond.
  On 10 December last the hon. Gentleman made a speech in Bristol—I am not quite sure where because, unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman did not let me know that he was going to Bristol or to what part of Bristol he was going. From a newspaper report, I understand that he visited Rolls-Royce in my constituency. The newspaper report states:
  "The European fighter aircraft, on which thousands of Rolls-Royce jobs may depend, will almost certainly be cancelled by the Conservatives to help pay for Trident".
  This subject was raised in a debate in the House on 12 December. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North was repeatedly challenged to state the basis for his wild statement to people whose jobs depended on the subject about which he was speaking. The only basis that the hon. Gentleman could find was that no contract had yet been placed for EFA, hut, as my hon. Friend the Minister pointed out to him in the same debate:
  "We are committed to playing our full part in the…project…It is self-evident that we cannot order the European fighter now because there is no aircraft to order".—[Official Report, 12 December 1986; Vol. 107, c. 725.]
  That was the last that we heard on the subject. I accept that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North may have made a genuine mistake or may have been desperate for something to say about Labour's defence policy that would not put him under attack, and chose to instil totally unnecessary fear and panic in my constituents and those of other hon. Members in surrounding constituencies.

  1095
  They believe that the RB199, the EJ200 and EFA together represent their future employment and security. They were told by a Front Bench spokesman for the Labour party that that security was under threat. It may simply have been desperation on the part of the hon. Gentleman, but I suspect that it was more than that. That was not the first time that EFA had been attacked by the Labour party in Bristol.
  About a year and a half ago, when the EFA negotiations were at their height, Avon county council, which was then controlled by the Labour party, passed a resolution and insisted that copies of it be sent to all Members of Parliament for immediate action. I am delighted to see that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North has returned to his place. In its resolution, Avon county council suggested that, because of potential expenditure on Trident, the British Government were about to withdraw from the EFA negotiations and that as a result a substantial number of jobs at Rolls-Royce would be lost.
  The Avon county council's resolution reached me on the same day as the Government announced that the negotiations had been concluded. Had the Labour party in Avon listened to what was said to it by the company, and by the work force, and had it listened to the sound political advice that it received, it would have realised that the resolution was complete nonsense. However, clearly, the Labour party considered it to be more important to poor-mouth EFA, to create confusion and distress among the employees of Rolls-Royce and to do as much damage as it could. I accept that, in the absence of a positive policy, if the Labour party chooses to attack a flying project, that is up to it, but my suspicions go deeper than that.
  I should like, with your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to draw a parallel from slightly outside the subject of the debate. About two years ago, rumours started to be spread—we know not from where—that in his next Budget the Chancellor was about to announce major changes in the pension taxation policy and, in particular, that he was about to announce that pension lump sums would be taxed and that tax relief on pension contributions would be reduced. The Chancellor was not in a position to deny that charge in the period before the Budget. Many other hon. Members and I received one of the largest post bags ever purely because of the rumours that were spread from we know not where. In due course the Chancellor announced that he would never have done such a thing without a Green Paper,and never would have considered it anyway.
  It is significant that, about a year later, quietly in a speech to the National Association of Pension Funds, a Labour Front Bench spokesman announced that it was official Labour party policy to tax pension lump sums and to reduce the tax relief on pension contributions. That remains the Labour party's policy. My constituents and I fear that this is a pattern: Front-Bench Labour party spokesmen and important Labour party officials announced that the Conservatives will do something extremely damaging. I invite the hon. Gentleman to reply, now that he has returned to his place.
  Is this anything more than a smokescreen to get defence spending down to the targets that Labour Members will set if they come to power? Is this a smokescreen that demonstrates that they intend to cancel EFA? After the
  1096
  hon. Gentleman's speech, my constituents are entitled to an answer to that question, and I invite him to intervene. The hon. Gentleman does not wish to intervene on this subject.
  Mr. McNamara: I shall reply to the hon. Gentleman if I catch Mr. Deputy Speaker's eye.
  Mr. Stern: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. He has created considerable fear among my constituents. In common humanity, he owes them slightly more of an explanation of his unjustifiable comments than he has given so far. I hope that if he suceeds in catching your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he will offer that greater explanation.
  8.18 pm
  Mr. D. E. Thomas: The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) does not require me to defend him from the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern), and I shall not try to do that. I shall not break my self-denying ordnance of not speaking publicly about the internal issues of the Labour party. I do not wish to take up procurement issues. I had not intended to speak about strategic issues, either, which are relevant to debates concerning the RAF, but I have been provoked by the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) and the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker).
  On the strategic issue, there is a tendency for our defence and services debates to be weapons led, to concentrate on military hardware and tactical deployment and not to be related to the broad political and military realities that are part of any rational debate of our defence policy. The speech of the hon. Member for Walsall, South was a particularly fine example of the way in which a whole scenario can be constructed on the basis of complete political unreality. I hope that the hon. Gentleman's speech will not result in a massive evacuation of Copenhagen this evening. The people of Denmark will be able, I believe, to sleep soundly in their beds, in the certain knowledge that there will not be a Soviet invasion. That kind of scenario leads only to more cold warrior approaches. It encourages the cold war attitude, and it leads to a mutual failure to understand and to mutual hostility.
  Our debates on defence issues have to relate not just to procurement but also to arms control. In Royal Air Force debates we recognise that the complexity of modern weapons systems leads to dual capability. The Tornado GR1 and the Buccaneer squadrons that are located in the United Kingdom and Germany are capable of both conventional and nuclear operations. As we look to the ordering of further Tornado squadrons, we see that the immediate air defence of the United Kingdom will inevitably become interconnected with NATO's strategic role. It is very difficult to distinguish between strictly air defence roles and offensive roles.
  In that context, I turn to the environmental impact of our defence policies. My remarks follow on from the speech of the hon. Member for Tayside, North, who unreservedly supports the present low flying military training policy. The Minister will not be surprised to hear that I shall return again to this subject. It is the one about which I receive most complaints, not only from visitors to my constituency but also from residents. I make these

  1097
  complaints not as a criticism of the military options that the training exercises imply. I make them on the basis of the increase in training and also on the basis that other NATO countries, particularly West Germany, apply much tighter rules than we do to low level training. It is ironic that when RAF pilots carry out exercises in Germany they have to operate under much tighter rules than when they are operating over the air space of England, Wales or Scotland.
  Since 1977, there has been a significant increase in the number of low-level flights over the United Kingdom. According to parliamentary answers that I have been given, there were 76,000 movements in 1977, whereas there are now over 130,000 a year. The last full year figures that I have are those for 1983, when there were 128,000 low level flights over the United Kingdom. The increase does not take into account the environmental damage that British pilots cause to the residents of North America. The people at Goose Bay in Canada are affected by military training. The residents of Nevada also suffer from the training exercises of the USAF, which are augmented by British training.
  In 1979, the Labour Government's Minister with responsibility for the Royal Air Force, James Wellbeloved, changed that policy. Instead of there being a number of designated low-flying areas, with link routes mapped out, the whole of the country's land area was made available. We were told that this would ensure that the disturbance was spread more evenly. However, James Wellbeloved also said that the low flying system was
  "too small to meet the demands made upon it."
  We know now that the reason for the change in 1979 was not to spread the load more evenly. It was to ensure that the far greater number of training requirement movements that were necessary could be accommodated.
  We are told that heights and speeds have changed. Before 1977, there was no low flying below 250 ft and at more than 450 knots. New areas were created then, some in central Wales and others in the north-west of Scotland. There was no consultation; the RAF does not require planning permission for these exercises. The legal basis of low flying is being examined; there is no clear definition in law of the Ministry of Defence's responsibility.
  Apart from the designation of those new areas, and also additional areas in Cumbria and Northumberland, there is now low flying at 100 ft and 480 knots. Since 1977 there has been a substantial increase in night low flying, which causes serious concern to many people. It is 10 years now since a tragic crash just over the boundary of my constituency, when USAF airmen were tragically killed and a farmhouse was nearly the subject of a direct hit. That tragic accident occurred during night flying. As these night flying exercises increase, so public concern increases. Tornados and F111s are now permitted to fly automatically as low as 200 ft at night in bad weather.
  I have to emphasise the contrast with West Germany. That is an environmentally conscious and "greener" country than the United Kingdom. That may be the reason for the controls in West Germany. Germany, a NATO country, is committed to the NATO strategy, but it is able to minimise the environmental impact of low-flying. The general height limit there is 500 ft. There are seven specific low-flying areas where low-flying is permitted down to 250 ft only. There is a general ban on low-flying at weekends. For some years the number of low-level flights has been constant at 110,000 a year.
  1098
  Further restrictions are being introduced. Skyguard mobile radars detect and deter infringements. A new ban was introduced in 1986 on low-flying in the middle of the day. A new system has been introduced this year, which will create 49 new low-flying areas, each of which will be used for a few weeks and then closed for several months to give the residents some peace. Speaking on behalf of the residents of the Snowdonia national park, most of whose area falls within my constituency, they would love to feel that they could have peace, not just on an occasional Sunday in summer.
  There is a free-for-all low-flying training policy in the United Kingdom, and increasingly it is becoming environmentally unacceptable. The issue is being addressed not just by the peace movement. It concerns the environmental movement in general. The Council for the National Parks is very concerned about it, as are individual national parks. It is being pronounced upon by the farmers' unions. It is not an issue that the Ministry of Defence can fob off, as though it has been raised merely by the peace lobby.
  The United Kingdom now has an opportunity to review low-level flights. I have asked the Department on previous occasions for reviews, but I have been unsuccessful in obtaining a review. However, the important NATO committee on the challenges to a modern society is studying aircraft noise. I have asked both the Department of the Environment and the Ministry of Defence questions on this issue. I was surprised to find that apparently the Department of the Environment is not represented on this committee. Presumably Defence is the lead Department, and no doubt part of its function is to keep a check on the environment.
  The committee was initiated by the West Germans. It is also staffed by the United States and was set up because of anxiety about the impact of low-flying. I hope that the study is looking at the issue in terms of solutions and in terms of minimising environmental impact, and that it is not merely some sort of PR exercise. Does not the United Kingdom look rather bad when measured against the efforts and initiatives taken in West Germany to lessen environmental impact? I hope that there will be a clear United Kingdom commitment to the work of this committee, that we will not try to prevent or frustrate any positive recommendations by the committee about inspection and control, complaints procedures and environmental monitoring.
  I hope that the study group is investigating the United Kingdom's system and our controls and comparing them with other countries. I also hope that the RAF and the Department will take seriously the need to minimise environmental impact as more emphasis is placed on faster and lower flying and on more night flying. Perhaps the Minister will reply to me in this debate or in detail in writing. I draw his attention to recent information from Germany about the public perception of low-flying.
  The December issue of the West German Tribune published a poll in which half the people questioned said that they did not believe national security depended on military aircraft practising low-flying. More significant is that, of the people questioned in the Rhineland Palatinate area of West Germany, 30 per cent. felt that their health was affected by low-flying, one in six had insomnia and 3 per cent. had been to a doctor because of aircraft noise. Some 29 per cent. saw the aircraft as hazards to safety and, as I say, nearly 50 per cent. said that there was no direct

  1099
  connection between their national security and low-flying training. In the poll 28 per cent. said that they had been shocked by the noise at a particular time and eight out of 10 people said that low-flying aircraft were disturbing them.
  There are no surveys of that kind conducted in the United Kingdom. I suggest that the Department should conduct such surveys by commissioning a reputable independent polling organisation, of which we probably have too many these days, to conduct that kind of survey so that we can assess public feeling and can move towards greater environmental controls. We need to review not just training and the environmental impact but also the complaints procedure. I am grateful to the Minister for the way in which he replies in detail to complaints made by my constituents.
  A complaint was made to me by a former RAF person about the alleged use of after burners by F111s flying over my constituency. When the Minister does reply in detail I shall be grateful to him. An independent complaints system which did not necessarily involve Ministry of Defence personnel would engender more public confidence and would be like the more independent systems that we have in other areas of public life. I hope that the Minister will take my complaints seriously because they are not coming just from a minority party in one area of Britain but are complaints which can be made by many hon. Members who represent rural constituencies.
  8.33 pm
  Mr. Edward Leigh: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Thomas). As he rightly said, defence must be placed in its political context. The political context about which most people are aware is the overwhelming conventional and nuclear predominance of the Soviet Union. The hon. Gentleman is a member of a minority party and is privileged because he is able to ignore national political opinion, but his colleagues in the other opposition parties will have more difficulty about that.
  The hon. Gentleman spoke about low-flying aircraft. Like him, I represent a rural area and I assiduously represent my constituents' views and complaints about low flying to the Minister, who always replies most courteously, promptly and in great detail.
  Mr. Gordon Wilson: If ineffectively.
  Mr. Leigh: Not ineffectively, because as a result of representations it is clear that the RAF is made to sit up. I made representations about low flying over a certain primary school, and I hope that they have done some good. In general, while most of my constituents may have complaints about low flying and aircraft noise, they recognise that those things are the price of freedom and they are prepared generally to put up with them.
  I want to deal with just one aspect of this debate—the air defence of the United Kingdom. Unfortunately, he has had to leave the Chamber, but it was a privilege to listen to the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones). My generation owes his generation and yours, Mr. Deputy Speaker, a great debt and I do not need to repeat the obvious lessons of history about the role of the RAF in the
  1100
  defence of the United Kingdom. There are disturbing parallels between the situation that faces us today and that which existed in the 1930s.
  First, Britain's air defence area is vast. It covers an area of about 4 million square miles and is 1,000 miles from north to south. I picked up an interesting article containing the views of Air Marshall Sir Peter Harding. He speaks with considerable authority and he said:
  "If the enemy is going to attack, he will have to attack in sufficient numbers to swamp our defences."
  He also said that more than 500 aircraft would be involved at the peak of the battle.
  The hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) and other hon. Members said that we face a quite frightening conventional threat. I am not talking about nuclear weapons. [Interruption.] I cannot hear the hon. Gentleman because he is mumbling.
  Mr. Wilson: If there were to be any effective attack, we would use ballistic missiles.
  Mr. Leigh: Not necessarily. It is a great mistake to assume that there would immediately be an escalation into nuclear weapons. That is why an essential part of our deterrent is our ability conventionally to deter. The maintenance of our fighter squadrons is very much a part of that.
  It has already been said that the assets of the Soviet air armies include no fewer than 180 Bear and Bison bombers, 145 Backfire bombers, 397 medium-range Blinder and Badger bombers and 450 shorter range Fencer strike aircraft. That is a quite frightening resource and one must ask why the Soviet Union thinks it needs such a large offensive capability. Against that capability we have just nine fighter squadrons, and two of those are based in my constituency at RAF Binbrook. They are the Lightning squadrons. The Lightning first came into service in 1960, so it is an old aircraft.
  I shall say something about RAF Binbrook later in my speech because it is of special local concern. Before I deal with that perhaps I could put a number of points to the Minister. He could reply to them later in the debate or by letter. In September 1985 there was what I hope was a successful exercise, Exercise Brave Defender. It was the largest exercise on home defence since the second world war. I was made aware of this exercise, if I had not already known about it through the press and by being informed by the Minister, because a heavily armed platoon of soldiers tramped through my back garden in Lincolnshire without any advance warning. As with aircraft noise, I accept that that is the price of freedom.
  I am especially interested in the Soviet Spetnatz fifth columnist threat. We read of disturbing rumours about the number of Soviet troops being trained in this capability, and in an area like Lincolnshire, with a number of airfields, we take this threat seriously. Perhaps later in the debate, or in a letter to me, the Minister can give me an update on how the relatively new concept of a ground defence area around our Royal Air Force airfields is being developed. Perhaps he can tell us how he thinks the Territorials can cope with the almost insurmountable logistic problems that are posed and how we can possibly hope to seal about 3,000 miles of coastline. I should like my hon. Friend the Minister to comment on police primacy. I understand that it is envisaged that ordinary police would play a major role, and I wonder whether progress has been made.

  1101
  I want to ask about pilot shortage, which was dealt with by the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright). As the Minister will know, I am a member of the Select Committee on Defence. On 21 May 1986 I asked a question of Air Chief Marshal Sir David Craig. I said:
  "I am told that the pressure on aircrew numbers is such that no less than 208 ground jobs are empty at the moment in order to ensure that sufficient pilots are kept in their cockpits. Is that right?"
  At first he was not prepared to answer me. However, he then said:
  "I can give you an order of figure. It would be about half that."
  That is serious. In a written answer we were told that 58 officers had joined the premature voluntary retirement scheme. It has been written elsewhere that the RAF may be short of 200 pilots. Clearly, that is serious. There was an interesting article in Jane's Defence Weekly, to which reference has already been made. It suggested various reforms in recruitment policy. The House would be grateful for any comments that the Minister can make on that.
  Mr. William Cash: I do not know whether a tribute of any sort has been paid to Sir Humphrey Edwardes Jones. He was a flight lieutenant in 1936 and was responsible for vetting and giving the go-ahead to the Spitfire. He died only two or three days ago. His obituary is in The Times today, and in the context of what my hon. Friend has said this might be an appropriate moment to pay a tribute to him as a great man at a time when we really needed people of that calibre.
  Mr. Leigh: My hon. Friend makes a well-timed intervention and I am sure that the House will concur with his remarks.
  Mr. Frank Cook: On the issue of aircrew and their availability, would the hon. Gentleman care to comment on the opinions that I heard from our RAF aircrew in western Germany about the great attraction for them to follow the export of British produced airframes to the middle east to train Arab aircrew and to serve in Arab air forces? Is that not a drain in addition to the shortage that has already been mentioned?
  Mr. Leigh: There have always been some RAF pilots who have helped middle east air forces. I was in Oman as a member of the Select Committee looking at operation Swift Sword and I was very impressed by the quality of the Omani troops and pilots and by the dedication and hard work of our own RAF personnel in the middle east. They are a credit to this nation.
  Mr. Bill Walker: Is my hon. Friend aware that between the wars the Royal Air Force policed the middle east and developed a relationship with the Arab countries, and that post-war the RAF has been involved in the middle east and has lent people on a regular basis to middle eastern countries?
  Mr. Leigh: That is a good point. It is a matter of regret tha our influence in the middle east is not wider than it is, and we all know the reasons why.
  The main pilot drain will be not to the middle east, but to the United States. Recently I read that the United States would be recruiting about 6,000 pilots for its commercial airline operations in the next couple of years. That is an extraordinarily high figure.
  1102
  I now want to deal with the Tornado. I was aware of the problems with the radar before they became public knowledge, because several Tornado pilots are my constituents in Lincolnshire. Without going into great detail, which would embarrass them and the Government, I must say that it is a serious issue. It has been mentioned several times, notably by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins). We do not want another Nimrod fiasco. The sums of money involved are large and the Tornado is vital to our defence. It is in the interest of the Government to come clean at an early stage.
  I want to mention briefly United Kingdom air defence ground environment. It is an important project. I believe that about £1 billion of public money is involved. The House would welcome further details of that. I can only speak from having read newspaper reports, but I understand that, unlike the radar on the Tornado, the scheme is a success story. It would be no bad thing to be told more about it.
  The people of Lincolnshire have long been associated with the RAF. They are proud of their traditions with the RAF and are determined that the associations should continue. Therefore, I must deal with the future of RAF Binbrook, which is a historic and famous RAF base. It was founded as long ago as July 1940, 10 years before I was born. It has been the home in recent years of RAF Lightnings. Everybody in Lincolnshire knows that these planes are rapidly becoming obsolete, in spite of the fact that they are excellent and have given superb service. We all know that they have to be replaced.
  The problem is similar to the difficulty that we face with Tornado radar. It is incumbent on Ministers to take local people into their confidence as early as possible on the possible closure of RAF Binbrook. Local people know that the Tornados are to be based at RAF Coningsby. They know that RAF Binbrook is rather too close to RAF Coningsby for operational efficiency. They know that there are difficulties with the so-called Humber gap, which has to be filled. They know, because I have taken pains to tell them, that the Ministry has been seeking earnestly for two years to find an alternative role for RAF Bin brook. I understand that the decisions are to be made soon, perhaps in February. At an early stage I hope that Ministers will take the Member representing RAF Binbrook and the local people—105 local people work at the base—into their confidence so that the future of the base can be explained. At the very least, local people would want to know that the base will be kept in some form, perhaps as a war reserve airfield.
  The people in Lincolnshire are proud of their associations with the RAF and want them to continue. I shall end on a controversial note, by saying that I have no doubt that when the general election comes, whenever it may be, the people of "Bomber County" will not elect a Government who seem determined to throw away defences and freedoms that have been built up painstakingly over so many years.
  8.48 pm
  Mr. Frank Cook: I feel honour-bound to begin by paying a tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones). His contribution to the debate was offered in his usual pointed and pertinent style and with his customary reasoned and logical presentation. I commend that contribution to the House.

  1103
  There are many aspects of this subject to which one could refer. I want to confine my remarks to an area of examination around conventional weapons vis-a-vis nuclear weapons. The House may recall that during the debate last week on the Army I took the opportunity to contrast the need for adequate conventional equipment, which is sorely lacking in our Army units generally and in the central European sector especially, with the total inadequacy of nuclear preparation in terms of armament for conflict on that front. I took issue with the foolishness of claiming that the possession of nuclear weapons was a deterrent, when it is obvious that we cannot use them without condemning our own personnel to a premature death and condemning the countryside to a long-standing sickness of radiation. On that occasion, the Government spokesman failed to counter that thesis, so I offer it for comment later tonight.
  I posed another question at that time: if we were making reference to deterrence, what were we trying to deter? Were we seeking to maintain a deterrence against Soviet invasion, or were we trying to maintain a deterrent against American withdrawal, as suggestions by certain American spokesmen might lead us to believe? I reminded the House that, regardless of the stated need from leaders of our forces in West Germany for conventional weapons, nuclear deterrence remains the order of the day, and that has not changed in the last week. Tonight, I ask the House to ponder the thesis that nuclear weapons are not only inadequate as a deterrent; they are also unnecessary. That thesis can be summed up as: "Who needs nuclear weapons when your adversary has a nuclear installation?" That is not a new thesis, but it might bear closer examination tonight.
  A graphic reference to the type of scenario to which I refer was made as early as 1976 in the sixth report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, which was chaired by Sir Brian Flowers. On page 123, paragraph 314, it is stated:
  "We have given some thought to the possible effects of war so far as nuclear installations are concerned; these installations, providing vital energy supplies, would be prime targets. In a nuclear war the effects of attack on nuclear installations would be one part of a general catastrophe, but an attack with conventional weapons leading to the release of radioactivity would produce some of the effects of nuclear weapons. The quantities of fission products that could be released are vast and they would not be carried up into the stratosphere."
  I pose the question again: "Who needs nuclear weapons when your adversary has nuclear installations?"
  The Royal Commission report continued:
  "The effects of war, even of 'conventional' war, are inevitably horrifying, but if these effects could be magnified by attack on nuclear installations, then this is a major factor to consider when deciding whether, or to what extent, to use nuclear power."
  That is very wise counsel.
  "The unique aspect of nuclear installations is that the effects of the radioactive contamination that could be caused are so long lasting. If nuclear power could have been developed earlier, and had it been in widespread use at the time of the last war, it is likely that some areas of central Europe would still be uninhabitable because of ground contamination by caesium."
  That is the considered view of the Royal Commission. As a result of reading that, certain questions were posed to the Government as early as October 1985. I want the
  1104
  House to know of these inquiries and to know of their response. The questions were phrased in the following form:
  "Would there be a catastrophic release of radioactivity from a nuclear power station if: (a) it suffered a direct hit from one or more conventional bombs; (b) it suffered a near miss from a conventional weapon; (c) it suffered a direct hit from a weapon such as a bazooka style rocket launcher; (d) an aircraft crashed onto the station?"
  That was the nature of the inquiry. The reply, dated 14 November 1985, from the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave), at that time a junior Environment Minister, was:
  "I think I can do no better than to let you have the attached copy of his letter, which explains that nuclear power stations are built to withstand the sort of accident or attack you envisage."
  Two days before that, I received a letter dated 12 November 1985 from the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. Goodlad), at that time an Under-Secretary of State for Energy, who stated:
  "In particular they aim to prevent release of radioactivity in the worst credible accident;…nuclear power stations are built in such a way that they would withstand a large range of aircraft crashes and direct hits from conventional rockets, without any release of radioactivity at all."
  Those letters may be reassuring to my grandchildren or children a little older than that, but can we believe that the Royal Air Force—that had the skill, tenacity and courage to fly down the main streets of occupied countries and lob bombs through the doors of Gestapo headquarters; that had the piloting expertise to drop its bombs on German prisons so as to breach the walls to liberate prisoners of war incarcerated there; that dropped bombs on the Möhne and Oder dams to such devastating effect—or other air forces cannot penetrate the integrity of nuclear installations? Am I to accept, without question, two ministerial responses that are so clearly fatuous?
  So many of the existing 120 nuclear installations in western Europe are clearly unhardened targets. So many of them, we already know, do not even have a form of secondary containment to guard against bluebottles, let alone bazookas. Is not such blind disregard simply a facile and somewhat irresponsible diversion from a real area of weakness within our own resource? Is not the validity of my further arguments in the Army debate even more obvious?
  If we need nuclear deterrence at all, does not our potential enemy, whichever nation that enemy turns out to be, already have our nuclear deterrence in its possession? Is not our commitment to the nuclear weapons programme, as I said on that occasion, simply a means of ensuring the consignment of even more billions of the British taxpayers' earnings to the bottomless bunkers of the American armsmongers so that they can gleefully assure us, as they do, more bang for a buck?
  Is it not true that the only sensible policy in economic, moral, employment and tactical terms, and, in fact, in terms of the balance of payments, is the adoption of the policy enunciated by the Labour party?
  8.59 pm
  Mr. Tony Marlow: I want to say a few words about helicopters. I may tend to stray from the narrow confines of the debate, but I think that you know well, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that there is within the Ministry of Defence a group of people who don something

  1105
  which they call purple. That means that they represent the all-arms view of defence strategy. My speech will be something of a purple speech.
  During the first world war, the balance of advantage initially, and almost to the end, was with the forces of defence. Mobility was impossible until the development of the tank. The tank, which had protection and mobility with it, changed the course of the end of that war. The reign of the machine gun was replaced with the reign of armour. That sea change happened then, as it has happened many times in history before, where one type of weapon system has predominated for a long time until it has been replaced with another. Other examples, as well as tanks and machine guns, are the English archer and gunpowder.
  What I shall say now is intended to be provocative; thought-provoking rather than didactic. I do not want to dictate to anybody. It is a thesis, not a programme. I believe that we have reached another of those turning points. The age of the tank in many circumstances is virtually over. In today's warfare, the tank is the most expensive and the heaviest high-tech coffin that has ever been invented. We are now reaching the age of the battlefield helicopter with its two main roles. It has a role in attack, in anti-tank attack, and as a helicopter gunship. It also has an assault role as a means of moving quickly, to wherever the threat is greatest, reinforcements of men and supplies, and, in particular, anti-tank missiles.
  The classical use of armour was in the role of the blitzkrieg—the punch: knock a hole through the enemy lines. In the previous war, particularly on the Russian front, the tank, in blitzkrieg attack, with its strength, protection and mobility, was a powerful instrument indeed. But now that protection, size and power are its signature and that signature gives its position away on modern radar and surveillance techniques.
  The relative mobility of the tank has been replaced, now that we have more air mobility, with relative immobility. If an enemy were intent upon a major tank attack—a blitzkrieg—and got all its tanks together to try to force a punch through, concentrated, those tanks would be seen from a great distance by surveillance. They would be seen and could be engaged by armed helicopters from a distance well beyond the range of the tank. The tank would not know that the helicopters were there. As the tanks concentrated—and that would take time—all that movement would be "visible". The helicopters could concentrate much more quickly. A helicopter, with its missile, could take out tank after tank after tank without the tanks being able to do anything about the helicopter whatever.
  Of course, there is the other role of the tank—the role of the tank in defence—holding ground. If a tank is dug in, it is a very good defence against armour. The infantry dug in in the past was never such a good defence against armour. The Energa grenades were pretty well suicidal. The Wombat and the Mobat, with their telltale back blast, were almost as dangerous to the user as to the tank they were taking on. But new infantry missiles score every time. As techniques develop, they will, with even more certainty, be able to take out enemy tank as effectively as with direct tank fire. But, as I have said before, the helicopter standing further back will be an even more formidable weapon than the tank.
  That is a defence against tank attack. Times and circumstances change, with the likelihood in the future of
  1106
  many more airborne attacks. A tank has to be in the right defensive position. If it is not in the right position, how is it going to get there? The relative mobility of the tank in previous military circumstances has been lost. The battlefield is covered by obstacles. The tank cannot move because of those obstacles. It cannot move across rivers or through thick woods. It moves relatively slowly. A helicopter flies across woods and rivers and is much more mobile, faster and more effective.
  It is useful when considering such changes to ask what other forces have done. The Americans in Germany, in their corps, have four times as many support helicopters as we have. The Russians have as many if not more helicopters than the Americans and are developing a formidable array of attack helicopters. In 1982, there was a confrontation in the Beka'a valley between the Syrians and the Israelis. Looking at the relative rate of attrition between helicopter and tank in that confrontation, the Israelis took out 30 tanks for every helicopter lost, and when the Syrians had the helicopters they took out 15 tanks for every helicopter lost. They are overwhelming figures.
  When the age of the tank commenced, the premier strategist was an Englishman, Liddell Hart. Yet the technique for using tanks was developed first not by the British but by the Germans. The reason for that was the institutional nature of the German armed forces, being totally different from ours. The Germans had a general staff that was not bogged down with factional lobbies but was able to take an overall view and develop a grand strategy where that strategy was needed. In the United Kingdom there was reluctance to pursue the necessary changes because of the bastard marriage between had tradition and vested interest lobbies. I believe—and if my informants are right, it is so—that the same problems are appearing today. There is inflexibility of inter-Service budgets, loyalty to arm, the vested interest, including the promotion structure of brother officers in similar regiments.
  Mr. Frank Cook: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Marlow: I will not, because there is a shortage of time and my hon. Friend wants to follow me.
  Those problems block progress of tactical development and equipment ordering programmes. Cavalry generals promote cavalry generals. Cavaliers love their tanks as they used to love their horses. It is time that we did away with the "cavalry" and all its paraphernalia.
  War was conducted by a combination of amateur villeins and yeoman on foot and gentlemen on horseback. It may then have been proper to lend a bit of tone to what might have been otherwise a vulgar brawl. We now live in an age of professionals. Equestrianism is no longer useful as a military skill. Sums spent on military equipment are scarce, and necessarily so. It is vital and essential that we spend it on the right equipment. We need more helicopters and fewer tanks. We always make the mistake of preparing for the last war. This time we must prepare for the next.
  We learned lessons in the Falklands about our vessels and the way they were equipped. Elementary mistakes had been made, which we realised as soon as the hot war was upon us, but it was the peacetime structure—vested interests, the lobby, the nature of the Ministry of Defence—which provided those vessels in that conformation. Let us not make the same mistake in ordering military

  1107
  equipment in the future. We should have more helicopters. Where are we going to get them? We have, in Westland, our helicopter industry. We all know that Westland is faced with an order gap. Not only do we need Westland to build our helicopters for the future, we need it to maintain the helicopters we have at the moment. We need Westland to keep together its technicians and design team.
  I ask the Minister to give some good news soon about providing a work load for this very important task of our defence industry. When we have the helicopters I am sure the Minister will put in the right order for the necessary equipment. The helicopters are deployed. Who is going to control them? At the moment, the heavier helicopters in Germany are run, maintained, with training programmes and everything else, by the Air Force. We have had eloquent arguments from this side of the House that they should be run by the Army. Conservative Members have argued eloquently for this and given the example of the Royal Navy, which controls its own helicopters. Use of helicopters by the Royal Navy has no peer in the world.
  Similarly, a formation commander in the Army wants to have helicopters under his command and not need to borrow them. He wants to have his helicopters to develop his strategies, take his risks and integrate his forces in his formation and to make the necessary decisions to develop future strategy.
  I add to my hon. Friend's plea that the military helicopters in the armed services used in BAOR-type formations should come under the command and control and have the uniform of the Army rather than of the Royal Air Force. Of course there will be co-operation, and men from one Service will go on another Service's courses, but the time has come to introduce this change.
  9.10 pm
  Mr. Michael Marshall: I know that hon. Members want to hear the concluding speeches shortly, so, in the brief time available, I shall concentrate on one major subject. Before doing so, I should like to express my appreciation, as have other hon. Members, of the tremendous performance of the Royal Air Force in the Oman exercises. It was a remarkable example of the skills used in operating the Tornados. In that out-of-area exercise we saw five to seven mid-air refuelling operations with Tornados flying all over Oman. The turnaround time was amazingly fast. The operation reflected well on not only the pilots and their training but the aircraft, which demonstrated that they were high in the world league table.
  The subject that I wish to raise follows a question asked by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). I should like to persuade my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State to respond to my comments on satellites. I do not intend to talk about the so-called "spy" satellites, partly out of deference to the ruling which Mr. Speaker made earlier, and partly because the relationship between the article in the New Statesman and the current state of play with my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General is not entirely known to me. I hope that my remarks will help to keep in perspective what some of us see as some of the more glaring errors in the reports that we have read so far.
  We are all aware that there was a major hole in our defence capability when we did not have a Skynet
  1108
  capability. During the Falklands campaign, we were fortunate that the Americans took the view they took and that we had co-operation. Had such co-operation not been available, we would have been without a crucial capability. That is why the questions that have been posed about the launching of Skynet are so important.
  I should declare my interest as a parliamentary adviser to the space and communications division of British Aerospace. I welcome the splendid news that British Aerospace and Marconi are to extend their line of Skynet to NATO satellites. This development is evidence of the high technological capability in this country. It is an especially important illustration of our defence safeguards in that forward programme.
  There are three satellites in Skynet—4A, 4B and 4C. I understand that the first was to be launched on the shuttle. Obviously, that programme has been put back because of the problems with shuttle launch capacity. The satellite's design was not compatible with Ariane and the shuttle. There is a lesson to be learnt from that experience—it is unwise to put all our eggs into one basket. Those of us who argued in favour of modifications to ensure that either launch capability would have been appropriate have been proved, regrettably, to be correct. We have no satisfaction in pointing that out.
  The first of Skynet is due to be launched by shuttle. That will inevitably mean that the second satellite, 4B, will look to Ariane for its launch. That would probably apply also to the third satellite.
  Those three satellites are part of a whole development. They are designed to provide communication links for military purposes. It is clear to anyone who looks at the three satellites that their basis is interrelated. The third one, especially, is now significant because of the question mark relating to the shuttle launch that would have applied to the first. In that context arguments about the existence of a third Skynet can most clearly be understood.
  What has now been announced on the NATO satellites is a major breakthrough for British industry, in which my constituents take particular pleasure. Also, those in Portsmouth will see some direct work in Marconi. Those at Stevenage will see an extension of the line there and a £170 million contract which will provide a great deal of value added work for sub-contractors throughout the country. That is all good news. It is part of a United Kingdom defence satellite capability which bodes well for the future. I hope that when my hon. Friend the Minister replies he will give us a little more information on the latest indications of likely dates of the shuttle launch.
  I shall touch briefly on the so-called British astronaut. Suggestions have been made that, because of the shuttle delay, the possibility of a British astronaut being part of our launch activity has in some way been ruled out. I would be sorry if that were the case. I hope that the Minister can confirm tonight that such is not the case, that that matter is still under consideration, and that as and when we see—as we hope we shall$the shuttle launch confirmed once again, there will be an opportunity for the resumption of the original training programme which was to be exercised for Squadron Leader Nigel Wood. Anything that the Minister will say on that would be welcome.
  At present we envisage some difficulties on the question of a British astronaut for the NATO satellite until we are clearer about launch capability. But I am a little anxious that, again, we should not be ruled out on the basis that

  1109
  because we see largely British built satellites within NATO by definition the astronaut must come from some other country. I do not wish to make too much of what was perhaps meant in a lighthearted way by the distinguished air vice-marshal, who suggested that "even a Turk" might be applicable, but NATO must keep a broad and open view. If, by that time, British astronauts have direct payload experience—as is made possible through Skynet—let us try to ensure that they are available and the most obviously qualified candidates for the NATO satellite.
  Within those requests to the Minister I have tried to encompass briefly what seemed to be some facets of a most important development for British industry in the widest context. Many hon. Members believe that the spin-off from military to commercial satellite construction has great value. It is part of a development that I hope will continue over the months that lie ahead. It is in that regard that many of the reports which are now being bandied about on spy satellites should be viewed. Those are the matters that really concern us tonight. They put into perhaps the widest possible context some of the more sensationalist and, I believe, schoolboy howler sort of reports that we have seen before us today.
  9.19 pm
  Mr. McNamara: Hon. Members have addressed several questions to me, so I shall start by dealing with them and go on to the philosophical matters behind the debate.
  The hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) asked how our non-nuclear policy would enable our forces to sink deep-running Soviet submarines. We have had this out in the past and I shall give an answer from Noel Gaylor, a United States admiral. He said:
  "The most concrete objection is that any initial use of nuclear weapons at sea would be very much to the disadvantage of the Allies, because we are the outfit with the big ships and we are the outfit largely dependent on service ships to keep the seas open. The differential advantage we might get from going after a submarine with a nuclear depth bomb is just not worth it. In addition it has the interesting characteristic that if you blow one beneath the surface of the sea, you will ring the ocean acoustically for several hours and lose the capability to track anybody. As a tactic that is soft-headed, deeply obnoxious—and militarily futile."
  Mr. Bill Walker rose—
  Mr. McNamara: With great respect, I have little time. In other words, the American admiral is saying that faced with a shoal of nuclear submarines, if we hit the first one, the others would come through because the sensors would not be working.
  Mr. Bill Walker: Conventional forces cannot sink them.
  Mr. McNamara: Why, then, are we wasting so much money on Spearfish and Sting Ray which are specifically designed for that purpose? That is what we have been told by both Marconi and the Government.
  The hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) raised several questions. Because the Trident project is spread over 20 years, the Government argue that the average proportion of defence resources that it takes is limited, and that between 1980–81 and 1999–2000 it will take only 2·9 per cent. of the total defence budget. However, that statement is misleading, because Trident spending will not be spread evenly over the 20 year procurement period. Seventy-eight per cent. of the total
  1110
  spending, or £7·3 billion, is due in the decade from 1986. In that period Trident will account for 4·5 per cent. of total defence spending, 10·4 per cent. of total equipment spending and 17·2 per cent. of new equipment spending.
  Therefore, using Ministry of Defence figures, we can calculate that total defence spending, excluding Trident, will fall by about 11 per cent. in real terms between 1984–85 and 1989–1990, which will return conventional defence spending to its 1982–83 level. Thus total equipment spending, again excluding Trident, will fall by about 23 per cent. in real terms in the five years from 1984–85 to 1989–90, which means that conventional equipment spending will return to about its 1980–81 level. The new equipment spending, again excluding Trident, will fall by about 30 per cent. in real terms between 1984–85 and 1989–90 and by that year the level of real spending on conventional new equipment will be lower than in any year since 1979–80.
  With the unit costs of all new weapons rising, many difficult decisions must be made. In recent years, by keeping its head firmly below the parapet, the RAF has been able to maintain, and indeed secure greater increases in, equipment growth. As a result it could he argued that to avoid cuts in the surface fleet or BAOR the RAF should be cut. That immediately brings into question the future of the European fighter aircraft programme, on which the Government have said that they have no firm contractual commitment and that the total cost could be £9 billion. If that programme were delayed or cancelled or the size of the British order, estimated at 250 planes, reduced, it would enable large savings to be made in the RAF's budget in the early 1990s.
  There is no firm budget commitment or undertaking on the EFA. Therefore, we are entitled to say, knowing how the Government will write in White Papers after the general election—whatever the Government—that some crucial decisions must be taken and the EFA programme could well be at risk. I say to the Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces, if the Conservatives win the general election and keep Trident, there is a real chance of losing the EFA programme. I must remind the hon. Gentleman's constituents who work in the defence industry that their jobs are not sacrosanct. The royal ordnance factories, the royal dockyards and British Aerospace and its factories thought that they were safe. There is no reason why Bristol workers nor any person employed in conventional industry should feel that their jobs are safe under this Government.
  There have been some strange statements about Labour party policy and the Government's attitude to it. On the suggestion that we would leave 1st Corps unprotected, I shall ask the questions that we sought to ask in last week's debate; they are fundamental to that attitude and we have not yet received answers to them.
  What nuclear weapons or facilities are under the control of 1st Corps, British Army of the Rhine and can be used unilaterally? The answer is none. Not one weapon can be used without the say-so of the United States. The Russian hordes can come over and run across all our men, seize everything, and threaten to come up Whitehall, and we will not be able to use those weapons without American consent. It is not us, but our American allies, who are reducing the strength of BAOR. If Conservative Members had the courage, they would admit that. Instead, they go on the myth that we have a nuclear capability which

  1111
  BAOR can use without the say-so of the Americans. We cannot therefore go along with the Government's thinking.
  Although we have some fine new weapons for the RAF such as Tornado—the Government talk a great deal about what they are doing—we should consider the cost of spending so much on nuclear weaponry. We have 1951 Shackletons, 1956 Jet Provosts, 1958 Buccaneers, 1955 Victors, 1963 Wessexes, 1971 Pumas, 1967 Harrier GR3s, 1967 Phantoms, 1959 Lightnings, 1968 Nimrods and 1951 Canberras. That is a collection for the air museum and it is the cost of spending so much on nuclear weapons.
  It is disgraceful to suggest that the Labour party's policy is neutralist. It is not. I welcome the Secretary of State, who is laughing, to the debate. With the resolution in favour of unilateral nuclear disarmament which the Labour party conference accepted by a two thirds majority on a card vote, which means that it becomes party policy, was a resolution in favour of continued membership of NATO.
  Sir Antony Buck rose—
  Mr. McNamara: With the greatest respect to the hon. and learned Gentleman, I shall not give way. I have given up 10 minutes and have promised not to take too much time so that the Minister can get in a lot more information.
  There seems to be an idea that the Labour party's suggestion that we should look again at the concepts and strategies of NATO is strange. Do the British people have a choice? We are saying that they do. They can go along with nuclear policy, which will weaken our conventional forces and lower the nuclear threshold, or they can strengthen our conventional forces so that we can play our proper role in NATO, as we are best able to do.
  The idea is not peculiar to the Labour party—it has occurred to Caspar Weinberger who said at the National Press Club:
  "Most of the concepts that shape our thinking about what forces we need and how they would be used were formulated in the 1950s and early 1960s… The world has changed so profoundly since the 1950s and 1960s when most strategic ideas were formulated that many of these concepts are now obsolete."
  I do not claim Caspar Weinberger as a sudden convert to unilateralism, but I do claim that he sees the intellectual choice and military problems which face NATO in the 1990s and the 21st century.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) was at the core of the creation of many of these policies in the early 1960s when he was Secretary of State for Defence. He said:
  "There is now a growing feeling among military experts that NATO must look in a different direction—towards a non-provocative strategy of conventional deterrence which could protect NATO territory without using nuclear weapons if deterrence should fail. We in the Labour Party share this feeling."
  Are we wrong to say to our allies, "Stop. How far do you expect us to go along this road?" How can we afford the money, the forces, the treasure and the expertise to go along that road? It would be far better to draw back and to try to consider the consequences of that decision. It would be far better to stop, and at least to think about it. That is the Labour party policy. We are asking our NATO allies to sit down and consider whether this policy is the proper one.
  1112
  After Reykjavik, George Shultz said:
  "We may be on the verge of important changes in our approach to the role of nuclear weapons in our defence."
  In November 1986 he went on to say:
  "It may be that we have arrived at a true turning point. The nuclear age cannot be undone or abolished; it is a permanent reality but we can glimpse now, for the first time, a world freed from the incessant and pervasive fear of nuclear devastation…a nuclear defence strategy that rests on the threat of escalation to the strategic nuclear conflict is, at best, an unwelcome solution to ensuring our national security."
  George Shultz was discussing the United States national security. That decision is based on that national security rather than our own or European national security, but it is in Europe that the first line of the battle will be fought.
  Conservative Members may criticise us, and no doubt they will continue to do so—but they should try not to behave as military dinosaurs. They should try to consider the possibilities and the principles upon which they base their policies. I can understand if Conservative Members come to a different conclusion from ours—if it is arrived at after honest and rigorous intellectual examination—but they should not doubt the rigour and honesty of our interpretation. The moment they do that they are saying that half the population of Britain, who do not want Trident, are dishonest. Are they prepared to go to the country and say to half of the people, "We think half of you are too thick and too dishonest to know what it is all about"? That patronising attitude to the British electorate is absolutely disgusting.
  The hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Lee), who has Binbrook in his constituency, said that the Russians have an overwhelming preponderance of conventional and nuclear forces. That is not true. If it was I do not believe that any of us would be here today. What did the International Institute of Strategic Studies say concerning the military balance in 1986–87:
  "The overall conventional balance continues to be such to make military aggression a highly risky undertaking."
  With regard to conventional capability Casper Weinberger said:
  "As this report illustrates, contrary to some claims, NATO does not suffer an unmanageable initial weakness in aggregate conventional combat power."
  So much for the assessment that the Russians have so many tanks that they could come over in one moment and wipe us all out. We in turn have our anti-tank forces. The bean count does not work.
  General Bernard Rogers said:
  "The advantage is with the defender and they (the Warsaw pact) will give us credit for being stronger than we give ourselves credit for."
  Conservative Members who attack our policies say that the Americans will go home if we follow them through. The Americans will go home only if they consider it is no longer in their national interest to be here. Whether the Americans have bases here or not they will go home once they have reached that conclusion. If they no longer considered such bases to be in their national interest as a Government, they would be wrong not to reach that decision. Caspar Weinberger said:
  "US forces are maintained in Europe directly in support of US political and military interests—not as an act of charity towards our allies."
  The Minister who opened the debate should try to understand what Labour party policy is. When the Minster spreads what, in other circumstances, might be termed a big lie, that we are neutralists, it is not true. The Labour party is committed to the defence of this country

  1113
  by land sea and air. That commitment is greater than the commitment of the Government who are willing to risk everything on the nuclear gamble. They are prepared to allow our conventional forces to be run down to such an extent that in the end the only way we can defend ourselves will be to use a very low nuclear threshold. That will be the consequence of the hon. Gentleman's policy.
  Let no Conservative Member doubt Labour's commitment to the defence of Europe and the positive role it will seek to play within NATO. Let no one doubt Labour's determination to maintain a proper contribution towards the collective and nuclear defence of the country. Far from being a contradiction, our policy of a determined and strong membership of NATO, unilateral nuclear disarmament and no nuclear bases in the United Kingdom, is the direction in which we think that NATO will move. That is the direction in which we will seek with increasing acceleration to draw our NATO allies on both sides of the continent.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) has made perhaps his last speech in an RAF debate. He was proud to defend his country. If he were fighting the next election, he would be equally proud to go to the hustings on such a policy.
  9.36 pm
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Roger Freeman): This has been a wide-ranging and serious debate and I shall try to answer as many as possible of the questions that have been raised. My officials advise me that well over 100 questions have been asked. My hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins) has probably accounted for 25 per cent. of them. In regard to those questions that I cannot answer because of shortage of time, I shall read the debate carefully, as will my colleagues and we will write to all Members, on both sides of the House, who have raised questions and try to answer them as fully as possible.
  Before attempting to answer some of the questions, may I devote a short time to answering one point referred to by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) in his opening and closing speeches about the resources available to the Royal Air Force. When he was opening the debate, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement described the range of roles and activities undertaken by the Royal Air Force. They are essential to the effective defence of the United Kingdom and to this country making a worthwhile contribution to the NATO Alliance. This Government have, over their period in office, substantially increased the resources devoted to this end.
  The defence budget is substantially larger in real terms than when we entered office, and the proportion of that budget spent on equipment has grown from 39 to 45 per cent. since 1979. The RAF's share of that budget is some 30 per cent. in the current year. In real terms the RAF has benefited greatly from this Government's policies. Excluding Falklands costs, expenditure on the RAF in 1986–87 will amount to £5·4 billion, which represents an increase in real terms, using Ministry of Defence cost deflators and not the retail price index deflator, of 21 per cent. since 1978–79 The Government need no lectures from the Opposition about strengthening conventional forces.
  1114
  My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham) asked about noise compensation. It might be helpful if I remind the House briefly of the policies recently produced by the Government to deal with this important problem. We have introduced a noise compensation scheme to alleviate the nuisance military aircraft cause in the vicinity of military airfields. Depending on the location of the house affected, the compensation that is paid by the Ministry of Defence in these circumstances may take one of three forms.
  First, a grant to cover the cost of acoustic secondary double glazing is paid when noise levels are at least 70 decibels over a 12-hour period, and in addition special account is taken of night flying. Secondly, we offer to purchase where dwellings are subject to exceptionally high noise levels; for instance, where properties are subject to 83 decibels or more over a 12-hour period. Finally, compensation for the depreciation of property value is offered. The district valuer of the Inland Revenue assesses this compensation to ensure that the sum of money paid is independently assessed. My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton mentioned in particular the noise survey at RAF Cottesmore. I am hoping to have the report in February and to consider extending the scheme in a few months time.
  My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Sir A. Buck) asked about Hawks and potential sales to Venezuela. I understand that British Aerospace signed a contract to supply Hawks to Venezuela in 1982. The Venezuelans did not proceed, but both the Ministry of Defence and British Aerospace remain hopeful that they will decide to proceed with the purchase.
  The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North raised a number of points, and I shall try to deal with the major ones. In one point he was joined by the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) and my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh). They all referred to the loss of pilots in particular, but officers in general, from the Royal Air Force through what is called premature retirement. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North said that he detected a lack of urgency in the Ministry of Defence in dealing with this problem, but that is not true. I shall briefly explain how we are tackling this problem with great vigour.
  It might be helpful if I corrected the impression that the hon. Gentleman gave that this problem is getting worse. Far from it. The latest statistics are good news. I shall deal first with all officers and then with pilots in particular. For the 12 months ended 31 December 1985, the number of officer exits as a percentage of the total trained officer strength was 2·7 per cent., but in the most recent 12 months, in the year ended 31 December 1986, that percentage has fallen to 2·3 per cent. I am glad that there has been that reduction for all officers, and it is true also of pilots. In the year ended 31 December 1985 the number of pilot exits as a percentage of trained pilot strength was 2·1 per cent., and for the most recent 12 months, ending 31 December 1986, that percentage had fallen to 1·9 per cent. That is good news about pilot exits.
  We all understand the reasons for these exits and in previous debates, the hon. Member for Woolwich has alluded to some of the factors. The push factors are the turbulence of service life, and this is not just a feature of RAF life but applies to all three services. There are some

  1115
  criticisms of conditions of service, particularly in the RAF. The gratuity that is paid to pilots at the eight-year point when, if they are on 12-year commissions they have the right to leave, creates distortions. My hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) referred to some of the pull factors, the main one being the attractions of the airlines and British Airways in particular.
  What are we doing about the problem of exits, which I hope I have shown is a little less severe than it was a few years ago? We have taken three measures. First, as regards turbulence, we are extending the tours of RAF pilots and officers. That should give a greater stability to family life. Secondly, as the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North said, we have appointed a two-star officer to study the terms and conditions of service of RAF officers, and in particular to see whether we can learn any lessons and identify problems. Finally, we are looking at some of the allowances, such as those that relate to the movement of officers and men, and at some of the separation allowances.
  Mr. Cash: Will my hon. Friend also pay tribute to the maintenance depots, such as that at Stortford, and to the fact that the maintenance of the RAF is as important as the retention of officers, pilots and others?
  Mr. Freeman: I gladly pay that tribute. Unfortunately, the issue has not been raised in the debate. I hope that we can return to the important issue of maintenance.
  The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North also raised the matter of the Tucano. My hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North and the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) also alluded to this. I am sorry that I was not in the Chamber when the hon. Member for Eccles spoke. I pay tribute to him. As I understand it, he is one of the last hon. Members who fought in the second world war. We shall miss his contributions.
  My hon. Friends will be aware that the first Tucano rolled off the production line a couple of days ago. Boscombe Down will receive two aircraft for trials and evaluation in a few months. The company predicts that two aircraft a month will be delivered to the RAF, starting in May. Training of the first Tucano squadron is due to begin in the summer of 1988. Delivery of the first aircraft to the Royal Air Force will be a few months later than originally planned, but we hope to recover some of this lost time later in the programme.
  The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North asked also about AWACS. He asked whether six Boeing aircraft would be enough. Obviously in reaching any major procurement decision, affordability is a major consideration. Six of the E3As can be accommodated within the available defence budget provision, whereas eight will pose more difficulties. A decision on whether to exercise the option on the further two aircraft will be taken in the light of the outcome of the annual recosting of the defence programme on which the Department is currently engaged.
  The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North asked about the Foxhunter fire radar for the Tornado. My hon. Friends the Members for South Ribble and for Gainsborough and Horncastle also asked about this matter. Concern has been expressed by the Ministry to GEC Avionics about slippage in the programme. The company has agreed to aim for accelerated production.
  1116
  We are also discussing with GEC the basis on which to resolve the problems associated with the current radar sets and demonstrate acceptable performance in the near future. Our aim will be a mutually agreeable fixed price contract.
  The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North also asked about the GR5. The size of the second batch order is under consideration. Orders for certain long lead items were placed last year, and a decision on further long leads will be made in the next couple of months.
  The hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble also asked about the experimental aircraft programme. It is our intention that any future Ministry of Defence funding of the experimental aircraft programme should be as part of the collaborative EFA programme on an international basis. We are currently awaiting proposals from industry on how EAP could be used in this context.
  Mr. Robert Atkins: Does my hon. Friend not recognise that pressure needs to come from Ministry of Defence Ministers within the four-nation consortium to ensure that the other three countries are prepared to accept that EAP has a vital role to play in the development of the Eurofighter?
  Mr. Freeman: The Official Report will show faithfully the concern expressed by my hon. Friend. He knows that one of the procurement Ministers has noted carefully what he said, not only in his intervention, but earlier.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) spoke generally about the importance of helicopters—he was joined by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow)—and specifically about the control of support helicopters. This is the argument about whether control of all support helicopters should pass, in part, from the Royal Air Force to the Army.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North referred to the 1985 reorganisation of the Ministry of Defence, whereby operational requirements are considered centrally. He talked about purple officers and staff at the Ministry of Defence. This reorganisation removed any risk of capabilities which cross Service boundaries not being given their rightful priority. I can confirm that, in my experience in the Ministry of Defence, this is indeed the case. Nevertheless, the Government are considering the matter and are bearing very much in mind the Defence Committee's views as expressed in its third report. What I have just said was reiterated by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State when he set out the Government's position not only in the debate on Westland, but in the Government's response to the third and fourth reports of the Select Committee.
  The hon. Member for Woolwich referred to the condition of married quarters and said that he believed that 70 per cent. of them are below an adequate standard. This is a very important issue and I attach great importance to it not, only when I make visits, but when planning the allocation of Ministry of Defence resources. In recent years the Government have been devoting increasing resources to improving the accommodation for Service men. A comprehensive programme is being undertaken to modernise the accommodation for single service men, at a cost of over £170 million in the next 10 years. We have also been devoting increasing resources to

  1117
  modernising the RAF's married quarters estate. We plan to spend £16 million on improving married quarters in this financial year, with a planned investment of the same order in each of the following 10 years.
  The hon. Gentleman also referred to the Government's attitude to defence against short-range ballistic missiles. We shall study Hansard with great interest, because the hon. Gentleman made detailed contribution to the debate. He is right to draw attention to this threat. It has to be taken very seriously. The existence of the threat is an illustration of the range and diversity of the dangers against which we have to structure our defences, but the nature of the appropriate response is difficult and complex. There is a range of possibilities. The hon. Gentleman referred to many of the considerations that have to be borne in mind. The NATO Alliance—and undoubtedly the hon. Gentleman's own alliance—is considering this issue carefully, and the United Kingdom is naturally playing its full part in that consideration.
  My hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble raised what seemed to be well over a quarter of the outstanding questions that I have yet to deal with. I shall deal now with three of the most important ones and will certainly respond to the others. The first related to ASTOVL. The United Kingdom signed a memorandum of understanding last year to exchange information on national studies on development technologies, including propulsion systems and advanced flight control avionics. The ASTOVL aircraft is seen to be a potential replacement for the Sea Harrier, the Harrier GR5 and the Tornado GR1, but we are at an early stage in our studies and cannot commit ourselves to any particular system.
  My hon. Friend also asked about the NATO IFF. This is a very complex area, as he suggested, and it is not surprising that discussions within NATO have proved to be protracted. The IFF system, to be carried on ships, aircraft and ground weapons systems, is currently under project definition. I shall write to my hon. Friend in greater detail on the matter.
  My hon. Friend also asked about the consequences of the diversion of the Tornado aircraft to the Saudis, and asked for an assurance, which I shall now give him, that this will not prejudice the Royal Air Force in terms of the ultimate number of aircraft that it will receive or, indeed, the cost. All the replacements for the RAF's programme will be received by the early 1990s.
  The hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) asked about the United Kingdom mobile force in the context of the transportation of that force to the central front, or at least on the northern part of the central front and the northern flank. The Government are committed to making efforts to improve output from the considerable resources that we devote to defence. In this context we are discussing within NATO whether, in its present role, the United Kingdom mobile force represents the most effective use of those resources. The financial implications of any change in current deployment plans depend on the outcome of the confidential discussions that are under way in NATO, the outcome of which cannot yet be predicted.
  As for the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), I pay tribute to and acknowledge the fact that his commission in the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve has been extended to the age of 60, which is many years off. We thank and congratulate him on his many years of valuable service to the Royal Air Force. He has vast experience and has raised a number of
  1118
  detailed questions on gliding schools, which are manned by volunteers. I welcome the opportunity to pay tribute to the work of these men. They do a tremendous job in encouraging the enthusiastic youngsters who go to them to learn to fly. The RAF give all the support that it can to the gliding schools and we are aiming to expand their activities to whatever extent this can sensibly be done. My hon. Friend referred to a number of specific problems, about which I shall write to him in due course.
  My hon. Friend also referred to air cadets, a subject that is dear to my heart because in my own constituency of Kettering there is an excellent contingent of the Air Training Corps. As my hon. Friend knows, the RAF derives a proportion of its recruits from the ATC. In 1985 the number of ex-ATC cadets expressed as a percentage of the total RAF intake was: officers, 33 per cent., airmen 32 per cent., and apprentices 41 per cent. It is clear that entrants to the service with an ATC background have a decided initial advantage in training over those without it and wastage is likely to be less.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) has important constituency interests in Rolls-Royce and British Aerospace. He expressed clearly to the House his aspirations for the two engines, the RB199 and the EJ200. His concerns are noted, and I know that my hon. Friend in defence procurement listened to that contribution with special care.
  The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Thomas) explained that he had to leave the House before the conclusion of the debate. He spoke about low flying aircraft, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North. It is a problem, but it is not getting worse when judged by the number of complaints from the public and from hon. Members, and also in terms of the flying hours and the number of missions flown. Nevertheless, it is an important problem and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North knows, we have changed the system. My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) will be familiar with this problem, because he dealt with these issues with great care and diligence when he was at the Ministry of Defence. We changed the system about 10 years ago from the system that the Germans now have.
  I must take issue with the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy, because he is wrong. In the Federal Republic of Germany there are complaints that the system, which confines all low flying to certain designated areas, concentrates the problem. Our system is better and we have no intention of changing it. I know that the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy will study the record. In the past I have offered to meet him to discuss the problems of low flying in Wales and I repeat that offer.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle asked about Binbrook. The future of RAF Binbrook is being reviewed in the Ministry of Defence. No final recommendations have been made and a formal announcement will be made as soon as possible. I give my hon. Friend the undertaking that when we reach a conclusion I will consult him and convey our conclusions to him on the earliest possible occasion.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Arundel (Mr. Marshall) asked about Skynet. The delay to the United States Shuttle programme which followed the tragic Challenger accident last year necessitated a review of the planned launch arrangements for the three Skynet satellites 4A, 4B and 4C. As a result of this review it was decided to switch Skynet 4B

  1119
  from a Shuttle to an Ariane launch in order to meet as early as possible the urgent military requirements for improved satellite communications.
  It is also planned to launch Skynet 4C on Ariane. Although the subsequent failure of an Ariane rocket on 31 May has led to delays in that programme, there has been no further revision of the basic launch strategy for the Skynet 4 satellites. Skynet 4B will be the first of the three satellites to be launched in May 1988. Skynet 4A is still planned for launch by the shuttle, but the most recent date offered by NASA is July 1990. As a consequence of the delay in the shuttle programme, the United Kingdom payload specialists—that means the people who go in it—have returned to normal service duties for the time being. It is intended that when circumstances permit selected members of the team will be recalled when appropriate for refreshment training to enable a United Kingdom payload specialist to fly on the shuttle mission during which Skynet 4A is launched.
  Perhaps it is appropriate for me to concentrate my closing remarks on the contribution made by the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook). I shall then have done justice to all hon. Members who contributed to the debate. He argued that nuclear weapons are unnecessary. The Government's policy is quite clear. It is that an effective defence policy needs conventional and nuclear weapons. These are the weapons possessed by the forces of the Warsaw pact and it is important to duplicate them for our forces. The Royal Air Force needs a nuclear capacity. I put to the hon. Gentleman a question that was not answered in the debate on the Army. If the RAF loses its nuclear capability, will the risk of aggression by Soviet pact forces be more, or less?
  Mr. McNamara rose—
  Mr. Freeman: It was a rhetorical question, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows. Conservative Members believe that there will be a greater risk from the strategy of the hon. Member for Stockton, North. Labour party policy is dangerous and will be rejected decisively by the electorate.
  It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

  Language Training (Wolverhampton)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ryder.]
  10 pm
  Mr. Nicholas Budgen: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the issue of language teaching at Colton Hills school at Penn in my constituency. Associated with that is the question whether the Secretary of State for Education and Science should exercise his powers under section 68 of the Education Act 1944 and hold that the compulsory teaching of Punjabi is, in the circumstances, unreasonable.
  Colton Hills is a comprehensive school on the edge of my constituency and it serves the ward of Penn. Some 54 per cent. of pupils are of Asian origin. At the beginning of the autumn term, parents of pupils in their first and second years found to their surprise that the pupils were required to attend Punjabi lessons as part of a language awareness course.
  A significant minority of the parents objected when they found that the course was compulsory. The question is whether the Secretary of State should hold that the governors of the school and the local education authority acted unreasonably.
  I would contend on a wider basis that compulsory attendance at Punjabi lessons is unreasonable. There are several reasons for that. Teaching Punjabi in Britain, or England, does not help pupils to understand or work in the English community. As you know better than most in the House, Mr. Speaker, Punjabi is not the language of all the Asian people. Punjabi has little practical application for most pupils in England.
  As a Tory I draw upon tradition. The tradition of groups in this country, such as the Jews and, in more recent years, the Poles, has been to encourage the teaching of their language and culture in private lessons and not to all pupils in state schools. Forcing white, West Indian and some Asian children to learn Punjabi against their will and against the will of their parents has stirred up resentment against Asians generally.
  Once the parents, who realise that the teaching is to be compulsory, hear of it being part of the curriculum of any school, there will be a tendency for those parents to exercise their choice by sending their children to other schools. In the example of Colton Hills school, we shall find that when parents who disapprove of the course are fully aware of its continuance—if the Secretary of State allows it to continue—they will exercise their choice, send their childen to other schools, and, sadly, the percentage of Asian children at Colton Hills will rise above 54 per cent. That can only be to the disadvantage of the Asian children.
  The governors and the local education authority at Wolverhampton contend, with massive simplicity, that they have no prejudices. They assert that they are motivated only by a broad benevolence and an open-minded consideration of all the facts.
  For my part, I recognise that my views may be wrong and prejudiced. I concede that they may not even be approved of by a minority of other parents. However, the Secretary of State may not be prepared to hold that the teaching of Punjabi, upon a compulsory basis, is generally unreasonable. But I hope that he will look at the special circumstances of the introduction of the course at the

  1121
  school. I hope that he will hold that the way in which the LEA and these governors have stuffed their apparently liberal, but actually authoritarian, prejudices down the throats of these parents is unreasonable.
  If the governors were to initiate the course upon a compulsory basis, they should have prepared the ground with care, but they did not. First, most of the parents were not given a copy of the prospectus. Secondly, the prospectus was ambigious on the question of whether attendance at Punjabi lessons was compulsory. Thirdly, no other attempt was made to prepare the parents and children for that compulsory course. Fourthly, the suggested compromise that the course should be made voluntary for this year only, in view of the failures of preparation, was rejected out of hand.
  Fifthly—perhaps this is a wider and more serious point—the objectors to the course were treated with arrogance and abuse. From an early stage they were dismissed as racists, and those who accused them of being racists did not bother to explain what they meant. They merely thought that they would be cowed and frightened by that silly unspecific abuse and that they, the accusers, would be able to assert that they had a superior education and culture.
  If it is thought that I exaggerate, I hope that the Secretary of State will consider the way in which the charges that I make were admitted by the chairman of the governors. First, I shall refer to what the chairman of the governors said about the prospectus. In a letter to me, he wrote:
  "I am sure that you are aware that such documents are accurate at the time of writing. Almost always there are variations which are subject to further separate consultation."
  I hope that Councillor Jones does not get a job in the City—bearing in mind the present climate—because if he did, and if he tried to justify prospectuses in such loose and generous terms, he might find himself either the chairman of a large merchant bank or in Winson Green, but I doubt whether he would find himself anywhere much between those places. Secondly, the chairman of the governors issued a press statement in which he said:
  "Advance communication of the details of the course was not as extensive as the head teacher and governors would have considered ideal."
  You may recollect, Mr. Speaker, that I, in a spirit of good will, suggested that there was a compromise. Well, that compromise was dismissed without argument. The chairman of the governors said:
  "We feel that any attempt to make part or all of the language awareness course optional would only be damaging to the educational interests of the pupils concerned."
  We were impertinent enough to ask for further and better particulars of that very general statement. But, of course, it would be too much to expect such important people to give the mere parents further details of their thoughts. They left it at that.
  I contend that the governors and the local education authority have acted unreasonably in refusing to allow the course to be voluntary, at least in this academic year. But there are wider and more important issues that I wish to end by referring to. If the Secretary of State does not deal with this issue in a firm and decisive way, the problem will not stop here.
  I have not troubled you, Mr. Speaker, and the House with the extensive and damaging literature which has been issued by the Labour group and by the governors of the school. It is obvious from the general philosophical
  1122
  remarks, which they put forward as though they were self-evident and obvious, that they intend, if they get away with this, to extend these compulsory courses to all the comprehensive schools in Wolverhampton.
  I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will realise that if he allows these parents to be patronised and abused without check or hindrance, it will be seen in Wolverhampton as a signal. It will be the thin end of the wedge. It will be the signal for the general introduction of Punjabi on a compulsory basis in all comprehensive schools in Wolverhampton. All the parents in Wolverhampton demand the Secretary of State's protection from the social engineering which is the hallmark of the dominant and aggressive Labour group in Wolverhampton.
  10.12 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Bob Dunn): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) for drawing this matter to our attention tonight and in the current issue of the Spectator. In the article and again tonight he has made some interesting comments, in his usually lucid way. I know that the case has produced strong feelings, and it might be helpful for the issue to be debated more widely in order that the implications and consequences of actions taken can be understood and noted by others who may wish to go down a similar route.
  My hon. Friend has asked the Secretary of State tonight to consider using his powers under section 68 of the Education Act 1944, and my hon. Friend has already written to my right hon. Friend with that request. The Department has been making enquiries of the local education authority and a full reply will be sent to my hon. Friend as soon as possible. Meanwhile, I welcome the opportunity to examine some of the main aspects of the case.
  Let me begin by telling the House the circumstances as I understand them. Colton Hills school is a community school. That means that it provides school education for its pupils during the normal school day and offers educational, social and leisure facilities for all members of the community after school, at weekends and in the holidays. One of the benefits of that arrangement is that it should give the school an opportunity to develop closer links with its pupils' parents. That point was made by my hon. Friend tonight and it strikes a chord immediately with me.
  One of the benefits of this arrangement is that it ought to give the school an opportunity to develop closer links with its parents. The events to which my hon. Friend referred are not going down that road. The provision of Punjabi lessons at Colton Hills is apparently nothing new. Punjabi is one of the three main modern language options available from the 4th year onwards. The other two are French and German. At this level, none of the languages is compulsory; but of the present 250 fourth year pupils, 50 take French, 47 German and 22 Punjabi. All these languages are available to public examination level at 16-plus. For second and third year pupils, German is compulsory. In the third year, however, some pupils have the opportunity to take a second modern language which may be either French or Punjabi. So the teaching of Punjabi as a voluntary part of the modern languages curriculum is well-established at the school.

  1123
  How is it, then, that the Punjabi lessons described by my hon. Friend have attracted such anxiety? These lessons were introduced in September of last year. They are part of what is called a "language awareness course" which is being taken by all first year pupils and which is organised in four nine-week modules. Three provide an introduction to a particular language. These are the languages which are offered later as full-time options—French, German and Punjabi. Modules run concurrently and pupils rotate between them; their experience is drawn together in module 4 which considers the structure of language as a whole. For each child, the time devoted to Punjabi is five periods a week over the nine weeks in question.
  The course is not an isolated initiative. It is part of a wider programme to improve the teaching of modern languages at Colton Hills. The initiative came from the headmaster, but I understand that he was acting with the full support of the school governors and the local education authority, I understand also that the course will be regularly monitored by LEA inspectors and that the headmaster will make a report to the governors at the end of the summer term.
  I should like to comment here on language awareness courses generally. Properly structured, these aim to give pupils both a general introduction to foreign languages and some basic linguistic skills. However, such courses are a fairly recent development and their educational merits are still a matter for debate. The necessary time often has to come from that which is normally devoted to the first foreign language taught and schools need to consider carefully—very carefully—whether this time can be spared without detriment to later studies. Let me emphasise, however, the importance of consulting parents. Education has always been about extending children's experience and deepening their understanding through contact with subjects which may at first be unfamiliar. But, where schools are seeking to change what they teach, they must take the parents with them.
  In the present case, it seems that parents were involved only once the course had begun, and this was clearly wrong. Three meetings have taken place since, on 28 October, and on 7 and 25 November. I am told that each attracted a substantial audience, with strong views expressed both for and against. But I believe that much anxiety could have been avoided through better information before term began. The governors have said as much themselves; their statement of 26 November accepts that:
  "mainly due to difficulties associated with the recent teachers' dispute, advance communication of the details of the course was not as extensive as the Headteacher and Governors would have considered ideal. The Governors recognise this and will attempt to ensure that this situation is rectified in future."
  Then there is the question of the school prospectus. My hon. Friend suggested that it was misleading. It is true that there was no mention of language awareness courses in the last edition, but the authority tells me that, when this was published in autumn 1985, no firm plans for the course had been made. If that was the case, and knowing that the issue was so very sensitive, it might have been better to consult, to inform and to make the position clearer in the prospectus. Clearly, it would have helped matters enormously if the course had started less precipitously and after it had been promulgated in a changed published prospectus.
  1124
  My hon. Friend has requested that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State should intervene, using his powers under section 68 of the Education Act 1944. Section 68 empowers the Secretary of State to act where he is satisfied that any local education authority or the governors of any school have acted or are proposing to act unreasonably in the exercise of any of their functions under the Education Acts. The judicial test of what is unreasonable is very stringent. It has been defined in the courts as conduct such that no sensible authority or governing body, acting with due appreciation of its responsibilities, would have decided to adopt.
  Within the meaning of section 68, it must be proved that the authority or governors have acted unreasonably. The lessons in question were introduced by the school with the support of the governors and the LEA. Some 220 pupils are involved, but the LEA says that only 12 formal complaints have been made to the school. Clearly, there is room for more than one opinion about the value of the course. I shall write to my hon. Friend about section 68 and his appeal under it.
  The governors accept that there was a lack of consultation. For the future, the new Education Act should help to prevent any repetition of the difficulties which have arisen at Colton Hills. Strengthening the links between parents and schools is one of the main planks of the Act. Governing bodies of county, controlled and maintained special schools will be reconstituted to broaden membership. In particular, the number of parent governors will be increased so that parents have equal representation with the LEA. There will also be what for many schools will be a new category of co-opted governor representing the community served by the school. Colton Hills already has both parent and co-opted governors, but the numbers of both will be increased under the new arrangements. The new governing bodies in all county schools must be in place by September 1988.
  Furthermore, the Act also requires every governing body to produce an annual report and to hold an annual meeting for parents to discuss it. Parents will be encouraged freely to express their views and to participate with governors in a full and business-like discussion. Therefore, it will be open to parents to raise any matter which concerns them. The first such meeting must be held in schools before the end of the summer term 1987.
  The Act also makes curriculum policies much clearer and more open to public scrutiny and debate. LEAs will have to publish their own curriculum policies, and will be clearly accountable to the local electorate for them. Governing bodies in county and controlled schools will also have to establish aims for the curriculum of their school and may, if they wish, modify the LEAs policy in respect of the school.
  The headteacher retains under the Act the responsibility for organising any curriculum and securing that it is delivered. He is constrained by the LEA's overall policy, but, if that has been modified, he can choose to follow the governors' modification.
  All three partners will be acting under much closer public and parental scrutiny than in the past. The publication of curriculum policies, annual reports from governors to parents and the annual meetings with the parent body will help to ensure that no curriculum policy will be adopted or sustained unless it can be fully justified and commands wide support.

  1125
  I thank my hon. Friend for bringing this matter to the attention of the House and for the robust and clear way in which he delivered his remarks.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes past Ten o'clock.

NORTHERN IRELAND
  Irish Language
  Irish Language
  Anglo-Irish Agreement
  Anglo-Irish Agreement
  Maghaberry Prison
  Maghaberry Prison
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Assisted Places Scheme
  Assisted Places Scheme
  Expenditure
  Expenditure
  Higher Education
  Higher Education
  School Funds
  School Funds
  Science Budget
  Science Budget
  University of Wales
  University of Wales
  Departmental Expenditure
  Departmental Expenditure
ENERGY
  Sizewell B (Report)
  Sizewell B (Report)
  Nuclear Industry
  Nuclear Industry
  UKAEA (Trading Fund)
  UKAEA (Trading Fund)
  Electricity Supply (Isle of Thanet)
  Electricity Supply (Isle of Thanet)
  Sweden
  Sweden
  Nuclear Power Stations
  Nuclear Power Stations
EMPLOYMENT
  Small Firms
  Small Firms
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Engineering Industry
  Engineering Industry
  Hazardous Substances
  Hazardous Substances
  Household Bleach
  Household Bleach
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  Gazumping
  Gazumping
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Manufactured Imports
  Manufactured Imports
  Airbus Project
  Airbus Project
  Japan (Trade Surplus)
  Japan (Trade Surplus)
SCOTLAND
  Community Physiotherapists
  Community Physiotherapists
  Roads
  Roads
  Nuclear Fuel
  Nuclear Fuel
  Dornoch Firth Rail Crossing
  Dornoch Firth Rail Crossing
  Mentally Handicapped People
  Mentally Handicapped People
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Police Vehicles
  Police Vehicles
  Alcohol Consumption
  Alcohol Consumption
  Computer Network (Data Transfer)
  Computer Network (Data Transfer)
  Strip Searches
  Strip Searches
  R. v. Joe Benjamin
  R. v. Joe Benjamin
  Electoral Areas
  Electoral Areas
  Mr. Derek Gordon
  Mr. Derek Gordon
  National Security
  National Security
  Prisoners
  Prisoners
  "The Secret Society"
  "The Secret Society"
  Smoking (Prosecutions)
  Smoking (Prosecutions)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Mr. Roger Cooper
  Mr. Roger Cooper
  Mr. Raoul Wallenberg
  Mr. Raoul Wallenberg
  South Africa
  South Africa
  Diplomatic Immunity
  Diplomatic Immunity
PRIME MINISTER
  Bury
  Bury
  European Council
  European Council
  Peterhead
  Peterhead
  Television Licences
  Television Licences
  Telephone Tapping
  Telephone Tapping
  Engagements
  Engagements
WALES
  Housing
  Housing
  Homelessness
  Homelessness
  Education Act 1980
  Education Act 1980
  Higher Education
  Higher Education
  Assisted Places Scheme
  Assisted Places Scheme
  Arts (Grant)
  Arts (Grant)
  Public Expenditure
  Public Expenditure
TRANSPORT
  Remould Tyres
  Remould Tyres
  Crash Barriers
  Crash Barriers
  A13 (Basildon)
  A13 (Basildon)
  Rose and Crown, Fosdyke
  Rose and Crown, Fosdyke
  Chinook Helicopters
  Chinook Helicopters
  A34
  A34
  Railways (Electrification)
  Railways (Electrification)
  EC (Investment Projects)
  EC (Investment Projects)
  Foreigners (Driving Restrictions)
  Foreigners (Driving Restrictions)
  Helicopter Accident, Sumburgh
  Helicopter Accident, Sumburgh
  Road Accidents (Statistics)
  Road Accidents (Statistics)
ENVIRONMENT
  Countryside (Planning Controls)
  Countryside (Planning Controls)
  Listed Walls
  Listed Walls
  Greenpeace (Correspondence)
  Greenpeace (Correspondence)
  Fisheries (Nuclear Contamination)
  Fisheries (Nuclear Contamination)
  Park Vista, Greenwich
  Park Vista, Greenwich
  EEC Directives
  EEC Directives
  Assured Tenancy Scheme
  Assured Tenancy Scheme
  Blackburn (Swimming Pool)
  Blackburn (Swimming Pool)
  Reema Dwellings
  Reema Dwellings
  Multi-storey Flats
  Multi-storey Flats
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Departmental Staff (Training)
  Departmental Staff (Training)
  Data Processing Staff
  Data Processing Staff
  Electronic Data Systems
  Electronic Data Systems
  Unemployment (Costs)
  Unemployment (Costs)
  Personal Equity Plan
  Personal Equity Plan
  Budget (Representations)
  Budget (Representations)
  Taxation and Incentives Policy
  Taxation and Incentives Policy
  Marriage (Financial Disincentives)
  Marriage (Financial Disincentives)
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Taxation
  Taxation
  Mortgage Interest Relief
  Mortgage Interest Relief
  Personal Taxation
  Personal Taxation
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
THE ARTS
  Arts Council
  Arts Council
  Government Grants
  Government Grants
  British Library
  British Library
  Local Authority Grants
  Local Authority Grants
  Welsh Arts Council
  Welsh Arts Council
  Library and Information Plans
  Library and Information Plans
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Crossroads Care Attendants (Exhibition)
  Crossroads Care Attendants (Exhibition)
  Benefits
  Benefits
  Mortgage Interest (Benefits)
  Mortgage Interest (Benefits)
  Redundancy Payments Scheme
  Redundancy Payments Scheme
  Hospital Beds
  Hospital Beds
  Disabled People (Domestic Assistance Addition)
  Disabled People (Domestic Assistance Addition)
  Severe Disability Premium
  Severe Disability Premium
  Disabled People (Talks)
  Disabled People (Talks)
  Severe Weather Payments
  Severe Weather Payments
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Severe Weather Payments
  Severe Weather Payments
  Maternity and Death Grants
  Maternity and Death Grants
  AIDS
  AIDS
  Chiropodists and Speech Therapists
  Chiropodists and Speech Therapists
  Social Workers
  Social Workers
  Adolescents (Care)
  Adolescents (Care)
  Departmental Initiatives
  Departmental Initiatives
  Condoms
  Condoms
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  NHS (Beds)
  NHS (Beds)
  Mentally Handicapped People (Homes)
  Mentally Handicapped People (Homes)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Forestry
  Forestry
  Environmentally Sensitive Areas
  Environmentally Sensitive Areas
  Cereals
  Cereals
  Common Agricultural Policy
  Common Agricultural Policy
  Rural Economy
  Rural Economy
  Agriculture-related Industries
  Agriculture-related Industries
  Agriculture and the Environment
  Agriculture and the Environment
  Butter
  Butter
  Agricultural Production
  Agricultural Production
  Milk and Beef
  Milk and Beef
  Fertilisers
  Fertilisers
  Dairy Quotas
  Dairy Quotas
  Pesticides
  Pesticides
  Cereals (Over-production)
  Cereals (Over-production)
  Food Surpluses
  Food Surpluses
  Agricultural Land and Buildings
  Agricultural Land and Buildings
  Milk Prices
  Milk Prices
  Less-favoured Areas
  Less-favoured Areas
  Farm Incomes
  Farm Incomes
  Community Budget
  Community Budget
  Agricultural Workers (Wages)
  Agricultural Workers (Wages)
  Beef
  Beef
  Veal Crates
  Veal Crates
  Intervention Stocks
  Intervention Stocks
  Council of Agriculture Ministers
  Council of Agriculture Ministers
DEFENCE
  Foxhunter Radar
  Foxhunter Radar
  Private Contractors (Security)
  Private Contractors (Security)
  Central Ordnance Depot, Donnington
  Central Ordnance Depot, Donnington
  Ships (Operating Costs)
  Ships (Operating Costs)
  Air Defence
  Air Defence
  Trident
  Trident
  Northern Ireland (Fatalities)
  Northern Ireland (Fatalities)
  Recruitment
  Recruitment
  International Communications (Cost)
  International Communications (Cost)
  Intelligence Gathering
  Intelligence Gathering
  "The Secret Society"
  "The Secret Society"
  Electronic Surveillance System
  Electronic Surveillance System
  Low Frequency Transmitter, Glengowrie
  Low Frequency Transmitter, Glengowrie
  Polaris
  Polaris
  Member's Questions
  Member's Questions
  AIDS and Venereal Disease
  AIDS and Venereal Disease
  Meteorological Office
  Meteorological Office
Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Chichester): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Mental Health Act: Release of Prisoners
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they intend to amend the law so as to enable the Home Secretary to prevent in appropriate cases the release by mental health tribunals of persons committed to a mental hospital by order of a criminal court.
The Minister of State, Home Office (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, we have decided in the light of responses to the document we issued not to proceed with any amendment to the Mental Health Act 1983.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I condole with my noble friend on the fact that his department lost its battle with the Department of Health and Social Security. But is he aware of the fact that a number of persons who were sent to a mental hospital on a criminal charge and released by a mental health tribunal against the advice of his department have committed serious offences against British citizens? Is he prepared to resume the battle with the DHSS, in which case he will certainly have my full support?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, there is no battle. It was precisely for the reasons given by my noble friend that we sent out this consultation document. We received over 150 replies and the great majority of those were against any change.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it will almost certainly be salutary for the people who have to make these very difficult decisions to know that if anything goes wrong the courteous ruthlessness of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, will be on to them in no time? In spite of that, does he agree that what is important is the fact that it is often non-violent cases which go wrong and there should be no confusion in the mind of the public that it is only the violent cases which deserve the comments that are frequently made?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am sure that all noble Lords in the House will wish to pay tribute to the considerable work that is undertaken by the mental health tribunals, and indeed, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. When it comes to such cases, whether it concerns a major or minor incident, considerable thought is given to it.
Lord Broxbourne: My Lords, does my noble friend appreciate—I am sure that he does, but convention obliges me to put the question in this form—that the
1028
powers of mental health tribunals to discharge patients from detention (which arise under Section 72 of the Mental Health Act 1983, re-enacting the words of Section 123 of the parent Act of 1959) depend on their being satisfied that the patient is not at that time suffering from mental illness or psychopathic disorder? This is a clear and statutory requirement, is it not? However much we may deplore the errors which result in the consequences that are so rightly deplored by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, will my noble friend confirm that there is no intention to remove the jurisdiction of the mental health tribunals? Is it not perhaps a case rather for guidance to the tribunals than for amendment of legislation?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we are considering procedural matters and deepening our thoughts on this. We hope to reach a decision shortly.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, is the Minister aware that those of us who have had some concern with these matters even in the Home Office think that the conclusion which has been reached by the Government is absolutely right? He has just referred to a review of procedural matters—that is, changes which can be made without amending the law—and I should like to ask him further whether he will undertake to make public in some way or another whatever decisions the Government finally come to?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his support for my right honourable friend and the Secretary of State for Social Services in reaching what he also believes to be the correct decision. With regard to the noble Lord's question about publicising any alterations in the procedure, of course I shall draw this matter to the attention of my right honourable friend.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, following the very pertinent question from the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, and so that there is no confusion on this matter, is it not a fact that not only is there now no battle over this issue between the Minister's department and the Department of Health and Social Security, but indeed it is the decision of the Home Office and the Home Secretary that the wise course is to leave matters where they are under the Mental Health Act?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I disagree with the noble Lord on one point. I think I am right in quoting him as saying that there is now no battle. There never was a battle. It was agreed between the two departments that this matter should go out to consultation. I am grateful to the noble Lord for his support.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the decision of his department as he describes it was taken under force majeure? Is there not a great deal to be said where the safety of the public is involved—as it has been in a number of cases when the advice of his department has been ignored—for the ultimate decision to be taken by a Minister responsible to Parliament and not by a body which in a technical sense is irresponsible?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right in bringing to the attention of the House the important point about safeguarding the public. The argument I put to him, which is probably the main argument that convinced us to leave the situation as it is, is that where there is a dangerous psychopath who has committed only a relatively minor offence he could be released very much earlier if there were a change such as that which my noble friend suggests than if the law is left as it is at the moment.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, does the Minister agree that no reasonable person would ever define force majeure as being a decision reached after full consultation and quite voluntarily?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we are stepping into legal territory and I fear I must decline to answer. However, as a layman I think I agree with the noble Lord.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that decisions of that kind were taken so frequently by the government supported by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that one must bow to his expertise on that highly technical aspect?

Nursing: Recruitment and Training
3.7 p.m.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what policies they are proposing to alleviate the current and projected shortfalls in recruitment to schools of nursing.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, although the number of qualified nursing and midwifery staff continues to increase, we are well aware of the situation regarding recruitment to nurse training and the difficulties that are likely to occur due to the reduction in the number of 18 year-old school-leavers with the appropriate qualifications. In welcoming the publication of the United Kingdom Central Council's proposals for the reform of nurse education and training in Project 2000, my honourable friend the Minister for Health announced on Tuesday that a major feasibility study into the extended use of the Youth Training Scheme in the National Health Service was being set up. A feature of this study is to look at the way in which such training might facilitate entry to professional nursing training and thus help to alleviate nurse recruitment difficulties.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for his partly encouraging reply. However, is he aware of the real seriousness of the situation now confronting nursing, and that it is reaching crisis proportions owing to the fall in the number of school-leavers and the decline in the number of school-leavers who are choosing to enter nursing? Their numbers have dropped from 6¼ per cent. in 1981 to 5½ per cent. today, and only about two-thirds of them actually complete their training.
1030
The situation is so serious that some prestigious schools of nursing, such as the Nightingale School at St. Thomas' Hospital, are having difficulty in filling the available places. Is the noble Lord aware that unless something is done as a matter of great urgency, the National Health Service will face unprecedented problems?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, a crisis will only arise if recruitment and retention patterns remain the same. I can assure the House that action is currently being taken to overcome any problems which might arise. In addition to the feasibility study to which I have just referred, health authorities have been asked to consider increasing male recruitment and to make greater efforts to recruit mature entrants. They have also been asked to organise "Back to Nursing" campaigns to establish nurse banks and to give more opportunities for flexible working arrangements, part-time working and job sharing.
The particular difficulties in London are currently the subject of a review commissioned by the National Health Service Management Board. The management and staff sides of the Nursing and Midwifery Staff Negotiating Council are reviewing the nursing clinical grading structure. The council's aim is to develop a structure which is appropriate to current and future needs. The department is currently undertaking a special inquiry into nurse recruitment and retention problems across the country with the aim of identifying management action which may be required to overcome recruitment difficulties.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it would be much easier to get a large-scale response to mature recruitment and a return to nursing if much better child care facilities were available and if perhaps there were some tax concessions for women who have to make use of child care facilities?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Baroness is possibly correct, but I do not know whether improved child care facilities are part of the Government's programme.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, may I say that some—
Noble Lords: Question! The noble Lord should say, "Is it not the case?"
Lord Ennals: My Lords, is it not the case that—
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I should love to have scriptwriters at my side. Is it not the case that the Royal College of Nursing and most health authorities will be surprised at the noble Lord's response? They know that there is now a serious shortage of nurses and that a large number of wards and beds have been closed merely because of the shortage of nurses. Does he accept that in this academic year there are 6,000 fewer recruits than required in the first-year training pipeline? Does that not bode seriously ill for the future of the health service?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the shortage of 8,000 appears on the surface to be correct, but that figure is made up every year by people coming back into the nursing profession.
Baroness Lane-Fox: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that although those who are consumers of nursing services will be encouraged by his reply, we are nevertheless extremely worried because we realise that, with increasing longevity, unless school-leavers are encouraged to come into the service we shall be in trouble later? Is he further aware that we hope that in all this there will perhaps be some way of improving pay and conditions even more?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, for her question. There are incentives to maintain nurses in the profession. The most recent pay increases from 1st July gave nurses an increase of 8 per cent. a year on basic rates at a time when inflation was running at 2.4 per cent. Even now, with inflation running at about 3.5 per cent., that represents a substantial increase.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the introduction of any scheme connected with the YTS would tend only to lower standards? At the moment, the health service's greatest need is for trained nurses. The only way to achieve that is better pay and a better career structure.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the department is jointly sponsoring with the Manpower Services Commission, the United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting and the National Health Service Training Authority a feasibility study which will explore the scope for expanding the range of opportunities available through the YTS to young people who wish to make a career in caring. One feature of the study is to look at the way such training might facilitiate entry into professional nursing training.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, will my noble friend tell the House how long that feasibility study will take? Is he aware that feasibility studies are not unusual but that they often take a long time to take effect? Will he also say what is being done about accommodation for nurses, particularly in areas where there are high rents? Is he aware that that is a serious disincentive?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, in answer to my noble friend's first question, I do not know the exact date when the study will be finished.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, on the subject of accommodation, will the noble Lord take seriously what the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, has said? Is he aware that many special hostels for nurses have been closed for reasons of economy and that nurses therefore have to find their own accommodation some way away from the hospitals and go home late at night through streets as dangerous in the past few years as they were during the eighteenth century?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am sure that many of your Lordships were here yesterday when we had a
1032
most informative debate during which this subject was also covered. One of the points made was that not only is there a problem over housing accommodation for nurses but that the accommodation which already exists is no longer considered appropriate. That is a feature of society and the changing age in which we live.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, will the noble Lord bear in mind what the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, has said: that the situation is reaching crisis proportions? Is the department at least prepared to consider having consultations at a regional level with the staff associations which know a great deal about this problem and which, in turn, could consult with local authorities in an endeavour to resolve the problem?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the department has always had a policy that the recruitment of nurses is encouraged and completely organised on a regional basis.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that a percentage increase on a low salary is still a low salary; that newly-registered nurses still earn only about £6,500; and that many leave as soon as they have finished training?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, under the current rates of pay the basic starting rate for a staff nurse is £7,750.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, is it not a fact that because nurses make good wives many of them marry earlier than they otherwise would?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am sure that many Members of your Lordships' House will agree with that.

European Air Fares
3.17 p.m.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, as the heads of all 12 EC countries have signed the European Single Act, which will allow proposals that improve competition within the EC to be approved by majority vote, countries will no longer be subject to unanimous decision on the liberalisation of European air fares; and when it is expected that the Act will be ratified.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, when all member states of the European Community have ratified the Single European Act, the Council of Ministers will be able to act on a qualified majority in deciding on aviation proposals from the Commission. Ireland has not yet ratified and it is not clear how long it will be before the Irish Government can do so.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, do I take it from that that no progress on this matter can be made

1033
until ratification takes place? If that is so, will the Minister be kind enough to tell the House what action the Government, as a member of the European Community Transport Ministers' Council, intend to take to expedite the matter? What is the date of the next meeting of the council?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, there is nothing this Government can do about ratification. As I said in my original Answer, it is the subject of a court case in Ireland at the moment. The Single European Act will not come into force until all states have ratified the Act. I cannot say how long it will be before the Irish court case is over. As regards the proposals put before the transport committee, the present arrangements will obviously continue.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, is Ireland the only state which has not yet ratified?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, yes.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, I am sorry, but the Minister forgot to tell me the date of the next meeting of the council.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I apologise. It is 24th March next.
Lord Mulley: My Lords, although I sympathise with the noble Baroness's concern about this matter, I hope the Government will realise that many other questions are involved before they give unqualified support for the operation of a qualified majority on all matters within the council.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, this Question specifically relates to aviation matters before the Transport Council and I have answered it as regards the Single European Act.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord to clarify an important matter arising from the Question and from his Answer. Although it specifically refers to European air fares, it also refers generally to proposals to improve competition. Will the Minister clarify the position? Does the Answer mean that any steps of regulation—I use the word "regulation" in its wider sense—dealing with aviation or airports which the United Kingdom Government may wish to embark upon could be affected by a majority decision?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we are talking about the general competition proposals which are before the European Economic Community Transport Council. As regards the other matters raised by the noble Lord, if they came before the Transport Council, my understanding is that when the Single European Act is ratified by all states they would be subject to qualified majority voting. That is my understanding of the position.
Lord Denning: My Lords, need we wait until the Single European Act eventually becomes law? Under existing law is it not possible to liberalise these air fares? Is it not the position that under the existing
1034
treaty an abuse of a dominant position is a breach of the treaty and unfair competition is also a breach of the treaty, and that those breaches can be dealt with by the courts of law? Can they be dealt with not only by the European Court of Justice itself but also by our national courts under the decisions already given? Am I not right in saying that Articles 85 and 86 can be enforced in our national courts in order to deal with an abuse of a dominant position and unfair competition?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, under the present arrangements we have been trying very hard to achieve liberalisation in European aviation. As regards whether we can deal with the matter in our own courts, I suspect that the answer is no, because unless one wishes to fly wholly within this country another country becomes involved.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, does the noble Lord apprehend that when the Act is ratified the application of the qualified majority to the question raised by the noble Baroness will produce a position satisfactory to Her Majesty's Government?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I very much hope so, provided of course that the Commission and the Belgian presidency stand firm and put an acceptable package of measures before the council.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, does the noble Lord realise that there will be no government at all in Ireland until 18th February at the earliest, and after that there will probably be a very unstable government?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, that does not affect the Question. The Government of Ireland have already agreed to the Single European Act. That will not be affected by the result of the election and it is at present a matter before the Irish courts.

Sizewell Power Station: Inquiry Report
3.24 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government when publication of the Sizewell Report will take place in view of indications in the press that it has now been submitted to the Secretary of State for Energy.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Energy has today announced in another place that he will be publishing the report on Monday next, 26th January.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Viscount for such a clear Answer to that Question. I should like to ask him whether, in view of the very great public interest in the prospect of another nuclear power station, there would be adequate debate in your Lordships' House on the report before a decision is taken by the Secretary of State?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, that will be a matter for the usual channels, but they are here.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, can the noble Viscount give and indication as to the length of time which will elapse before Her Majesty's Government are able to give us their views on and a considered judgment of the report that they intend to publish?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, my right honourable friend has said that he has asked the Leader of the House of another place to arrange a debate there so that Members of that House may express their views before he reaches his decision.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, does the noble Viscount agree that it is perfectly legitimate for Members of this House to be concerned about expenditure incurred in keeping open the options at Sizewell? Ten months ago, on 16th April 1986, the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, quoted a letter from the noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin, where he stated that the cost is £8·8 million per month, which in a year works out at £105·6 million. Since that debate took place I make the cost £90 million. I agree that we are happy that the report is going to be published on Monday, but we should also like, with due respect to this House having time to debate it, a decision to be taken as soon as possible.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I take note of what the noble Baroness has said.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after four o'clock this afternoon my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement which is to be made in another place on regulatory arrangements at Lloyd's.

Broadcasting Bill [H.L.]
3.26 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Caithness.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Amendment of 1981 Act]:
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved the amendment:
Page 1, leave out lines 9 to 18.
The noble Baroness said: This is in the nature of a probing amendment. Having reread the Second Reading debate several times, I am even more concerned about the motivations and contents of this Bill, modest as it may seem, than I was before. At first glance, the proposal to extend the period of the franchise awarded by the IBA from December 1989 to December 1992 would appear to make sense.
1036
Everyone is for considered judgment as a basis for policy-making, rather in the way in which everyone is against sin.
However, it would seem that here there are other motivations behind the Government's proposal. Between the Second Reading debate and today we have had an opportunity to debate in this House the Peacock Committee report. In introducing the Second Reading of the Bill, the Minister said (at cols. 954 and 955 of Hansard):
"broadcasting is on the threshold of a major period of change"
and that:
"time is needed to assess the case for change and to put in hand any preparatory work".
He pointed in particular, and in fact almost only, to the major proposals of the Peacock Committee. I think we must remind ourselves that the Peacock Committee's brief was to examine the financing of the BBC. It then rather spread its wings in some areas in an extremely ad hoc way. Many distinguished people with long and valuable experience in television and radio brought this up in the debate on the report in this House.
Some of the most controversial proposals were that there should be competitive tendering for the ITV franchises; that Channel 4 should be given the option of selling its own advertising rather than being financed by subscription from the ITV companies; and the implicit suggestion that in the longer term the licence fee should be replaced by a system of subscription. They were all matters drawn upon by the Minister in order to justify this Bill. Nothing he said, apart from the points on DBS, went outside this sphere. We were told of the importance of assessing the implications of technological developments, such as satellite and cable television, for existing broadcasting services.
The reason many of us believe that we are not so much on a threshold of change as on a precipice is solely due to the desire of the Government to introduce greater and greater market forces into the life of broadcasting in this country, and in practice to squeeze out public service values, with all the consequences for programme standards. Everyone knows that this will be the result.
This Government have made no secret of their belief in and reliance on market forces across great areas of our national life. We have seen and we are seeing now what has been happening in the City and also in the area of takeovers, where market forces are proving to be a very great detriment to a great many of the other values which are of paramount importance. To bring this factor into the very important field of communications which concerns television and radio could be catastrophic. Nevertheless, we accept the fact that the issues raised by the Peacock Committee are important for the future of broadcasting in this country and need some very careful thought—but not only by the Government.
The Government ask for this time to think; three years in which to hold our brow and ponder the mysteries of television, to weigh judicially the evidence, to balance the facts and slowly reconstruct the British broadcasting system so that it is relevant to the next century. I say the British broadcasting system

1037
rather than the IBA or ITV structure because there is no doubt that any changes in the character of the independent television system, any diminution in the role of the IBA as a public service regulatory authority, would in the first place debase the generally excellent standards within ITV and then slowly drag the BBC into destructive competitiveness. Unfortunately, this is something which must follow.
The Government are using Peacock only as a basis. It might have been more sensible had they thrown their net wider and were discussing this matter in the context of a very much wider spectrum of view. Some of us would then have more confidence in what is going on than we have at the moment.
If the decision were made to auction off franchises, thereby treating that part of the radio spectrum occupied by ITV companies as so much electronic estate, does anyone seriously believe that the new owners, backed by global wealth and many of them coming from outside Britain—largely Australia and America—would want or even could be made to produce programmes with anything more than the profit line in mind? Does anyone seriously accept that such a new system for commercial TV would see the excellence and range of a company such as Granada? These are questions of basic principle for which we do not need another three years in order to arrive at a reasoned argument.
The same can be said of Channel 4 selling its own air time. Parliament discussed the organisation and character of Channel 4. We knew what we were creating. The debate outside Parliament went on for years. That debate threshed out every line of thought on what the new channel should do, how it should be funded and the importance of relationships between its form of funding and its created success, a success now recognised around the world. We do not need to wait three years to see that for Channel 4 to raise its own revenue would at best compromise and at worst destroy the vital and marvellous creation of our fourth channel. If it works, let us leave it alone—and it has worked magnificently for four years. The same argument applies to the subscription for the BBC.
I am well aware that this particular Bill ostensibly relates only to ITV. But we believe—and I feel very strongly—that, given the organic nature of British television, the BBC and ITV operate within a framework which while it does not generate excessive competition, ensures a certain creative tension. This means that given the way in which Parliament created this dual structure of British broadcasting, it is not possible to change ITV without affecting the BBC. It would be quite wrong for this Bill to be passed without us all being clearly aware of this fact.
To wait is to pretend that we do not know what the arguments are. We do know. It is a matter of whether or not the people of this country would be better served by a television service committed to public service, or a service dominated by market forces. Are we seriously to believe that the Government have not yet largely made up their mind on this matter? If they have not done so it would be very strange and completely out of character with what they are doing in other fields. Their reasons for extending the franchise by three years certainly have a whiff of
1038
humbug about them. The Government should have the courage to tell us now in public what they are thinking in private about the future of the IBA and ITV.
I suggest that the Government know well what they have in mind. In asking for three more years for the ITV franchises, they are postponing until after an election decisions which will be enormously controversial and unacceptable to a vast range of opinion in this country. This fact was demonstrated time and again by Members of this Committee during the debate on the Peacock Report. In the unhappy and unlikely event of the Government being returned, they will introduce these measures which will result in a catastrophic effect on television broadcasting in this country.
There has been one important development, direct broadcasting by satellite (DBS). The Government are right in suggesting that we cannot yet know the full implications of such broadcasting. The plan is that the direct broadcasting satellite will be launched in 1989, with the new programme service starting in 1990. It is nice to know that the new consortium is run by optimists. I notice that the press now tend to refer to the early 1990s. One has to accept that probably there will be that amount of delay. Even if the official timetable were met and the marketing of the new service were brilliant, does anyone seriously believe that within one or two years of the service starting the numbers of homes subscribing to the service would be anything other than relatively marginal? Therefore this would provide no real means of judging properly the implication of satellite TV for the terrestial system.
What then of the Government's extension of three years for the ITV franchises when the single most important piece of new information, the implications of DBS, will be missing? The Government and the IBA will still have to make up their minds what to do with the next round of franchises from 1993, well before that date. In fact, if one translates the existing timetable a decision would have to be made by early 1990.
At Second Reading the Minister told us, at col. 956 of Hansard:
"If the Government decide in due course to make changes to the ITV contract system, these can therefore be introduced for contracts which will run from 1st January 1993".
Yet the fundamental decision—the status quo as against auctioning in that particular and important area—would have to be decided well before that date in order to let the applicants know what they are getting into and what they are bidding for. It is difficult to see what we will know then that we do not know now.
I should like to ask the Minister to tell the Committee what are the criteria that will be employed to judge whether or not change in the ITV system is necessary. If there is anything that the Minister has tucked into his brief that goes somewhat outside the Peacock Committee, we should be very interested to hear it. How can the franchise period be extended without undermining the authority of the IBA, whose ultimate power has been its right to remove franchises? Will delay not extend the uncertainty for the future of the ITV companies, without in any way providing

1039
some blinding new insight that we have not had to date?
In what ways will three more years change the really fundamental questions raised by the Peacock Committee: that is to say, public regulation as against something called "consumer sovereignty"? If, as I hope they did, the Government took note of what was said in this House on that important debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Annan, they ought to have a good idea of the feelings here. Views were expressed which went far and wide and which are shared by the other companies, by other people, the BBC, and many of the public outside.
Why are the Government so sure that by the time any decision needs to be made—well before 1993—we shall know anything at all about DBS? If by some freak DBS is up and running and commercially successful, we would not have to accept that the use of technology has been allowed to determine public policy rather than the other way round. We would not have allowed three years in which to manufacture a Frankenstein's monster hell-bent on destroying the terrestrial television system as it gained an even greater presence in the homes of this country. "Waiting and seeing" is no way to run public policy.
If we must have this three years' extension when the implications of the Peacock Report appear to be in the Government's mind, and when the Peacock Report seems to have become the new bible of broadcasting, would it not make more sense to recognise that many of the recommendations of Peacock were half-baked, ill thought out, and not backed up by serious evidence? I would repeat, to be fair to Peacock, they were not in their original terms of reference.
The Government are attempting to deal with the future of television and radio on a piecemeal basis: an inquiry here into BBC finance; a Green Paper there on radio; a piece of research on subscription television; a bit of legislation on ITV franchises; and a glancing blow on Channel 4. When is there to be a discussion in which the various points of what is now known about audio-visual culture (as it is now being called), which covers TV, radio, satellite, cable and video, will be treated as a whole within a much wider economic and social context? What is needed is a far-flung inquiry, which would not only take in Peacock but look at a much wider area.
May I also ask the Minister whether, even before that takes place, there is going to be a Green Paper on the television side of the Government's thinking? As we are all aware, there is a joint committee working at the moment under the chairmanship of the Prime Minister, I think it is absolutely essential that not only both Houses of Parliament but everybody generally—people concerned in the profession, and the most important people of all, the viewers who are the consumers—should have a chance to consider this matter.I hope that, if we can get somewhere here we can at least alleviate to some extent the unhappy situation arising on this Bill. I beg to move.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I must declare an interest in the question I am about to ask my noble friend
1040
because I am concerned in a company which wishes to operate a community radio service. Since this all relates to the general policy of the Government in respect of broadcasting both by television and sound radio, I should like to ask a question of my noble friend in this connection, having duly declared my interest.
Your Lordships will recall that the Home Office, in the late summer of 1985, called for applications by people who wished to operate community radio services. The company with which I was concerned duly put in an application. We were told month by month that we would get an answer some time. It would be next month, and then it would be early in 1986, and in fact we heard nothing until the spring of 1986, when we were told that the whole thing was off, with no explanation and indeed no offer of any compensation to those who had gone to some trouble and expense in preparing their applications.
There have been indications in the press that the Home Office may be coming back to this question of community radio, and there was a suggestion that a statement might be made this month. I do not know whether this matter directly relates to the present Bill, although it undoubtedly directly relates to the Government's whole policy in this matter, and in particular to the handling of it by the Home Office and by my noble friend.
My question to my noble friend is just this: does this Bill have any connection whatever with the Government's thinking now on the future of community radio; and, even if it does not, has my noble friend anything he can tell us about this? On the whole, those of us who have been interested in this project have shown commendable, perhaps even excessive, patience, but I take this opportunity of asking my noble friend, when the Government's general policies on these matters are under dicussion, whether he can help me at all in this matter.
Lord Aylestone: If this amendment is accepted by the Government we should realise that we return to the status quo. That is to say that immediately the Independent Broadcasting Authority—and I say "immediately" because it is going to be quite a long job—have to advertise for 15 programme contracts, find the consortia who are applying for them, and make a decision within a period slightly less than three years.
It could be done, but what would then have been done—if in fact it is done—is that they would have given an additional eight years to the 15 existing companies. If the amendment is accepted, we are thinking in terms of the existing 15 television companies having 11 years in which to function. Here I agree with the noble Baroness who moved the amendment, that there is so much to be thought about, so much to be done, much of it arising from the Peacock Committee, that that sort of period of 11 years is quite unnecessary. Therefore we on these Benches support the Bill.
We feel that a three-year period from 1989, taking us to 1992, in addition to the remaining three years, would be more than sufficient for this Government—and possibly another Government; an election is bound to take place in that time—to come

1041
forward with a completely new idea on broadcasting, partly based on Peacock and partly the result of the technological changes that are likely to take place. I do not want to exaggerate, but it is fairly certain that by 1992 there will be two direct broadcasting stations on the air, and maybe three. All I am suggesting in opposing the amendment—and hoping that the Government will not accept it—is that the terrific amount that has to be done should be done in 11 years, not six.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I am grateful to my noble friend on the Front Bench for providing the opportunity—which was seized upon immediately by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, as he is entitled to do—to raise matters about which we are concerned. One of the precise problems is exactly what is within the ambit of the Bill. He reminds me, too, that in the context in which applications have been made for community radio, I must declare an interest in being associated with a company based upon the community in Enfield.
My noble friend Lady Birk quite rightly draws upon the opportunity that has been taken between Second Reading and today to examine a little more closely exactly what could be meant by the Bill. At Second Reading the Minister was fair to the House. At col. 955 of the Official Report for 4th December last, he said:
"The second purpose of the Bill is to leave open the options"—
that is a massive invitation for those who are interested in broadcasting and television—
"for change which could affect the ITV contract system. The most obvious issue here concerns the procedure for awarding the contracts".
Later he says:
"These are … large issues, and I hasten to stress that the Government have reached no firm conclusions on them".
The Minister then said:
"Therefore, time is needed to assess the case for change and to put in hand any necessary preparatory work".
My noble friend Lady Birk has, in an excellent manner, trailed a number of thoughts and concerns without necessarily opposing the principles of the Bill. I know she does not oppose the Bill, but she wants assurances on the part she seeks to delete. In the context of our terminology, as she says, this is a probing amendment.
I declare an interest and I am briefed in this matter by the Association of Cinematograph, Television and Allied Technicians—the employees who undoubtedly have a fine employment record, but are also entitled to have an interest in what happens to their jobs and the future of the industry in which they work. They tell me that they are very concerned about some of the things that have been said in relation to changes that might be proposed in awarding the ITV contracts. My noble friend Lady Birk alluded to the competitive tendering or auctioneering of the ITV franchises. This is one of the options to which the Minister did not directly allude, but it clearly is there. I think that the Committee, Parliament and everyone outside in the Community will need to consider carefully some of the detrimental effects that will flow, if that seemed to be where we were going.
1042
My noble friend Lady Birk said that one might substitute a great deal of good that has been part of the package in deciding the award by substituting a purely financial free market criteria. Of course we want an opportunity to look at the balance sheet and money, but we are also concerned for the range and quality of the programmes. I take this opportunity of asserting that bidders for franchises might be less concerned with providing programmes with adequate range and quality. In my view there would inevitably be a deterioration of broadcasting standards. Whoever might be the gainers, whoever might get the contracts, whoever might feel satisfied, I take the view that the losers would be the viewers in this country.
I go further and say that the only gainers, the only winners, would be the media multinationals, Rupert Murdoch et al, who have the financial resources large enough, wide enough and vast enough to buy into the ITV system. My noble friend Lady Birk, in what will be read as a very perceptive speech, draws to our attention that at this moment everyone in this country must be concerned with what is happening and what the Government are encouraging—that is, takeover mania, bigger and better and therefore right. We need at every opportunity—this afternoon at four o'clock on a Thursday is our opportunity—to urge the Government not to think again but to be very careful in what they do in this very important matter.
If we are talking in terms of an ITV franchise necessitating committing large sums of money to an auction, this could be to the detriment of the money that could be spent on programming. I want the Government to look very carefully at the manner of consulting those who are affected. There are all sorts of stages at which confidentiality needs to be respected, but I hope that the Government will do this in as open a manner as possible and include those who are earning their living in, and who have given their lives to, the industry. They are entitled to as much consideration as ever. I hope the Government will not see, encourage or stand aside and watch a casualisation of those who work in the media. We do not want individuals, whether they are members of one union or another—I simply mentioned one union—to feel that they are being casualised. The Minister and his advisers are well aware of what we are talking about.
References have been made to access for independents to ITV. I am not opposed to the principle, but reference has been made in some of the documents to access for independents to television. A whole range of specific and solid guarantees is required in advance to protect the interests of permanently employed staff and to prevent casualisation. We think that the Government should use these next three years seriously to discuss with many individuals what is to happen.
Those who are far more well briefed than the noble Lords, Lord Aylestone and Lord Boyd-Carpenter, are, with great respect, from their deep, long and committed association, well aware that no change of the size we are contemplating has ever previously taken place without long, open and public debate. My noble friend Lady Birk, I think quite rightly, poured scorn upon the totality of the wisdom contained in the Peacock Report. That report was an essay which was brought forward. The Government were frightened at

1043
the time about what it meant and kicked it into court. I think the Government should reflect seriously before we rush too far into a great many of these matters.
I believe that the Government should reveal as early as possible what they intend to seek in these matters. My noble friend Lady Birk has provided the Government, the Minister and his advisers with a good opportunity to be frank with Members in all parts of the Committee, who are not, as I see it, in a mood to deny passage to the Bill, but who want to be satisfied that the interests that need to be protected and reserved are given every opportunity. Make no mistake about it, at the end of the day in many people's minds, it will be the weight of money, pressure and influence.
There are others in this Committee, among whom I count myself, who are deeply concerned at the quality, the good name, the reputation which British television on all channels has enjoyed so far. The Government and the Minister have an opportunity at least to assure us that they are listening very carefully to what we are saying.
The Earl of Selkirk: May I ask my noble friend whether he thinks it wise to use an abbreviation in an Act of Parliament which is not absolutely understood by everybody? It certainly was not understood by me, though naturally that shows my ignorance of these matters; but I think it is an undesirable practice which perhaps the noble Lord will look at very carefully.
4 p.m.
Lord Beaverbrook: I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken so far in this Committee. Before talking about the detail of the noble Baroness's amendment, perhaps I should respond to some of the broader points that she has made and try to reassure her of the Government's intentions in this matter.
In moving her amendment, the noble Baroness suggests that the Government propose to take decisions on Peacock issues in isolation and perhaps on a piecemeal basis without taking proper account of other views. That is not the Government's intention, and it is not the purpose of this Bill. The Peacock Committee raised a number of issues which go to the very heart of the present arrangements for British broadcasting and how they might develop in the light of far-reaching technological change. Technological change is happening every day. It affects all our lives, and we have to try to make the necessary arrangements to take account of these changing circumstances. Despite the noble Baroness's suspicions, the Government have not made up their mind in any way on those issues, and have made it clear how much they welcome public debate.
The IBA agrees that a three-year period for the issues to be clarified and settled is a sensible length of time. If the noble Baroness's amendment is accepted, it will not be possible to reflect any changes in the wider world of broadcasting before 1998. That would clearly not be a sensible way of proceeding.
If I can now turn to the details of the noble Baroness's amendment, the effect of her amendment is to omit Clause 1(3) of the Bill. This clause limits new
1044
ITV contracts from 1st January 1990 to three years. Taken together with the Government's intention, if Parliament agrees to the provisions of the Bill to implement Section 46 of the Cable and Broadcasting Act 1984 (which will relieve the IBA of the obligation to advertise the shortened round of contracts), Clause 1(3) will in effect provide a three-year extension of the existing contracts of those ITV companies who wish to apply for them.
As the Committee well knows, the Peacock Committee thought that the contracts procedure should include an element of competitive tendering, with the possibility of a longer contract period. But other issues arising from the Peacock Report are also relevant. The Committee proposed that Channel 4 should be given the option of selling its own advertising time, and there is a possibility that some or all IBA services might be encoded alongside BBC services if—and I emphasize "if"—subscription was introduced in place of the licence fee. If substantive changes on these lines were to be made, the sensible time for them to be implemented would be at the beginning of an ITV contract round.
The IBA have also put forward proposals for change in the system of awarding contracts. These include the possibility of a longer contract period, with provision for a formal review of a company's performance at specified intervals.
I want to emphasise as powerfully as I can that the Government have reached no conclusions on these matters. These are important issues which could have substantial implications for our independent television services. It is surely right that decisions on the case for and nature of change should be taken with care, with a proper opportunity for relevant interests to make known their views and for detailed consideration of the implications. Of course, there will be contrary points of view, but the Government have not yet reached a conclusion on the balance of any advantage. There is a serious issue here which must not be dismissed. The closing off of all options for substantial change before 1998 would clearly not facilitate consideration of these important matters.
The present contract arrangements are set out in the Broadcasting Act 1981, and any significant changes, whether on the lines proposed by the Peacock Committee or the IBA or otherwise, would require legislation. Bearing in mind that the current ITV contracts expire on 31st December 1989, it would scarcely be practicable to come to sensible decisions and undertake the necessary preparatory work within this timescale. This is a point that the noble Lord, Lord Aylestone, has emphasised. The fact is that the IBA would need to advertise during this year for new contracts for a maximum eight-year period until the end of 1997. Moreover, activation of these procedures, on what would be tantamount to a contingency basis, while decisions were being taken on a different method of awarding contracts and associated matters, would clearly not be in interests of either the parties directly involved or, I suggest, of independent broadcasting generally. The lead times needed for the production of a high quality television service should not be underestimated. Prospective contractors need to prepare their applications. The IBA has then to consider them. Time must be allowed

1045
for a successful new contractor to make the necessary investment and recruitment of staff Account has to be taken of the enhanced role for the independent producers which the Government have explained they would like to see. The noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, brought up the subject of independent producers. That matter needs to be explored very carefully, as he said very clearly to the Committee.
Conversely, if no provison was made to limit the maximum length of new contracts from 1st January 1990 to a period less than the current eight years, there would be no opportunity for changes to the contracts system—or other changes which might have implications for the contracts system—until the end of 1997. In other words, we should be locked into the existing framework for a further eight years, with no early opportunity of putting into effect such changes as Parliament may in due course judge necessary.
It is perhaps worth emphasising that neither Clause 1(3) nor the Bill as a whole make any substantive changes in the existing contracts arrangements. As I have said, new contracts procedures will require legislation. This Committee will therefore have an opportunity of considering at that time such proposals for change as may come forward. But the Bill also provides that if no substantive legislation changing the award of contracts is enacted by 1993, the IBA would be able to proceed on the existing basis with contracts to take effect from 1st January 1993. The Bill does not therefore commit us to changes in the present arrangements: it does no more than keep options open in a neutral way.
The noble Baroness asked about the DBS service that is due to come on the air at the end of this decade. DBS is an entirely new concept and no services are yet operational. We hope that the service might be beginning in 1989 or 1990, but much will depend upon the time-scale of the contractors in raising the necessary finance and the date by which the satellite can be successfully launched. We should not underestimate the difficulty of this project, and I think we should again bear in mind that technological progress can work two ways. It can hold us back if it is not very successful and it can, indeed, force us to move forward on other matters.
The noble Baroness asked whether the Government would be bringing forward a Green Paper on television. This is an interesting idea which merits deep consideration and we shall bear that approach in mind. My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter raised the question of community radio. That is outside the scope of this Bill but I can assure him that it will be a fundamental part of the Green Paper on radio policy which the Government aim to publish shortly. The Green Paper will look at the scope for new radio services at both national and local level, including community radio, which the Government concluded last year could not sensibly be introduced on an experimental basis under existing legislation.
If the noble Baroness's amendment were accepted, the timetable would not permit sensible decisions or offer a real opportunity for fresh legislation. The IBA would need to advertise new eight-year contracts during this year, to run from 1st January 1990. The Government do not think it sensible to let that happen
1046
and their view is shared by the IBA, which has also proposed changes in contract procedures. I must therefore ask the Committee to reject this amendment.
Baroness Birk: At the very beginning when I introduced the amendment I thought I had made it clear that it was a probing amendment. I can put at rest the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Aylestone, because I shall not be pressing it to a Division. I was quite rightly using the amendment as a means of raising the concern that I felt about the Bill.
The Minister stressed several times that the Government have not yet made up their minds, but it still does not alter the fact that on Second Reading—and he has not gone very much further now—it all seemed to be centred on the recommendations in Peacock. The Minister said how much the Government want public debate in order to be helped in making up their minds. If the Government want public debate and really mean it, they must have something to put to people so that comments can be put forward. We cannot just say that we want a big public debate on a subject when people do not even know what is being proposed. One cannot have a public debate on a long report like that from the Peacock Committee. It has to be something more concrete and very much more specific.
I hope the Minister will pass on to his right honourable friend my suggestion of an inquiry, but the only ray of light that I think I got from his answer was his reception of the idea of a Green Paper. I very much hope that he will pass the suggestion on to his right honourable friend because it is absolutely essential. It would also give the Government the opportunity—and the noble Lord keeps repeating that they have not yet made up their minds and are keeping their options open in a neutral way—to extend that beyond what Peacock said.
I do not take the view that everything in Peacock is bad—there is a lot of good stuff in it. However, some of the most specific and important proposals are, quite frankly, not well enough thought out. That is apart from the intrinsic content of them, with which so many of us disagree. That was expressed brilliantly by so many people during the debate on the Peacock Report. I do not think this matter can be taken any further at this stage, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.

Lloyd's: Regulatory Arrangements Report
4.15 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Lucas of Chilworth): My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if before embarking on another Committee stage I repeat the Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on the

1047
subject of the Neill Report. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a Statement on the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Regulatory Arrangements at Lloyd's.
"I have today laid before the House as a Command Paper the report of Sir Patrick Neill and his colleagues. I am sure that the House will wish to join me in expressing warm appreciation of their work.
"The committee was set up by my predecessor a year ago to consider whether the regulatory arrangements being established at Lloyd's under the Lloyd's Act 1982 provide protection for the interests of members of Lloyd's comparable to that proposed for investors under the Financial Services Act. The committee recognises the major contribution Lloyd's makes to the national economy. The report notes that the Council of Lloyd's has strengthened the regulation in its market by putting into effect a major programme of reform since the 1982 Act entered into force.
"The committee makes 70 recommendations which should bring the two levels of protection into line. The committee does not believe that the solution to the problems they have identified is external supervision of Lloyd's or an extension of the role of my department. It recommends instead a change in the balance of representation on the Council of Lloyd's by increasing the number of nominated independent members: they and the elected non-working members would then command a majority.
"The committee also recommends an enhanced role for the nominated members in Lloyd's, for example, through their chairing important committees.
"The committee's conclusion is that its recommendations will make the protection of Lloyd's members comparable to that provided under the Financial Services Act. The committee has moreover taken care to strike a balance between the safeguarding of members' interests and the protection of Lloyd's policyholders.
"The Government believe that the report provides a good basis for the further development of measures to protect the interests of Lloyd's members. I shall of course be discussing the report with Lloyd's. I shall want to hear their proposals and timetable for action. I am looking to Lloyd's to take all the necessary steps to bring the protection offered to members up to the standard of the Financial Services Act. I shall therefore be following closely with them their progress in this matter."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord for repeating the Statement which his right honourable friend has made in another place. I am sure the House will also wish to join in expressing warm appreciation of the work that has been conducted by Sir Patrick Neill and his colleagues. We were only in possession of this report this morning. It is a very large work and very detailed, and all
1048
reactions and any questions that I may be asking on behalf of the Opposition at this time are by their very nature preliminary. We shall have to study this report in the detail that it deserves and no doubt we shall have an opportunity to discuss it when we have done so.
The Neill Report, if I may refer to it as such, catalogues certain improvements that have been made since 1982 in the regulation of Lloyd's and the protection of Names but it comes firmly down on the side of those who believe, and have believed—to quote from the summary at 1.5—that the regulatory arrangements now in place do not,
"provide protection for Names comparable to that proposed for investors under the Financial Services Act".
In other words, self-regulation since 1982 has not satisfied the committee in this respect. The recommendations of the report to which the noble Lord referred in the Statement are many and various but, as he pointed out, there is one recommendation which is of prime importance; that is, that the composition of the council should be changed.
My first question to the noble Lord is whether he has had any indication at all from Lloyd's that it accepts that major recommendation. The second question refers to the proposed composition of the council. It is easy to believe that the nominated members, although they may be nominated by independent bodies, are not necessarily those who will have the public interest in mind. I say "not necessarily" and I choose my words very carefully.
They are very distinguished people who have been nominated. But I should like to ask the noble Lord whether the Government have any thoughts, and indeed whether he has heard that the Council of Lloyd's has any thoughts, on changing the method of nomination so that the public may be satisfied—in the way that the public will be satisfied when the Financial Services Act is in place in respect of other organisations of a comparable nature—that the public interest is properly represented.
Thirdly, the report makes no recommendation as to the independence of the chief executive. This is a matter which was widely discussed at the time of the resignation of the previous chief executive, and I think your Lordships will want to hear from the Government what view they believe they should take as a result of this report on that major point and whether they have any indication from the Council of Lloyd's of what view the council takes.
The main problem with this report, in our view, is with the terms of reference, because the terms of reference are quite clearly stated in the report. Paragraph 1.1 reads as follows:
"Our task has been to consider whether the regulatory arrangements at Lloyd's provide protection for Names comparable to that proposed for investors under the Financial Services Act, 1986."
In so far as it goes, of course, the report addresses itself quite rightly to that point. Nevertheless, the report refers to the working Names, and indeed approximately one-sixth of the Names at Lloyd's, according to paragraph 2.8 of the report, are working Names; and it is my understanding that a great number of these working Names are, in fact, Lloyd's brokers.
The report quite rightly does not go deeply into, and says that is does not go into, the question of regulation

1049
of Lloyd's brokers. Are not Lloyd's brokers themselves, as brokers, covered by the Financial Services Act? Are we not therefore, if that is the case, in the position, if the recommendations are implemented in full, even so of having two systems of regulation running parallel, one which follows the Financial Services Act and regulates brokers, and another following the recommendations in the 1982 Lloyd's Act, which also regulates brokers but from a different point of view? Are we not now fully familiar with the defects of the Takeover Panel and the operation of the Financial Services Act, where two different systems of regulation try to go hand in hand?
Finally, I think we would take the view that so far as it goes this report is an advance. We hope very much that the Council of Lloyd's will accept the recommendations, and that we shall be coming back to that later. Nevertheless, there is nothing that I have seen in this report which deflects us from our view that the proper organisation of Lloyd's should be as a self-regulating organisation under the Financial Services Act, and we believe that that is something which the Government should bear in mind and should wish to consider again. So far as it goes, this is fine, but I note in paragraph 1.10:
"This change does not achieve precise comparability with the arrangements that will exist under the Financial Services Act".
It is that comparability, which is required in order to re-establish confidence in the market that we all wish to see, that we hope the Government will bear in mind.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, my first duty is to make it clear that, although there was a time when I had a financial interest in this matter—that is to say, up to 1964 when I was a very modest Name—at that date I became Chief Secretary to the Treasury and since then have had no interest whatsoever. We on these Benches also wish to thank the Minister for repeating this very important Statement and to join in thanking all those, particularly the chairman, who have devoted so much time to preparing a thorough and speedy report which is very valuable in present circumstances.
I want to make it clear that we welcome the Government's Statement. We welcome the Government's decision that the interests of Lloyd's, the interests of this country and the interests of policy holders are best sustained by Lloyd's having the responsibility for seeing that their business is carried out with complete integrity, and that that should be their responsibility and not the responsibility of the Government. We think that they are best equipped to do this, as indeed is, in my view, every professional body, to know where to look for things going wrong and to have the strongest possible feelings against any member who transgresses. We think for those reasons, and for seeing that this country has the necessary repect for the integrity of Lloyd's which will continue the sense of confidence which it enjoys throughout the world, that the Government are right in the main decision that they have made.
Nevertheless there are one or two questions which I want to put to the Minister in order to clarify some of the sentences in this Statement. As we know, there is to be an enhanced role for the nominated members in Lloyd's and, in particular, the Statement says,
"for example, through their chairing important committees";
that is, in addition to the outside members having the
1050
majority, should that arise, they should have the right to chair important committees. I ask whether that involves any change in the 1982 Lloyd's Act, which I understood stipulates certain members of Lloyd's for chairing certain important committees.
Then the Statement refers to the safeguarding of members' interests and the protection of Lloyd's policyholders. May I ask the Minister whether I am right in believing that there is not a single case where a policyholder has been denied the benefit of his policy through a default of any underwriting member or syndicate of Lloyd's? The Statement goes on:
"The Government believe that the report provides a good basis".
I accept those words completely. I agree that considerable further discussion needs to take place. For example, should not the independent members include an important link with the SIB, as happens at the moment? Should not that be, somehow or other, made a permanent arrangement, so that there would be no possibility of the members of the committee being unaware of the interpretation of their responsibilities being undertaken by the SIB? That interpretation may vary from year to year as new circumstances arise, and it is important that the attitude of the Lloyd's supervisors should be exactly the same as the attitude of the City supervisors, if I may put it in that shorthand language.
Then the Statement refers to the Secretary of State wanting to hear their proposals and timetable for action. Of course we understand that. Am I right in saying that that means the Government will make a further Statement about this matter when an appropriate stage in discussions with Lloyd's has been reached?
4.30 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Williams and Lord Diamond, for their reception of the Statement which I have just repeated. I think that both noble Lords will appreciate that the Government have not sought the views of the Council of Lloyd's as regards the report; nor have we put to the council our views on that report. Therefore I should prefer to consider many of the questions raised this afternoon as points of view expressed by both noble Lords. Those views will of course be communicated to Lloyd's. However, there are one or two of those questions that I can answer.
Perhaps I may turn first to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, concerning whether or not Lloyd's should have been within the ambit of the Financial Services Act. We did not think so at the time of the passage of the Bill which is now the Act, and we do not feel it is necessary at this time. The view of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, is quite contrary to the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, who has said that he believes that Lloyd's is best able to regulate its own affairs and protect its integrity. This is a view which we held consistently during our discussions on these matters last year.
The noble Lords, Lord Williams and Lord Diamond, asked me about the composition of the council as regards nominated members. Until we hear the views of Lloyd's as to how it intends to implement the recommendations or otherwise, I do not think that it would be right for me to make any suggestions from

1051
this Dispatch Box. No doubt both the council and ourselves will have to give consideration to that point in the light of the response of the council.
As regards the independence of the chief executive, which was a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, I believe that that, again, is entirely in the hands of the Council of Lloyd's. It will obviously take account of comments that have been made here and probably elsewhere, as well as taking account of the report itself.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, asked a question on the terms of reference. I do not think there is anything I can say about that matter. Sir Patrick Neill's committee worked along the terms of reference set down in January 1986 and the committee has reported in line with those terms. In regard to brokers, who were mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, certainly they are covered, as I think the noble Lord recalls, by provisions of the Financial Services Act. How brokers are to be regulated in their responsibilities at Lloyd's is essentially a matter for Lloyd's. I heard what the noble Lord said with regard to the Takeover Panel.
In answer to a specific question which the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, asked concerning whether I knew of any case where a policyholder had been disadvantaged or lost out, the answer is, no; I know of no case whatsoever. When we spoke of the representation and the membership of the council, the noble Lord asked whether any changes would be necessary in the Lloyd's Act 1982. I have to tell him that in the time available to me I have not been able to consider every point. Perhaps I may communicate with him on that question.
The last question raised this afternoon related to the timetable referred to in the Statement. As the noble Lord, Lord Williams, has said, the report is a long and fairly complex one and it needs some study. I should be reluctant to forecast any kind of timetable. However, I certainly anticipate that my right honourable friend will ensure that Parliament is kept informed.
Lord Kimball: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that Lloyd's itself is very grateful to Sir Patrick Neill for his thorough and careful study of the situation? It must be particularly grateful for his finding that,
"Lloyd's now represents a prime example of self-regulation in action".
It is also grateful to Sir Patrick for paying tribute to the energy and determination with which Lloyd's pursued compliance with the 1982 Act by passing new by-laws, by its codes of practice and by its associated regulation.
Is my noble friend aware that at a special council meeting of Lloyd's this morning, on the advice of its legal advisers that it has power within the present Act the council agreed to accept Sir Patrick's principal recommendation on the change of the composition of the council? I am confident that all the 70 recommendations in this report will be approached in the same spirit. I am also confident that the recommendations in Chapter VII on the procedure for Names complaints, which committee I have had the privilege of chairing for the past few years and which Sir Patrick now thinks is inadequate, will be complied with.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend, who has never made any secret of his involvement with Lloyd's and the Council of Lloyd's. I am glad he is able to bring from Lloyd's its gratitude to Sir Patrick Neill and his colleagues for the report. I was not aware that the council had this morning decided to adopt the suggestions made in the report with regard to the change in composition. I am grateful to my noble friend for telling us that this is so. I am particularly glad to hear from him of his confidence about the other 69 recommendations, including those in Chapter VII. The Government look forward to receiving the council's response to the report in due course. We shall then, in our turn, be able to make comments on its actions.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I should like to join with other noble Lords who have spoken in welcoming this report. It represents a further step in strengthening the regulatory framework within which various parts of the City of London operate. I believe that what is now important is to make sure that these different regulatory frameworks are compatible with one another. My noble friend Lord Diamond, in his remarks, asked whether there would be a continuing and very close liaison between the SIB and the new Council of Lloyd's to make sure that they operate in tandem wherever their interests come together.
Secondly, I should like to raise the question of review. Many people have been concerned about certain developments at Lloyd's which were the reason for this report. Is the Minister able to indicate whether, after a certain lapse of time, there is provision for reviewing the operation of the new arrangements?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, for his general acceptance of the report.
I think I have said all that I can say with regard to the framework of regulations and the compatibility between Lloyd's Council and the SIB. It is not for me or indeed the Government to say what form that relationship should take. I think it is reasonable to say that Sir Patrick Neill and his colleagues over the past 12 months or so have had to make their inquiries under the terms of reference against what I might almost call a moving target, in that there have been so many changes in the past 12 months. I hope that the Council of Lloyd's, with which we are concerned this afternoon, will take careful note of what has been said with regard to liaison with other regulatory bodies.
As to a review, my understanding is that Lloyd's itself keeps its own regulatory system under review. I return to what I said earlier: we have yet to study the report. We have then to consider what Lloyd's has to say to us—that is implicit in the Statement—before I can say anything about further formal reviews.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, not until after the next general election, I imagine.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, that is a very different question. No doubt the noble Lord looks upon the next election with less anticipation than I do, because I am quite confident that we will be continuing our programmes, successful as they all have been shown to be.

Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
4.42 p.m.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Glenarthur.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD WELLS-PESTELL in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Confiscation orders]:
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 14, leave out ("person's drug trafficking") and insert ("offence of which he has been convicted").
The noble Lord said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak to Amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 3 together because they are linked. The key comes in Amendment No. 3, perhaps because the other two are the forerunners to it; that is, to include in the offences for which confiscation may take place offences involving dishonesty where the proceeds are at least £10,000.
This part of the Bill is drafted to follow the Drug Trafficking Offices Act 1986, which makes provision for drug trafficking offences in England and Wales. The Government in another place introduced the Criminal Justice Bill for England and Wales, which contains provisions regarding confiscation of proceeds of serious crime other than drug trafficking offences.
The thinking behind both the drug trafficking offences confiscation and the provisions regarding confiscation for non-drug trafficking offences, if I may so refer to it, owes an immense debt to the report of the committee chaired by Sir Derek Hodgson on the profits of crime and their recovery.
The issues that I have attempted to raise in the amendments are, first, in what circumstances should confiscation to the state rather than recompense by the offender to the victim be appropriate; and, secondly, whether in the Bill as drafted we are being asked to approve of the idea of offending against the basic principle of law in a democratic society, which is the presumption of innocence.
To deal with the first matter, I believe it is only appropriate to remove to the state the criminal proceeds of crime if it is not reasonably practical to make the proceeds of crime go back to the victim. The victim should be compensated out of the proceeds before the state should confiscate. This means that I should not consider it appropriate to have confiscation in, say, a bank robbery because the proceeds of that crime should go back to the bank by means of compensation, civil action or whatever.
However, confiscation would be and is appropriate in what is wrongly but generally called "victimless crime". It is clearly wrong because there are victims in the crimes involved in drug trafficking matters and in all other victimless crimes. It would be more correct to say "unascertainable victim crimes" rather than "victimless crimes". I will perhaps be excused if I
1054
continue to refer to them as "victimless crimes". These are not only drug offences; they include, for example, insider dealing and various other types of fraud.
The Bill is correct in my view in giving a discretion to the court and to the prosecution to apply for or to apply confiscation. That is one major distinction from the drug trafficking offences legislation, which made it mandatory. If the drug trafficking provisions regarding confiscation are correct—and, if they are to be discretionary, I think that in basis they are—there is no reason not to give the same discretion in Scotland for non-drug trafficking offences such as fraud, as I have said, and insider dealing in the appropriate type of case.
On Second Reading the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate I think mentioned that the Government wished to refer this matter to the Law Commission for Scotland. I have great difficulty in seeing why that is so. The Government have decided that non-drug offences are to be subject to confiscation in England. In that case, why do the Government take a different view on Scotland? The last thing that I should have thought we wished to see—and if I may speak as a Scot, the last thing that I wish to see—is the people who go in for crimes which, if they committed them in England, would result in the confiscation of their assets, coming up to Scotland to commit them in order to avoid the confiscation of their assets. That is why, in my view, it is proper to add these non-drug serious offences to the power to confiscate. In my view these should be in the victimless type of crime.
The second point is the presumption of innocence. I should like to quote from the judgment of the Chief Justice Dickson in the Supreme Court in Canada in the case of Regina v. Oakes, of which no doubt the noble Lord the Minister is fully aware. He said:
"The presumption of innocence is a hallowed principle lying at the very heart of criminal law … The presumption of innocence protects the fundamental liberty and human dignity of any and every person accused by the state of criminal conduct. An individual charged with a criminal offence faces grave social and personal consequences, including potential loss of physical liberty, subjection to social stigma and ostracism from the community, as well as other social, psychological and economic harms. In light of the gravity of these consequences, the presumption of innocence is crucial. It ensures that until the state proves an accused's guilt beyond all reasonable doubt, he or she is innocent. This is essential in a society committed to fairness and social justice".
With a little research I think I could have found similar statements in any decade of English or Scottish criminal law. It is, however, not clear whether the provisions in this part of the Bill offend against the presumption of innocence.
What may happen is that if a person is convicted of a drug trafficking offence, under Clause 3 the court may assume that any property he holds or has held over the past six years is the proceeds of drug trafficking offences. What it does not say is whether it is to be assumed that the property is the proceeds of the drug trafficking offence for which he has been convicted. That is the major purpose behind Amendment No. 1.
I remind the noble Lord the Minister, who dealt with drug trafficking offences when he held another ministerial responsibility, that in Scotland we do not have a procedure for trying sample charges and we do not have the procedure of having offences taken into

1055
account. It is a purely English system that in records of previous convictions a person had 18 other other offences taken into consideration. Perhaps I may give an example of what may happen.
Suppose a man is caught on an embankment in Leith retrieving a parcel containing, say, ten pounds of heroin. He is clearly to be convicted of possession with intent to supply, and therefore it is a drug trafficking offence. As practice is at the moment in Scotland, that is the only offence he would be charged with; and of course he has not made the slightest profit out of it because the police have the ten pounds of heroin.
It was reported in the Guardian newspaper two days ago that in England two suspected drug traffickers had their bank accounts frozen by the High Court in London under the Drug Trafficking Offences Act. The two people were apparently caught with six kilos of heroin. As a result of what was found in the bank accounts restraint orders were being sought. That is all very well. If that were to happen in Scotland and large assets were found in various bank accounts and building society accounts belonging to an accused person, who has perhaps been drawing supplementary benefit throughout the previous six years and during that time has gone through two or three Porsches, that evidence, together with the possession of heroin, might clearly persuade a jury that over the previous five or six years he had been engaged in the supply of drugs to others.
If the Bill is to be used in that way, to enable evidence to be obtained, a charge to be brought and a conviction to be achieved showing a long series of trafficking in that way, I have not the slightest criticism and only congratulations for the Government. But it is not clear from the way the Bill is drafted that that is so. If, however, he is to be convicted on the example I have given of the one instance of possession and his assets are then to be revealed to the court, then according to Clause 3 of the Bill, unless he can prove the opposite, his assets over the past six years are to be assumed to be the proceeds of drug trafficking for which he has never been charged, let alone been convicted.
I quoted Chief Justice Dickson in the Oakes case because the Canadian state has adopted the Convention on Human Rights. We are bound by it although we have not adopted it. The Oakes case was, like this, a case of a reverse onus arising. Here, there is a reverse onus on the convicted man to prove that his assets were not from drug trafficking. In the Canadian provision the Canadian narcotics legislation provided that there was first a trial under the normal rules to determine whether an accused possessed drugs. If he was convicted of possession of the drugs the law provided that it was then for the accused to prove—in other words, a reverse onus—on the balance of probabilities that the possession was not for trafficking. That law was held by the trial judge, by the unanimous decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal and unanimously by the Supreme Court of Canada to be unconstitutional because it breached the Convention on Human Rights and the presumption of innocence.
It is because of my anxiety that we should not act against the convention and, after the Act has been in
1056
force for some time, be hauled to Strasbourg to be told that this is all illegal, and also because of my conviction that the presumption of innocence is, as Chief Justice Dickson said, basic to a democratic society, that I put forward these amendments. They make it clear that the offence which is to be taken into account is the offence for which the person has been convicted.
Sir Derek Hodgson and his committee did not quarrel with that. The very minor disagreement in the committee was on the effect of sample charges. With the greatest diffidence in speaking of English procedure, it is my understanding that if the sample charges are proved the person is then asked what his attitude is to the other charges outwith the sample, and it is hoped that he will ask for them to be taken into account. We do not have that procedure, but if those charges are taken into account there is in a sense a conviction in relation to those. There is no suggestion of assuming guilt for other offences, as appears to be a possibility here on one reading of the Bill. For those reasons—and I am sorry to have delayed the Committee for so long—I beg to move.
Lord Wilson of Langside: To an elderly Scots lawyer like myself it is a matter of great encouragement that so alert and fertile a mind as that of the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, has been applied to the problem not merely of keeping the law of Scotland in line with that of England, but ensuring that our law in the criminal context does not fall behind. I gathered from part of what he said that that results in the possibility of large or small numbers of insider dealers seeking refuge for their activities in Scotland at any time.
I look forward to the Government's response to this series of amendments. I have great sympathy with the view that it is better that this matter should be looked at and considered by the Law Society of Scotland. Of course, there are times when one takes a different view, but it is a matter of striking a proper balance and I should have thought that a better balance would be struck by ensuring that the matter is looked into in detail in the context of the Scottish legal system before any action is taken in relation to the problems raised by the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna.
5 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: I listened with care to the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, but I am bound to say that I am a little confused by the rather contradictory messages that come from his Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 taken with Amendment No. 3.
The main thrust of Part I of the Bill is that we should be able to get at the proceeds of drug trafficking. Thus Clause 1 empowers the High Court, in assessing the amount of a confiscation order, to take into account not only the profits of the offence or offences of which he has been convicted, but the profits of his entire drug trafficking career, wherever his activities may have taken place and whether or not he has previously been convicted of any offences. This approach follows exactly the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986, which the noble Lord prayed in aid, and which received support from all sides of your Lordships' House when we discussed it last year. Indeed, when it comes to the presumption of innocence, which was the point raised

1057
by the noble Lord, it was not, I think, in dispute at any stage during the passage of that Bill through your Lordships' House. However, I shall return to that point in a moment. Drug traffickers will know that they face the confiscation of all their proceeds of drug trafficking and we hope that because of it they will think twice before conducting their evil trade in this country.
Despite his introductory remarks, the effect of the noble Lord's Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 would be to change all that. The High Court would be able to take account only of the proceeds of the offence of which the accused had just been convicted. It would not be able to take his wider activities into account and the offender would know that he would be able to enjoy the proceeds of any such activity on his release from prison. It may even be that the offence of which he was convicted was not a particularly lucrative one and any confiscation order would make little or no inroads into his fortune. But most importantly, the Bill would be very much weaker than the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 and it would be a weakness which drug traffickers would not be slow to exploit and which might encourage them to move north of the Border.
I think that the noble Lord referred to the case of Regina v. Oakes when he spoke about the question of presumption of innocence. The important point to bear in mind is that there is of course no question of requiring a person who is accused of a drug trafficking offence to prove his innocence. The burden of proof will remain on the prosecution in the usual way to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty of the offence with which he is charged. However, after conviction the onus can be placed on the offender to show which of his assets were legitimately acquired, if the court considers it appropriate to do so. In our view such a provision is essential if the courts are to have a chance of depriving a convicted offender of the full proceeds of his crimes. I think it has been generally recognised that this particular crime is such a vile one that draconian methods are needed to try to prevent it developing any further than it has already developed.
I now turn to Amendment No. 3. As my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate has said—I think at Second Reading in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna—it is not the Government's intention to extend the provisions in the Bill to cover the confiscation of the proceeds of crime generally. As the noble Lord himself indicated, this whole question was the subject of a remit to the Scottish Law Commission—and indeed, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, referred to this point just now and seemed to agree with this proposition—which was suspended when the present proposals were being drawn up.
It is the present intention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to refer this whole question to the Scottish Law Commission to enable the fullest possible consideration to be given to what I think the noble Lord himself acknowledges to be a very complex question. In doing so, the Scottish Law Commission will be able to take account of the operation of the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986, which came fully into force on the 12th of this month;
1058
they will also have the benefit of seeing how this Bill and the Criminal Justice Bill have fared in their passage through Parliament.
The noble Lord's amendment seeks to broaden the effect of the Bill to include profitable crime generally, and while I appreciate why he is trying to do so, he will not be surprised to learn that I cannot advise the Committee to accept the amendment. Indeed, in the light of remarks made by his noble friend Lord Mishcon when we were dealing with the earlier Bill last summer, I was somewhat surprised when I saw it on the Marshalled List.
Apart from the considerations that I have already outlined, I believe that it is wrong to try to extend the drug trafficking provisions in this way. My noble and right honourable friends south of the Border have dealt with the question of confiscation orders in other cases than drugs in separate legislation because a different approach is necessary in these cases. The drug trafficking confiscation orders in the 1986 Act deal with any exceptional and grave problem and therefore bite much more deeply than the confiscation orders in the Criminal Justice Bill currently before another place. In seeking to deal with the two types of order in the same Bill, I fear that the noble Lord has succeeded only in diluting the effect of the drug trafficking confiscation orders, as I have already explained in relation to Amendments Nos. 1 and 2. This is just an example of the kind of difficulties we would find ourselves in, and why we think it better that the whole question should be looked at by the Scottish Law Commission, for whom I am sure the noble Lord has high regard. I hope therefore that he will agree to withdraw his amendments.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I am not quite certain whether it was at Second Reading or during the Committee stage of the Drug Trafficking Offences Bill, as it then was, that the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, raised the question of the presumption of innocence. Certainly the possible effect of the Convention on Human Rights was raised at that point, though not in any great depth.
It appears to me that the position in Scotland is very different because of the lack of Scottish procedure for sample charges. It means that after conviction for a possession for which there can be no profit, the court is asked to assume that something going back six years has been the profit of drug trafficking. It is very difficult to see how that does not involve a conflict with the presumption of innocence.
I have some doubt about why that is necessary, because in Scotland there is a procedure whereby one can be fined an unlimited amount. The Minister will no doubt say that imprisonment is always an alternative to a fine. So it is. There may be cases where a person would rather go to prison for a couple of years than pay a fine of £1 million. There is also a provision in Scotland for recovering fines by civil diligence. If the court intends to operate by fine and recovery, it can recover out of the convicted person's bank account. The Government have made up their mind that it is right to confiscate the proceeds of certain crimes. For Scotland, they have decided that they have a procedure that is proper to do it. It may be that my amendment is too shortcircuiting. The Government

1059
have come to a view that it is right to confiscate the proceeds of non-drug offences in England and have decided that it is appropriate to confiscate the proceeds of drug crimes in England and Scotland, so what is the Law Commission for Scotland left to do? Without a reference to it, the Government have already decided how to proceed. I regret that I find the Government's responses unsatisfactory, but I shall look at what the Government have said. I ask leave to withdraw the amendment at this stage, without making any promise that I will not return to it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 not moved.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 5 agreed to.
5.15 p.m.
Clause 6 [Implicative gifts]:
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 7, line 21, at end insert ("of a case").
The noble Lord said: With this amendment I hope that is will be for the convenience of the Committee if I refer to Amendments Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 and speaks to them together because they all refer to the same matter.
On Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, entertained us with a scathing description of Clause 6. We have had another look at its drafting in the light of his remarks. The purpose of Clause 6 is to enable the court to assess the value at the time the confiscation order is made of a gift made by the accused. Such gifts, referred to in the Bill as "implicative gifts", can be either outright gifts or gifts for which the recipient paid the accused significantly less than its market value.
The purpose of the formula in Clause 6(2) is to enable the court to calculate the current value of the difference between the value of the gift at the time it was given and the price paid by the recipient. We also wish to ensure that the donee of an implicative gift does not secure a windfall advantage if the subject of the gift appreciates by more than the rise in the value of money between the date of receiving the gift and the date that the gift has to be valued under Clause 5.
It may be helpful if I explain the relationship between Clause 5 and Clause 6. Clause 5(5) (b) provides that for the purpose of assessing the amount of the confiscation order, the value of the implicative gift is to be the value of the gift when received adjusted to take account of inflation or, where the recipient still holds the actual property, the value of the property if it is greater. Thus, to take first the example of an outright gift: where the accused gave the recipient a painting worth £1,000 which he then sold and the proceeds of which he spent on a holiday, the value of the gift at the time of the confiscation order is to be £1,000 adjusted to take account of inflation. If, however, the recipient kept the painting and it is now worth £2,000, the value of the gift is to be £2,000.
The formula in Clause 6 comes into play when what we are talking about is not an outright gift but a sale for less than full value; for example, where the accused has
1060
sold a painting worth, say, £3,000 for £1,000, the value of the benefit to the recipient of the gift at that date would be £2,000; that is, the difference between £1,000 and £3,000, which is two-thirds of the value of the painting at that time.
If the recipient kept the painting which is now worth £6,000, the value at the date of confiscation is to be in the same proportion; that is, two-thirds of £6,000, which is £4,000. That is all Clause 6 seeks to achieve, albeit by what, on the face of it, seems a fairly complex formula. Regrettably, there would seem to be no simpler way of expressing this matter without some degree of ambiguity or uncertainty, which is something I am sure the Committee will agree must be avoided even at the cost of some complexity in the resulting provisions.
The Committee may wish to know that the committee of my noble friend Lord Renton on the preparation of legislation said that it welcomed the use of formulae where that enabled the draftsman to avoid a complex verbal description. I fear that a verbal description in this case would be more than tortuous. We have tabled the amendments to improve the overall drafting of Clause 6 which I hope makes the formula more readily understandable. I believe that there may be an error in the lines in Clause 6 referred to on the Marshalled List. I shall study that. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: As I understand it, the error is not on the Marshalled List, it is in the Bill. The figure 35 in the left-hand margin has been placed too late. It should have been placed against the previous line. If that is done, my noble friend's last three amendments make sense, otherwise they do not.
Lord Glenarthur: I am grateful to my noble friend. I think that perhaps arose because the formula was taken to be one line when it is two, or the reverse. I shall ensure that is corrected.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I have no intention of opposing any of these amendments. So far as one can follow them, they appear to make the position clearer. As a Member of this place for but a short time, may I suggest that it would have been clearer if the amendment had taken out Clause 6(2) and reprinted it. One could then have looked through the Marshalled List to see what the Government's intention is. It is difficult to find what the Government's intention is from Amendments Nos. 4 to 14.
Lord Renton: I warmly support that observation. That course would have saved us a tremendous amount of trouble. There are many occasions when that would be a more suitable way of disclosing what the Government have in mind. I welcome the use of a formula in this case. Unfortunately, formulae are rarely used except in fiscal legislation. Even there, they are perhaps not used as often as it might be helpful to use them.
Lord Glenarthur: I am grateful to my noble friend. I shall certainly let my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Morton, have a copy of the re-ordered subsection. Perhaps I should have let them have a copy earlier, but I shall certainly make sure that it is available forthwith.
Lord Wilson of Langside: I should be very grateful if the noble Lord would also let me have a copy. I was most grateful to the noble Lord, as I am sure were other noble Lords, for supplying us with Notes on Clauses. Without them I was quite unable to understand Clause 6. I appreciate that that was entirely due to my own intellectual limitations and I am not trying to claim otherwise. Like the other two noble Lords who have spoken, I too felt that it would have been much simpler had we had the amendments incorporated into the subsection. I gave up. Possibly if I had had a week to reflect on them I may have been able to understand the full implications. I would not claim that with any certainty at all. I had to take them very much on trust as I did not have the time or the resources to try to master them. I agree with what both the noble Lords have said.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendments Nos. 5 to 14:
Page 7, line 23, leave out from ("less") to ("than") in line 24.
Page 7, line 25, leave out from ("transfer") to ("section") in line 26 and insert—
(". In subsection (2A) below the said consideration is referred to as "consideration A" (or as "A") and the said value as "consideration B" (or as "B").
(2A) In the case mentioned in subsection (2) above,").
Page 7, line 26, leave out ("in such a case").
Page 7, line 27, leave out ("value of the gift when received were") and insert ("reference in sub-paragraph (i) of subsection (5)(b) of that section to "the value of the gift when received" were a reference to").
Page 7, line 28, leave out ("the value referred to").
Page 7, line 29, after first ("of") insert ("the said").
Page 7, line 29, leave out ("of that section were") and insert ("the reference to "the value there mentioned" were a reference to a value").
Page 7, leave out lines 34 and 35.
Page 7, line 36, leave out ("so").
Page 7, line 36, after ("to") insert ("in the said sub-paragraph (ii)").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 5 to 14 en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 15:
Page 7, line 42, leave out from ("purpose") to end of line 43 and insert ("which is recognised as charitable by the Inland Revenue").
The noble Lord said: During the Second Reading debate my noble friend Lord Ross of Marnock questioned whether this was not a very wide description. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate has explained to me that this subsection arises from the insolvency legislation. With that explanation, as it would be better to have the same clause, I shall not move this amendment.
[Amendment No. 15 not moved.]
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7 [Application of provisions relating to fines of enforcement of confiscation orders]:
The Lord Advocate (Lord Cameron of Lochbroom)The Lord Advocate (Lord Cameron of Lochbroom) moved Amendments Nos. 16 and 17:
1062
Page 8, line 51, leave out ("paying a sum to the clerk of the court") and insert ("making such payment").
Page 9, line 5, leave out from ("7") to end of line 10.
The noble and learned Lord said: For the convenience of the Committee I shall move Amendment No. 16 with Amendment No. 17. As currently drafted, Clause 7 provides that where imprisonment has been imposed for default of a confiscation order, any additional sum raised by an administrator and handed over to the clerk of the court is to reduce the term of imprisonment imposed in default. It does so by applying Section 409 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 to the enforcement of confiscation orders, with the proviso that in these circumstances the reference to the person paying a sum to the governor of the prison is to be construed as including a reference to an administrator paying a sum to the clerk of the court. We now take the view, however, that there is no reason why the administrator should not hand over an outstanding sum to the prison governor in the normal way, and this amendment therefore removes the proviso to Section 409 in Clause 7. Amendment No. 17 makes a consequential amendment to the reference to Schedule 7 to the 1975 Act in Clause 7. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 8 to 16 agreed to.
Clause 17 [Supervision of administrators]:
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 16, line 44, leave out ("(d)") and insert ("(c)").
The noble Earl said: This is a straightforward amendment which simply seeks to ensure that an administrator appointed under the Bill cannot enter into litigation relating to the property in respect of which he has been appointed without the consent of the accountant of court. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 18 to 24 agreed to.
Clause 25 [Compensation]:
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendments Nos. 19 and 20:
Page 20, leave out lines 18 to 22.
Page 20, line 29, leave out from ("paid") to the end of line 42 and insert ("by a police authority or joint police committee under the Police (Scotland) Act 1967 or by Commissioners of Customs and Excise, or by the Lord Advocate, as to the Court of Session shall seem just.").
The noble Lord said: In speaking to Amendment No. 19, it may be convenient if I also speak to Amendment No. 20 which is almost consequential on Amendment No. 19.
Amendment No. 19 endeavours to strike out paragraph (a) of subsection (2). This relates to compensation if a person's property is taken and then in the end he is acquitted. It relates to the circumstances in which compensation may be payable. According to subsection (2):

1063
"The Court of Session shall not order compensation to be paid … in any case unless satisfied—
(a) that there has been some serious default on the part of a person concerned in the investigation of the offence or offences concerned, being a person mentioned in subsection (4) below, and that, but for that default, the proceedings would not have been instituted or continued.".
Again this raises the question of the presumption of innocence. This is a very draconian provision because we already have the condition in (b), which I am not attacking in any way, that there has to be a substantial loss suffered. We are in a situation where somebody has been acquitted and so has been wrongly accused of a crime. He has suffered substantial loss, but no compensation is to be payable unles there has been serious default by somebody on the prosecution side.
It is very interesting to contrast these provisions with those in the Consumer Protection Bill which we were discussing earlier in the week. Under Clause 14 of that Bill, which involves suspension notices, in subsection (6) the Government propose that:
"Where an enforcement authority serves a suspension notice in respect of any goods, the authority shall be liable to pay compensation to any person having an interest in the goods in respect of any loss"—
not any substantial loss, but any loss at all—
"caused by reason of the service of the notice if—
(a) there has been no contravention in relation to the goods of any safety provision";
in other words, if a person has been acquitted:
"and
(b) the exercise of the power is not attributable to any neglect or default by that person.".
We on this side of the Committee put forward an amendment to add to the protection of the authority that compensation will not be payable unless it were shown that the officer did not have reasonable grounds for exercising the power. The Government said no, and that amendment was refused. If the Committee compares it with the provision here, how is it possible to justify it? In a situation where somebody has been acquitted and suffered substantial loss, it may be that it is a totally false allegation against him. Perhaps somebody has gone to the police and said, "Mr. So-and-So trades in drugs", and then the whole case collapses. Why should the accused not get compensation in those circumstances?
The Government should not apply double standards. It is important that people who are found by the courts to be innocent should not be penalised. This is another situation where the Government intend to penalise somebody. In this case it happens to be somebody who has been acquitted.
I should like to remind the Committee that, contrary to the English procedure, in Scotland there is no way that somebody who is tried for an offence can recover the costs of his or her successful defence. In England, I understand it is normal that the costs are paid out of central funds. That is not the case in Scotland: you pay for your own defence. Not only do you pay for your own defence if wrongly accused, but apparently you have to show serious default on the part of somebody concerned in the police, Customs and Excise or procurator fiscal's department before you have any chance of getting back the substantial loss that you have sustained. I beg to move.
Lord Wilson of Langside: I have always felt it was a flaw in our criminal legal system in Scotland for an accused person who was acquitted not to have the right under any circumstances to have his costs met out of public funds. Nevertheless, I would not support this amendment in the context of this case. I do not wish to go into details. I have no doubt the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will have a good deal to say and that he will not accept the amendment.
The real flaw in the case of the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, as he put it is that while he talked about a person who had been acquitted of a crime, the first time he came to the point he suggested—as I understood him and I hope I did not mishear or misinterpret his remarks—that the person had been wrongly acquitted of a crime. Unfortunately, because of the presumption of innocence there are occasions on which people are acquitted of crime who could not be properly described as being wrongly accused of the crime.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, for reminding us of a matter in our Scottish criminal justice system, namely that there is no right to compensation for an individual. It has to be borne in mind that there are many cases in which compensation would be entirely inappropriate—for example, where a person by his own actions brings reasonable suspicion to bear on himself, or when an accused is acquitted on purely technical grounds. This was the kind of point the noble and learned Lord was making.
Perhaps I should mention that as the noble Lord opposite indicated at the start of his remarks in moving this amendment, this is compensation if proceedings are instituted against a person and then certain things happen. Proceedings are instituted by the prosecutor. It is not a question of a false allegation being made. An allegation may be made, it may be false, but it cannot become proceedings, as the noble Lord opposite recognises, until such time as the prosecutor has satisfied himself that there is both evidence in law to support a charge and sufficient evidence in law.
Compensation as of right would therefore not be acceptable, and there would be considerable problems, both of practice and principle, if the courts were forced to make invidious distinctions in this way between those who ought to receive awards and those who should not. This was the view of the late Lord Thomson's Committee on Criminal Procedure, expressed in its second report, in 1975, on the question of awards of expenses in criminal cases, and it is I think applicable by analogy to the matter before us today.
We should also bear in mind—and again this point was made by Lord Thomson's committee—that people in Scotland are protected against improper prosecutions by the fact that we have an independent public prosecutor who is charged with the responsibility of initiating a prosecution only where sufficient evidence exists to support it and the matter is of sufficient importance to justify it. Clause 25 therefore properly limits compensation to cases where

1065
there has been serious default on the part of a person concerned in the investigation. This enables compensation to be paid in appropriate cases, without creating a need for invidious distinctions between people who have been acquitted. On the other hand, It ensures that compensation will not be payable under the Bill where a prosecution has proceeded in good faith and on proper grounds. This seems to me entirely reasonable within the current framework of our Scottish system.
I should point out that Clause 25 is specifically stated to be without prejudice to any right which may otherwise exist to institute proceedings in respect of delictual liability in the circumstances. This new statutory provision will therefore not inhibit a person who suffers loss as a result of the Bill from seeking other existing remedies.
Finally, may I make the point that Clause 25 in its existing form is precedented by Section 19 of the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986.
The noble Lord made much play, earlier, about trying to be alongside England, yet here we are, and he objects. I am bound to invite the Committee to oppose this amendment if the noble Lord should press it. But, I would invite him to withdraw it in view of what I have said.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I think that when the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate reads what he has said he may realise he appeared to make some confusion between expenses and what we are concerned with here. I merely pointed out that, contrary to the English proceedings, there is no way of paying the expenses of somebody who is acquitted. That does not happen in Scotland—that is the difference.
I was not challenging that that should be. What I am challenging, and suggesting is wrong, is that compensation should be payable in the special case here, where a person's property has been taken away from him for a period which may easily be six or nine months. Then he is acquitted, but he has suffered a substantial loss. This point is still to be found in subsection 2(b). I am not challenging that matter. Then he is to get no compensation for the substantial loss.
I regret the position I appear to be in. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate seem to be saying that unless you can prove some form of serious default on the part of somebody concerned in the prosecution it does not matter: a person has been accused of a serious crime, he has suffered a substantial loss but it does not matter.
It is interestng to see that result because freedom of the individual is of crucial importance to us all. I was not aware that the Labour Party was the only party who were interested in the freedom of the individual who had not been convicted of any crime. It appears that that may be so. We cannot be in a position where somebody is to be judged because they are being suspected of a crime.
I have had the honour to serve four Lords Advocate (or Lord Advocates, I am never quite sure what the
1066
plural is), including the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside. In the 10 years that I held that office I was fully aware—and I am sure that both noble and learned Lords are fully aware—that there are cases where witnesses set up a false case.
There is no fault on the part of the police. They have to take the statements that are made to them and put the case forward. There is no fault on the part of the prosecutor. He has the evidence. It is not the prosecutor's job to judge whether the evidence is true. That is the property of the jury. The court has to decide whether or not the person is guilty. It appears to me that we are going a long way and setting a dangerous precedent, but I do not wish to take the matter to a Division at this stage. Subject to the fact that I may return to this matter, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Wilson of Langside: Before the amendment is withdrawn, perhaps I may make the comment that I am astonished that in a Bill of this kind my old friend Lord Morton of Shuna should seek to make a rather silly party-political point about freedom of the individual. I think it is pathetic, but there it is. The real point is that I was not saying that there was not a problem here. I am quite aware of the problem, as I am sure the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate is. When I said that I would not support this amendment, what I was saying was that whatever the problem was this was not the sensible way to deal with it, and that was all I was saying.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: I should also like to support the point that the noble and learned Lord has just put to the noble Lord opposite. I noticed in passing that he failed to make any reference to the terms of Section 19 of the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986, which I understood was a Bill supported by his party.
Lord Morton of Shuna: Certainly the Bill was supported by the party. We are trying to apply it to Scotland. There are differences already in the Bill which I have pointed out. There are differences in the English procedure. The one factor that may make a crucial difference after a long trial and an acquittal is that the English acquitted person gets his costs paid out of central funds. That is one crucial difference.
Another crucial difference here is that in England it is mandatory, in Scotland it is discretionary. I do not wish to continue this argument. I am sorry if the noble and learned Lords thought I was childish. I do not believe that I was being childish. It appeared that one was getting guilt by accusation, and I would be perfectly prepared to stand with Chief Justice Dickson.
Amendments, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 25 agreed.
Clauses 26 and 27 agreed to.
Clause 28 [Enforcement of Northern Ireland orders]:
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 22, line 29, leave out ("a drug trafficking offence") and insert ("an offence to which that section relates").
The noble Earl said: This is a purely drafting amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 28, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 29 agreed to.
5.45 p.m.
Clause 30 [Sequestration of person holding realisable property]:
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 24, line 39, leave out ("but the Lord Advocate, or the administrator if one has been appointed, may") and insert ("and it shall not be competent to").
The noble and learned Lord said: This is the first of a rather formidable looking group of amendments; namely, Amendments Nos. 22, 23, and 27 to 31 inclusive. There is however behind them a relatively simple purpose which is to provide that confiscation orders should not be able to be claimed in sequestrations; and that a claim in respect of a confiscation order or a restraint order cannot found a petition for sequestration. The amendments will apply to confiscation orders and restraint orders made under this Bill or under the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986, which are being enforced in Scotland. By making these amendments we will ensure that the Bill's provisions will not cut across the rights of ordinary creditors in these circumstances, and also align the Bill with the equivalent provisions of English law.
Rule 12 of paragraph 3 of the Insolvency Rules 1986 provides that in England and Wales a confiscation order is not a provable debt and therefore cannot lead to a claim in bankruptcy proceedings. It is not possible to proceed in this way in Scotland as we do not have the concept of provable debts nor the power to make such rules in subordinate legislation. Accordingly, I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 24, line 42, leave out subsection (3).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 25, line 2, leave out ("those powers") and insert ("the powers so conferred").
The noble Earl said: This is simply a drafting amendment to make clear that the powers referred to in subsection (4) of Clause 30 are the powers conferred on the Court of Session which are mentioned in subsection (2). I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 30, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 31 to 37 agreed to.
Clause 38 [Offence of prejudicing investigation]:
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 33, line 26, leave out ("does anything") and insert ("makes any disclosure").
The noble Lord said: This is a case where my amendment seeks to bring this Bill into line with the
1068
Drug Trafficking Offences Act. I raised this at Second Reading. In view of the absence of any amendment from the Government to bring this into line I tried to search to see whether these words were in the Drug Trafficking Offences Bill as originally printed or were put in by some rebellious House, but it did not appear to be so.
In Section 31 of the Drug Trafficking Offences Act the words are, "makes any disclosure". Here it is "does anything", which is extremely wide. At Second Reading, in, admittedly, an attempt to be slightly frivolous, I pointed out that you could impede an investigation by getting married to the suspect, because then your evidence could not be used against him. Perhaps the Government will explain (whichever Minister is going to do the explaining) why they are changing this provision from what is in the Drug Trafficking Offences Act. I beg to move.
Lord Glenarthur: I share the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, that the offence provision should not strike at a person who does something unintentionally which prejudices an investigation. However, I must say that these circumstances should not arise. Clause 38(2)(a) provides a defence that the person did not know or suspect or have reasonable grounds to suspect that by acting as he did he was likely to prejudice the investigation. The offence thus strikes only at the person who knows or ought to know that what he is doing will prejudice the investigation.
His offending behaviour may or may not, however, involve the making of a disclosure. We have to consider the ways in which a person may prejudice an investigation without disclosure of any kind being involved, for example, by deliberately misleading the investigators and sending them on a false trail. To restrict the offence only to making disclosures might, we think, allow some culpable individuals to evade punishment.
The noble Lord referred to what he says was a frivolous suggestion—that somebody might get married in order to get away with it. All I can say to him on that is that Section 29 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980 provides that a spouse may be a competent witness. I therefore do not think that the example that the noble Lord drew at Second Reading was correct.
Lord Morton of Shuna: If he or she marries the accused there is no way one can force him or her to give evidence for the prosecution. I can assure the noble Lord of that.
Lord Glenarthur: I thought that it was a question of compellable but not competent.
Lord Morton of Shuna: It is the other way round, competent but not compellable.
Lord Glenarthur: The noble Lord is right.
Lord Morton of Shuna: We are still awaiting the reason why the Minister considers that the Drug Trafficking Offences Act—which he steered through this Chamber only some six months ago—is so

1069
defective. As this Bill is amending the Drug Trafficking Offences Act, why is the noble Lord not trying to amend it by including "does anything" in the Drug Trafficking Offences Act instead of "makes any disclosure"
Lord Glenarthur: The noble Lord has rightly pointed to the differences between Scotland and England with regard to the law. This was examined naturally by those concerned to try to bring the effects of the English legislation to bear upon Scotland. It was considered that the provisions of the Scottish Bill now before the Committee were the proper way to proceed there.
I do not think that the noble Lord can have it both ways. The explanation that I have given makes it perfectly clear that we have to consider the ways in which a person could conceivably prejudice some investigation in the future without disclosure of any kind. I do not think that I have anything further to add.
Lord Morton of Shuna: From the experience that I have—which I admit is short—there have been occasions where each side of the Committee has tried to have it both ways where necessary and to say, "This is done because it follows England" or "England is different from Scotland". I shall not take it further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 33, line 38, leave out ("the") and insert ("a").
The noble Lord said: This is a drafting amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 38, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 39 and 40 agreed to.
Clause 41 [Minor amendments in relation to drug trafficking]:
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendments Nos. 27 to 31:
Page 36, line 3, leave out ("Section 55(2) of") and insert ("In").
Page 36, line 3, after ("Act") insert—
("—

(a) in section 5(4) (interpretation)—

(i) after the words "future debts" there shall be inserted the words "or amounts payable under a confiscation order"; and

(ii) at the end there shall be added the words "; and in the foregoing provisions of this subsection "confiscation order" has the meaning assigned by section 1(1) of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1987 or by section 1(8) of the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986";

(b) in section 7(1) (constitution of apparent insolvency)—

(i) in paragraph (b), at the beginning there shall be inserted the words "not being a person whose property is for the time being affected by a restraint order or subject to a confiscation order,";

(ii) in paragraph (c), after the words "became due" there shall be inserted the words "or that but for his property being affected by a restraint order or subject to a confiscation order he would be able to do so"; and

1070

(iii) at the end there shall be added the words "In paragraph (d) above, "liquid debt" does not include a sum payable under a confiscation order; and in the foregoing provisions of this subsection—

"confiscation order" has the meaning assigned by section 1(1) of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1987 or by section 1(8) of the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986; and
"restraint order" has the meaning assigned by section 9 of the said Act of 1987 or by section 8 of the said Act of 1986."; and
(c) section 55(2)").
Page 36, line 41, leave out ("(5)").
Page 36, line 43, after ("(i)") insert—
("in subsection (2), at the end there shall be added the words", and it shall not be competent to submit a claim in relation to the confiscation order to the permanent trustee in accordance with section 48 of that Act."; and
(ii) in subsection (5)—")
Page 36, line 47, leave out ("(ii)").
The noble Lord said: I have spoken to Amendments Nos. 27 to 31 when speaking to Amendment No. 22. I beg to move these amendments for the convenience of the Committee en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 41, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: Amendment No. 32 as set out in the Marshalled List appears to be an amendment to Clause 42 but it should be an amendment to Clause 43. In those circumstances it may be appropriate that the noble Lord the Deputy Chairman of Committees should put to the Committee that Clause 42 shall stand part of the Bill.
Clause 42 agreed to.
Clause 43 [Interpretation of Part I]:
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 38, line 16, leave out paragraph (b).
The noble and learned Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 32. This amendment removes from the list in Clause 43(5) of circumstances in which proceedings are deemed to be concluded the reference to the procedure under Section 127 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975. That section allows the prosecution, where a trial diet has been deserted pro loco et tempore or an indictment has not been brought to trial and the diet has not been adjourned, to give the accused notice within nine days on another copy of the indictment to appear at a further trial diet.
We have discovered, however, that the inclusion of the Section 127 procedure in this clause might lead to some practical difficulties. Restraint orders require to be recalled and property which was realisable is no longer so once the proceedings are concluded, thus under this clause as currently drafted where a restraint order is in force but the trial is deserted pro loco et tempore, the restraint order will remain in force only if the prosecution serves notice of a new diet on a copy of the indictment within 9 days.
The Section 127 procedure has seldom, if ever, been used. It is now more normal in these circumstances for trials to be adjourned to other sittings or to be indicted afresh. However, because of Clause 43(5)(b), where the prosecution proceeds by serving a fresh indictment

1071
(rather than by following Section 127), any existing restraint order will require to be recalled (because the proceedings will be deemed to be concluded for that purpose), and the prosecution will not be able to apply for a new one if a fresh indictment has been served, and any property held by the accused will therefore cease to fall within the definition of "realisable property".
It must be in the public interest for a restraint order to continue in force until the difficulty which caused the delay has been overcome. It may not be the fault of the prosecution; for example a trial might be deserted pro loco et tempore because witnesses are ill or because the accused seeks further time because he has not properly prepared his defence.
The Amendment therefore seeks to delete the reference to Section 127 from the clause. Instead, where a trial is deserted pro loco et tempore, any restraint order will remain in force until the trial proceeds or (assuming the drug trafficker is in custody, which is likely) until the time limit under Sction 101 of the 1975 Act is reached and that accused is discharged. I hope the Committee will agree that this is a more sensible way to proceed, and in these circumstances I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 43, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 44 and 45 agreed to.
Clause 46 [Detention in connection with certain drug smuggling offences]:
6 p.m.
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 41, line 23, leave out ("has been") and insert ("is").
The noble Earl said: This is a minor drafting amendment designed to remove a possible ambiguity in Clause 46(4). Clause 46(4) provides that where a person has been detained under Clause 46(1)—that is, initial 24 hours' detention on suspicion of smuggling drugs concealed within the body—and has either failed to submit to tests, or the results of those tests have proved positive, the Procurator/Fiscal can apply to the sheriff for a warrant for further detention.
It is just possible, though I admit extremely unlikely, that the courts might interpret the present wording as meaning that the Clause 36(4) power is available only after the Clause 46(1) detention has terminated. That is not the intention, and this amendment therefore clarifies the position by ensuring that the subsection (4) power to go to the sheriff is available while a person is detained under subsection (1). I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 42, line 16, leave out ("and section 45").
The noble Lord said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak also to Amendment No. 35.
These two amendments are designed to extend the rights and safeguards available to persons being detained under Clause 46. Clause 46 allows Customs and Excise to detain a person they suspect of smuggling drugs concealed within the body for up to
1072
24 hours to enable certain tests to be undertaken which are capable of detecting the presence of drugs within the body. It also provides that where these tests prove positive or where the detainee fails or refuses to co-operate, the Procurator/Fiscal will be able to apply to a sheriff for a warrant for a further seven days' detention.
As presently drafted, Clause 46 detention is subject to the safeguards in Clause 44(5) and Clause 45. These include an entitlement to have a solicitor or another named person informed of the detention. This entitlement is, however, subject to the proviso that this intimation can be delayed if this is necessary in the interests of the investigation, the prevention of crime or the apprehension of offenders. In the case of Clause 44 detention, which lasts for a maximum of six hours, this is not unreasonable, but an unintended consequence of applying Clause 45 to Clause 46 without qualification is that notification of detention could be delayed indefinitely; that is, until the end of the seven-day period.
New subsection (8A) of Clause 46 therefore makes Clause 45 subject to certain modifications when it is operating in relation to Clause 46 detention. First, paragraph (a) provides that intimation to a solicitor and one other person cannot be delayed for longer than 24 hours and that any such delay must be on the authority of a superior officer; that is, an officer of senior executive officer grade or above. We take the view that it is necessary to provide for some delay in order to limit the possibility of tipping off the detainee's accomplices, and we have, I think, struck the right balance in settling for a maximum permissible delay of 24 hours. Of course in many cases there may be no delay at all or only a short delay.
Secondly, paragraph (b) goes much further than Clause 45 and gives the detainee the right to consult a solicitor. This right is subject to delay for up to 24 hours on the authority of a superior officer, who must be satisfied that it is in the interests of the investigation, and so on. The right to consult a solicitor is unqualified after 24 hours.
Thirdly, paragraph (c) provides that any delay in allowing a parent access to a detained child must cease after 24 hours. Clause 45, like Section 3 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980 on which it is based, allows parental access to be withheld where it is suspected that the parent has been involved in the alleged offence for which the child is being detained. This is necessary in order to protect the child who might otherwise be subjected to pressure from the parent. But even in these circumstances it would be unreasonable to deny such access for up to seven days, and we have therefore opted to allow for unqualified access after 24 hours.
Finally, in Clause 46 new subsection (8B) simply makes provision consequential on these modifications; for example, to provide that the time when the detainee requests to see a solicitor should be recorded.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 42, line 21, at end insert—
("(8A) Section 45 of this Act shall, subject to the following

1073
modifications, apply in respect of a person detained under this section as it applies to a person detained under section 44 of this Act—

(a) any delay in informing a solicitor and one other person of such detention as is mentioned in subsection (1) of the said section 45 shall not extend longer than the period of 24 hours from the start of the detention, and shall only be permitted on the authorisation of a superior officer;

(b) the person detained shall be entitled to consult a solicitor at any time without delay, and he shall be informed of such entitlement at the commencement of the detention; but, if a superior officer considers it necessary in the interest of the investigation or the prevention of crime or the apprehension of offenders, he may authorise a delay not extending longer than the period of 24 hours from the start of the detention; and

(c) paragraph (a) of subsection (2) of the said section 45 shall cease to apply at the end of the period of 24 hours from the start of the detention,

by any delay authorised by virtue of this subsection shall be for no longer than is necessary in the interest of the investigation or the prevention of crime or the apprehension of offenders.
(8B) Without prejudice to section 20(2) of the Interpretation Act 1978, the references in section 44(5) of this Act to section 45(1) of this Act shall be construed as including references to subsection 8A above; and the requirement to record certain matters under the said section 44(5) shall include a requirement to record the time when a person detained makes a request to consult a solicitor and the time when the solicitor is contacted for the purpose of arranging a consultation.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 46, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 47 agreed to.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 36:
After Clause 47, insert the following new clause:
"Sentencing power of sheriff in solemn procedure. Sentencing power of the sheriff
—(1) In section 2(2) of the 1975 Act (which limits the term of imprisonment which the sheriff may impose on indictment), for the words "two years" there shall be substituted the words "three years".
(2) In section 221(1) of that Act (abolition of penal servitude and hard labour), in the proviso for the words "two years" there shall be substituted the words "three years".").
The noble and learned Lord said: This new clause increases the sheriff's sentencing powers in indictment cases from two to three years and thus implements one of the legislative reforms suggested by the review body on the use of judicial time in the superior courts in Scotland. That body, chaired by Lord Maxwell, was set up in July 1985 against a background of a steeply rising criminal workload in the High Court and related serious delays on the disposal of civil business in the Court of Session. In its report published in July 1986 the review body recommended a number of reforms in Court of Session procedures which did not require legislation and are in the course of implementation so far as appropriate. It also recommended that consideration should be given to four measures to ease the pressures on the superior courts which would require primary legislation.
The measures identified were, first, provision for the use of temporary judges; secondly, the introduction of a single judge sift of summary appeals; thirdly, the introduction of a two judge bench to hear criminal appeals against sentence; and, lastly, an increase in shrieval sentencing powers in indictment cases which is implemented by this new clause.
These proposals were the subject of consultation with interested bodies carried out by the Scottish Home and Health Department and the Scottish courts administration. Responses revealed that there were widespread reservations about the merits of proposals concerning the single judge sift and the two judge bench. There was also some doubt about whether any significant relief of workload would be achieved with these proposals. The Government have accordingly decided not to proceed with these two proposals. The proposal for the use of temporary judges would not be appropriate for this Bill since any use made of them would require to encompass civil business. However, we shall return to this matter when a suitable legislative opportunity presents itself with a view to permitting the use of senior counsel to act as temporary judges, as envisaged by the review body.
However, consultation revealed that there was more general agreement that the sheriff's sentencing powers in indictment cases should be increased and that is why we have tabled this new clause. In making this specific proposal the review body noted that between 1983 and 1985 there was a dramatic increase in the number of High Court indictments from 449 to 827, representing an 84 per cent. increase. At the same time the number of sheriff court indictments remained relatively static. Moreover, in 1985, 39 per cent. of the sentences passed by the High Court were for three years or less. Of course, as the review body noted, the scope for the diversion of cases from the High Court to the sheriff court is less than this figure suggests for a number of reasons. Some accused are on charges which would not have taken them into the High Court were it not for association with other accused on more serious charges; in some instances the charges or parts of them are not proved or a plea is accepted to a lesser charge. Nevertheless, it seems clear that there is room for a rational re-allocation of work to give some relief to the High Court without overloading the sheriff courts.
The consultation paper issued by the Scottish Home and Health Department sought views on whether the sheriffs' powers should be increased to three or four years. Most respondents favoured some increase, and the majority favoured an increase to the four-year level. There is a measure of arbitrariness about any upper limit of this kind. The Government took the view that on balance the three-year upper limit was preferable. In fact, that was the upper limit recommended in 1975 by the late Lord Thomson's committee. The recommendation was rejected by the government of the day, but I hope that all shades of opinion will recognise that the change proposed is justified at the present time in order to alleviate some of the stresses on the High Court.
We do not intend or anticipate that this provision should have any effect on sentences in individual cases; rather it will enable the Lord Advocate to send certain cases to the sheriff court instead of to the High Court. If having heard the case the sheriff decides that it merits more than three years he will be able to use his existing powers to remit the case to the High Court for sentence. If the accused feels that he has received an excessive sentence, he will be able to exercise his existing right of appeal. These existing safeguards should ensure that this change in the law will have no

1075
adverse consequences on individual cases. It will, however, enable a better use to be made of existing resources. I beg to move.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I am very glad to hear that the single judge sift and the two judge appeal for appeals against sentence have both been discarded. I congratulate the Government on their decision. I am sure that is correct.
As regards this new clause, I would not oppose the increase in the power. I would hope that it would not entice sheriffs to increase the sentence in individual cases where previously they might have sentenced 18 months to 30 months, say. That would be very unfortunate. In my view—I am sure that it is a view shared by many—prison sentences are often too frequent and too long and certainly do not seem to be remarkably effective in reducing the amount of crime.
Subject to that, and subject to the fact that there is to be no limit on the power of remit from the sheriff to the High Court for sentence, I should have no objection to this. It appears to me there is a certain element in shrieval minds at the moment which feels that if the case has been sent to the sheriff court for trial that means a sentence of two years. I hope the noble and learned Lord will be able to agree with me that that should not be the case; for example, if three people are charged with house-breaking, two getting a sheriff court sentence and one for his record deserving a High Court sentence. In that case the power of remit should not be used and that should not be the reason why that sort of case gets sent to the High Court. I support the amendment.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Wilson of Langside: From these Benches I content myself with saying only in respect of the amendment and the other two matters on which the noble Lord, Lord Morton, sent his congratulations to the Government that I would add mine. I hope that that will please the noble and learned Lord Advocate and it may even please the noble Lord, Lord Morton, as well.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: I am delighted on this occasion that there is unanimity of view about the amendment that is before the Committee. I take the point of the noble Lord opposite about the use of power. I would anticipate, as I am sure he would, that sheriffs would not simply use the opportunity given by an increase in their power of sentence to increase sentences in particular cases before them. Equally, I imagine that all sheriffs would be conscious of the reasons why there is the power to remit and would use it when they think the circumstances so justify. That was precisely why Parliament thought fit to give them that power for their use.
I can do no more than say that I am delighted to know that both noble Lords have given this clause a fair wind.
Lord Wilson of Langside: I do not wish to detain the Committee, but I am a little concerned about the implications of the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Morton, with regard to the sentencing practice of sheriffs. I no longer need to be sensitive about that, but
1076
I found it rather startling. I am sure he would not have dared to suggest that the approach of judges of the Supreme Court was open to such speculation. I would not have said anything about this but for the circumstance that the noble and learned Lord Advocate referred to it. If that is a possible approach of any holders of judicial office to the problems of sentencing today—as it certainly was not when I was involved 20 years ago—it is time that somebody took a look at the matter.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: I am entirely confident that the sheriffs would carry out their judicial office properly. I certainly did not intend to suggest otherwise. I do not think that I did, and I do not think the noble Lord opposite was intending to make that point. I believe what he was saying was that he would expect the bench, wherever it be, to approach each case properly in exercising the judicial function, and that the fact that there has been an increase in sentencing power should not and will not have any effect upon their approach in individual cases.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I should like to associate myself with the remarks made by the noble and learned Lord opposite. I was not trying to suggest that sheriffs were going wrong. What I was trying to suggest, perhaps putting it in another way, was that increasing the power to sentence to three years did not mean that Parliament was suggesting that sheriffs had been too light in the past.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 37:
After Clause 47, insert the following new clause:
("Compensation by Offenders
(1) Section 58 of the Criminal Justice Scotland Act 1980 shall be amended as follows.
(2) At the end of subsection (1) there shall be added the words ("or to pay compensation for funeral expenses or damages in respect of a death caused (whether directly or indirectly) by the acts which constituted the offence and a court shall give reasons, on passing sentence if it does not make such an order in a case where this section empowers it to do so.")
(3) In the proviso to subsection (1), in paragraph (a) the word "or" shall be inserted after the word "absolutely" and paragraph (b) shall be omitted.
(4) The following subsection shall be substituted for subsection (3)—
"(3) A compensation order may only be made in respect of injury, loss or damage which was caused by or arose out of the use of a motor vehicle on a road as defined in the Road Traffic Act 1972 if it is in respect of injury, loss or damage as respects which

(i) the offender is uninsured in relation to the use of the vehicle, and

(ii) compensation is not payable under any arrangements to which the Secretary of State is party

and where a compensation order is made in respect of injury, loss or damage due to such an accident the amount to be paid may include an amount representing the whole or part of any loss or reduction in preferential rates of insurance attributable to the incident.
(3A) A vehicle the use of which is exempted from insurance by section 144 of the Road Traffice Act 1972 is not uninsured for the purposes of subsection (3) above.
(3B) A compensation order in respect of funeral expenses may be made for the benefit of anyone who incurred the expenses.

1077
(3C) A compensation order in respect of a death, other than a compensation order in respect of funeral expenses, may only be made for the benefit of persons who would be entitled under section I of the Damages (Scotland) Act 1976 to sue for damages in respect of that death.".")
The noble Lord said: I regret that the Committee will have to put up with two or three of these occasions when I am endeavouring to add various passages to a part of the Bill which is appropriately headed "Miscellaneous".
The first of them is to add provisions relating to compensation orders. The present provisions are in Section 58 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980. The English Criminal Justice Bill before another place is making the amendments to the compensation order rules that I have endeavoured to put into this amendment; in other words, that in certain circumstances there should be an ability to make a compensation order in respect of a road traffic offence or in respect of a death. Both of these recommendations were made by Sir Derek Hodgson's committee some time ago. I fully support the idea, and that is why I have put forward the amendment. It also seems appropriate that on this matter, which is the power to make compensation orders, the two countries should march in step.
In fact, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will know, and as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson, may recollect from his private practice some years ago, one of the many difficulties in civil cases of damages arising out of road traffic cases is the desire by the injured party or the bereaved parent that the guilty driver, for instance, should be punished rather than just that his insurer should pay. One often has a difficult job to persuade persons to accept a perfectly reasonable offer, on the basis that they want the driver to be punished.
The compensation order is a method by which, in an appropriate case, rather than the insurance company paying it the actual guilty driver should pay it. In certain cases where death arises, such as certain types of culpable homicide, it seems appropriate that there should be an ability to make a compensation order, as was recommended by Sir Derek Hodgson's committee.
Also on compensation orders, if I may detain the Committee for a few more moments, Sir Derek Hodgson recommended that the courts should receive some guidance as to the levels of awards to be made in compensation orders, and suggested that the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board should suggest guidelines. I have to declare an interest because I happen to be a member of that board, which is a great privilege. I should like to know whether the Minister can tell us whether anything is happening about that. I beg to move.
Lord Glenarthur: I am grateful to the noble Lord for providing this opportunity for me to explain the Government's position in relation to the use of compensation orders in Scotland. As he knows, such orders have been in use in Scotland for a relatively short time compared with England and Wales. They were introduced by the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980 in a simpler form than that recommended
1078
by the Dunpark Committee and instead followed closely the provisions of the Powers of the Criminal Courts Act 1973.
It is therefore perhaps not surprising that the noble Lord has thought it appropriate to suggest that similar amendments should be made to the scheme in Scotland as are now being discussed for England and Wales in another place. However, I do not think that such changes are appropriate for Scotland, at least at the present time. Nor do I expect the noble Lord to suppose that we would want to follow slavishly all the provisions now appearing in the Criminal Justice Bill. It is right that we should give a proper consideration to the operation of schemes such as that introduced for compensation orders in the Scottish setting, and then decide what changes may or may not be appropriate to deal with any inadequacies or difficulties that we may find.
With this approach in mind, the Scottish Home and Health Department funded a study on the use of compensation orders by Scottish courts by Dr. Maher of Glasgow University. A draft of his report has been submitted to the department and we hope that the final report will be available shortly. While no decision to publish has been taken in advance of our seeing the report in final form, in the ordinary course we would expect to do so. In the light of Dr. Maher's findings, we will then wish to consider whether changes in the legislation may be required or whether other options are open which could bring about improvements. Perhaps consultation with interested parties may then also be appropriate.
With regard to the particular changes proposed by the noble Lord, I should say that we are not without sympathy for their objectives, but it is necessary also to bear in mind that orders for compensation made by a criminal court cannot and should not be thought of as a substitute for the individual's remedies at civil law. There are a number of good reasons. The criminal process is not best adapted to dealing with an assessment of loss or damages, and the existing system is intended to apply to straightforward cases. I must say therefore that I am reluctant in principle to consider amending the system in any way which might introduce complexities or place further burdens on already overstrained courts.
Some of the changes proposed by the noble Lord in this amendment appear likely to do just that. An assessment for loss of society or loss of support arising from a person's death will not be an easy sum to determine, particularly as Scotland has no equivalent to the standard bereavement award of £3,500, which would represent the maximum for a compensation order for bereavement payable under the proposed amendments to the Criminal Justice Bill. Nor could questions of contributory negligence be readily settled in the absence of the victim.
The noble Lord raised the matter of guidelines for the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. As I think he will know, that board conducts an annual review for discussion. I am bound to say that in view of the fact that I cannot read the note which is in front of me, I think the best plan would be for me to write to the noble Lord and explain the matter. I think that is the shortest way to bring this to a conclusion, and I will certainly correspond with the noble Lord.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I think that perhaps what the noble Lord could not read was not the information he was seeking. If he goes back to his previous office he may have some recollection of discussions with the Magistrates' Association and of the Home Office issuing guidlines intended for the magistrates. If the Minister is going to write to me, that is the subject which I hope he will deal with and also how, if at all, the guidance is to be applied to Scotland.
Lord Glenarthur: I will certainly undertake to do precisely that.
Lord Morton of Shuna: On the other point, I should have thought there is merit in the road traffic case. There is no intention of doing a special measurement of damage but just making an award. If a child is killed as a result of being knocked down by a drunken driver on a pedestrian crossing and the driver's circumstances are such that a prison sentence is inappropriate there may be cases where it is appropriate to make a compensation order of, say, £1,000 or so. However, I am in no way suggesting that should take away from the civil court's jurisdiction or that it should be any precise measurement of the loss. As the Minister is going to consider this matter on the basis of receiving a report, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 38:
After Clause 47, insert the following new clause:
("Accused and spouse
(1) Section 141 of the 1975 Act shall be amended as follows.
(2) In the proviso, in sub-paragraph (f)(ii) there shall be added the word "general" before the word "character" where it appears for the third time.
(3) In the proviso, after sub-paragraph (f)(iii) there shall be added the words
"(iv) for the removal of doubt, it is hereby declared that it is not an attack on the general character of any witness for the prosecution to invite the court to disbelieve that witness's evidence in so far as he testifies in support of the indictment, even if to do so involved an inference that the witness is lying or has fabricated that evidence either by himself or with others."").
The noble Lord said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if with this amendment I mention Amendment No. 42. It may also be for the better understanding of those noble Lords who do not have an intimate knowledge of the 1975 Act if I were to explain that in that Act one has one set of sections dealing with solemn procedure—jury trials, in other words—and another for summary procedure. That means that if one makes an amendment one has to make it twice.
That is why Amendment No. 38 and Amendment No. 42 are in the same words but amend different sections. The provisions which I am seeking to amend go back to the Criminal Evidence Act 1898 when, for the first time, it became general law that an accused could give evidence in his defence. The 1898 Act applied both to England and Wales and to Scotland, and, as over the last 80 years the attitude of the courts has developed, there have appeared differences, some of which may be minor, in the approach of the English courts and the approach of the Scottish courts, particularly on the extent of the discretion. Particularly,
1080
perhaps, that arises because the judge in England and Wales, as I understand it, sees the depositions of witnesses and knows the record of the accused person, whereas the judge in Scotland does not have those privileges, advantages or disadvantages, whichever way one views it.
Until a few years ago the situation in Scotland gave little occasion for doubt or difficulty. It was accepted by the prosecutor that the defence did not put the accused's character in issue by testing the truth of the evidence given by the prosecution witnesses about the particular incident of which they were talking, and that it was only if they went beyond that and dealt with the general or the previous character of the witness that they allowed the character of the accused to be put in issue.
In recent years, and especially as a result of a decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal 18 months ago, in 1985, in Templeton v. McLeod, certain doubts have arisen. I suppose that in a sense I have to declare an interest—I am not sure whether or not I should—as I was the counsel on one side in that case and the noble and learned Lord was on the opposite side. The difficulty in that case was that the court adhered to the view that one could cross-examine a prosecution witness to the extent of saying that he was telling lies about his particular piece of evidence. But they went on to say that if one made an accusation that two of the prosecution witnesses had put their heads together to tell the same lie, that was putting their general character in issue, because that was accusing them not only of perjury but of a joint conspiracy to commit perjury, and that raises practical difficulties, because of the Scottish law of corroboration. For example, one gets the situation in Scotland of policemen going about in pairs, just because of the rules of corroboration.
One visualises a situation where the accused is charged with going through a red light, because two policemen sitting in their car think that he has gone through a red light. If the accused's defence is to be that the light was not red when he went through it, he will have to suggest that the evidence of each police officer is inaccurate, and it may well be that he will have to suggest that they put their heads together and decided that it was red.
It seems to me that there are difficulties both in saying that there is any material distinction between accusing somebody of perjury and in accusing somebody along with another of committing perjury. But there is also the difficulty that last year in a case called Conner v. Lockhart a completely different approach appeared to be taken, when it was held by the Court of Criminal Appeal that an accusation that a police officer—in this case, uncorroborated—fabricated evidence in giving false evidence about seeing certain marks on a door or had damaged the door himself, was not an attack on the character of that police officer.
The position is therefore that the law is in some doubt and what I have endeavoured to do in this amendment, apart from raising the doubt, is to restate the law as I understand it to have been before the Templeton decision; in other words, working on the previous Scottish authority which was the case of O'Hara. That is the intention behind my amendment. I make no claim that I have a draftsman's skill, and if

1081
the wording is wrong I shall be delighted if the Government will take it away and come back with a better wording. But, in the circumstances, I beg to move.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: Obviously I have listened with interest to what the noble Lord has said in support of the two new clauses which he proposes. I do not think this is an appropriate place in which to rejoin battle with the noble Lord opposite, as we did as counsel in the case to which he referred. As he has made clear, this is a legal point on which a body of case law has been built up and, more particularly, very recently built up. I am not yet convinced that it would be advisable to project a legislative intervention of the kind which he proposes into this arena. But I should like to reflect upon what he has said and perhaps I could let him know what view I reach—at least in the near future and perhaps before Report stage.
I think the noble Lord recognises that there are problems in drafting a clause of this kind to be injected into what has stood as something in our law for well over 80 years. I have to say—and I am sure that I do not say it in any criticism—that the way in which the present proposals for amendment are drafted is such that they would leave as many questions open as they seek to solve. Perhaps in these circumstances the noble Lord opposite will feel able to withdraw this amendment.
Lord Morton of Shuna: Before I do so, may I say that I should have mentioned that the noble and learned Lord will no doubt want for his reading and consideration the eleventh report of the Criminal Law Revision Committee. As it appears impossible to put in an Act of Parliament, "The decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal in A. v. B. is hereby deleted", it is difficult to go back to the previous law, which is what I have intended to do. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 39:
After Clause 47, insert the following new clause:
("Probation
Section 183 of the 1975 Act shall be amended as follows—

(a) In subsection (1) insert the words "sentencing him" the words "to any sentence other than a compensation order";

(b) In subsection (6), insert after the words "including any" the words "compensation order or any".")

The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is very simple and straightforward. It is to allow a person who is the subject of a probation order to have a compensation order made against him. As the law is at present, it is not possible to make a compensation order if a probation order is made. I do not need to go into details. There may be many cases where an offender is properly to be put on probation, but also it would be quite appropriate to get him to pay £25 for damage to a window, for example, or something of that nature. It is to give the court that additional discretion that this amendment is put forward. I beg to move.
Lord Glenarthur: I certainly understand the attraction which the noble Lord sees in the proposal to
1082
allow compensation orders to be made at the same time that an offender is placed on probation. Unfortunately, as is often the case in such matters, it is not all that simple.
First, it is important to remember that probation orders are made instead of proceeding to sentence. That is not a mere technical point; the 1975 Act provides this because probation is essentially different from other disposals. Where an offender is placed on probation, the court has not finished with him and he remains liable to be brought back before the court if he fails to comply with the terms of the order or commits another offence. In such circumstances, the court may then sentence the offender for the original offence.
On the other hand, a compensation order is a sentence. Payment of an order is to be enforced as a fine. I believe that your Lordships may see the possible conflicts that might arise if the amendment were accepted. How would the court deal with a probationer who failed to comply with the conditions of probation if it had already sentenced him by making a compensation order? What sense would it make to enforce the payment of a compensation order, ultimately by imprisonment, while the offender is on probation?
While I appreciate the arguments in favour of allowing compensation to be paid to someone who has suffered in consequence of an offence, it would not, in our view, be sensible to allow the two disposals to be combined. Having said that, that is not to say that I rule out entirely elements of compensation or reparation being included within the framework of probation. At present there may be some doubt as to the propriety of such a course as the only conditions which may be included by a court as part of an order have to be,
"necessary for securing the good conduct of the offender or for preventing the commission of offences".
We are presently examining the whole question of broadening and developing probation, and the possibility of linking probation with compensation or other disposals will be considered. With that consideration in mind, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Morton of Shuna: It is interesting to hear what was provided to the noble Lord to say. I remind him that a community service order is a sentence. There is already power in the legislation to combine a probation order with a community service order, so under the present law it is quite possible to have a probation order and a community service order. The community service order is a sentence. It is difficult to see why a compensation order is so very different in terms of non-compliance from a community service order. However, if the Government are looking at the matter, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 40:
After Clause 47, insert the following new clause—
("Art and part guilt.
Section 216 of the 1975 Act shall be amended as follows—

"(1)" shall be inserted before ("A") at the beginning of the section and after the word ("only") shall be inserted the words—

1083

"(2) Any person who, after this section is brought into force, aids, abets, counsels, procures or incites any other person to commit an offence against the provisions of any enactment shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction, unless the enactment requires, to the same punishment as might be imposed on conviction of the first mentioned offence.".")

The noble Lord said: This amendment is to be spoken to with Amendment No. 43. What I have endeavoured to do here is to bring into the law the Scottish Law Commission report on art and part guilt of statutory offences. The amendment that I have put forward is the draft that the Scottish Law Commission attached to their report of April 1985.
The purpose of the amendment is to make clear—especially in cases where the guilt is that of a person in a special capacity such as, to take a slightly old-fashioned example, a tramway conductor—that somebody who incites a person to commit an offence should be guilty and subject to the same penalty as the person who was guilty of the statutory offence. I beg to move.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: I am grateful to the noble Lord opposite for bringing these two amendments forward. They provide an opportunity for me to state the Government's position with regard to the recommendations of the Scottish Law Commission in the report to which the noble Lord referred. As the commission indicated in its report, there were considerable differences of view as to the possible advantages of a general aiding and abetting provision. Those differences caused them some difficulty, since I think that the groups holding opposing views were about equal in number and each contained consultees whose views always carried great weight.
Having considered the possible advantages advanced by the commission, we are unable positively to conclude that any major benefit would arise from the changes recommended. We did not, therefore, bring forward in the Bill any provisions to introduce a general aiding and abetting provision.
In fairness, it must also be said that, apart from one substantial matter to which I shall refer in a moment, we see no real disadvantages in the changes proposed. Therefore, we should not wish to resist on principle the introduction of such general provisions into the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975.
Nevertheless, as presently drafted, I am doubtful about how the aiding and abetting provisions in relation to the existing provision on art and part guilt in statutory offences would operate. I should say that I am anxious that art and part guilt of statutory offences should remain unaffected, and I therefore wish to give further consideration to the drafting of an appropriate amendment with that object firmly in view. On that basis I invite the noble Lord opposite to withdraw his amendments at this stage.
Lord Morton of Shuna: It was precisely because I did not intend that art and part guilt of statutory offences should be abolished that the amendment is drafted in this way. In other words, it follows a subsection which says precisely that there is art and part guilt in statutory offences. However, in the light of a response which is rather more encouraging than I have been
1084
accustomed to receive over the last hour or two, I must ask leave to withdraw the amendment and hope for better things to come.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 41:
After Clause 47, insert the following new clause—
("Forfeiture of property.
(1) The following section shall be inserted after section 223 of the 1975 Act—
"223(A). (1) Where a court makes an order under section 223 of this Act in the case where the offender has been convicted of an offence which has resulted in a person suffering personal injury, loss or damage, the court may also make an order that any proceeds which arise from the disposal of the property and which do not exceed a sum specified by the court shall be paid to that person.
(2) The court may only make an order under this section if it is satisfied that, but for the inadequacy of the means of the offender, it would have made a compensation order under which the offender would have been required to pay compensation of an amount not less than the specified amount."
(2) The following section shall be inserted after section 436 of the 1975 Act—
"436A. (1) Where a court makes an order under section 223 of this Act in a case where the offender has been convicted of an offence which has resulted in a person suffering personal injury, loss or damage, the court may also make an order that any proceeds which arise from the disposal of the property and which do not exceed a sum specified by the court shall be paid to that person.
(2) The court may only make an order under this section if it is satisfied that, but for the inadequacy of the means of the offender, it would have made a compensation order under which the offender would have been required to pay compensation of an amount not less than the specified amount.".").
The noble Lord said: This amendment again follows the Criminal Justice Bill which is going on in another place. It relates to forfeiture of property and enables the court, when there are certain and obviously very unusual circumstances where there is a forfeiture of property and where there is a person who has suffered personal injury as a result of an offence, to make an order that the proceeds of the forfeited property should be used towards paying compensation to the injured person. I believe that that follows Clause 72 of the Criminal Justice Bill. In principle, it seems to be not a bad idea and the Government seem to like it for England; I like it for Scotland. I shall now no doubt hear why the Government do not like it for Scotland. I beg to move.
Lord Glenarthur: Once again I have to say to the noble Lord that I find myself in sympathy with the principle underlying the amendment. It seems right in principle, where an offender's means are inadequate to provide compensation to someone who has suffered loss as a result of an offence, that any proceeds from the disposal of items forfeited by the court may be paid as compensation to the victim.
I think we should perhaps be realistic about the number of cases in which such action may be possible. Criminals rarely sink their own capital into the acquisition of items used to commit an offence. Nevertheless, I accept that, where there are such proceeds, compensation may be appropriate. However, I have to say that I am not all clear that the courts cannot already, under the existing provisions, take just those steps which these amendments provide for.

1085
We should be cautious about enacting changes to these powers piecemeal. As I indicated to the Committee when discussing the proposed new clause on compensation orders, we should prefer to take a considered view of the operation of the present scheme before tackling any changes that may be appropriate.
Having said that and having expressed sympathy with the principle of the noble Lord's amendment, I hope that he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Morton of Shuna: Before I do so, I should ask the noble Lord this. If he is right and finds that the court already has this power, will he write and tell me what and where it is? Subject to that, I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment Nos. 42 and 43 not moved.]
Clauses 48 and 49 agreed to.
Clause 50 [Penalties in respect of summary conviction for certain offences]:
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 45, line 36, after ("Justice") insert ("(Scotland)").
The noble Lord said: This is simply a drafting amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 45, line 43, after ("sum") insert ("in question").
The noble Lord said: This is a purely drafting amendment designed to bring the wording of proposed new Section 289GB(l) (a) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 into line with proposed new Section 289GB(3) (a), which it mirrors.
Perhaps I may take this opportunity to tell the Committee that, at the very point where the amendment is to be inserted, the line numbering seems to have gone wrong. There are nine lines between 35 and 40 and, therefore, two ways of arriving at a possible line 43. The amendment takes effect in new Section 289GB(1) (a), not in the first line of Section 289GB(2). With apologies for the confusion, I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 50, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I should be grateful if whichever noble Lord is dealing with this will tell us where we can find the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1986, which is referred to throughout the clause. If it is intended to be this Bill, it is now 1987, and no doubt at the next stage of the Bill the alteration can be made. I did not wish to table a series of amendments to change the date if I was wrong, but I was not aware of a Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1986.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: I think that the answer lies in the fact that the Bill was introduced in September last year. At that time it would have been
1086
appropriate. We will take note of what the noble Lord's eagle eye has lit upon.
Clause 50, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 51 to 56 agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 49, line 39, at end insert—
("8A. In each of sections 215 and 426 (detention etc. deemed to be legal custody) for the words "Part I of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980" there shall be inserted the words "any other enactment or any subordinate instrument".".).
The noble Lord said: The amendment is required in consequence of the provisions made in relation to detention under Part II of the Bill. Its effect is to extend the definition of legal custody under both solemn and summary procedure so as to include detention under Part II of the Bill. It is necessary to include detention within the definition so that a detainee who escapes may be apprehended, and any attempt to rescue him from custody is an offence. The definition has not been framed to cover all detention under statute.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 49, line 47, at end insert—
"9A. (1) In section 268 (reckoning of time spent in custody pending appeal), for subsection (1) there shall be substituted the following subsection—

"(1) Subject to subsection (2) below, where an appellant is admitted to bail under section 238 of this Act the period beginning with the date of his admission to bail and ending on the date of his readmission to prison in consequence of the determination or abandonment of his appeal shall not be reckoned as part of any term of imprisonment under his sentence.".

(2) In subsection (2) of that section, after the word "appeal" there shall be inserted the words ", including any period spent in custody in consequence of the recall of his bail,".

(3) For subsection (3) of that section there shall be substituted the following subsection—

(3) Subject to any direction which the High Court may give to the contrary, imprisonment of an appellant—

(a) who is in custody in consequence of the conviction or sentence appealed against shall be deemed to run as from the date on which the sentence was passed;

(b) who is in custody other than in consequence of such conviction or sentence shall be deemed to run or to be resumed as from the date on which his appeal was determined or abandoned;

(c) who is not in custody shall be deemed to run or to be presumed as from the date on which he is received into prison under the sentence.".").

The noble Lord said: The amendment is intended to deal with problems that have arisen in the interpretation of Section 268 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975. That section is intended to set out the periods spent by an appellant in solemn procedure on bail or in custody which are to be reckoned as part of his sentence where he is imprisoned following determination or abandonment of his appeal. The section also specifies from what date a sentence of imprisonment is to run or be resumed in such a case.
Unfortunately the section is less clear than its summary counterpart, and fails to deal with the situation that arises from time to time where an appellant is, pending his appeal, imprisoned on some

1087
other account. In such a situation there is ambiguity as to whether the time spent in custody on matters unrelated to the appeal should be regarded as part of the first sentence and as to the date from which the resumed first sentence was to run. The amendment will remove these ambiguities by providing that none of the time between an appellant being liberated on bail and his recommittal to prison under sentence in the case in which he was appealing shall count as part of that sentence. It further provides that the resumed sentence will run from the date on which the appeal is determined or abandoned.
I should make clear that these difficulties of interpretation are not academic only but have given rise to particular difficulties in determining the length of sentence remaining in a number of cases. The amended provision I believe to be both fair to the appellant and much clearer than the present provision. I commend the amendment to the Committee.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Repeals]:
[Amendment No. 48 not moved.]
Schedule 2 agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Welfare of Livestock (Prohibited Operations) (Amendment) Regulations 1986
6.58 p.m.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 4th December be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a very straightforward instrument. It will ban the tooth grinding of sheep by adding this operation to the list of prohibitions already contained in the Welfare of Livestock (Prohibited Operations) Regulations 1982. This regulation follows directly on a recommendation received from the Farm Animal Welfare Council, a body set up by the Government in 1979 to give independent and impartial advice on farm animal welfare matters. The council approaches this task with great dedication and professionalism and I should like to place on record the Government's appreciation for the work it does.
Grinding of sheep teeth can take two forms. Both involve the use of a special gag to hold open the mouth and keep the tongue out of the way while a small battery-operated angle grinder is applied direct to the teeth without anaesthetic. The more extreme form—sometimes known as the "Australian method"—involves cutting through the teeth with the edge of the disc near to the level of the gum. This almost certainly exposes the sensitive pulp cavity in the centre of each tooth—an act which would be painful in itself—and involves consequent risk of infection of both tooth and gum. The less extreme form—which practitioners know as "bite correction"—involves grinding the tops of the teeth with the flat of the cutting disc so that they impact properly on the dental pad.
In June 1986 the Farm Animal Welfare Council advised that the more extreme form of tooth grinding
1088
should be permanently banned on welfare grounds, and that the less extreme bite correction technique be banned until research showed whether or not there were any benefits to the animal, or adverse effects on welfare. Interested parties were fully consulted by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and most strongly supported the proposed ban, although a minority felt that vets, or other properly trained staff, could be permitted to do bite correction.
There is a good deal of doubt about the overall effect of dental problems on a sheep's performance. Australian researchers argue that there is very little evidence to indicate that sheep with broken mouths have reduced foraging ability. On the more fundamental point about whether tooth grinding can significantly delay tooth loss and thus improve length of life, they conclude that there is no evidence that teeth grinding has any effect on the rate of incisor tooth loss.
There is doubt too about the extent to which sheep might suffer as a direct or long-term result of the grinding process. The Moredun Research Institute in Edinburgh has investigated the short-term effect of bite correction and concluded that the procedure can cause discomfort, although it was unable to say whether this amounted to serious pain. It also found that the present design of gag could damage the mouth, and that even very careful grinding under anaesthetic could come very close to exposing the sensitive pulp cavity.
Clearly we need to find out more, and to that end the Ministry has begun a trial at one of its own farms to compare the results of applying the bite correction technique to a group of sheep with other untreated animals kept as controls. Tooth loss and consequential longevity will be monitored over the next three years or so, and the results should help us come to a final conclusion on the issue. In the meantime it seems right to us, in view of all the unknowns, to call a halt to all forms of tooth grinding.
In so doing we feel that it would be wrong to make exemptions from the ban, even for a group such as veterinary surgeons. If the practice is to be stopped on welfare grounds, then this must apply to all potential operators. The regulations are of course quite specific to tooth grinding, and will not affect any other operation. The only exemption we are in fact making is for the purposes of legitimate research, such as that I have mentioned, under Home Office licence.
In conclusion, I should like to recommend these regulations to the House. They show that the Government are concerned about current animal welfare issues and that we are prepared to take firm action when this is justified. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 4th December be approved.—(Lord Hesketh.)
7.3 p.m.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, said that this was a straightforward order. I am afraid that I must disagree with him. I certainly agree with the idea that keeping a sheep from being "broken mouthed", which is the expression used in the trade, is a tremendous saving to flock owners, particularly in hill sheep areas and in my native

1089
country of Scotland. Broken mouthed ewes had to leave the hills and go down to the lowlands at a cheap price where they were fed or put in lamb again by lowland breeders who had the facilities to feed them turnips by cutting them. If they could keep those sheep in the hills and keep them from being broken mouthed for another season or two seasons there was a tremendous saving, because they did not have to renew their flocks because of this difficulty. I gather that it is like dental periodontitis—I think that is the expression.
I am just as keen as anybody to save animals from pain. When as a boy I went to the dentist—and that is a long time ago—there was no syringe to stop the pain; one had to put up with the grinding. I remember that it did not seem too bad, if my memory is good enough to think that far back. I gather that grinding—and I am not referring to the Australian method that the noble Lord mentioned—is the normal method of levelling off the teeth so that they do not have too much pressure on them, which causes disease. Grinding is not all that painful. I feel that to ban it completely in the way the order does and not even to allow a veterinary surgeon to do it for a farmer is going too far.
I used to be chairman of the hill sheep committee of one of the HFRO hill farms near where I farmed in Scotland. At that time—when the Australian method of grinding came over—we carried out a good deal of research on dental treatment of sheep. I never heard at that time that there was any great cruelty in the operation. I know that where a veterinary surgeon or a skilled operator was not available the taking of pliers to do it was definitely cruel and was not effective because it often split the tooth and its effect did not last much longer, anway.
I feel that the order goes too far. If the Ministry is not sure, I cannot see why it cannot be left, at least in some cases, for veterinary surgeons to do the job on farms. The order says that nothing must be done on the farm. Surely a veterinary surgeon attending there could be allowed to do the job. As the noble Lord said in his speech, there is no real proof that the levelling off of teeth with a proper grinder by somebody who knows what he is doing is cruel.
I should like to think that the Government will give this matter some thought. I should like to think that the research—and a tremendous amount has been carried out already—will be done quickly so that flock owners who are not in a very good position in hill areas will not be disadvantaged. I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, is not here because she would have backed me up to the hilt. I should like the noble Lord to think again about this matter.
7.8 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I apologise for arriving in the Chamber two or three minutes after the noble Lord had begun his remarks. I wish to raise a matter of which the Minister is aware. The British Veterinary Association has been making known its view that while it is entirely in favour of the ban on the more painful method of sheep teeth grinding, it thought that the milder form of treatment, which might be desirable for therapeutic reasons for the health of the sheep, might be undertaken by a qualified veterinary surgeon in the ordinary course of his work.
1090
On the face of it it looks as though that would be prohibited also. If that is the case it may be desirable to introduce that degree of flexibility into the order. I shall be glad to hear what the Minister has to say about this. For my part, I welcome anything that reduces what I regard as the malpractices and mutilations which, for one reason or another, animals often undergo in animal husbandry. Much of what is done to animals is for the sake of appearance, for the sake of avoidance of diseases or for economic reasons. One is not quite sure why all these things are done. However, there have been many practices that have lasted a long time but which eventually have been regarded as undesirable and have been prohibited. This is one of them, and there are still some others. The Farm Animal Welfare Council, whose efforts should be appreciated by all noble Lords in the House, works very hard on a wide and complex field of investigation, and sometimes it is not fully rewarded for what it does.
Now and again one should take the advice of advisory committees and do something about it, otherwise they are discouraged and disheartened and feel that the whole system is unproductive. I am not making any complaint in particular on the matter that is before the House at this moment, but in general I think that a great deal of attention needs to be given to what is received through the channels provided for by the House in legislation and otherwise to obtain the best advice for our own actions.
This afternoon I telephoned the Minister's office to find out whether the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, would be informed about this matter, and I presumed that if he were informed about it then the noble Lord opposite would also know of it. I was told that he would be informed of it. I should just like to ask the Minister whether we can be told the attitude of the Government on the representations that have been made by the BVA. Perhaps I may add a word about my interest in this matter. For what few services I have rendered to animals I was made an Honorary Associate (which is purely honorific) of the British Veterinary Association, and I have no other interest. I intervene to speak for any relaxation of a prohibition only because I think that the BVA feels that what it seeks is reasonable in the circumstances. I put that question to the Minister for reply.
7.12 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, this has been a most useful if very short debate. I am very grateful for the contributions made by both noble Lords, Lord John-Mackie and Lord Hougton of Sowerby. To answer the first two points that were brought up by the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, the Government are following the advice of the Farm Animal Welfare Council. We are not in any way proposing completely to eliminate for ever the lesser of the two forms of action. We have taken the advice of the Farm Animal Welfare Council and on that basis we shall conduct a trial. I know that some people might feel that there are others who should possibly be able to conduct their own trials at the same time. As I said in my opening speech, in order to try to avoid making the wrong exemptions, we have had to limit the scope to its present form.

1091
With regard to periodontitis, I am told that we have no evidence that sheep tooth grinding cures this illness. I hope that remark does not inspire the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, to disagree.
The noble Lord, Lord Hougton, raised the question of the position of the British Veterinary Association with regard to its not being allowed to grind teeth for the duration of the trial. The difficulty lies in the question of who should and who should not be allowed to do this. We have made it very clear that this measure will only be for three years, during the Ministry trial. It is of course quite possible that at the end of that time the more minor form of grinding will be considered perfectly acceptable.
Animal welfare is a sensitive subject about which people have strong feelings, as is seen from the Ministry's large postbag on the subject. Therefore it is important to try to be as objective as possible when formulating legislation in this field. I have explained the Government's reasons for bringing forward this measure, which in some sense is an interim step. By all means we can have another look at the situation when current research has been completed and assessed. Meanwhile, I am glad that the House has shown some sympathy with the Government's views on tooth grinding, and I can assure those who have spoken that their comments will receive careful consideration.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask whether he will find out how much research there has been in the past? I can tell him that way back before the war, when I was chairman of a hill farm in Scotland, we were conducting research there. If the HFRO has been carrying out research, has it been ignored?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I shall investigate this matter and write to the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Prayer Book: Theological College Survey
7.15 p.m.
Lord Sudeley Lord Sudeley rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what is their attitude to the report by the Prayer Book Society entitled Theological Colleges and the Book of Common Prayer: A Survey.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
I am bringing forward this debate in response to an invitation from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor made in the House of Lords on the 11th April 1984. Speaking then for the Government on my Prayer Book (Protection) Bill, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said that he would like to say to his noble friend that he should put down Motions from time to time as and when he felt that the situation demanded it.
This debate is concerned specifically with the report published by the Prayer Book Society entitled Theological Colleges and the Book of Common Prayer: A Survey. The Government Whips' Office has pointed out that it would not be easy to draft a Question on
1092
theological colleges because they are independent educational institutions over which the Government have little or no control. But I hope that this difficulty has been overcome so far as is possible by the way that the Question has been drafted. On the issue of this debate, over which there is strong feeling in the country at large, it will be interesting to see whether the Government will disclaim responsibility and say that formally they have no answer. Whatever may be the position of the Government in Parliament, I hope that Parliament itself will feel that a debate of this kind is much needed to give an airing to the way in which a public promise has been made by the Church of England to Parliament over the teaching and use of the Prayer Book in theological colleges and how this promise has unfortunately not been followed through.
In response to the success in both Houses of Parliament of my Prayer Book (Protection) Bill in 1981, the House of Bishops passed a series of resolutions. One of those resolutions noted the information given by the chairman of ACCM to the General Synod in February 1981 regarding the use of the Prayer Book in theological colleges and asked governing bodies and principals to pay attention to the matter of securing the use of the Prayer Book and the Alternative Service Book in teaching and in worship.
When I reintroduced my Prayer Book (Protection) Bill in the House of Lords in 1984 the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury said that after the debate in this House in 1981, the bishops had taken stock of the position, and after serious discussion had passed Motions showing awareness of the feeling of this House.
The third Motion was the one to which I have just referred, which notes the information given to the General Synod in February 1981 regarding the use of the Prayer Book in theological colleges and asks governing bodies and principals to pay attention to the matter with a view to securing the use of both the Book of Common Prayer and the Alternative Service Book in teaching and in worship. The most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury continued by saying that on the question of the theological colleges the bishops had gone further than their resolution stated. Through their inspectors they now required that the Book of Common Prayer should remain in use in teaching and in worship.
What evidence do we have that the Church of England has failed in its promise to Parliament over the Prayer Book in theological colleges? On Good Friday of 1986 The Times published a letter from Professor Basil Mitchell, a member of the Doctrine Commission and former Nolloth Professor of the Philosophy of Religion at Oxford; Miss Rachel Trickett, Principal of St Hugh's College, Oxford; Dr Derek Brewer, Master of Emmanuel College, Cambridge; and Professor Mary Hesse, Professor of the Philosophy of Science, at Cambridge. The authors of this letter began by mentioning the bishops' resolution of 1981 to which I have referred. They went on to say that they felt that over a period of years it had been proper to refrain from comment, not wishing to cast doubt on the seriousness of the assurances given in 1981 and being concerned to allow for time during which improvements might occur. The authors of the letter continued:

1093
"It is our impression that the position of the Prayer Book in the parishes, and in theological colleges is almost as parlous as it ever was. Young priests are still arriving in the parishes with little or no experience of the Prayer Book".
In other words, priests cannot lead the kind of worship under the Worship and Doctrine Measure 1974. Moderate though this letter was in tone, no reply has been received to the nub of its complaint.
There is then the survey which is the subject of the debate. The two authors of the survey, Professor David Martin of the London School of Economics, who over the years has done so much for the Prayer Book, and Dr. Roger Homan of the Brighton Polytechnic deserve our thanks and congratulations. Since I expect that all noble Lords participating in the debate have a copy of the survey, I shall not run through its contents in detail but make just two quotations from leading passages. On page 9 the survey says:
"The outstanding finding is the limited extent to which the Prayer Book is used in college worship and the displacement of this by the Alternative Service Book. In both offices and in Holy Communion students found themselves using Alternative Service Book more frequently than the Prayer Book. For Holy Communion some 60 per cent. of respondents worshipped according to the Prayer Book seldom or never; the corresponding figure for the Alternative Service Book Rite A was 1·2 per cent.".
In summing up Professor Martin states:
"We can see now what lies behind earlier and rather bland statements to the effect that the colleges 'use' the Prayer Book. They do; but most of them don't 'use' it much. The Prayer Book is the Disuse of the Anglican colleges. Students may easily be ignorant of the Prayer Book, particularly the Eucharist; they have little chance of being ignorant of Rite A in the ASB.".
The survey is a quantitative assessment, and so I think that it is worth adding a word or two about the quality of the students' returns, which though not included in the report are described by Dr. Homan in the autumn 1986 issue of the Prayer Book Society's journal Faith And Heritage. The returns there described are not without their own individual form of arrogance. One student, for example, said:
"Let's get rid of the interim.".
Another student said:
"How marvellous it is to worship without having to rely on the dictionary for every other word.".
A further student said:
"If the God of worship is alive today it is an insult to worship Him in the language of the past".
How has the survey been received? No one in authority has attempted to refute its claims as to the current situation, and leaders in the Church Times and the Church of England Newspaper accept the justice of the case that the survey makes. The leader in the Church Times for 25th April said:
"If the gentle advice given by the House of Bishops has not been heeded the time seems to have come for college principals to be reminded of their duties more forcibly. And if the evidence assembled by Professor Martin is correct, his conclusions about the colleges appear to be unassailable.".
The leader in the Church of England Newspaper for 11th April stated:
"It is impossible not to entertain sympathy with Professor Martin's position … We welcome the continued campaigning by Professor Martin and his colleagues in the Prayer Book Society.".
Let me examine why the bishops' resolution of 1981 with regard to theological colleges has not been implemented. First, there is the attitude of theological
1094
colleges which believe their status to be somewhat autonomous. The survey was undertaken with the cognisance of the chairman of ACCM, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle. He was happy for it to be undertaken, and most of his critical comments were embodied in the questionnaire. Nevertheless, the survey met with a corporate resistance from officials at the colleges which could only have the effect of frustrating in some degree the attempt to obtain precise information. To quote a particular instance, the principal of Ridley Hall, Cambridge, wrote to Dr. Homan:
"We decided not to take up the Prayer Book Society's questionnaire … because we do not like even the remote possibility of being used as statistical information in a political debate".
Theological colleges have claimed that they respond to students' preferences, but to put the matter in the words of a letter to me by Professor Martin:
"In no other respect do theological colleges abdicate their role or hand over their responsibilities as guardians of the formation of Anglican tradition to student opinion. This is treated as justification for allowing their ignorance to continue. One might think that student choice would be more meaningful if formed after proper exposure to Prayer Book worship".
There is then the attitude of the bishops. Time and the survey have disclosed how the bishops have shown a failure of will to implement their own resolution of 1981. I shall give one or two instances of how that has happened. The survey speaks of how one bishop told a theological college not to take too much notice of the House of Bishops' resolution of 1981. Another bishop has written in his diocesan gazette:
"Theological colleges are after all communities of adult worshippers who should have basically the same rights of self-determination as parochial congregations".
On a more general level the failure of will on the part of the bishops is only too plain from the evidence of the survey.
For the bishops, theological colleges need not be autonomous bodies which it is possible for them only to exhort and not to compel. The bishops, through ACCM, have a relationship to the theological colleges, and ACCM is accountable separately to the House of Bishops and to the General Synod. The bishops, through their selectors, and occasionally independently of them, choose whom they will accept for ordination. The bishops are heavily represented on ACCM and its various committees, and most of them serve on the governing bodies of theological colleges in their dioceses or are closely associated with them.
Generally it may be said, to quote from a letter to me from the secretary-general of the Synod on the relationship or loose affiliation between the bishops of theological colleges:
"over the years the bishops have established the position that candidates for ordination are required to attend theological colleges which the bishops recognise; and a college is recognised only if it complies with the bishops' requirements in terms of the contents of its courses, the organisation of its life, etc. Each college is regularly inspected by inspectors appointed by the House of Bishops and the inspectors' reports are circulated to all the diocesan bishops. If the bishops, in the light of a report by their inspectors, ask a college to make some change or adjustment and the college declines to comply, then—if all possibility of agreement has been exhausted—the bishops have as their ultimate sanction the right to withdraw recognition … The practical effect would be that the college would have to close because it would not receive any more candidates from the bishops".
Finally, over the position of the Prayer Book in theological colleges, a word should be said about the effectiveness of bishops' inspections, which were mentioned in this House in 1984 by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury. From the evidence of the Prayer Book Society's survey we must ask why the inspections have not achieved what they should. Part of the difficulty may be the slowness with which the inspections operate. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle told me that the inspections cover only three colleges a year and so only about half of the colleges could have been covered since 1984. There is the problem of the reports of the bishops' inspectors being confidential to the House of Bishops and to the governing bodies of the theological colleges to which they are addressed. Similarly, the inspectors' questionnaire is not a public document and so parliamentarians cannot know whether it is too loosely worded, which colleges were visited and what the findings were.
Owing to these circumstances, a plea should be made that theological colleges should be subject to some degree of open and public accountability. The Church is not respecting the principle of freedom of information, and in that it runs counter to established practice elsewhere such as police complaints procedures, the inspection of schools and so on. An important example of a more open system of accountability developing in the recent history of a profession is teaching, over which Her Majesty's Inspectors have secured santions under the Education Act 1980.
In that statute, schools must publish for the benefit of parents such details of themselves as the Secretary of State shall require. The Secretary of State has since required that schools publish examination results and HMI reports which head teachers had formerly been allowed to keep secret. Why over theological colleges should bishops be keeping the blinds drawn when they put under their own scrutiny defence, economic matters and even the GLC? If bishops feel in a position to call politicians to account, they should observe in their example the standards that they expect of those they criticise.
That concludes my remarks, which I have kept as short as possible. I thought that it would be better to avoid comments on the demerits of the Alternative Service Book as I think that this ground has been amply canvassed so far, together with other vaguely related issues. I thought it important that this debate should not be diverted by vaguely related matters or complaints about Erastianism. I hope that the debate may be concentrated on the simple and basic issue that justice should follow from the promises made over the position of the Prayer Book in theological colleges by the House of Bishops in 1981.
7.31 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Newcastle: My Lords, I am grateful for an opportunity to take part in this debate, as my name occurs several times in the report which we are discussing. Further, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sudeley, for the understanding way in which he has set out the background and the contents of this report.
1096
Last year he was kind enough to suggest that he and I met in order to discuss some of the points which are raised by the report and which he has mentioned in his speech. It is now about 25 years since he and I worshipped together in the same Oxford college chapel where the Book of Common Prayer then reigned supreme.
However, even then the problem about which he is deeply concerned and troubled was with us; namely, how to ensure that ordinands and young clergymen properly enter into and appropriate the heritage of worship which is ours in the Church of England and which is to be found in the Book of Common Prayer. That was a problem long before the Alternative Service Book was even thought of.
When in 1955 I went to Chichester to be ordained deacon, the candidates were taken by the archdeacon into the cathedral and told to read to him aloud the prayer for the High Court of Parliament, no less. I vividly remember that one of the candidates could not find it in his prayer book, and the archdeacon was understandably displeased. That was long before the Alternative Service Book, and it puts the problem in a nutshell.
Nearly six years ago when I became a diocesan bishop the problem was still with us and in a sharper form. It was in that year that the House of Bishops passed a resolution—the resolution to which the noble Lord referred—in which it asked that governing bodies and principals of theological colleges pay attention to the use of the Book of Common Prayer in their colleges with a view to securing the use of both the Book of Common Prayer and the Alternative Service Book in teaching and in worship. The House of Bishops could do no more than ask that this be done; it cannot direct. It asked that this be done, and in the past three years, since I became chairman of the body which has general reponsibility for the selection and training of ordinands, I have to my certain recollection on two occasions reminded the principals of this request.
More recently, as we have just heard, in 1984 the Archbishop of Canterbury in this House commented that the bishops have in fact gone further than their resolution stated:
"Through their inspectors they now require that the Book of Common Prayer should remain in use both in teaching and in worship".
In both these statements mention is made of the use of the Book of Common Prayer in teaching and in worship. I do not think that it is possible to teach properly the worship or liturgy course, or even the doctrine course, without the inclusion of some serious treatment of the history and contents of the Book of Common Prayer. My impression is that this part of the resolution of 1981 is being honoured.
What about the use of the Book of Common Prayer in worship? That is the nub of the matter. I should like to narrow the question further. What about the use of the Holy Communion from the Book of Common Prayer in worship at theological colleges? I narrow it down in this way, for the shape of the Morning and Evening prayer in the Book of Common Prayer and in the Alternative Service Book is very similar. If one is familiar with the one form of service, one is more or less familiar with the other. However, the shape of the Holy Communion in the two books is rather different, and not only the shape but also the word and the ethos.

1097
We as bishops have a duty to ensure that all clergymen, and especially the more recently ordained, are sufficiently familiar with all the authorised services and rites so that they can officiate at them all with reverence and dignity; a duty to ensure that the clergy know what comes next, what to do, where to stand, how to speak the prayers so that they yield their proper sense; more, a duty to ensure that the clergy have had opportunities to enter into the spirit of the various liturgies authorised and have had opportunities to make these rites their own. I should be surprised—very much surprised—if all the bishops did not agree with these statements of principle.
What about the theological colleges and the students there? The colleges are all independent, private, charitable bodies with their own trustees, councils and governors. The Church of England is well served by a wide variety of independent voluntary bodies: missionary societies, Church Army, Church of England Children's Society, colleges of education and so forth. So far as the theological colleges are concerned, the bishops require candidates to attend colleges, or courses, which they, the bishops, have recognised. Recognition could be withdrawn if colleges did not comply with the bishops' requirements with regard to the training provided. So far as I know, recognition has never been withdrawn for such a reason. That would be the ultimate sanction and it has not been applied. The Church of England prefers to act by persuasion.
The noble Lord invites us to consider whether we should not withdraw recognition—or threaten to withdraw recognition—from colleges which do not use the Book of Common Prayer sufficiently. In principle we could do so. It would be an unprecedented step. We might be reluctant to take it—reluctant because it might well have the effect of altering the entire flavour of the bishops' relationship with the colleges. In any case, we should want to pause and think hard before we took such a step. As I said, the Church of England prefers to act by persuasion.
The bishops have some power to influence the governing bodies of colleges. As the noble Lord has mentioned, all these bodies contain a bishop or bishops in their number, and there is in any case a general moral influence which the bishops have exerted. We do not control the colleges. We can influence them, but we could well be reluctant to compel them.
Consistent with this is the fact that corporate worship is not one of the subjects covered by the bishops' regulations for training. These regulations cover the length of training and the academic requirements for the various types of student. We do not make regulations about the internal ordering of a college's life. For instance, we do not define residence or the length of terms, or details of how pastoral work is to be done, or the details of what goes on in a college chapel. However, as we have heard, our inspectors review the life of each college about once every five years. If anything is seriously amiss we expect them to detect it and to comment on it.
In general, so far as the colleges are concerned I am sure that governing bodies and principals have paid attention to the Book of Common Prayer. I am
1098
perhaps less sure about the non-residential courses, but pretty sure about the colleges, and I am sure that its use has been secured in both teaching and worship, as the House of Bishops requested, although the Book of Common Prayer is perhaps less used in worship than some might wish. So much for relations between bishops and colleges.
What about the students? I am pretty sure that the days have gone when attendance at all services is compulsory. It may be obligatory but it can no longer be treated as compulsory. The spirit of the times has affected even the training of the clergy. I fear that in some colleges, when there is a celebration of the Holy Communion according to a rite which a student does not like, he very probably votes with his feet and stays away.
However much one regrets this situation (and I do), that is the situation. I regret it not least because part of the purpose of the education provided in theological colleges is to broaden the students' range of experience and first-hand knowledge. As in all educational establishments, I assume, alas, that there will always be some pupils who decline to take advantage of the opportunity to open their minds further.
While the college may well provide excellent teaching in the Book of Common Prayer and instruction on the ways in which it should be used in worship, some students will not pay close attention at that stage. There are many more pressing matters for their immediate attention, or so they think. The moment when the student will be receptive to some instruction on this subject comes when he is a deacon or a newly ordained priest and is learning how to celebrate the Holy Communion.
I know that some dioceses require their young clergy in the years immediately following their ordination to be given experience in officiating at all the principal authorised rites of the Holy Communion (the Book of Common Prayer, Rite A and Rite B of the Alternative Service Book), even if that means visiting another parish for the purpose. For example, in the Diocese of Newcastle we have a regulation to this effect. I am pretty confident that that is the best way of achieving the end which we all have in view, to which I referred earlier and on which I assume that we are all agreed.
Your Lordships will have noticed that I have not talked much about the report, Theological Colleges and the Book of Common Prayer: a Survey. Instead I have sought to set out the background. I did not wish to introduce a sharply critical note but rather to assure the House that the bishops corporately are anxious about some of the matters raised by the noble Lord, Lord Sudeley. The Archbishop of Canterbury spoke for us all in 1984 when he gave to this House the assurance that it was the intention of the bishops to keep before the Church the fact that the Alternative Service Book is, as its name indicates, an alternative service book.
However, had I dwelt at length on this report I should have had to be critical in part of it. I should like to make two points briefly. First, the authors are themselves disappointed that they did not elicit replies from more students. It is a particular cause for disappointment that there was scarcely any response from the three avowedly Anglo-Catholic colleges and

1099
none at all from two of the evangelical colleges. The poverty of response from those two quarters must surely have affected the balance of the report.
Secondly, and more seriously, there is in the appended note on the implications much with which I should have to disagree. For example, those colleges which use the Book of Common Prayer for one term in three are doing rather well, and not the reverse, as the report suggests.
In conclusion I should like to say that there is a wise layman in the north of Northumberland. He is lay-chairman of the most northerly deanery synod in the country. He said to me recently on another topic, "Bishop, maintain the pressure". That is what the noble Lord, Lord Sudeley, has been doing over the years, and that is what bishops too have been doing in their various ways during this time.
We know that there are weaknesses, perhaps more in the courses on which about one-third of our ordinands are trained than in the colleges, on which this report concentrates; and perhaps too in ecumenical colleges and on courses where understandably the students do not have so much of their own Church's liturgy as they would in purely Anglican colleges and courses.
In general, I interpret the evidence in a way rather differently from the way in which the noble Lord has interpreted it. I am reasonably encouraged by the progress made over the past few years. In our various ways we shall all no doubt continue to maintain the pressure, but no good whatsoever is served by referring to the present situation as "a blazing scandal", as we find on page 16 of the report. Such language will be counter-productive and will not further the end which we all desire.
I have to state my conviction that this is a situation which, given the circumstances is not too bad, which could be a good deal worse, which has certainly improved since I ran a theological college and which stands some chance of improving further as a result of gentle pressure consistently applied.
"A word fitly spoken is like apples of gold in pictures of silver".
That is a sentence from the Book of Proverbs which could serve as out motto in this connection.
7.46 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Sudeley, tells us that we owe this debate to an invitation to him by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to put down Questions from time to time. It is not unknown for hosts to issue invitations and not be there when the visitors arrive. I am not certain that the noble and learned Lord has judged ill in doing so, but we know at least whom we have to blame.
I do not think that we are achieving a great deal in this debate tonight. The theological colleges are fairly far from the purview of Her Majesty's Government who are being asked a Question on this subject. The fact that the Question should come from your Lordships' House is very odd indeed because there is every reason for saying that the position of the theological colleges in the Church of England, and in the country, is extremely anomalous. Rather like your
1100
Lordships' House, they exist in the way that they exist and they are governed in the way that they are governed because it happened that way and because no one can agree on any different solution.
While it is pleasant and always helpful to hear the very sincere noble Lord, Lord Sudeley, talking about theological colleges, I feel that when we hear hereditary Peers debating the theological colleges we are getting a little removed from the real business of your Lordships' House.
I should like to move the debate a little wider. I appreciate what the noble Lord, Lord Sudeley, said about why he concentrated on the theological colleges as such. But he did express in the course of his speech the fact that there is a strong feeling in the country at large. This comment I think is on the subject of the Prayer Book, the Book of Common Prayer and the forms of prayer in use in the Church of England.
Since I last took part in a debate in your Lordships' House on this subject, I have come back into the full-time ministry of the Church of England. I have the honour and privilege to serve two parishes in the peninsula of Kew. I think they are very pertinent to the subject we are discussing. They are educated parishes, although their class make-up is definitely mixed. There are rich areas and housing estates. Their age groups are mixed, as is the origin of the people in both parishes. There are people who have been there for a long time and who were born in that parish—quite a lot of them. There are also people who have come in two or three years ago. Our worship is mixed. We have Rite A in one parish for our main service; we have Rite B in the other parish for our main service. At evensong, every Sunday, we have the full works, the full evensong of 1662; the full Book of Common Prayer with no abridgement of any kind whatsoever.
I introduced that, which was not present before I came. I introduced it not because I am a seeker after archaism in any way but because I thought that I knew that there were people who appreciated the old rites, the old words, the old prayers and services, and I thought that, since on the whole the kind of people who came to evensong were people who came to a restful evening service rather than a stimulating one and a number of them were elderly, it would be the right thing to do. The parochial church councils of both parishes agreed—without much interest one way of the other, I may say, but they agreed—and so we have balanced worship.
I do not believe that it makes the slightest difference whatsoever to the numbers who come to the two churches. I have gone to the lengths of writing to some people who I know have expressed sadness at the fact that the old services no longer exist, inviting them to come along to evensong at St. Luke's, where there is the 1662 service every Sunday. There is no reply, and the result is nil. We have a nice service with a few attenders, no more and no less than we had before the 1662 service came in.
I have consulted the parochial church councils of both parishes. I have talked to people who have been in the parish for years and years and who were born in the parish; some who come to church, and some who do not come to church. From none of them have I extracted any suggestion at all that their churchgoing is in any way altered by the pattern of these services.

1101
It may be said that that is because the people who would come do not come, and therefore I am not in touch with them. However, I do not think that that is true. My two parishes are fairly small parishes. People know who used to come to church. They know their neighbours. They are fairly tightly knit communities for London communities, and there is no way in which, if there was a solid feeling that there ought to be much more of the old services, I would not know about it and it would not have been drawn to my attention.
There were, I am told, in the course of the 10 years before I came two incidents where people stopped coming to church because of the services. Only two in the whole of that Kew peninsula. In each case they have found for themselves happy homes elsewhere, and in any case there were other factors involved.
There may be some parts of the country where what the noble Lord, Lord Sudeley, said about strong feeling is true. But I would remind your Lordships that London is not just a place which is in the fashion and all the new things happen. It is also, in ecclesiastical terms, and always has been, the home of the diehards at the extremes of every tradition. If you want to find the home of Anglo-Catholicism and the real home of the evangelical movement, you will find them in London, so it is not that London just picks up the easy changes to modernism. There is real tradition in London as well.
These parishes are not untypical except that they are fairly easily defined in a geographical area, and it is rather easier for parish priests to make judgments and analyses of them and to come and tell your Lordships, or report back, as to what the feeling is, and I get no feeling whatsoever. As a new priest coming, and inheriting the services of my predecessor, I have been open to all kinds of suggestions and I have detected at no stage any of this strong feeling in the country at large.
I am not saying that the ways of the Church of England are faultless. I am on record over quite a long career as thinking that they are not, and saying so. I do not think that the theological colleges, either in their make-up or in the way they perform, are absolutely perfect. I think sometimes that the Bishops may be led into giving slightly more easy reassurances to the House of Commons and the House of Lords than they would if they were able to look forward a little more foresightedly.
But the idea that the whole of the Church has been turned upside down by a small clique at the centre pushing through changes and new services without the support and the wish of the ordinary worshipping members of the population is quite untrue. I have seen this on the ground and I know it, and the sooner we stop talking about it in those terms the better.
7.57 p.m.
The Marquess of Salisbury: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Sudeley, for introducing this short debate. If I may, I should like to congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle for so lucidly explaining the situation in the theological colleges and the reasons for it.
1102
I find it somewhat difficult to adjust the ideas between the two first speakers because they do not seem to have been describing quite the same situation. I would question what the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, has said: the bulk of the congregations support the Alternative Service Book. My own experience, for what it is worth, is that usually the incumbent has preferred it and has managed to persuade the parochial church council to follow in his wake. I come across many people who find that their views have not been fully appreciated.
I also find—and this occasionally happens to me—that I have, as patron, to find an incumbent for a living and you get some peculiar answers to the questions you put to them. Whether this is the result of their own predilections or the result of what they have learnt in the theological colleges, I do not know, but certainly a large proportion of the ones one interviews are, to my way of thinking, not always suited to carry out their duties in the parish.
What we are talking about this evening is the question of whether we really believe what the Church tells us they are trying to do. It may well be that some of us are wrong who feel that there is a doubt. All I can say then is that I think that the Church public relations people have failed to put over their case adequately. One thing I find extremely trying as a result of these new services is that if you go to any church which you are not accustomed to attend, you never know what sort of service you are going to attend, and you often find it difficult to find your way round. I should have thought that this was a retrograde step and that something could be done to correct that situation.
Is this not part of a wider move, of which the Alternative Service Book is part? For instance, it would not be possible for the Church to do away with the Book of Common Prayer because that is laid down by Parliament. Therefore if they want to make any alterations, they have to do it, as the name implies, by presenting an alternative.
Over recent years we have seen quite a change in the position of the established Church. This seems to have been a deliberate policy on the part of the Church of England to distance itself from the state. As Mr. T. E. Utley said in an address he gave in Exeter last May, the Christian society in this country is based on the joint pillars of the Church and the state. The established Church is little more than established in name and, as he put it, is in grave danger of becoming just one of many sects. If the process was to develop on those lines I am sure that everyone in your Lordships' House would regard it as very unfortunate. However, it is a point that requires the closest attention.
If the Church is to survive as the main representative of Christianity in this country it is surely important that we should know exactly where it is going and what it is trying to do. I also hope that it will be possible for the right reverend Prelate to reaffirm what his colleague, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle, said about the use of the Book of Common Prayer. That seems to be fundamental for so much of the teaching of Christianity on which we have been brought up.
8.4 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, as I was coming down one of the corridors in your Lordships'

1103
House today, I was asked by a. noble Lord what I knew about the Prayer Book. He said he did not know that I was an expert on the Prayer Book. I told him that I was by no means an expert, and that was why I was intending to speak because I felt that this was a debate of interest to a wider number of people than are represented in your Lordships' House tonight. I have been struck by the expertise, and in particular the very excellent speech by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle, which has enlightened me a good deal. Mine is the concern of the irregular churchgoer. That is perhaps the majority of people who have been baptised and confirmed in the established Church. It includes those of us who are old enough to have been educated solely in the Book of Common Prayer, who have some affection for it, and some feeling for its cultural relevance in the country. This is a point I should like to put before your Lordships.
The struggle between those who favour the Book of Common Prayer and the alternative is not in terms which commend themselves to the great majority of people who have a passing interest in this. There should be more than a passing interest, and I wish that there were more lay speakers of the quality of the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, tonight. I felt some comradeship with him after his remarks.
This debate has moved into the hands of the experts—as many matters do in this country. The noble Lord who asked me the question in the corridor—although it may have been semi jocular—put his finger on a point. We tend to leave matters to the experts, whereas more curiosity and interest might be helpful in the debate. I have listened very carefully, in particular, to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley. I found his remarks very interesting because in my preparation for tonight's debate I had not spoken to anybody who had a parish within the London area. All my information has come from the country.
Last evening I was introduced to someone who I understood was a very keen churchgoer. He had lived in a village in the Midlands where there was a congregation in that area of around 35 to 40 people each Sunday morning out of a total population of 450. I asked him what he thought about this argument on whether or not the Book of Common Prayer is used enough, and whether there is enough pressure from the Bishops on the theological colleges to produce the young priests who will use it. He said, "It is a very interesting debate but we do not have the opportunity to debate this. Our main concern is getting a service at all. We have not had a regular priest now for five or six years. We have an aged 75 year-old who does not enjoy good health. It looks as though we shall have to join with five or six other parishes ultimately. We should love to be able to debate the matter. We agree with the points which you imply in your Question." He hazarded a guess that if they took a sounding of the people in that little Midlands community the result would probably be 50–50, but the reasons for them preferring the alternative to the traditional might be varied.
However, the debate is too confined. There was a letter in The Times which I found interesting and
1104
which may stimulate other responses. It is helpful to have the debate which the noble Lord, Lord Sudeley, has initiated tonight. I know much more having taken part in your Lordships' debate. What strikes a layman is that it is undesirable that a part of the fabric of our life, a part of the Church's teaching and worship since the 17th century, can disappear. There is reason to believe that the alternative is slowly becoming the replacement. This is sad, and would be sad to many people—regular or irregular churchgoers.
This subject deserves wider debate in the country at large. The argument on incomprehensibility—which I have heard from several of the people that I have asked—does not stand up. I have never found difficulty in comprehending the Prayer Book although it is full of what might loosely be described as poetic language which is not fashionable today. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle ended his speech with a wonderful gem of poetic language which I enjoyed very much.
There must be a wider audience who appreciate this language. It does not matter that it does not express matters precisely in such terms as are now being pressed upon us. It is argued that everything should be abbreviated, exact, and convey information concisely and quickly. A great deal is being missed by eliminating this poetic element. This is important. It is in our tradition which was very strong in the 17th century.
It may be that my interest, subliminally, is because I am descended from a 17th century renegade priest. He was brought up covertly as a Catholic. He went to the Low Countries, became a priest, abandoned that, returned and became a poet and a balladeer. His works are rare but now quite sought after. Perhaps I have this feeling for the poetry and for religious arguments. I think a lot of people have this interest but are either too hurried or too shy to express it.
I feel that this debate is very useful. I hope it goes wider because the Book of Common Prayer is worth preserving, not just as an archaic piece of literature. It has a spiritual message. I remember very well the communion service and the marriage service. I know very well the arguments about the obeying part of the marriage service. All the arguments are specious and very small against the value of the Book of Common Prayer, though I am prepared, and I suppose most other lay people are prepared, to say it can be supplemented—it must be supplemented—to meet modern needs.
I was told by the noble Lord, Lord Sudeley, earlier today that there had been a Gallup poll at one stage which showed surprising results; that was, that a great number of young people preferred the old version, which I found surprising. I do not put much faith in Gallup polls and your Lordships probably have the same reservations about Gallup polls on other matters. It is interesting that there is some enthusiasm among the young for that.
From what I have heard today from the right reverend Prelate the bishops have done a great deal. I hope they continue in the evenhanded and understanding way they do. I understand much more about the problems of the theological colleges since this evening's debate, but I hope that the noble Lord will initiate another debate so that we shall have more

1105
interest. Perhaps somebody else will write a letter to The Times, the Independent or the Guardian, and we may have a television debate on the subject. Anything that is part of our cultural heritage, anything that has a cultural value, is worth preserving, and I am thankful to the noble Lord for raising the subject tonight.
8.12 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Ely: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sudeley, for the opportunity his Question provides of offering to your Lordships' House an assurance. In using that word I am conscious at this moment of the cautions that were expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, and the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, on the hazards of the temptation to offer assurances. But the assurance I offer is from a position of particular responsibility towards my brother bishops which I presently carry. I chair the committee of the House of Bishops which manages the inspections of the English theological colleges and courses to which reference has been made this evening; the difference between a college and a course being that a college offers residential training.
In 1983, as we have been reminded this evening, specific questions about the Prayer Book were put into the questionnaire which is set out in preparation for the inspections. The questions are: how often is the Book of Common Prayer used in the college or on the course; and what provisions are made for instructing candidates in the conduct of worship, including the use of the Book of Common Prayer?
I should not wish it to be inferred from this that before 1983 the questions were not raised. They were made explicit in that year in that context. Since then my committee has read and considered in close detail the answers and the comments of the bishops' inspectors on seven of the 14 colleges and eight of the courses, which makes the arithmetic of the noble Lord, Lord Sudeley, about correct.
It is quite clear from the reports that the Prayer Book is in the teaching of the colleges. Of course it is; it is in the syllabus, as the right reverend Prelate said. It is in the training in the colleges and in the worship of the colleges and courses, though in the words of the right reverend Prelate this evening it is less in some than some might wish. Given the fact that the recognition of a college or a course by the bishops is dependent upon the bishops being satisfied with these quinquennial reports and that the funding from central Church sources of training grants for ordinands in the colleges and courses is dependent on the bishops' recognition, there is an adequate machinery for the maintenance, in the words of the right reverend Prelate, of a pressure.
Perhaps it might be of help to the House if I indicated at this point what happens to the reports, since that question has, as it were, been touched upon. Each report goes under confidential cover to the House of Bishops and after consideration there it is sent to the governing body of the Church or the course in confidence for their consideration and with the expectation that in a year's time there should come back to the bishops' committee a report on how the college or course has met the recommendations in the report. There might be a follow-up inspection at that point.
1106
Any question about the releasing of the report to a wider public must take account of the fact that the report is, in the terms I have described, a working document. It is, as it were, a document in dialogue between the bishops, through a working committee, with the college or course concerned; an intimate document too, at some points. So it is between the bishops and those who have the care of the colleges. The governing bodies of the colleges include representatives of the wider Church upon them. It is admitted that these are not seen as public documents; nor could I speak of the House of Bishops on this matter, though I should be ready to mention to the bishops the question of publication which has been received.
Having said those things, I beg leave of your Lordships to spend a little more time speaking from personal experience within this most important and at the same time most sensitive area of the ordering of worship in colleges and courses. It is 25 years precisely as from yesterday since Canon Edward Craddock Ratcliffe—Regius Professor of Divinity at the University of Cambridge, the acknowledged authority in the Church of England on the Coronation service and indeed on the history of the Book of Common Prayer—installed me as principal of Westcott House, Cambridge, of whose council he was chairman. The next 10 years of my life were given to the vocation, as I saw it, of caring for 45 men in training for holy orders in the Church of England.
The years 1962 to 1972 were the restless years, from the "Honest to God" debate to the "God is dead" school coming to us from America. They were days of great restlessness, including restlessness among ordinands with order in the Church. Some of the most restless of those young men are some of the most steady and impressive in the Church today. I think of provosts; I think of one or two bishops; I think of a director of race relations in an inner city turmoil and I think of priests in South Africa. I think first and foremost of the frontier men of the Church; that is to say, the parish priests increasingly stretched and needing to keep their freshness and their vision.
It so happens that in a letter to me only this morning, a senior churchman spoke of his time at Westcott House in the days of my predecessor, someone whom the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, remembers as I do, as the time which gave him the resources in the later years not to run for shelter or to drift before the wind.
As I said, the 1960s were restless days, but by the end of my time there 10 years later I had seen the wheel begin to move full circle. In the early years the principal's job, at least as I saw it, was to hold the boat steady, to contain the enthusiasm for new things and the restlessness about things old among the ordinands. But by the end of that time one was beginning to hope for the sake of the Church that one was not moving into a period of reactionary squareness among the ordinands; and there were signs of it.
As an example of what I am saying about the earliest days—whether it was commendable or not, I do not say—it was the case in the 1960s, as it was not the case when I was a slightly older ordinand in the 1950s, that there was restlessness at the sheer weight of the Prayer Book, daily offices, the interminable 73 verses of Psalm 78 recited on the 15th evening, for instance.

1107
None other than Professor Ratcliffe encouraged me to form a group of ordinands to sit with him, as we did for a term, to work through the principles of a perhaps somewhat lighter office with a little more space about it but yet faithful to the spirit of the Prayer Book. We shaped up such a pattern, and it was very close to what one sees now in the morning and evening offices of the Alternative Service Book. If I may adapt a phrase from the great English bishop who ordained the right reverend Prelate here beside me, George Bell of Chichester, who was often known to say "I am not a private bishop", since I did not see myself as a private principal I put it to the Visitor of Westcott House, the present Lord Ramsey, whether the use would be acceptable; and he demurred: "The men must be trained for the Church they are going out to serve", and that Church then, 23 years ago, knew only the Book of Common Prayer. We accepted that (though, in fact, Professor Ratcliffe was cross with me and told me that I should have done it and not asked).
There was a tension there, and there is something of a tension still. There is little doubt that the ordinands as a whole find themselves more at home with what I have called the lighter offices of the Alternative Service Book. That emerges clearly from the report out of which today's debate comes. My point is that the important thing is that a man, or, I should say, a woman, since women now train with men for ministry in the Church, should have grown into the reality of worship, which means corporate worship, and see that as at the heart of the place where he or she is training for the ministry of the Church. That is what they must be rooted in and take out with them to the service of the communities of their parishes. That means some stability, which is not easily achieved if you are moving from one day to the next to achieve a statistical balance. For instance, when you learn that Westcott House gives a month of its worship to the Prayer Book and Ridley Hall the whole of the Lent term to the Prayer Book, that is something that is very real; you can get into something with that. Incidentally, that important piece of information about the last-named college I convey to noble Lords as coming from the report of the bishops' inspectors. Rightly or wrongly, as the noble Lord, Lord Sudeley, commented in his speech, Ridley Hall chose not to respond to the inquiry out of which the report that is the subject of this evening's debate comes, because, in the words of the principal as we have heard them, "we do not like even the remote possibility of being used as statistical information in a political debate".
What I am seeking to convey is that here is something deeply sensitive, deeply at the heart of a theological college's life, again more difficult to achieve in the life of a non-residentiary course where men and women come in of an evening during the week after a day's work, or at a weekend after a week's work, to establish the heart of the matter, the primacy of worship and the liberating quality of worship. If the feel of a college or course is towards the Alternative Service Book for the offices or the Holy Communion, build on that; let it grow, consolidate and reach out from that. Do not let a note of competition or of direction towards the Prayer Book introduce an edge into things. That is not the spirit in which a man should go out to the parishes.
1108
If I may return at this point to my own particular responsibility, I assure the noble Lord, Lord Sudeley, and the other noble Lords who have expressed their concern, that like the right reverend Prelate the chairman of the Advisory Council for the Church's Ministry, the Bishop of Newcastle, I share the noble Lord's concern, but the mode of an inspection must have the sort of sensitivity that I have been trying to indicate. One must be alongside them and share the life a bit; one must reach out from that to ask them where the wider understandings lie.
The other side of the emphasis which I have been placing on community can be, as we all know, insularity, cosiness and defensiveness, and the Prayer Book tradition is greater than that. That is a reason why we must keep it alive. If you do it that way you can hope to carry them with you into what is vital about the Prayer Book and what is seen as vital and what we heard spoken of as vital about the Prayer Book in the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland.
I can hardly express how grateful I was to hear those points made about the potential for poetry that we are in danger of losing in some of the revised services, and of the importance of poetry in liturgy and, indeed, in theological understanding. It is one of the great hopes for theological understanding that we are beginning to take some note again of the place of metaphor and of symbolism in language coming over from the literary studies and disciplines out of which some of our best ordinands do, in fact, come. I have been trying to convey that you can do it if you take it at that sort of level with them, but you will not do it by a directive about the Book of Common Prayer put in the wrong way. They are serious men and women who have made a very serious choice.
If I may, I will come in a moment to the serious question that the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, asked me to reply to. The inquiry out of which the debate has come was a serious one addressed to the colleges with courtesy. If it was not received at all points with the courtesy desired, then I say that I am sorry.
Points have been made in today's debate which I should wish to keep in mind in the work of the Bishops' Committee on Inspections and in discussion with the House of Bishops. There is one point which the right reverend Prelate made in a speech with which I would wholly identify myself—a point which I would not wish to see overlooked. It is a simple point. If we talk of training we should not lose sight of the place of an ordinand's first parish or diocese for some of that. There was a time when a man's first title, his first curacy, was looked upon to give him that. The formation of a spirituality, in which I agree the Prayer Book has its place, is the prime task of a theological college or course. I am trying to convey that we must keep these vital months and years of training in that dimension and in that perspective.
Perhaps I may close with an assurance to the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury. I was grateful for his question, which was an open one asking for an assurance on perhaps what is seen to be happening and is acknowledged as a concern; namely, the potential depreciation of the Book of Common Prayer as compared with the Alternative Service Book. I assure

1109
the noble Marquess that to my mind—and I could not think of a Bishop here who would see it otherwise—there is no arrière pensée about this, no deliberate policy in such a way to distance oneself as a churchman from the state.
I was reading a letter written to the Archbishop of Canterbury in 1882 by Dr. Hort of Cambridge, in which he expressed himself, in 1882, concerned not so much for the divisions that could tear the Church apart as for the steady alienation of the Church from the life of the nation and from the mind of the ordinary Englishman—or words to that effect.
I think a principle of the Reformation was that worship should be in the language of the people. I think this movement of the Alternative Service Book is basically and simply a movement to be close to the people. We may have slipped into a prosaic language, as I acknowledged a moment ago, and we may need things to be recovered in our understanding through the Book of Common Prayer. But I would believe that the principle of comprehensibility, in the noble Lord's phrase, is what is at work.
I hope that those comments, with my expression of gratitude for what I have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, and successive speakers, together with my observations from within, as it were, may have been of some assistance to the noble Lord.
8.34 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the Question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Sudeley, is not one in our view that is properly addressed to the Government, and the Government in our view cannot take a position on this. In view of that, it does not seem to us—here I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley—that the Opposition can take a view. Therefore I have very little to say. It seems to me to be a discussion between the Prayer Book Society and the Bench of Bishops, and no doubt they will be very happy to get together and talk about it. Therefore in what I say I shall be very brief, because this has been a long debate and what I say is said in my purely personal capacity.
If I may say so to the noble Lord, Lord Sudeley, concerning the report Theological Colleges and the Book of Common Prayer: A Survey—I speak as a statistican and I can probably say rather ruder things than the right reverend Prelate and the Bishop of Newcastle said—I find the base very flimsy indeed. There was a sample of 878 and a response by 292, of whom 115 were Year 1 students and so the sub-sample on which all these conclusions were based was 173, which is something under 20 per cent. of the original sample. Even in the sub-sample, as the report points out, there was a bias due to the fact that the non-response was the result of all sorts of factors which have been described and which destroy the statistical basis for what is alleged.
Even in the sub-sample, 139 claimed to have attended at some time Holy Communion celebrated according to the Book of Common Prayer and 164 claimed to have attended at some time Holy Communion under Rite A of the Alternative Service Book. That does not seem to me to do other than show that there were multiple responses. Of this subsample
1110
some people went to Holy Communion under the 1662 service and others went to ASB Rite A at various times.
I must agree with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle. I do not regard this as a serious basis for saying that there is a blazing scandal, and I put this forward purely as a private individual, looking at the report the noble Lord was kind enough to send to me.
Finally, I would simply say that I do understand what noble Lords on all sides of the House have said about the desirability of retaining in some form the 1662 Prayer Book. But in all my years of churchgoing—that is several years now, as I was brought up as a church-goer and continue to be one—I think I have attended once a Holy Communion service following the 1662 Prayer Book in its totality and in its exactitude. What I would say to your Lordships is that if those people who want to preserve the 1662 service really want to do so, they cannot pick the bits and pieces out of 1662 that they want. It is either the whole thing or it is nothing. Having said that, I would be very interested to hear whether the Government have any response to this and to hear what it is.
8.38 p.m.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, we have heard from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle about the Church's attitude towards the report of the Prayer Book Society. With a low response rate it is difficult to gauge how representative this survey is of the views of all the ordinands in full-time study in the 14 Anglican theological colleges. But you can hardly disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Sudeley, on the basis of the response from those who replied, that alternative services are on the whole preferred by the ordinands to those services in the Book of Common Prayer. I should add, however, that few of the ordinands who responded are never exposed to the Prayer Book services. I think also that many, if not most, of your Lordships would agree with the noble Lord that in terms of literary qualities, the liturgy of Cranmer is unsurpassed. But that is not strictly to the point, as the noble Lord has asked about the Government's attitude to the findings of the report.
I think it would be helpful if I first briefly reiterated the Government's general position on matters of the liturgy and doctrine of the established Church. As your Lordships will remember, the last time Parliament attempted to intervene in matters of Church liturgy and doctrine was in 1928, when it rejected a measure of the Church Assembly for an Alternative Prayer Book. Over the years it was gradually accepted, however, that Parliament, though it remains sovereign, should not attempt to impose its views on the Church in matters of liturgy and doctrine; and this concordat was in effect codified in the Church of England (Worship and Doctrine) Measure 1974, which gave self-government to the Church in these matters.
The General Synod was to determine the forms of service which could be used, but the approved service which was actually used in a particular parish was a matter for the incumbent and the parochial church council, with the council having the last word on the matter in the event of any disagreement. That same

1111
measure described the doctrine of the Church as being grounded in the Book of Common Prayer, among other teachings. In the debates on the noble Lord's Prayer Book (Ballot of Laity) Bill in 1978, and his Prayer Book Protection Bills of 1981 and 1984, the government of the day were at pains to defend the agreement that underlies the 1974 measure, and to treat as retrograde any suggestion that Parliament should intervene in liturgical matters.
I appreciate that the anxiety of the noble Lord, Lord Sudeley, is that ordinands, through lack of exposure to the 1662 Prayer Book, will be less than ready to see it used when in time they become incumbents. To this, I would only repeat what has frequently been noted in the debates on the noble Lord's Prayer Book Bills, that the answer lies with the parochial church council which can, if it collectively wishes, require a particular service of its own choosing, provided only that it has been approved by the Synod.
On the question of what is being done to see that ordinands at theological colleges are familiar with the liturgical tradition of the established Church, I refer the noble Lord to what has been said by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ely. I must conclude, however, by repeating that the Government uphold the agreement by which the Church, through the General Synod, and the various incumbents and parochial church councils, determines what liturgy is to be used; and it has no wish to see disturbed the relationship between bishops and theological colleges. In the light of what I have already said, I am sure your Lordships will understand if I decline to comment further.
House adjourned at twenty minutes before nine o'clock.

  BRICK PRODUCTION FIGURES
  BRICK PRODUCTION FIGURES
  DARTFORD TUNNEL TOLLS: CHANGE
  DARTFORD TUNNEL TOLLS: CHANGE
  DOG LICENCES, SCOTLAND
  DOG LICENCES, SCOTLAND