Sitting of 27 October 1987

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

    NATIONAL PROVIDENT INSTITUTION BILL [Lords]
    As amended, considered.
    Amendment made.
    To be read the Third time.

    BRITISH RAILWAYS (LONDON) BILL [Lords]
    Order for Second reading read.
    To be read a Second time upon Thursday.

Oral Answers to Questions
  SOCIAL SERVICES

    Hip Replacements
    Mr. Steenasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the progress of hip replacement operations under the National Health Service.
    The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. John Moore): In 1978 there were 28,000 such operations in England. By 1985 this had risen to 37,650, an increase of 34 per cent. While the number of operations has increased steadily, so, too, has the demand. We have made it clear to health authorities that hip replacement operations should he regarded as a priority for the development of services in the acute sector. The aim is for 48,000 such operations a year by the year 1990.
    Mr. Steen: Although, clearly, many thousands of elderly people have cause to be grateful to the Government for the number of hip replacement operations, is my right hon. Friend aware that there are special problems for elderly people in retirement areas? There is increasing demand there for hip operations, and the special needs of those people must be met if they are not to become prisoners in their own homes. Will my right hon. Friend say something particularly about the Plymouth and Torbay area health authorities, in which I have a special interest because of my constituents?
    Mr. Moore: I know that my hon. Friend would thank not the Government, but the excellent National Health Service for the success in this area. I cannot give details but I shall write to my hon. Friend about the specifics on the Torbay and Plymouth areas. In my hon. Friend's region, waiting times have been radically reduced from 32 weeks in 1979 to 22 weeks at present, which is only a fraction above the national average and is a major improvement.
    Miss Abbott: Will the Secretary of State issue an instruction to all regional health authorities not to close operating theatres over Christmas, as this would enable a further reduction to be made in the waiting lists?
    Mr. Moore: I am not sure how the hon. Lady's question connects precisely with the specific question on hip operations. Obviously, her remarks about the particular management of regions will be drawn to the attention of the region in question.
    Mr. Ralph Howell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Norwich district authority proposes to close the Wells cottage hospital to save £150,000? Is he further aware that—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Does the hon. Member's question deal with hip operations?

    London Ambulance Service
    Mr. Spearingasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he is satisfied with the response times of the London ambulance service during April, May and June of 1987; and what action he has taken to ensure that previous levels of performance are maintained.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mrs. Edwina Currie): In general, yes. During the period January—June 1987 the London ambulance service responded to 89 per cent. of accident and emergency calls within 14 minutes and 95 per cent. within 17 minutes. That is an improvement on last year.
    Mr. Spearing: Does the Minister agree that the question was about April, May and June? In her letter to me dated 8 September the hon. Lady admitted not only that shifts were not covered but that more than 50 emergency ambulances were single manned during that period. Is it not a fact also that the London ambulance service will have to contribute from its resources and, therefore, from economies 1 per cent. of the pay offer now on the table? Does the hon. Lady agree that the effectiveness of ambulance services is not helped by spreading resources ever more thinly and that the emergency services must be demand-led and not budget-prescribed?
    Mrs. Currie: I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman is not satisfied with the figures that I give him. He never is. However, I point out that in the period that I mentioned—the first half of this year—the average response time for emergency calls in this city was just over 10 minutes. Given the traffic conditions in the capital that is absolutely marvellous, and it compares very well with the average response time in Derbyshire—which contains my constituency—where that time is well over 13 minutes.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: Is my hon. Friend aware that in my constituency and in many others car parking is so dense and tight that emergency services such as the ambulance service simply cannot get to the people whom they need to collect for serious and emergency operations? Will her Department take a serious interest in this issue to see what can be done to improve matters?
    Mrs. Currie: That is a most serious matter. Emergency services are allocated largely on the basis of medical need, and it is a matter of concern if ambulances cannot get through to the people who need them. If my hon. Friend will give me more details, I shall take the matter up with the appropriate authorities.
    Mr. Spearing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest and most appropriate opportunity.

    Maternity Beds
    Mrs. Fyfeasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what steps he takes to ensure that the number of available maternity beds is sufficient for comfort and safety during confinement.
    Mrs. Currie: It is regional health authorities in England who are responsible for maternity services, and this includes determining the number of maternity beds. I am satisfied that we have plenty of beds. The Health Service in Scotland, which covers the hon. Lady's constituency, is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.
    Mrs. Fyfe: Will the Minister agree to conduct a review of existing maternity services both in England and Wales and in Scotland? Many women thoughout Britain would dispute her complacent response to this matter. They know from direct experience that the service is not always satisfactory. Does the Minister agree that it is vital that women should feel confident that the service offered is safe and secure for them and for their babies? Therefore a review would be in order. The Government should consult not only the area health authorities but women's groups.
    Mrs. Currie: The hon. Lady asked me about beds. We have plenty of maternity beds throughout the country. Occupancy of maternity beds ranges from 59 per cent. in the Trent regional health authority area, which covers my area, to 70 per cent. in Glasgow. The average maternity bed produces only one baby per week. That does not suggest overcrowding or excessive pressure on resources.
    Mr. Redwood: Is my hon. Friend aware that in the West Berkshire district health authority area one of the problems in keeping beds open is the high cost of recruiting labour, which is extremely difficult given the national average rates agreed? Does she have any proposals for breaking the log-jam so that we may recruit the staff that we need to keep the beds open?
    Mrs. Currie: For some time it has been our policy to pay to our staff—including midwives—the rates of pay that the review boards recommend. That includes a 9 per cent. pay rise this year. As a simple matter of fact, there has been a large increase in the number of midwives whom we employ, from 20,000 when we took control in 1979 to nearly 23,000 in 1985.
    Mr. Beith: Will the Minister note that if the Northumberland health authority goes ahead with its plan to close down all the maternity beds in Alnwick many babies will be born, not in maternity units, but in ambulances on 40mile journeys to a distant hospital? Will she take careful note of that when the matter eventually comes before her?
    Mrs. Currie: If the community health council objects to any major proposal for such a change, the matter will come before Ministers in due course. We treat each proposal on its merits and we try ultimately to base our decision on the interests not only of mothers but of babies.
    Ms. Harman: Will the Minister take steps to improve maternity services so that pregnant women do not have to wait for hours in ante-natal clinics to see a different doctor or midwife on each visit? Will she ensure that extra resources are rapidly provided to regional health authorities when there is a sudden increase in the birth rate, to avoid women being left not knowing in which hospitals their babies will be born? Will she also increase the number of special care baby cots so that all low birth weight babies have a fighting chance of survival?
    Mrs. Currie: I could not agree more with the hon. Lady's first sentence. The way in which pregnant women are made to wait is sometimes a disgrace, but that is a matter not of resources, but, frequently, of the need for careful management and treating the individual as a human being rather than just as a patient.

    Mental Patients
    Mr. Bowisasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give the figures for mental patients (a) living in National Health Service hospitals, (b) living in residential care accommodation and (c) living in the community; and if he will give these figures for those in England and Wales and for the Wandsworth health authority, respectively.
    The Minister for Health (Mr. Tony Newton): On 31 December 1986 there were 60,279 mentally ill in-patients in hospitals in England, including 807 under the care of the Wandsworth health authority. The number of places in residential care accommodation provided specifically for mentally ill people is 8,267 for England, including 133 provided by the London borough of Wandsworth. We have no comprehensive figures for people living in the community who could be described as in some degree mentally ill, many of whom are being treated by their general practitioners.
    Mr. Bowis: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is an imbalance in the mental health budget whereby 90 per cent. of the funds go to the hospital service and only 10 per cent. to care in the community? Does he agree that the satisfactory transfer of patients to the community requires adequate housing, personal income and aftercare as well as adequate co-operation and co-ordination between the Health Service and social services departments? Does he agree that the programme of mental hospital closures should proceed extremely slowly until those prerequisites are met and the mental health budget rebalanced?
    Mr. Newton: There are really three questions there. First, I think that the 90:10 statistic is oversimplified, hearing in mind how many mentally ill people are living in their ordinary homes.
    On the second part of the question, I very much agree with the general thrust of my hon. Friend's remarks. That is one reason why we have asked Sir Roy Griffiths to conduct a review of many of these important matters.
    On the third point, I entirely accept that closure proposals, where such exist, should be handled very carefully, because the aim is not to close hospitals but to ensure better care for the patients.
    Mr. Loyden: Is the Minister aware of the serious concern of parents of mentally handicapped and mentally ill people with respect to two different needs, in that people in that situation might be better off in hospital until the

    155
    Secretary of State provides the funding to ensure that the necessary care in the community is available? Does the Minister agree that there is no excuse for closing hospitals before that provision is made?
    Mr. Newton: I have already made my view clear. The aim of health authorities in this area is to improve the pattern of patient care. Hospital closures are incidental. If the hon. Gentleman studies the figures, he will see that there have been very substantial increases in resources for the care of mentally ill people in the community, including, for example a more than doubling of the number of community psychiatric nurses.
    Dame Jill Knight: Will my hon. Friend take on board the fact that there is widespread concern that people are being let out of hospital when there is not always adequate care available for the community as well as for the patient? Is he aware that a great deal of trouble may be caused when neighbours suddenly find these poor people living next door? I beg my hon. Friend to bear that in mind.
    Mr. Newton: I fully accept that there is concern, and in some cases I share it. That is one reason why at almost every meeting with district or regional health authorities I stress the point that I have emphasised to the House—that discharges need to be properly planned and based on proper provision of alternative facilities.
    Mr. Wigley: If that is so, when do the Government intend to implement one of the essential first steps towards ensuring proper care in the community—the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986, which has still not been implemented?
    Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman knows full well that the primary focus of discussions between my hon. Friend the Minister and the local authority associations relate to sections 5 and 6 of that Act, which are concerned with disabled school leavers. We are very conscious of the importance of section 7, and one of my aims is to get that implemented as soon as possible.
    Mr. Michael Morris: Is my hon. Friend aware that included in the statistics are the children of the Princess Marina hospital? I extend a personal "thank you" to our hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for visiting that hospital. Is my hon. Friend aware that those children are in tragic circumstances? May I press him for an early decision that they should remain in hospital?
    Mr. Newton: I shall take careful note of what my hon. Friend said. As he mentioned, our hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State recently visited that hospital. I wish to take this opportunity to make it clear to him and the House that in my judgment there are still many people who need hospital care. The policy of care in the community is not something to be pursued regardless of the needs of the individual concerned.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: Does the Minister accept that his response to the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), in which he explained the delay in implementing one section of the Disabled Persons Act, does not excuse the delay in implementing another section? Does he further accept that there is a need for proper funding of bridging arrangements? The transitional period between hospital discharge and patients going into the community is of profound importance, if only because those who suffer from mental illness almost certainly have the
    156
    additional adversity of poverty, unemployment, homelessness and family break-ups. If the Government continue with their inadequately funded community care policy, will it not simply be seen as a euphemism for community neglect?
    Mr. Newton: On the hon. Gentleman's first point, I did not in any way use my references to sections 5 and 6 as an excuse for not implementing section 7. I said that, quite rightly, a great deal of pressure in the House and elsewhere has been concerned with the provision for disabled school leavers. However, I also said that I attached high priority to implementing section 7. Regional health authorities have substantial resources available, and we look to them to use those resources sensibly to provide for the transitional period, as the hon. Gentleman rightly recommended.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will my hon. Friend give a firm assurance that he will slow down the closure of psychiatric hospitals until there are sufficient trained and qualified staff to look after the patients when they are in the community, and also that suitable accommodation is available? We do not want them to end up in prisons, as the Select Committee on Social Services found in its inquiry into the prison medical service.
    Will my hon. Friend also confirm—as I believe he has indicated already—that there will be a long-term need for hospital care for many of the mentally ill, especially the more acute and severe schizophrenics?
    Mr. Newton: Certainly the answer to the latter part of my hon. Friend's question is yes. I think that, by implication, I have already answered the first part. The slowing down of the programme is not the issue; rather, it is that we will not approve hospital closures until we are satisfied that proper alternative provision is available.

    Health Inequalities
    Mr. Tony Lloydasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement regarding health inequalities in and between regions in England and Wales.
    Mr. Moore: It has always been one of the principal aims of the National Health Service to ensure that services are equally available to all who are in equal need and considerable progress has been made since 1977–78 in ironing out long-standing inequalities in health provision between regions.
    Mr. Lloyd: The right hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that almost all experts disagree with his view that progress has been made. The reality is that my constituents and others in the northern region stand a much higher chance of ill health and of dying early than do those in the more fortunate regions. Given that background, and given that every Member of Parliament from the North-West has files bulging with cases of failures of social service provision, why did the north-west region recently say that it would accept service reductions from the district health authorities to balance the budget? If the right hon. Gentleman does not wish to comment on that matter now, will he accept my challenge to come to the north-west and debate the failure of the Health Service in that region so that the public can make up its mind on the matter?
    Mr. Moore: I shall correct the misimpression given by the hon. Gentleman about NHS progress in his region as

    157
    against the country generally. Since 1977–78, the RAWP reallocation, to the advantage of the northern region, has progressed from the point where its resources were 9 per cent. below target to being currently 2 per cent. below target. As opposed to the appalling collapse in the capital programme under the last Labour Government, the region now has the second largest capital receipt programme. Its citizens are benefiting from the RAWP reallocation undertaken by this Government.
    Mr. McCrindle: Has the time not arrived to reconsider the allocation of resources to the four Thames health regions? Whereas in 1977–78 it could be said that facilities in the four regions were ahead of those in the rest of the country, that is no longer the case, and unless there is an increase in resources for the four Thames health regions, patient care is ultimately bound to suffer?
    Mr. Moore: My hon. Friend will know that I have been a London Member for many years. I am somewhat conscious of what he said when I look at the relative data throughout the country. The RAWP programme ensures that service provision is equalised throughout the country. I recognise what my hon. Friend said to the extent that the RAWP formula is currently under review.
    Mrs. Clwyd: Does the Minister dispute all the evidence that we now have a two-nation divide in health as well as in wealth?
    Mr. Moore: I sometimes wonder whether the hon. Lady and other Opposition Members might consider what they say in regard to the relative comparators between our country and the rest. The hon. Lady may not be aware that health—[Interruption.]The answer will come in proper time. The hon. Lady may not be aware that health inequalities are less significant in the United Kingdom than in most other Western countries, including the United States, Japan and France. That is the reality of the relative lack of inequality. The question related to equality in the provision of services. RAWP is seeking to do precisely that.
    Sir Peter Emery: Will my right hon. Friend most seriously consider the inequalities that arise specifically in areas where there is a large retired and aged population and where doctors must spend much more time dealing with the elderly? Perhaps hip operations can be dealt with in the private and public sectors to relieve the specific problems that the elderly face in such areas.
    Mr. Moore: My hon. Friend made an important point. I have been particularly conscious of it when I have looked at the concept of the primary health care review. I hope that I shall be able to assist in that direction.

    Tameside and Glossop General Hospital
    Mr. Hawkinsasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the Tameside and Glossop general hospital development.
    Mr. Newton: I am pleased to report that, after a delay while additional post-contract work is carried out, the admission of the first patients to phase II of Tameside general hospital is scheduled for the autumn of 1988.
    Mr. Hawkins: My hon. Friend's statement will be well received in my constituency of High Peak and in the north-west as a whole. The large expansion of the hospital shows
    158
    the Government's commitment to the Health Service and to the north. None the less, I seek an assurance from my hon. Friend that adequate funds will be made available in future so that the magnificent new facilities can be fully staffed without detriment to other important facilities in the north-west.
    Mr. Newton: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's first remarks. I am glad to know that, even in this place, one can please some of the people some of the time. My hon. Friend will know that the region and the district are currently discussing funding issues. I think I am right in saying that the region has already offered £2·6 million as revenue consequences, but some issues remain to be settled.
    Mr. Favell rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Well—yes—Mr. Favell.
    Mr. Favell: I am entranced by the way in which you receive my question, Mr. Speaker.
    As another north-west hon. Member, I do not have a postbag bulging with letters about the services that are being delivered in Stockport. Is one of the problems not inequality—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Does the hon. Member's question cover Tameside and Glossop general hospital?
    Mr. Favell: It covers the north-west region and the north-west regional health authority.
    Is one of the problems not inequality of resources but inequality of performance? Are not many districts just not performing?
    Mr. Newton: I am afraid that I could not hear part of my hon. Friend's question, so I can hardly expect that he will be as entranced by the answer as Mr. Speaker was by the question. However, I can at least confirm that Stockport and Tameside are in the north-west region.

    Handicapped Children
    Mr. Rookerasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he is satisfied with the level of physiotherapy support available from the National Health Service to special schools for handicapped children in Birmingham.
    Mrs. Currie: Yes. The provision of physiotherapy services to special schools is the responsibility of the local health authorities in co-operation with the local education authorities. It is for them together to decide on the appropriate level of physiotherapy services.
    Mr. Rooker: I am surprised that the Minister is satisfied, given the amount of concern that has been expressed by parents at the Wilson Stuart special school in my constituency. That school caters for children from at least six constituencies. Is the Minister satisfied that the differences between health authorities in the city of Birmingham can lead to the position where the Wilson Stuart school in West Birmingham health authority has 140 handicapped pupils with two physiotherapists and two who are rotational, whereas at Bray's special school, which is covered by South Birmingham health authority, 110 pupils, who have almost the same type of disability, have the services of 4½ full-time physiotherapists? The Minister cannot be satisfied with such discrimination against the pupils from the six constituencies in north Birmingham.
    Mrs. Currie: The Wilson Stuart school, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, was affected by a shortage of paediatric physiotherapists at the end of last year, but is currently up to establishment. The number of physiotherapists who are employed by the Birmingham health authorities has jumped from 268 in 1982 to 302 this year. The biggest increase has been in West Birmingham health authority, which covers the hon. Gentleman's constituency.
    Mr. Alfred Morris: Is the Minister aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), has exemplified, by reference to Birmingham, a problem which grievously affects handicapped children all over Britain? Is she further aware that giving the right help in the right place at the right time can make all the difference between enabling a handicapped child to live an independent life and living a life of dependence and preventible disability? Will she consider this problem more urgently and accept that we would like a fuller statement at an early date?
    Mrs. Currie: I accept much of what the right hon. Gentleman has rightly said. The number of physiotherapists who are employed in the Health Service has climbed rapidly from about 7,000 when he was a member of the Government to about 11,000 now. Perhaps that will help to answer his question.

    AIDS
    Mr. Yeoasked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he plans to respond to the third report of the Social Services Committee on problems associated with AIDS, HC 182, Session 1986–87.
    Mr. Moore: I expect to respond to the Committee's report before Christmas.
    Mr. Yeo: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a programme of anonymised screening represents by far the simplest way of obtaining accurate information about the spread of AIDS through the population? Does he further agree that without that information it is impossible to evaluate the efforts that the Government are making to combat the spread of this appalling disease? Does he agree that such a programme could be introduced at a low cost because blood samples are already routinely collected from large numbers of people?
    Mr. Moore: What I can agree with is that we need better information about the spread of the HIV infection. I know that my hon. Friend served honourably on the Select Committee in the previous Parliament and that the Committee did not share his view on anonymised screening. Having said that, I am, of course, anxious to ensure that we have the best scientific advice, and I am considering the issue. I hope that my hon. Friend will share my desire for better information, not necessarily gained from the route that he seeks to pursue.
    Mr. Frank Field: Following the Committee's report, have the Government been able to respond positively to the capital needs of London Lighthouse, and if so to what extent?
    Mr. Moore: I know of that particular issue, and my hon. Friend the Minister for Health is actively considering it at the moment. I hope that he will be able to make a statement, which I hope will be helpful, in the not too distant future.
    Sir David Price: May I confirm to my right hon. Friend that my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo) was in a minority of one in proposing anonymised screening? All other members of the Select Committee felt that it would be entirely irresponsible clinically. However, if a person is found to have a blood sample which is HIV positive, it must be right to do something about that patient.
    Mr. Moore: I appreciate my hon. Friend's comments. As he and hon. Members on both sides of the House will know, my predecessor welcomed unreservedly the advice of the Committee and the help that it gave in this difficult area.
    Mr. Robin Cook: Does the Secretary of State accept the estimate of the Select Committee that 1,200 haemophiliacs are antibody positive as a result of infection at the hands of the NHS? Does he recognise that the Government must bear part of the responsibility for that number because of the failure to make Britain self-sufficient in blood products, which has left us dependent on imports from commercial sources in the United States? Does he agree with the robust statement of the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie), that anyone who denies that AIDS can be transmitted by blood products needs his head examined? Therefore, does he accept that, whatever the legal liability, the Government have a moral obligation to help those haemophiliacs and to protect their dependants against mortgage defaults and homelessness?
    Mr. Moore: I can confirm the figures that the hon. Gentleman gave with regard to the 1,200 haemophiliacs. I have received letters from my hon. Friends on this issue. Some of their constituents have suffered from this, and I share their deep sympathy, but the House will be aware that there has never been a general state scheme to compensate those who suffer the unavoidable adverse effects that arise from medical procedures. The Government have tried to provide all NHS facilities to those who suffer illness as a result of the infection. So far we have provided £104,000 to each of the six haemophilia reference centres in England so that they can provide a counselling service. In addition, the DHSS is working closely with the Haemophilia Society. Beyond that, I can say that I will meet representatives of the Haemophilia Society next week.

    Elderly Households
    Mr. John Mark Taylorasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what recent evidence his Department has compiled on the expenditure of elderly households on domestic appliances and other durable goods.
    The Minister for Social Security and the Disabled (Mr. Nicholas Scott): The latest information is for 1985, when the average pensioner household spent more than £230 on durable household goods. This forms the fastest growing area of pensioners' spending and is two thirds higher in real terms than in 1979.
    Mr. Taylor: I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks about pensioners' spending. Will he comment on pensioners' incomes which underlie that spending? How do they compare with 1979?
    Mr. Scott: Again, the latest information available is for 1985. Between 1979 and 1985 pensioners' incomes

    161
    increased in real terms by about 18 per cent., which is roughly twice as fast as incomes in the community as a whole.
    Mr. McAllion: The Minister will be aware that one of the most important items of expenditure in any elderly household is the purchase or rental of a television set. Indeed, given the lack of safety on the streets, and the fact that many elderly people are afraid to go out after dark, it could be argued that acquiring a television set is an essential item of expenditure in elderly households. Therefore, to keep as many elderly people as possible living independently in the community, will the DHSS support the proposal for a system of concessionary television licences for pensioners, which would cost the Treasury only £330 million? It gives thousands of millions of pounds in tax cuts to the rich every year.
    Mr. Scott: No doubt many hon. Members will recall the time when pensioners were given vouchers with which to buy cigarettes and other tobacco products. We should concentrate on protecting the real value of the retirement pension rather than embarking on a series of specific grants for items which some pensioners may not want.
    Mrs. Beckett: Does the Minister not recognise that there is something a little more than ironic about Ministers congratulating themselves on the increase in pensioners' incomes, which stemmed directly from the changes made in state and occupational pensions by the Labour Government in 1975 and which were seriously weakened by the activities of this Government in the Social Security Act 1986? Does he admit that that Act will weaken the standard of living of pensioners?
    Mr. Scott: No. The steady maturing of the SERPS scheme, the reforms which we shall introduce for pensions in 1988, the increase in pensioners' savings and the Government's success in controlling inflation will all contribute to rising standards of living for our pensioners.

    Ambulance Service
    Ms. Ruddockasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the percentage change in non-emergency ambulance patient miles in Lewisham between 1983 and 1987.
    Mrs. Currie: The London ambulance service does not calculate patient mileage statistics by district health authority.
    Ms. Ruddock: Does the Minister not think that it should begin to collect such statistics, given that there is an increasing percentage of elderly, chronically sick and disabled people in the community, particularly as a result of Government policies on community care, the fact that the dial-a-ride schemes are vastly oversubscribed and given that a walking case is defined as someone who can walk with the help of one other person and who can sit in a vehicle and therefore may not use the ambulance service?
    Mrs. Currie: The London ambulance service runs some 1,000 vehicles. Last year it performed 2·3 million patient journeys and covered some 12 million miles. It answers emergencies at the rate of 1,300 every day of the year and the average ambulance journey costs £18. I can give the hon. Member no end of statistics, but I apologise for the fact that I cannot give her exactly the ones that she wants.

    Health Services and Public Health Act 1968
    Mr. Ian Bruceasked the Secretary of State for Social Services how much the Government are making available in the current year for grants under section 64 of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Michael Portillo): In the current financial year the Department is planning to provide funding of more than £37 million to the voluntary sector, an increase of 82·5 per cent. in real terms since 1978–79. Of that money about £26–3 million is provided under section 64.
    Mr. Bruce: I thank my hon. Friend for that excellent reply. Although I know he is aware that the new Chesil counselling centre in Weymouth is doing excellent work, can he confirm that, through section 64, the Government are giving funds to this type of project to support the work to overcome alcoholism and drug abuse?
    Mr. Portillo: Section 64 money is principally available for national schemes. I know about the Chesil counselling service, and I know that my hon. Friend is in touch with the county council about that service. We provide about £ ¾ million section 64 money to voluntary bodies concerned with alcohol abuse.

    Retirement Pensions
    Mr. Lathamasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the proposed increase in retirement pensions.
    Mr. Scott: This matter will be covered in the statement that my right hon. Friend will be making to the House shortly.

    Consultant Geriatricians
    Mr. Butterfillasked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many consultant geriatricians there are now compared with 1978.
    Mrs. Currie: The number of consultants in geriatric medicine in England has increased from 330 in 1978 to 479 in 1986. That is an increase of nearly 50 per cent. and it demonstrates our commitment to care for the elderly in this country.
    Mr. Butterfill: I offer my hon. Friend congratulations on such a satisfactory reply. Does she agree that the success of the NHS under this Government means that many people are living much longer than hitherto and that the demand for geriatric services is likely to increase still further in the future?
    Mrs. Currie: Yes, I agree. The increasing number of old people in our society and rising life expectancy are a tribute to success in the Health Service. There are more nurses in the geriatric service, more district nurses, more private residential care, more nursing homes, more home helps, more day centres and more people cared for in day hospitals. We expect those increases to continue.
    Mr. Janner: Is the Minister aware that far too many geriatric hospitals are outdated, ancient and inadequate and are totally unsuitable for the people who must live in them? Is the Minister aware that far too many pensioners

    163
    are in hospitals because there is inadequate care available for them in their homes and that the entire system of care for old people is cracking?
    Mrs. Currie: Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman is unaware that 1·6 million old people are currently cared for at home by home nurses and that that is a rapid increase on recent years. I take on board the point he makes about the tatty state of some old geriatric hospitals, and I hope that he will support the Government when we make moves to close and replace those hospitals.

    Elderly People
    Mr. Hinchliffeasked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many elderly persons were admitted to private residential homes with Department of Health and Social Security financial support during the year ended 31 March.
    Mr. Portillo: The information is not available in the exact form requested. Figures for February 1987 show that there were 65,000 people of pension age in private and voluntary residential care homes claiming supplementary benefit help with their fees.
    Mr. Hinchliffe: In view of the situation demonstrated by the recent Yorkshire Television programme, "First Tuesday", which looked at the care of the elderly, are the Government satisfied with the impact of their free market ideology on the care of the elderly? Furthermore, does the Minister accept that it is in the best interests of elderly physically or mentally handicapped people to be advertised as chattels in estate agents' descriptions of houses to be sold for the private care of handicapped people?
    Mr. Portillo: Recent concern has centred not only on private homes but on local authority homes. We shall look at the report of Lady Wagner's review of residential care, which is expected shortly. Meanwhile, the social services inspectorate is discussing with local authorities the ways in which it can improve its monitoring.

    Bridlington New Community Hospital
    Mr. Cranasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the Bridlington new community hospital.
    Mrs. Currie: I am delighted to say that Bridlington new community hospital was handed over by the contractors to East Yorkshire health authority on 23 October this year, three months ahead of schedule. The hospital cost £16 million and is expected to receive its first patients around Easter.
    Mr. Cran: I am sure my hon. Friend knows how delighted we are at having that hospital in east Yorkshire, but does she not agree that the mere fact that the consultant medical staff are being drawn from Scarborough should not be used as an excuse by those who would like to see East Yorkshire health authority die on the vine and be taken over—if I can be allowed to say it—by Hull health authority?
    Mrs. Currie: I shall convey to my colleagues in the regional health authority the views and remarks of my hon. Friend. I thank him for his kind words about that new development.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Select Committees
    Mr. Allenasked the Prime Minister if she has any plans to put before the House proposals for changes in the constitution or powers of Select Committees.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): No, Sir.
    Mr. Allen: Does the Prime Minister agree that the continuing failure to set up departmental Select Committees is undermining the role of this House in holding the Government to account'? To ensure that the Select Committees have a life of their own, independent of Government—indeed, independent of shadow Government—will the right hon. Lady consider putting her personal weight behind the proposal that Members of this House should directly elect the members of the Select Committees?
    The Prime Minister: With regard to the hon. Gentleman's first point, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said last Thursday at business questions, he is working through the usual channels to get the Select Committees going as soon as possible. I cannot add to that point. With regard to the hon. Gentleman's second point, the membership of Select Committees is ultimately for the House to determine. The membership is determined by the House on an amendable motion tabled on behalf of the Committee of Selection. I am not aware of any strong support for changing the present system.
    Mr. Michael Morris: With regard to the powers of Select Committees, does my right hon. Friend not think that the time is now appropriate for the Public Accounts Committee to monitor the nationalised industries, because now there are far fewer nationalised industries that w as the case when they were last considered?
    The Prime Minister: Ultimately, I think that this is a matter for the House itself. The Public Accounts Committee does an extremely good job.
    Mr. Wallace: I am sure the Prime Minister is aware that 40 per cent. of Scottish Conservative Back Benchers have stated publicly that they do not want to sit on the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. Given that that will make it difficult for the Government to have a majority on the Committee, is it not time that the right hon. Lady hit the bullet and allowed a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs that reflected accurately the party situation in Scotland?
    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the point was put to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House last Thursday. The Committee is being considered along with the others, and my right hon. Friend is working through the usual channels to get the Committee going as soon as possible.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the reason for the difficulties with the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs is the way in which that Committee has behaved in a partisan manner in the past? Those of us who worked hard to make the Committee effective were disappointed by the way in which it developed.
    The Prime Minister: I note what my hon. Friend says, and I am sure that there is no stauncher representative of Scotland than him.

    Engagements
    Mr. Allan Robertsasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 27 October.
    The Prime Minister: This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen.
    Mr. Roberts: In the light of the BP share issue fiasco, have the Government revised down the amount of money that they expect to raise from selling off our water industry? They estimated that they might raise £8 billion, even though the assets are worth £29 billion; so they were selling it off cheaply anyway. Are they going to raise about £3 billion-£4 billion now, bearing in mind that it will cost between £2 billion to £3 billion to install water meters on a compulsory basis in every home?
    The Prime Minister: With regard to water privatisation, there is a paving Bill before the House that will have to go through the House, and there will be other legislation before that process can be completed.
    With regard to BP, the underwriters have made representations to the Treasury that the BP issue should be withdrawn, and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is considering those representations, as he is contractually bound to do under the terms of the underwriting agreement. He will explain the procedures in the statement that he is to make shortly.
    Sir Peter Tapsell: May I put it to my right hon. Friend that the present crisis in stock markets around the world is primarily an international rather than a national problem, and that it needs an internationally co-operative response? In particular, it needs, first, an early announcement by the Federal Republic of Germany that it intends to reduce its interest rates. Secondly, it needs an early announcement from the President and the Congress of the United States that they intend to put up their taxes. Thirdly, it needs continuing international supervision and control of the new and ever-proliferating financial mechanisms, which, if necessary, will prohibit some of those speculative instruments so that we shall not all he faced by an international financial Frankenstein.
    The Prime Minister: With regard to the several points that my hon. Friend has made, I would agree with him that the matter of the United States' budget deficit needs dealing with. I believe that it is being dealt with by the President and Congress. I agree with my hon. Friend that that is a significant part of the matter. With regard to the co-operation of Germany and, of course, Japan, I point out that the Louvre agreement was reaffirmed by Mr. Baker, Mr. Stoltenberg and Mr. Poehl, and that has had a considerable effect on exchange rates. I also point out that interest rates have been falling, particularly at the long end of the market, as people have gone into gilts and bonds. We have reduced our interest rates recently, as my hon. Friend knows, so we have played our full part in sound financing, for which I have sometimes been criticised, but which has turned out to be the safest thing that we could possibly have done.
    Mr. Kinnock: It is clear, as the Prime Minister said, that the underwriters of the BP share issue do not consider the
    166
    sale to be a proper underwriting risk in terms of the prospectus. Does the right hon. Lady agree or disagree with them?
    The Prime Minister: I think, perhaps, that the right hon. Gentleman could not quite hear what I said earlier. He will know that I am restricted as to what I can say—
    Several Hon. Members: Why?
    The Prime Minister: For legal reasons. The right hon. Gentleman also knows that the Chancellor is to make a statement. Therefore, I repeat what I said: the underwriters have made representations to the Treasury that the BP issue should be withdrawn. The Chancellor is considering those representations, as he is contractually bound to do under the terms of the underwriting agreement and he will explain the procedures in the statement that he is to make shortly.
    Mr. Kinnock: The Prime Minister knows very well that there is no legal consideration that forbids her responding, especially when the underwriters have made their position so clear. Indeed, she has an absolute duty under the prospectus to respond. Is she not aware that the absence of a firm decision only prolongs and increases instability? Is not the Prime Minister's refusal to say what the position is a pathetic evasion of responsibility when the underwriters have made their position so clear?
    The Prime Minister: With all due respect, I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman has taken full account of what I said. The Chancellor is contractually bound to consider the representations. Under the terms of the underwriting agreement he must give due and proper consideration. That is what he is doing.
    Mr. Kinnock: The Prime Minister knows that the underwriters made their representations yesterday. Everybody knows that the Chancellor has an obligation to discuss the matter with them and, in the event of failure to agree, to consult the Bank of England. I ask again, why the delay? Why is the Prime Minister prolonging instability?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman knows that the Chancellor must genuinely go through the procedures. That is what he is doing. The right hon. Gentleman also knows that there is a private notice question from his Front Bench on precisely this matter.
    Mr. Beaumont-Dark: During my right hon. Friend's busy day, did she have a chance this morning to hear Sir Nicholas Goodison, the chairman of the stock exchange, whose motto is "My word is my bond"—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Beaumont-Dark: The chairman of the stock exchange, whose motto is "My word is my bond", said that the BP issue was fully underwritten and should go ahead. Underwriters have done well for some years, and now is the time for the motto "My word is my bond" to be taken up.
    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend is aware, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor must follow the procedures that he is contractually bound to follow. If he were not to follow those he would be the subject of criticism. He is following them and will make his decision and announcement, not today, but in due time.
    Mr. Allen McKayasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 27 October.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. McKay: When the Government come to make a decision on the BP flotation, which group will be the most important — the small shareholder or the fat cat underwriter?
    The Prime Minister: I cannot add to what I have already said. The Chancellor will be answering further after Question Time.
    Mr. Cormack: Will my right hon. Friend try to find time today to consider the desperate plight of the haemophiliac AIDS victims who are suffering through no fault of their own and who many hon. Members believe deserve very special consideration?
    The Prime Minister: I will, of course, discuss this matter with my hon. Friend the Minister for Health.
    Mr. Wareing: Will the Prime Minister say what advice I should give to people in my constituency who have taken her advice and invested in private occupational pension funds? Those constituents are now at risk because of the belief in market forces, to which she has been telling us we should respond. What advice should pension fund holders be given in relation to any BP issue?
    The Prime Minister: In general, the market is just about where it was just before the turn of the year, and very much higher than it has been on previous occasions.
    Mr. John Townendasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 27 October.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Townend: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of my constituents are furious at the persistent attacks on the Government and herself by Commonwealth Prime Ministers, many of whom are leaders of one-party states condemned by Amnesty International? Is it not time that they were told that in future the ruder they get the smaller will be their allocation from our very large overseas aid budget?
    The Prime Minister: I appreciate my hon. Friend's concern, but I think that he will agree, after a moment's reflection, that we must give aid according to where people need it most. That has been, and will continue to be, our policy.
    Mr. Faulds: As the Prime Minister's—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading".] Some of us choose our words carefully.
    As the Prime Minister's separation from reality increases and the corruption of power mars her judgment ever more, will she contemplate today that in the last three general elections she was returned on a minority of the votes of the British electorate? Will she understand that that basis does not justify her policies of destroying the welfare state, wrecking British industry and slavishly backing every misjudgment in international affairs that the American President makes?
    The Prime Minister: Nor does the Labour party's performance during the last election or since lead me to listen to it, from any front.
    Mr. Gerald Bowdenasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 27 October.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Bowden: Will my right hon. Friend spare some time today to reflect upon the success of the Government's right-to-buy policies, whereby some 1 million families, formerly tenants, now enjoy the security and independence of home ownership? Will she join me in deploring the delay and delaying tactics of some councils in dealing with right-to-buy applications? I have constituents who have waited. for 18 months to two years before their applications have been dealt with, and I believe that Southwark council has some 2,000 applications before it at the moment.
    The Prime Minister: I join my hon. Friend in deploring any delays in allowing tenants to take up their right to buy. My hon. Friend will know that in extreme cases the Department of the Environment can take over from the local authority the entire right-to-buy responsibility for council houses. Therefore, perhaps he would have a word with our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

Financial Situation
3.32 pm
Mr. John Smith(by private notice) asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the implications of the financial situation for economic policies and the consequences for the sale of BP shares.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Nigel Lawson): I am glad to have the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite me once again, as he was some years ago when I was Secretary of State for Energy.
Mr. Tony Banks: There is not much left now.
Mr. Lawson: You wait and see.
The sharp falls in share prices throughout the world over the past fortnight will tighten monetary conditions somewhat and are likely to have a dampening effect on world demand. It is far too soon to put any figures to this, but I have already responded by reducing interest rates by half a per cent. Interest rates have also come down in the United States.
I will, of course, continue to watch the situation closely, and take whatever steps are required. I am also in regular contact by telephone with my opposite numbers in the other major industrial countries.
Meanwhile, the robust economic health and sound public finances that we have in this country put us in the strongest possible position to weather this storm, just as we successfully coped with the year-long coal strike and the collapse in the world oil price.
As for the implications of the stock market slide for the BP sale, there is provision under clause 8 of the BP fixed price underwriting agreement for the underwriters to seek consultation with the Treasury if a majority of them form the opinion that there has been an adverse change of circumstances, as specified by the agreement, in the light of which they believe that they are no longer assuming a proper underwriting risk. I have been informed by N. M. Rothschild and Sons, on behalf of the United Kingdom underwriters, that a majority of them now take that view. They therefore sent a written representation to the Treasury yesterday afternoon seeking consultation with a view to terminating the offer for sale. I have to say that I was surprised by this. [Laughter.] I am now considering the points that they have made, as I am contractually bound to do.
The underwriting agreement sets out a series of steps, which must be followed if the consultation process is triggered. The Treasury considers the representations and consults BP. Rothschild's also seeks BP's views. Rothschild's and the Treasury then consult together. If they are unable to agree, they jointly approach the Bank of England for its assessment. I shall take full account of that assessment before I take a final decision.
I understand that a copy of the agreement has today been deposited in the Library.
It is my intention to proceed as quickly as possible, consistent with the proper observation of the procedures. The House will understand that, now that the underwriters have invoked this consultation process, I cannot say more until the process is concluded, but I will gladly listen to the views of right hon. and hon. Members.
Mr. Smith: Is the Chancellor not ashamed that he had to be dragged reluctantly to the House to answer a private notice question, when he should have volunteered a statement on his own initiative days ago? Does he not think that he should apologise to the House for treating it as being a good deal less important to him than the stock exchange?
Is it not clear that the fundamental reason for the collapse in international markets has been the irresponsibility of Governments, including the British Government, in facing up to the twin problems of the United States' deficit and the Japanese and German surpluses? Instead of taking action to reduce gradually the United States' trade deficit and simultaneously expand the other economies, Governments — who are staffed by people such as the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who are addicted to free market theories—have abandoned their responsibilities to markets that the Chancellor describes as having absurd activities and which, according to the Prime Minister, are involved in 5 per cent. trade and 95 per cent. speculation?
Does the Chancellor understand that the free-market chickens have come home to roost? The markets are desperately seeking responsibility from the Governments that have abandoned them. Is it not now urgent for Her Majesty's Government to co-operate in setting up a new economic summit of the G7 countries with an agenda to concert a plan to tackle the deficit-surplus problem in a way that will avoid recession, reopen opportunities for growth and engage in a fresh and constructive examination of the debt problems of the developing world?
Will the Government accept that, as a result of the events of the past few weeks, free market theories no longer work?
As to BP, will the Government explain why they must take so long to go through the procedures that the Chancellor has outlined? In what he said to the House, he has made it crystal clear that he intends to hold the underwriters to their obligations. Would it not be wiser, given that we are only hours from the closing of this offer, for a little more urgency to be shown in these consultations and for the Chancellor to be more prepared to give a definitive answer to the House today?
Whatever happens with the underwriters or about anything else, will the Chancellor confirm that the Government are obliged to purchase 450 million new shares at the price of 330p and that the difference between the price at which they committed themselves to buy new shares and the present value in the markets is over £300 million?
Will the Chancellor also confirm that whatever happens, £20 million will have been wasted on an extravagant advertising hype? Is it not extraordinary that this colossal waste of money occurs at the same time as the Government are cutting child benefit, apparently on the ground that decent levels of such benefit cannot be afforded in this country?
Is it not clear that, whatever happens to the underwriters, the decision to sell the whole of the Government's stake in BP has been profoundly foolish? The company will suffer, the Government have wasted money and the shares will not be purchased. Repeatedly the Chancellor has claimed that his sole purpose in the BP share sale is wider share ownership. Since the shares will not have been sold to willing purchasers, what will be left of his purpose?
Mr. Lawson: I shall try to deal with the questions in the order in which the right hon. and learned Gentleman asked them. I start with something on which I can agree with him. I agree that the size of the American budget deficit, which is way ahead of its own capacity to finance it, is a major problem in the world economy today. I think, however, that it is a bit of an impertinence for him to blame me or the British Government for that. I vividly recall the time, some three years ago, when I was saying just that and I was being attacked by him and other right hon. and hon. Members who said that we should follow the policies of expanding the budget deficit in this country.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to international co-operation between the members of G7. I agree with him too that that is important. That is in better shape than it has been at any time in the period that I have been Chancellor of the Exchequer, and it has been very successful in the context of stabilising exchange rates, among other things. But I have to say that the sort of workmanlike co-operation that we do have and which I hope can be built upon and improved, is rather more serious than empty waffle about a non-existent plan and some summit.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman then went on to the question of taking so long on the BP front. He obviously failed to listen to what I said. I said that it was not until yesterday afternoon that the BP underwriters made their approach to the Treasury —4.20 yesterday afternoon, to be precise. I have now informed the House and I shall go through the procedures as quickly as can he done, while properly going through those procedures. I would hope to be able to reach a conclusion by Thursday.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman then asked me whether it was true that the Government were obliged to purchase a large number of BP shares at 330p a share. I can tell him, of course, that it is not true. He then said that this episode demonstrated that it was wrong to sell BP shares. But of course, he will recall that the first sale of BP shares was conducted by the Government in which he performed in 1977.
As to the question of wider share ownership, which the right hon. and learned Gentleman seems to be against, I have to tell him that he is in conflict with the views of the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) who is the rising star of the Labour party—or at least he used to be the rising star of the Labour party—when he said:
"Instead of opposing wider share ownership, for example, we should set about making it a reality … The idea of owning shares is catching on and as socialists we should support it."
The right hon. and learned Gentleman asks was not wider share ownership the sole purpose of the BP share offer? Obviously, the answer is no, because if that had been the sole purpose we would not have had the issue underwritten in the first place.
Mr. Terence Higgins: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is important that the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee, which has previously taken evidence on the underwriting of privatisation issues and on wider international matters, should be set up this week so that it has an opportunity of reporting to the House on these important issues?
I welcome the reduction in interest rates. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this must be combined with fiscal balance and that, therefore, it is important that the United States fiscal deficit should be reduced? I congratulate my
172
right hon. Friend on the representations he has already made to the United States Government, but I urge him to redouble them. Does my right hon. Friend agree that many people think that it would he dangerous to put underwriters in a position when they can say, "Heads we win, tails you lose"?
Mr. Lawson: On the question of the BP underwriters, of course I have noted carefully what my right hon. Friend has said. On the question of the Select Committee, I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has heard my right hon. Friend's comments. I personally have always welcomed the constructive discussions that I have had during my period as Chancellor with the Select Committee, which my right hon. Friend heads with such distinction. The sooner it can be reconstituted the better.
As for the wider economic issues, as I said in my opening remarks, I think that it is very important that we continue to keep up the pressure on the United States. The President has made statements showing a lesser degreee of unwillingness to raise taxes than has ever been the case before. I was speaking to Secretary Baker on the telephone this morning.
Mr. A. J. Beith: Does not the Chancellor think that it is rather perverse for it to be suggested that he could either have caused in some way or prevented the recent upheavals, since they derive mainly from the decision of the President, whom the right hon. Gentleman and Prime Minister so much admire, to cut taxes and increase defence expenditure at the same time? Is it not time to tell the United States that the party is over and that we have to put the main industrial countries together to decide what to do to pay for it?
With regard to the BP share issue, what will the, Chancellor do about all those inexperienced small investors who were beguiled by the expensive publicity? What good will it do to the cause of wider share ownership to deliver those people a kick in the teeth?
Mr. Lawson: On the first half of the hon. Gentleman's question, I welcome, just as I did when it came from the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), this late conversion to the cause of sound finance, which is something that the Government have been preaching for a very long time, when the only policies advocated by the Opposition were ever bigger budget deficits. I remember the speech I made to the IMF annual meeting in September 1984 when I said that if the United States' budget deficit was not vigorously tackled it would all end in tears. We inherited a huge budget deficit from the Labour party. Even though we were in favour of lower taxes, we initially put up taxes to deal with the deficit first before we could get on with the tax-reducing programme.
As for the question of the small shareholders who may have applied for BP shares, as the hon. Gentleman will understand, like the Treasury, applicants for shares are bound by the terms and conditions of the offer.
Sir William Clark: Will my right hon. Friend resist the blandishments of the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) in favour of abandoning the free market? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the reason why our present economy is so strong compared with, say, the 1979 economy is that we have allowed the free market to operate within the Treasury's control? It would be folly if we were to change

173
course now. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, to get international confidence back into the various money markets throughout the world, the most urgent need is for the American President to make up his mind as quickly as possible to increase American taxes and to reduce public expenditure?
Mr. Lawson: I think there is probably general agreement in the House with what my hon. Friend has said. Of course, to be fair, it is not only on the side of the Americans that action is called for. I believe that in current circumstances there is a danger that monetary policy in the Federal Republic of Germany is really rather too tight, and I hope that some action will be directed on that front as well.
Mr. Peter Shore: No one can accuse the Chancellor of hyperbole when he says that the events of the past fortnight will have a dampening effect on world demand. The real effects are far more likely to be a serious curtailment of investment, a curtailment of consumer spending and a resulting increase in unemployment. Therefore, will the Chancellor assure the House that he is ready to take counter-recession measures — a package of them, both national and international—to meet the scale of events?
Mr. Lawson: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that, as I said in my opening remarks, I shall take whatever actions I believe to be necessary in the circumstances. It is too soon to say what actions will be necessary, although I have already reduced interest rates. That goes, I think, for all other members of the Group of Seven. The right hon. Gentleman will know, for example, that the President and Congressional leaders have been in active discussions on the subject of getting down the American deficit.
There is no need for the alarmist consequences that the right hon. Gentleman fears if, as I believe will be the case, economic policies in the major nations are conducted in a sensible way.
Sir Peter Hordern: Will my right hon. Friend accept that, if the BP share issue is withdrawn, it will be widely felt that the underwriters cannot meet their commitments? If that is the case, the damage caused will be much greater than will result if the issue proceeds.
Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend is very knowledgeable in these matters, and I have carefully noted what he has said.
Mr. Robert Sheldon: Will the Chancellor dismiss the impertinence shown by the underwriters in coming to him to seek to forgo their liabilities and responsibilities? Is he aware that the Public Accounts Committee has condemned the very large fees paid to the underwriters and that, on each occasion, we have been informed that this was necessary because of the large risks involved? If we are to remove the risks and give the underwriters a copper-bottomed, gold-plated guarantee, what is the purpose of underwriting at this level?
Mr. Lawson: As Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, the right hon. Gentleman occupies a very important position in this House, and I have very carefully noted the point that he has made.
Mr. Anthony Nelson: Before my right hon. Friend reaches any final decision on this matter, will he
174
bear in mind that he has a responsibility that overrides that of acting as a guardian of underwriting institutions in the City, or even of share applicants? I refer to his responsibility as a trustee of the public purse. Will he bear in mind the fact that the interests of the taxpayer, who will forgo a substantial sum by way of proceeds if the sale is called off should weigh heavily on his mind. After all, does my right hon. Friend really believe that if the market had risen dramatically, rather than slumped, the City institutions would for one minute have considered calling the underwriting arrangements off?
Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend's point deals with a number of the matters that I have to bear in mind.
Mr. Brian Sedgemore: Why has the Chancellor spent a week telling television viewers that it is possible to wipe 25 per cent. or more off the value of stocks and shares all round the world without serious consequences for liquidity, borrowing, trade, output and employment? In the face of impending recession, what does the Chancellor intend to do—other than to lecture foreign Governments?
Mr. Lawson: There is no need to share the apocalyptic visions of the hon. Gentleman provided that the Governments of the major countries pursue the appropriate economic policies. What turned the 1929 crash, which I think is in many people's minds, into the slump of the 1930s was not the crash itself but the wholly inappropriate economic and monetary policies that followed it.
Mr. Quentin Davies: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the present situation is a splendid vindication of the Government's judgment in underwriting this and other privatisation issues and that the Government deserve the wholehearted appreciation both of the House and of the general public in the exercise of that judgment? Does he agree that the main problem with the underwriters is that the foreign underwriters have not underwritten their commitment to BP with investing institutions, and that if they have to sell shares to meet that commitment they will not mainly be British shares that they have to sell?
Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend—and I am grateful to him for his earlier remarks—is, of course, right to point to a fundamental difference between the underwriting system in this country and the underwriting system on the other side of the Atlantic. In this country it is a feature of our system that we go in for —the underwriters go in for — sub-underwriting on a very substantial scale and therefore the risk is spread very, very widely. In the United States and Canada that practice is not adopted and of course the risk falls entirely with the underwriters.
Mr. Tony Benn: Has the Chancellor read the speech made in the House in 1914 by Winston Churchill when he acquired a majority holding in the Anglo-Persian Oil Company for £2 million? Does the Chancellor agree that that investment, albeit by the First Lord of the Admiralty in a Liberal Government, was the wisest public investment ever made?
Does the Chancellor agree that the proper course now would be to cancel the privatisation of BP and retain the assets in the public domain?
Mr. Lawson: I have to confess to the right hon. Gentleman that I have not read that speech very recently,

175
but I do recall a more recent event—that it was when the right hon. Gentleman was Secretary of State for Energy that the first sale of BP shares was made, at a price of well under 100p per share.
Sir Michael Shaw: Is it not important that the overreactions of the stock exchange should not confuse the public and lead them to believe that the state of British industry and commerce is less strong than it is? At the same time, would it not be very bad for the long-term future of this country if emergency measures were sought to be taken at this time? Does my right hon. Friend agree that we should carry on with the rules as they are and that the undertakers should not be relieved of their responsibilities.
Hon. Members: "Underwriters."
Mr. Lawson: As far as the undertakers, if I heard my hon. Friends right, are concerned, I have noted carefully what he has said. So far as his earlier points are concerned, yes, I think that if the House looks, for example, at the latest CBI trends survey, it will see an extremely strong and confident performance by British industry and I know that the leaders of British industry do feel that there is absolutely no cause for changing that confidence in the light of recent events on the stock market.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: As the flotation was underwritten by four major American institutions, when the Chancellor weighs these matters in the next few days will one of his considerations be the fact that they may be called upon again, to underwrite the flotations with regard to water and electricity?
Mr. Lawson: As I have said to other hon. Members, I shall certainly take very much into account the view expressed by the hon. Member.
Mr. Tim Boswell: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the offer for sale in formal terms remains open, with all its full legal impact? Will he take steps to ensure that when the privatisation programme is resumed, measures are taken to ensure that the undertakers—the light off [Laughter] — underwriters — cannot again appeal against the last ball of the over?
Mr. Lawson: I have noted the suggestion which my hon. Friend has made.
Mr. David Blunkett: Does the Chancellor accept that in our democracy accountability for the economy and what happens to public assets rests with him, as accountable to this House, and that the so-called capital-owning, share-owning democracy is neither democratic nor effective? As a consequence, does he agree that he should give an assurance to the House that further sales of major public assets will cease and accept that the most widespread form of share ownership is social ownership?
Mr. Lawson: I entirely accept the fact that I do have a heavy responsibility in this job, but I do not accept anything else that the hon. Member said, particularly his belief that share ownership is something which is to be condemned. I welcome the growth of share ownership; it will continue. The privatisation programme will continue and I am delighted that we now have a convert to the cause of share ownership in the person, the important person, of the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould).
Mr. John Redwood: Does the Chancellor agree that there are times when concerted foreign exchange intervention can be dangerous before the underlying problem of the deficit has been resolved? Is not that danger especially clear if the German and Japanese authorities put up their interest rates to deal with the monetary consequences of that intervention?
Mr. Lawson: I see no need for German or Japanese interest rates to rise in present circumstances, although that is obviously primarily a matter for those countries. As for intervention in the foreign exchange markets, what my hon. Friend has to recall is that we did not intervene in order to stabilise markets until we had first intervened in a massive way following the Plaza agreement to drive the dollar down, and we only intervened to stabilise it after the deutschmark and the yen had risen by as much as 50 per cent. against the dollar in order to give that massive change in exchange rates time to work through.
Mr. Harry Ewing: I represent a constituency where BP is the largest employer, employing more than 2,000 people. Does the Chancellor understand that it is distressing that throughout this fiasco no reference has been made to those who have spent their lives working for BP? Is he aware that I do not hold any strong feelings about what might happen to the directors of BP, and that I care even less about what might happen to the. underwriters? However, I care deeply about what will happen to the workers. Will he give an assurance that, whatever decision he reaches, the working people will not be made to pay for the fiasco for which he is now responsible?
Mr. Lawson: I am glad to be able to reassure the hon. Gentleman that there is no danger whatsoever either to BP or those who work for that company, which is indeed one of the finest companies in the world.
Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend both on his sensible answer and, more importantly, on the calmness that he has demonstrated during this most difficult time? Is it not in such stark contrast to the hysterical posturings of the Opposition, who have no credible economic policy?
Reference has been made to the problems in the United States, and there is no doubt about them. However, as there has not yet been any real problem with exchange rates, will my right hon. Friend be most careful to resist any pressures for managed, even fixed, rates, such as were suggested during the Louvre agreement before the crash took place?
Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend, and I am grateful to him for the remarks he made in the early part of his intervention, is mistaken if he thinks that the Louvre agreement is an agreement to try to create fixed rates á la Bretton Woods. It is nothing of the sort and, indeed, I devoted a considerable part of my speech to the annual meeting of the IMF and World Bank in September of this year to explaining the system of what I called managed floating, which we have arrived at and which I think is beneficial, not least to industry, which finds the wild gyrations in the dollar in recent years extremely disruptive and, indeed, which has had an adverse effect on world trade.
Mr. Eric S. Heffer: As the casino economy, otherwise named by the Prime Minister as

177
people's capitalism, is now coming apart at the seams, is it not clear that the time has come for a proper recognition by the people of this country, especially those in this House, that the capitalist system is falling apart? Is it not time that the Government learnt that lesson and stopped their nonsense with privatisation, which is hurting a great many ordinary working people who have been kidded by the Government?
Mr. Lawson: The hon. Gentleman is really one of the dinosaurs of this House, and as such I have a great affection for him. The workers of this country know a great deal better what is good for them than he does and they have shown this in their response to privatisation issues, in their response to worker share schemes and in their response, indeed, at the last general election.
Sir Peter Emery: To help stabilise the position, will my right hon. Friend point out to the public, the Opposition and the press that in today's stock market list in The Times hardly one share is not well above the low mark of this year? The concept that there is panic in overall share ownership should be hit hard. The Opposition do nothing to stabilise the position — indeed, they are creating the panic.
Mr. Lawson: I think there is much in what my hon. Friend says, although I do not credit the Opposition with such influence that they were able to start the Wall street slide which began the movement in share prices throughout the world. Nevertheless, if they could have done they would have done.
Mr. Peter Hardy: The right hon. Gentleman suggested that he had been made aware of the view of the majority of the United Kingdom underwriters. Would he care to tell the House whether he has received any communication from the American underwriters, American business or the American Administration? Was the matter a subject of his conversation this morning with Mr. Baker?
Mr. Lawson: I, of course, never reveal private conversations, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman never reveals private conversations, but the provisions in clause 8 of the underwriting agreement concern the fixed price underwriting agreement and they concern the United Kingdom underwriters. There may, of course, have been conversations between the United Kingdom underwriters and the overseas underwriters, but that would not be directly known to me.
Mr. Ian Gow: Will my right hon. Friend pay a more generous tribute to the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn)? Was it not he who, under the benign influence of Dr. Johannes Witteveen, came before this House 10 years ago and commended the sale of BP shares? Faced with that precedent, will my right hon. Friend pay a glowing tribute to the right hon. Member for Chesterfield?
Mr. Lawson: I do not think that I could possibly improve on the tribute that my hon. Friend has already paid.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We have another important statement this afternoon. I shall take two more questions
178
from either side and then we must move on. However, I say to those hon. Members who will not be called today that there will be another opportunity at Trade and Industry questions tomorrow and also at Treasury questions on Thursday, when I will bear their legitimate interests in mind.
Dr. Jeremy Bray: The Chancellor gave the impression at the IMF that there were intervention bands for the dollar in the Louvre accord, but it now appears that that is not the case. Is it his intention that the pound should not stay with the deutschmark but come somewhere between it and the dollar?
Mr. Lawson: So far as my speech at the IMF is concerned it was an accurate description of the Louvre agreement and anything that the hon. Gentleman may have subsequently read in any newspapers which may conflict with that is therefore incorrect. So far as sterling is concerned, I believe that the maintenance of stability of the sterling exchange rate is in the interests both of British economic policy, including anti-inflationary policy, and the interests of British industry.
Mr. Robert G. Hughes: In rejecting the Opposition's advice, will my right hon. Friend agree that the nation and the international financial community will conclude that the economy of this country is in far better hands with a Chancellor who sticks to his policies and strategy, rather than with one who follows the Opposition's advice? In the 1960s and 1970s Labour Chancellor after Labour Chancellor gave the impression of running around like a wet hen but did nothing to help the economy.
Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend is correct.
Mr. Pat Wall: Last week, did the Chancellor read an edition of The Wall Street Journal, which pointed out that the eight occasions since the end of the second world war when shares fell sharply—this is the sharpest fall of all—were followed eight to nine months later by a recession or a severe slowing down of the world economy? That led to increases in poverty, unemployment and economic misery. Will he explain to the people of my constituency what is popular about a people's capitalism which offers them shares at 64p below the market price?
Mr. Lawson: It is indeed fortunate that this Government are in office in this country, as they are the one Government who can steer the country's economy successfully through the stormier period which we may be in. As for share price falls, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister pointed out, although there has been a sharp fall in share prices, they are now roughly where they stood at the beginning of this year. That is in sharp contrast to what happened in 1974, when the Labour party came to power, and shares fell during the course of that year by some 50 per cent.
Mr. Keith Mans: Will my right hon. Friend the Chancellor explain the position of the small shareholder who has applied for BP shares but does not pay the second instalment?
Mr. Lawson: The rules are very clear in the terms of the offer document. If the second subscription is not paid up the shares are forfeited.

Social Security Benefits
4.12 pm
The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. John Moore): With permission, I wish to make a statement about the next uprating of social security benefits and the introduction of a reformed system of income-related benefits. This will take place for most benefits in the week beginning 11 April 1988, the first full week in the tax year, and the same provisions will apply in Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
The retail price index published on 9 October showed an increase in prices over the 12 months to September 1987 of 4·2 per cent. Retirement pension for a married couple will accordingly rise from £63·25 a week to £65·90, and for a single person from £39·50 to £41.15. These increases of £2·65 and £1·65 a week respectively mean that the cash amount of basic retirement pension has risen by almost £35 a week for a couple since this Government came to office. The increase will add about £780 million to the social security budget next year. It must be seen in the context of significant improvements in pensioners' total incomes. Total state pension provision represents, on average, about half of pensioners' net incomes, and those net incomes have risen by 18 per cent. in real terms since 1979. The uprating increases will ensure that the value of this provision is maintained. They are fully in line with our pledges to pensioners and recipients of other linked long-term benefits.
I have decided to uprate all contributory benefits, benefits for the disabled, war pensions and similar benefits by 4·2 per cent. also. Public service pensions will likewise increase by 4·2 per cent. as will statutory sick pay and statutory maternity pay paid by employers. Because of the payment arrangements for SSP and SMP, the changes will take effect from the start of the tax year.
In April 1988, we shall be introducing our new system of income-related benefits. Supplementary benefit will be replaced by the simpler income support; housing benefit by a reshaped system aligned with income support; and family income supplement by the new family credit, which will provide help to more than twice as many low-paid working families. This new, more coherent and better-targeted structure will direct help more clearly where it is most needed and will foster incentives to work.
I shall shortly be laying before the House regulations for the new benefits. Since these are new schemes, the regulations will include the relevant rates. I shall also be laying revised regulations on claims and payments which will provide common basic provisions between benefits. Earlier this month, I consulted the local authority associations, as I am required to do under the Social Security Act 1986, on the proposed rates for housing benefit. Because of the close alignment of the benefit rates for all three income-related benefits, final decisions cannot be reached until I have considered their responses.
The income support rates proposed are £33·40 for single people aged 25 and over, and £51·45 for couples. These would also apply as the applicable amounts for housing benefit purposes and as the threshold in family credit. The family premium would be £6·15, the premium for a single pensioner £10·65, and for couples £16·25.
The personal allowances include the average amounts which we expect householders who are income support claimants will have to pay next April as their minimum
180
contribution to domestic rates. These amounts are £1·30 for couples, lone parents and single claimants aged 25 and over, and £1 for other single claimants over 18.
Compared with the illustrative figures published at the time Parliament approved the reformed benefit schemes, the premium payments would be some 6·5 to 7 per cent. higher—essentially the movement in the relevant price index. The personal allowances, leaving aside the element for domestic rates, would be some 4·5 to 5 per cent. higher; including that element they would be 7 to 9 per cent. higher. So, overall, income support claimants would be receiving higher real levels of benefit than under the previous figures. The number of gainers from the structural reform would rise by a million — from 2·2 million to 3·2 million. [Interruption.] Hon. Members outside the House who are benefit recipients will be as interested as those hon. Members who have the patience to listen to this statement.
The number who gain or are unaffected would go up to 4·9 million, while the number who lose would drop to 3·7 million. In reality, of course, existing supplementary beneficiaries moving to income support would not lose any of their benefit at the point of change. We are spending £200 million to make sure of that.
We are proposing to introduce the capital limits and the family credit and rate rebate tapers at the same level as those illustrated in the 1985 White Paper. Under the new schemes, housing benefit claimants at all income levels will be fully reimbursed for any increases in their rent. In view of this, I now propose that the rent taper should be 65 per cent. calculated on the basis of net income. This is equivalent to 42 per cent. in the present system, based on gross income for someone paying standard rate tax and national insurance.
For the convenience of the House, I am today publishing tables which show the likely distributional effects of the new schemes. Copies are available in the Vote Office. I am particularly pleased to note that the figures show for sick and disabled people getting the disability premium an increase under the new scheme of nearly £5 a week in disposable income. This is in addition to substantial increases in estimated expenditure on the disability benefits themselves.
Complementing the new structure of income-related benefits, the social fund will be fully introduced next April. Its gross budget for community care grants and budgeting and crisis loans for the first year will be just over £200 million, of which some 70 per cent. will be in the form of loans recoverable over a period. Separate announcements will be made concerning social fund provisions in Northern Ireland.
I turn now to child benefit, which currently costs over £4 billion, nearly 10 per cent. of the whole social security budget. Every 10p increase has a net additional cost of over £40 million. Yet higher child benefit would he of greatest help to people who are already relatively well off, whose living standards are already rising. By contrast, it would give no extra help to over 3 million children in families on benefit, including low income working families: they gain the same from the uprating whatever is done to child benefit. Against this background, and the particular need to target help on those who most need it and to control the overall growth in social security expenditure, I have concluded that an increase in child benefit would not be the best use of resources at present. Therefore, I do not propose to increase the rate next April.

181
One-parent benefit will, however, increase to £4·90, and the maternity payment from the social fund will be increased to £85.
Let me emphasise to the House that, even with no change in the rate of child benefit, we will be increasing, not reducing, the overall level of resources devoted to families with children. We shall be spending £220 million extra on the new family credit and £100 million extra on families on income support. By contrast, a full uprating of child benefit would have cost £120 million. Moreover, family credit will go directly to help low income working families with children and will reach twice as many people as the present family income supplement. Thus, more will be spent on families overall, but the greatest emphasis will be on those with the greatest needs.
The details of what this announcement will mean for individual benefits and the proposed housing benefit rates as issued for consultation are set out in a full schedule of rates which, as previously, is now available in the Vote Office and, with permission, will be published in the Official Report. The schedule also covers our proposals for board and lodging limits for the coming year.
Overall, the uprating increases will add some £1·3 billion to a social security budget which already stands at over £44 billion this year. This is a substantial increase in spending on a programme that is already the biggest in Government. We believe that our proposals strike a fair balance between protecting the interests of the poorest and of those, such as pensioners, who have substantial reliance on state benefits; and protecting the interests of those whose taxes and contributions pay for benefits.
Mr. Robin Cook: May I be the first to congratulate the Secretary of State on achieving a new record, even by the standards of his Government? Is he aware that the statement that he has made today will result in a cut in benefit for more claimants than any uprating statement by any of his predecessors during the past eight years? That may be the path to promotion in the modern Conservative party, but it is rough justice for the poorest families in Britain who must live on the benefits that he has just announced.
Is not the net effect of the figures that he has quoted for income support that almost 4 million claimants on supplementary benefit will not get a penny extra in increased benefit next April? Is he not concerned that those who will be the worst affected will be those disabled claimants who do not qualify for disability premium and who could lose entitlement of up to £50 a week? Does he appreciate that at current levels of inflation such claimants will wait 12 years under the new scheme before their next annual increase? How does he square that with his predecessor's claim that the new scheme would direct more help, more effectively, to those who need it most?
On housing benefit, will the Secretary of State confirm the estimate contained in the circular from his Department that one million claimants will lose all their entitlement to housing benefit — or, as the same thought was more delicately expressed in the circular:
"There will be a reduction in caseload of a million"?
Is the Secretary of State aware that the cut that he has just announced in the rent taper is the fourth cut that has been made by his Government since they invented housing benefit only four years ago? Does he not appreciate that,
182
every time that he sharpens the rent taper, he sharpens the poverty trap also, and that a family of four who receive family credit and housing benefit could lose 98p in benefit for every extra pound of earnings? That is a higher rate of marginal taxation than is paid by any Cabinet Minister. How does the right hon. Gentleman square that with his own speech last month on the importance of reducing dependency on benefits?
Does the Secretary of State recognise that the exclusion of a fifth of rates from housing benefit will mean that a couple of million pensioners will now receive a rates demand for the first time in years? The Secretary of State assured the House that the figures that he announced for income support contained an extra £1·30 in compensation for such demands. The right hon. Gentleman misled the House. If the figures for income support that were published in the White Paper in 1985 are fully uprated in line with prices, it is plain that the allowance that he has announced today does not include £1·30 a week for rates demands, but a beggarly 30p a week. How does he square that with his party's pre-election pledge to protect claimants from the new liability in rates next year, and the poll tax in two years, to which his Government have exposed them?
Once again, the Secretary of State announced that pensions are to increase by no more than prices. Is he aware that, during the past year, earnings have increased twice as fast as prices? Will he confirm that, if the Government had preserved the link between pensions and earnings, the pension next April for a couple would be worth £14·60 more per week than he has just announced? If, as the Prime Minister keeps claiming, Britain has the fastest-growing economy in Europe, why has she given us the lowest pensions in Europe?
Finally, I turn to the biggest cut of all—the freezing of child benefit, which will affect 7 million mothers. At the last election, the Conservative party's manifesto stated:
"Child benefit will continue to be paid as now".
We were obviously intended to take that strictly literally. How can Conservative Members pose as the party of the family, when their Government have cut support for school meals, school transport and school clothes, and are now cutting the value of child benefit for the second time in three years? Will the Secretary of State deny press reports that he has set up yet another review of the future of child benefit? How can he square such a review with assurances, given a month before the election, by the then Minister for Social Security:
"child benefit will continue as a non-means-tested universal payment, paid to the mother tax free. There ought to be no question about that"?
What has changed during the past six months to bring that into question, other than the fact that the election is safely out of the way?
Today's statement is a package of broken promises and breadline benefits. As a result, next April millions of claimants who already have to survive on incomes that Conservative Members could not even begin to imagine will face still worse hardship. We shall therefore oppose every regulation that is designed to impose the cuts that have been announced today.
Mr. Moore: May I start by reminding the House of the facts, as opposed to the hyperbole that we have just heard? As opposed to a cut, the decisions on the new rates do not involve an overall cut. Quite the contrary — total spending on income-related benefits is now estimated to

183
be half a billion pounds higher than in the last published plans. I should repeat that total income-related benefits will be half a billion pounds higher. That is my answer to the first point made by the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook).
On pensions, Opposition Members do not seem to understand the difference between their election promises and the reality of what occurred to the real income of pensioners under the previous Labour Government and what has occurred since we took office. That is one of the reasons why the Labour party has failed three times in three general elections. The reality is that, whatever that Labour Government sought to do — I recognise that they sought to give during their last period in office by uprating the pension by whichever was the better of earnings or prices—Opposition Members do not seem to understand what that produced as a consequence of their appalling failure to manage the economy or to understand that pensioners have an income beyond that which is given to them by the state.
We are concerned with the real well-being of pensioners and not simply, as are Opposition Members, with electoral promises. In terms of real well-being, the pensioner saw a real improvement between 1974 and 1979, a real increase —[Interruption.] I accept that the facts hurt Opposition Members—of only 3 per cent. That 3 per cent. over five years was an average of 0·6 per cent. per year, which was appalling for pensioners. During the past six years, the figure has increased by 2·7 per cent. a year.
Despite the uprating in earnings during most of the period between 1974 and 1979, I acknowledge that pensioners' average net total income fell slightly as a proportion of the incomes of people in work.
Mr. Graham Allen: Did the Secretary of State not like the question?
Mr. Moore: I am delighted with the question. Although during the Labour Government the position of pensioners' income relative to that of workers worsened, during the past six years it has increased to 60 per cent. The Opposition seem to forget that more than 70 per cent. of pensioners and 83 per cent. of those who have retired have other savings. Those savings were stolen during Labour's period of office. Their income from savings decreased by 3·4 per cent. a year, so the Government need no lectures about concern for the real well-being of pensioners, in contrast to simple Socialist pretence.
The hon. Gentleman asked me about the net effect. I thought that I had suggested an improvement on the technical annex illustrations in 1985, so that 4·9 million people in the overall reform package will either gain or not suffer losses. For another 3·7 million people, there will be transitional protection so that they do not suffer cash losses.
The hon. Gentleman asked me specifically about the disabled. Again, the Opposition should look more carefully at the overall package. There will be a net increase to the disabled of nearly £60 million. The hon. Gentleman referred especially to the severely disabled, 4,500 of whom receive the domestic assistance additional requirement, which averages £6·35 a week and which represents a total expenditure of £1·5 million. Under the proposed reforms, about 7,000 people will receive the special disability premium of £24·75 a week. That is a significant increase for that important section of the
184
community. However, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, only about 250 people get more than £20 a week and very few get as much as £50 a week. I am conscious of that group. It is hard to arrange a reform structure to target that group, and my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and the Disabled is trying hard to find a way of targeting that tiny group. But, overall, the disabled will benefit from the reform structure.
The hon. Gentleman also asked me about housing benefit reforms. He was right to say—this has already been announced in the House — that the number of people who will receive housing benefit will decrease by 1 million, but hon. Members should remember that, during the Conservative Government, housing benefit expenditure has increased from £1·25 billion to more than £5 billion. We should see it in that context.
The hon. Gentleman was right to draw our attention to the change in the taper, because matters have changed since we published the illustrated technical annex to the White Paper. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are moving to 100 per cent. protection against rent rises as opposed to the previous figure of 60 per cent. But that fact was known during the discussions on the technical annex Since then, there has been an increase in the number of beneficiaries to about 600,000 and an increase of 100,000 in the potential recipients of housing benefit under the arrangements for income support. There is also the important addition to income support rates of the 20 per cent. compensation, which clearly affects the housing benefit calculation. Just to put the hon. Gentleman's point in context, I should say that the net impact of the movement from 60 per cent. to 65 per cent. of net income will mean an additional loss to 100,000 people out of the 6 million people who receive housing benefit.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the 20 per cent. contribution. He knows that I would not try to mislead the House, and I hope that at some stage he will rephrase the words that he used. The commitment that was made before the election in relation to the 20 per cent. has been maintained. The hon. Gentleman might argue that overall income support is not as high as he would have wished, but the commitment made specifically in regard to the 20 per cent. uprating has been matched in full.
Sir Ian Gilmour: Can my right hon. Friend not see, especially in view of what the Chancellor told us this afternoon about the sound state of public finances, that his thoroughly insensitive treatment of child benefit is discrimination pure and simple against families with young children? Since, even before this afternoon, the real benefit of child benefit has fallen since 1979 and the real value of the married man's allowance and the single person's allowance has increased, how can my right hon. Friend justify such discrimination?
Mr. Moore: I have great respect for my right hon. Friend. I hope that he listened to what I said and that he is not trapped, as many hon. Members on both sides of the House sometimes are, in a set of historical views. I said with great care that I was seeking to increase help to families with children. Three million children in the poorest families in the land — families on income support, low-income families and families on family credit —would not receive a penny piece from an increase in child benefit. I should have thought that my right hon. Friend, with his long-standing legitimate interest in trying

185
to assist the poorest, would have complimented me on securing increased assets of more than £300 million to spend on those people as opposed to the better off. I should have thought that he would have wanted me to target those people intelligently.
Mr. Jack Ashley: The Secretary of State said that some Opposition Members do not understand the figures. Does he accept that the severe disability premium is a fine concept in theory but is in fact, according to what the Government intend to do, a grossly inadequate, generalised substitute for the individual help now given to severely disabled people who are trying to live at home and stay out of institutions? Those people will be worse off in future. Why is the Secretary of State discouraging severely disabled people from living at home and instead propelling them into institutions?
Mr. Moore: I always listen carefully to the right hon. Gentleman. Indeed, I do more than listen. The Government have an outstanding record, as do other Governments, on the disabled. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will remember what I said. The reform structure will increase help to the disabled —[Interruption.] Some of us in this House care about the disabled, as I know the right hon. Gentleman does. The reform structure will add £60 million of benefits to the disabled. The right hon. Gentleman rightly emphasised the small group of severely disabled people whom we would wish to help to stay in their homes. The severe disability premium will help many more people than the 4,500 who receive £6odd a week at present. We intend that more than 7,000 people will receive about £24·75 a week. I accept that a few people do not fit into the classic structure. Sir Roy Griffiths is advising us on how to help in this area, and I have asked my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and the Disabled to focus on those few hundred people because I recognise that they do not fit naturally into the system.
Dame Jill Knight: Does not my right hon. Friend find it rather odd that the Opposition should have declared a fight on the question of reform of a system whereby wealthy people immediately draw—untaxed and unneeded — weekly benefits on the very same day that they may well be putting down their sons or daughters for Eton or Benenden? Is there any sense to be found in a system that pours public money on to people who have no need of it and denies extra benefit to those who have?
Mr. Moore: My hon. Friend is of course right. I find the debate very difficult. There are those who simply cannot get out of the past and understand that, in this announcement, we are focusing £320 million on families with children — 3 million-plus children. I fully understand people's attitude towards child benefit, but we are talking about a child benefit system that is still spending £4·5 billion on top of the amount that I am talking about, so I find it a very unusual set of priorities for the Opposition to focus on the degree to which we are trying to target—[Interruption.] I apologise; from a sedentary position I have been reminded that I did not properly answer one of the questions on child benefit put by the hon. Member for Livingston. He asked whether
186
there was a review in progress. I repeat that I have no specific proposals at present to change the nature of child benefit, but—I believe that this has been said from the Dispatch Box by almost every Minister of every Government since the benefit was introduced—in view of its cost and its ill-targeted nature, there is clearly a need to keep it constantly under review. I am beholden to do that.
Mr. Ronnie Fearn: If child benefit is to be frozen, is it not a fact that a great administrative cost will be involved? Is it also true that the Secretary of State now has a team working in the belief that child benefit will be abolished some time next year?
Mr. Moore: No. I have made the position on child benefit quite clear. I read clearly the precise words that I obviously intended to use. I am beholden under section 63 of the Social Security Act 1986 to look at the uprating of child benefit each year, but there is no statutory requirement. I have explained precisely why I believe that this year I have been able to target better on those families with children who are poorer. I have also clearly said that there is no review in progress.
Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: May we warmly welcome the move to family credit, which is a big improvement on the old, defective family income supplement?
With regard to what my right hon. Friend has said on child benefit, does he not agree that what he is doing is incompatible with the policies for which the Prime Minister has won widespread approval — namely, her support for the family as an institution and her desire to reduce the tax burden on families and to encourage the British people to work and save for their independence? For the large majority of families who draw child benefit and pay more in income tax than they draw in benefit, a cut in the real value of child benefit constitutes an increase in their relative tax burden, targeted particularly against the mothers.
For the more than 2 million families who draw more in child benefit than they pay in income tax, is not my right hon. Friend simply forcing them down into dependency on means-tested benefits? That is also incompatible with the Prime Minister's injunction to people to work and save. Therefore, will my right hon. Friend undertake that, for a future year, he will keep an open mind on a completely fresh approach to taxation and benefit for families, so as to release the millions to work and save for their independence without breaking the rules?
Mr. Moore: I start by thanking my hon. Friend for, so far, being one of the few who have noticed the importance and significance of the family credit. I imagine that family credit will be welcomed by all sides of the House. Although I respect his views, may I ask my hon. Friend to try to see what I have sought to achieve today — to secure additional resources of £320 million as opposed to the £120 million which a simple, indiscriminate uprating of child benefit would have secured. I believe that that suggests that I have done precisely what my hon. Friend would have wanted, to concentrate rare resources on the area of greatest need.
Mr. Frank Field: Does the Secretary of State accept that the House is aware that the increased support of £320 million going to families is accompanied

187
by a real cost? By means-testing that support, he has increased the disincentive to work. Since, as we learned from a well-leaked speech just before the Tory conference, the aim of the Secretary of State is to increase the incentive to work, why has he done a U-turn so early in his career?
Secondly, can he help us to clarify whether there have been real cuts in the amount of money spent bringing in income support? Can he tell the House what would have been the cost of uprating the old system had it not been reformed by today's statement? How does that figure compare with the total sum being spent on the new system, minus 20 per cent. for rate support? Lastly, as he was very precise about the real value of pensions for old people, will he confirm that, in money terms, 4 million people will not be worse off as a result of this scheme, but that in real terms 4 million people face cuts?
Mr. Moore: I will try to cover the points raised by the hon. Gentleman, because he always brings a good mind to these issues.
On his last point, there are obvious shifts when there is a structural reform as between—
Mr. Ernie Ross: Cuts.
Mr. Moore: No—shifts. There are obvious shifts when there is a structural reform as between the benefits that go to different parts of the community. This was debated well before the election, and the electorate seemed to make a clear judgment on 11 June as to their view of the nature of the shifts.
With regard to the transitional system, 3·7 million people will be disadvantaged, whereas 4·9 million people will be advantaged or their position will stay unchanged. I am aware of the extent to which the hon. Member for Birkenhead wishes to consider the technical annex and I am sure that that study will produce more detailed debates at a later stage. With regard to that technical annex, the hon. Gentleman was trying to get me to give a precise figure on the relative moneys involved in the whole of income support as opposed to the offsetting 20 per cent. compensation for income support recipients against benefits.
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the technical annex rates were illustrative. To demonstrate some of the difficulties involved in making the comparisons that the hon. Gentleman understandably wants, those illustrations covered 4·3 million people on income support. The revised illustration covers nearly half a million more people. Obviously, when we came to set the rate, we had to take account of the increase in claimant numbers, the rising costs and the continuing need to keep public spending under control. That is the perfectly proper judgment that I am seeking to express to the House today.
I believe that the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) wanted me to express the net product for income support recipients. For singles over 25, the net product will be 80p higher in real terms compared to the technical annex; for singles between the age of 18 and 24 the net product will be 50p higher in real terms; for couples the net product will be 30p higher in real terms; and for 16–17-year-olds the net product will be broadly unchanged.
With regard to income support — [Interruption.] Some hon. Members are seeking to ask more questions from a sedentary position, but I am seeking to answer the hon. Member for Birkenhead, who had the courtesy to
188
rise. With regard to the overall gross figures, I thought that I had made it clear at the beginning of my statement that there was half a billion net addition to public expenditure as a consequence of the changes.
As for the first question put by the hon. Member for Birkenhead, I do not regard this statement as in any way a U-turn. Quite the reverse: it is an attempt by some of us, in a confused and, I recognise, difficult structure, to ensure that we use rare resources to help those in genuine need.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I appeal to the House not to repeat questions that have been asked before and not to ask a great many questions, because all these matters will be subject to later debate, and I am anxious to get as many Members in as possible.
Mr. Robert McCrindle: Although I agree with my right hon. Friend that we must try to target benefits much more accurately, does he not agree that his announcement on child benefits runs the severe risk of increasing the poverty trap? If an unemployed man, receiving frozen child benefit and, in addition, some assistance through family support, were to take a job and lose that support, there would be a particular disincentive to seek a job in the first place.
Mr. Moore: I do not deny for one moment my hon. Friend's recognition of one of the means-testing problems, but equally, looking at the overall context of the introduction of the reform package, he will be aware that, as a consequence of having net income throughout, we are reducing that overall marginal disincentive. Thus we are looking at an overall package that has improved, not decreased, the incentive to work.
Rev. Martin Smyth: The Secretary of State said that pensioners felt that, when the Opposition were in government, they robbed them of the money. Does he recognise that, under the new package, some pensioners will say that they have lost because they have been thrifty and have saved? Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise further that, in adjusting finances, while we welcome an increase, there is something wrong with a system that makes anybody worse off in April 1988 than he is now?
Mr. Moore: Let me repeat that those people will not be worse off, but with regard to the housing benefit taper —[Interruption.] We are back to the debate from a sedentary position that we had earlier about the relativity of the position of those people as opposed to the cash protection. The hon. Gentleman asked a specific question. about, I assume, the capital disregard. It has been doubled. but there is a taper between the £3,000 and £6,000 so that it affects those who, I accept, have been thrifty and have assets, but they are thus slightly better able to contend with the problems they face than those who have no such assets.
Mr. Michael Latham: While it is obviously proper that state basic pensions should be uprated by the rate of inflation, could not we have done better than that this year, when the PSBR may fall to zero?
Mr. Moore: But I thought that I tried to draw the attention of my hon. Friend and the House to the fact that, as a consequence of sticking to our election manifesto promises, and of our ability to run the economy effectively, pensioners' real income, as opposed to that

189
part of it that they receive from the state, has improved beyond anything comparable when the Labour party was in office. That is the reality of what we have been able to achieve because of our policies. Therefore, I am not sure why we should seek to hurt pensioners by changing those policies.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does not the Secretary of State agree that the decision of the Secretary of State for Education and Science to make it legal for schools to charge parents for things such as music lessons, field trips and so on will increase considerably the problems for families with children? Does not that make the right hon. Gentleman's decision not to increase child benefit particularly mean? Does he accept that the more he talks about targeting, the more he must come up with a solution to the problem of take-up among families on low incomes who do not apply for many of the means-tested benefits, so the attraction for the Government of such benefits is that many people do not apply for them? The big attraction of child benefit is that there is almost 100 per cent. take-up.
Mr. Moore: On the hon. Gentleman's final point, I recognise the problem of take-up, although we are expecting over 70 per cent., and I hope more, take-up of family credit. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will address the issue, which is how one seeks to help the poorest families with children. He does not seem to have accepted the reality, which is that by increasing child benefit, they receive not a penny piece more. Through the measures that I have announced today, those families will receive additional help of £320 million. Such help would have disappeared if we had used child benefit.
Sir William Clark: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the welfare payments since 1979 have kept well in front of inflation, and the Government should be congratulated thereon? Does he agree that, with regard to the retirement pension, the best service that any Government could give to the retired person is to keep inflation under strict control, which the Government have done? Does my right hon. Friend further agree that the first duty of any Government of any party is to make certain that taxpayers' money is distributed to those in need, and it is incumbent upon the Government to ensure that? Consequently, is it not economic madness to continue paying child benefit to all and sundry, irrespective of need? For example, a person on a 60 per cent. tax rate is receiving child benefit at the gross amount of over £18 a week, which is nonsense. Surely it would be much better to channel that money to people in need, to increase their benefits.
Mr. Moore: My hon. Friend is right to remind the House —although I made the position clear on child benefit—that somebody on a 60 per cent. tax rate has an £18 gain as opposed to someone who does not pay tax and gets £7·25. My hon. Friend is also right to remind the House that benefit expenditure has increased massively during the Government's period of office—in fact, by 43 per cent. in real terms. For taxpayers and the public, especially the old who do not have the opportunity to earn any more, the fear of inflation is the most destructive disease imaginable. The last thing we must do is to allow
190
those pensioners to suffer that fear again. We have protected their real income successfully, far better than the Opposition did when in power. We shall do that by sticking to the economic policies that will destroy inflation.
Mrs. Audrey Wise: Will the Minister admit that he is not taking adequate steps to improve the incomes of the poorest children, but he is using their poverty as an excuse for attacking children in general, by freezing child benefit? Does he not understand that, instead of playing off one section of children against the other, he should be diverting large national resources towards children in general? Furthermore, if the right hon. Gentleman is so interested in the poorest, why is he instituting the cash-limited social fund, which will give 70 per cent. loans, thus plunging the poorest further into debt?
Mr. Moore: I have seldom heard such a bizarre description of the realities of trying to help those in need. Having said that, I do not think that I need make further comment on child benefit. The gross amount of £203 million that I announced today, which is planned for the social fund, looks reasonable alongside the reality of the expected level of expenditure on single payments this year, which is running at around £190 million. Hon. Members on both sides of the House should put into context that £200 million against the totality of income support of £8 billion. The social fund should be seen alongside the £8 billion of income support, when one sees the purpose for which it is intended—to help those in genuine difficulty and in crisis.
Mr. Robin Squire: Does my right hon. Friend accept that one of the major concerns of those of us who support child benefit, and have done for some time, is that a switch to the means-tested benefits which, on the Government's best estimates, will not be collected by 40 per cent. of those entitled to do so, means only that many poor families will not get such assistance? Will my right hon. Friend consider instead discussions with the Chancellor of the Exchequer with a view to taxing benefit at the higher rates of taxation — in other words, for those who pay tax at more than the standard rate—if he wishes to make the distinction between the well off and the less well off in our society?
Mr. Moore: I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to my hon. Friend's remarks, but, with regard to his first point, I imagine that he is seeking to encourage take-up. We do not want to deny the ability to target effectively towards those in real need, but we want to encourage far more to take up what they are entitled to.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: The Secretary of State mentioned £203 million for the social fund. Will he clarify the position of local DHSS offices, which may be requested to make a crisis loan to someone in considerable difficulty, who may already have loans which the local DHSS office feels he does not have the means to repay? Does the £203 million include provision for writing off old loans in those circumstances or converting them to a grant, or are the offices expected to refuse to make a further loan?
Mr. Moore: Within the figures, there are arrangements for local offices to be able to do so. We must make a set of assumptions about the extent to which some loans will

191
have to be written off. I should prefer it if I or one of my colleagues could go into further details with the hon. Gentleman when we debate the specifics. There will be not only a contingency fund at the centre but the ability to recognise that some loans will not be repaid. Enshrined in the figures is the assumption that not all loans will be repaid. That must be an assumption.
Mr. John Hannam: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the majority of disabled people will benefit from the introduction of the new two-tier support system but, as he has acknowledged, is he not aware that a problem can develop with the severely disabled? Will he confirm that those who are at present severely disabled will continue to receive the income support that they receive at present? Will he look carefully at finding a method to help those who are severely disabled after April next year, since otherwise the process of bringing them out into the community will be reversed and they will go back into institutionalised care?
Mr. Moore: My hon. Friend is quite right to raise that point. I should make it clear that they will be protected in real terms. That is essential and I have tried to make it clear that we want to target the very few—they are very few—as opposed to the vast majority who will benefit from the changes. I shall consider the premiums regularly in the light of the surveys that are taking place. I am delighted to say in public to my hon. Friend and other hon. Members who have argued so vehemently for the disabled over the years that they should be proud that the share of national wealth for the disabled has increased by 50 per cent. since 1979. That is a very praiseworthy achievement.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: Does the right hon. Gentleman deny that hundreds of thousands of pensioners now receiving a works or occupational pension will be worse off in terms of housing benefit if they pay rent and rates?
Mr. Moore: There will be some richer people who will suffer because of the way in which the disregard works. There cannot be a reduction in the housing benefit caseload from 7 million to 6 million without some of the better-off, including pensioners, suffering as a consequence and losing some of their benefits.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will my right hon. Friend accept that concern about the impact of freezing child benefit is not felt on this side of the House only by the so-called "wets"? Following the excellent question of my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam), will he give a categoric assurance that there will be no loss of income for the severely handicapped, even those who register as severely handicapped, after 1 April 1988?
Mr. Moore: Obviously, I can repeat my reassurance about those who are already registered. Clearly, those who register after 1 April 1988 will come under the scope of the new system, but we must find a way of targeting more effectively those few people whom we have not been able to recognise within the system.
With regard to my hon. Friend's previous question, I recognise his dryness and his long history of support for child benefit. [Interruption.] He is a genuinely honourable friend and he considers these matters rationally and
192
objectively. He will be pleased that we have been able to set aside additional resources for families with children. I know that he welcomes that.
Mr. Alastair Darling: Will the Secretary of State accept that many of the increases that he has announced this afternoon will be funded by removing many people from the protection of benefit? Both the changes in tapers in the housing benefit. regulations and changing the method by which single payments are made will pay for the increases. Does he not accept that people will be paying for the increases and that, if he wants to help those on low incomes, one of the best routes would be to encourage the Chancellor of the Exchequer to change the income tax regime so that low income taxes are not provided for by the expedient of cutting the amount of money used on social expenditure, such as the benefits that we have discussed this afternoon?
Mr. Moore: First of all, I said earlier that we are in a process of structural reform and change. However, I also said—I wonder if the hon. Gentleman heard me—that the net product of these changes is £500 million additional public expenditure, so it is not a matter of the Chancellor of the Exchequer saving. He is funding £500 million additional net public expenditure. However, I will draw the hon. Gentleman's tax suggestions to the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Mr. Tim Yeo: I welcome the concern of my right hon. Friend in targeting help among the poorest families. In the light of the very important contribution which child benefit has made to helping those families, will he undertake to monitor the consequences of the proposals which he has put forward today?
Mr. Moore: Of course, like any Secretary of State in my position, I shall be considering carefully a budgetary area that still spends £4·5 billion. I have a duty to review that constantly and I will continue to do so.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Given the Secretary of State's repeated emphasis on helping those most in need, how can he reconcile today's statement and the Government's overall strategy with the reality of the continuing rise, as shown by statistics, in the number of people living in poverty? Is he aware, for example, that one recent survey in Scotland showed that more than one third of Scots lived on or below the poverty line, as defined by his own Department? Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore tell the House how many people will be lifted out of that situation by today's statement? If he cannot give the figures now, will he record them in the Official Report as soon as possible?
Mr. Moore: First, just to correct the record, my Department does not have such a definition. There is a set of definitions that some people outside use with regard to the relativity of supplementary benefit. One of the absurdities about this debate in the national context is that by reducing supplementary benefits I could theoretically reduce poverty. That is complete nonsense. I ask the hon. Lady to recognise, as do most people who study our country, that while we recognise the value of targeting those in genuine need, there has been a relative improvement in the well-being of all our people.
Mr. Tim Janman: May I first inform my right hon. Friend that, at the last general election, I did not gain a seat from the Labour party by preaching messages

193
of increasing public expenditure, taxation, inflation or blanket benefits that go to the whole population, irrespective of need? I took the seat from Labour by standing on the Government's record of reducing taxation and inflation, and of pinpointing the expenditure on areas of real need. In that context, and given the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on child benefit, which I and many of my hon. Friends warmly welcome, will he give us an assurance that the Government will carry out a review with the specific objective of examining changing this appalling blanket benefit to one that can be effectively targeted on those really in need?
Mr. Moore: I am interested in my hon. Friend's support, especially his concern to target benefits on those in need. I made the position clear earlier: I said that, in view of its cost and its ill-targeted nature, we obviously have a responsibility to keep child benefit constantly under review, and we shall continue to do that.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am bound to have regard to the large number of right hon. and hon. Members who wish to take part in the subsequent debate. I shall allow a further two questions from each side, and then we must move on.
Mr. John Fraser: Since, historically, the tax-free child benefit has taken the place of child tax allowances, is not the effect of the Secretary of State's announcement to tax some families with children in order to help other families with children; whereas, in the Budget next March, under the Rooker-Wise amendment, those whose tax allowances are not related to having children will automatically have their tax allowances increased? Would it not be right to spread the burden among all taxpayers instead of among only families with children?
Secondly, how on earth does the Secretary of State work out that a woman in poverty can have a child for £85?
Mr. Moore: The hon. Member seems to ignore the fact that the proposals are coincidental with a major restructuring of the whole social security system. Consequential upon that restructuring, an extra £220 million will go to families with children through family credit—as opposed to what happens under the present family income supplement system — and an extra £100 million will go to families with children in income support. It is the net product of the ability to put an extra £320 million into the system, as opposed to the £120 million that could have gone into child benefit uprating, that denies the thrust of the hon. Gentleman's remarks.
Mr. Tony Marlow: My right hon. Friend has answered one question about his decision on child benefit, but he has not answered the main question. Looked at overall, if child benefit is being frozen at the same time as—hopefully—my right hon. Friend the Chancellor reduces the rates of taxation, among the taxpaying public there will be a transfer of wealth from those with children to those without them. As a representative of the party of the family, my right hon. Friend will, I am sure, agree that that would be nonsense. What discussions has my right hon. Friend had with the Chancellor to reintroduce the child tax allowance?
Mr. Moore: I know of my hon. Friend's deep interest in this matter. He will be aware that, as far as this statement is concerned, I am adding half a billion pounds net to public expenditure. Clearly, I must have had discussions with the Chancellor of the Exchequer to be able to do that.
Equally, I know that my hon. Friend will be aware that, whatever the Chancellor does in his Budget and tax judgment, I can put £220 million more into helping families with children than I would have been able to do with an increase in child benefit, and those specific families would not have benefited by one penny from a child benefit increase.
Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Will the Secretary of State confirm to someone like me, who worked for an organisation for the disabled for eight years prior to coming to this House, that many organisations for the disabled may find his statement very misleading? In particular, they will find misleading his claim that millions of disabled people will not lose out from April as new claimants. Will he confirm that among the groups that will lose out are new claimants for kidney dialysis who can presently claim £10·85 a week; new claimants who are blind and presently get the non-householder addition of £7·70 which is to be abolished; and new claimants who are incontinent and elderly who at the moment can claim £11·05 and more a week and who will not be able to claim after April? Will he also confirm that people who because of incontinence or disability require additional clothing and who receive up to £10 a week now will not be eligible after April? Not only do those lost benefits total £45 a week or more, but existing claimants will lose as well because those benefits will not be uprated.
Mr. Moore: I compliment the hon. Gentleman on his ability to put many reasonable points. He will obviously expect me and my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and the Disabled to stay in close touch with the disabled lobby about these matters. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Is he right or wrong?"] He was wrong not to have heard what I said twice before, that new claimants would be covered under the new system. I referred to that particularly. I know that the disabled organisations will not have made that mistake and will have noticed that there is a substantial overall increase for the disabled from this restructuring. There is no question of that not being accepted by those organisations.
I assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that I shall keep closely in touch with the nature of the premium arrangements in this area. I shall keep closely in touch with my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and for the Disabled, because I am concerned to ensure that the reality of the additional money that we are putting into this area is received by the disabled.
Mr. Neil Hamilton: Does my right hon. Friend accept that probably as many as 75 per cent. of families in receipt of child benefit pay income tax as well? Child benefit is expensive to dish out and if we are to solve the continuing problems of the poverty trap and make substantial increases in tax thresholds and reduce income tax rates, we must not only target benefits more distinctly, but remove altogether the universality of benefits such as child benefit. If my right hon. Friend is not already contemplating a review of that position, he should be.
Mr. Moore: I have heard very different advice from different parts of the House on this issue, but I shall stand where I was before by saying that we are not in the midst of a review, but that I have a statutory duty to review this issue each year.
Mr. Speaker: I will bear in mind those hon. Members that I have not been able to call.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: So I have got two in the bank.
Mr. Speaker: Well, there will be plenty of other opportunities, and I shall do my best to ensure that everyone is fairly treated.

Following is the schedule of main proposed rates:

Weekly rates unless otherwise shown

Old rates 1987

New rates 1988

CONTRIBUTORY BENEFITS

Retirement Pension

On own insurance—Category A or B

39·50

41·15

On spouse's insurance—Category B (lower)

23·75

24·75

Non-contributory—

Category C or D

23·75

24·75

Category C (lower)

14·20

14·80

Additional pension, guaranteed minimum pension and graduated retirement benefit

Increased by 4·2 per cent.

Graduated retirement benefit (unit)

5·17p

5·39p

Increments to basic and additional pension, guaranteed minimum pension, and graduated retirement benefit

Increased by 4·2 per cent.

Prescribed maximum amount of additional pension (also paid with widows' and invalidity benefits) (from 6 April)

29·11

34·75

Addition at age 80

·25

·25

Invalidity Benefit

Invalidity pension

39·50

41·15

Invalidity allowance

higher rate

8·30

8·65

middle rate

5·30

5·50

lower rate

2·65

2·75

Widow's Benefit

Widow's allowance

55·35

57·65

Widow's payment (lump sum)

—

1,000·00

Widowed mother's allowance

39·50

41·15

Widow's pension

—standard rate

39·50

41·15

—age related

54 (49)

36·74

38·27

53 (48)

33·97

35·39

52 (47)

31·21

32·51

51 (46)

28·44

29·63

50 (45)

25·68

26·75

49 (44)

22·91

23·87

48 (43)

20·15

20·99

47 (42)

17·38

18·11

46 (41)

14·62

15·23

45 (40)

11·85

12·35

Note: For entitlements arising before 11 April 1988 refer to age points shown in brackets.
Unemployment Benefit

Over pension age

39·50

41·15

Under pension age

31·45

32·75

Occupational pension abatement

35·00

35·00

Weekly rates unless otherwise shown

Old rates 1987

New rates 1988

Sickness Benefit

Over pension age

37·85

39·45

Under pension age

30·05

31·30

Maternity Allowance

30·05

31·30

Statutory Sick Pay

Earnings threshold

39·00

41·00

Standard rate threshold

76·50

79·50

Lower rate

32·85

34·25

Standard rate

47·20

49·20

Statutory Maternity Pay

Earnings threshold

39·00

41·00

Lower rate

32·85

34·25

Industrial Death Benefit

Widow's Pension

first 26 weeks

55·35

57·65

higher permanent rate 1

40·05

41·15

lower permanent rate

11·85

12·35

1 Subject to Parliamentary approval of the Social Security Bill 1987

Industrial Disablement Pension

18 and over, or under 18 with dependants

100 per cent.

64·50

67·20

90 per cent.

58·05

60·48

80 per cent.

51·60

53·76

70 per cent.

45·15

47·04

60 per cent.

38·70

40·32

50 per cent.

32·25

33·60

40 per cent.

25·80

26·88

30 per cent.

19·35

20·16

20 per cent.

12·90

13·44

Under 18

100 per cent.

39·50

41·15

90 per cent.

35·55

37·04

80 per cent.

31·60

32·92

70 per cent.

27·65

28·81

60 per cent.

23·70

24·69

50 per cent.

19·75

20·58

40 per cent.

15·80

16·46

30 per cent.

11·85

12·35

20 per cent.

7·90

8·23

Maximum life gratuity (lump sum)

4,290·00

4,470·00

Unemployability Supplement

39·50

41·15

plus where appropriate an increase for early incapacity at

higher rate

8·30

8·65

middle rate

5·30

5·50

lower rate

2·65

2·75

Maximum reduced earnings allowance

25·80

26·88

Constant attendance allowance

part-time rate

12·90

13·45

normal maximum

25·80

26·90

intermediate rate

38·70

40·35

exceptional rate

51·60

53·80

Exceptionally severe disablement allowance

25·80

26·90

Guardian's Allowance—each child

8·05

8·40

Child's Special Allowance

8·05

8·40

NON-CONTRIBUTORY BENEFITS

Child Benefit—each child

7·25

7·25

One-parent Benefit

4·70

4·90

Invalid care allowance

23·75

24·75

Weekly rates unless otherwise shown

Old rates 1987

New rates 1988

Severe Disablement Allowance

23·75

24·75

Attendance Allowance

higher rate

31·60

32·95

lower rate

21·10

22·00

Mobility Allowance

22·10

23·05

War Pensions

Disablement pension (100% rates)

private or equivalent

64·50

67·20

officer (£ per annum)

3,363·00

3,504·00

Age allowances

40%–50%

4·50

4·70

over 50% but not over 70%

7·00

7·30

over 70% but not over 90%

10·05

10·45

over 90%

14·00

14·60

Disablement gratuity (£ per annum)

—base figures for

specified minor injury

4,290·00

4,470·00

unspecified minor injury

2,359·50

2,458·50

Unemployability allowance

personal allowance

41·95

43·70

adult dependency addition

23·75

24·75

addition for each child

8·05

8·40

Invalidity allowance

higher rate

8·30

8·65

middle rate

5·30

5·50

lower rate

2·65

2·75

Constant attendance allowance

part-time rate

12·90

13·45

normal maximum rate

25·80

26·90

intermediate rate

38·70

40·35

exceptional rate

51·60

53·80

Comforts allowance

higher rate

11·10

11·60

lower rate

5·55

5·80

Mobility supplement

24·55

25·60

Allowance for lowered standard of occupation (maximum)

25·80

26·88

Exceptionally severe disablement allowance

25·80

26·90

Severe disablement occupational allowance

12·90

13·45

Clothing allowance (per annum)

higher rate

88·00

92·00

lower rate

56·00

58·00

Education allowance (per annum)

120·00

120·00

War widows' pension (private)

widow

51·35

53·50

childless widow under age 40

11·85

12·35

age allowance

—age 65 to 69

5·50

5·75

—age 70 to 79

11·00

11·50

—age 80 and over

13·85

14·45

child addition

11·60

12·00

addition for motherless or fatherless child

12·70

13·15

Unmarried dependant living as wife

49·30

51·45

Rent allowance (maximum)

19·55

20·35

Adult orphan's pension

39·50

41·15

Widower's pension (maximum)

51·35

53·50

Pneumoconiosis, byssinosis, workman's compensation (supplementation) and other schemes

Total disablement allowance and major incapacity allowance (maximum)

64·50

67·20

Partial disablement allowance

23·75

24·75

Unemployability supplement

39·50

41·15

plus where appropriate an increase for early incapacity at

higher rate

8·30

8·65

middle rate

5·30

5·50

lower rate

2·65

2·75

Constant attendance allowance

Weekly rates unless otherwise shown

Old rates 1987

New rates 1988

part-time rate

12·90

13·45

normal maximum rate

25·80

26·90

intermediate rate

38·70

40·35

exceptional rate

51·60

53·80

Exceptionally severe disablement allowance

25·80

26·90

Lesser incapacity allowance

based on loss of earnings over

31·60

32·95

maximum rate of allowance

23·75

24·75

COMMON PROVISIONS

Dependency Additions—Adults

For spouse or person looking after children, with:—

Retirement pension on own insurance, invalidity pension, unemployability supplement and, if beneficiary over pension age, unemployment benefit

23·75

24·75

Non-contributory retirement pension, invalid care allowance and severe disablement allowance

14·20

14·80

Sickness benefit if beneficiary over pension age

22·70

23·65

Unemployment benefit

19·40

20·20

Sickness benefit, maternity allowance

18·60

19·40

Dependency Additions—Children

For each child with: Retirement pension, widows benefit, industrial death benefit, invalidity benefit, invalid care allowance, severe disablement allowance, unemployability supplement and, if beneficiary over pension age, with sickness or unemployment benefit

8·05

8·40

Earnings Rules

Retirement pension

75·00

75·00

Invalid care allowance

12·00

12·00

Unemployment benefit (daily rate)

2·00

2·00

Therapeutic earnings limit

26·00

27·00

Industrial injuries unemployability supplement permitted earnings level (annual amount)

1,352·00

1,404·00

War pensioners' unemployability supplement permitted earnings level (annual amount)

1,352·00

1,404·00

Adult dependency additions with:—

Sickness benefit if claimant is

under pension age

18·60

19·40

over pension age

22·70

23·65

Maternity allowance

18·60

19·40

Unemployment benefit if claimant is

under pension age

19·40

20·20

over pension age

23·75

24·75

Retirement pension, invalidity pension, severe disablement allowance and unemployability supplement where dependant:

is living with the claimant

31·45

32·75

still qualifies for the tapered earnings rule

45·09

45·09

Retirement pension, invalidity pension and unemployability supplement where dependant not living with claimant

23·75

24·75

Severe disablement allowance where dependant not living with claimant

14·20

14·80

Invalid care allowance

14·20

14·80

Child dependency additions—

Weekly rates unless otherwise shown

Old rates 1987

New rates 1988

Level at which child additions payable with long-term benefits are affected by earnings of claimant's spouse or partner

first child

85·00

90·00

each subsequent child

10·00

11·00

Hospital downrating

20% rate

7·90

8·25

40% rate

15·80

16·50

INCOME-RELATED BENEFITS

Provisions common to all three benefits

Capital

upper limit

—

6,000·00

amount disregarded

—

3,000·00

child's limit

—

3,000·00

Tariff Income

£1 for each complete £250 or part thereof between amount of capital disregarded and capital upper limit

Income Support and Housing Benefit—Common Provisions

Personal allowances

Single

—under age 18

—

19·40

—age 18–24

—

26·05

—age 25 or over

—

33·40

Lone parent

—under age 18

—

19·40

—age 18 or over

—

33·40

Couple

—both under age 18

—

38·80

—at least one age 18 or over

—

51·45

Dependent children

—under age 11

—

10·75

—age 11–15

—

16·10

—age 16–17

—

19·40

—age 18

—

26·05

Premiums

Family

—

6·15

Lone parent (income support)

—

3·70

Lone parent (housing benefit)

—

8·60

Pensioner

—single

—

10·65

—couple

—

16·25

Pensioner (higher)

—single

—

13·05

—couple

—

18·60

Disability

—single

—

13·05

—couple

—

18·60

Severe disability

—single

—

24·75

—couple (one disabled)

—

24·75

—couple (both disabled)

—

49·50

Disabled child

—

6·15

Income Support

Maximum amounts for accommodation and meals in

a. Ordinary board and lodging

between £45 and £70

between £45 and £70

b. Hostels

70·00

70·00

Maximum special increase (a and b)

17·50

17·50

c. Residential care homes

—old age

130·00

130·00

—very dependent elderly

145·00

155·00

—mental disorder (not handicap)

130·00

130·00

—drug/alcohol dependence

130·00

130·00

—mental handicap

150·00

160·00

—physical disablement

Weekly rates unless otherwise shown

Old rates 1987

New rates 1988

—(under pension age)

190·00

190·00

—(over pension age)

130·00

130·00

—others

130·00

130·00

—maximum Greater London increase

17·50

17·50

d. Nursing homes

—mental disorder (not handicap)

180·00

185·00

—drug/alcohol dependence

180·00

185·00

—mental handicap

200·00

200·00

—terminal illness

230·00

230·00

—physical disablement

—(under pension age)

230·00

230·00

—(over pension age)

175·00

185·00

—others (including elderly)

175·00

185·00

—maximum Greater London

increase 17·50

17·50

Allowances for personal expenses for claimants in Board and lodging accommodation and hostels

Lower

—single

10·00

10·30

—couple

20·00

20·60

Higher

—single

11·15

11·50

—couple

22·30

23·00

Dependent children

—under age 11

3·35

3·45

—age 11–15

5·15

5·30

—age 16–17

6·00

6·20

—age 18

10·00

10·30

Private and voluntary residential care and nursing homes

9·25

9·55

Dependent children allowances above apply except —age 18

9·25

9·55

Hospital and local authority (Part III) accommodation

7·90

8·25

The Polish home Ilford Park

11·15

11·50

Housing costs

Deduction for non-dependants aged 18 or over and in remunerative work

8·20

others, aged 18 or over or on income support and over 25

3·45

Low earnings threshold

49·20

Deductions for direct payment of fuel debt

5% rate

1·70

10% rate

3·35

Arrears of housing costs

1·70

Reduction in benefit for strikers

17·00

17·70

Disregards

Standard earnings

5·00

Higher earnings

15·00

War pensions

5·00

Voluntary and charitable payments

5·00

Students covenanted income

5·00

Income from boarders

35·00

Expenses for subtenants

Furnished or unfurnished

4·00

Where heating is included, additional

6·70

Housing Benefit

Amenity deductions for

heating

6·70

hot water

0·80

lighting

0·50

cooking

0·80

Weekly rates unless otherwise shown

Old rates 1987

New rates 1988

all fuel

8·80

Non-dependant deductions

Rent rebates and allowances aged 18 or over and in remunerative work

8·20

others, aged 18 or over or on income support and over 25

3·45

Rate rebates, aged 18 or over

3·00

Low earnings threshold

49·20

Expenses for subtenants

Furnished or unfurnished

4·00

Where heating is included, additional

6·70

Earnings disregards

where disability premium awarded

15·00

various specified employments

15·00

lone parent

15·00

one of a couple in employment

10·00

single claimant

5·00

Other income disregards charitable or voluntary payments

5·00

war pensions

5·00

students covenanted income

5·00

Family Credit

Adult Credit

32·10

Child Credit

under age 11

6·05

age 11–15

11·40

age 16–17

14·70

age 18

21·35

Capital

upper limit

6,000·00

amount disregarded

3,000·00

child's limit

3,000·00

Tariff Income

£1 for every complete £250 or part thereof between amount of capital disregarded and capital upper limit

Disregards

war pensions

5·00

voluntary and charitable payments

5·00

students covenanted income

5·00

Expenses for subtenants

furnished or unfurnished

4·00

where heating is included, additional

6·70

Applicable amount (ie taper threshold level)

51·45

Maternity Payment

80·00

85·00

Babcock Power Plant, Renfrew
Mr. Speaker: We now come to an application under Standing Order No. 20.
5.15 pm
Mr. Allen Adams: A moment ago I noticed the Secretary of State for Scotland skulking behind your Chair, Mr. Speaker. Tragically, as is so often the case when we discuss Scottish matters, he seems to have disappeared once again.
The company about which I wish to speak is now called FKI, but I would be more readily understood by hon. Members if I referred to it as the Babcock power plant of Renfrew. On Friday the company announced 500 redundancies following on 500 redundancies that were announced only two months ago. That is a total of 1,000 jobs lost within three months and the work force is now reduced to 800 from its capacity at one time of 8,000. As usual, we were met by a stultifying silence from St. Andrew's house. Not a word was spoken by a single Government Minister on this very serious matter. They stood like rabbits mesmerised by a stoat and uttered not a single sound or made a single vibration.
Obviously, this is an important matter for the people who are losing their jobs and for my constituency, but it is also important for the nation as a whole. At Renfrew we had gathered together some of the finest expertise in the world in the field of power station equipment manufacture. We also had some of the finest expertise in the world in X-ray equipment and lifting gear.
My great fear is that once that expertise is dispersed to the four corners of the world—and at the moment many people are being tempted away by Arab and American money—we shall never reassemble it in one place. If that happens a great British skill which brought a considerable amount of money to this country in terms of exports will never be put together again. That is why I bring the matter to the attention of the House. For many years I brought it to the attention of the Prime Minister and the Department of Energy but to no avail. If I am lucky enough to catch your eye on Thursday, Mr. Speaker, during business questions I shall put to the Leader of the House that we should have a debate on this matter within the next week.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the announcement by FKI Electrics, Halifax, to render 500 people redundant at their Renfrew plant."
I listened with great care to what the hon. Gentleman said and, in particular, to his last comment about business questions on Thursday. I regret that I do not consider the matter that he has raised as appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20 and I cannot therefore submit his application to the House.

BP (Share Flotation)
5.17 pm
Mr. John Smith: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the uncertainty surrounding the sale of BP shares."
The House a short time ago listened to a statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in which he said that he could not give his decision on whether he could release the underwriters from their obligations until Thursday of this week. That means that uncertainties will continue to surround the sale of the shares until then.
This is clearly the biggest privatisation exercise to date, very likely will be the biggest flop of all, and is therefore a specific and important matter. It is urgent, because unless a debate is granted the House will be unable to respond to the invitation which the Chancellor extended that we should give him our views before he reaches a decision. Since the Chancellor deliberately extended this invitation, there ought to be an opportunity whereby the House can respond.
Some very important issues are at stake. It is likely that Britain's greatest company will have over 30 per cent. of its shares held by very unwilling underwriters. There may well be very difficult problems for many private individuals who have applied for shares as a result of the Government's extravagant advertising campaign, and who were perhaps under a misapprehension about the price of the shares for which they were applying. In view of these important factors and, above all, because the Chancellor invited our views and because it is impossible for us to express our views other than in a debate, I move this motion.
Mr. Speaker: The right hon. and learned Gentleman seeks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the uncertainty surrounding the sale of BP shares."
I have listened with great care to what the right and hon. learned Gentleman has said, but I regret that I do not
204
consider that the matter that he has raised meets the criteria under which I can grant a debate under Standing Order No. 20 and I cannot, therefore, submit his application to the House.
Mr. Neil Kinnock: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Could the House have your guidance and direction as to how matters should proceed over the next few days? No one needs to tell you of the crucial importance of the issue of the BP sale, both in terms of general conduct in the markets and the implications of the sale, given the present instability of the markets. No one needs to tell you, Mr. Speaker, of the importance of this matter to several score of thousands of private individuals and the importance of the sale of a major British asset.
In those circumstances, it would appear to be appropriate for the Government, given the general instability, to come before the House voluntarily to make statements or even to initiate a debate, especially since, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) said, the Chancellor made it apparent that he wanted the view—to quote him—"of right hon. and hon. Members." The Chancellor said that by Thursday the Government will make a decision. That could mean that by Friday trading will commence in these new undervalued shares. In all those circumstances, the House has had scant opportunity to make its views known. I understand that you form your judgment on applications to adjourn the House under Standing Order No. 20, and we respect it, but all I would do is ask you to give us your guidance on the kind of circumstances in which a further submission could be made, given the general urgency of the situation, and the fact that we have, at the earliest, a deadline of Thursday, and, at the latest, a deadline of Friday to record the view of this House.
Mr. Speaker: I appreciate what the right hon. Gentleman has said. He and the House know that I am bound by criteria laid down in Standing Orders. I shall, of course, watch the continuing situation carefully. The House should bear in mind that there will be opportunities during Question Time tomorrow and again on Thursday, but I will certainly bear this matter in mind.

Defence
[Relevant reports from the Select Committee on Defence:
First Report: Expenditure on Major Defence Projects: Accountability to the House of Commons, House of Commons Paper 340; Third Report: The Progress of the Trident Programme, House of Commons Paper 356; Fourth Report: Implementing the Lessons of the Falklands Campaign, House of Commons Paper 345–I, and the Government Response thereto, Cm 228; and Fifth Report: Defence Commitments in the South Atlantic, House of Commons Paper 408.]
Mr. Speaker: Before I call the Secretary of State for Defence, I must announce that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition and his right hon. and hon. Friends.
5.21 pm
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Younger): I beg to move,
That this House approves the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1987 contained in Cm. 101.
We are debating the statement on the Defence Estimates today, unusually more than five months after its publication in May. As all hon. Members are aware, the delay has been caused unavoidably by the general election and the pressure of other business in the early weeks of this Session.
Equally unavoidably, the House has not had the benefit of the usual report on the statement by the Select Committee on Defence which has still to be reconstituted.
I very much regret this—as I am sure does the House as a whole. The Defence White Paper covers a good deal of detailed ground much more than can be covered even in a long debate.
I have greatly valued the time and care that the Committee has devoted both to the statement on the Defence Estimates and to other issues.
This summer, for example, saw the publication of the previous Committee's report on "implementing the lessons of the Falklands campaign". The House will appreciate the care and effort put into this wide-ranging and detailed survey by the then Sir Humphrey Atkins, formerly my right hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne, my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates) and his colleagues on both sides of the House. The report fully maintains the tradition of thoughtful and constructive analysis of major defence issues which the House has come to associate with the Committee. The Government's observations, published last week, record the substantial progress that we have made in profiting from the experience of the Falklands to strengthen the capability of the armed forces.
Despite the absence of this year's report on the statement on the Defence Estimates, I commend the statement to the House as having passed two equally rigorous tests—the test of time and the test of the electorate.
The theme of this year's statement is not new. It is a reaffirmation of our long-standing policy of securing our defence through our membership of NATO; and, within NATO, pursuing the dual approach of deterrence and detente. That requires us to maintain sufficient strength to deter aggression, while simultaneously seeking, through
206
arms control negotiations, to achieve an inherently less dangerous world in which security can be assured, and, if possible, enhanced, at lower levels of armaments.
The electorate has massively endorsed the policy of deterrence based on a mix of nuclear and conventional weapons. There will be no substitute for the nuclear component in this mixture so long as the risk of war in Europe remains, or until we are confident that we have a better way to keep the peace. Only nuclear weapons can present a potential aggressor with a sufficiently clear risk that the costs of aggression will amply outweigh any conceivable gain.
The debate on the British contribution to NATO's strategic deterrent has now been settled. The Trident programme is on course to provide the necessary updating of that capability from the mid-1990s; and earlier this month I placed the order for the second Vanguard class Trident missile submarine, HMS Victorious.
I must say a word about the operation of Trident, in view of some very strange reports that have been circulating recently. There is no truth whatever in the idea that we shall not own our own missiles for the Trident system. We shall be buying them all, and they will cost us over £1 billion. Trident will be truly independent, and the Labour party is clutching at straws by trying to claim otherwise.
As the House well knows, we have had since 1982 an agreement for servicing them at the United States facility at King's Bay, Georgia. That has been very advantageous to the United Kingdom, producing savings of some £767 million over the original estimate for Trident. Under the agreement, our missiles will go to King's Bay for refurbishment after every seven or eight years of deployment and replacements will be taken into service. That perfectly sensible arrangement will in no way affect the independence of our deterrent, which with its United Kingdom warheads and United Kingdom owned missiles will remain at all times under the control of the British Government.
Mr. Tony Benn: On the matter of independence, nobody doubts that the warhead would be owned by Britain. However, will the Secretary of State say categorically that it could be fired and targeted without the consent of the Americans who own the satellite system? In the Zircon film, which the Government banned, a clear statement was made by the former permanent secretary at the Ministry of Defence that we do not have independent use of it. However, as I have said, nobody is questioning the fact that we shall own the hardware when we buy it from the United States.
Mr. Younger: The right hon. Gentleman should not believe everything that he sees in films of that sort. That was not a fair representation of what the former permanent secretary said. I can confirm that our independent nuclear deterrent is just that and, in the appalling circumstances of having to use it, it can be used entirely on our own should we wish to do so, which, of course, I hope we never will.
Mr. James Wallace: The Secretary of State has just said that the warheads made in Britain would be British. I think that we have all long understood that. However, can he explain the paragraph

207
in the July report of the National Audit Office on the control and management of the Trident programme which says:
"Most of the expenditure on development and production is incurred in the United States"?
Mr. Younger: The warhead is entirely made in this country. It is stored in this country and it is under no one else's control at any point. That is an important factor and I confirm that that is so.
The talk about independence is extremely important but I am surprised to find that right hon. and hon. Members are concerned about independence. Until recently they professed to reject the need for any such deterrent. I can well understand their desire now to divert attention from their own lamentable record on defence, but they should not try to divert the public's attention from the facts.
That brings me to the truly remarkable trio of amendments that have been tabled. They are the most compelling reading I have seen on the Order Paper for a long time. For light relief we have the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Thomas) and his colleagues — I think that they are colleagues or half colleagues — which draws our attention to their complete departure from the real world. That amendment spells out a non-nuclear world in which independent Wales and independent Scotland would happily sit. They would cancel the Trident programme destroying literally thousands of Scottish jobs and probably some Welsh ones, too, in the process. It says that they would leave NATO, which, as I understood the press reports, is in direct conflict to the decisions taken by the Scottish National party congress in Dundee some weeks ago. I notice that the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing), who I think is the defence spokesman of the SNP, is not present, but no doubt she will let us have the benefit of her views in due course.
We then have not one but two amendments kindly tabled by the main Opposition party. I hope that the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) will be able to tell us to which one of them he is speaking today because, as the Front Bench spokesman for the Labour party, he is presumably supposed to represent all the hon. Members who sit behind him.
The amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and his colleagues reveals the real Labour party policy; there is no doubt about that. It clearly spells out that it is against the retention of any nuclear weapons; it wrongly says that our weapons cannot be used without the consent of the United States and outlines a future that will be free of all military blocs.
The amendment tabled in the name of the.Leader of the Opposition is the most remarkable of all three. [Interruption.] It would be convenient if I did not have to mention this but the House would complain if I did not. It would not be too much to expect the main Opposition amendment to be accurate. It is extraordinary that the right hon. Gentleman and his senior colleagues should have tabled this amendment, because in the third line it says,
"the Government's plans … are leading to damaging cuts in the United Kingdom's conventional defences".
That amendment was tabled against a background, as the right hon. Gentleman must know, that since 1979 we have spent £16 billion more on conventional weapons, not nuclear weapons, than would have been spent on the
208
previous Government's record. That is an average of £2 billion extra per year. The amendment says that there would be a running down of our non-nuclear defences. Again, that is against a background when our contribution to NATO is better in quantity and quality than it was in 1979. It further says that the defence industrial base is being run down. That is against the background of the largest ever turnover in defence industries and the record defence sales that we are now recording.
An amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition should at least be accurate, and it is deplorable that that is not the case.
Mr. Rob Hayward: Is not the comment in the third line of the Opposition's amendment on cuts a continuation of the scare stories that the Labour party put around in each of the major cities where defence industries are based in an effort to win electoral support? Did it not receive its answer at the general election in Bristol, where four of the five constituencies returned Tory Members of Parliament with increased majorities?
Mr. Younger: My hon. Friend is right on that point. lit is a sobering thought that if the election result had gone the other way all the people concerned would now be out of work.
Mr. Denzil Davies: I know that it is a long time since the White Paper was published, but the Secretary of State should try to read it. Paragraph 603 clearly says:
"the defence budget is expected to decline by some 5 per cent. in real terms over the 1986 Public Expenditure Survey period."
Our amendmant exactly reflects that statement.
Mr. Younger: Unfortunately, it does not; it talks about a reduction in conventional spending, but there is no such reduction. As I have said, there has been a vast increase in spending in that sector.
These days it is more than usually difficult to take seriously what the Labour party has to say on defence. It is the last party that should be offering advice; it should be seeking it. Indeed, if we are to believe the Leader of the Opposition, he has scrapped his policy and is looking for a new one. History has already proven it wrong. It said that the deployment of cruise missiles would wreck the prospects for arms control, but the reverse has happened. NATO's decision to stand firm has brought within our grasp the first-ever deal to reduce nuclear weapons. There might have been a deal earlier but for the actions of the Labour party and CND, which encouraged the Soviet Union to believe that it might achieve all that it wanted without negotiating seriously.
Moreover, the Labour party's defence policy is in tatters. In June, it seems to be generally agreed, even by the Labour party, it had a bad defence policy. But now it has no defence policy at all; no one knows where it stands on any issue. The right hon. Member for Llanelli is forced to stand facing both ways at the same time. He was quoted in The Times on 2 October as saying of the disarmament process
"we've got to look at both unilateral and multilateral methods in the new climate".
Talk of using Trident politically will not get the Labour party off the hook either; the result is unilateralism by another name. A deterrent of which one says in advance, "I will never be prepared to use it", is no deterrent at all.

209
Why should the Soviet Union negotiate seriously if it knows that a Labour Government will give up our deterrent regardless? Moreover, even if one could get the Soviet Union to agree missile-for-missile reductions with us, it would not enhance our security one jot. In effect, one would be saying, "We will give up all our nuclear weapons if you give up just 3 per cent. of yours".
Ms. Joan Ruddock: I should be interested to know in what circumstances the Secretary of State would use this so-called independent deterrent.
Mr. Younger: The circumstances are clearly spelt out in the White Paper, and they lie behind the defence policy not only of this Government but of every previous Government, including all past Labour Governments. I am sure that the hon. Lady is aware of the circumstances. As for the Liberal—SDP alliance, or what remains of it, I must confess that as regards its defence policy I am even more baffled than it is, and that is very baffled.
The right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), who sadly is not present, seems to be a country member of the SDP. He may have principles, but he has no party. The Liberals and SDP may one day have a new party, but it has no principled policies. On that point the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), whom we are glad to see representing the weight of the alliance, let the cat out of the bag by saying in Liberal News, which I read avidly, on 18 September:
"There will be some who insist that a new merged party must have a clear line on Trident in particular, and Britain's own nuclear weaponry in general. We will do our party no service by heeding such calls."
That statement says it all.
Common to all of the Opposition parties is a belief that the world has changed so fundamentally that they are relieved of the responsibility for facing up to the difficult defence issues. But events have not altered the fundamental need for the alliance to negotiate from a position of strength.
We welcome the recognition in Mr. Gorbachev's new political thinking of the interdependence of the countries of the world. We welcome the Soviet Union's new-found willingness to negotiate effective arms control arrangements. We would welcome these matters all the more if Soviet leaders did not quite so often, in the course of negotiations, seek to drive wedges between Europe and North America and between Western Governments and their electorates. We would welcome them all the more if it did not raise so many irrelevant arguments or place so many spurious obstacles in the way of progress on arms control. The events last week in Moscow amply demonstrate its commitment to brinkmanship, if necessary jeopardising the progress which has so far been made. We have even seen Soviet spokesmen attempt to liken the dual key Pershing 1A, with its United States warhead, to the United Kingdom's Trident programme; such analysis is patently false. Trident will be a fully owned, fully independent United Kingdom deterrent, carrying United Kingdom designed and manufactured warheads. Soviet attempts at wedge driving and misinformation have failed and will continue to fail.
The NATO Alliance's solidarity remains intact, and because of this we have brought the Soviet Union not only to the conference table but to the brink of an historic
210
agreement on intermediate nuclear forces. Despite Mr. Gorbachev's refusal to name the date for a summit meeting, steadfast negotiating by the United States managed to make substantial progress on the remaining issues. It is a matter for regret that a treaty as important as this may not now be signed by the leaders of the world's great powers as a demonstration of the improving relationship between them. But nevertheless we are intent on reaching agreement, the right agreement, by maintaining the West's united pressure.
We believe that signature by the United States and the Soviet Union of a treaty eliminating land-based INF missiles above the range of 500 km will be achieved. The result will be that the threat posed by Soviet SS20 missiles to Western Europe will be removed. For the first time an arms control agreement will produce an actual reduction in nuclear armouries, and this without diminishing the security of either East or West.
Mr. Allan Rogers: My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) asked a legitimate question which the Secretary of State passed over in a facile manner. She asked when the Secretary of State or the Prime Minister would press our button. Would they press it if Russian troops moved into Germany, Holland or Belgium? Would they press it if they landed on our coast? Would they have the complicity and support of the West Germans and the French to nuke their populations as well? When would they press the button?
Mr. Younger: It would be extremely foolish and irresponsible of me to announce publicly in the House of Commons answers to such questions. Of course it is absolutely clear that we have nuclear weapons in case we are put in a position that they are necessary for the survival of our country or the NATO Alliance. It is not only important that we should be prepared to use them. but it is vital that the other side knows that we are prepared to use them. That is the whole purpose. It has been the whole purpose of every Government, Labour as well as Conservative. It is still the purpose of every Western Government, Socialist as well as non-Socialist. On that, some of the hon. Gentleman's colleagues are right out on a limb.
Ms. Ruddock: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Younger: I should love to give way, but I must press on. Time is against us.
This agreement, if we can get it signed, will be a major success for the Alliance, marking the achievement of a goal that we set ourselves eight years ago. It could not have been achieved unless the Alliance had remained firm in its determination' to counter the SS20 threat by deploying long-range INF systems of its own. Those in this House, and outside, who sought to deflect us from this goal have been proved wrong. The proponents of unilateral disarmament have been clearly, and I hope finally, proved wrong.
We should all beware of the trap of viewing arms control as an end in its own right. The statement on the Defence Estimates rightly cautions against negotiating ourselves into a less secure world. In this respect it is right and proper that those concerned for our security should want to look very closely at the details of the arrangements that are being, and will be, negotiated to make sure that our ability to deter war is not impaired.

211
The proposed agreement on INF missiles has naturally been examined closely on this point. The House will, I am sure, welcome the clear statement by the Supreme Allied Commander Europe, General Galvin, that the strategy of flexible response will remain viable after the elimination of land-based INF missiles.
Clearly the agreement will have implications both for the overall balance and for the structure of our forces. But both NATO and the Warsaw pact will retain sizeable theatre nuclear forces after this agreement, including dual-capable aircraft and sea-based systems.
There may need to be adjustments within NATO's remaining forces to ensure that deterrence remains effective. We are looking at this now in NATO. No conclusions have been reached, nor would I expect final decisions before an INF agreement has been secured. There will also continue to be a requirement, articulated in the 1983 Montebello decisions and SACEUR's subsequent study of theatre nuclear requirements, for the modernisation and improvement measures necessary to allow us to maintain deterrence with the minimum number of warheads. I am, however, totally confident that we shall be able to maintain effective deterrence following such an agreement.
Chemical weapons are another serious cause for concern in the West. We in this country abandoned our chemical warfare capability in the 1950s; the United States has not produced any such weapons since 1969. The Soviet Union, on the other hand, has accumulated a massive capability — although it was only six months ago that Mr. Gorbachev brought himself to admit publicly that the Soviet Union possessed chemical weapons. This admission is helpful, but more glasnost is needed. In this context we welcomed the opportunity to send a team to visit the Soviet chemical weapons facility at Shikhany earlier this month. But the fact that the team was shown only weapons and agents dating from the 1950s inevitably begged a few questions. Are we really asked to believe that this is all? Have there been no new developments over the past 30 years? The Soviet Union will have to be far more open if we are to have confidence in its commitment to a chemical weapons ban.
The statement on the Defence Estimates reaffirms the Government's commitment to maintain the conventional leg of deterrence by providing forces capable of meeting the threat on the modern battlefield. This means committing the resources necessary for that purpose.
The House will need no reminding that the years since this Government came to office have seen an unprecedented increase in the funds devoted to defence. The defence budget has increased by a fifth in real terms over that period. Our conventional forces have taken the lion's share of that increase. If we exclude the cost of our strategic forces. we have spent, in real terms since 1978–79, some £16,000 million more on conventional defence than if spending had continued at 1978–79 levels. In cash terms, 95 per cent. of the increase in the budget between 1978–79 and 1986–87 has gone to improving conventional defence.
Most of the benefits of this huge investment are yet to come. At the time that the statement was published we had announced orders, since 1979, for 55 vessels and 75 combat aircraft for the Royal Navy.
Mr. Dick Douglas: Earlier, the Secretary of State dealt with some of the lessons of the Falklands and the Government's response to the Select
212
Committee's report. In that report is a distinct reference to the need not now to order three type 23 frigates every year. The decision in relation to that goes back to 1982.
Every Select Committee report since 1982 has made it clear that we need to order three type 23 frigates each year to keep the frigate fleet up to date. What effect will his announcement have on job prospects at Yarrow's and other shipyards in the United Kingdom?
Mr. Younger: There are two answers to that legitimate question. The first is that the size of the Royal Navy frigate fleet remains much the same—about 50 frigates. That has not altered, but what has altered since 1982 is the cycle. The type of frigates that we are building will require less maintenance and will have a longer life. That means that the frigates will be able to perform effectively for longer. That is why the workload in the dockyards has declined. The matter is clear and well documented. It is, in a way, a success if we can manage to run our fleet with lower maintenance costs for the same number of ships.
Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the design of the type 23 frigate is based largely round the computer assisted command system. As CACS has proved a very expensive failure, costing nearly £500 million, on what basis can my right hon. Friend justify his confidence in the building schedule for type 23 frigates?
Mr. Younger: The computer assisted command system is an important part of the frigate, but it does not affect the building programme, except that the first of the line might have to come into service before the full CACS system is available. It is much more important that we should have an effective system than that we should go ahead too quickly with a system that is not satisfactory. My hon. Friend will be able to speak later about that subject.
I was saying that since 1979 we have placed orders for 55 vessels and 75 combat aircraft for the Royal Navy. Many of the vessels have yet to be delivered. This includes 10 of the 12 frigates ordered, three out of five nuclear-powered fleet submarines and all four Upholder class diesel-electric submarines.
The statement records also the Government's decision a year ago to retain an amphibious capability in the longer term. Additionally, since the statement was published, the Ministry of Defence has ordered a further four Sandown class single role minehunters. We remain committed to a modern, well-balanced and capable surface escort force of about 50 frigates and destroyers, and to this end we have recently invited competitive tenders for up to a further four type 23 Duke class frigates.
Mr. Frank Field: Can the Secretary of State give a categorical assurance that he will make a decision on those four tenders judging on price only?
Mr. Younger: We will assess the bids, which I hope will come from a number of different suppliers, with regard to price and the capability of the yards to produce the goods in good time. That is the normal way in which we assess all such bids. The Royal Navy's capabilities are continuing to be enhanced by major programmes to update missile air defence systems, underwater weapons systems and sonars.
Substantial enhancements of the Army's capabilities are also in progress. Equipments ordered since 1979 that remain to be delivered include two out of seven Challenger

213
tank regiments, 17 out of 23 APC battalions to be equipped with the new Warrior and Saxon vehicles, 14 out of 26 air defence batteries and all three MLRS regiments. Since the statement went to press, I have been able to announce our intention to order a further 16 battlefield helicopters for the Army, bringing the total ordered to 41, of which 24 have been delivered. These new equipments represent a major advance in 1 British Corps' ability to conduct armoured operations. They will increase the mobility and firepower of the infantry, provide effective protection against a wide range of air threats and substantially improve the range and hitting power of the artillery. 1 BR Corps' capabilities will be further enhanced with the formation next year of a 12th in-theatre armoured regiment, equipped with Challenger, and the re-mechanisation of 6 (Airmobile) Brigade beginning next year. In addition, I am pleased to announce that, following the successful trial of 6 Brigade in its current role, we shall be retaining this important capability by conversion of 24 Infantry Brigade, based at Catterick, to the air-mobile role, starting next year.
Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: Has the right hon. Gentleman felt it necessary to review the TRIGAT programme, which is mentioned in the Defence Statement, in the light of the introduction by the Soviets of reactive armour for their tanks?
Mr. Younger: That is a very relevant consideration in our progress on the TRIGAT programme. We are discussing this matter with our partners and hope to get them together for decisions fairly soon.
The RAF is in the midst of a major modernisation programme. The Tornado programme alone is costing nearly £10 billion—more than the Trident submarines and their weapon systems. It is now two-thirds completed, with some 120 aircraft remaining to be delivered. I was recently able to experience for myself what an outstanding aircraft this is. Other aircraft ordered, which have yet to come into service, include 62 Harrier GR5 ground attack aircraft and 130 Tucano basic trainers.
Manning our modern equipment requires well-trained, well-motivated and highly skilled people. We must provide the pay and conditions of service necessary to recruit and train them. Since 1979 the Government have increased service pay in line with the recommendations of the independent Armed Forces Pay Review Body. As a result, more of our service men are staying on for their full period of engagement than in 1979.
At the same time we are building up the reserves. The total of regular reservists in all three services has increased by 31,000 since 1979, and the volunteers and auxiliary forces have increased by 23,000 over the same period. That is the Army which the Opposition say is suffering from cuts in conventional provision.
I have never pretended to the House that a defence programme on this scale is easy to maintain with resources that are necessarily limited. It never is. We must press on with our efforts to get better value for the money we spend. In this respect, the White Paper highlights progress in three areas. First, there has been progress in continuing to transfer resources from the tail to the teeth. For example, the proportion of service manpower devoted to teeth functions has increased from 60 per cent. in 1981–82 to 68 per cent. now. Civilian staff numbers have been cut by one
214
third since 1979. Secondly, there has been progress through a broad range of initiatives designed to reduce costs and increase the efficiency of our equipment procurement. Like others recently, this year's statement shows the dynamism of the changes we have made in this important aspect. Increased competition and a more commercially minded approach to our dealings with our contractors have produced not just financial savings but improved contract performance. Thirdly, there has been progress through international collaboration. The statement records our commitment to collaboration with allies whenever it is the best way of meeting our requirement and getting value for money.
The ending of our commitment to real growth in the defence budget, which I announced in last year's statement, inevitably means that difficult choices have to be made between relative priorities in our forward plans. What will happen — this year, as every year — is the normal process of taking some items out of the programme and putting in others that are considered to be a higher priority. I shall give the House the same assurance as I have given it before. With good management, prudent planning and, not least, the benefit of substantially increased resources over the past eight years, we can maintain our main defence roles. The very large and continuing programme of improvements which these measures have made possible—some of which I have outlined — gives the lie to those who claim that this country can maintain an effective nuclear deterrent only at the cost of weakening our conventional forces. That simply is not the case.
It is because this Conservative Government have looked carefully at the fundamentals of our security that we have realised that nothing has happened in the world to diminish the need for this country to maintain the central pillars of our defence—pillars which have helped to keep the peace for over 40 years. As the statement makes clear, we will not falter in our search for peace with freedom at a lower level of armaments. But in doing so we will never take risks with this country's security. Now is not the time to abandon a policy which experience has shown to work.
There can be no doubt about this Government's determination to take the measures necessary for our national defence. We have charted a clear and consistent course over the past eight years. Our record has twice been put to the test of the polls and twice been endorsed by the electorate. The Conservative party is now the only party in this country that has a defence policy at all. We shall keep steadily to the course we have charted. The task for our third term will be to build on the considerable achievements of the past eight years.
5.57 pm
Mr. Denzil Davies: I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
"believes that the plans outlined in the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1987, Cm. 101, and in particular the Government's plans for Trident, are leading to damaging cuts in the United Kingdom's conventional defences, in our contribution to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, and in our defence industrial base; calls upon Her Majesty's Government to cancel Trident, which clearly will neither be British nor independent, thereby avoiding a run-down in our non-nuclear defences; welcomes the progress made by the governments of the United States and Soviet Union towards concluding an agreement eliminating all longer range and

215
shorter range intermediate nuclear missiles, including Cruise missiles, from Europe; further believes that the obstacles created by the Strategic Defence Initiative can be resolved and that a further agreement between the United States and the Soviet Union for a 50 per cent. reduction in strategic ballistic missiles can he successfully pursued; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to press, within the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, for the speedy commencement of further negotiations to reduce and eliminate all battlefield nuclear weapons in Europe, such negotiations to take place simultaneously with the proposed negotiations between the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and the Warsaw Pact on the reduction of conventional forces."
The Secretary of State had some fun at the beginning of his speech. It was almost like a knock-about winding-up speech with the right hon. Gentleman stating the various defence policies of the various Opposition parties. Only towards the end of his speech did he address his mind to the real problem and give the game away. Of course, there will be cuts and priorities must be considered. The defence budget is in decline, as I shall show.
The Secretary of State mentioned the INF agreement at some length. We all hope that that agreement will be reached, despite what happened in Moscow recently. The right hon. Gentleman then said that there might have to be adjustments in NATO's nuclear forces in Europe. During the election the right hon. Gentleman talked about compensations, but last Thursday we discovered in the debate on arms control — which, in the main, was a foreign affairs debate — that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office draftsman had got at the drafting and obviously decided that "compensations" was a bit to hard sounding and that "adjustments" sounded much better. Shall we call them "compensatory adjustments"? What will they be? Will they he cruise missiles on submarines? Will they be cruise missiles on frigates? Will they be F111 bombers with hydrogen bombs at Greenham common and Upper Heyford, as has been suggested? Will they be B1 bombers? Perhaps we can be told what these "compensatory adjustments" will be.
As the Russians apparently are giving up three times as much "power", if I may use that word, in terms of the INF agreement, presumably the Warsaw pact countries are entitled to have three times as many "compensatory adjustments". That will make a mockery of any INF agreement, cause NATO considerable political problems and do damage, especially in the Federal Republic of Germany.
I was slightly surprised that the Secretary of State made no mention of the one area outside the United Kingdom where British troops are engaged in—or at least having to operate in — a war zone. We may have had such assurances from the Foreign Office, but we seek a similar assurance from the Minister of State that there will at least be no change of policy and that the Royal Navy will not accompany shipping further than Bahrain and the southern end of the Gulf. As I understand it, that has been the position for the past seven years.
The situation in the Gulf is much more dangerous now than it was seven years ago when the Royal Navy Armilla patrol started to accompany British merchant ships. I am sure that the Secretary of State is more aware than anyone of the real danger arising from Iranian Silkworm missiles based at Bandar Abbas at the mouth of the Gulf. Royal Navy frigates have to pass within range of those missiles, and although it has been fashionable to view them with contempt on the ground that they are old, or inaccurate, or Chinese, over the past few weeks we have seen what
216
damage they can do. The danger to the Royal Navy is far greater than it was when the original decision to send it to the Gulf was made seven years ago. There is a real danger that we could be dragged in behind American involvement in the Gulf, especially as the Government foolishly agreed to reflag Kuwaiti tankers with the British flag.
That was an unfortunate and serious decision—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] — first, because it increases the responsibility placed on the Royal Navy. The Navy has very limited resources, and the more ships that it has to accompany, the more difficult the task becomes. Secondly, the decision places us, with the Americans, on the side of one of the belligerents in the Gulf. Although Kuwait is not a belligerent, it is certainly not a neutral state. Kuwait is funding, or helping to fund, the so-called reflagged Kuwaiti tankers carrying oil, the sale of which goes to finance the Iraqi war. There is a real danger that we may be viewed as being in the Gulf, not to protect international shipping, but to help the Americans to ensure that Iraq does not lose the war. As we know, the American navy has plenty of power in the Gulf. It has more ships there than the Royal Navy. It has three aircraft carriers and the kind of air cover that the Royal Navy does not have. I am sure the Secretary of State realises that we are in a very dangerous position. The danger is that we may get dragged further in behind the rather grandiose designs and aims of the United States of America.
Mr. Tony Banks: My right hon. Friend gave an account of the military implications of reflagging. Was he not astounded when, in response to questions on this matter, the Government said that these were commercial matters alone?
Mr. Davies: I think that the word used to describe the arrangements was "administrative". I should have thought that these were serious political matters.
The best that can be said about the White Paper—it is clear from the tenor of his speech that the Secretary of State knows this—is that much of it is out of date and irrelevant. It is based on figures for expenditure agreed almost a year ago in last year's public expenditure review. The Secretary of State did not tell us anything about this year's public expenditure review, although I suppose that he has been on his annual trek to the Star Chamber and knows very well what will happen to him. We shall probably have to wait until next week or the week after before the Chancellor of the Exchequer tells us what effect this year's review will have on the defence budget.
As the Secretary of State conceded, the White Paper was written about six months ago when the Government no doubt had both eyes firmly fixed on an early general election. The White Paper was written with the aim of perpetuating the myth—the Secretary of State tried it again today — that the Tory Government could somehow meet all their defence commitments within the resources allocated to them under the White Paper and under public expenditure reviews. Most hon. Members honestly know — just as most members of the armed forces and most of the outside commentators who take these matters seriously know — that the Government have no hope of meeting their defence commitments within their expenditure target. Over the next few years we shall see a substantial rundown in the amount and quality of non-nuclear equipment available to our armed forces.
I thought that one fact was quite clear and could not be concealed, but the Secretary of State sought to deny it.

217
Expenditure on defence is to decline by about 5 per cent. in real terms as a consequence of a definite decision by the Government to cut Britain's defences. I should have thought it obvious that if expenditure declines we will have fewer defences. The White Paper mentions a 5 per cent. cut in real terms — that is 5 per cent. after taking into account the Government's prediction of a rise of about 3½ per cent. in the general rate of inflation. If that forecast is wrong—it seems to be on the low side—the defence budget will be affected.
We must also remember something that is loosely called internal defence inflation. I do not know whether the process can be described as inflation as such. It is a shorthand description of the position. Over the years, internal defence inflation has invariably been higher than inflation as measured by the retail price index, the general deflator, or whatever the Treasury cares to call it. If we take into account that fact and the Government's rather optimistic forecast for general inflation, we realise that there is a real danger that defence expenditure will decline by more than 5 per cent. over the next few years.
It should not be forgotten—although the Secretary of State seems to have forgotten it—that on 27 May this year, while the Secretary of State was engaged on other matters in Scotland, his representatives attended a NATO meeting and agreed with all the other NATO countries that the Alliance should revert to the requirement of a 3 per cent. growth in real spending. I do not know what happened to that agreement. Perhaps the Minister or the Secretary of State will tell us whether that commitment remains. Perhaps it has been ditched. Perhaps it was not a commitment at all, but something to try to fool the British electorate. We should be told. There was a meeting and there was an agreement. Does that agreement still stand? With a 5 per cent. decline in spending in real terms, how on earth do the Government propose to meet that NATO commitment?
As the House well knows, the two main items in defence expenditure are the pay and pensions of service personnel and the expenditure on defence equipment. Unless the Government cut service pay—I doubt whether they would want to do that—the decline in defence expenditure will fall almost entirely on the equipment budget, even given that a few savings may be made elsewhere. Between 1981–82 and 1984–85 there was a fall in the amount of expenditure on personnel and manpower and the Ministry of Defence was able to use the sums saved on those items to buy extra equipment. As the Secretary of State knows, that course is no longer available to him. I understand that expenditure on personnel and manpower is beginning to increase again, so the whole burden of the cuts will fall on defence equipment.
Not all areas of equipment expenditure will suffer. Some are sacrosanct. The budget for Trident will not be touched because, as we heard again today, Trident is the Ark of the Covenant for the Government. In the next five years, at a time when the total budget is in decline, expenditure on Trident will increase sharply. I was interested to hear the Secretary of State's version of the great "Rent-a-Trident" war last week. Perhaps he was out of the country at the time, but he was scathing about what took place. I remind him, however, that the revelations came, not from the terrible Labour party or the Russians, but from his own officials at Faslane, where they know
218
about these things. They came from experienced officials at the heart of the system. Those officials knew exactly what the position was, although it may have come as a surprise to the Secretary of State as he was not around at the Ministry of Defence when the famous agreement to save £750 million was negotiated, probably by the then Secretary of State, Sir John Nott.
The present Secretary of State may not have known the details. He may not have read the small print. I shall therefore read out the statement. On Friday 23 October, in an article headed
"Trident will depend on US base staying open",
The Times defence correspondent, Mr. Michael Evans, gave a verbatim quotation which he had clearly taken down in his notebook of what was said by Ministry of Defence officials at Faslane. It read as follows:
"The rocket bodies are being shared in a common pool with the United States where they are built. The missiles are American. There will be a mingled stock. We've got to treat them the same way that the Americans will treat them.
We're not having to buy the missiles from the Americans. We're sharing them and"—
this is very important—
"we're not going to have spare missiles in the UK."
Mr. Michael Mates: Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman. The remarks that appeared in that newspaper were wrong. [HON. MEMBERS: "Was the hon. Gentleman there?"] Yes, I was there. The reporters were told authoritatively that the story was wrong before it went to press, but they still chose to print it. We have a free press, so I make no criticism of that, but the right hon. Gentleman should know from experience that the press does not always get these matters right, and he does the defence effort no service whatever by latching on to false press reports.
Mr. Davies: I admire the hon. Gentleman. I have watched him operate over the years. Whenever there is a sticky problem at the Ministry of Defence—I remember one or two during that famous weekend of the Ponting trial—it is always the hon. Gentleman who is put up to clear the confusion and set the record straight. He is a very good soldier, and one of these days he should be rewarded by becoming an official spokesman for the Ministry of Defence rather than an unofficial one. He did a good job on the "Today" programme when he said that the missiles were like calor gas cylinders—we take one in and get another one out. Basically, that is exactly what the officials at Faslane were saying.
Mr. Mates: The programme was "The World at One" — I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman listened to it. I was trying to explain the situation in terms that would be understood by those not conversant with the defence world.
Mr. Rogers: Such as the Secretary of State.
Mr. Mates: No, it was not my right hon. Friend's analogy and I do not know that he would have used it. That is a matter for him. I said that the position was like the calor gas system. One buys a cylinder when one buys the stove. It is one's own property and one can use it as and when one wishes. [HON. MEMBERS: "No".] No one else owns it. When it is empty, one takes it back. One might wait to have it refilled, but that is not very intelligent when one can pick up another one instead. Nothing in my

219
analogy in any way derogates from our possession of the missile. If we get another one back it is still ours to use independently, as the right hon. Gentleman well knows.
Mr. Davies: That is an excellent analogy. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The quotation from Faslane continues:
"With Polaris we own the missiles and process them in the UK. We're renting the Trident missiles."
I accept that "renting" was perhaps not a good word to describe this unusual arrangement. The quotation continues:
"We're paying for them but we're renting them, not buying them."
Another official—the hon. Gentleman may claim that that official too was inaccurately reported—said that Britain would be paying towards "the totality" of the Trident B5 missiles to be built by the Americans.
Mr. Patrick Cormack: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman was not in Faslane and I must get on. I have given way two or three times already.
Nothing could be clearer. What we are buying is access to a common pool of missiles all owned by the United States.
Mr. Mates: No.
Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman can make his own speech rather than shouting inanely from a sedentary position. He has already had two opportunities, plus "The World at One". One missile will he handed in and another taken out. A missile that has been in an American submarine will be put into a British submarine, and vice versa. We are buying access to a common pool.
The Foreign Secretary tried to retrieve the position in last Thursday's debate, but he only made it worse. The Foreign Office draftsman clearly found it difficult to describe the arrangement without giving the game away. The Foreign Secretary said:
"We shall continue throughout to own the same number of missiles at all times."
I do not know how one can own a number. I thought that one could only own things. Clearly the draftsman had problems. When the junior Minister, the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor), wound up that debate, he characteristically made things even worse when he said:
"The Americans have discovered that if a rocket has to be fully overhauled it might be just as convenient to replace it with another missile."—[Official Report, 22 October 1987; Vol. 120, c. 949–1012.]
There we have it. A missile which at one time has been in a British submarine will he put into an American submarine, and vice versa.
This is not a pedantic exercise. The nature of the arrangement is extremely important. The Secretary of State was trying to pretend that the terrible Russians were spreading propaganda to the effect that the missiles were not really British and therefore would be treated like the Pershing 1A in relation to the INF talks. The Secretary of State claims that the Pershing 1A is completely different. In that situation, the West Germans own the missile and the Americans own the warheads. In our case the situation is reversed, but the principle is the same. How on earth can the British missile system, if one may so describe it, be described as a third country system, as was attempted with the Pershing 1A? It is not a third country system. There
220
will be a pool of D5 missiles. They will all end up in the arms negotiations and they may well be treated in the same way as the Pershing 1A in the INF talks.
There is another important question. When asked in what circumstances Trident would be used, the Secretary of State would not be drawn. His predecessor, the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), however, was fond of describing Trident and Polaris with the chilling phrase, "a weapon of last resort." It is a weapon of last resort, presumably to be used when the Russians are at the Channel ports and Britain will have to use its missiles. In the circumstances, the Americans will not even be engaged in a war in Europe. They will have decided not to commit their vast nuclear arsenal to the defence of Europe. It will be Britain's weapon of last resort. In fact, Trident and Polaris are the very negation of the American nuclear guarantee. They exist—and this is the unsaid fact—because we do not trust the Americans. Whatever we might like to think, Trident will be there because we do not believe in the Americans.
There was a great deal of dust during the election about whether we believed in the American nuclear umbrella and their guarantee. The Secretary of State does not believe in the American nuclear guarantee, and the Prime Minister certainly does not subscribe to the mythical concept of an American nuclear umbrella. Trident is to be introduced because they do not believe in the American guarantee. We do not trust the Americans and we do not believe that they will come to the defence of Europe, so we need a weapon of last resort. That weapon is part of a common pool of American missiles, and one from which the Americans are not prepared to draw in the defence of Europe. If the Government are not concerned about political honesty, at least as a matter of linguistic integrity they should drop the words "British" and "independent" when describing Trident.
I must now return to the more mundane subject of equipment. The Secretary of State is smiling — the subject is obviously on his mind all the time. As he knows, other equipment in the defence budget cannot be touched, such as that subject to contract. Unless the Ministry of Defence breaks a contract, nothing much can be done about that. Some equipment is the subject of joint agreement—such as the Tornado agreement— with other countries, and one reason why people want them is that they are beyond the reach of the Treasury because, politically, it is too much of a problem to touch them.
The pool of equipment is becoming more and more limited and, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman has three options. The first is not to buy any equipment, and he will obviously take that option from time to time. Secondly, he can run beyond its normal life the old equipment that should be replaced. As the report from the Select Committee points out, he is already doing that with the Navy. In that way he can avoid the capital cost of replacement, but he will only increase the revenue cost on his defence budget by trying to maintain clapped out equipment. Thirdly, when he has no other option and has to buy, he will buy from America, either off the shelf or through a few licensing agreements. The Americans, with their vast industry, can afford to produce at lower cash prices. The MOD will save cash from its budget by buying American rather than British. However, because we

221
cannot afford to build our own equipment, other losses and damage will be high-for example, to the balance of payments, industry and employment.
The Secretary of State said that there would be no cuts, but recently a leading firm of City stockbrokers specialising in this area said in a circular to its clients that as many as 100,000 jobs could be lost in the defence industries during the next three years because of cuts in the equipment budget.
Mr. Julian Brazier (Canterbury): Was that one of the firms of stockbrokers which, three weeks ago, predicted that the bull market would continue?
Mr. Davies: I believe the market implicitly. I think that it always gets it right. On this occasion it is getting it right again.
The Secretary of State has tried to give the impression—as he would—that there have been fantastic, dramatic increases in defence expenditure since 1979; that there have been a few cuts here and there, but as we have a pool of equipment that does not really matter. I concede, because I cannot do other, that until 1984–85 there was an increase in defence expenditure, but since then there has been a continual decline, and that will continue until the period covered by the last expenditure White Paper of 1989–90.
That decline has been about 5 per cent., but if we exclude expenditure on Trident the decline is 12 per cent. If we simply examine the equipment budget, excluding Trident, the fall is 25 per cent., and for the new equipment budget it is about 35 per cent. Therefore, there is a deliberate policy to cut defence expenditure. We must conclude that, despite all the rhetoric of the election, the Government really are not that interested in defence expenditure. They are concerned, not with non-nuclear defence expenditure, but with nuclear illusions. They are not concerned with providing our armed forces with the reality of modern conventional weapons.
Who will suffer? First, there is always the Navy. I am sure that the House will remember Captain Barker, who, when captain of HMS Endurance, warned against withdrawing that ship from the Falklands patrol. That was during the period of the Sir John Nott cuts. His warnings were ignored, no one listened, and General Galtieri invaded. Captain Barker is now the commanding officer designate of HMS Sheffield. I hope that after this debate he still will be. Recently he said:
"The Navy has its nose to the grindstone the whole time because we haven't got the tools for the job."
That will get worse. Apparently Ministers are committed to about 50 destroyers and frigates. By next summer the figure could be down to 46.
At one time the Government said that they would order three new type 23 frigates a year, but now they will not do that and have told us why. In paragraph 11 of the Government's response to the fourth report from the Defence Select Committee, "Implementing the Lessons of the Falklands Campaign", they state in splendid MOD language:
"The benchmark of about three frigate orders a year was devised in 1982 and was based on a judgement made at the time concerning factors such as hull life, maintenance support and maintenance cycles. Some of these considerations have since changed, leading to decisions to extend ships lives"—
222
that is, ships will become older and older and will not be replaced; that is what it means in MOD language—
"and modify upkeep cycles with the result that it is not now necessary to order three frigates a year in order to maintain a surface fleet of about 50 destroyers and frigates."
It will be a very old surface flee— —
Mr. Brazier rose
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I remind the House that a very large number of hon. Members are waiting to speak. The Chair will have to take interventions into account. Hon. Members cannot make interventions and speeches.
Mr. Brazier: I am most grateful to the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) for giving way again. Is he aware that in terms of hull age we have almost the youngest Navy of all the major navies in the world? Is he further aware that when we inherited the Navy in 1979 we had young hulls with very few weapons systems?
Mr. Davies: From what the Navy tells me, I know as everyone else knows that the surface fleet faces a future of fewer and fewer and older and older frigates and destroyers
Perhaps the Minister will tell us something about our commitment in the Baltic and to Norway, and especially about the negotiations within NATO on our commitment to the Baltic approaches. I hate to mention Schleswig-Holstein in time of tension and war. We know that the Government are trying to get out of that commitment. Will we still defend Schleswig-Holstein during the next few years?
Then, of course, there is the more expensive, real commitment to Norway. Some people say that it will cost about £1 billion to replace Fearless and Intrepid and to have proper aviation support platforms. I do not know whether the Government have the money for that. There are grave doubts about whether they have. If that commitment goes, not only will we destroy a NATO commitment, but we will say goodbye to the Royal Marines also. I hope that we will be told something about what is happening in respect of landing and support vessels.
There are real questions about European fighter aircraft. We are now told that the RAF budget will not be able to sustain the 260 fighters required to replace the Phantom Interceptor and the Jaguar ground attack aircraft. To do so would cost £6.5 billion. Apparently, the idea now is to have about 120 of them. The West Germans are also having problems. They may scale down the number of aircraft. Obviously the time will come when project development costs are not worth while in terms of the number of aircraft that will be ordered. I hope that the Minister will deny the rumours. One can envisage the Secretary of State going off to the Americans to buy the F 18. In cash terms that would be cheaper than going ahead with the project. May we be told that there is no intention to do that? If that occurs, 25,000 British aircraft jobs will immediately be lost.
On procurement, there is the matter of tanks for the Army. I read in Jane's Defence Weekly that perhaps we have finished building the British tank. In the 1990s we will need 500 tanks to replace the old Chieftain tanks. Perhaps we will buy the Leopard 2 tank from the Federal Republic or the American MIA tank from the United States. If that

223
is the case, it will be the end of the old Leeds RAF tank factory, which is now in the ownership of Vickers Armstrong. May we be told something about tanks?
A reduction in defence expenditure will not only have a damaging effect on the armed forces but will mean that Britain and NATO will rely more on nuclear weapons and less on conventional forces. In the awful jargon of this business, we will lower the nuclear threshold and bring forward the moment when, if war breaks out in Europe, a decision to use nuclear weapons will have to be taken. The point was put clearly by the Foreign Secretary, who is good on such matters. We remember his speech on SDI. He did it again in a speech in Brussels on 16 March, which was reported in the Foreign Office's house magazine "Arms Control and Disarmament Quarterly Review". The right hon. and learned Gentleman said:
"Of course we do not want to be faced with a nuclear 'yes or no' choice at the outset of any conflict. So we must continue to work for improvement in our conventional defences in order to raise the nuclear threshold."
Mr. Younger indicated assent.
Mr. Davies: It is no good the Secretary of State nodding. He is reducing our conventional defences and nuclear threshold and putting more and more money into nuclear weapons and less and less money into conventional equipment.
Our flexible response is more and more dependent upon nuclear weapons, which means that within seven or eight days NATO would have to decide whether to use nuclear weapons. The weapons that NATO would perhaps want to use first are battlefield weapons—the Secretary of State briefly mentioned Montebello—which are located in the Federal Republic. The unfortunate thing is that their range is so short and their power so great that they will destroy 55,000 British troops. They will be killed, not by the Russians, but by our own forces and our own weapons. That is the enormity of such a ridiculous strategy of flexible response, which states that we must fire off nuclear shells, some with a range of 25 km, in that very part of Germany that we are trying to defend.
In the amendment, we ask—this was mentioned in the debate on the arms control legislation last week—that priority in Europe should be given to multilateral negotiations on battlefield nuclear weapons. Such negotiations should be carried out simultaneously with the talks on conventional weapons, which will start between NATO and the Warsaw pact countries in the spring. The Federal Republic desperately wants simultaneous talks because its territory could be destroyed, but apparently the stumbling block is the British Government, and mainly No. 10. There is some fear about what is described as the denuclearisation of Europe. In fact, such weapons would destroy our own forces. The Russians have much more powerful, longer range weapons.
Mr. Cormack: We have heard that the right hon. Gentleman believes the press rather than the Secretary of State for Defence. We have heard a ragbag of accusations, but we have not heard a policy. From what he has said, do we take it that the Labour party believes in multilateralism, not unilateralism, or does it believe in both, or neither?
Mr. Davies: My party's policy is clearly set out in the official amendments. We make no secret of it.
Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Which amendment?
Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman was not listening. I referred to the Opposition's official amendment, which has been selected for debate and to which I am speaking. The policy is quite clear. Trident should be cancelled — it does not make any sense—so that we can maintain our conventional defences and raise the nuclear threshold, not lower it. As the amendment states, we wish to see talks to get rid of cruise missiles. We want to see a 50 per cent. reduction in strategic weapons. We do not think that the SDI stumbling block—
Mr. Nicholas Bennett rose —
Mr. Davies: No, I shall not give way again. Many hon. Members wish to speak.
The policy is clearly stated in the amendment. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should leave the Chamber for five minutes and read it.
Mr. Nicholas Bennett rose
Mr. Davies: No, I shall not give way.
There must be simultaneous negotiations on battlefield weapons. I hope that we can get a better response from the defence team than we received from the Minister of State, the hon. and learned Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor), when he tried to deal with the subject last Thursday. The policies are set out in the White Paper. The resources that the Government have devoted to defence expenditure will mean a weakening of Britain's conventional forces and an increased reliance on nuclear weapons. Such a policy makes no military sense and is morally wrong. That is why we call upon the House to support the amendment and to oppose the White Paper.
6.37 pm
Sir Geoffrey Pattie: I shall make some remarks about an aspect of the defence budget which is not often debated on the Floor of the House —research and development. It is referred to on one page —page 48—of the White Paper. It is not an inexpensive item; it costs the Ministry of Defence over £2 billion. Indeed, from about February 1987, the subject of research and development has become one of national media interest. There have been leading articles in the heavy newspapers, television programmes and rows in the European Community; Sir George Porter, backed by his serried ranks of scientists, has made complaints, and there is now disagreement about space research. Of course, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you would rightly say that that is another subject for debate on another day, but I ask the House to note that there is a distinct and obvious correlation between a civil capability and an ability to supply the military when necessary. That should be obvious to anyone who is not defending a departmental budget.
The moral for the Ministry of Defence is that, if a Ministry wishes to put itself in a position in which it must rely completely on a foreign supplier, the way to go about it is to stand back while a civil capability is allowed to decline and atrophy. That means that a foreign supplier gives the Ministry of Defence the parts when it thinks that it is suitable to supply them, that it transfers the technology when that country thinks it suitable for the recipient to have it, and that exports are made with the leave of the other supplying country and not this country. If that consideration is important —it is up to the Ministry of Defence to say whether it is—it cannot sit or stand idly by while another departmental matter is

225
apparently being decided — the question of capability, which is apparently in a departmental box, which is not military, but something else. It would be short-sighted to take that attitude.
I should like to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), who is the only Secretary of State for Defence during the past eight years with whom I have had any dealings, who, when the chips were down on this question of supporting civil capabilities in research, chose to act on his own sense of commitment and vision, as opposed to taking a narrow departmental brief, which, of course, all Ministers get, and to say that it was not in the interests of the Ministry of Defence to support the European Space Agency because it was a civil matter. I hope that in future the Ministry of Defence will continue to follow its instincts, which should be to support the national capability where one should exist.
From the military research point of view, why on earth do we have military research and development? I think that there is consensus in the House that we all wish to see the proper defence of the United Kingdom. There are no differences in the House on that. Therefore, we need the systems and equipment to make that defence possible. If we are to have the systems and the equipment, we must have the research to achieve them. However, the cost of those systems has been rising in real terms. The Ministry of Defence budget allocation does not appear to be rising in similar real terms. That would appear to call into question before long the actual value of the procurement spend. That means that the research and development budget is likely to get out of phase with the amount of equipment that is being procured. Although collaboration on equipment is becoming more common, collaboration on research between various nations is not yet well established. I should like to see the focus put increasingly on collaboration at the research end, as well as at the procurement equipment end.
The White Paper draws our attention to the fact that the research spend—that is the R—is £401 million, and that the D is probably about £1,800 million, although it is not mentioned specifically. It is important to bear that in mind because the R and D spend of the Ministry of Defence is £2.2 billion and the amount spent on pure research is a relatively small part of that large amount.
The claim is often made in various quarters that the Ministry of Defence research budget acts as what one might call, in aerodynamic terms, a drag factor on the whole of the national economic effort as it pre-empts people and money. It is said that too many high-priced people and expert talents are occupied in defence and it is questioned whether that is right. One must say, prima facie, that there is a considerable drag factor and that a lot of people work in, for example, defence electronics. That is not necessarily wrong. However, the way in which it has been approached in the past, in trying to get a spin-off between the military and civil sectors, which is referred to in, for example, paragraph 518, has been to allow companies such as Defence Technology Enterprises Limited to enter certain establishments, to look around and to find a database, which they now have, of items which can be spun off into the civil sector.
However, I have always taken the view that the real spin-off is at the other end of the process, to go upstream rather than downstream, and to co-operate in the early
226
stages of research programmes, such as the Alvey programme with which the Ministry of Defence has been involved, and in various forms of co-operation such as the pattern recognition programme at Malvern, and the Gallia-Mercia programmes, some of which are referred to in paragraph 519.
I still do not believe that the process has gone anything like far enough. When one considers it for a moment, the fundamental future technologies that involve communications, materials, sensors, lasers and many other areas of activity have civil, as well as military, applications. Therefore, the basic research into those topics should be carried out by the Ministry of Defence, the Department of Trade and Industry and the private sector, all of which should be involved at the earliest stages. They should not wait until they see some spin-off from the missile programme or from another military programme. That is useful but not fundamental. It is not the best use that we could make of our resources.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his interesting speech. With his experience at the Ministry of Defence and the Department of Trade and Industry, will he reflect on why it has been so difficult to have joint research projects? Is it anything to do with the United Kingdom's patent law?
Sir Geoffrey Pattie: It could be something to do with our patent law. However, it is more often to do with rather basic human considerations, such as Government Departments or different departments of large companies being disinclined to co-operate with each other. It comes down to something as straightforward as that.
I know that many hon. Members wish to contribute to the debate, and in conclusion I urge the House to be aware, on the subject of research and development, of the important agency which exists in the United States and from which we could draw some useful parallels and examples. The Defence Advance Research Projects Agency — DARPA as it is known in the land where acronyms seem absolutely essential — acts as an important centre of seedcorn activity in research on both the civil and military sides. If the Ministry of Defence wishes to avoid some of the pressure that is being put on it at the moment to have the R and D budget reduced, I hope that it will consider putting forward a proposal to the effect that it could act and go beyond paragraph 519 in saying that it will allow some firms from the private sector to go into Malvern and "Isn't that good?". Well, it is good but it could counter-attack by taking the initiative into the private sector by saying that there could be a British research procurement agency to seed all the advanced technologies to which I have referred in both military and civil spheres. We must face the fact that, even though our economy has improved enormously, we cannot afford to duplicate activities in the civil and military areas.
Finally, there must be a strong case for the advanced research that is being carried out in military bases in France, Germany, Italy and Britain being combined. It is ridiculous to have four of the leading European NATO allies reinventing the military wheel in their own countries when we know that the Americans have the great advantage of a unified system, with all the plusses that they can gain from that.
6.48 pm
Mr. Michael Foot: The right hon. Member for Chertsey and Walton (Sir G. Pattie) is a great expert on many of today's subjects. Indeed, he is so much an expert that some of us cannot understand why he delivered his speech from the Back Benches, rather than from the Front Bench. I hope that he will excuse me if I do not follow him in discussing such detailed matters. I shall return to the larger themes of the White Paper because it is one of the most squalidly inadequate documents that has ever been presented to the House of Commons.
When one considers the scale of world events, the perils of nuclear armaments — whatever the estimate that is made of them—the intensification of the dangers of war in so many parts of the planet, surely the White Paper should have been applied to most, or at any rate, to some of those issues. I suppose the fact that the White Paper was produced five months ago is some excuse. I do not know whether the Ministry of Defence knew about the timing of the election and produced a White Paper which it believed would be good for the election instead of for our defences. I shall give some illustrations of that.
Of course, the Opposition are glad about the prospective agreement on intermediate nuclear weapons. We want that agreement to be carried through. It is one of the best developments for a long time, and the Opposition welcome it eagerly. The White Paper talks as though that was not the case. My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) will recall that he accompanied me and my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds. East (Mr. Healey) on a vist to Moscow, where we had lengthy discussions on intermediate weapons. At that time, many countries were becoming extremely anxious about the dangerous build-up of SS20s. We asked the Russians whether they would reduce the number of SS20s, saying, "They are not essential to your security, so would it not be the best solution to abolish them?" The Russians did not say that they would do that, but they said that they would consider substantial reductions in SS20s.
That was the first time that anyone had talked about the zero-zero option in regard to those weapons, but when we returned to London we were attacked viciously by a Foreign Office spokesman. I do not remember who it was, but it was an up-and-coming eager Minister at the Foreign Office who wanted to prove that he could defend any policy at any time with the utmost assurance — the David Mellor of his day, I suppose. The House can see how easily I can keep up with these matters. It may even have been the present Home Secretary. The Minister said that it was absurd to return from Moscow talking about a zero-zero option. He said that it was an idealistic and hopeless proposition, and we were denounced in the usual fashion of the Foreign Office.
Two or three weeks later, President Reagan went on television in the United States saying that he favoured the zero-zero option. Immediately, I went on to "The World at One"—the only programme I could go on—and said that we had welcomed it in Moscow, we welcomed it from Washington and we wanted to see it in operation. Lo and behold, 24 hours after President Reagan had said that it was all right, the Foreign Office said that it was all right. That is an illustration of how we can make progress by the most extraordinary routes.
228
The White Paper is a shameful and shocking document. I cannot cover all of it in the time available, but I believe that no such document should have been presented to the House of Commons. One part of it, entitled "70 Years On: A Country or A Cause", is printed on special pink paper, no doubt to tell us that it should not be taken too seriously. It purports to be a history of the Soviet Union and our relations with it during the past 70 years. It is a hangover from the time when the previous Secretary of State for Defence set up a department of Conservative Central Office in the Ministry —paid for by the taxpayer—to conduct a campaign against the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. I suppose that the people who drew up those documents were responsible for this potted history of our relations with the Soviet Union since the Russian revolution. The document states:
"Russia has always been a difficult country for the West to understand. 'Secrecy presides over everything'."
Perhaps the former Secretary of State for Defence wrote that paragraph.
There are many more columns, and I looked through them carefully for any reference to the time when we were allies of the Soviet Union. After all, it was an important period in the history of the Soviet Union. First, I thought that it had been omitted, but that would not have been fair.At the fag end of a paragraph, it states:
"In more recent times, Western intervention during the Russian civil war and, later, the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union, with its appalling toll of 20 million Soviet dead, reinforced the Soviet obsession."
This is supposed to be a serious document presented to the nation. What is this Soviet obsession? Invasion was a bit more than an obsession; it happened several times in Soviet history. Suppose that Soviet historians wrote about the British obsesssion with the Channel. Suppose that they asked why we had this obsesion that the Channel should be defended. They would be derided. This section is supposed to be the background to the defence White Paper, but no one except the Secretary of State for Defence could have written it, because no civil servant would dare to put his name to such a document.
Let us go on to some of the so-called constructive parts of the document. The Secretary of State mentioned his idea of flexible response. When he was asked about it soon after his appointment, his flexible response was always to say that the central feature of the Government's nuclear strategy was the reliance on a flexible response. The White Paper states:
"So NATO evolved in the 1960s a new strategy of 'flexible response'; and this remains its strategy today."
Is that true? Does our nuclear defence strategy remain one of flexible response even on the eve of attaining the abolition of intermediate nuclear weapons? Do the Government still rely on flexible response? Flexible response means the readiness to use nuclear weapons first. It is a scandal that we should be presented with a document saying that we still rely on the idea of using nuclear weapons first when we are on the eve of a major agreement which will abolish that class of weapons altogether.
The document fails to deal with many other immediate problems. It does not mention the non-proliferation treaty agreements. Apparently neither the Ministry of Defence nor the Foreign Office cares much about them. The document, which sets out the thinking behind the Government's defence strategy, ends with a paeon of support for nuclear weapons, as though they were the only

229
ones on which we could rely. But under the non-proliferation treaty, which Britain signed, we are committed to abolishing nuclear weapons. We are not committed to doing it within months or years, but to doing it as soon as possible. The treaty talks about
"declaring their intention to achieve at the earliest possible date the cessation of the nuclear arms race and to undertake effective measures in the direction of nuclear disarmament."
Most of the declarations in this defence White Paper and most of the conclusions at the end of each section are in direct conflict with the obligations of Her Majesty's Government under the non-proliferation treaty agreement which binds the British Government to do everything in their power to get rid of nuclear weapons. The Government are in breach of that obligation. How do they believe that they will be able to persuade other nations to join in the non-proliferation treaty agreement?
The other day I read in the papers that President Reagan had had talks with the Indian Prime Minister. He had had the nerve to say that he hoped that India would carry out its allegiance to the non-proliferation treaty on the Indian sub-continent. That matter must have been raised because the Indian Prime Minister asked the President what he was doing about his relations with Pakistan. Of course there is a great danger that great areas of Asia will be thrust into nuclear competition. Indeed, under the principles of this White Paper there is no reason why they should not. The Government's proposition is that the safest thing that one can do is to have nuclear weapons if one can get them. If that applies to us, it applies to other countries too.
I say to the Government and the country that one of the major propositions for ensuring the future safety of this country is that the non-proliferation treaty should be made a reality. However, instead of any mention of that treaty in the defence White Paper it has been utterly excluded. We had a debate on such matters last week and I am sorry that I could not be present to hear the Foreign Secretary. However, I followed that debate carefully. At the beginning of my speech I said that the world may be in the most delicate and dangerous position of its post-1945 history. That also means it is the most dangerous moment in the history of the world because these nuclear weapons have a destructive character beyond anything that the world has conceived before.
The Foreign Secretary and the Government, as shown by this White Paper, are apparently content to base their case, almost entirely, on what was said by Winston Churchill when he went to the United States Congress in 1952. His speech has been quoted by the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and it also appears at the beginning of the White Paper. Indeed, it is almost a test of the Government's whole policy. In 1952 Winston Churchill told the United States Congress:
"Be careful above all things not to let go of the atomic weapon until you are sure, and more than sure, that other means of preserving peace are in your hands".
That sounds reasonable. It sounded more than reasonable in 1952 when the world was only equipping itself with atomic weapons—though they were horrific enough. In my opinion, it would have been better in 1951 and 1952 if Mr. Churchill — a man whose word was greatly respected throughout the world — had used all his influence to try to prevent the arms race — atomic or hydrogen—from ever getting under way
230
At that time I believe that there should have been a much greater effort to try to secure such agreement. However, I believe that the attempts made at such an agreement were largely a fake. I believe that anyone who looks at the facts and figures of the Baruch plan will come to that conclusion.
Winston Churchill did not only say what the Government were prepared to do—he was a much wiser old man than that. Very often he was inconsistent as people may be when facing new situations. He did not always say, "I must say exactly what I said before". He changed party allegiance on quite a number of occasions. I happened to be in the House, as were some of my hon. Friends including my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), when Winston Churchill made pretty well the last speech he was to make to the House on the hydrogen bomb. Perhaps he did not draw a sharp distinction, but he made a major decision in his thought between atomic development and the hydrogen bomb. He talked as if the development of the hydrogen bomb was something beyond any previous reckoning and that statesmen of the world should try new methods to deal with it.
Therefore, when Mr. Churchill had the opportunity his last words to this House were not to repeat the statement which the Foreign Secretary repeated, and which is also the text of the defence White Paper. He made an intervention in the famous H bomb debate in which he tried to tell the House and the world that they were facing a new situation. He tried to do that especially because he said that great and hopeful changes were taking place in the Soviet Union. Nobody could accuse Winston Churchill of being a Communist spy or something of that sort, but he did not under-estimate the changes. After the death of Stalin and the arrival of Malenkov and others in power he said that it was one of the great moments in history when we should be seeking to get a real détente—a detente which did not merely lessen the tension, but which dealt with the fundamental question of the nature of the weapons.
Winston Churchill came to the House and had to acknowledge how he had been thwarted in going ahead with his plans for discussions with the Soviet leaders. I hesitate to use the language that Winston Churchill used—he used it not in the House of Commons, but elsewhere. He put the blame primarily on the United States, but also on the Foreign Office, for preventing the discussions that he had wanted with the Soviet Union at that critical moment.
He was eager for a meeting in Moscow, but he said that his plans had been "bitched up"—those were the words he used—by the Foreign Office and the United States President of the time. Perhaps the present Foreign Secretary knows of some other occasions that have been bitched up by the intervention of the Prime Minister and the United States President, but that is another question.
After the debate, having heard what sane and sensible people from all sides of the House had been saying about the menace of the nuclear arms race, he went back and told his doctor, who recorded the conversation, that he was furious at being prevented from carrying through the negotiations for detente which he had prescribed and which he thought were the right way to proceed. He went on to say — it is not exactly the document that is presented to us in the White Paper, and if the Government want to have Churchill up to date they had better put this

231
quote on the head of their next White Paper:
that is Russia if he had been allowed to go and if his plans had not been hitched up by the Foreign Office and the American President.
"It might have meant a real UNO, with Russia working with the rest for the good of Europe. We would have promised them that no more atomic bombs would be made, no more research into their manufacture. Those already made would be locked away. They would have had at their disposal much of the money now spent on armaments to provide better conditions for the Russian people. I trust the opportunity may not slip away."
That is what Churchill said about the beginnings of the hydrogen bomb age and, of course, that is what any sensible man or woman should be saying about the present situation.
Tragically the opportunities of 1951–53 after the death of Stalin were cast aside. I am not saying that responsibility rested only with Western statesmen. I have no doubt that it also rested with Soviet statesmen. There were other opportunities such as when Mr. Khrushchev came into power. I am not saying that the entire responsibility for the destruction of that opportunity rested with Western statesmen, but in my judgment most of it did. I believe that that belief is shared by any who apply their minds to that opportunity.
In some respects we have been given a greater opportunity than ever before. So, are we to destroy the possibility of real detente with the new Soviet leadership just as we cast away the chance after Stalin's death and when Khrushchev was the General Secretary in charge of Soviet operations? Will we cast it away again now? I trust not. I trust that the Foreign Secretary will not come to us and say, "Well, again it is the Russians who are causing all the trouble." I want to see not merely the INF agreement agreed, as we all do, but a great big cut in strategic weapons. We want the conditions that can make that possible and we want to carry through our signed obligations under the non-proliferation treaty agreement.
I want all those things to be carried through, and I believe that we in this country could play a major part in securing that, just as Winston Churchill tried to in 1953, although on that occasion he was blocked. What is the blockage today? It is star wars. The Prime Minister can do anything—she does not take any account of these matters—but the Foreign Secretary can hardly come to the House and say, "These wicked Russians are imposing a condition about star wars", because the Foreign Secretary himself said that the star war speech by Reagan was nonsense. He tore it to tatters before the Prime Minister got at him. However, it is still on the record and makes good reading. I have no doubt that it has been translated into Russian. I dare say that when Mr. Gorbachev has the chance to spell out his views, he will spell them out in terms not so different from those which the British Foreign Secretary, in his flash of independence, used when he was outlining a way in which we could proceed.
I believe that we could achieve the most momentous changes in the prospect for our world. We could set behind us the whole of the nuclear arms race. We have a better chance of agreement than ever before. But if we are to secure it we must tear to tatters this wretched little defence White Paper that has been presented to us today because it does not deal with any of those problems. It is a shame and a scandal that it should ever have been presented to
232
the House of Commons.
7.13 pm
Mr. David Martin: You must excuse me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for not being able to follow the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) in such a vintage and distinguished parliamentary style. The content of my speech will he a little different, but it is a special honour to succeed the right hon. Gentleman. Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me an opportunity to speak in the debate, the subject matter of which has closely affected so many generations in. Portsmouth and which continues to be no less relevant today.
My first duty is to refer to my predecessor, Mr. Michael Hancock, who held the seat for three years as a result of a by-election brought about by the death of Mr. Bonner Pink, whom Members of the House will remember with respect. My predecessor, Mr. Hancock, represented the interests of his constituents to the best of his ability and to the limits of what it was possible for one man to do. He continues to serve as a Portsmouth city councillor and as a Hampshire county councillor. I relieved him of only one of his jobs. He can rest assured that I have no designs on the other two. This year Portsmouth was host to the Social Democratic party conference, bang in the middle of my constituency. Particularly if the SDP can guarantee another like the previous one, it is welcome to come every year.
I shall not stretch the patience of the House by giving a detailed description of such a well-known and historic constituency as mine, because Portsmouth, as the home of the Royal Navy, has for so many centuries played such a conspicuous part in peace and war—since at least the reign of Henry VII. I represent the southern half of the city, including the whole of Southsea. It stretches between Eastney with its fine Royal Marines barracks to old Portsmouth, past the Hard, which will be well known to many hon. Members, to the naval dockyard and the harbour. The heritage area grows more interesting as the years go by, with the latest addition of HMS Warrior, a brilliantly restored symbol of the Victorian Royal Navy. Let no one sneer at the jobs created by tourism in the wake of the increasing attractions in my constituency.
Nobody could live in Portsmouth, as I do, or represent the people of Portsmouth for very long, without being immensely and genuinely impressed by the sheer dedication to duty and quality of those serving in the Royal Navy, including the Royal Marines. They enrich beyond measure the life of the city and any threats to their future send shock waves through the population.
I should like to raise three specific matters—first, the relatively new arrangements in the dockyard, which is home base for more than 30 ships. Few people realise how many are still employed there. Apart from the 600 who look after the stores, and the 600 for the Royal Maritime Auxiliary Service, the repair and maintenance organisation employing nearly 3,000 people has found new confidence. The flexible arrangements negotiated with the trade unions mean, as I saw for myself on a recent visit, that the naval base people in green overalls work alongside the service men in blue overalls who work alongside private contractors in white overalls. If one speaks to the captain of any ship that docks there—already I have spoken with many—one hears praise for the service that they receive from the naval base and for the quality of the work.

233
Ship repair and maintenance for both naval and civilian purposes remains a difficult matter for guarantees in particular, but I should like the work force to be publicly assured that, for the foreseeable future, the Government's express commitment to a modern, capable escort force of about 50 frigates and destroyers, the mix of new orders and the extension of ships' lives that that entails, includes a leading future for the present arrangements at the Portsmouth naval base. I should like an assurance that the work force will be treated with frankness and kept well informed at regular intervals of what is expected of it, so that rumours that sap morale can never gain ground.
The second specific matter that I should like to raise is about Royal Navy numbers and sea-going commitments. It is well known—the Government make no secret of it—that reductions in uniformed strength of the Royal Navy since 1981 have led to some pressure on manpower. Is it not time for Wrens to have an opportunity to serve at sea? It should at least be part of the training. Let that be a goal for the 1990s. It would help with numbers and please a great many people.
The third and final matter that I should like to raise is the Royal Marines barracks at Eastney. Debates on the Defence Estimates are principally about money, or resources as they are delicately called. It is common knowledge that there is money to be raised from the redundant service property at Eastney. I am sure that I do not need to remind my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State or my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, who recently visited there, of the special affection that the people of Portsmouth have for the Royal Marines presence and in particular the Royal Marines band based at Eastney barracks. This year it is celebrating its 125th birthday. At 9 o'clock on Radio 4, Angela Rippon is introducing a programme that is helping to publicise that fact. Quite simply, it must remain. Also, there should be as wide a Royal Marines presence as possible, including facilities for cadets. It might be inconvenient, but the cadets are important. People have special affection for them, and there are opportunities at present for them in those barracks.
It is intended to preserve the finest buildings, including the magnificent Royal Marines museum, which I recommend anyone to visit. In addition, it would be sad for any part of the frontage to the sea, including the parade ground, to be developed. It should remain open space, and, what is more, a covenant should be included in any sale so that it can be preserved as such.
If one continues on a trip along the sea front—hon. Members are certainly coming on a trip with me now—one sees the naval playing fields, which are adjacent to the barracks. Although the playing fields are a separate issue, when they are sold there should be sensible provision for open space and recreation, particularly against the sea front. Future development at Eastney must take account of the strength of feeling among the people of Portsmouth about the tradition of the service's presence and the importance of open space in an area that is not too well provided with it. The Ministry of Defence has a tremendous opportunity at all times to contribute to the qualities I have mentioned.
While I am in this House I hope that I shall always be ready to take advice as well as to give it. I have taken the advice of the Duke of Wellington to a maiden speaker,
234
which was to say what one has to say, not to quote Latin and to sit down. That is precisely what I have done, what I have refrained from doing and shall now do.
7.21 pm
Mr. James Wallace: I congratulate the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Martin) on an eloquent maiden speech, and I am sure that all hon. Members wish to say how much we enjoyed it, and the way in which the hon. Gentleman displayed his knowledge of the defence issues that affect his constituency. I also thank him for the kind tribute he paid to his predecessor, Mike Hancock. Mike Hancock's work at two council levels shows that he has great commitment to that area. I am sure that the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South would be the first to accept that, while he walked away with the victor's laurels, Mike Hancock gave him a good run for his money.
The Secretary of State for Defence showed in his speech that he was a reader of Liberal News, but it would appear that he is a selective reader. So that these matters do not remain on the record and get used by Conservative Central office, it is necessary to correct the record. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is a democrat and as such will appreciate that, when a party is being set up on the basis of party membership democracy, it is not right to foist policies on it before the party has ever met. What I said in the report—the Minister did not accept this—was that we should agree on principles; we shall not be a new party without principles—far from it. As an avid reader of Liberal News, the Secretary of State can see those principles well set out in the speech made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Liberal party, which was duly reported in the edition of the week following the one from which the Secretary of State quoted.
Before I return to two key issues that have already been raised in the debate—the question of Trident and the costs of the defence budget—I wish to raise two matters that I know have been giving concern to hon. Members on both sides of the House. First, there is the issue of low flying aircraft. The fact that there have been a number of incidents—indeed, tragically, fatal accidents—during the summer months has led to grave concern being expressed, not least by those in areas in which there is a concentration of aircraft flying at very low altitudes.
Mr. Richard Livsey: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Minister should take on board the necessity to review low-flying procedures in this country at the present time? In particular, he should ban aircraft from flying at 100 ft or below in this country and have it done in Canada and the Falklands, where the facilities are available.
Mr. Wallace: Although the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces is not present, I know that he has given that matter some thought—he has had many representations on it—and I am sure he will have noted my hon. Friend's point, with which I entirely concur.
The second matter concerns the incidents—reported in the press—of new recruits to the services being brutally treated in many ways. I do not expect the Minister to refer to cases that have come to court and been dealt with by courts martial, but as one who was born and brought up in the recruitment area of the King's Own

235
Scottish Borderers, I may say that it was a matter of dismay to me that that fine regiment with its fine traditions should have had its reputation tarnished in such a way. I am sure that it is not the only regiment in which such incidents happen, and I hope we shall hear, tonight or tomorrow, what steps have been taken by the Ministry of Defence to root out such activities from our armed forces.
An issue that was dealt with in last Thursday's debate is that of the extent to which our so-called independent deterrent is independent. In that debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) set out the reasons that might conceivably he given for supporting an independent deterrent. The Liberal party has always rejected the deterrent as a purely national status symbol, and to adopt one on those grounds can lead to proliferation on a massive scale.
As the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) has already said, the underlying reason for an independent deterrent is that we cannot depend on the United States' guarantee. Although Ministers will never publicly admit it, one often finds even people that one could categorise as pro-Atlantists who will privately admit that it is that niggling fear at the back of their minds that causes them to want an independent deterrent. In recent years, that fear has been strengthened by the United States, which has adopted an outlook that is more Pacific than Atlantic. As we saw last year, President Reagan went to Reykjavik and almost reached agreement wth the Soviet Union on strategic nuclear weapons without, apparently, consulting his European and NATO allies beforehand. If that is the case, we are entitled to ask how independent the deterrent is.
The issue of the missile maintenance is clearly addressed in the Defence Estimates. Page 38 refers to
"the decision to process missiles at King's Bay, Georgia."
What came as a surprise to many last week was the fact that there was not going to be any corporeal missile that one could call the British deterrent. There was to be a pooling arrangement that raised questions about the extent to which we were to be technically independent if we were still to be politically independent.
In an earlier intervention during the Secretary of State's speech, I raised the matter of the report earlier this year by the Comptroller and Auditor General as touching the issue of whether or not the warheads will be entirely British-made and independent. The Secretary of State replied, clearly and unequivocally, that they would be British. That does not square with what the Auditor has said. Page 18 of the report states that there are
"four major areas: development, production, special (ie fissile) materials and capital items, although the last item accounts for only five per cent of the nuclear programme expenditure. Most of the development and production expenditure is incurred in the United States under the arrangements described in paragraphs 4·1 to 4·10". One assumes that there was close liaison when compiling that report with the Ministry of Defence; if so, it is a matter of concern to the House that a report from such a respected authority should make references that have been wholly denied by the Secretary of State. If we cannot have an explanation from the Minister in this debate as to why such a misunderstanding has taken place, I am sure that the Public Accounts Select Committee will devote its attention to the matter when it considers the report. Nevertheless, it all adds to uncertainty about how independent or dependent the deterrent is. If the essential ingredient of deterrence is to sow seeds of confusion and uncertainty in the minds of a possible aggressor. it seems to undermine the concept of defence if
236
there is uncertainty and doubt in our own minds. So the more the status of the missiles and warheads can he clarified and cleared up the better."
The subject of costs and the defence budget was explored at some length by the right hon. Member for Llanelli, but I make no apology for returning to the subject. It is at the heart of these Defence Estimates, and what they contain is important to the long-term defence planning of our country. The Secretary of State said that he regretted that there was no Select Committee this year to give useful guidance to our debate. I share his regret, although perhaps if the right hon. Gentleman had been frank he would have used the word "relief too, because in recent years the Select Committee on Defence has not minced its words about the decline of the defence budget in real terms. One assumes that it might well have done so again on this occasion.
Let us, however, give credit where it is due; a 3 per cent. per annum real increase in expenditure between 1979 and 1984 was an achievement by the Government, and perhaps one for which they have not received sufficient credit from their NATO allies. Now, however, we are in a period in which spending has been in decline, and that decline will apparently continue. The trend is downwards and there are no indications that it will be reversed. There are two main components, running costs and equipment. Service pay is a running cost. The Government say that they want to maintain competitive levels of pay and to their credit they have traditionally implemented in full the independent review body awards. Those awards will almost certainly continue at a level above the rate of inflation. Therefore, there may well be a real increase in costs that is not taken into account in the decrease in the budget as a whole.
One cannot get away from pensions and, because of the increases in pay over the last seven or eight years, pensions are bound to increase. The cost of the Meteorological Office is another running cost. It is the responsibility of the Ministry of Defence and, in the light of recent events, we are unlikely to see many economies being made there. Fuel is an important factor. Obviously, savings have been made as a result of the reduction in the price of oil and. while it is difficult to predict, a further fall in the price of oil seems unlikely. If anything, the price is edging up again. What one sometimes suspects, when one sees the amount in the budget allocated to fuel decreasing, is that training and exercises are being curtailed. That can only lead to a fall in morale.
The Defence Estimates say that there is concern about officers voluntarily leaving the service. The Estimates say that in general it is not critical. When a Government report says that in general it is not critical, one suspects that in certain particulars it is getting quite near to being critical. That is an aspect of the rundown in the budget beginning to affect morale, and it shows that certain training and exercise opportunities are being cut.
If we cannot make any savings on running costs, that inevitably means that the burden of the decrease in real terms will inevitably fall on the equipment budget. Regrettably, the Select Committee on Defence has not been in operation. I pay tribute to the work done by Mr. Malcolm Chalmers of the university of Bradford. He carried out a useful piece of work on a detailed breakdown of the analysis of the budget. He estimates that total spending on new equipment will fall by 25 per cent. in real terms between 1984–85 and 1989–90. If one excludes from

237
that the amount being spent on Trident, that decrease in real terms is nearer 35 per cent. That must have serious consequences for our air, land and sea defence systems.
What is the Government's response to that? Of course one can tinker at the edges and, as the Secretary of State for Defence says, one can try some prudent planning. The danger there is that, if one takes ad hoc decisions, one can take the wrong decisions, and decisions made out of necessity rather than as a result of some strategic forethought are not always necessarily the right decisions. There are other ways of trying to make savings. Common procurement, especially along with our European allies in NATO, has long been advocated by the Liberal party and savings could be made there. It has been suggested in some places that we should shop around. One suggestion is that rather than buy the European fighter aircraft we could buy American options.
These are important decisions that must be made and it is better that they are made with some idea of principle behind them, because if we find that we are buying increasingly from abroad it raises important questions about the kind of military industrial base that we want at home. That should be determined after some thought and not by the consequence at some later date of a series of ad hoc decisions.
The right hon. Member for Chertsey and Walton (Sir G. Pattie) made an important contribution to the debate when he spoke about research and development. Significantly, he said that research and development is getting out of phase with production. If one extrapolates current trends, one sees that it is not impossible that we could reach the stage at which more is spent on research and development than on producing the equipment that results from R and D. What company will maintain a high research and development budget if it does not get follow-on orders?
Some possible options have been canvassed. What is the future for our surface fleet? Will it be about 50 or will it go down to 40? Will the profile of the fleet have to change as ships are kept in service longer in order to put off the evil day when we will have to order more? Will there be a reduction in the number of orders for the European fighter aircraft? What should be the balance between the surface fleet and the submarine fleet? What should be our commitment out of area in places such as Belize, and what is our future in places such as the Falklands? What will happen if we have to meet difficulties that raise themselves in the Gulf?
The time has come to take a step back and work out exactly our commitment to NATO. Will we spread the jam thinly over a large number of options or focus resources in areas of expertise? If we do not work that out soon, the Secretary of State may get boxed in. We all know about his calm and nonchalant manner. It is the manner that he used time and time again when he told Scottish Members that it was totally impossible to have an independent pay review for teachers. However, two months after demitting office at the Scottish Office he saw his successor managing to do precisely that. If he looks for a pretext, he will find one.
We hope that, in the coming months, an INF agreement will be concluded. If we eliminate intermediate nuclear weapons from Europe, that will provide an opportunity for reassessment. One expects that that will be
238
a reassessment of strategy and will take into account not least the balance between conventional forces. Therefore, the Secretary of State has a pretext that will lose him little politically. The newspaper columns would chide him for a reassessment that was too late, but would say that he had done the right thing. If he announced it in the House, Opposition Members would have something of a field day and would crow and say that we told him so. I have never found the expression, "I told you so," a satisfying or telling political line. It is time the Secretary of State grasped the nettle, and he should do it sooner rather than later.
7.36 pm
Mr. Michael Mates: It is a particular pleasure for me to be the first on the Conservative Benches to congratulate my hon. Friend and political neighbour the Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Martin) on a quite excellent maiden speech. Not only has he done the world a service by returning that seat to its proper control, where it will long remain, I trust, but the House will have noted from what he said that he had already done his homework. He spoke with knowledge and authority about the major concern in his constituency, the Royal Navy and the Royal Marines. I am sure we look forward to hearing him contribute to many of our future defence debates.
As my hon. Friend said, it is a tradition of the House that one is relatively non-controversial in a maiden speech. Before we acquit him entirely of any charge that he might have breached that tradition, we had better take the blood pressure of the Admiralty Board tomorrow when it reads that he wants to put Wrens on board Her Majesty's ships. That does not quite come into the category of a non-controversial remark, but we will let that pass.
The motion relates to four reports of the former Select Committee of Defence as relevant subjects for debate. As I had the honour of chairing that Committee during the last months of the last Parliament, I hope that it will be helpful to the House if I relate one or two remarks to those reports. First, I shall deal with the Trident report, which is very short and to the point. The reply from the Government was even shorter and to the point because having looked, as we do every year, we found—not going into the merits of the decision that was discussed in a very full report some years ago—that the programme is on course, on time and on schedule and that all is well.
I had an exchange with the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies). I am sorry that he is not in his place because I would rather address my remarks to his face. I am grateful to him for his remarks about me. It is impossible not to regard him with a certain affection when, with his Welsh flair and fluency, he reconciles the irreconcilable among the various defence policies of his party. He balances the imbalanceable in trying to walk this tightrope, as any official defence spokesman for the Labour party has to do, because it is not those on the Benches opposite him who will be getting at him but his hon. Friends behind him. They are by far the greater danger to his position.
The only problem is that the right hon. Gentleman gets carried away with his fluency and is sometimes in danger of believing what he says. There is one tremendous flaw in his argument. He is completely obsessed with Trident and its effect on conventional defence. He is so obsessed that it clouds his judgment about what we are doing in terms of conventional defence. I shall quote one short remark from our Trident report because it might have

239
been written for him. I am sure that he did us the honour of reading it hut, unfortunately, he has not paid attention to it. I think that the Minister has accepted what we said. The report reads:
"The pressure on the defence budget has continued to grow, and the proportion devoted to equipment has been further squeezed as we anticipated in 1985. This might have been expected to increase the particular burdens imposed by Trident."
We put the next section in heavy black ink especially for the right hon. Member for Llanelli:
"However, the decline in Trident costs means that the changes more or less cancel each other out and the expected impact on the defence budget is very similar to the position in 1985."
Therefore, the right hon. Member for Llanelli is wrong when he says that the increasing Trident costs are having an ever greater effect on the conventional budget. That is not the case. In fact, the cost is slightly cheaper in relative terms because of exchange rates, arrangements made about servicing the missiles and other factors. If the right hon. Gentleman did his homework, he would find us listening to his arguments with more care and attention.
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, the dissolution of Parliament less than a fortnight after the publication of the statement in May meant that the Defence Committee could not carry out its usual survey of this year's White Paper. Those annual examinations have steadily increased in scope and detail over the years and I am grateful for what the Secretary of State said about the efforts of the Committee. The Committee has noticed over the years that the Ministry of Defence has cooperated admirably and increasingly in supplying it with a great deal of detailed evidence in a short time. However, we were able to put before the House just before the Dissolution a substantial report on the implementation of the lessons of the Falklands campaign. It covers almost every aspect of British conventional capability. The Government's reply to the report is also before the House. That report is one of four published by the Committee.
When the election was called the Committee found itself considerably over-stretched, and I would like to pay tribute to the members of the Committee for the immense amount of work done to get the reports agreed and published. That was not an easy matter. I should like to thank the Clerks and advisers who worked all hours to produce what I hope the House will think is a considerable volume of useful work.
We have no report on this year's statement, but we can look back to the report we produced a year ago. We said then, with the sense of warning that was contained first in our report on the consequences of giving up the 3 per cent. real increase, that
"management of the budget and improved efficiency alone will not avoid consequent cuts or delays, particularly on equipment."
We said that
"there is a risk of an adverse effect on operational capability, but not in itself amounting to the ending of a major role or commitment."
We also said that
"any further economies will have a direct effect on capability."
Had we been reporting again, we would not have found cause to change our warnings.
However, we have always tried to approach financial problems, not simply by seeking increased resources—although that would ease a number of the difficult choices that the Secretary of State is constantly telling us he faces
240
—but by seeking a matching of commitments to resources. We carried out an inquiry into expenditure and policy in each Session of the last Parliament. In each inquiry we formed the view that there was a mismatch between commitments and resources. The Ministry of Defence's traditional ways of dealing with that—salami slicing arid "managing" the budget—are, I regret, still much in evidence. That way of managing the budget can lead to a gradual degradation of capability, to the point where we may still be doing everything, but not very well. The Falklands report, which is relevant to the debate, identified some danger areas which we observed in our inquiry earlier this year.
Mr. Martin J. O'Neill: I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument closely, but I am having a wee bit of difficulty in finding exactly where he parts company with my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) because this is similar to the line of argument he was using. He said that because of the cuts and the impact of other items on the budget the items now being dwelt on by the hon. Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates) would be in danger. I do not see how far the hon. Gentleman is away from my right hon. Friend in the conclusions he is drawing.
Mr. Mates: I am a mile away from the right hon. Gentleman when we are talking about all of this being the fault of Trident. The right hon. Gentleman identified certain problems, and I am certain that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would not deny that the problems and challenges are there. However, unlike the right hon. Member for Llanelli, I may have something to say about one or two solutions. We heard nothing about that from the right hon. Gentleman.
The management of the defence budget by overcoming temporary difficulties, moving expenditure to the right and sacrificing long-term planning certainly for short-term financial expediency is always more expensive in the long run. A warship builder is one of many who will confirm that, whether in the context of frigate ordering or past choices such as shortening and then lengthening the type 42 destroyers, "management" always makes small savings at the margins but in the end the overall cost goes up. The small savings one can make year by year in allowances, track mileage and live firing practice, which are needed for fine tuning, have an impact on training and readiness and we need to watch that closely so that there is no overall degradation.
I shall now deal with expenditure on major defence projects and accountability to the House. We have always had difficulty in scrutinising defence expenditure and reconciling accountability and security. For some years, the Defence Committee has received the major projects statement, which is issued to the Public Accounts Committee. That lists projects costing more than £250 million. The Committee found that the threshold was far too high for its purposes and other characteristics of the statement meant that it was inadequate for the sort of scrutiny that the Defence Committee wanted to exercise.
In our first report of the previous Session we proposed a much more detailed system with much lower thresholds and a great deal more information. We were delighted that the Secretary of State accepted our proposals almost in their entirety. The first defence equipment project report will be submitted to the new Defence Committee between

241
April and June next year. I hope that the House will think that that is another step in the growing willingness in the Ministry of Defence to submit its plans and accountability to the Defence Committee.
Having said that, I shall make one or two brief remarks on my own account. The Committee does not exist, but there are some things I should say as someone who keeps an eye on defence matters. I have mentioned the increasing difficulty, admitted by the Ministry of Defence, in matching commitments with resources. In various debates in the past we have heard about the difficulty of trying to reduce commitments which, on occasions, tend to grow. When we made the initial plan five years ago the Falklands had not happened. That is a commitment we took up and keep, quite rightly, but it is an additional strain. Only a year ago the Armilla patrol consisted of two destroyers or frigates and one support ship. It is now considerably larger, one hopes temporarily. However, the strain increases.
Against that background is the Government's decision to allow real defence expenditure to fall slightly. That is tenable for the moment because of the tremendous efforts, which go unacknowledged by the Labour party, during those six years of real increase to bring the equipment up to date and increase it and to improve morale, pay and other things. That was a magnificent achievement by the Government and, therefore, we can take a short breathing space. However, now may be the moment to warn, as the Committee did last year, that the breathing space can only be short, otherwise the mismatch between commitment and resources is bound to grow. One can manage some of that by greater efficiency and better procurement. That is happening now but only at the margins.
What concerns me is that there is no sign that the Government, not the Ministry, have taken a strategic view on what must be put into our defence resources in the next four or five years. It is time that the Government did that, otherwise my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will have to tell us, honest as he always is, that there are some commitments that we will carry out so badly that they will be scarcely worth doing. I do not want to sound doom laden, but I am certain that we must reassess the direction of our strategic requirements for the next three or four years, and how we will find the resources to provide our services with the tools to do the job that they have done so outstandingly for the past seven or eight years and for many years before that.
One example is our totem of 50 frigates, to which the Secretary of State referred today. An article in "Jane's Defence Weekly" two or three weeks ago analysed the refit and repair programme and the new build programme. It alleged that in 1989 there would be 45 frigates. Is that not about 50? Is that not the most intelligent way of trying to share the problem? No one denies that there is a problem, but unless at some stage we are able to increase the resources that we can spare for defence, having taken this short breather, those totems will have to be reviewed. It would be better, not only from a military and planning point of view but from a political one, if the sooner we as a Government faced up to these problems the quicker we would be able to clear the air and see where we were going.
I have no doubt about the Government's determination to keep us properly defended, but I ask whether, having taken their eye off the ball for a moment, due to many
242
other pressing commitments, they are not allowing our ability to do the job that we have done so well for so many years to go by default. If that were to happen, it would be a great tragedy.
7.51 pm
Mr. Tony Benn: The hon. Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates) ended his speech with an open appeal for more resources for defence. My purpose is to put another question: on what basis is Britain spending over £18 billion per year on weapons of war and its armed forces?
The average family of four, before they have paid rent, bought food or had holidays, pay between £25 and £30 per week for weapons of war, which is three times greater than the amount that is spent on the fire, police and ambulance services combined. In 1986, the world spent £634 billion on defence. The cost of defence in real terms is two and a half times as large as it was in 1960. Does anybody in the House believe that the threat of war is two and a half times greater than it was in 1960? It has been estimated—these figures come from various sources—that everyone in this country will devote three or four years of their working lives to paying for defence, and £1 million spent a minute is the global figure.
I do not want to go behind these facts on technical grounds. I have listened to the speeches that have been made by experts and I recognise their knowledge. But I should like to ask, on what basis is this huge demand made on our people for the present defence programme? I know the answer very well, because the same answer has been given by every Government since the war—Labour as well as Conservative—and the argument broadly rests on three assumptions that are very rarely examined.
The first argument is that, were it not for this enormous defence expenditure, the Soviet Union would attack western Europe, take over France, Germany the Low Countries, Spain and Portugal, and would come here and in some way occupy Britain. In a letter to one of his constituents, the Secretary of State for the Environment said that if we did not have the bomb, the Russians would be here now.
The second argument is that America speaks for freedom, democracy and human rights all over the world and is our natural ally. The third argument is that the bomb makes one safer.
I should like to use this debate to invite the House to consider whether those assumptions are correct, because I do not believe that any of them are. I do not believe for one moment that the Soviet Union has ever planned a military attack on western Europe.
Mr. Mates: What about Berlin?
Mr. Benn: There has never been any evidence whatsoever that the Soviet Union was planning to attack western Europe after the war.
Mr. Mates rose—
Mr. Nicholas Bennett rose—
Mr. Benn: I remind the House that during the war the Soviet Union was our ally. During the election campaign I met a lady of my own age, who said to me, "Mr. Benn, we must have the bomb because we fought the Russians in the last war and we may have to fight them again." I thought that that was a brilliant example of the cold war propaganda that the Conservative party and the BBC have

243
been feeding us. But the fact is that at no stage since the war has any evidence been submitted of Soviet intentions to attack western Europe.
Mr. Mates: What about Berlin and the airlift blockade?
Mr. Benn: The hon. Gentleman is well aware that the tripartite status of Berlin led to an argument about the rights or wrongs of the currency reform that allegedly triggered the Berlin airlift. But there was no question whatsoever that the tripartite status of Berlin and its blockade was an act of preparation for war against the west and at the time it was never presented as such.
Mr. Bennett rose—
Mr. Benn: I will not give way immediately.
Some 50 years ago, Lord Halifax went to see Hitler. The captured German Foreign Office documents revealed the view of the pre-war Conservative Government. On 19 November 1937, Lord Halifax said:
"The great services the Fuhrer had rendered in the rebuilding of Germany were fully and completely recognised, and if British public opinion was sometimes taking a critical attitude towards certain German problems, the reason might be in part that people in England were not fully informed."
The Soviet Union must have known perfectly well what we knew. My right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) wrote a book entitled "Guilty Men" under the assumed name of Cato. He drew attention to the fact that in 1939, up until the last minute, the British Conservative and National Government, as one must call it, were building up Hitler, and the Russians have not forgotten that. Of course, the Russians also lost some 20 million people in the war. I am putting a point of view which I know will not be accepted by Tory Members, but I hope that the House of Commons is still a place where a point of view can be put. I do not believe that the Soviet Union has ever intended or prepared to attack western Europe.
As a member of the Cabinet I remember some fake figures being produced by the Ministry of Defence. I do not know whether that still occurs, but it did when my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent was in the Cabinet. I think that it was he who spotted them; I certainly did not. The figures showed an enormous preponderance of Soviet forces, but it turned out that the French forces were not included in them. Somebody said, "Where are the French?" I think that it was my old friend, Fred Mulley, who was then the Minister, who said, "The French are not part of the military part of NATO." It was as if we did not know what side the French would fight on in the event of a war. I accuse successive Ministry of Defence officials of misleading us on the military balance.
The reality of the matter is that Russian troops in Russia are included in the figures but American troops in the United States are not. Mothballing is not allowed for and the estimates of the costs of the Soviet armed forces are based on estimates of what it would cost to build them in the United States, where wages are a lot higher.
Sir Antony Buck rose—
Mr. Benn: May I finish this point before I give way to another former Defence Minister who is straining at the leash to demonstrate his knowledge, which I would not dispute for a moment?
We have been misled on the main reason for this enormous expenditure.
Sir Antony Buck: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why his argument did not prevail with the last Labour Administration, who thought it right to update our nuclear deterrent without telling the House? That Administration brought in Chevaline to update the very deterrent which the right hon. Gentleman now decries.
Mr. Benn: I shall deal with that question soon, but for a full account the hon. and learned Gentleman will have to wait for the appropriate volume, which will be coining out some years from now.
The impact that Mr. Gorbachev has on British opinion is underestimated. I never follow disarmament negotiations in detail because I have always thought them to be a propaganda exercise, but I can tell hon. Members why Gorbachev has registered with British opinion. It is because he wants cuts in defence to divert money to raise living standards for the Soviet people. That is what most people in Britain want. It is astonishing that more people today approve of Gorbachev's Russia and its role in the world than of Reagan's America. That is without a single political leader from any Front Bench saying any such thing.
With respect to some of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I must say that one of the reasons why we found it difficult to put our defence policy across during the election campaign was that we never dealt with the question of the Soviet threat. We said that we would keep the Russians out with more conventional weapons. That made it much harder to put across the peace argument in which many people, in their hearts, believe.
The second question concerns America speaking for freedom and democracy all over the world. I confess that I was born in 1925 into an empire when 600 million people were governed from this Chamber. The first time that I came here in 1937 I saw Winston Churchill sitting where the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter) is now sitting. He was the old imperialist. For him there was no question of human rights in the British empire. We ran it from London. There was no question of votes in India or any of that stuff because everything was run from London. As a little boy of five, I met Mr. Gandhi when he came to London and my father had been Secretary of State for India. A British journalist asked Mr. Gandhi what he thought about civilisation in Britain and Gandhi said, "I think it would be a very good idea." That is how the empire was run. Having been horn in an empire, I would have to be very naive not to recognise another empire when it looms up out of the fog. America is an empire.
I accept that it now operates through treaties, but America has 850,000 troops abroad—more than we ever had. America has 3,000 bases around the world and 135 of them are here, housing 30,000 troops. I do not wish to be misunderstood. Empires behave like that, but an empire that fought in Vietnam, attacked Cuba, toppled the Chilean Government, invaded Grenada, supported the colonels in Greece and Franco in Spain and still supports the Turkish regime, is plainly not committed to human rights. It is committed, as all empires are, to the defence of its political and economic interests worldwide.
Iran is most interesting. The Americans toppled Mossadek, probably the first incorruptible leader in Iran. They got the Shah back and when he died they pushed Khomeini in. There is no doubt that the Americans. thought that a fundamentalist Muslim leader would be the best safeguard against Communism. Then Teheran was

245
attacked; the Americans supplied arms to both sides. That is what Irangate was about. Now the Americans support Iraq and they are about to impose an arms embargo. At every stage, American policy has been motivated by the protection of America's interests.
The other day, I met a former Egyptian Minister in Algiers. He said that, during the crusades, European arms manufacturers supplied arms to Richard the Lionheart and Saladin. That has been going on for centuries. People pursue their own interests. I object to the pretence that empires are somehow vested with a sacred responsibility for safeguarding liberty.
I am concerned about American troops here, because there is no agreement as to their use. I doubt whether there is a written agreement at all. One of the worst things that was done after the war was to allow American bases here. That was allowed by a Labour Government. Parliament was told that they were training bases, but they were not. They were permanent. There is no effective control over the American bases.
Next year, I believe, the Government will ask us to celebrate the 300th anniversary of the Glorious Revolution, a celebration with which I am not in sympathy. But Parliament said then that we would never have a standing army. Today we do have a standing army—which we do not control—on our territory. One must not assume that the friendship, blood, sympathy and common language that bring us close to America will remain for ever. Far from accelerating the process of freedom of democracy, I believe that that could be a threat to British interests.
Mr. Bill Walker: The right hon. Gentleman will remember clearly that the United States air force went back to the United States when the war ended and returned here only because of the blockade of Berlin.
Mr. Benn: I said that the US air force was brought back by a Labour Government but that at the time the bases were not presented as being permanent. I shall say more about the post-war Government later.
The third argument is that nuclear weapons make one safer. In 1945, there were three nuclear weapons; today there are 60,000.
Mr. Martin Flannery: I have sought in vain for the American troops in this country. I know that they are in various places, but we almost never see an American soldier in uniform. There is a reason—because, basically, our people do not want them here. If Conservatives have seen American troops, let them tell me where, because I can never find any.
Mr. Benn: It is true that American troops are given instructions to wear civilian clothes outside the bases, so that people are not aware of their massive presence.
There were three nuclear weapons in 1945 and now there are 60,000–enough to inflict 1 million Hiroshimas on the world. Those hon. Members who have been to Hiroshima, as I have, will have seen the museum and its exhibits and will know that the overkill in the armouries of the world in nuclear weapons cannot conceivably be justified by any military arguments.
Britain has never had an independent nuclear deterrent that could be fired without the consent of the United
246
States President. That was first brought out by Harold Wilson in an early speech as Prime Minister in 1964. We could not communicate with the Americans at the time without the American underwater telecommunications system. If our weapons were fired and the Americans chose to jam the signals, they could not land anywhere except where they came from. We have fought nine or ten general elections around the argument whether we should or should not have a nuclear deterrent, when we do not have one. That came out, and that was probably why the Zircon film was not allowed to be shown.
In return for being allowed to borrow these weapons on the "Calor gas" principle, the United States controls the entire intelligence system. I know that from my experience as a Minister. I had to go to Washington to seek the consent of the United States Administration on certain key questions that were central to our nuclear policy.
The reason why the trade unions were taken out of GCHQ was that the Americans, having supported us in the Falklands, did not want it to be known what GCHQ was doing.
The next argument is about Chernobyl, which proved beyond any doubt that, if we dropped one of our bombs on the Russians, it would kill us and that if the Russians dropped a bomb on us it would kill them. Radioactivity has not yet learnt the validity of international frontiers. To go on piling up these weapons when we know that if they were used anywhere they would kill people over such a large area is an act of insanity. The next one to go off will almost certainly be an accident. We should also now know why we have pressurised water reactors. The Americans cannot build civil nuclear power stations. We are required to build PWRs to produce plutonium for their use.
The very possession of nuclear weapons has significantly destroyed parliamentary democracy in Britain. Clement Attlee, whom I deeply admired, misled Parliament. He did not tell Parliament or, as far as I know, his Cabinet that the atomic bomb was being built. I was a Government Back Bencher at the end of the 1945 Government and I remember Churchill coming to power and announcing that an atomic bomb had been built secretly. The same was true of Chevaline. From out of the lies which are held, on security grounds, to surround nuclear matters, we have the Cathy Massiters, the Pontings and the Peter Wrights who tell us more than we are allowed to know as Members of Parliament.
If we continue with the public deception which is implicit in the possession of nuclear weapons, we shall destroy what nuclear weapons are there to defend. These arguments—whether or not people agree with them—should be discussed publicly and considered seriously.
Mr. Nicholas Bennett: The right hon. Gentleman talks about the last Labour Government, of whom he and the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) were members. The right hon. Member for Chesterfield was also a member of the 1964–70 Government. Why did he not ever resign during those 11 years when the Labour Government were committed to nuclear weapons?
Mr. Benn: If the hon. Gentleman has ever followed any of the points I have ever made, he will realise not only that Attlee did not tell the Cabinet about the atomic bomb but that the Chevaline project was authorised by two or three Cabinet members without the rest of Cabinet knowing. I hope that the House will give me credit, because I have not

247
tried to use these arguments to belittle or mock any member of any party. I have tried to address my mind to the underlying assumptions on which we are asked to take £18 billion from the British people next year. If we cannot look back and say, "We made mistakes"—I suppose that I must have made an enormous number myself—what is Parliament about? Are we to go through life saying, "I never learnt anything. I was always right, always right"? It is from one's mistakes that one learns what to do next. If this debate is not about that, we may as well pack up the House of Commons.
We are living in a time when there is a better hope of peace than at any time since 1945, during which I served for a short period on an aircraft carrier in the constituency of the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Martin). I believe that Gorbachev is authentic because he wants for his people what we should want for ours. That point has registered with our people. The bloc system freezes initiatives. If we want to speak to the Hungarians, we have to have a word with Reagan to have a word with Gorbachev to have a word with the Hungarians and the Poles have to do the same to talk to the Portuguese. This bloc system in Europe has prevented us from developing unity through direct links which are necessary. Now, to be launching into a huge programme of nuclear weapons in space—star wars—is an act of sabotage, and Mr. Gorbachev is right to bring that point into the INF discussion.
I have come to believe—this is an old belief which was argued, in one shape or form, by Aneurin Bevan at the end of the war in respect of the third force—that it would benefit this country and its people if we pursued a policy of non-alignment. It would be better if we did not have any American troops in Britain, not merely have no nuclear weapons. It would be better if some countries—Britain is a middle-sized country—devoted their not inconsiderable diplomatic efforts to bridging the gap between Moscow and Washington. We should not just be a pawn of American policies. Resources should be diverted to solving practical problems.
Two nights ago, I heard on the BBC about a crane to lift Trident out of the water—the biggest civil engineering problem in Britain. I think that £700 million is being spent on a crane. There are hospitals with long waiting lists and numerous problems face people in the inner cities, yet we are pouring money into nuclear weapons. The Government cannot justify that any more. Twenty million people die every year in the Third world for lack of a dirt road, a simple clinic, a pump or a pipe, yet we sit in this House and accept that the "Reds" would he here if the Secretary of State for Defence did not have a hire purchase agreement on a Trident system, which he cannot use without Reagan switching on the communications network. President Reagan probably would not dare let the right hon. Gentleman use it. If the Americans do not want to use the system themselves, they would not let us do so and embroil them in war.
There are more emperors with fewer clothes on the Conservative Benches then there can have been for a very long time. It is time someone pointed that out plainly and clearly. This Government's defence policies and the assumptions on which the policies of previous Governments—including those of which I have been a member—have rested need to be re-examined. If a person is wrong, he must not be ashamed to admit it or, at any rate, to examine whether the original idea may have
248
been right. There is a time of hope. History would never forgive us if we did not seize this moment, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent said in a powerful speech and as Churchill said we should in 1953, when Stalin died. Churchill said that we must explore a new prospect at the summit. We must do that now. To vote for this expenditure would run counter to everything that is necessary. I hope that the House supports the Labour amendment and also votes against the Estimates as a whole.
8.16 pm
Dr. Alan Glyn: I am sure that the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) will forgive me if I do not follow his argument, although, curiously, there are some points on which I share his opinion.
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, this debate is about deterrence and diplomacy. The Government have displayed both in all their actions. Page 20 of the Defence Estimates shows this country's international obligations and all the posts which we have to defend. The defence White Paper is a comprehensive study of our defences and those of our Soviet adversaries. If we look at the details carefully, we can reach no other conclusion than that, without the nuclear deterrent, we could not possibly hold the line. It is the last resort and—here I differ from the right hon. Member for Chesterfield—until we arrive at a satisfactory, comprehensive agreement, our only method of defence.
The Territorial Army is our second line of defence. Although the strength of the Territorial Army and all the reserves has increased, there is a great difficulty with employers. It might be in the Government's interests in preserving the reserve forces to induce or compel employers to release men to fulfil what is a necessary reinforcement in a modern war. We know that our Territorial Army can be moved fairly rapidly, but it takes a long time for the Americans to bring over their reserves. We should give more thought to the Territorial Army, especially to the relationship of reservists with their employers. Small firms face difficulties because it may be difficult to replace only one man, but large employers, such as ICI, should be induced, encouraged or compelled to allow men to do their service.
My second point concerns the Merchant Navy, which is dealt with on page 29. I note that we can obtain people for it in times of war, but with a declining Merchant Navy, what powers have we to requisition ships in time of war? For example, can we requisition British ships serving under a flag of convenience? If we cannot, we shall find ourselves extremely short of transport. We all know that the Merchant Navy is declining and our next line of approach would have to be to requisition ships. What are the restrictions and limitations on requisitioning British ships which do not carry our flag?
We must retain Trident until we have a satisfactory disarmament agreement. Whatever the right hon. Member for Chesterfield says, we have an independent nuclear deterrent which has kept the peace for a very long time. The United States' interests and our own may not be the same which makes it even more important that we should have an independent Trident. It would be perfectly understandable if Mr. Gorbachev wanted to drive a wedge between Great Britain and the United States. He would

249
find it difficult but nevertheless, if I were him, that is exactly what I would try to do because it would cripple our defences.
In one respect I agree with the right hon. Member for Chesterfield. Gorbachev is rather like Lenin: he wants to convert the Soviet Union into a country with strong agricultural and industrial economies. He understands the dangers of a nuclear war, which would completely destroy his own country, and he wants to concentrate on spending money not on armaments but on developing his country. That is a laudable view. However, we should remember that that is what Lenin tried to do at the beginning but that his efforts were stamped upon when Stalin took power from Trotsky. As I said earlier, at the beginning Lenin imported American tractors and technicians to develop his country, but the process was stopped when Stalin came along.
Mr. Tony Banks: With great respect, the hon. Gentleman is almost old enough to remember this. While Lenin was trying to develop the Russian economy, this country was maintaining an economic strangulation of Russia. In many ways, we are responsible for what happened after Lenin. The hon. Gentleman must remember that. It is history.
Dr. Glyn: I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's philosophy that we are responsible for what happens in Russia. I am sure that he would agree that there were other economic factors that stopped the Americans assisting Russia. They did so for a short time during Trotsky's era. Stalin stamped on the arrangements and the whole of the new economic policy was abandoned.
Mr. Banks: Lenin wanted Trotsky.
Dr. Glyn: Whether he wanted Trotsky or not, Stalin did not. That is what happened. It is historical fact.
Gorbachev obviously wants to get his country on its feet and his only way of doing that is to cut down on arms. However, I still admire the stand taken by the United States in its refusal to be pushed into a hasty agreement. Any agreement must be mutual and verifiable and the United States is right to hold back.
An agreement that did not include chemical and biological weapons would be of no value whatever because such weapons are now so sophisticated that they are capable of overcoming completely any conventional force. Without a nuclear deterrent—and all of us want to get rid of nuclear weapons—chemical and biological weapons are as great a danger. They can be hidden. Verification would be difficult as it is extremely difficult to trace such weapons with satellites. It can only be done by on-the-spot verification. They have to be physically inspected. Any arms agreement that we reach with the Soviet Union must be accompanied by verification.
Chernobyl represents a great lesson. It taught Russia the dangers of atomic warfare and gave the world a sharp shock. If Chernobyl, an industrial accident, had such effects, what on earth would happen if there was a military nuclear incident? Chernobyl has accelerated the desire of all countries to arrive at a reasonable solution to the nuclear threat.
We must maintain our defences—both nuclear and conventional—so that if we are challenged at any time
250
we shall be capable of defending ourselves alone if necessary. At the same time, we must seek a real and verifiable agreement on all arms.
8.26 pm
Mr. John McAllion: I was surprised to hear the Secretary of State refer to the electorate having massively endorsed the Government's nuclear-centred defence policy. That is not a credible position for an intelligent person to take. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, only 42 per cent. of those who voted at the election voted for the Government's defence policies. Moreover, the remark is most surprising, coming as it does from a right hon. Member who represents a Scottish constituency. He knows that in Scotland more than 50 per cent. of those who voted, voted for parties who put forward clear non-nuclear defence policies. Indeed, the Secretary of State for Defence will remember that in his constituency he turned a seat where there was a massive Tory majority into a close marginal. He is not in a position to speak about massive electoral endorsements of anything.
To most people on this planet the control of the nuclear arms race would seem to be a very desirable objective, especially when we remember that we already have 60,000 nuclear weapons deployed by both sides of the East-West divide and that more weapons are being added to the massive stockpiles with every passing year.
It may be true that we have witnessed better relations between East and West in recent years. However, on the ground, the reality has been that each side has been making wide-ranging increases in its nuclear forces. That is very disquieting. Indeed, the leaders of the two super-powers have repeatedly acknowledged the dangers and the inherent political instability created by the growing stockpiles of nuclear weapons. For example, in the communiqúe issued at the beginning of the Geneva summit in 1985, the objectives were spelt out clearly by both the United States and the Soviet Union. The first was the prevention of an arms race in space. The second was the termination of the arms race on earth and the third was the strengthening of the strategic stability between the two super-powers by limiting and eventually eliminating existing stocks of nuclear weapons. Those were the goals which the super-powers set themselves at the beginning of 1985 and which they have pursued through the famous meeting in Reykjavik and beyond: to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and to limit, and ultimately eliminate, them. Those are the aims which sensible world leaders have pursued and continue to pursue. Over the past few years the world leaders have continued to link the need to maintain security to the improvement of strategic stability between the super-powers and to link the improvement of strategic stability to the reduction and elimination of nuclear arms and the nuclear arms race.
It is therefore infinitely depressing to find the British Government's defence policy set out in terms which, far from decreasing dependence on nuclear weapons, would increase that dependence. Indeed, if carried to its logical conclusion, the Government's policy would lead to an ever-increasing proliferation of nuclear weapons around the world. While both the Soviet Union and the United States search for agreement on deep cuts in both missiles and warheads and look towards the ultimate goal of comprehensive nuclear disarmament, the British

251
Government refuse to join them and continue to insist that nuclear weapons are essential for the achievement and maintenance of national security.
There are many ways in which the Government are failing the British people through their rigidly nuclear-centred approach to defence policy, but I shall concentrate on just a few.
First, the Government seek to distort an immensely complex debate for their own narrow political ends. The nuclear stand-off in today's world is essentially a bilateral one between East and West, the Warsaw pact and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. Equally, if nuclear disarmament is to be achieved it will be achieved on the basis of bilateral moves by both sides. No one really expects anything else. The question is where to place Britain's allegedly independent nuclear deterrent in that bilateral process.
The Government seem to want to have it both ways. At one moment our weapons are supposed to be fully integrated into NATO's nuclear weaponry as out contribution to its nuclear strategy and a component in NATO's deterrent stance against the Warsaw pact. The next moment, however, it is apparently something completely different because we are told that Britain's nuclear weapons are not to be counted in the bilateral process. The Prime Minister regards them as completely separate from NATO's nuclear strategy and says that it is vital to keep our independent nuclear deterrent no matter what is agreed between the super-powers. That is a strange position for any Government to adopt. Either our defence policy is based on membership of NATO or it is not. Either our weapons are our contribution to NATO's overall nuclear strategy or they are not. The Government seem to have two separate and distinct defence policies, one looking to membership of NATO as the best means of maintaining the security of our people, the other placing little or no faith in NATO and arguing for our own independent deterrent as an insurance against the day when that Alliance fails.
The Government's second policy is clearly nonsense. If and when the collective security of the West fails, there is no fall-back position for any individual nation within the Alliance. In this nuclear age, if collective security fails every nation will suffer. The Government are well aware of that, but they continue to use the independent nuclear deterrent argument because it suits their political purposes. For instance, it allows them entirely to mislead the British people about the option of a non-nuclear defence role for Britain within NATO. Such a role would not be equivalent to one-sided disarmament. That is effectively to argue for the abandonment of NATO as our basic defence posture. Many members of NATO, including Canada, already fulfil a non-nuclear role within the Alliance. Britain could do the same without in any way weakening NATO's general stance. If Britain joined Canada and the other non-nuclear states in NATO, the world would he that much safer, political stability between East and West that much steadier and the nuclear stand-off between East and West significantly less dangerous.
Ultimately, the Government's betrayal of the real security interests of the British people lies in their pursuit of policies which undermine our security despite the Government's boast that their policies are preserving the peace. Their claim that nuclear weapons have preserved the peace in Europe for the past 40 years is at least
252
debatable. What is not debatable, but patently absurd, is their claim that nuclear weapons can continue to preserve peace in perpetuity, world without end.
Equally unviable is the Government's claim that as we cannot disinvent nuclear weapons we must learn to live with and, indeed, to love them. Taken seriously, that means that it is only a matter of time before nuclear war breaks out, whether it be by accident or design or due to the overwhelming pressures on political leaders in an infinitely complex world. If a sovereign state such as Britain can defend itself only by independently possessing and threatening to use nuclear weapons, every sovereign state must follow that course. That will mean an infinitely dangerous situation with nuclear proliferation throughout the world, including danger spots such as the Gulf, the Middle East and Afghanistan. What price world security if other nations follow the Government's line?
Conservative Members are fond of citing the appeasement of the 1930s to prove that we must ann now to prevent war later. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) pointed out, it was a Tory Government who were guilty of that appeasement in relation to Fascism. In any case, those who use that argument miss the real point. The analogy today is not with the period before the second world war but with the period before the first world war. Then, as now, Europe was divided into two armed and mutually hostile camps engaged in an escalating and, ultimately, dangerous arms race. Unlike then, however, we now have a nuclear arms race which threatens the very existence of our planet. We cannot allow that arms race to run its natural course towards the outbreak of another war because that war must be a nuclear war. Our priority must therefore be to wind down and eventually halt the nuclear arms race. That is only common sense and it is well understood by the vast majority of national leaders around the world. It is an enduring tragedy for this country that the British Government are one of the few exceptions. The nuclear objective that transfixes the Government makes us all less safe, more vulnerable and, ultimately, more poorly defended.
As a number of Opposition Members have said, the opportunity exists for a real wind-down of the nuclear arms race and a real reduction in the number of nuclear arms held by various states around the world. If the Government were truly serving the interests of the British people, they would do all in their power to ensure that that opportunity is not missed, but their conduct of defence policy suggests that they are doing their best to ensure that that opportunity will, indeed, be missed.
8.38 pm
Mr. Bill Walker: First, I welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury)) to his new job at the Ministry of Defence. We are delighted to see him on the Treasury Bench.
I was interested by much of what the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) said. He suggested that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had no right to make the comments that he did. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Labour party's defence policy was one reason why Labour lost the general election. That election was for membership of this House. The Labour party lost it and we won it. That is why the hon. Gentleman sits on the Opposition side and I on the Government side.

253
The hon. Gentleman's analogy of the current position with that prior to the first world war is interesting. Many of us would not disagree that the forces opposing each other were of such a nature that, perhaps, war had to break out. However, perhaps he would now reflect on why only one continent on this planet has remained free from war since 1945, even though the forces have been ideologically opposed to each other, hated each other and often did not speak to each other. There is only one continent that has remained free from war for 40 years despite those factors, and that is western Europe. The reason for that is clear—it is that each side has deterred the other. Although we may argue about the detail, surely no one doubts that. Had that been the case in other parts of the world, it is possible that wars could have been avoided there also. [Interruption.] Hon. Members may find it amusing, but some of us fought in the wars and wished that a deterrent had been in place so that there could have been peace rather than war. We all want peace. The question is whether the Opposition's recipe—and I do not doubt their integrity and belief—could produce the same answers that have existed in western Europe for the past 40 years. That is the major doubt, and that is why the Opposition lost the election.
I remind the hon. Member for Dundee, East that the independent deterrent gives a second area of decision making. While the Soviets retain a nuclear capability, it is—and I want the House to note this—at least prudent for the United Kingdom also to do so. The lessons of history tell us that.
Mr. McAllion: The hon. Gentleman said that while the Soviet Union retained nuclear weapons it would be prudent for Britain to do so. Does he then suggest that all other independent Governments should retain nuclear weapons while the Soviet Union retains them?
Mr. Walker: That is not what I said. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we helped to invent the nuclear bomb and that, post-1945, a Labour Government decried that we should have that capability, and we have had it ever since. That is why it is prudent.
I am sorry that right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) is not in his place. He said that more people in the world believed in Mr. Gorbachev than in President Reagan. I do not find that surprising. More than four fifths of the member states of the United Nations are not democracies. Therefore, it would be incredible if we claimed that the leaders of the mass of the world—and I phrase this carefully—were supportive of the United States. We must not expect them to be because their regimes are quite different from democracies. It is not in their interests for democracy to spread through their areas because that would threaten their regimes and their leaders. Therefore, although I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman, I disagree on how he extrapolates the information. It is astonishing that Opposition Members should think that Conservative Members are not in favour of a reduction in nuclear weapons. We are. However, reductions must be properly balanced, and we support the way that that is being achieved by the United States in its negotiations.
I come now to an area in which I have a particular interest, and I declare that interest as I am an officer of the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve. I wish to speak
254
mainly about the Royal Air Force and how it is affected by the defence White Paper and other matters. First, I shall deal with the issue of low-flying aircraft. Every hon. Member has, at some time or another, dealt with complaints about noisy, low-flying aircraft. The question often asked is why it is necessary. I want to place on record why I believe that it should continue. Flying low and fast is an essential part of RAF training. If pilots are to be effective in a hostile environment against an enemy equipped with modern, electronic and radar equipment and with surface-to-air missile and gun capability, the only way to survive is to avoid detection and evade the anti-aircraft missiles and shells. That calls for flying skills of a very high order. It will be too late to attempt to achieve those skills once hostilities have begun.
We must recognise that we have a limited capability, a limited number of expensive aircraft and a limited number of very expensively trained pilots. If we lose many of them in the first days of hostilities that will be bad for them and for the country as a whole. Of course, there is the additional deterrent value of making it clear to any potential enemy that RAF pilots are highly skilled, professionally trained and capable of surviving and carrying out their assigned tasks in a war.
Everyone in the country wants effective defence forces. Everyone recognises the need for regular and continuous low and fast flying training exercises. Therefore, I believe that the community view can be summed up as, "Yes, but not in my backyard, thank you very much". A great deal of nonsense is talked about the accident rate. It is important to put on record that last year was the best accident year for the RAF for a long time—although we would not think so from some of the publicity—and that this year appears to be equally as good. Those who remember the RAF's accident record when jet aircraft were first introduced must realise that the current accident record is tiny in comparison.
Mr. Jimmy Hood: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us the number of pilots killed in the low-flying exercises that he was praising earlier?
Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman has not been in the House long enough to know that when I arrived here I was strapped to a metal cage because I had hit the ground rather hard in one of Her Majesty's flying machines. Anyone who does that sort of work recognises the risk it involves. Indeed, there is risk when driving on our roads. Unfortunately, there will be accidents and people will be killed, but that does not deter people from driving on the roads. More importantly, it should not deter us from doing what is absolutely essential for our defence capability. The RAF pilots accept that. They are courageous, brave and skilled people and we should be proud of them. I certainly am.
Mr. Rogers: The figures for the deaths of RAF personnel can be found on page 46 of the Estimates. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will accept that Opposition Members have paid great tribute to the skill and bravery of our young pilots. However, we feel that some of the exercises carried out at 100 ft and 500 mph do not allow for any skill element. Indeed, they are all one-off flights, and a bird strike, mechanical failure or temporary aberration of the pilot could mean that a very expensive piece of equipment is lost, that highly skilled pilots, who cost more than £3 million to train, are killed and that

255
families are bereaved. All that the Opposition question is not whether the pilots should undergo low-flying training, but whether they should undergo it at such desperately low levels and high speeds. When I reply to the debate tomorrow I hope to develop that point further.
Mr. Walker: Obviously, the hon. Gentleman has made an attempt to study the matter. He will realise that the difference between survival and non-survival in a hostile operational environment is a capability to fly at heights of less than 100 ft. In a hostile environment, the capability of pilots and aircraft are at risk. Aircraft and pilots must be capable of operating effectively. There are limited areas in which aircraft can fly at 100 ft. The hon. Gentleman will know that the areas for low flying are clearly defined; that is to say, levels below 200 ft. It is essential that pilots are trained to fly at such levels, otherwise they will not survive in a hostile environment. The hon. Gentleman should realise that, for that reason, Argentine pilots were able to fly low and fast. That is the best example of why we must avoid the surface-to-air capability of a modern land force.
Much has been written and said about the Tornado. Recently, I saw a programme about it. Will my hon. Friend the Minister confirm that the radar problems of the ADV version of the Tornado have been overcome and that the aircraft will be able to execute its tasks? I believe that they are capable of doing so, but I should like to have it confirmed.
Recently, I read about proposals to change the RAF's role in helicopter support for the Army. There have been suggestions that there may be advantages in transferring such capability to the Army. On paper, that may look to be so, but I remind the House that the RAF pilots who fly helicopters do so after having been selected for pilot training. During their training, many were found to be more suitable to flying helicopters than fast jets. Consequently, if the Royal Air Force loses the ability to transfer its pilots, it could mean a large loss of skilled, competent pilots. If we find that we can train only for fast jet operations, I suggest that pilot training would substantially increase. In other words, we shall have to train many more pilots. There would be a higher rate of wastage and the nation would lose. There is no substantive case for taking the helicopter support role from the Royal Air Force. Any savings would be more than offset by the costs associated with the loss of pilots.
We have come to respect the high professional standards and courage of the crews of search and rescue helicopters. Many people in the Scottish Highlands, whom I represent, and many others around our coasts are thankful for being rescued, often in conditions which are right at the edge of helicopter operational capability. Any attempt to privatise such capability will put at risk the ability of the RAF to respond to its operational needs throughout the world. The real value to the Royal Air Force of search and rescue helicopters lies with trained crews who, by the very nature of their constant duties, are kept at a high standard of professional ability. In addition, I doubt whether any savings will be made. The RAF would still be required to provide the best facilities, and most certainly would be required to give back-up facilities to any privatised search and rescue helicopter capability. Such a transfer of capability would be a mistake. The people of Scotland would certainly not support it. Any
256
consequent savings may be cosmetic, but the loss of aircrew in a constant state of operational readiness would be catastrophic during an international crisis.
I now refer to Tucano flying training. How far has the programme slipped? Does my hon. Friend know what effect it is having? What extra costs are involved in keeping Jet Provosts in service? I compliment the manufacturer of the Tucano. I have been critical of the Tucano, but during the recess I had an opportunity to visit the manufacturer. I was able to see the modifications that have been carried out—the new engine, the re-designed wing and the alterations to the front end of the aircraft, the undercarriage and the exhausts. All such modifications must have been expensive. Of course, as the Royal Air Force bought the aircraft at a fixed price, I imagine that the manufacturer is bearing the costs. The aircraft now looks like an effective trainer.
The men and women in our services are its greatest asset. They are supported by their spouses and families. Unless families are content with service life—in other words, unless their quarters and so on are maintained at a reasonable level—they can become unhappy, and that can affect morale. I should like an assurance that the modernisation and maintenance of married quarters are being given a high priority.
Reference has been made to territorials, auxiliaries and reserves. I agree that we must make greater attempts to ensure that employers grant time off for all those who serve their country. The role of reserves, territorials and auxiliary units—particularly the reserves and auxiliaries in the Royal Air Force—have been substantially increased by the Government. I should like to see that policy continue and more use made of reserves and auxiliaries. I should also like serious studies undertaken into finding a proper flying role for our auxiliaries. The Royal Air Force is about flying. If we wish to encourage young people to our territorial reserve commitment, we must have a greater commitment to flying. That is what brings people to the Royal Air Force; otherwise they would join the Army or the Navy.
The realistic way in future to live within defence budget constraints—I shall not talk about this at length; other hon. Members have spent some time on it—must be to make more effective use of reserves and auxiliaries. I should like to see comprehensive studies into ways to make more effective use of volunteers. There would be no shortage of them provided we properly present our package. If we put together a package that will encourage young men and women to serve in our reserves and auxiliaries, the Royal Air Force and the nation will benefit.
8.57 pm
Mr. D. E. Thomas: I do not agree with all the points raised by the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), but I agree with him on the exceedingly important role of search and rescue services. I represent most of Snowdonia national park and have spent a lot of time in the hills and I know that we are always grateful for the contribution made by the rescue services.
I want to take up the challenge issued by the Secretary of State when he accused those of us who produced "unofficial amendments," as he described them, of not living in the real world. He almost found himself back in the real world. He was returned to the House by only a small majority. However, I am glad to see him in his place.

257
I can assure him that the election campaign in Scotland and Wales revealed a firm rejection of his Government's defence policy. I suspect that the result in his constituency had much to do with his commitment to fill Holy Loch with sea-launched cruise missiles to fill the gap that he perceives will exist once a successful INF deal is concluded.
I do not seek to speak for my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) because she is quite capable of defending herself. However, as the joint defence spokesman for our group, I must say that what is set out in our amendment—regrettably there will not be an opportunity to vote on it—reflects the strongly held views of the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru about a realistic defence policy. It strikes me that the people who are not living in the real world are the Government.
There are between 50,000 and 60,000 nuclear weapons in the world. The task must surely be to stabilise and reduce their number, to diminish the risks of their use and to move away from a nuclear-centred defence stance. However, the White Paper reveals a strengthening of that stance. It is a more nuclear-centred statement than we have seen in previous years even from the Government. Obviously it was designed as part of the Government's defence propaganda before the election. It shows a clear shift in the Government's attitude. Instead of nuclear weapons being advocated as a way of making up for the alleged imbalance of conventional forces, as has been said in previous years, between the Warsaw pact and the Soviet Union and NATO, the Government now propose them as if they were to be a permanent part of defence policy, as if they were the only guarantee of security.
As the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) has pointed out, the paragraph of the White Paper which deals with that is full of literary marvels. Paragraph 114 argues from the position that the policy of so-called deterrence has kept the peace for 40 years. It goes on to argue as if what has happened during the past 40 years is likely to continue in the next 40 years. However, if we know anything of European history, we know that the cycle of change and disasters that have overtaken us in European history have led us into precisely those conflicts of war and conflagration that defence policy is supposed to avoid.
What is also unjustified in chapter 1 of the White Paper is what is described as Britain's major role in the NATO Alliance, stressing that Britain is the only European member to contribute to all three elements of NATO's triad of forces. Of course, that is not justified anywhere. As has been said, it is an historical accident in the development of nuclear weapons that Britain became a European power which had and which developed those weapons. No logical argument has been put forward in the White Paper or indeed in any of the Government's other propaganda documents for the continued nuclear role of Britain's forces.
In fact, in defending their policy the Government are unable to assess the real arguments that are deployed against those weapons. We have already heard, and I do not need to repeat, the argument about whether Trident is independent. The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) argued strongly that there has never been such a thing as an independent British nuclear deterrent.
258
However, from the arguments put forward by those who defend the notion of deterrence, it is obvious that that notion is inherently unstable. As we have heard from the Secretary of State this afternoon, if there is an INF deal, the credibility of the deterrence must be enhanced. There is no such thing as a stability of deterrence, which is why the argument about keeping the peace for 40 years is flawed. For 40 years we have seen an escalation of an arms race on both sides—a concept of deterrence which is unstable because it costantly needs to be made more credible. At some stage in the process of arms escalation, there will come a time when, through accident or design, or the irrationality of political or military decisions, nuclear weapons will be used with results similar to those of the appalling accident at Chernobyl.
We are seeing not only a proliferation in countries, but one downwards to battlefield and tactical weapons, and a proliferation of smaller nuclear systems, with all the complications of the command and control of those weapons. As we see the concept of limited wars and the acceptance of strategies such as the United States air-land battle by NATO in a broader way, the opportunity for the use of nuclear weapons within Europe will be enhanced.
The White Paper is illogical in its attempts to deal with deterrence and the arguments in favour of maintaining nuclear weapons. It is equally implausible in its analysis of arms control negotiations. Part of the rhetoric of such documents is that they must describe non-stable systems—the nuclear weapons systems of East and West—as though they were stable, but they must also describe the arms control negotiations as though they were serious. Since 1979, there have been about 9,000 to 10,000 additional strategic warheads in the United States and Soviet arsenals. When one considers the deployments which are already planned, one sees that by the end of the decade the number of warheads will be almost double the number in 1980. We must consider the limited intermediate nuclear force negotiations in that context.
If the double zero option in the INF deal is agreed, NATO will still have about 4,000 nuclear warheads in or assigned to Europe, in addition to the several hundred weapons possessed by Britain and France. Some American and NATO military leaders have put about the notion that the INF talks are bound to lead Europe into the "valley of denuclearisation", but that falls far short of reality. Not only do we already have the strategic weapons, we have the commitment—which has not been clarified in detail—to fill the gap. The Ministry of Defence is obliged to tell us exactly how it plans to fill the gap, because it will have serious implications for the proliferation of nuclear weapons and the number of weapons in the United Kingdom. Will air-launched cruise missiles be based on B52s? Will sea-launched cruise missiles be allocated to Holy Loch and perhaps to the south of England at Plymouth? Will there be a further increase in the number of F111s based in the United Kingdom? The latter can be armed with cruise or other missiles or they can carry conventional bombs. Those aircraft are also involved in the low-flying training missions which destroy the lives of many people in large parts of Wales, Scotland and the mountainous areas of England. If the gap is filled by the B52s, the double zero option could lead to a doubling in the number of cruise missiles deployed in Britain.
We have already had an analysis of the section on the history of the Soviet Union. I would not give it a pass in a CSE examination in the core curriculum proposed by the

259
Government. But what is even more distressing is what the White Paper does with the statistics on the so-called conventional balance in Europe. The Ministry of Defence must tell us why the International Institute for Strategic Studies data and the Ministry of Defence data come to such different conclusions about the balance of conventional forces in Europe. The technical data show clearly that the numbers counted by the Ministry and by the IISS are wholly different. The only conclusion that I can draw is that the Ministry wishes to maintain the myth of the Soviet threat, although it says in section 106 of the document:
"There is nothing to suggest that Soviet leaders have any desire for war in Europe."
But the statistics, especially in annexe A, figure 13, imply through miscalculations and through using a different basis from the IISS that the Soviet Union has a massive conventional superiority. It is part of the myth and exaggeration of escalation that perpetuates the cold war mentality and the justification for further deployments. I suspect that such sentiments are responsible for what we see in this document.
Our amendment, which regrettably will not be voted on, points to a different kind of future for Europe, a future that is not based upon escalation as a result of the Trident programme. It points to a Europe that is not structured upon differing cold war camps, but a Europe in which areas such as nuclear-free Wales and nuclear-free Scotland make a contribution to de-escalation throughout Europe, a Europe that extends from the West through central Europe to eastern Europe, including the Soviet Union. We are the people who understand the realities of European history. We are not encumbered with the ideological rhetoric of the Government. Our understanding of European history is that we live in a continent that has been racked by war because of the failure of European Governments to work towards true security.
We look to things such as the Stockholm agreement as a demonstration that it is possible for European peoples to agree as nation states about troop manoeuvres and conventional weapons and that that has led to security building. We believe that similar security building is possible in nuclear operations. However, that security will not emerge because of the lack of Government initiatives.
9.11 pm
Mr. Michael Jack: I recently moved into the constituency of Fylde. As I walk out of my front door I am struck by the considerable importance of defence aviation to my constituency. My house lies on the approach run to the British Aerospace military aircraft division at Warton. Daily, during the recess, I saw Tornados and other aeroplanes coming back from their test flights across the Irish sea.
During the recess I visited the plant at Warton not only to acquaint myself in some detail with what went on there, but to share with the management, the staff and the trade unions—I hope that that will please the Opposition—their concerns about the future of the European fighter aircraft project.
At the outset of my remarks I should like to pay tribute to my colleague in Lancashire, my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins). Sadly, because of his ministerial duties, he is unable to participate in this debate. However, for some time he has shouldered a considerable responsibility for arguing the case for those
260
in the Preston area who make their living from aviation. I thank my hon. Friend for shouldering that burden and it is now a responsibility that I gladly accept.
May I also welcome to the Treasury Front Bench my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. During the election campaign my right hon. Friend visited Lancashire and I was grateful to him for the positive commitment that he gave on the European fighter aircraft. He endorsed those remarks in interviews given during the Conservative party conference at Blackpool. I was delighted to hear that he also endorsed British Aerospace's excellent product work as a result of his recent acquaintance with the Tornado fighter.
I believe that the European fighter aircraft represents a key part in the development of our aviation strategy. In a few moments I will justify my belief in that project. I was delighted to see in the statement on the Defence Estimates, under the heading "Collaborative Projects" on page 47, table 8, that the European fighter aircraft was listed. I wish to deal with the element of collaboration because some doubt has been expressed regarding the future of the project because of difficulties with one of the principal partners—Germany.
I believe that paragraph 510 on page 46, detailing the question of collaboration and its benefits, must have been written as much from our belief in collaboration as that of our European partners. Paragraph 510 states:
"The impetus towards greater collaboration within Europe in particular comes from the conviction, shared by our partners, that a more cohesive European effort will strengthen the Alliance in a number of important ways: politically, by demonstrating our ability to work closely together; militarily, by reducing the inefficiency that comes from having different and incompatible versions of the same equipment on the battlefield; and industrially, by helping to produce a more competitive European industrial base."
If we and our European partners share that view, it is an incontrovertible case to justify the continuing development of the European fighter aircraft.
It is notable that the joint air chiefs of the four participating countries have already agreed the operational requirements of the aeroplane. At such an early stage in the project, that is a notable achievement. It commends the project to the partner Governments, which should have the courage to go ahead and build the aeroplane.
Recent developments in defence more than ever give strength to the argument that the European fighter aircraft should be built. The INF agreement shows that a much greater emphasis will now be put on the role of conventional weapons. If we are looking at developments in aviation — the development of high technology fighters and bombers that may present a threat to this country in future—we shall need aeroplanes such as the European fighter aircraft to combat such threats.
The European fighter aircraft is at the margins of technology. It contains developments in composite materials and avionics, and other engineering developments that are vital to the future of our own aviation industry. From my constituents' point of view it is also vital that the project goes ahead—6,500 jobs at the military aircraft division in Warton alone depend on it. Within the Preston area, some 16,500 jobs are dependent on the future of that project. As the orders for Tornado are completed, a gap of work will open out in the flow of materials through the factory at Warton. The European fighter aircraft must be built to fill that gap. With regard

261
to its impact on the north-west economy, some £69 million of orders derive from British Aerospace. The loss of that would be incalculable. I referred to technical excellence and the maintenance of it by those who build the plane. Such work is vital if our aviation industry is to prosper.
I refer finally to export potential. It is clear to me that the European fighter aircraft must be built, if for no other reason than the £3,500 billion of business with Saudi Arabia, with the Tornado. A successful customer there will be looking for a replacement for that project in the years to come. Warton has demonstrated its ability to build quality aeroplanes and I believe that it can match the requirements of the European fighter aircraft project.
I should like Ministers to commit themselves to tackle some of the problems that are outstanding. There are difficulties in Germany. Although there were initially strong rumours that cuts in Germany's defence budget would overwhelm its ability to contribute to major defence projects, the fact that the budget was reduced by 142 million deutchmarks meant that it was possible for the Germans to continue their commitment to major projects. But there is concern in Germany about the development costs of the fighter. Going back to my quotation from the statement on the Defence Estimates on the subject of collaboration, I believe that it justifies the philosophical and practical reasons for the project and lends weight to reconsideration by the Germans.
I do not want to see brought before the House an argument or debate about the reasons why we should consider the F18. We in Europe can build an adequate fighter for the needs of the latter part of the 20th century and the early part of the 21st century. I should like the Secretary of State for Defence to give an assurance that he will raise the matters of concern with his German counterparts and try again to convince them of the need to continue with the European fighter aircraft project.
Finally, I remind the Government of some comments that were made in the defence debate this time last year. My hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) reminded the Government at that time that the F16 fighter, which was built in the same way as the experimental aircraft project, became one of the world's most successful fighters. If there is doubt among any of the partners, that comment alone should commend the project to them. My hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury), speaking about the commitment to the European fighter aircraft project, said on 14 July:
"I can assure my hon. Friend that the Government are planning on the basis of the United Kingdom playing a full part in the EFA programme."—[Official Report, 14 July 1987; Vol. 101, c. 955.]
That reassuring remark will, I hope, be echoed in the concluding remarks from the Front Bench this evening.
I hope that the Government will confirm that there are sufficient resources in the Defence Estimates to finance further development work that is currently being funded by the companies which are building the European fighter aircraft. I hope that the Government will do all in their power to persuade the partners to go ahead with this exciting project, and that we make certain that we understand the commercial importance of the project. The EFA must be built.
9.21 pm
Mr. Sean Hughes: I wish to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Martin), who made his maiden speech this evening. His is a constituency that I know well, having spent several of my schoolboy years there. I am sure the House will listen with interest to the speeches that he makes in the coming Session.
I shall begin by making a crushingly obvious statement: the Conservative party won the election in June, and the parties of opposition lost it. In view of that, perhaps we might be allowed, tonight and throughout the coming Parliament, to debate the policies of the Government, and not be sidetracked into the interesting hypotheses of what my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) might have presented in our Defence Estimates this evening. Unfortunately, Conservative Members give the impression that they cannot conceive of being in error. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), in a characteristic speech, said that we should all be prepared to admit to our own fallibility. I refer him to a comment in the foreword to the 1987–88 edition of "Jane's Fighting Ships". It states that the Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement apparently said in a television programme, "My Department never makes mistakes"—that from a Department that gave us Nimrod.
I listened with special interest to the Foreign Secretary's speech last week, in which he quoted Churchill from page 2 of the Defence Estimates. Churchill said:
"Be careful above all things not to let go of the atomic weapon until you are sure, and more than sure, that other means of preserving peace are in your hands."
My right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) and the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Thomas) referred to that. Apart from the fact that I am always suspicious of people who quote Churchill in defence White Papers as if they were quoting from the Sermon on the Mount, the quotation has been taken not so much out of context as out of time. Often, the fact that Ministers rely so heavily on this quotation, made in the intensity of the cold war 35 years ago, is a sign of their thought processess.
Nothing demonstrates that more than the potted history that is given in the White Paper, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent so rightly savaged. It is entitled, "70 Years On: A Country or a Cause?" For sheer banality, hollowness and insufficient bases, this potted history takes some beating. I am astonished that the Secretary of State can pen his name to what would be considered insufficiently researched material for inclusion in the Ladybird series of history books for younger readers.
I imagine that the 18 paragraphs in the first chapter of the Defence Estimates are supposed to give us the historical background to present-day defence policy. Presumably they provide the premise for the Government's thinking on defence. If this is the premise, it does not exactly inspire us about the Government's conclusions. The section reads more like gossip than history. It is full of platitudes and slogans and quite clearly the facts, such as they are, are used to fit the preconceptions.
I shall give the House a couple of examples. Paragraph 4 on page 4 discusses the Russian view of the world
"that security can only be achieved from a position of military strength."

263
Is not that the thinking that is at the core of the Government's policy and has that not been true of all the powers, especially the Western powers, in the 19th and 20th centuries?
The Statement on the Defence Estimates talks about the extension of territory from the 16th to the 19th century. I suppose that Britain, France and Germany were all standing aside contemplating the heinous nature of imperialism. The implication is that only Russia was up to these dastardly tricks with a sevenfold expansion in three centuries. It is worth remembering that in 1870 one tenth of Africa was under European control and that by 1900 it was nine tenths. That was achieved in three decades, not three centuries.
Through the ages great powers have defined for themselves spheres of influence, epitomised not least by the Munroe doctrine. The penultimate sentence in paragraph 9, page 5, says:
"most people would profoundly disagree that national insecurity is a fair excuse for the curtailment of others' national and individual freedoms."
That comes a bit rich from the party of GCHQ. There are carefully selected quotations from what Lenin said in 1916, but no mention of how he developed his thinking in the 1920s. There is not even a mention of Stalin, the advocate of Socialism in one country who dominated the USSR for over a quarter of a century.
One particularly entertaining sentence speaks about
"the liberal democratic idea of harmony between states".
Who are the Government trying to kid? I would expect this sort of thing to come from the Kremlin. I thought that the Russians were the people who rewrote history and touched up paintings to make sure that certain people and certain things did not happen. This is the Government who have emphasised the importance of objective history teaching in our schools.
We have heard several times the assertion that the possession of nuclear arms in Europe has kept the peace over the last 40-odd years. The Secretary of State reaffirmed that in his speech. It is interesting to recall that exactly the same claim was made for the existence of the Common Market during the referendum on Britain's membership. I have never been impressed by this sort of argument. Even the defence White Paper concedes that it cannot be proved.
It reminds me of a chap in my constituency—who is no longer with us—who was convinced that all our economic problems in the late 1970s were the direct result of decimalisation. Forget about the Arab-Israeli war and the subsequent explosion in oil prices: I could never convince him that just because one event precedes a trend there is not necessarily a causal link. The case might just as well be made that it is no mere coincidence that peace in Europe at the end of world war 2 coincided with the introduction of the biro. I cannot prove it and there may be other factors, but in terms of proof it is as valid a statement as the other one.
One of the problems about these debates is the difficulty that we have in arriving at an accurate assessment of the military balance between NATO and the Warsaw pact countries. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) said last year in the debate on the Defence Estimates:
"Comparing quantitative factors, such as manpower and equipment, is relatively straightforward, but even that exercise can be unexpectedly difficult—a fact which may
264
explain why no new NATO-Warsaw pact force comparisons have been published by NATO since 1984." — [Official Report, 30 June 1986; Vol. 100, c.785.]
Annex A of the defence White Paper confidently tells us that by any objective measure the superiority of Warsaw pact land and air forces is substantial.
Fundamental to NATO's strategy of flexible response is the assumption that the Soviet Union has massive conventional superiority. In most NATO scenarios, Warsaw pact forces would crash through the inner German border and overwhelm the numerically inferior NATO forces. Nothing changes. It is the same Russian steamroller theory of the 19th and early 20th century. So NATO would have to resort to the first use of battlefield nuclear weapons.
Some defence analysts have challenged the notion of Soviet superiority and the way in which NATO compiles its statistics. Many assessments of NATO and Warsaw pact forces rely on distorted figures, as has been pointed out. The last time NATO published an assessment of the conventional balance was, as I have said, in 1984. However, each year the International Institute for Strategic Studies has stated:
"our conclusion remains that the conventional military balance is still such as to make general military aggression a highly risky undertaking for either side."
Ultimately, that is a self-defeating process, because if our assessments are hyped up too much, negotiators must be tempted to take us at our word.
Time and again in the White Paper the Government assert that the United Kingdom is the only European member of NATO which contributes to all three NATO commands—Europe, the Atlantic and the Channel—through the provision of nuclear forces, the defence of the United Kingdom itself, land and air forces based in Europe and our maritime forces. It is the Opposition's contention that we cannot sustain such a grand sweep of commitments as are presently resourced. The simple fact is that, with finite resources, something will have to give.
Of course, the Minister will reply with the same words as we have heard in previous debates and in the way that has been hinted at this evening, by saying that we should not look just at the amounts of money voted by the House but at the qualitative aspect of the money. I suggest that the Minister and Conservative Members should tell that to the Royal Marines. They urgently need new amphibious vessels and aviation support ships for the reinforcement of Norway. In the event of hostilities, the Norwegians would depend, during the most critical period, on the arrival of the United Kingdom-Netherlands amphibious force. To get such a large force ashore requires purpose-built amphibious vessels and adequate aviation support vessels. Yet the Royal Marines have no aviation support ship now that Bulwark and Hermes have been withdrawn and they have only Fearless and Intrepid for the amphibious role. Fearless and Intrepid are old and expensive both in maintenance and manpower and they require crews of about 600 from a Navy that has already been drained of personnel.
Our Air Force is in an appalling state. Northern air space is watched over by five antique Shackleton aircraft with 1941 vintage radar. Most of our fighter aircraft are old and the new ones will probably not even be able to find their targets because their radar only half works. On the central front, the Royal Air Force flies what has been referred to unkindly as the oldest helicopter fleet in the world.

265
The strength of the Royal Navy is less than the level planned by Sir John Nott when he was Secretary of State for Defence in 1981. The Navy now has fewer personnel than Boots the Chemists. The Navy's task has been increased with expensive out-of-area commitments to the Falklands and the Gulf, to which no reference was made by the Secretary of State today. Not only do we lack frigates, destroyers and conventional submarines for our vital NATO task in the eastern Atlantic but many of those we have are obsolete, expensive in maintenance and manpower and lacking in effective armament.
The Army has been crippled by shortages of spares and ammunition and restrictions on fuel. As yet the Army has no purpose-built anti-tank helicopters. In Germany it is short of modern tanks; the Chieftain tank gives off so much smoke that it can be seen for miles. Attempts to procure new self-propelled artillery for the Army ended in disaster, with a bill for the taxpayer of £88 million.
Morale in all three services has been seriously damaged. In the Army, the cut in local overseas allowance for servicemen who are based in Germany, to save £17 million, together with training restrictions on fuel and ammunition, have had a seriously detrimental effect on morale. In a letter to The Times on 5 March, Viscount Morpeth said:
"'Salami Slicing' cuts are making it increasingly difficult for Commanders at all levels to train their formations and units to the highest standard required to maintain a credible deterrence."
He continued:
"Cuts in overseas allowances are demoralising and bear heavily on junior NCOs and their families who are least able to bear them."
The outflow of skilled personnel will increase by about 25 per cent. this year, which reflects the widespread dissatisfaction with the current state of affairs. The RAF is short of skilled engineers and mechanics and is losing pilots faster than it can train them. As has already been said, it costs £3 million to train a fast jet pilot and £1million to train navigators. Yet it seems that many pilots are leaving the RAF to go abroad, or are joining civil airline companies. That is largely due to the penny-pinching cuts in fuel and training restrictions, because 70 per cent. of RAF married quarters are substandard and because they are fed up with making do with obsolete equipment.
Of necessity, we have had to cut short our summing-up speeches. But when the Foreign Secretary and others have quoted Churchill's words about having other means of preserving the peace before giving up the atomic weapon, some of us have gained the impression that the present Government do not believe that there are, or ever will be, means of preserving the peace other than by the nuclear weapon. That point was emphasised in a thoughtful speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion). The Government do not seem to understand the inherent dangers of a policy that Secretary of State for War, Henry Stimson, once described as
"wearing this weapon rather ostentatiously on our hip."
The saddest aspect of the defence debate in recent years—perhaps it has always been the case—is that it has degenerated on the margin to accusations of battle lust or defeatism. The reality of the matter is that we are talking about the most effective means of defending our country, while at the same time seeking to foster an atmosphere that
266
avoids the recourse to arms. It is in that spirit that I commend to the House the amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition.
9.37 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Tim Sainsbury): It is about four and a half years since I spoke in a debate, other duties having kept me silent except for contributing occasionally those valuable and usually widely welcomed suggestions that the House might adjourn or that a Question be put. I am glad to end that period of silence by winding up on the first day of this important debate. I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. Hughes) who, like me, has recently escaped from the silent service, or perhaps in the case of Opposition Whips the not-so-silent service. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his entertaining history lesson. It was a great deal more entertaining, and I hope rather more accurate, than his subsequent remarks about the defence budget.
I am particularly glad to be able to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Martin) on an excellent maiden speech. He demonstrated, as I would have expected after spending a most rewarding day in his constituency in early June, a knowledge and concern for his constituents and for their interests and environment.
We have had a most interesting first day on this important debate, although on occasions it seemed that it was more like a history discussion or seminar than a defence debate. A number of important points have been raised by right hon. and hon. Members to which I should like to respond. However, in view of the limitation on time, I intend in general to leave those points which are the particular responsibility of my hon. Friends the Minister of State for the Armed Forces and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces to them for tomorrow when they hope, indeed expect, to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker. Examples are the arguments expressed by the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) about the Armilla patrol and by my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) and others about low flying.
Before dealing with specific points, I should like to say something about our general approach to defence procurement, which is my particular responsibility. Our objective is clear. It is to obtain the best value for money for every pound of taxpayers' money which we spend.
Value for money is a concept which we have consistently highlighted. It was important in 1983, when we outlined our approach to it in an open Government document issued by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey and Walton (Sir G. Pattie), and it remains so today. It sounds simple—and, I hope, sensible—to the House but I need to emphasise that the quest for value for money requires us to take account of more than just price. It is therefore more complex than a simple matter of comparing the prices of indentical branded products in, for example, supermarkets.
First—and most important and obvious—equipment must be suitable for the required task, but there are other factors that must be considered. They include a judgment on the risk of failure in technical development. Much, indeed most, of what we procure is not ready-made, so we have to balance the value of using the most up-to-date,

267
state of the art, technology with avoiding over-ambitious, or unattainable targets which experience shows can lead to major difficulties.
We need to make an assessment of the in-service date that we require and have regard to the date that we can reasonably expect to achieve.
Usually we need to take account of the capacity of the equipment to be improved during its life to meet changing threats or new technologies. In today's world that is particularly important as enhancement and improvement programmes can be the most cost effective way of meeting new threats. We always need to take account of reliability, maintainability, spares and manpower requirements, which all contribute to the cost-in-use of the equipment.
In a sense all these factors make up the quality of a product, and the drive for value for money is concerned with both quality and price. The House will be aware that it is nearly always easier to identify the objective than it is to set out the methods of attaining that objective. In my national service days one always first stated clearly the objective and then, usually less clearly, how one would succeed. One always had to say, "We will take that hill", not, "We will try to take that hill."
There are a number of steps which we have taken but the importance of one in particular will be recognised by right hon. and hon. Members from the experience of some of our less successful purchases in the past. We no longer enter into cost-plus contracts except in the very small number of cases where we cannot define the necessary work tightly enough in advance to use other pricing methods. Instead, as hon. Members will know, we have introduced a substantial degree of competition into areas which previously suffered from the inefficiencies that flow from negotiating with only one supplier. It is one of the chief ways in which we have improved our methods of procurement. I need not dwell upon the financial benefits of competition, but we have achieved considerable savings in that way. The White Paper lists convincing examples.
Mr. Harry Cohen: I am interested in the points which the hon. Gentleman takes into account in considering value for money. Will he comment on Marconi, which has been accused of making excessive profits on Ministry of Defence contracts and of not paying royalties to Her Majesty's Government?
Mr. Sainsbury: It would be wrong if I commented at length. Ministry of Defence police, on the instructions of the Director of Public Prosecutions, made what has been called a raid on the Marconi factory. That is now a matter for the Law Officers rather than for me.
Mr. O'Neill: The Secretary of State for Defence is responsible for the actions of Ministry of Defence police and they are responsible to him. The hon. Gentleman cannot get out of this problem as simply as he is trying to do. The House is entitled to know why between 30 and 50 of these men, using crowbars, raided the premises in Portsmouth at the weekend.
Mr. Sainsbury: I know that the Labour party has expressed a desire to put the police under the political control of local authorities.
Mr. O'Neill: That is not true. It is unfair.
Mr. Sainsbury: The Ministry of Defence police, like a county police force, are not under the operational control
268
of the Secretary of State, any more than the county police force is under the operational control of the police committee of a county.
Mr. Rogers: Will the hon. Gentleman give way further on that point?
Mr. Sainsbury: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will let me explain this point. It is clear that, in carrying out their operations, the Ministry of Defence police are not under the direction of the Secretary of State. As I explained to the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen), in this case, the Ministry of Defence police were under the direction of the Director of Public Prosecutions. The action is now a matter for the Law Officers. I believe that I am right in saying that a question on that matter has been tabled for written answer to morrow by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General.
Mr. O'Neill: I want to get the record straight. During the passage of the Ministry of Defence Police Bill—an extremely amicable process; some might say too amicable—we dealt thoroughly with the business. There was no party rancour and it was a constructive process. We did not need the type of flippant, inaccurate remarks which the hon. Gentleman has made—[Interruption.] In this case, it was not fully justified. We know the relationship between the Secretary of State and the police committee. But in this case there was a major exercise. Had it not been for a newspaper disclosure no one would have known about it. We would not have been aware that inquiries had been going on for some 18 months. They were not the responsibility of the Director of Public Prosecutions at the outset. I imagine that they emanated from the Secretary of State for Defence or his predecessor.
Mr. Sainsbury: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has not listened to what I said about the operational control of police forces, whether it is the Ministry of Defence police force or a county police force. The latter is answerable for some matters, but not its operational control, to a local authority police committee. As I said, some Labour party members sought to get that operational control into the hands of local authority committees. But we should not spend too much time on this point because many other matters have been raised.
To increase our access to competition, we have broadened the supplier base and thus opened up new sources of supply. We have brought new companies into Ministry of Defence business through, among other things, a successful small firms initiative and through the emphasis we have put on competitive sub-contracting by our prime contractors. In April, we achieved our aim of bringing Royal Ordnance fully into the private sector, when it was bought by British Aerospace. It has now taken its place in the competitive defence market.
The wider the spread of information, the better a market works. We have, therefore, taken a number of steps to improve the flow of information about defence work. We now have a fortnightly "MOD Contracts Bulletin" and we arrange the circulation of staff targets and requirements in draft. The three systems controllerates annually make presentations to industry to help to keep industry better informed, so that it can take full advantage of the business which the MOD has to offer.
However, competition is only part of a broadly-based strategy aimed at achieving better value for money. Other

269
initiatives include a revision of our practices on the interim financing of contracts. In this our objective is to give companies a greater incentive for timely and satisfactory performance by linking interim payments more closely to achievements.
We seek to allow industry more scope to produce ideas and innovations that will let our Armed Forces exploit new technology fully. The cardinal points specification, which allows suppliers to suggest their own way of meeting the requirement, is one means of giving companies the opportunity to use their knowledge and skills. As long as the Ministry of Defence retains the technical capability to be an intelligent customer and enters into an open exchange of ideas, we should benefit from this approach.
The procurement of modern defence equipment can be a highly complex business. We are making important improvements in the efficiency with which we carry it out. Against the background of our more effective and businesslike approach let me—in the short time left to me—deal with some points which hon. Members have raised in this debate.
The right hon. Member for Llanelli returned to his familiar theme when he said that the cost of Trident would preclude other expenditure on new equipment. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said on many occasions—he said it again today—that is simply not so.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates) reminded us of the findings of the Select Committee on Defence on years of increased spending in real terms. Of course, had we not increased spending above the inadequate level that we inherited in 1979 we would have problems now. However, we now spend a quarter as much again on equipment for every single trained service man in real terms as we spent in the late 1970s.
The right hon. Member for Llanelli and his hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, South asked about amphibious shipping. The right hon. Gentleman seems to have forgotten that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made it clear in December last year that the Government had decided to retain an amphibious capability in the longer term. We have let contracts for design studies both into extending the lives of the existing ships Fearless and Intrepid and into replacing them with new-build vessels. The timescale for the reports will give us ample time to decide which option to choose for the replacement of these important ships.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey and Walton made some important comments on research and development. He apologised to me for the fact that he cannot be in his place now. I assure him that I have carefully noted his remarks, especially those on the value of collaboration with our European allies. We, like them, attach considerable importance to the matter and much is being done under the auspices of the independent European programme group. Indeed, collaborative research was a key theme in the revitalisation of that group three years ago and the need was reiterated when IEPG defence Ministers met last June. To date, some 20 collaborative technology programmes have been initiated including two on gallium arsenide which my right hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey and Walton mentioned. Attention is now focused on putting this important work
270
on to a systematic basis by identifying the key areas of advanced technology on which the European nations should work together.
I was glad to hear the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North on the Tucano. There is a few months' slippage on deliveries, but Short Bros. expect to recover the slippage later in the programme. My hon. Friend also commented on the Foxhunter radar for Tornado aircraft. The equipment does not yet meet the full requirements of the RAF and the Ministry is at present negotiating with the supplier, GEC, towards securing a firm price contract for the satisfactory completion of the programme. Meanwhile, radars to an agreed interim standard have already been delivered and are in service.
My hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) spoke eloquently on behalf of his constituents about the European fighter aircraft. He referred to his interest in the matter and the support that he receives on it from our hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins). Like all major equipment projects, the EFA programme is being conducted on a stage by stage basis, as is only sensible. The project definition has been successfully completed and we are now in a definition refinement and risk reduction phase, with activities aimed at stabilising the design of the aircraft and identifying high-risk activities.
Parallel negotiations on commercial issues are progressing between the prime contractors and NEFMA—the NATO European Fighter Management Agency, which is the international management agency. Action is in hand to secure agreement from the individual national authorities to launch development. The United Kingdom aims to have completed that process by the end of the year and, subject to a satisfactory conclusion, we expect to begin development work early in 1988.
The right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) spoke with his usual eloquence, but it was not clear to me—I do not know whether it was clear to anyone else—whether he supported the official Opposition amendment or the unofficial one. I think that his speech leant slightly towards the unofficial one. The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) astonished many hon. Members—on both sides, I suspect—with his comments on that amendment and explained why he would like to see what I believe is described as a non-aligned defence and foreign policy, although at times it sounded more like a Warsaw pact-aligned foreign policy. As I believe that the economic policies of the right hon. Gentleman's wing of the Opposition would rapidly reduce the United Kingdom to Third world status, a non-aligned foreign policy might go well with that.
Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Does my hon. Friend agree that the amendment of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) is probably a more authentic expression of the voice of the present Labour party than the official viewpoint? Would it not be nice if the official spokesman would tell us whether the official view is still unilateralist or whether it is moving away from that position?
Mr. Sainsbury: There is some difficulty in determining the defence policy of the official Opposition as I believe that officially they do not have a policy and it is open to review. No doubt we shall shortly find out whether the view of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield or some alternative is to prevail. We await with interest the outcome of that review.

271
My hon. Friend the Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Dr. Glyn) referred to merchant shipping. Under prerogative powers, the Government can requisition ships on dependent territory as well as United Kingdom registers. Emergency legislation would enable the Government to requisition ships on foreign registers if beneficially owned by British operators. We continue to monitor closely the availablility of merchant shipping to support Her Majesty's forces in time of war. Despite the decline of the British merchant fleet, we are confident that defence needs can still be met.
A number of other points were raised, and I apologise if time does not allow me to answer all of them. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Mr. Sayeed), in an intervention, expressed concern about the CACS4 project. Command and control systems for modern warships are very complex. They are made more difficult to develop by the fact that the weapons systems which the command system has to integrate are often still in development. Thus, for example, in a number of cases, we do not have a complete interface specification for the type 23, nor have we been able to model some aspects of the system fully. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that we have defined the requirement much better than in any previous case and this underpins the procurement stategy that we have adopted. In seeking to control time, cost and performance to meet the Navy's needs we decided to exploit new technologies such as distributed processing, the ADA language and advanced displays. It was for this reason that we needed a new start, although we had already spent some £30 million—not the much larger figure that my hon. Friend mentioned — on the previously unsatisfactory CACS4.
When I spoke earlier about the initiatives that we have taken to achieve more efficient procurement, I stressed the
272
advantages to the Ministry of lower costs and more timely completion, but it is important to point out the benefits which our policies are having in fostering efficiency in industry, stimulating new ideas and promoting the full utilisation of resources. We all want to see British industry successful in world markets and competition is important not just because it contributes to keenness in pricing but because it stimulates innovation and enterprise, and the encouragement of new ideas for the solution of defence problems. Furthermore, the more efficient our defence industries are, the greater the opportunity they have to increase their exports and generate more jobs in the United Kingdom. With this in mind we now give proper prominence to export potential when we take decisions on procurement. We consider ways of adjusting our requirement to suit the needs of foreign customers as well as those of our armed forces so as to improve the marketability of our industries' products. Moreover, our policy of specifying equipment by the performance that we require of it—the cardinal points specification—rather than by attempting to design it ourselves gives companies greater scope to propose to us equipment with foreign sales potential.
I believe that the changes we have made, and further ones that are still in the pipeline, are a real contribution to the health of the British defence industry and to effective procurement. We know that handling the procurement budget is a great responsibility, not merely because it involves some £8·5 billion of taxpayers' money a year, but because the effectiveness of the nation's fighting forces depends upon it. In view of that, I believe that our achievements will be seen as valuable — —
It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

PETITION

  Kidney Treatment (Birmingham)
  10 pm
  Mr. Denis Howell: I wish to present to the House a humble petition from the kidney and cancer patients of the west midlands and others, who wish to draw our attention to the parlous state of kidney treatment in Birmingham, especially at the Queen Elizabeth hospital, because the appropriate authorities ordered that 100 patients on the free dialysis list should not be treated before April 1988. Consequently, considerable danger to their lives may follow. It also calls attention to the inequalities of funding between regions, which has helped to bring that about.
  The petition deplores, as I do, the fact that the brilliant consultants who are treating those patients have been instructed not to do so before April 1988. They have been told that they will face disciplinary action if they continue to save lives in that way. It also draws attention to the fact that, contrary to statute and regulation in the National Health Service, the Central Birmingham community health council was not consulted, as is required, before the closures took place. Consequently the public and the patients, especially the kidney and cancer patients, did not have their views represented in the discussions.
  The petitioners, the kidney and cancer patients of the west midlands and others, pray
  that your honourable House: — Appoint a Select Committee or ask the Social Services committee to report urgently:—

  i)On the inequalities of provision for cancer and kidney patients in different parts of the United Kingdom and how this can be improved.

  ii)On why there was a 39 per cent. cut in cancer treatments at the Queen Elizabeth hospital when 10 per cent. of those on the waiting list were already dying from cancer "which could have been checked if treated earlier".

  iii)On why the Queen Elizabeth's Kidney Unit was underfunded below the DHSS's minimum target or patients' needs.

  iv)On why the Community Health Council was not properly consulted on these cuts and the need to improve the CHC Regulations to prevent lack of consultation.

  And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
  To lie upon the Table.

General Practice (Training)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. — [Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]
10.3 pm
Mr. Michael Colvin: I wish to raise the problems of the funding of general practice training for medical students. We all accept that primary health care is the foundation of the National Health Service, yet it is the one aspect that we need to take more seriously when medical students enter their clinical courses. It is an issue with which I came face to face when visiting the Aldermoor health centre on the edge of my constituency last summer. I wish to thank the head of that facility, Professor John Bain, for having sparked off the inquiry that led me to ask parliamentary questions on this subject and also to introduce this debate.
Everyone knows that there have been remarkable technical advances in medical care during the past three decades, and more can be expected. At the same time, there has been a matching growth in awareness of the importance of the social and psychological implications of being ill. General practice in this country must respond to both developments. Teaching medical undergraduates about medicine in the setting of the family and community and about how patients should be most sympathetically and effectively cared for outside the hospital is a special responsibility of all departments of general practice which have been created in the 31 medical schools in this country.
Such new departments face important problems. Most are understaffed and all are under-resourced. They practise, teach and research a discipline which attracts high public demand but which does not enjoy the drama of acute hospital services to catch the public eye or perhaps the public purse. Their teaching is necessarily based on small groups and clinical experience on one-doctor to one-student attachments. We accept that such methods are expensive of the time which would otherwise be given to patient care.
The shortage of university funding also puts pressure on medical school budgets. Although NHS funding may be well ahead of the rate of inflation, it is not ahead of public wants and expectations, and the ability of the NHS to supplement the shortfall in medical school budgets has been exhausted. One good way to guard against the misuse of high cost specialist services in the NHS is to promote their more sensitive use through more teaching of medicine in the setting of general practice, but this comes at a time when the NHS and medical schools are finding it difficult to fund this new and major academic discipline.
I shall say a little about the background to the debate. Just over a year ago, the Mackenzie report, which is entitled "General Practice in Medical Schools of the United Kingdom", described the achievements of the departments of general practice in the years since the first chair was established in the United Kingdom. Indeed, the first chair anywhere in the world was established in Edinburgh in 1963. The report also described the problems that are faced by the discipline in the immediate period ahead, and referred to the need for simple and relatively inexpensive measures to be taken to allow proper growth to take place.
I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the work of Professor John Howie, head of the department of general practice at Edinburgh university. As one of the main

275
architects of the Mackenzie report, he is a leading campaigner for the implementation of its recommendations.
The interdependence of the links between the DHSS and the DES in the funding of medical education is well known. The DHSS contribution to undergraduate education, which is required under section 51 of the National Health Service Act 1977 for England and Wales and section 47 of the parallel 1978 Scottish Act, is recognised, or perhaps rationalised, in what is known as SIFT, the service increment for teaching element in the teaching hospital funding, and ACT, the additional for clinical teaching in Scotland.
It is difficult to quantify how much money this involves and what proportions represent the tertiary health care service, and the teaching and research functions of teaching hospitals, but the total sum involved is now between £20,000 and £30,000 per clinical student year, which, for 4,000 students in each of three clinical years, represents between £240 million and £360 million annually.
Alas, by a series of mischances—mainly historical—departments of general practice do not benefit from the notional budget, although their present and potential contribution to medical practice, medical thinking and medical education is considerable. Their need for service increment is as great as that of any of the hospital components of medical education. Their request for new investment to correct that anomaly is modest — £4 million a year. That is only a little more than 1 per cent. of the NHS contribution to teaching research in hospital specialties.
That raises three questions: first, is the cause a good one and does it attract widespread support; secondly, is it affordable and will it create benefit; thirdly, is there a mechanism for meeting the request or, if not, can one be found, and found quickly? On the first question, there seems no doubt that the cause of providing proper resources to allow properly supported departments of general practice to make a proper contribution to medical school and medical education is a good one. In the Green Paper on the future development of primary health care, Cmnd. 9771, the Government stated:
"However, the undergraduate course content varies widely between medical schools, and in some general practice still forms only a relatively small part of the curriculum. There is scope for greater emphasis on the role of primary care and its interface with the hospital and specialist services. This would benefit not only those who then decide to seek entry to a general practice vocational training scheme, but also those students wishing to pursue a career in a hospital speciality since they would carry with them a greater understanding of the central role primary health care plays in the health of the nation."
No one argued with that during the consultation period on the Green Paper. When the Social Services Select Committee discussed it during the 1986–87 Session and published its report entitled "Primary Health Care", it specifically requested investment in that area. Paragraph 25 states:
"The case for introducing all undergraduates to primary health care is surely overwhelming and we suggest that University Departments of General Practice should be expanded to become Departments of Primary Health Care, not only to allow future general practitioners to be introduced at an early stage to medicine in the community but, perhaps more importantly, to introduce doctors who will spend their careers in hospital to an area of health care responsible for the
276
majority of episodes of illness and which, to be successful, must integrate closely with the secondary care provided in hospital."
Furthermore, the education sub-committee of the General Medical Council has now joined in calling for proper investment, which it sees as an essential prerequisite to the basic medical education of the nation's future doctors. The responses to the Green Paper from the GMSC and the Royal College of General Practitioners, which are sometimes seen as representing the "political" and "educational" wings of general practice, are also agreed that the case presented in the Mackenzie report needs to be met urgently. The medical sub-committees of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals of the Universities of the United Kingdom and the University Grants Committee have been equally wholehearted in their support.
Only today I received a letter from the British Medical Association, which sent me a copy of the resolution that was passed by the Conference of Medical Academic Representatives in 1987, which states:
"That this Conference supports the Mackenzie report and is disturbed by the low level of government funding which is available to academic departments of general practice."
Hearts and minds seem to have been won across a remarkable and probably unique width of political, medical and educational opinion.
What about the cost? Of course, the £4 million for which the departments of general practice are asking is either a lot of money or not much money, depending on how it is viewed. Compared with the £1·5 billion that was the cost of the general practice prescriptions issued in England in 1985–86, or with the sum of about £10 billion that was spent on the acute hospital services that are used when patients are referred to hospital for investigation and treatment, the sum is negligible. However, for hospital doctors and future general practitioners, attitudes to the prescribing of drugs, the investigation of patients and the use of hospital services are learnt early in medical training. A more broadly based early undergraduate teaching with greater emphasis on the role of good general practice will produce a more balanced use of services, which will be better for the patient and less expensive for the nation. The investment of £4 million, representing 1 p in £50 of NHS resourcing, will be recouped many times over. It is good value for money.
On the mechanism, I am aware that active discussions are in hand involving, among others, representatives of the heads of departments of general practice and senior officials at the DHSS. Those discussions are mentioned in the recent GMC report. But similar discussions have fallen in the past because of legal advice to the DHSS that no mechanism existed to allow a payment giving the same benefits as SIFT to be paid by the NHS to ensure adequate base line funding of departments of general practice.
The purposes of the debate are, first, to hear confirmed the Government's acceptance of the merit of the case being argued by departments of general practice; secondly, to hear from the Government that they accept the need to allocate an annual figure equivalent to £4 million at current prices to be paid through DHSS channels; and, thirdly, to ask whether a mechanism has been found to allow such funds to be administered, or whether such legislation is needed and, if so, when it can be expected. To work equitably and efficiently, the mechanism will need to reflect medical student numbers and to be available through the regional health authority budgets, or their

277
equivalents in Scotland, where our 31 medical schools are sited. The distribution will need to reflect the different legal arrangements which apply and will thus need to be apportioned on the advice of the head of the department of general practice in each medical school.
My hon. Friend the Minister has a reputation for getting things done, so I should be grateful if she would reassure the House of effective progress on all three fronts. May we be told how soon the discussions, which in one form or another have occupied the time of three Administrations, can be satisfactorily completed? In short, will the DHSS and the Department of Education and Science acknowledge that they have a joint responsibility for funding medical education and get their act together rather than continuing to pass the buck to and fro?
10.17 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mrs. Edwina Currie): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) on his success in the ballot and on the lucid and thoughtful way in which he introduced this important subject.
Undergraduate medical education is primarily the responsibility of the universities, which means the University Grants Committee and the Department of Education and Science. However, the health departments have a close interest, first, as providers of clinical facilities through which clinical training takes place and, secondly, as customers, for most medical graduates will be employed by, or be general medical services contractors in, the National Health Service. It is also important that training, especially in primary health care, relates to NHS policies and objectives.
Section 51 of the National Health Service Act 1977 lays a duty on the Secretary of State to make available such clinical facilities in connection with medical teaching and research
"as he considers are reasonably required"
by the universities. That provision goes back to the early days of the NHS and is the basis for the service increment for teaching — or SIFT — in the allocations of health authorities under the RAWP formula. Although the Act may require health Ministers to provide general medical services within which undergraduates can be introduced to general practice, that type of training is comparatively recent and no specific financial arrangements have been made to cover service costs. For its part, the General Medical Council has stressed the need for this part of the syllabus.
Earlier this year, the Croham report on the review of the UGC called for closer liaison between the Department of Education and Science, the UGC and the health Departments and between education and health at local level. As a result, co-operation between the DHSS and the Department of Education and Science has increased. One result was the issue in March of a note of guidance by the two Departments to health authorities and to universities about the planning and funding of undergraduate medical education.
That joint note did not refer to the general medical services and did not cover clinical training and general practice. However, for many years the health Departments
278
have accepted the role that university departments of general practice can play in the improvement of standards of primary care.
The Mackenzie report, to which my hon. Friend for Romsey and Waterside referred, provides a new and important survey of the development of what we might call academic general practice. General practice is relatively new as an academic discipline. It is only 30 years ago that the first university department of general practice was created, sadly not in England, but in Edinburgh. It was only in 1986 that every medical school in the United Kingdom had at least one GP appointed to a university post with responsibility for teaching the discipline. The development of general practice as an academic discipline has therefore been somewhat uneven. Many of the arrangements that had been made have been reflected in local university and clinical opportunities and needs, as the Mackenzie report pointed out in chapter 1.
My hon. Friend may not be aware that last Friday I had dinner with one of the other authors of the Mackenzie report, Professor Hannay in Rotherham. In between the pate, the cream soup and the roast potatoes we discussed these issues and many others. I was grateful to him for his wise advice.
There is, however, agreement that general practice is an essential part of every undergraduate medical student's medical training. It is now required by the General Medical Council. As my hon. Friend rightly pointed out, the Government document "Primary Health Care: An Agenda for Discussion" published last year, noted:
"Undergraduate course content varied widely between medical schools."
It suggested that there was scope for greater emphasis on the role of primary care in undergraduate teaching. My hon. Friend is right that those proposals have had widespread support since they were published.
Only a minority of the staff of departments of general practice are full-time salaried academics. Similar to other academics, these people are clinicians who see patients as well as teach in the medical school. In fact, many are National Health Service GPs with a part-time commitment to the medical school and may be compared with hospital clinical staff who have honorary academic appointments.
The hospital-based academics appear to have substantial advantages over their GP counterparts. The professor or consultant has junior medical staff who can assist him in the provision of services to patients and often in the clinical teaching of undergraduates and research. The university GP has no subordinate medical staff and he retains a personal responsibility, as does any GP, to provide continuing cover to his patients. That is in the nature of general practice.
It is a concern of teachers of general practice that their general practice service work may take a large part of their time, leaving them little time for their research and teaching which are crucial to their intellectual development and the academic recognition that they deserve. In a recent letter to "GP" magazine Professor Metcalfe—I read that magazine every week — claims that the university GP's average list is 79 per cent. of the average GP and therefore that is bound to effect his income.
For some years Professor Howie has argued, including in the Mackenzie report, that there should be more NHS support for teaching in general practice and that specifically there should be an equivalent in the GMS to

279
the service increment for teaching that exists in the hospital and community health service. In our view it is not as simple as that. The differences in the ways the GMS and the hospital services are funded makes the proposal of a service increment for teaching analogue difficult. In the allocations to health authorities under the RAWP formula the SIFT is identified in recognition of the fact that teaching hospitals have higher costs than other hospitals, and of the duty of the Secretary of State to provide clinical facilities in support of teaching.
In the GMS there is no comparable allocation. General practitioners are independent contractors. The target level of remuneration is determined in relation to the service workload and individual GPs are paid on the basis of the services they provide.
The Mackenzie report argues that GPs who have a student attached to their practice take longer over their consultations and over their GMS work generally. The authors estimate that this might amount to an extra two hours a day or an extra 40 hours for a typical four-week attachment. There is considerable variation between medical schools in the lengths of attachments. The health Departments do not have conclusive data on the extra hours involved, but our inquiry suggests that a GP — whether in a university practice or any other practice — who is providing suitable clinical training for a student will take significantly longer over his GMS work.
GPs who teach postgraduate trainees, known as vocational trainees, receive a training allowance. However, the NHS pays no such allowance to GPs who take undergraduates on attachment. Some GPs outside the university practices are recognised as tutors and are paid small sums by the university as part-time lecturers, but the majority of GPs who take undergraduates receive only an honorarium, if anything. They do it, therefore, out of the goodness of their hearts and because of their belief in the importance of the training for the future of their profession and for the quality of care.
As my hon. Friend said, the Mackenzie report calls for support of up to £4 million a year from the Health Service. However, the specific proposal that it makes is for a payment of GPs on the basis of the extra hours' work involved in having a student attached. At, say, £400 for an average four-week attachment for 4,000 students, which is the typical medical school intake per year at the moment, the cost would be not £4 million but £1·6 million. That only emphasises that there are administrative and financial details that would need to be worked out with great care if a scheme were to be introduced, hut, as my hon. Friend realises, at present it would he illegal to make such
280
payments and it would require primary legislation. However, with the appropriate primary legislation, it would be tolerably easy to devise methods of payment, possibly through the existing payments system — the family practitioner committees in order to have convenience and keep administrative costs under control.
I hope that what I have said demonstrates that the value that the Government place on general practice is evidenced by the discussion document on primary care. We also have a White Paper that will be forthcoming shortly. Most patients' episodes of illness requiring medical treatment are handled by GPs. The primary care services are both the front line and the public face of the NHS. Indeed, I have seen suggestions that for a typical person in this country, the total period of in-patient service that he will require is about 10 days every 10 years, yet half a million people consult their GP every working day. That gives our view of how important general practice is.
General practice and primary care are an essential part of the training that we give to doctors and are likely to become increasingly prominent. My colleagues in the other health Departments and I are keen to improve standards in general practice. The university practices have an important role in raising standards, especially in the inner cities and in other difficult areas.
Mr. Colvin: My hon. Friend said that there would be a White Paper, which I welcome. A White Paper normally follows a Green Paper—in this case it was a blue paper. Often White Papers are intended to outline the Government's intentions. My hon. Friend has also hinted at primary legislation being required to overcome the legal difficulties of making those payments. Do I take it, therefore, that the White Paper will contain the seeds of a Bill that might come before Parliament before long?
Mrs. Currie: The Government may propose, but the House disposes. Ultimately, it will be for this and the other place to decide. A number of the changes that are suggested in the White Paper will require primary legislation. We hope that we might be able to make progress before long, with the will of the House.
I am very glad that we have had this short and most useful debate. In recommending that my hon. Friend reads the forthcoming White Paper with the greatest of care, I hope that he realises that the Government are not at all unsympathetic to the views that he has expressed tonight.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past Ten o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Passports
  Mr. Wheeler
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements will be made for passports for Queens Messengers following the introduction of the European Community common format; and what distinctive feature such passports will display.

  Mr. Renton
  There are no plans at present to change either the arrangements for issue or the format of the distinctive couriers passport currently used by members of the Corps of Queen's Messengers in the course of their official duties.

  Equal Opportunities
  Ms. Richardson
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is (a) the proportion of working time allocated to his departmental equal opportunities officer for equal opportunities duties, (b) the other duties carried out by the departmental equal opportunities officer, (c) the proportion, and the amount, of the departmental budget allocated to equal opportunities work, (d) the number of occasions when the department equal opportunities officer meets equal opportunities officers from other Government Departments each year, (e) the guidelines issued to departmental training officers and equal opportunities officers to promote the use of section 47 of the Sex Discrimination Act and (f) what action has been taken to facilitate job share, part-time working and parental leave.

  Mr. Hurd
  The Home Office has two equal opportunities officers, one for staff in prison service establishments, and the other for staff in the rest of the Department. The former spends about 10 per cent. of his time on work relating to equal opportunities and the latter about 20 per cent. of hers. Both have support from other staff. Both are also departmental training officers. The Prison Department EOO has, in addition, personal management responsibilities; the other EOO has responsibility for industrial relations, communications with staff, and certain other management matters.

  The departmental budget breakdown for equal opportunities work is not readily identifiable. The promotion of equal opportunities in the Home Office involves not only EOOs and their supporting staff, but personnel management divisions, training branches and line managers throughout the Department, as well as trade union representatives. In addition, because of its wider responsibilities, the Home Office has staff working to promote equality of opportunity in the community generally, and funds the work of the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Commission for Racial Equality. The EOOs meet their counterparts from other Departments at an annual meeting arranged by the office of the Minister
  200
  for the Civil Service, and on other occasions as necessary. No formal guidelines have been issued concerning the application of section 47 of the Sex Discrimination Act.

  The Department has informed staff that it will try to meet requests from those who wish, because of their domestic responsibilities, to work part-time or to share a job. The names of those wishing to share are noted so that they can, when the opportunity arises, be put in touch with a prospective partner. Staff inspectors have been asked to review the scope for part-time work or job sharing. In addition, special leave may be granted to staff to enable them to cope with temporary domestic difficulties.

  Prisons (Privatisation)
  Mr. Steinberg
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to privatise the recruitment of prison ancillaries, night patrols, moving staff, prison kitchen staff and dog patrols.

  Mr. John Patten
  We have no plans to do so.

  Isle of Man (Arms Shipments)
  Mr. Foulkes
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the Government of the Isle of Man on the situation in which a bank account on the island was set up in order to facilitate the shipment of arms to Iran via South Africa; and what action is being taken by the Manx authorities to deal with the individual concerned and to prevent a recurrence.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  There are no statutory provisions either in the United Kingdom or the Isle of Man regulating the use of a bank account in relation to arms shipments. I understand that the Isle of Man authorities have no information to suggest that a bank account in the island has been improperly conducted; and there is no evidence to suggest that there has been a breach of export controls. The Isle of Man authorities are well aware of the need to take whatever steps may be necessary within their domestic jurisdiction to conform with the Government's policy in relation to these matters.

  African National Congress
  Mr. Winnick
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps are being taken by the authorities to protect leading members of the African National Congress living in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hurd
  I understand that leading members of the African National Congress have been seen by the police and given advice about their personal security.

  Television Licence Fees
  Mr. Michael Brown
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is yet able to announce the level of the television licence fees to take effect from 1 April 1988; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hurd
  The television licence fee has remained at £58·00 for a colour licence and £18·00 for a monochrome licence since 28 March 1985. On 14 January this year, at column 263, I announced that the fee would be increased only in line with the increase in retail prices index. I also
  201
  said that the increase would be calculated from a notional baseline fee of £60·00 for a colour licence and £2000 for a monochrome licence.

  The principle of indexation and the choice of the baseline were both designed to encourage increased efficiency and economy by the BBC. Its costs had historically risen at a higher rate than the RPI and it was then planning to spend money on the provision of television and radio services in the present financial year at a rate higher than that represented by the baseline fee.

  The RPI figure for September published on 9 October showed a year on year increase of 4·2 per cent. I have accordingly decided that from 1 April 1988 the colour licence fee should be £62·50 and the monochrome fee £21·00. The necessary regulations will be laid before the House in due course.

  As I have already announced, the licence fee for the two years starting 1 April 1989 and 1 April 1990 will also be calculated in accordance with changes in the RPI, which themselves determine the rate of increase of pensions and other state benefits.

TRANSPORT

  M40
  Mr. Baldry
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the present position with regard to the siting of a motorway service area on the proposed M40 extention in the Bicester area.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Cherwell district council has objected to our proposal for a motorway service area at Ardley. Esso plc has appealed against the refusal of its application for a services facility at an adjacent site. The Department of the Environment proposes to hold a joint inquiry. The date is not yet settled.

  Wardie Bay
  Mr. Ron Brown
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he discussed the proposed Wardie bay development and reclamation scheme when he recently met the Forth Ports Authority in Leith; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  The Forth Ports Authority outlined to my right hon. Friend the plans it has formulated, in a joint venture with GA Group Ltd of Glasgow called Edinburgh Maritime Ltd, for the regeneration of the waterfront between the ports of Granton and Leith. Last month Edinburgh Maritime submitted an application for planning permission for a £400 million mixed-use redevelopment scheme to the city of Edinburgh district council aimed at enhancing the environment and creating jobs and new housing. The planning application has now been called in by Lothian regional council. I understand that the proposals have been welcomed by the Scottish Development Agency as complementing the work that it and its partners have achieved in the Leith project.

  A417–A419
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has for improvements to the A417–A419 link between Swindon and Gloucester, beyond those already programmed.
  202
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  None. The published national trunk road programme contains schemes covering almost the entire length between Swindon and Gloucester where improvements have not yet been effected.

  Prestwick Airport
  Mr. Foulkes
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the current responsibility for determining the status of Prestwick airport as Scotland's transatlantic gateway.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The 1985 airports policy White Paper explained that if Prestwick airport's financial results had not shown steady improvements by 1989, the Government would review their present policy for air traffic distribution among the Scottish lowland airports. This remains the case; we shall naturally have regard to BAA plc's assessment of Prestwick's performance and future prospects in deciding whether to conduct a review.

  M1–A1 Link
  Mr. David Marshall
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport what date work will start on the construction of the M1–A1 link.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Subject to the satisfactory completion of the remaining statutory procedures, in the late spring or early summer of next year.

  Pedestrian Crossings
  Mr. Onslow
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to make an approved specification for a tactile warning device for pedestrians using pedestrian crossings.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The specification for a tactile warning device for pedestrians using pelican crossings was approved and issued on 6 August 1987.

  National Bus Company
  Mr. Franks
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he is satisfied with the progress being made by the National Bus Company in the implementation of its disposal programme.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  I am impressed by the progress made by the National Bus Company in the implementation of its disposal programme, as shown by the company's annual report and accounts published today. Already some 50 subsidiaries have been sold, and there is an encouraging level of interest in the remainder. I congratulate Mr. Lund, chairman of NBC, and his colleagues.

  To facilitate the remaining sales, I have modified NBC's disposal programme to enable it to offer for sale two or more bus operating subsidiaries together. This modification, made at NBC's request, will not affect NBC's statutory duty to promote fair and sustained competition in disposing of its subsidiaries, but will give NBC more flexibility in fulfilling this duty. All sales will remain subject to the consent of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I have placed a copy of the amendment in the Library of the House. I have also laid before the House a revocation of two directions given to NBC on 13

  203
  February and 7 April 1986, in relation to the preparation of its disposal programme. The directions had ceased to have effect once the programme was approved.

ENVIRONMENT

  Conservation Policy
  Mr. Thurnham
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he has studied the publication "This Pleasant Land" which has been sent to him; and what are his policies on (a) establishing protected green belt areas, (b) designating housing restraint areas and (c) creating strategic development boundaries, in the light of the publication;

  (2) if he will introduce regulations to establish (a) protected green belt areas, (b) housing restraint areas and (c) strategic development boundaries to be protected from development; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  "This Pleasant Land" is an interesting discussion of current planning issues. However, it understates the strength and success of existing conservation policies. The Government have vigorously maintained the protection afforded to the green belts and other sensitive areas, and will continue to do so. I see no need for new designations of the kind proposed. The success of policies for housing development in existing urban areas is evidenced by the extent to which land for housebuilding is coming from previously developed sites and vacant land within urban areas—in the last two years about 46 per cent. of land developed for housing came from these sources.

  Land use surveys can provide valuable information, but assessments of housing land supply must also take account of such factors as ownership, market demand and the availability of services, which can only be assessed at the local level. That is why, within the context of structure and local plan allocations, we have urged local authorities and housebuilders to undertake joint studies of housing land availability in each area.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Raison
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the likely impact of the proposed unified business rate after revaluation on non-domestic ratepayers in each of the districts of Buckinghamshire, expressed as a percentage change.

  Mr. Howard
  The table shows the effect on business rates in Buckinghamshire districts if a uniform non-domestic rate had been set in 1987–88 at the present national average poundage. Arrangements for the revaluation of non-domestic property are not yet sufficiently far advanced to predict what the impact will be in Buckinghamshire.

  Present poundage

  Uniform poundage

  Per cent, change

  Aylesbury Vale

  220·9p

  224·1p

  +1·5

  South Bucks

  222·0p

  224·1p

  +1·0

  Chiltern

  227·2p

  224·1p

  -1·4

  Milton Keynes

  236·9p

  224·1p

  -5·4

  Wycombe

  223·8p

  224·1p

  +0·2

  Commons Court (Asbestos)
  Mr. Butler
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will publish estimates of the presence of asbestos fibres in the air in Commons Court; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  Air samples taken on 23 October from all three floors at Commons Court block show a reading of less than 0·01 fibres/ml. This is below the minimum safety level and is the same as the reading taken before the removal of sprayed asbestos from structural beams and girders in 15 offices during the summer recess. It is intended that the remaining 34 offices will be treated during the next summer recess.

  Council House Sales
  Mr. Amess
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many council and new town commission houses or flats have been sold in each of the last five years.

  Mrs. Roe
  Sales of dwellings by English local authorities and new towns for 1982 and 1983 were published in table 9.6 of "Housing and Construction Statistics 1976–1986" and figures for 1984 to 1986 were published in table 2.12 of "Housing and Construction Statistics Part 2 June 1987" copies of which are available in the Library.

  Home Ownership
  Mr. Amess
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on future plans to encourage wider home ownership.

  Mrs. Roe
  The Government's commitment to supporting the growth of owner occupation was set out in chapter 2 of the recent White Paper "Housing: The Government's Proposals" (Cm. 214). The Government will encourage the operation of a free market in buying, selling and constructing homes, and will continue to assist homebuyers through tax relief on mortgage interest. They will also encourage the development of initiatives such as shared ownership which reduce the initial cost of home ownership, and will maintain the right of council tenants to buy their homes.

  Hares
  Mr. Corbett
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will make it his policy to establish an independent scientific survey into the hare population with a view to including the species under schedule 5 to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.

  Mr. Moynihan
  No. The conservation status of the brown hare was carefully considered by the Government's statutory adviser on wildlife matters, the Nature Conservancy Council, as part of its recent statutory review of schedules 5 and 8 to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, following its first five years of operation. Its advice following this review was that the brown hare does not merit inclusion in schedule 5 on conservation grounds. I understand the blue hare is not under threat.

  Housing Action Areas
  Mr. Rooker
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on progress made

  205
  by his Department on declaring housing action areas in Handsworth, Birmingham, since the Parliamentary Under-Secretary replied to the Adjournment on 14 July, Official Report, columns 1105–8.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Further discussions took place between officials of the Department and Birmingham city council on 11 September. A formal submission for the declaration of Charles as a housing action area is now awaited from the city council. A decision on whether or not the declaration is allowed to stand will be made as quickly as possible after the submission is received.

  The other area referred to in the Adjournment debate was Turville. I understand that the city council will need to carry out further survey work before it will be ready to make a submission in this case.

  Enveloping Schemes
  Mr. Rooker
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many enveloping schemes he has approved in Birmingham since 14 July.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Since 14 July 1987, four envelope schemes submitted by Birmingham city council have been approved. They involved a total of 525 dwellings, at a cost of £4,279,177.

  Home Loan Scheme
  Mr. French
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many people have received assistance from the Government's home loan scheme in (a) Gloucester and (b) England and Wales for the most recent year for which figures are available; how this compares with previous years; what proportion of first-time buyers this represents; and what action the Government takes to promote the scheme.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Information on the take-up of the home loan scheme is not available for individual areas.

  The take-up of the scheme for the last five years is shown in the table:

  Financial year

  Number of first-time buyers benefiting

  1982–83

  6,277

  1983–84

  4,240

  1984–85

  3,580

  1985–86

  3,520

  1986–87

  1,660

  The number of people receiving assistance in the financial year 1986–87 represents about 0·25 per cent. of first-time buyers who received advances from banks and building societies.

  The Government make a full range of promotional material for the scheme available through banks, building societies and other mortgage lenders and savings institutions.

  Rate Support Grant
  Sir Peter Hordern
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what are his proposals for the rate support grant settlement for 1988–89.

  Mr. Ridley
  I am today issuing a consultation paper to the local authority associations and local authorities 206
  setting out my detailed proposals for the 1988–89 rate support grant settlement. The associations and individual local authorities have been asked for their written comments and representations on these proposals by 17 November.

  Copies of the consultation paper have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Growth Rates
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the most recent estimate of the growth rate in the European Economic Community, the United States of America, Japan and the United Kingdom respectively; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lilley
  The latest available data for the United Kingdom, the United States and Japan are for the second quarter of 1987. Over the year to that quarter, GDP grew by 3·8 per cent. in the United Kingdom, 2·7 per cent. in Japan and 2·4 per cent. in the United States. The latest complete data for the EC are for the first quarter of 1987. Over the year to that quarter, GDP in the EC grew by 2·6 per cent.

  Equal Opportunities
  Ms. Richardson
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is (a) the proportion of working time allocated to his departmental equal opportunities officer for equal opportunities duties, (b) the other duties carried out by the departmental equal opportunities officer, (c) the proportion, and amount, of the departmental budget which is allocated to equal opportunities work, (d) the number of occasions when the departmental equal opportunities officer meets equal opportunities officers from other Government Departments each year, (e) the guidelines issued to his departmental training officers and equal opportunities officers to promote the use of section 47 of the Sex Discrimination Act and (f) the action taken to facilitate job share, part-time working and parental leave.

  Mr. Brooke
  The departmental equal opportunities officer reports to the principal establishment officer. In addition to work on equal opportunities, for which no fixed proportion of the time is allocated, there are other duties, including policy on personnel management. The officer attends the annual meeting of departmental equal opportunities officers, and meets them frequently on other occasions throughout the year. No specific part of the departmental budget is allocated to equal opportunities.

  No guidelines have been issued, either to departmental training officers or to departmental equal opportunities officers, on the operation of section 47 of the Sex Discrimination Act.

  All personnel managers in my Department are encouraged to identify opportunities for job sharing and part-time working. Individual requests are dealt with sympathetically, taking into account the working needs of the Department. The Department offers maternity leave. Requests for special leave caused by domestic emergencies are considered on an individual basis.

  Tax Arrears
  Mr. Steel
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy that, where tax arrears result from errors made by the Inland Revenue, there be no obligation on the taxpayer to pay such arrears.

  Mr. Lawson
  The general rule is that tax arrears remain legally payable, whether or not the underpayment is attributable in some measure to Inland Revenue error. The Inland Revenue does, however, operate an extra-statutory concession under which arrears of tax may be wholly or partly waived if they have arisen because of a departmental error which involved the failure to make proper and timely use of information about income or personal circumstances supplied by the taxpayer so that he could reasonably believe that his affairs were in order.

  The proportion of arrears remitted under this practice varies according to the size of the taxpayer's income. The terms of the concession (ESC A19) are published in the Inland Revenue's list of extra-statutory concessions.

  Arts (Tax Incentives)
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the effect on the arts of tax incentives for individuals and companies introduced in the Finance Act 1986.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The tax incentives which the Government introduced last year to encourage personal and corporate donations to charities were widely and warmly welcomed. Inland Revenue records do not distinguish between different types of charities, but arts charities can benefit in the same way as other charities. It is too soon to judge the full effect of the 1986 measures, but the early signs are encouraging. I hope donors and charities will take full advantage of the opportunities which the Government have provided to increase the flow of funds into charities.

  Computer Records (Access)
  Mr. Andrew MacKay
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how access to taxpayers' computer records will be governed when the new computer system proposed by the business review of the collection service is introduced by the Inland Revenue; and if he will make a statement.

  European Communities Budget

  1986 Payment appropriations mecu

  Percentage of total budget

  1987 Payment appropriations mecu

  Percentage of total budget

  All fisheries support

  164·0

  0·5

  177·3

  0·5

  All agricultural support

  22,902·2

  65·1

  23,804·0

  65·8

  European Social Fund

  2,533·0

  7·2

  2,542·3

  7·0

  European Regional Development Fund

  3,373·0

  6·7

  2,497·3

  6·9

  These figures are based on the payment appropriations entered into the 1986 and 1987 European Communities budgets.
  208
  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The new computer system, BROCS, is planned to be implemented in stages from 1990. It will be designed to improve both the efficiency of the revenue's operations and the service provided to taxpayers. In particular, it will provide accurate and up-to-date information in three main areas where present systems are now generally seen to be unacceptably slow and fallible:

  (i) where a tax inspector needs to have information held on collection records relevant to an assessment for which he is responsible.

  (ii) where a collector needs to have information held on tax office records relevant to a tax debt which he is handling—to ensure that recovery procedures start with an accurate knowledge of the taxpayer's position.

  (iii) where a collector needs to know of information on other collection records—to confirm the payment position of outstanding liabilities, co-ordinate handling of cases where a taxpayer may have several tax debts outstanding and ensure prompt banking of tax receipts.

  These facilities are, in essence, the same as those that tax and collection offices are authorised to have under the present collection procedures. It is proposed to adopt standard access rules for BROCS and the other main computer systems linked with it: COP (for PAYE); CODA (for schedule D) and OCTA (for corporation tax).

  Access to information under these systems will continue to be strictly controlled on a "need to know" basis. In some circumstances, it will be given only to certain nominated officers and generally on a view-only basis. There will continue to be special controls for certain sensitive records. Additional safeguards built into the new system will include a separate record and audit trail of all accesses to computer records.

  EC Budget
  Dr. Godman
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest figure for the proportion of the European Commission budget for 1987 on (a) all fisheries support, (b) all agricultural support, (c) the social fund and (d) the regional fund; and how these sums compare with those of 1986.

  Mr. Brooke
  The information requested is given in the table.

WALES

  Hip Replacement Operations
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the progress of hip replacement operations under the National Health Service in Wales.
  209
  Mr. Grist
  Between 1979 and 1986 the number of hip replacement operations performed by the National Health Service in Wales rose from 1,541 to 1,908—an increase of some 24 per cent.

  Community Care
  Mr. Barry Jones
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he will take to ensure that adequate short-term funds are made available to local health authorities to meet the cost of setting up properly funded community care schemes for the elderly, mentally ill and physically disabled people.

  Mr. Grist
  A variety of mechanisms already exist to provide central funds to health authorities in support of community care schemes for elderly, mentally ill and physically disabled people. These include joint finance, under which the Department collaborates financially with health authorities, local authorities and voluntary organisations, and the mental health development scheme, under which health authorities receive 100 per cent. central funding for projects for mentally ill people. In addition, the elderly initiative grant scheme launched in January this year provides grant-aid to health authorities and other agencies to set up innovative projects to test new patterns of community care for elderly people.

  Low-paid Workers
  Mr. Barry Jones
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will estimate the number of workers in Wales who earn less than £3 per hour and the percentage which they constitute of the total Welsh work force.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  An estimate of the number of workers is not available, but results of the 1986 new earnings survey indicate that 28·6 per cent. of full-time adult workers in Wales whose earnings were not affected by absence earn less than £3 per hour.

  Education
  Mr. Barry Jones
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales what proportion of children under the age of 16 years in Wales are educated in state schools.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  In January 1987, 97·9 per cent of all school pupils aged under 16 years in Wales were educated in maintained schools.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Soviet Union (Mail)
  Mr. John Marshall
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what assurances the Post Office has (a) sought and (b) received about the delivery of mail in the Soviet Union; and what steps it takes to monitor their implementation.

  Mr. Butcher
  International postal operations are governed by the provisions of the Universal Postal Union convention, to which both the Soviet Union and the United Kingdom are signatories. The UPU convention makes provision for the prohibition of the importation of articles whose importation and circulation is prohibited in the country of destination. The precise internal regulations under which Soviet customs or postal officials operate in 210
  confiscating items are not publicly available. But the Soviet notification to the UPU of prohibited articles is so widely drawn as to allow the Soviet authorities, in theory, to refuse entry or to confiscate items we would consider innocuous. We find this situation far from satisfactory.

  The Soviet authorities are well aware of our views, which we have made known to them on a number of occasions. As I said in my reply to a question from my hon. Friend on 21 October, at columns 811–12, we have raised the matter at the CSCE follow-up meeting currently taking place in Vienna.

  I understand that most mail to the Soviet Union is registered, and all registered items are individually listed before dispatch. It is therefore always possible to check whether a particular letter has been forwarded. The Post Office sets inquiries in train with the Soviet postal authorities as necessary about the non-delivery of specific items.

  Marble, Granite and Stone
  Mr. William Powell
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list in the Official Report the value and country of origin, of imports into the United Kingdom of finished (a) marble, (b) granite and (c) stone in each year since 1980.

  Mr. Butcher
  Building and monumental stone is classified in the standard international trade classification revision 2 (SITC R2) under item heading 661.32, but marble and granite are not separately identified. Information by country of origin is not readily available at SITC item level: information on a country of origin basis for the years 1980 and 1986 has been prepared within cost limits.

  Imports of Building and Monumental Stone

  Total United Kingdom Imports

  £'000

  1980

  9,668

  1981

  10,460

  1982

  11,384

  1983

  13,491

  1984

  16,238

  1985

  19,066

  1986

  27,245

  Country of Origin breakdown:

  1980

  Total imports =

  9,668

  of which

  Italy

  6,529

  India

  734

  South Africa

  730

  France

  417

  Portugal

  407

  Pakistan

  239

  1986

  Total imports =

  27,245

  of which

  Italy

  14,867

  France

  2,195

  Portugal

  2,025

  Taiwan

  1,755

  India

  1,632

  Spain

  1,236

  Source: Overseas Trade Statistics.

  Notes:

  Building and monumental stone defined as Standard International Trade Classification (revision 2) item 661.32.

  1986 figures provisional.

  Data Protection Act
  Mr. Cohen
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is his Department's policy towards fees for subject access under the terms of the Data Protection Act; how many register entries his Department has; and what would be the total cost to a data subject seeking access to personal data held under all register entries.

  Mr. Butcher
  My Department intends to make no charge in respect of subject access requests made by its employees in respect of information that it holds under the Act in its capacity as their employer. For all other requests, including external requests, a fee of 10 will be charged in order to cover the cost of providing the service. This is in accordance with Treasury guidelines on charging.

  Music Industry
  Sir David Price
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he will use his statutory powers to prevent increased control of music publishers by record, film and television groups, in the light of the effects of such control on the contractual and royalty terms of composers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  Any such increases of control may constitute mergers which qualify under the terms of the Fair Trading Act 1973 for reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission for further investigation. My right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State announced on 7 October that the proposed merger between enterprises carried on by or under the control of Chappell and Co. Inc. and enterprises carried on by or under the control of Warner Communications Inc. had been referred to the MMC. In assessing whether a merger may operate against the public interest, the MMC has a statutory duty to take into account all matters which it considers in the circumstances to be relevant.

  Films
  Mr. Gale
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he expects to release the Director of Fair Trading's report on practices relating to the public exhibition of films.

  Mr. Maude
  I intend to do so shortly in order to consult the industry and other interested parties about the appropriate follow-up action to the report.

  UNCTAD
  Mr. Oppenheim
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will report on the outcome of the seventh session of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development held in Geneva from 9 July to 3 August 1987.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  This session of the conference adopted a Final Act which set out the consensus reached on the main substantive item under consideration—the revitalisation of development, growth and international trade.

  I have arranged for copies of this document, the speech I made at the conference and the text of the closing statement by the United Kingdom following the adoption of the Final Act to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Internal Market Council
  Mr. Oppenheim
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will report on the Internal Market Council held on 5 October.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The Council, at which I represented the United Kingdom, agreed a common position on a revised proposal by the European Commission to amend the EC directive on the rules for public sector supplies contracts. The Council also discussed proposals for a directive on the mutual recognition of member states professional qualifications and for amending the existing directive on sound power levels of lawnmowers, and heard a Commission statement on its proposal for a regulation on the control of concentrations between undertakings (the "Merger Control" regulation).

  Listing Particulars (EC Directive)
  Mr. Charles Wardle
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the adoption of a European Community directive on listing particulars.

  Mr. Maude
  A Council of Ministers adopted on 22 June a directive on the mutual recognition of listing particulars, the information document required to be published when securities are admitted to official stock exchange listing. This directive requires listing particulars which have been approved by a competent authority in one member state to be accepted throughout the Community. During negotiations on the proposal the United Kingdom secured important improvemens to the original proposal which materially reduced the scope for listing particulars of an unacceptable standard to benefit from mutual recognition. There was a real risk that these improvements might have been undermined had the United Kingdom delayed adoption of the proposal beyond 1 July, the date on which the Single European Act came into force. I therefore judged that it was in the United Kingdom's interest not to delay adoption until the House had completed its consideration of the measure. I regret that the normal scrutiny procedures were not followed on this occasion. but I hope the House will understand the special reasons why the Government agreed to the adoption of the directive in these circumstances.

PRIME MINISTER

  Pembrokeshire
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  asked the Prime Minister when she next intends to make an official visit to Pembrokeshire.

  The Prime Minister
  I have at present no plans to do so.

  Blowpipe Missiles
  Mr. Dalyell
  asked the Prime Minister if Her Majesty's Government have yet responded to the Soviet protest in connection with deliveries of Blowpipe missiles to Afghanistan.

  The Prime Minister
  I have nothing to add to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on 13 July at column 335.

  Darnchurch
  Mr. Pawsey
  asked the Prime Minister if she has any plans to make an official visit to Darnchurch, near Rugby.

  The Prime Minister
  I have at present no plans to do so.

  Burgh Island
  Mr. Steen
  asked the Prime Minister when she next intends to visit Burgh Island.

  The Prime Minister
  I have at present no plans to do so.

  Plutonium
  Mr. Cohen
  asked the Prime Minister on what basis, and for what reason, Her Majesty's Government have given permission to British Nuclear Fuels to sell the equipment and know-how to make weapons-grade plutonium to other countries; whether any other of Britain's NATO allies were consulted; and if she will make a statement on the implications for non-proliferation agreements.

  The Prime Minister
  All exports of nuclear materials, equipment and technology are made within the guidelines set out in the statement by the then Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Sir James Callaghan, on 31 March 1976 at columns 514–16. Those guidelines ensure that any such export will be wholly consistent with our international non-proliferation obligations under the non-proliferation treaty.

  Space Research
  Sir Trevor Skeet
  asked the Prime Minister what response she has made to the representations from ACOST to the effect that further funds should be committed to space research and development or the United Kingdom should withdraw from the European venture.

  The Prime Minister
  I have in the last few days received advice from ACOST on the subject of space research and development. That advice was given in confidence. My hon. Friend should not assume that the advice coincides with his description of it. I shall be responding to ACOST in due course.

  Security Services
  Mr. Winnick
  asked the Prime Minister what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government on co-operation of the British security services with the South African authorities; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  It has been the practice of successive Governments not to comment on security matters.

  Engagements
  Mr. Ron Davies
  asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 27 October.

  Mr. Pike
  asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 27 October.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 27 October.

  The Prime Minister
  This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties 214
  in this House, I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Education Reform
  Mr. Livingstone
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science on what basis he will determine the specific objective ratings for school attainment scores, in particular with mathematics, once the regular testing of children at seven, 11 and 14 years comes into force.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend has appointed expert working groups on mathematics and on science to advise on the national attainment targets for these subjects and arrangements for assessment and testing performance in relation to these targets. He has also appointed a task group on assessment and testing to make recommendations for a national assessment system, including ways in which results should be expressed and reported to meet the various purposes of assessment.

  The mathematics and science working groups are to produce interim reports in November and final reports by July 1988. The task group on assessment and testing has been asked to report by Christmas 1987. There will be consultations about its recommendations before new arrangements are brought into effect.

  Truancy
  Mr. Cyril Smith
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will collect and publish statistics on the incidence of truancy amongst 12-year-old and 13-year-old children (a) in authorities with a middle school system and (b) in authorities which have an 11 to 16-year-old school system.

  Mr. Dunn
  The Department does not collect any statistics on the incidence of truancy.

  A-Level Examination
  Mr. Cyril Smith
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will collect and publish statistics on A-level passes obtained by pupils, as a percentage of those entered for the examination in (a) authorities with a middle school system, (b) authorities with an 11 to 16-year-old school system, (c) sixth form college system authorities and (d) authorities with a tertiary college system.

  Mr. Dunn
  Information on the A-level attainments of English school leavers is published in "Statistics of Education: School Leavers CSE and GCE", a copy of which is in the Library.

  Data Protection
  Mr. Cohen
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is his Department's policy towards fees for subject access under the terms of the Data Protection Act; how many register entries his Department has; and what would be the total cost to a data subject seeking access to personal data held under all register entries.
  215
  Mrs. Rumbold
  My Department's policy on subject access fees is to recover the direct costs of meeting a request for personal data, on an estimated average basis. My Department has eight register entries at present.

  The cost to a data subject of obtaining his personal data would in most cases be £8 but, very exceptionally, might total a maximum of £40.

  Merseyside (Ministerial Visit)
  Mr. Parry
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on his recent visit to Merseyside.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  In the course of my visit to Liverpool on Monday 5 October I was able to see a nursery, a primary, and a comprehensive school, and to lunch at Liverpool polytechnic. I welcomed the opportunity to meet members of the authority and to discuss matters of common concern with a group of young people at Shorefields comprehensive school in Toxteth.

  Medical Research Council
  Mr. Parry
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how much has been spent by the Medical Research Council on research into the causes of the post viral fatigue syndrome in each of the past five years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  The Medical Research Council has not funded any research directly on post viral fatigue syndrome. However, the council does support research on immune responses to muscle, nerve cells and related structures which may shed light on this problem. The council is always willing to consider soundly based scientific proposals in competition with other applications.

  Examination Courses
  Mr. Key
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will now give details of the arrangements in place to approve examination courses offered in the compulsory years of secondary education against national criteria.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend announced earlier this month interim non-statutory arrangements for the approval of all public examination courses for 14 to 16-year-olds against national criteria. Under these arrangements, agreed by the major examination bodies concerned, all examinations offered to the 14 to 16 age group will be subject to approval and monitoring by the Secondary Examinations Council in the same way as GCSE courses.

  All single-subject courses will be approved against the existing GCSE national criteria. New criteria are being introduced for approving integrated courses, that is those which cover a range of subjects and occupy most of a pupil's time. Approved courses will be offered in schools from September 1988.

  These arrangements are based on advice made to my right hon. Friend by the SEC in the light of consultation on the report of a working party chaired by Mr. R. S. Johnson, director of education for Leeds. We are grateful to the SEC for its advice and to the working party for its recommendations.

  Our proposals for a national curriculum, which my right hon. Friend intends to present to the House this
  216
  coming Session, will put these arrangements on a statutory basis. They may also necessitate changes to the integrated course criteria.

  Copies of the interim integrated course criteria have been placed in the Library.

  Teachers (Pay and Conditions)
  Mr. Pawsey
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when the Green Paper on permanent arrangements for settling teachers' pay and conditions will be published.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  I have today laid before Parliament a Green Paper entitled "Teachers' Pay and Conditions: a Consultative Document". Copies are available in the Vote Office.

  Mr. Haselhurst
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when the Interim Advisory Committee on School Teachers' Pay and Conditions will be given its remit.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  I have today written to Lord Chilver, the chairman of the interim advisory committee on school teachers' pay and conditions, a letter which sets. out the issues on which the advice of the committee is sought. The text of my letter is as follows:

  Lord Chilver FRS, FEng, CBIM

  Chairman

  Interim Advisory Committee on

  School Teachers' Pay and Conditions 27 October 1987

  Dear Henry,

  1. I am grateful to you and your colleagues for agreeing to be members of the Interim Advisory Committee. The purpose of this letter is to set out the issues on which the Government now seeks the Committee's advice.

  2. As you know, the Committee has a statutory basis, Sub-sections (1) and (4) of Section 2 of the Teachers' Pay and Conditions Act provide that:
  "The Secretary of State shall appoint an Interim Advisory Committee on School Teachers' Pay and Conditions to examine and report to him on such matters relating to the remuneration and other conditions of employment of school teachers in England and Wales as he may refer to them."
  "The Secretary of State may give directions to the Committee with respect to matters referred to them as to considerations to which they are to have regard and financial or other constraints to which their recommendations are to be subject, and as to the time within which they are to report to him."

  3. Sub-section (5) of Section 2 provides that the Committee shall give notice of matters referred to the Committee and of any relevant directions to the appropriate associations of local education authorities and any individual local education authority with whom consultation appears desirable, bodies representing the interests of governors of voluntary schools and organisations representing school teachers, so as to afford them a reasonable opportunity of submitting evidence and representations.

  4. In accordance with Section 2 of the Teachers' Pay and Conditions Act 1987 I invite the Interim Advisory Committee to examine and report on the following matters subject to the considerations in paragraph 5 and to the constraints in paragraph 6.

  (i) What changes should be made in the figures for salaries and allowances, and other details, set out in the Pay section of the School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Document 1987?

  (ii) Should there be any modifications to the provision for differentials within the pay structure? In particular do the differentials between heads' salaries and deputies' salaries and between heads' and deputies' salaries on the one hand, and other

  217
  teachers' salaries on the other, reflect appropriately the responsibilities of heads and deputies in primary and secondary schools (including special schools)?

  (iii) In the light of the operation of the arrangements in the Teachers' Pay and Conditions Document 1987 should there be any modifications to the provision relating to teachers' duties?

  (iv) Should there be any change in London area allowances, and should any other regional variations in salaries be introduced taking account of shortages of teachers in particular areas and of particular skills?

  (v) Is the existing social priority allowance still appropriate?

  5. In considering these matters I direct the Committee under sub-section (4) of Section 2 to have regard to the following considerations.

  (i) The Government's view is that school teachers' pay and conditions of service should be such as to enable the maintained school system to recruit, retain and motivate sufficient teachers of the required quality both nationally and at local level within what can be afforded.

  (ii) The School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Document 1987 sets out a new pay structure and a new definition of teachers' duties and working time. It was prepared taking account of work undertaken during the long period of discussions between the local authority associations and the teachers' unions with the assistance of ACAS, the recommendations in the Main Report, and views expressed in consultations with local education authority associations, teacher unions and bodies representing the interests of governors of voluntary schools. The Government does not intend to make major changes to the pay structure consisting of a main professional scale and five rates of incentive allowances or to the provisions relating to teachers' duties and working time for 1988–89.

  6. I further direct under sub-section (4) of Section 2 that the Committee's recommendations are to be subject to the following constraints.

  (i) The rates of salaries and allowances to be recommended by the Committee shall be in respect of the period 1 April 1988 to 31 March 1989. The Committee may also consider and make recommendations about the London area allowances from 1 July 1987.

  (ii) The recommendations of the Committee should be such that they do not cost more than an additional £300 million in the 1988–89 financial year or in later years.

  7. My Department will in due course place evidence before the Committee in relation to these matters.

  8. I further direct the Committee to report to me the results of their examination of these matters, with their recommendations and such other advice relating to these matters as they think fit, by 31 March 1988. Sub-section 7 of Section 2 of the Act requires me to arrange for your report to be published.

  Yours sincerely

  KENNETH BAKER

ENERGY

  National Grid
  Mr. Wray
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy what contingency arrangements he proposes to make for national or regional emergencies affecting the national grid in the proposals he will be putting before Parliament for the privatisation of electricity.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Our proposals for the privatisation of the electricity supply industry will ensure that the industry maintains the ability to operate the national grid in a flexible manner, during national and regional emergencies and at other times.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Frank Larsen and Others (Prosecution)
  Mr. Spearing
  asked the Attorney-General if, pursuant to his statement and answers given to the House on Friday, 23 October, he will list those criminal charges which on available evidence, could be made against the persons discharged from Lambeth magistrates court; and if he will request the Director of Public Prosecution to consider prosecutions accordingly.

  The Attorney-General
  The Director of Public Prosecutions has already considered all the available evidence and all possible criminal proceedings arising therefrom. It is not his practice, nor is it mine, to detail allegations, whether or not they are capable of substantiation, against persons who are not subject to criminal proceedings.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  India
  Mr. Dunnachie
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list (a) the total aid budget given to India in the past financial year by Her Majesty's Government, and (b) the estimated aid budget for India in the coming financial year; and what proportion of Her Majesty's Government aid budget comprises loans to the Indian Government to be paid back to Her Majesty's Government with interest.

  Mr. Eggar
  Firm figures for gross public expenditure on aid in the last financial year are not yet available by country. In the calendar year 1986, gross public expenditure on aid to India was £143·5 million.

  It is not our practice to reveal planning allocations for future years: these are of a provisional nature.

  All aid expenditure in India in 1986 was in the form of grants, which have been the standard form of aid to India since 1975.

  Aid Budget
  Mr. Dunnachie
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what was the total United Kingdom overseas aid budget for the last financial year as a percentage of United Kingdom gross national product;

  (2) if he will list the total percentage of United Kingdom gross national product given as overseas aid in comparison with similar percentages of the member nations of the European Economic Community.

  Mr. Eggar
  The percentages of gross national product given in 1986 as net official development assistance by European Community states which are members of the Development Assistance Committee of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development were:

  Percentage

  Belgium

  0·48

  Denmark

  0·89

  France (excluding overseas departments and territories)

  0·49

  Germany

  0·43

  Ireland

  0·28

  Italy

  0·40

  Netherlands

  1·00

  United Kingdom

  0·32

  219
  Details of other European Community member states are not available for 1986.

  Mr. Dunnachie
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the total overseas aid budget given by Her Majesty's Government to (a) Bangladesh, (b) Pakistan and (c) Sri Lanka in the last financial year; and what proportion of this aid comprised loans to be paid back to Her Majesty's Government with interest.

  Mr. Eggar
  Firm figures for gross public expenditure on aid in the last financial year are not yet available by country. In the calendar year 1986, gross public expenditure on aid to Bangladesh, Pakistan and Sri Lanka was as follows, excluding transactions by the Commonwealth Development Corporation:

  £ million

  Bangladesh

  38·3

  Pakistan

  20·7

  Sri Lanka

  13·4

  None of these disbursements was in respect of an interest-bearing loan. Since 1975 the standard form of aid to these countries has been grant. In addition, the Commonwealth Development Corporation disbursed £2 million to Sir Lanka in 1986 in loan form.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Jonathan Wash
  Sir Trevor Skeet
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has on the death of Jonathan Wash in the Ivory Coast on 19 November 1985; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  The file on this case prepared by the examining magistrate in the Ivory Coast has been sent to the Bedfordshire police who are conducting an investigation into Mr. Wash's death at the request of the Bedfordshire coroner. A team from the Bedfordshire police expects to visit the Ivory Coast shortly.

  Citizenship
  Mr. Dunnachie
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) how many citizens of (a) India, (b) Pakistan and (c) Bangladesh were granted full United Kingdom citizenship for each year since and including 1983;

  (2) how many citizens of (a) India, (b) Pakistan and (c) Bangladesh applied unsuccessfully for United Kingdom citizenship for each year since and including 1983.

  Mr. Renton
  I have been asked to reply.

  Grants of citizenship by nationality are published annually in Home Office statistical bulletins, most recently in bulletin 29/87; the figures requested are given in the table. Corresponding information on refusals of applications for citizenship is not readily available.
  220

  Grants of British citizenship

  Numbers

  Previous citizenship or nationality

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  India

  7,865

  12,567

  5,907

  3,833

  Pakistan

  7,728

  10,272

  6,931

  4,882

  Bangladesh

  2,234

  3,787

  2,968

  2,748

EMPLOYMENT

  Community Programme
  Mr. Wareing
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received from voluntary organisations on Merseyside about planned changes in the operation of the community programme; if he plans to meet such organisations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  I have received correspondence from a number of hon. Members on this matter. I have already met national representatives of the voluntary sector to discuss the proposed improvements to community programme provision, but I have no current plans to meet voluntary organisations from Merseyside.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish a table showing the current levels of unemployment in France, Italy, West Germany., the United States of America and the United Kingdom respectively; and what were the comparable figures of the calendar years 1973 and 1982, respectively, for each country.

  Mr. Lee
  Following is the information requested. The figures are not fully comparable becaue of national differences in definitions and the methods of compiling the statistics.

  Thousands

  Current level (Seasonally adjusted—latest month)

  Annual average

  1973

  1982

  France

  2,638 (July)

  394

  2,000

  Italy

  3,233 (May)

  1,005

  2,163

  West Germany

  2,255 (September)

  274

  1,855

  United States of America

  7,221 (August)

  4,365

  10,678

  United Kingdom1

  2,775 (September)

  545

  2,626

  1 Excluding school leavers on consistent basis, allowing for changes in coverage.

  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish a table showing, in respect of the most recent date for which figures are available, the percentage of unemployed men in France, Belgium, West Germany, the United Kingdom and the United States of America respectively, who have been unemployed for a year or more; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  The information requested is given in the following table. The figures are not directly comparable because of national differences in definitions and methods of compiling the statistics. In particular, the figures for the United States of America are based on surveys rather than registrations at unemployment offices.
  221

  Percentage of unemployed men who were unemployed for a year or more in 1986

  Per cent.

  France

  28

  Belgium

  52

  West Germany

  32

  United Kingdom

  46

  United States of America

  11

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Meat Imports
  Mr. Wray
  asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures Her Majesty's Government will take so as to strictly abide by the European Community ban of hormone treated meat imports from the United States of America.

  Mr. Gummer
  The Imported Food Regulations 1984 give powers to prohibit, by notice in the London Gazette, the import of meat and meat products which do not satisfy the relevant requirements of EC legislation.

  Animal Welfare
  Mr. Corbett
  asked the Secretary of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he plans to meet the Farm Animal Welfare Council working group on religious slaughter before announcing his conclusions on the Farm Animal Welfare Council report on religious slaughter.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Yes. In fact yesterday I met the chairman of the Farm Animal Welfare Council and members of the council's working group on religious slaughter.

  Organic Farming
  Mr. Colvin
  asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the definition of organic farming used for the purposes of his Department.

  Mr. Gummer
  My Department does not currently use any one definition of organic farming. However, the United Kingdom Register of Organic Food Standards has recently been established by Food From Britain to consider the question of standards to be observed in organic production and I shall seek advice from that body as required.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he now has concerning the number of farmers, in total and by county in England and Wales, who are using (a) organic methods and (b) low-input, low-output methods.

  Mr. Gummer
  Such information is not currently available. In due course, however, it should be possible to produce data on the number of farmers using organic methods and who have registered with the United Kingdom Register of Organic Food Standards.

  Sheepmeat
  Mr. Ron Davies
  asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what effect the operation of the Sheep Variable Premium (Protection of Payments) (Amendment)
  222
  Order 1983 (S.I. 1983/1009) and the (Recovery Powers) Regulations 1983 (S.I. 1983/1010) have had on sheep meat prices and the cost of the sheep variable premium scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  These regulations form a necessary part of the sheep variable premium scheme operated in Great Britain. Their effects on prices or SVPS costs cannot be meaningfully isolated.

  Freezer Trawlers
  Dr. Godman
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list in the Official Report the freezer trawlers which received de-commissioning grants, the amount of grant in each case, and the amount of money obtained by the sale of each of these vessels; how much money was paid by the state, by way of a grant, to assist in the construction of each of these vessels; and if he is able to estimate the annual depreciation of each of these vessels.

  Mr. Gummer
  Information about decommissioning grants and construction grants paid in respect of 17 freezer trawlers is shown in the table. The decommissioning scheme did not require vessel owners to supply my Department with details of the selling prices. I am therefore not able to estimate the annual depreciation of decommissioned vessels.

  Vessel Name

  Decommissioning Grant £

  National Construction Grant £

  Arctic Raider

  484,400

  113,177

  Arctic Freebooter

  587,600

  145,496

  Cordelia

  614,000

  459,033

  Farnella

  591,100

  279,572

  Dane

  591,992

  554,344

  Roman

  579,292

  393,494

  Defiance

  580,400

  158,287

  Goth

  579,292

  383,472

  Norse

  579,292

  355,270

  St. Jasper

  514,484

  241,128

  St. Jerome

  515,280

  217,925

  St. Jason

  537,200

  226,288

  St. Benedict

  581,504

  505,990

  Boston Lincoln

  397,620

  89,615

  Sir Fred Parkes

  620,000

  138,109

  Pict

  728,800

  561,160

  Northella

  614,000

  506,443

  Sharks
  Mr. Tony Banks
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many basking sharks were taken from British territorial waters in each of the past five years; which countries took them; for what purposes; what is the estimated population of basking sharks in British waters; and if he will consider a total ban on their being fished.

  Mr. Gummer
  [pursuant to his reply, 22 October 1987, c. 890]: The only known directed fisheries for basking sharks in British fishery limits are carried out by Norwegian vessels fishing within quotas allocated under the EC-Norway fisheries agreement and by an individual Scottish fisherman who has taken a number of basking sharks each year since 1983 in the Clyde and the Irish sea.

  The Norwegian quota is 400 tonnes of basking shark liver.
  223
  In the last three years Norwegian catches against this quota are understood to have been 48·7 tonnes, 39·4 tonnes and 13 tonnes liver weight respectively, taken in ICES area VIIg (Celtic sea), only part of which falls within British fishery limits. Information on catches in earlier years is not readily available.

  As regards the Scottish catches, it is not the normal practice to publish statistics relating to an individual enterprise, but the catches have declined substantially in the last three years.

  The main purpose for which basking sharks are caught is for their livers, which are used for the production of liver oil products. It is understood that the reduced catches in recent years reflect reduced demand.

  There is no estimate available of the population of basking sharks in British fishery limits. In common with many other species which in British waters are at the limits of their north eastern Atlantic distribution, these are likely to be subject to natural fluctuations in local abundance.

  The Nature Conservancy Council has recommended that basking sharks should be protected in United Kingdom territorial waters under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. This recommendation is currently being considered by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Health Boards
  Mr. Beggs
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are the per capita expenditure and revenue allocations of each of the four area health boards in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Needham
  The revenue allocation for each board in 1987–88 and the corresponding per capita figure, based on mid-1986 population estimates are:

  £

  £ per capita

  Northern

  95,472,000

  252

  Southern

  90,199,000

  312

  Eastern

  320,439,000

  499

  Western

  88,344,000

  344

  This information is meaningless for the purposes of comparison between boards. Estimated board populations do not coincide with actual catchment populations for many services; for example, regional medical services, acute hospital services, psychiatric and mental handicap hospital services.

  Royal Ulster Constabulary (Code of Conduct)
  Mr. McNamara
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) when the Royal Ulster Constabulary code of conduct as approved by the Police Authority (Northern Ireland), will be published;

  (2) whether he will place a copy of the Royal Ulster Constabulary code of conduct, as approved by the Police Authority (Northern Ireland), in the Library.

  Mr. Tom King
  The Chief Constable has issued a document entitled "Professional Policy Ethics" to be incorporated in the RUC manual, which is an internal document for police use only. Any decision on publication is a matter for the Chief Constable.

  Payment for Debt (Temporary Provisions) Act 1972
  Mr. McNamara
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people have had deductions made under the provisions of the Payment for Debt (Temporary Provisions) Act 1972 from moneys due to them from state bodies, in each year since the passage of the legislation, broken down according to religion and local authority area.

  Mr. Stanley
  Information on the number of people from whom deductions have been made under Payments for Debt (Emergency Provisions) Act (Northern Ireland) 1971 in respect of moneys due to them from state bodies is not readily available in the form requested and could not be compiled except at disproportionate cost.

  United States of America (Ministerial Visit)
  Mr. McNamara
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the total cost to the British Government of the recent 11-day trip by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to the United States of America.

  Mr. Tom King
  I regret that the information requested is not yet available. I shall write to the hon. Member with the detailed information as soon as possible.

  Contraception
  Ms. Harman
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will give the breakdown of numbers of individuals receiving contraceptive advice and treatment (1) by contraceptive method and (2) by source of treatment clinic or general practitioner in Northern Ireland for each of the last five years.

  Mr. Needham
  The information is not available in precisely the form requested. The information available is given in the table.

  Table A

  Health1 and Social Services Boards

  General Practitioners1

  Total

  Year

  Oral Contraceptives

  Intrauterine Devices

  Total

  1982

  260,064

  35,379

  1,429

  36,808

  96,872

  1983

  364,542

  39,635

  1,558

  41,193

  105,735

  1984

  74,660

  39,139

  1,950

  41,089

  115,749

  1985

  75,483

  40,424

  2,010

  42,434

  117,917

  1986

  73,836

  43,988

  1,873

  45,861

  119,697

  1 Numbers of individuals for which contraceptives prescribed.

  2 Numbers of individuals attending for advice and treatment.

  3 Figures for Western health and social services board not available.

  Abortions
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the number of abortions undertaken in each health authority area since 1967.

  Mr. Needham
  In Northern Ireland abortions are carried out only on therapeutic grounds where the life of the woman is threatened by the pregnancy or where continuance of the pregnancy is likely to cause grave danger to her physical or mental health.

  Statistical information is not collected in the form requested and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Gynaecological Operations
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list for each health board the number of outstanding gynaecological operations.

  Mr. Needham
  The information is not available in the form requested. However, the total number of patients, by health and social services hoard, awaiting admission to a gynaecological bed at 30 June 1987 was:

  Number

  Eastern Board

  1,058

  Northern Board

  263

  Southern Board

  284

  Western Board

  496

  Hospitals
  Mr. McGrady
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what is his policy on the maintenance of acute hospital services facility in Down unit of management;

  (2) if he accepts the findings of PA Management Consultants in respect of hospital services in Down unit of management which was presented by Down district council to the Department of Health and Social Services.

  Mr. Needham
  As the hon. Member knows, decisions on the pattern of hospital services are in the first instance a matter for health and social services boards. I understand, however, that in its area strategic plan for 1987 to 1992, a copy of which is available in the Library, the Eastern board has concluded that it should attempt to maintain acute services at the Down hospital over the current planning period.

  Mr. McGrady
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) if he is prepared to instruct the Eastern health board to make an allocation from the capital budget towards the construction of a new hospital to replace the Down hospital, Downpatrick;

  (2) what is his policy on the need for a new hospital building programme in Downpatrick.

  Mr. Needham
  It is not for me to instruct boards about the need for specific capital developments in their areas. Boards are responsible for the planning and management of services in their areas and must assess not only the justification for each specific proposal but the priority of such proposals in relation to other demands on resources. Since the replacement of the Down hospital would involve major capital expenditure it would require the approval of the Department of Health and Social Services. The Department, however, has not yet received any formal proposal from the Eastern board for such a capital scheme.

  Castlewellan Factory
  Mr. McGrady
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for what purpose the Moss Lane factory, Castlewellan has been transferred from the IDB to the Department of Health and Social Security.

  Mr. Needham
  The lease on premises at Bessbrook, Co. Armagh, which the DHSS uses for emergency stores, expired on 30 September 1986. The Moss Lane factory was declared surplus to IDB requirements and first offered to Government Departments and public bodies under 226
  normal disposal rules. The offer was taken up by DHSS which had an immediate need to find alternative accommodation for the stores.

  Mr. McGrady
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the exact location and size of the existing site in the south of Northern Ireland which it is proposed the Castlewellan factory will replace.

  Mr. Needham
  The present store is located within the industrial estate on the outskirts of Bessbrook Village, Co. Armagh. This store is approximately 25,000 sq ft and occupies four floors of a former mill.

  Nuclear War
  Mr. McGrady
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many stores of medical supplies for use after a nuclear exchange are there in Northern Ireland; and what is their location.

  Mr. Needham
  There are two such stores in Northern Ireland, one at Bessbrook, Co. Armagh and one at Ballymoney, Co. Antrim.

  Mr. McGrady
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what district councils will be serviced by the Castlewellan factory in a post-nuclear situation.

  Mr. Needham
  All 26 district councils.

  Mr. McGrady
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether there will be any communication between the Castlewellan factory store and the three nuclear stations which the Government have proposed to site in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Needham
  It is assumed that the nuclear stations referred to are the proposed emergency centres which would be used among other things in the event of a nuclear attack. There will be no special communication link between the Castlewellan factory store and any of the three proposed emergency centres other than by the public telephone network.

  Floods
  Mr. McGrady
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, in view of the recent severe flooding, what additional resources are to be given to help those affected by flood damage; and what financial aid will be given to farmers who have suffered stock losses.

  Mr. Viggers
  It is too early yet to say what measures if any might be taken, but it is a general rule that the Government do not compensate for losses caused by the weather. Nevertheless, my colleagues and I are looking at the nature of the circumstances surrounding the flooding emergency in Northern Ireland.

  Police Secondments
  Mr. Tony Banks
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many officers from police forces in England, Wales and Scotland were seconded to duties in Northern Ireland in each of the past three years.

  Mr. Stanley
  [pursuant to his reply, 22 October 1987, c.877]: No formal secondments have been made, but under normal co-operation arrangements some officers may have been temporarily attached to the RUC over this period.

SCOTLAND

  Drug Abuse
  Mr. Wray
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the latest figures for drug abuse increase in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  In Scotland in 1986, 616 new addicts were notified by medical practitioners to the Home Office and 348 former addicts were re-notified. In the same year there were 3,437 seizures of controlled drugs by the police and HM Customs and Excise in Scotland and 5,318 drugs offences were recorded by the police.

  There were increases in the total number of seizures and in the number of drugs offences recorded compared to 1985 but the rates of increase were lower than in the previous year. The total number of addicts notified in 1986 decreased by 12·5 per cent. compared to 1985 when there was a 51 per cent. increase over 1984.

  These statistics are not an accurate measure of the extent of drug misuse but may serve as indicators of general trends. These and other indicators suggest that the

  European countries' stock by tenure

  percentages

  Rented stock

  Owner occupied

  All

  Public sector

  Housing associations

  Private sector

  Scotland

  1986

  42

  58

  49

  2

  6

  United Kingdom

  1986

  63

  37

  27

  3

  8

  Belgium

  1981

  61

  39

  57

  5—

  532

  Denmark

  1980

  55

  45

  4

  16

  25

  France1

  1982

  51

  49

  13

  —

  36

  Germany, Federal Republic2

  1982

  40

  60

  3

  14

  43

  Greece3

  1982

  72

  28

  4

  4

  4

  Ireland, Republic of

  1981

  74

  26

  13

  —

  13

  Italy2

  1981

  59

  41

  4

  4

  4

  Luxembourg3

  1981

  60

  40

  4

  4

  4

  Netherlands

  1981

  43

  57

  12

  30

  14

  Portugal

  1981

  56

  44

  3

  —

  41

  Spain

  1980

  77

  23

  2

  1

  20

  Austria1

  1981

  50

  50

  4

  4

  4

  Switzerland

  1980

  30

  70

  3

  4

  4

  Finland

  1980

  68

  32

  4

  4

  4

  Sweden

  1980

  58

  42

  523

  5—

  519

  Norway

  1980

  74

  26

  4

  4

  4

  1 Occupied main residences—Owner occupied: includes condominiums and co-operatives of similar nature.

  2 Main residences.

  3 Households—Rented: includes tied and rent free accommodation.

  4 Not known—Housing associations: organisations broadly similar to those in Britain.

  5 Approximate estimate.

  All figures including totals have been individually rounded.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make and publish a detailed analysis of waiting lists for public sector houses in each district and island area in order to ascertain whether there are enough suitable houses available to let to meet local needs.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  A two-year research project, to assess the extent to which waiting lists can be used as an indication of housing need, was announced by the Government in December 1986.

  Public Advice Services
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will detail the total level of Government
  228
  problem may not now be increasing in scale at the same rate as experienced in 1980–85. The incidence of drug misuse remains unacceptably high, however, and the Government will continue to accord a high priority to tackling the problem.

  Housing
  Mr. John Marshall
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of the housing stock in Scotland is owned by local authorities or governmental agencies; and what information he has about the equivalent proportions in other European countries.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The percentage of housing stock in Scotland owned by local authorities, new towns and the Scottish Special Housing Association at 31 December 1986 was 49·4 per cent. Comparative figures are not readily available for many European countries, partly due to differences between countries in the type of institutions and organisations which finance the provision of rented housing and the allocation of these between the public and private sector. Information available on the breakdown of tenure is shown in the table.

  spending, including urban aid, as well as expenditure by the Manpower Services Commission and the unemployed voluntary action fund, on independent public advice services in Scotland for the financial years 1985–86 and 1986–87.

  Mr. Lang
  Many Government-supported programmes and projects, for example, funded through Manpower Services Commission schemes, contain elements of advice and information but the total amount of Government support for independent public advice services cannot be readily quantified.

  Information on public advice services funded through the urban programme and the unemployed voluntary action fund is set out.
  229

  Number of Projects

  £

  Urban Programme

  1985–86

  50

  1,431,486

  1986–87

  56

  1,461,625

  Unemployed Voluntary Action Fund

  1985–86

  12

  58,580

  1986–87

  16

  116,240

  School Leavers
  Mr. John Marshall
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many pupils at local authority schools in Scotland left without any academic qualifications in 1985–86; what was the comparable figure in similar schools in England and Wales; and if he will publish a breakdown of the overall Scottish figure by regional council.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  19,385 of the pupils leaving Scottish education authority schools in 1985–86 (24·4 per cent. of the total) did not hold a Scottish certificate of education (SCE) qualification. However, some of these school leavers would have held qualifications such as the certificate of secondary education (CSE), the SCOTVEC national certificate or other qualifications. Information on the numbers involved is not available.

  The table gives a breakdown by region and islands area of the school leavers not holding an SCE qualification, together with the percentages these represent of all school leavers in the respective areas.

  74,705 of the pupils leaving maintained schools in England and Wales in 1985–86 (10·4 per cent. of the total) did not hold a graded CSE or GCE qualification. Because these figures include CSE awards, they are not directly comparable with the figures for Scotland.

  Comparisons will be easier once the GCSE and SCE standard grade examination have been introduced.

  Scottish school leavers1 1985–86 with no SCE qualifications, by region and islands area

  Number

  Percentage of leavers

  Borders

  263

  16·6

  Central

  982

  22·2

  Dumfries and Galloway

  503

  20·6

  Fife

  1,180

  21·4

  Grampian

  1,342

  19·3

  Highland

  590

  18·6

  Lothian

  2,578

  25·3

  Stralhclyde

  10,534

  27·6

  Tayside

  1,202

  20·9

  Orkney

  51

  17·3

  Shetland

  33

  9·2

  Western Isles

  127

  24·9

  SCOTLAND

  19,385

  24·4

  1 From education authority schools.

  Education
  Mr. Macdonald
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the total number of pupils on school rolls and the pupil to teacher ratio in (a) primary and (b) secondary schools in the Western Isles for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information requested is contained in the statistical bulletins on "Pupils and 230
  Teachers in Education Authority Primary and Secondary Schools" which are published annually. Copies of these are held in the House of Commons Library.

  Mr. Macdonald
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many pupils from the Western Isles have obtained places in higher or further education in each year since 1979; and if he will express that number as a percentage of the age group for each year.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Estimates of the percentages of school leavers from the Western Isles entering full-time further education have been published for sessions 1979–80 and 1981–82 in Scottish Education Department statistical bulletins (Nos. 2/E1/1983 and 10/E1/1983), copies of which are held in the House of Commons Library. The corresponding estimate for 1983–84 school leavers, to be published in a forthcoming bulletin, is 31 per cent.

  These estimates must be treated with caution since, for the Western Isles, they are based on small sample numbers.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the total numbers of pupils on school rolls and the pupil to teacher ratio in (a) primary and (b) secondary schools in the Monklands, West constituency for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Information on schools in Monklands, West can be obtained from Strathclyde regional council.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to introduce legislation to provide for participation by parents in the management of private schools.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  No.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the total numbers of pupils on school rolls and the pupil to teacher ratio in (i) primary and (ii) secondary schools in East Lothian for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Information on schools in East Lothian can be obtained from Lothian regional council.

  Mr. Wilson
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the total number of pupils on school meals and the pupil-teacher ratio in (i) primary and (ii) secondary schools in the Cunninghame, North constituency since 1979.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Information on schools in Cunninghame, North can be obtained from Strathclyde regional council.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many pupils from East Lothian have obtained places in higher or further education in each year since 1979; and if he will express that number as a percentage of the age group for each year.

  Mr. Doran
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many pupils from the Aberdeen constituency obtain places in higher or further education in each year since 1979; and if he will express that number as a percentage of the age group for each year.

  Mr. Wilson
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many pupils from Cunninghame, North have serious higher or further education plans in each year since 1979.
  231
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information is not readily available.

  School Boards
  Mr. Macdonald
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will estimate and publish the cost of setting up school boards in the Western Isles.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I would expect the cost of implementation of our proposals to be a very small element in the education budget. Costs could vary depending on factors such as the number of boards established and the range of responsibilities they had.

  Abortions
  Mr. Doran
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the number of abortions performed on women residents in the Grampian health board area in 1985 and 1986.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information is as follows:

  Number

  1985

  1,087

  1986

  11186

  1Provisional.

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Home Robertson
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on his discussions with the Law Society of Scotland and other bodies about the legal aid system; and if he intends to propose any amendments to the legal aid regulations and legislation.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. and learned Friend has received representations from the Law Society and others, and observations from the Scottish Legal Aid Board, on the operation of the new legal aid legislation. He hopes to reach a view on the various suggestions by the end of November.

  Torness Nuclear Power Station
  Mr. Home Robertson
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will extend the zone covered by contingency emergency plans for Torness nuclear power station to a radius of 25 km; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply of 14 May at column 302.

  Mortgage Defaulters
  Mr. Home Robertson
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish information available to him concerning the number of mortgage defaulters in Scotland in each of the last five years involving (a) private sector houses and (b) public sector houses purchased under the right to buy legislation.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This information is not held centrally.

  Rents
  Mr. Home Robertson
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on changes in rent
  232
  levels in Scotland since 1979 and on the Government's policy for rent levels and measures to protect tenants on low incomes in the future.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Average local authority rents in Scotland have risen from £4·92 per house per week in 1979–80 to £14·65 per week in 1987–88. Over the same period average SSHA rents have risen from £5·43 to £17·28, and average Scottish new town rents have risen from £6·36 to £18·26. Average registered rents in private sector unfurnished accommodation have risen from £3·50 per house per week in 1979–80 to £16·29 in 1986–87 and registered housing association rents have risen from £7·58 per house per week to £19·17 over the same period.

  Responsibility for setting rent levels for public sector housing lies with the individual local authority or agency concerned, not with the Secretary of State. The Government, however, have a legitimate interest in determining the amount of overall public expenditure which the nation can afford to spend on housing in Scotland. In recent years, the Government's priority has been to reduce expenditure on indiscriminate housing subsidy and to concentrate the resources available upon capital investment in the public sector housing stock, whilst targeting subsidies directly to those individual tenants who need help with their housing costs.

  Public sector rents in Scotland are generally lower than those south of the border. It is the Government's policy to encourage authorities to set rents that enable them to meet more of their housing costs from revenue, hut to restrict excessive year-on-year rent increases by continuing Exchequer subsidies. For those tenants who have difficulty in meeting their full housing costs direct assistance is, and will continue to be, available through the housing benefit system. In addition, most increases in rent following registration of a higher rent for private sector and housing association tenants are subject to limits on the amount by which the existing rent may be increased each year.

  Housing Policy
  Mr. Home Robertson
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on Government policy towards people who want to remain or become public sector tenants; and if he will undertake to ensure that Scottish Special Housing Association tenants will have the option of remaining public sector tenants if they so choose.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Government's proposals for the future development of housing policy will be set out in full in a White Paper which it is intended to publish shortly. My right hon. and learnd Friend has already made it clear that tenants of the Scottish Special Housing Association would remain public sector tenants, with all of the statutory rights which this Government have conferred on such tenants, under the Government's proposals to create a new unified housing development agency for Scotland, Scottish Homes.

  Rating Reform
  Dr. Reid
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what will be the nature and estimated amount of funding given to local authorities in Scotland for the purpose of collecting the proposed community charge.

  Mr. Lang
  Provision for local authority current expenditure provision in 1988–89 includes £9 million for
  233
  the cost of introducing the community charge and £3 million for the cost of related changes to housing benefit arrangements. Provision for subsequent years will reflect the cost of collecting the community charge in the same way as for the cost of rate collection at present. Local authority expenditure is supported by rate support grant from central Government. In 1989–90 this will be replaced by revenue support grant. Both of these are grants in aid of the general revenues of authorities and are not hypothecated to individual items of expenditure.

  Regional Development Grants
  Mr. Ingram
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the average waiting time from the date of application for regional development grants to date of approval or rejection by constituency.

  Mr. Lang
  The numbers of applications from companies which have been rejected in each calendar year since 1984 are as follows:

  Deaths with any mention of hypothermia, by age group and month, Scotland 1981 to 1987

  Under 25

  25 to 34

  34 to 44

  45 to 54

  55 to 64

  65 to 74

  75 to 84

  85+

  Total

  1981

  January

  5

  —

  1

  3

  5

  10

  18

  11

  53

  February

  —

  —

  —

  1

  3

  10

  10

  5

  29

  March

  1

  —

  —

  1

  4

  6

  10

  2

  24

  April

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  5

  4

  1

  13

  May

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  4

  1

  7

  June

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  3

  4

  9

  July

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  August

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  September

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  1

  —

  3

  October

  —

  —

  —

  1

  2

  5

  5

  5

  18

  November

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  3

  4

  2

  11

  December

  1

  5

  1

  5

  8

  22

  27

  16

  85

  Total

  8

  5

  2

  14

  26

  65

  87

  47

  254

  1982

  January

  1

  1

  1

  2

  6

  21

  26

  12

  70

  February

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  4

  14

  5

  26

  March

  —

  1

  —

  2

  1

  3

  5

  7

  19

  April

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  2

  1

  5

  May

  —

  1

  —

  1

  2

  4

  —

  2

  10

  June

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  2

  3

  2

  9

  July

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  August

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  1

  3

  September

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  October

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  2

  1

  —

  4

  November

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  3

  6

  —

  11

  December

  —

  —

  2

  —

  2

  10

  15

  8

  37

  Total

  2

  3

  3

  7

  18

  52

  73

  38

  196

  1983

  January

  2

  1

  1

  1

  5

  5

  4

  7

  26

  February

  1

  —

  —

  5

  —

  7

  16

  9

  38

  March

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4

  4

  5

  5

  18

  April

  —

  —

  1

  2

  1

  4

  7

  4

  19

  May

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  4

  7

  June

  —

  —

  —

  2

  1

  —

  2

  3

  8

  July

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  3

  August

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  2

  3

  September

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  4

  5

  —

  10

  234

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  RDG I

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  RDG II

  1 Nil

  9

  19

  32

  1 No applications submitted

  Mr. Ingram
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the number of companies in the East Kilbride constituency which have been unsuccessful in their application for regional deveopment grants in each year since 1984.

  Mr. Lang
  I regret the information is not readily available on a constituency basis; however, the average processing time in Scotland for application for regional development grants is currently 16 weeks.

  Hypothermia
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the number of deaths in Scotland from hypothermia for each month since January 1981 broken down by age group.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [pursuant to his reply, 21 October 1987, c. 744]: The information is as follows:
  235

  Under 25

  25 to 34

  34 to 44

  45 to 54

  55 to 64

  65 to 74

  75 to 84

  85+

  Total

  October

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  4

  4

  3

  13

  November

  1

  —

  —

  1

  1

  2

  4

  2

  11

  December

  1

  —

  —

  2

  2

  5

  9

  4

  23

  Total

  5

  2

  2

  15

  16

  35

  60

  44

  179

  1984

  January

  1

  1

  —

  1

  6

  13

  19

  12

  53

  February

  —

  —

  —

  1

  4

  4

  6

  9

  24

  March

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  9

  5

  1

  16

  April

  1

  —

  —

  —

  3

  2

  3

  4

  13

  May

  —

  —

  —

  1

  3

  —

  1

  —

  5

  June

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  3

  1

  5

  July

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  August

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  1

  3

  September

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  2

  —

  4

  October

  1

  —

  —

  2

  1

  4

  1

  1

  10

  November

  —

  1

  —

  —

  3

  6

  7

  4

  21

  December

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  4

  7

  8

  21

  Total

  3

  2

  1

  6

  23

  44

  56

  41

  176

  1985

  January

  —

  1

  —

  —

  5

  19

  29

  11

  65

  February

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  5

  18

  11

  35

  March

  —

  —

  —

  2

  1

  2

  10

  9

  24

  April

  —

  —

  —

  1

  2

  6

  7

  3

  19

  May

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  4

  7

  June

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  July

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  2

  3

  August

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4

  2

  7

  September

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  2

  3

  6

  October

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  3

  —

  1

  6

  November

  —

  1

  —

  3

  2

  6

  10

  10

  32

  December

  1

  —

  —

  —

  4

  5

  8

  9

  27

  Total

  2

  3

  1

  6

  16

  46

  93

  65

  232

  1986

  January

  —

  2

  3

  2

  4

  12

  25

  6

  54

  February

  —

  —

  —

  2

  1

  5

  14

  6

  28

  March

  —

  —

  1

  1

  3

  6

  10

  7

  28

  April

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  2

  7

  5

  16

  May

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  2

  2

  7

  June

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  2

  July

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  2

  August

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  6

  2

  9

  September

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  5

  2

  9

  October

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  —

  6

  2

  11

  November

  1

  —

  —

  2

  2

  6

  6

  3

  20

  December

  2

  —

  2

  —

  2

  6

  9

  2

  23

  Total

  3

  2

  6

  g

  19

  41

  90

  40

  209

  19871

  January

  —

  1

  3

  —

  4

  11

  15

  11

  45

  February

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  2

  7

  4

  15

  March

  —

  —

  1

  1

  3

  4

  7

  3

  19

  April

  1

  —

  1

  2

  3

  2

  2

  2

  13

  May

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  2

  2

  —

  6

  June

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  1

  4

  July

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  August

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  1

  5

  September

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4

  3

  7

  October

  November

  December

  Total

  3

  2

  6

  5

  11

  22

  40

  26

  115

  1 provisional figures.

  236

DEFENCE

  Absent Without Leave
  Mr. Ashley
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of service personnel in each branch of the services were absent without leave in each of the last four years; and what was the number in each branch.

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer the right hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 2 April 1987, at column 566. The figures for those deserting or being declared absent without leave given in that answer can be expressed as percentages of the average strength of the services in the years in question as follows:

  Royal Navy and Royal Marines

  Army

  Royal Air Force

  1983

  0·21

  0·42

  0·02

  1984

  0·16

  0·41

  0·02

  1985

  0·17

  0·34

  0·01

  1986

  0·15

  0·32

  0·01

  Zimbabwe and Mozambique
  Mr. Galbraith
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give the total numbers of the Zimbabwe and Mozambique armed forces who have received training in the United Kingdom since 1980.

  Mr. Freeman
  Some members of the Zimbabwean armed forces received training at Ministry of Defence establishments in the United Kingdom in each of the years 1980 to financial year 1986–87. A small number of Mozambiquan military personnel also received training at defence establishments in the United Kingdom in the financial years 1984–85, 1985–86 and 1986–87.

  It is not our policy to reveal the details of training provided to foreign armed forces since such agreements are confidential between Her Majesty's Government and the Governments concerned.

  Helicopter Rescue Service
  Mr. Galloway
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence what arrangements climbers and hillwalkers will be expected to make in the event of privatisation of the helicopter rescue service.

  Mr. Freeman
  On its initiative, Bristow Helicopters Ltd. has put forward proposals advocating the transfer to commercial contractors of the search and rescue helicopter service currently provided by the RN and RAF. We are studying its ideas but have not yet reached any conclusions. It would therefore be premature to comment on arrangements for any particular interest group in the event of privatisation.

  While the Ministry of Defence's concern is primarily the recovery of military personnel, I can assure the hon. Member that the decisions taken will reflect the Government's commitment to maintaining an efficient search and rescue service, for both military personnel and civilians.

  Queen Elizabeth Military Hospital (Young Patient)
  Mr. Cartwright
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence in what circumstances an 11-year-old girl came to be held
  238
  in a psychiatric ward at Queen Elizabeth military hospital, Woolwich; what steps have been taken to obtain more appropriate care and treatment for her; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  I shall write to the hon. Member.

SOCIAL SERVICES

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. Vaz
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what steps he is taking to reduce waiting lists in Leicestershire.

  Mr. Newton
  Leicestershire district health authority is receiving £151,500 from the waiting list fund. This will enable its hospitals to treat 210 extra in-patients and 500 extra out-patients. This is in addition to the measures being taken within existing resources to improve waiting lists and times.

  Income Support
  Mrs. Beckett
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he intends to set the levels of income support; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he intends fully to compensate claimants on income support for having to pay an element of rates.

  Mr. Portillo
  I refer the hon. Members to my right hon. Friend's statement to the House today.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Thurnham
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what current proposals he has for further help for the disabled; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  In developing all our policies we continue to bear in mind the special circumstances of disabled people. We expect to be greatly helped by the results of the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys' survey of disabled people.

  Health (Lifestyle)
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what measures the Government are taking to encourage the adoption of healthier lifestyles.

  Mrs. Currie
  Together with the Health Education Authority we are running a number of campaigns designed to provide the information that will help people choose healthier ways of living. One of these—the "Look After Your Heart" campaign—is a national strategy aimed at encouraging the adoption of healthier lifestyles in England and reducing the amount of unnecessary death and illness from heart disease. We are firmly committed to taking this campaign forward into the 1990s.

  Cancer Screening
  Mr. Mullin
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement about the cervical cancer screening programme.

  Mrs. Currie
  We are committed to reducing mortality from cervical cancer. Sir Roy Griffiths, deputy chairman of the National Health Service management board, is
  239
  leading a team to oversee the implementation of the Government's policies on cancer screening. Health authorities are on target to have computerised call and recall schemes for cervical cytology in operation by next spring. Laboratory and other back-up services are being expanded. The Department is currently consulting on revised guidance on all aspects of cervical cytology screening and related services, which it intends to issue later this year.

  Mr. Bright
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what progress has been made in the introduction of a cervical cytology call and recall system by the South Bedfordshire Health Authority.

  Mrs. Currie
  The cervical cytology call and recall scheme for south Bedfordshire is operated by the Bedfordshire family practitioner committee, and came into operation in January 1985. The scheme covers the whole of the county, with costs being shared by the two client authorities, North and South Bedfordshire health authorities. The scheme, which is computerised, covers all women between the ages of 35 and 60 who are registered with a GP.

  Following our request in February this year, the family practitioner committee and the district health authorities will be making plans to reduce the minimum age to 20.

  Mr. Corbett
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services on what date he received an application from Quest for a Test for Cancer for funding cervical smear tests using an integrating microdensitometer; and when he expects to reach a decision on the application.

  Mrs. Currie
  An application for DHSS funding for a research development project entitled "The screening of cervical neoplasia by quantitative assay of a hydrolysed DNA component present in the nuclei of cells exfoliated from the cervix uteri", was received from Dr. A. M. Sincock on 31 July 1987. This method would employ an integrated microdensitometer. Dr. Sincock is employed as a senior research fellow in the academic department of obstetrics and gynaecology in the Middlesex hospital; his work is currently supported by Quest for a Test for Cancer and the Newman Foundation. The application has been sent to academic referees. A decision on funding is expected by the end of November.

  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he has any plans further to assist family practitioner committees in meeting the Government's targets for cervical cytology.

  Mr. Newton
  I have now authorised an allocation of funds to four family practitioner committees whose existing equipment is in need of upgrading in order to meet the timetable to which the Government are committed. Those FPCs are:

  £

  Devon

  46,000

  Kirkless

  40,250

  Croydon

  8,000

  Bury

  1,500

  Child Abuse
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what steps he is taking to improve the procedures for dealing with child abuse and neglect.
  240
  Mr. Newton
  In my reply to my hon. Friend on 30 June, at column 69, I referred to the new guidance and circular on multi-agency working which was issued in draft last year. I also referred to the special initiative to help training of professional staff. Two stages of this have started. Further projects are being considered. In my statement to the House on 9 July, at columns 526–27, announcing the inquiry at Cleveland, I referred to the preparation of practice guidelines for social workers and for nurses and of guidance for doctors on the clinical diagnosis of sexual abuse. I would expect all this work, including the guidance on inter-agency working, to be published when we have considered the report from Mrs. Justice Butler-Sloss on Cleveland.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Corbyn
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he intends to modify the draft guidelines issued on the social fund in the light of the representations he has received.

  Mr. Scott
  Yes. The final version of the social fund manual will incorporate some of the points raised by those who commented on the draft.

  Mr. Hardy
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many representations he has received since the issue of draft guidelines for the social fund.

  Mr. Portillo
  A total of 108 representations were received on the draft social fund manual.

  Schools (Charges)
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what proposals he has to seek to change social security legislation in order for charges for music lessons, field trips, school visits and books to be met, where the parents of pupils are in receipt of supplementary benefit.

  Mr. Scott
  It is not the purpose of the supplementary benefits scheme to help with educational expenses: these fall within the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science.

  Pensions
  Mr. Stern
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what progress has been made in implementing new pension choices made available as a result of the Social Security Act 1986.

  Mr. Scott
  We have made considerable progress. After an extensive period of consultation, we laid regulations in July which established the detailed framework for the new pensions choices.

  We are now well on course towards the introduction next April of the changes affecting occupational schemes, in particular the start of money purchase contracting-out. In July 1988 we will complete the process of reform by giving people the right to take a personal pension in place of state earnings-related pension scheme.

  Mr. Speller
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make it his policy to seek powers to link the pension received for age with a fixed percentage of the average manual wage.

  Mr. Scott
  No. We are pledged to maintain the value of retirement pension against inflation, and the legislation
  241
  gives power to increase it further if it is appropriate to do so. We do not believe a restriction such as is suggested would be appropriate.

  Mrs. Mowlam
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what plans he has to phase in an equalised pension age for women and men.

  Mr. Scott
  We acknowledge the arguments for equalising state pension age for men and women, but the social and economic implications of doing so are considerable. We need to examine these in full before deciding whether to make any particular change.

  Mr. Sayeed
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how the Government propose to make it easier for employers to set up new pension schemes.

  Mr. Scott
  From 6 April 1988, employers will be able to set up occupational pension schemes which can be contracted out of the state earnings-related pension scheme on a money purchase basis, instead of having to make the open-ended promise of a salary-related pension. The minimum level of contribution required will be equal to the contracted-out national insurance rebate, so a scheme could be set up at virtually no cost to the employer, and new schemes will also qualify for an extra financial incentive until 1993. In addition, we have already simplified the contracting-out conditions for employers with salary-related schemes.

  Housing Benefit
  Ms. Abbott
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many representations on the documents on the new housing benefit scheme he has received since they were issued in draft.

  Mr. Portillo
  Representations have been received so far from each of the local authority associations consulted on the draft Housing Benefit Regulations under statutory arrangements. In addition, about 40 letters, containing general representations, have been received from individual local authorities and other organisations, to whom the regulations were sent for information.

  NHS (Administration)
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what steps he is taking to improve the administration of the National Health Service; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  I refer my hon. Friend to my right hon. Friend's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Howell) on 23 July 1987 at columns 454–55.

  Disability
  Mr. Boyes
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects to publish the results of the survey on disability presently being carried out.

  Mr. Scott
  The results of the survey of disabled people currently being carried out by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys are expected to be published in instalments starting in 1988.

  Resource Allocation Working Party
  30. Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the workings of the resources allocation working party formula for distribution of resources to health authorities.

  Mr. Newton
  The workings of the resource allocation working party (RAWP) formula for distribution of resources to health authorities are explained in two documents, "Sharing resources for health in England, Reports of the Resource Allocation Working Party 1976"; and "Report of the Advisory Group on Resource Allocation 1980".

  In December 1985 the then Secretary of State my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield, (Mr. Fowler) asked the NHS management board to carry out a review to identify the scope for refining the RAWP formula and improving its measurement of need. The initial report on the review, published in December 1986, recommended a further programme of analysis and research which is now in progress.

  Copies of all three reports are in the Library.

  Elderly People
  Mr. Riddick
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how Britain's total expenditure on benefits and support for elderly people, as a proportion of gross domestic product, compares with that of other countries in the European Economic Community.

  Mr. Portillo
  Britain's total expenditure on the elderly as a proportion of gross domestic product was the third highest in the European Community in 1983, the latest year for which full information is available. Partial figures for 1984 show that Britain's expenditure had increased as a proportion of GDP, whilst that of other countries making a return had declined slightly. Full details are in the table.

  Expenditure on programmes for old age as a proportion of GDP at market prices for EC member states (excluding Greece) in 1983

  Country

  Percentage

  Denmark

  10·4

  France

  9·8

  United Kingdom

  9·6

  Italy

  9·5

  Netherlands

  9·2

  Belgium

  8·6

  West Germany

  8·6

  Luxembourg

  7·8

  Ireland

  6·1

  average

  9·3

  Source: Eurostat Social Protection Statistical Bulletins, March 1985. Note: Figures include state and occupational pensions and cash benefits for the elderly, expenditure on residential and nursing homes, local authority services for the elderly and other expenditure on the elderly. They do not include the cost of health care or increases in pensions for dependants.

  Well Women Centres
  Ms. Richardson
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what plans he has to encourage and support the establishment of a well woman centre in every health district.

  Mrs. Currie
  The establishment of well women centres to provide services such as cervical screening is an option
  243
  open to all health authorities and one which a number have taken up. We welcome the additional flexibility that this model of service delivery offers but recognise that it is for individual health authorities to decide on the most appropriate method of providing services locally.

  Trent Regional Health Authority
  Mr. Haynes
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he will meet the chairman of the Trent regional health authority to discuss staff shortages.

  Mrs. Currie
  We have regular meetings with all regional chairmen to discuss a wide range of issues including manpower.

  AIDS
  Mr. Strang
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what additional funding is being provided in the current financial year in relation to HIV and AIDS.

  Mr. Newton
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mrs. Shephard) on 23 October.

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the AIDS public education campaign.

  Mr. Moore
  We embarked last year on a sustained campaign of health education to give the general public the basic facts about AIDS and HIV infection and to encourage changed attitudes to sexual and other behaviour, particularly among groups most at risk.

  On 2 September I launched the second stage of the campaign, which concentrates on the risks of infection from the injection of drugs. As we have already announced, further stages of the campaign will be carried forward by the new health education authority in close cooperation with the other United Kingdom health education agencies and the Government Departments concerned.

  Leeds (In-patients)
  Mr. Kirkhope
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the reduction in the in-patient waiting list in the Leeds eastern district.

  Mr. Newton
  The latest available figures for March 1987 show that 6,064 people were on the in-patient waiting list in the Leeds eastern district health authority. Whilst the total list size is now some 7·1 per cent. higher than in March 1986, there has been a welcomed continuing fall in the numbers waiting over one year. On 31 March 1987, 907 people had been on the list for more than a year, 32·6 per cent. fewer than in March 1986.

  Leeds eastern DHA has received £425,300 from the waiting list fund, for projects to enable its hospitals to treat 2,050 additional waiting list cases in 1987–88. This is in addition to the measures being taken to reduce waiting lists within existing resources.

  Pensioners (Income)
  Mr. Mans
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services by how much pensioners' average weekly incomes have increased since 1979.
  244
  Mr. Scott
  Between 1979 and 1985, the latest date for which information is available, pensioners' average weekly net incomes increased by some 18 per cent. in real terms.

  Embryo Experiments
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when the Government intend to bring forward legislation to clarify the law on embryo experiments.

  Mrs. Currie
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) on 30 June at columns 80–81.

  Long-term Sick and Disabled
  Sir George Young
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how much spending on the long-term sick and disabled has changed since 1979.

  Mr. Scott
  In 1979–80 expenditure on benefits and services for long-term sick and disabled people provided direct by the Department is estimated to have totalled £2,160 million. Latest estimates are that such expenditure in 1986–87 was about £6,130 million, an increase in real terms of 70 per cent.

  Information on provision of services by health authorities and by local authorities specifically to this group is not available.

  Severe Weather Payments
  Mr. Patchett
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he intends to modify the severe weather payments scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) on 26 October.

  Liverpool (NHS Services)
  Mr. Parry
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will meet a deputation of hon. Members from Liverpool to discuss funding of the National Health Service in the city.

  Mrs. Currie
  As responsibility for the allocation of resources to Liverpool health authority lies with Mersey regional health authority, the hon. Member may wish to contact the chairman first.

  Social Security Reforms
  Mr. Brazier
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how the introduction of the social security reforms will help to alleviate the unemployment and poverty traps.

  Mr. Scott
  One of the main aims of the reforms is to improve work incentives. The introduction next April of family credit, which is expected to help over twice as many low-income working families as family income supplement, and the closer alignment of help for people in and out of work, are expected to alleviate the unemployment trap. In addition, assessing income-related benefits on net, rather than gross, income eliminates the possibility that in-work income-related benefits reduce net spending power when earnings rise. This eliminates one of the worst features of the poverty trap.

  Nurses (Working Hours)
  Mr. Favell
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has any plans to seek to increase the proportion of a nurse's working day spent with patients.

  Mr. Newton
  It is the responsibility of individual health authorities to ensure that the most effective and efficient use is made of the nursing and midwifery work force. The Department assists by distributing management services reports on, for example, the work of hospital-based midwives and (shortly) night nursing services. It must be the aim of each employing authority to maximise the amount of time devoted to patient care.

  South-East Thames (Non-urgent Surgery)
  Mr. Evenett
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the average waiting time for non-urgent surgery in the south-east Thames region.

  Mr. Newton
  I am sorry I cannot give my hon. Friend the information he seeks in precisely the form requested. The estimated median interval between the date a patient was placed on the waiting list and admission as an inpatient to a surgical department of a NHS hospital in the South-East Thames regional health authority area during 1985, the latest year for which information is available centrally, was eight weeks.

  Insulation Payments
  Mrs. Clwyd
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he intends to introduce a new scheme for assistance with insulation payments to replace the existing scheme from April 1988; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  When the current system of single payments of supplementary benefit for draught-proofing materials ends in April 1988 new arrangements will continue to provide support for the work of the community insulation projects. My right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State for Energy announced on 8 April 1987, at columns 223–225, that from April 1988 help with the cost of draught-proofing materials will be provided through the Manpower Services Commission. The category of those eligible will be widened to include all households in receipt of income support, housing benefit or family credit. In the longer term, it is intended to include the cost of draught-proofing materials within a revised home improvement grant system.

  Mersey Region (Waiting Lists)
  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the waiting lists in the Mersey region.

  Mr. Newton
  On 31 March 1987 there were 29,147 people on the in-patient waiting list in Mersey regional health authority. This represents a fall of 1,632 (5·3 per cent.) since March 1986. The number of people waiting over a year for treatment has fallen by 18 per cent. to 6,257.

  Mersey RHA has been allocated £1·35 million from the waiting list fund for 1987–88 for projects to enable the region to treat some 7,700 extra patients from the inpatient lists. This is in addition to the measures being taken to reduce waiting lists and times within existing resources.

  Nurses (Pay)
  Mr. Andrew MacKay
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the future of levels of nurses' pay.

  Mr. Newton
  The pay of nurses, midwives and health visitors is determined on the recommendations of the independent Review Body for Nursing Staff, Midwives and Health Visitors. I understand that the review body will shortly be taking evidence from the health departments, trade unions and professional associations with a view to reporting to the Prime Minister in the spring of next year.

  The Government have implemented all four reports of the independent review body since it was established in 1984. As a result, nurses' pay has risen by some 16 per cent. in real terms during this period and by nearly 30 per cent. in real terms since 1979.

  Royal United Hospital, Bath
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he has any plans to visit the new royal united hospital in Bath.

  Mrs. Currie
  The last complete development at this hospital included 168 acute beds and a boilerhouse, costing £4·4 million, and was opened on 31 March 1987. It is part of the largest ever sustained National Health Service building programme. Throughout England 480 schemes, each costing over £1 million, with a total value of over £3 billion, are at various stages of planning, design and construction.

  Ministers have no plans to visit this hospital at present.

  Review Procedures
  Mr. Jack
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what plans he has for reviewing the effectiveness of the review procedures at both regional and district health authority level.

  Mr. Newton
  The Department keeps the system for conducting accountability reviews with regional health authorities under constant review, drawing on experience of past reviews to assess its effectiveness and ensuring that any necessary improvements are implemented. Reviews at district level are the responsibility of regional health authorities.

  St. Mary's Hospital, Paddington
  Mr. Wheeler
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the St. Mary's hospital development in Paddington.

  Mrs. Currie
  The new 10-storey building, to be known as Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother wing, has been built at a cost of over £35 million. The wing has a total of 337 beds, 224 of which are allocated to surgical specialties, and when fully open it will provide a broad range of facilities. These include the accident and emergency department, which opened on 4 September and has one of the first computerised patient administration systems in London, the Paddington Green children's unit, eight operating theatres, an intensive care unit, and two day surgery units. Among other departments which form a part of the complex are the radiology department, facilities for the St. Mary's hospital medical school and central catering facilities.
  247
  This development is part of the largest health building programme in the history of the NHS. There are currently more than 480 building schemes each costing over £1 million at various stages of planning, design and construction. The total value of the programme is estimated to be over £3 billion and it will provide over 24,000 new hospital beds.

  Nurse Recruitment (Thames Region)
  Mr. Jessel
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the current position on nurse recruitment in the Thames region.

  Mr. Newton
  The ability to recruit varies considerably between health authorities. There are particular recruitment difficulties in mental illness, mental handicap and the specialist acute areas—theatres and intensive care. These recruitment difficulties are more marked in London and the south-east.

  The NHS management board has commended a number of measures to improve the recruitment and retention of nursing and midwifery staff. It is also currently considering what further action may be required at national or local level in the light of the latest information about the recruitment and retention situation in London.

  Bradwell New Geriatric Hospital, North Staffordshire
  Mr. Knox
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the Bradwell new geriatric hospital in North Staffordshire.

  Mrs. Currie
  The Bradwell new geriatric hospital is due for completion at the end of October at a total cost of £5,260,821. The hospital's 96 beds and associated facilities are expected to open at the beginning of 1988.

  Supplementary Benefit
  Mr. Colvin
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received about the discontinuation of the single payment for mothers on supplementary benefit.

  For four week period ending 22 September 1987

  Hackney office

  Stoke Newington

  London north region

  London south region

  1. Claims to Supplementary Benefit

  Average Clearance Times

  7 days

  21 days

  7 days

  8 days

  2. Non-caller Claims

  A. Number Received

  885

  673

  63,229

  60,415

  B. Outstanding

  329

  629

  25,113

  24,781

  C. B as a percentage of all non-caller claims outstanding

  28 per cent.

  49 per cent.

  28 per cent.

  30 per cent.

  3. Single Payments Claims

  No information is available on number received.

  A. Decisions Made

  396

  265

  26,621

  23,468

  B. Cases Outstanding (may involve more than one decision)

  323

  116

  5,231

  5,889

  C. Average Clearance time

  No information is available

  248
  Mr. Portillo
  During the last 12 months we have received approximately 500 letters about the new maternity benefit arrangements. Some of these letters have referred to the discontinuation of supplementary benefit single payments for maternity expenses and their replacement by flat rate payments of £80 from the social fund.

  Ms. Abbott
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) if he will give the average waiting time for a decision on supplementary benefit claims for (1) his Department's Hackney office, (2) his Department's Stoke newington office, (3) London north region and (4) London south region;

  (2) if he will list in the Official Report the number of non-caller claims for supplementary benefit received in the last four week period for which records are available, the percentage of non-caller claims awaiting a decision at the end of that four-week period; and if he will supply this information in respect of (1) his Department, Hackney office, (2) his Department, Stoke Newington office, (3) London north region as a whole and (4) London south region as a whole;

  (3) if he will list in the Official Report the number of supplementary payment claims received by his Department in the last four week period, the total number of single payment claims which are awaiting a decision and the average waiting time between receipt of claims and a decision; and if he will supply this information in respect of (1) his Department, Hackney office, (2) his Department, Stoke Newington office, (3) London north region. and (4) London south region.

  Mr. Portillo
  The table sets out the information requested, where it is available, for the four-week period up to 22 September 1987.

  Where the information is not available in the precise form requested the most relevant figures available have been quoted.

  Medical Laboratory Scientific Officers
  Mr. David Porter
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on progress within the Whitley council on 1987 pay negotiations for medical laboratory scientific officers; and if he will make a statement about the Government's intention to recognise the professionalism of medical laboratory scientific officers with a better pay structure.

  Mr. Newton
  Pay is a matter for the Whitley council. I understand that on 5 October the management side made a pay offer to the staff side representing MLSOs about which it is now consulting its members. They also undertook to meet again as soon as possible to discuss proposals for restructuring MLSO grades.

  Storm Damage
  Mr Nelson
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what measures he is taking to ensure the continued provision of health services in areas which have suffered damage and disruption from the storms on the night of the 15–16 October.

  Mrs. Currie
  Officials were in contact with health authorities in the south and east throughout Friday 16 October and monitored the situation throughout. It soon became clear that everything possible was being done to maintain health services and patient care despite damage to buildings and public utilities and disruption of communications and transport in many places.

  The splendid response of hospital and ambulance staff in finding alternative means of getting to work and in many cases giving up their off-duty time ensured adequate staffing levels. Ambulance services were hard pressed but their problems lessened as roads were cleared and communications were restored. Fortunately there were no major incidents involving multiple serious casualties.

  Emergency arrangements were made for a few patients requiring artifical ventilation or home dialysis. Where power supplies failed hospitals turned to their standby generators or to portable versions supplied by the Army.

  It was necessary to curtail or postpone some out-patient clinics because of damage or transport problems. Some non-emergency operations were postponed to ease severe pressure on the South London blood transfusion centre. Blood donors responded to appeals, allowing the full blood supply to be resumed within a few days.

  I was particularly glad that the Department had surveyed health authorities' contingency plans earlier this year and found them to be generally satisfactory. This form of monitoring will continue and we will consider any lessons learnt in the recent episode.

  Disabled Persons Act 1986
  Mr. Wareing
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what plans he has to speed up the implementation of the Disabled Persons Act 1986 during the current Session of Parliament; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Corbett
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what plans he now has for implementing sections 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7 of the Disabled Persons Act 1986; and whether he will estimate the cost of doing so under each section.

  Mr. Scott
  Discussions with the local authority associations on the costs of the various outstanding 250
  sections of the Act are proceeding, and decisions on the timing of implementation will be taken in the light of the outcome of those discussions. I met the local authority associations on 16 September, and there have subsequently been two meetings between the Department and the associations at official level. Recent discussions have concentrated on sections 5 and 6 of the Act, and I hope to make an announcement shortly about the implementation of those sections.

  HIV Positive Patients (Dental Treatment)
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what specific provision is proposed for the dental treatment within the National Health Service of HIV positive patients to avoid the possibility of cross-infection.

  Mr. Newton
  The chief dental officer issued guidance to all dentists in the hospital, community and general dental services in April of last year. This stressed the importance of following high standards of cross-infection control when treating patients. By following simple procedures dentists will be able to minimise the risks from exposure to the virus during the course of routine dental treatment.

  Additionally, the guidance recommends specific precautions to be followed when the patient receiving treatment is a known carrier of HIV. At present, there are no plans to issue further guidance to dentists on this subject, though the need to do so is kept under regular review.

  These measures may require some additional expenditure by general dental practitioners. Consequently, on the recommendation of the Dental Rates Study Group, the fees paid to practitioners in 1987–88 reflect amongst other factors exceptional expenditure on cross-infection procedures.

  Ward Closures (West Berkshire)
  Mr. Redwood
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received concerning ward closures and other cuts in services in the West Berkshire district health authority area.

  Mrs. Currie
  We have received representations from the chairman of the West Berkshire district health authority, Reading council and from a number of hon. Members.

  Health authorities are expected to live within their budgets. This means balancing the cost of increasing activity against other pressures. It is for health authorities to decide on suitable measures which will enable them to sustain activity within their budgets without detriment to essential services.

  NHS (Expenditure)
  Mr. Redwood
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give figures for the last three years showing (a) the increase in spending on the National Health Service in England and Wales and (b) hospital bed reductions in England and Wales.

  Mr. Newton
  The information requested is as follows:
  251

  NHS Expenditure, England (Gross)

  £ million

  Growth in cash percentage

  1983–84

  12,921

  —

  1984–85

  13,871

  7·4

  1985–86

  14,676

  5·8

  1986–87

  15,762

  7·4

  Average number of beds available daily in NHS hospitals in England

  Beds

  Percentage change

  1983

  343,091

  —

  1984

  334,513

  -2·5

  1985

  325,487

  -2·7

  1986

  315,817

  -3·0

  The information relating to Wales is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Mr. Redwood
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) what information he has as to any correlation between higher National Health Service spending and areas of rapid population growth;

  (2) if he will make it his policy to allocate extra national Health Service moneys to areas of high housing and population growth; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  Resources are allocated to regional health authorities using the method recommended by the Resource Allocation Working Party. The underlying objective of this approach is to secure progressively through resource allocation equal opportunity of access to health care for people in equal need. The population served by each region and projected population growth are important factors in this process and bear directly on the distribution of resources between regions.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Wareing
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many (a) full-time and (b) part-time staff are currently employed by his Department in preparing the way for the full implementation of the Social Security Act 1986 in April 1988; how many of these were recruited especially for this task; and what is the cost of the preparatory work.

  Mr. Scott
  Information is not held in the precise form requested.

  At 1 October 1987 there were 71,100 full-time equivalent staff in local offices both maintaining the current social security scheme and preparing for implementation of the Social Security Act 1986 from April 1988. Some 2,400 of these staff were recruited especially for the latter task. In addition, 110 full-time equivalent staff—increasing to 600 by 1 April 1988—are working on family credit which will be administered from North Fylde central office. Thus, at April 1988 there will be about 3,000 additional staff in post to introduce the new benefits. These staff, who will have cost an estimated £23 million, are required for a temporary period only.

  Lorazepam
  Mr. Wareing
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what efforts he is making to assist patients
  252
  suffering from the withdrawal effects of taking lorazepam; how this assistance is being given; at what cost; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  The services of general practitioners, hospital psychiatric departments, and specialist drug treatment and advice agencies—many of which have been provided through special funding from this Department—are available to those people taking lorazepam who suffer withdrawal effects. The cost cannot be separately identified.

  Mr. Wareing
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) if he has any plans to ban the prescribing of lorazepam to new patients; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) whether he has set up or plans to set up a study of the problems associated with the prescribing and represcribing of lorazepam; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) if he has now received a copy of the report of the Committee on safety of Medicines concerning the prescribing and represcribing of lorazepam; and when it is likely to be published.

  Mr. Newton
  On the advice currently available to us, benziodiazepines have a place in medical practice if prescribed with appropriate care. The data sheet for Ativan (the trade name under which lorazepam is sold) was amended earlier this year, following discussion with DHSS medicines division to advise that it should be used only in the short term and to give doctors additional advice about avoiding dependence.

  The Committee on Safety of Medicines is at present considering whether further steps should be taken in relation both to lorazepam and to other benziodiazepines. It would be premature for me to comment on the question of possible publication before the committee has completed this work.

  Mr. Wareing
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services on how many occasions and by what means his Department has drawn the attention of the medical profession to the dangers of represcribing lorazepam.

  Mr. Newton
  Advice is given in the British National Formulary, which is distributed to all NI-IS doctors every six months, that treatment with benzodiazepines, of which lorazepam is one, should be limited to the lowest possible dose for the shortest possible time and that withdrawal of the drug after long-term administration should be gradual. "Guidelines of Good Clinical Practice in the Treatment of Drug Misuse", which have been issued to all doctors, contain advice on the addictive potential of benzodiazepines and on withdrawal procedures. The data sheet for lorazepam, sent by Wyeth Laboratories to all doctors, which provides guidance and warnings to doctors on the prescribing of lorazepam, has recently been amended in agreement with the Department to re-emphasise the potential problems of dependence on lorazepam. The data sheet now recommends lorazepam tablets for short-term use only and gives guidelines for treatment to minimise the risk of benzodiazepine-related dependence.

  The Department funds the distribution to all general medical practitioners of a number of independently produced prescribing publications. Several articles about benzodiazepines have been published in the last 5 years.

  253
  These include "some problems with Benzodiazepines" and "Lessening the Use of Benzodiazepines" in the Drug and Therapeutics Bulletin. "Adverse Effects of Prolonged Benzodiazepine Use" in the "Adverse Drug Reactions Bulletin" and "Benzodiazepines and transient insomnia" in Prescribers' Journal. More general articles on, for example, repeat prescribing and the hazards of abrupt withdrawal of drugs have also contained references to benzodiazepines. In March 1980 the British Medical Journal published an article provided by the Committee on Review of Medicines entitled "A systematic review of benzodiazepines" which referred to the problems of dependence.

  Social Fund Manual
  Mrs. Beckett
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services on what basis and to how many individuals and organisations advance copies of the social fund manual have been supplied; and whether copies are available to hon. Members.

  Mr. Portillo
  An advance copy of the social fund manual has been sent to a total of 90 organisations which commented on the draft manual. Where both the national office and local branches of an organisation commented an advance copy has been sent to the national office only. Copies have also been placed in the Library.

  Abortions
  Mr. Alton
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many abortions were done in the latest year for which figures are available in (a) private clinics or agencies and (b) the National Health Service at 18 weeks or over, and if he will distinguish between residents and non-residents.

  Mr. Newton
  The information is shown in the table.

  Category

  Number

  Residents

  NHS

  1,176

  NonNHS

  3,412

  Non-residents

  NHS

  3

  Non NHS

  3,685

  Child Benefit
  Sir Brandon Rhys Williams
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what change he estimates there will be in the number of people entitled to claim means-tested benefits in the course of a full year as a result of his decision in regard to the uprating of child benefit; and what will be the number of their dependants.

  Mr. Portillo
  On the basis of the benefit rates announced today and the tables showing the likely distributional effect of the new schemes, around 15,000 more families with 30,000 dependent children are expected to be entitled to income related benefits.

  Hospital Medical Career Structure
  Mr. Burt
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he is yet in a position to report progress on the recent negotiations on the hospital medical career structure; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  Following the consultative document "Hospital Medical Staffing: Achieving a Balance" published in July last year the steering group which I chair, has today published its subsequent report "Hospital Medical Staffing: Achieving a Balance—Plan for Action".

  The various measures in the report are based on three principal needs:

  —to increase the number of consultants, to provide both the leadership and the career opportunities an expanding service requires;

  —sensible planning of the numbers of doctors in training grades, taking account of career prospects;

  —maintenance of the necessary levels of support for consultants, particularly in the acute specialties.

  The purpose of the reforms is to improve the quality of care doctors will be giving to their patients, by increasing the extent to which fully trained doctors are involved in direct patient care and in the supervision of their junior staff and by making a career in the hospital service more secure and therefore more attractive.

  The reforms have already begun, with the announcement in February of 45 new consultant posts this year, and a further 55 on offer next year. Other parts of the package will be introduced over the next few months, so that work will have started on all parts of it by next April. Completing the programme of reform, in particular to achieve the right balance between doctors in training and career posts, is however expected to take several years.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Liverpool.

The Lord Bishop of Worcester
Philip Harold Ernest, Lord Bishop of Worcester—Was (in the usual manner) introduced between the Lord Bishop of Rochester and the Lord Bishop of Carlisle.
The Earl of Oxford and Asquith The Earl of Oxford and Asquith—Took the Oath.
Lord Caradon Lord Caradon— Took the Oath.

Passport Office: Standard of Service
2.43 p.m.
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 what steps they have taken to secure an adequate service to the public from the Passport Office.
The Minister of State, Home Office (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, all the passport offices, with the exception of the one in London, are now providing an efficient service by dealing with properly completed applications within 12 working days. In the London office, service to the public was again disrupted by industrial action during September and October but this has now ended. In the longer term computerisation of the passport issuing system, due to begin in Glasgow in July 1988, is designed to provide a quicker and more efficient service to the public especially at times of peak demand.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that moderately satisfactory Answer. May I ask him why, when a passport has to be renewed after the 10-year period, it cannot simply be renewed with a further stamp on it when there is room, and why a new book has to be created by the Passport Office at great cost in time, labour and expense?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am afraid I do not know. If I may, I will write to my noble friend.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, will the noble Earl accept a suggestion? After 10 years' use, the British passport may not look as respectable as it should.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, if the Minister is going to write to my noble friend, could he not put
410
the answer in Hansard? My passport is running out and I want to renew it with the minimum of expense and trouble.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, if my noble friend applies to the Passport Office he will have his passport renewed in the usual manner, because the delays that were evident as reported to your Lordships' House in July of this year have been reduced. The seven-week waiting period in London is being rapidly reduced and we hope that London will be on normal working as soon as possible.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, does my noble friend believe that if a passport went beyond 10 years he or any Customs officer would be able to recognise the person in the photograph?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, it all depends on the person.

South Africa: Trade Delegation
2.45 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: 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 approve of and are assisting the United Kingdom-South Africa Trade Association delegation to South Africa.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, officials both in the UK and overseas provide information and advice on the market to business visitors to South Africa, whether they travel to the market as individuals or as members of a trade mission. South Africa remains an important market for our exporters. Such assistance is available to members of the United Kingdom-South Africa Trade Association and is not contrary to any of our undertakings on South Africa.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that his noble friend Lord Whitelaw, the Leader of the House, last Thursday told this House that the British Government had carried out meticulously all the undertakings of the Nassau Commonwealth Conference of two years ago regarding the sanctions then imposed? Was not one of those sanctions to reduce by all means possible trade between the signatories and South Africa? Is it not the case that the United Kingdom-South Africa Trade Association has already arranged to have a briefing from British consular officials in Johannesburg followed by a British consular reception? Is this in keeping with our undertakings at Nassau two years ago?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I can confirm that a pre-departure briefing has already been given by officials. Our commercial offices in South Africa will provide the usual range of briefing and assistance available in all posts overseas. We observe our international undertakings on trade with South Africa.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, that really does not answer the question. I have asked the noble Lord whether it is not the case that at Nassau two years ago all the members of the Commonwealth agreed that they would dissuade, by all means possible, trade between their countries and South Africa. Is this the way in which the British Government interpret that dissuasion? Is it not the case that the British Government are actively encouraging trade associations and companies in this country to trade with South Africa completely against the undertaking given in Nassau two years ago and in London one year ago?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, as I said, we continue to stick by the undertakings given, but we continue to believe that civil trade with all countries, including South Africa, should be determined by commercial considerations and not by the character of the Government of those countries. In line with the undertakings agreed in Nassau, we do not provide the funding for this visit to South Africa.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that what he has said places us in an even more invidious position in relation to our Commonwealth partners? Does he agree that Her Majesty's Government took a step towards sanctions, albeit a small one, in Nassau? In other words, they underlined the principle that sanctions were possible. Secondly, does he agree that what he has just said went totally contrary to the spirit of the Vancouver summit? Will he ask his right honourable and learned friend to look at the situation carefully, because we seem to be encouraging this kind of relationship not just as a commercial venture but with glasses of champagne? Will he ask his right honourable and learned friend to look at this matter carefully, because, as I said the other day, the future of the Commonwealth may well be in jeopardy?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, of course we, and no one more than my right honourable and learned friend, keep this matter under constant review. But we believe that sanctions have been counterproductive and that United Kingdom companies are a positive force for good in South Africa.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, when the noble Lord says that sanctions are counterproductive, he is merely repeating what his right honourable friends have said. What evidence does he have for saying that? Is it not truer to say that real sanctions have never been properly put into effect?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, that can only be a matter of opinion. I have stated the Government's view.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is not taking steps which will make them unemployed an odd way to help the black population of South Africa?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I entirely agree with my noble friend.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is it not also the case that it is the black people of South Africa who are most strongly in favour of sanctions?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, that is of course a very important body of opinion. But we believe that the best interests of South Africa are served by our continuing to trade and, as I said, we believe that many UK companies are a positive force for good in South Africa.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, is that accounted for by the fact that it is the black inhabitants of South Africa who know least about economics? Is the noble Lord aware that the Government are greatly to be congratulated if the follies of sanctions are put well behind us? These are people who fought with us in two wars. They should be our friends. For my part I congratulate the Government on any action taken to make them so.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I fully acknowledge what the noble Lord says.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, will the noble Lord confirm that the support for this promotion of trade in South Africa is against the spirit of the Nassau agreement? The question is not whether we are in favour of sanctions but whether we are prepared to accept the implications of the Nassau agreement in agreeing to restrict trade in certain areas.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, how the noble Lord interprets the spirit of the Nassau agreement is a matter for him, but we abide by that agreement.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I am not talking about the spirit of the agreement at Nassau. I am talking about the letter of the communiqué signed by this Government which was repeated, as I have said before—
Noble Lords: Question!
Lord Hatch of Lusby:—by the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, last Thursday. Is it not the case that in the first six months of this year trade between this country and South Africa increased by 11 per cent? Will the noble Lord address himself to the direct question? Do the Government agree with the communiqué which they signed in Nassau and repeated in London 12 months ago that it is incumbent upon every member of the Commonwealth to reduce trade between their countries and South Africa by all means possible? If he accepts that undertaking, how can he then say that it is in the interests of South Africa to encourage trade?
The Lord President of the Council (Viscount Whitelaw): My Lords, we are reaching the position when your Lordships may feel that we have continued this Question long enough. Part of the problem in so continuing is words attributed to me. I am therefore in two positions at the same time. I am seeking to represent the view of all your Lordships

413
that we have probably had long enough time on one Question, while my own remarks appear to have occasioned some part of the Question. This is a dilemma which I have to face. I shall deal with it simply. I shall look into exactly what the noble Lord has been asking and I undertake to write to him on the matter justifying my remarks, which I believe to be fully justified. I do not expect that the letter that I shall write to the noble Lord will in any way satisfy him but I shall do my best.

The Gulf: Protection of Shipping
2.55 p.m.
Lord Molloy: 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 will sponsor an international force, involving the EC and the UN, to guard all shipping in the Gulf.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, we have no plans to sponsor any formally integrated multilateral naval force in the Gulf, under the United Nations or any other umbrella. Practical considerations lead us to the view that ad hoc co-ordination of national naval forces is the best option.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I acknowledge the commendable endeavours of the British Foreign Secretary in trying to remain absolutely neutral between the belligerents, but will the noble Lord agree that there is now a quickly changing attitude in the Gulf? The Armilla force is there on patrol, on station. The United States is under severe attack. With other shipping, or military shipping of other nations, the situation could well get out of hand, with disastrous results. Ought we now to be considering unified action by those who want to see freedom for all shipping in the Gulf?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am grateful for the comments of the noble Lord about the role that my right honourable friend and the Government have played in this matter. However, the idea of umbrellas of different kinds, including that of the United Nations task force, has been floated. As I have said, we have no objection in principle to a UN task force, but there are severe practical difficulties. For example, one difficulty would be obtaining agreement of the Security Council and the United States, and the Soviet Union's position on that. There are other difficulties.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, will the noble Lord confirm that the role of the British naval force is to protect British shipping and not to take the side of one country or another in the Gulf?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right. The role of the Armilla patrol is to protect British shipping, and there are no plans to extend the Armilla's area of operation.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, is it not a fact that as matters stand the best and possibly the only peaceful solution to the problems of the Gulf would be co-operation in respect of some possible arms embargo on Iran—always assuming that Iran does not abide by the original Security Council resolution on armistice—between the Soviet Union and the United States? Would not the best way of achieving that be to push in the Security Council for some resolution which would be accepted by all the five permanent members of the Security Council, plus four others? It is not impossible to imagine that. What is our Security Council representative doing, if anything, to push that concept?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the best way to reduce the threat to shipping is to end the conflict. As I said in answer to the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, the Government are playing a leading part in moves at the United Nations to that end.
On an arms embargo and British policy towards it, the noble Lord will be aware that we refuse to sell to either side defence equipment which would significantly enhance the capability to prolong or exacerbate the conflict.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, is it a fact that the United Nations is on record as asking both sides to stop this war? Iran, because it is led by a maniac called Ayatollah Khomeini, has refused to do so. The result is that Britain now, in order to defend her own shipping, is doing what she should do. Unless United Nations intervention means declaring war against Iran, there is nothing else we can do.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, naturally we have to protect our ships in the way that the Armilla patrol is doing. But Iran and Iraq remain legally obliged to obey Security Council Resolution 598, including immediate ceasefire at sea as well as on land.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that in another place quite recently our Foreign Secretary said:
"The world has never been more united in seeking an end to this bloody and senseless conflict'?
I think that he has done his level best not to expand the conflict, but those words now need more practical support. The Russians are now paying their costs to the maintenance of the Gulf. The United States is under heavy pressure. Ought we not to support the United States of America and at the same time encourage the USSR?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I do not think that the noble Lord can say that we are not supporting the United States. The important thing is that the freedom of navigation in the Gulf is an important principle to be upheld, and the Armilla patrol, which we provide, has been there since 1980 for that very purpose.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon, my noble friend Lord

415
Young of Graffham will, with the leave of the House, repeat in the form of a Statement an Answer to a Private Notice Question in another place on the financial situation and the sale of BP shares. This will be followed by my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale, who will, again with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement on social security benefit rates.
It may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Committee stage of the Criminal Justice Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7.30 p.m. for approximately one hour and that during the adjournment the Fishing Vessels (Acquisition and Improvement) (Grants) Scheme 1987, the Fishing Vessels (Financial Assistance) Scheme 1987 and the Fish Farming (Financial Assistance) Scheme 1987 will be taken.

Criminal Justice Bill [H.L.]
3 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—( The Earl of Caithness.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington Lord Hutchinson of Lullington moved Amendment No. 52:
Before Clause 39, insert the following new clause:
("Minimum periods for life sentence prisoners.
Section 1(2) of the Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act 1965 shall cease to have effect.").
The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee, I will speak also to Amendment No. 55. These two amendments are inevitably important amendments. They deal with the present mandatory statement of life imprisonment for murder. When imposing such a sentence, a judge may, if he so wishes, make a recommendation that the person concerned shall serve a minimum period of imprisonment before he is released.
The purpose of Amendment No. 52 is to abolish that power, against which there is no appeal, and the purpose of Amendment No. 55 is to make the mandatory sentence a permissive power only in the court and the sentence for the worst offence life imprisonment. For other offences there should be power in the court to impose a determinate sentence when appropriate.
These amendments are supported by the All-Party Penal Affairs Group and are put forward on an entirely non-party basis. When a recommendation is made it is almost certain that the person concerned will serve the whole of the period recommended, no matter how circumstances may change over the years. The person's behaviour in prison and so on is totally irrelevant.
Between 1965 and 1986, 244 recommendations were made. In only seven of those cases was the
416
person concerned released before he or she had served the recommended period, and then only after consultation with the Lord Chief Justice and the trial judge. The main reason for wishing to remove this power now is that it is a power which is used entirely inconsistently. There are no laid down criteria for its use and it appears from history that it is used in an entirely haphazard manner. Some judges believe in using it: other judges believe in not using it. That is the situation at the moment. In many notorious cases it has not been used at all: instances are the Moors murderers, the Birmingham bombers and the M62 coach bomb case, to name only three. No recommendation was made in those cases and there are many other equivalent cases where no recommendation was made.
The result is that when at long last it is time for a lifer to be released or to have his sentence reviewed, the greatest bitterness is felt at those who seem to have committed similar or even far worse crimes whose sentences are reviewed and who are released long before those who happen to have come before a judge who believes in making a recommendation. This power has been considered by various bodies over the years. In 1978 the Advisory Council on the Penal System recommended its repeal. In 1980 the Criminal Law Revision Committee found itself split down the middle. The majority took the view that the existence of the power might still have some value because it might provide reassurance to the public and found it as yet, to use its words, too soon after Parliament made the provision to advise its withdrawal.
The minority wished to get rid of it. The All-Party Penal Affairs Group gave this matter lengthy consideration a year ago and its findings were that it did not consider that the Criminal Law Revision Committee majority arguments were sufficiently strong to outweigh altering the procedure, which it said:
"has operated in an inconsistent and thereby unjust manner".
The committee considered that it should be repealed, but if that were not acceptable then the power should he made appealable. As the Committee will appreciate, that is the subject matter of Amendment No. 52A, with which my noble friend Lord Donaldson is concerned.
Another reason against the recommendation is that it removes the flexibility for release to be found in a life sentence. Of course if Amendment No. 55 were carried there would be no need for this amendment at all, which takes me to Amendment No. 55.
Section 1(1) of the Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act 1965 makes imprisonment for life a mandatory sentence in cases of murder. Amendment No. 55 makes such a person only liable to a life sentence. This proposal has a very honourable track record. It has been recommended before by the Butler Committee on Mentally Abnormal Offenders in 1975, by the Advisory Council on the Penal System in 1978, by half of the Criminal Law Revision Committee in 1980 and by the All-Party Penal Affairs Group last year. Surely it is time once again to give this matter the most serious and favourable consideration.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Kilbrandon, said in the case of Hyams in 1975:
"It is no longer true, if it ever was true, that murder as we now define it is necessarily the most heinous example of unlawful homicide".
There are undoubtedly cases of murder which simply do not require a life sentence. A person may be under extreme stress; a woman may be hideously maltreated by a drunken husband; a mother may murder a young child being brought up in the most abominable conditions and may well be medically subnormal when she kills a young child. There are such cases and nearly everyone who participates in criminal trials would agree that to have to pass a life sentence in these circumstances is a very cruel exercise. It creates a sense of hopelessness in prisoners requiring medical care and makes them very difficult to handle.
To use a life sentence in all cases dilutes the very overwhelming nature of the penalty. It is said sometimes that a judge cannot sensibly decide at the trial how long a defendant should remain in custody. He cannot foresee how the defendant will behave, how much remorse he will suffer, how much he will deteriorate physically and mentally, and how treatment will succeed or fail. There is much truth in this view. In many cases the flexibility of a life sentence will be justified for those very reasons. But there is another side to that coin.
If, for instance, diminished responsibility is entered as a plea in a murder case, and if the jury find in the defendant's favour that he was suffering from diminished responsibility when he committed the murder, then the judge will have a discretion, a total discretion, as to the sentence. In fact, he will have it in the most difficult and unpredictable of all cases—that of the disordered killer. So why not in the case of the normal person who has killed, for instance, under supreme stress? Why should not the judge have the same discretion?
Diminished responsibility is often put forward now to avoid the mandatory sentence. The limits are stretched, as I know so well from my own experience, to accommodate cases which cry out for a merciful sentence. They are stretched sometimes by the doctors, stretched by the lawyers and, if I may say so, stretched by the judges to achieve a result that all concerned consider a just outcome. Diminished responsibility is not, however, available to an accused person who has a mental disorder but denies that he was the person who committed the offence. If his denial is rejected by the jury and he is found guilty, one is left with the agonising situation where that person has ruled himself out of a psychiatric disposition by the nature of his defence. He has to be given a mandatory life sentence.
The advisory council pointed out what I think is generally accepted within the prison service: that a life sentence makes it very difficult to deal with many prisoners. The indeterminate sentence gives rise to feelings of hopelessness and insecurity. A realistic determinate sentence is far more satisfactory from the point of view of dealing with people who are in prison for the offence of murder. It would surely be far better to recognise now at last that murder is not
418
a homogeneous offence but one of considerable variety. The sentence should surely reflect this fact and a judge should be able to sentence right across the spectrum, reserving life imprisonment for the very worst offences.
I have known judges put on probation people found guilty of manslaughter where the killing was to all intents and purposes murder. A merciful jury found provocation or an element of self-defence in the offence. The jurors were merciful because they knew when they went out to deliberate that if they found the person guilty of murder then the mandatory sentence was inevitable. Many people who have killed in a one-off situation are far less dangerous than a bank robber with previous convictions for violence; many are persons of exemplary character.
If this amendment were to commend itself to the Committee it might well be necessary to place a ceiling on the determinate sentence passed by a judge—say, 20 or 25 years—to prevent excessive sentencing. Anything more than that would then be a life sentence. Lifers in those circumstances could not expect to be released until a much longer period than the present average time had elapsed.
When dealing with the very unpredictable prisoner who at the moment must be given a life sentence because the judge is absolutely unconvinced as to what the future holds for him, the All-Party Penal Affairs Group recommended the introduction of a reviewable sentence, as proposed by the Butler Committee. Those who have a history of mental disorder and yet cannot be compulsorily hospitalised would receive this sentence and the Parole Board would have to review such sentences every two years. In all the circumstances, I would commend the amendment to the Committee. I beg to move.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Morton of Shuna: In our view Amendment No. 52 should not be accepted but Amendment No. 55 should. There should be a right of appeal against the recommendation, but we are not yet discussing that.
The power given to a judge who has heard the evidence to make a recommendation as to the minimum period that should be served is valuable. It is after all only a recommendation which, in appropriate circumstances, can be considered and disagreed with by the Secretary of State. Far from agreeing to proposals for abolishing the power to make such a recommendation, I would suggest that there is a fairly strong argument that the statutory power to make such a recommendation should be extended to all cases in which a life sentence is considered appropriate.
There are occasional cases where a person convicted of a crime other than murder is regarded as so dangerous that the court considers a life sentence proper and intends that the sentence should he very long. But it has no statutory power to make such a recommendation. There are cases where on account of diminished responsibility a person is charged with, or convicted of, manslaughter, in England and Wales, or culpable homicide, in Scotland. In some of

419
these cases the person is on the verge of insanity and highly dangerous. On medical evidence a prison sentence is imperative rather than a sentence to a mental institution. Some of these people are far more dangerous than some of those who are convicted of murder.
It seems illogical that in dealing with that type of case the court has no power to make a recommendation as to what the life sentence should be. One can think of similar cases in regard to other offences where a life sentence is appropriate—for example, rape.
On those grounds I suggest that the amendment should not be accepted. But perhaps the Government will consider the alternative of extending the power to make recommendations. On the other hand, as we have to discuss Amendment No. 55 as well, I would strongly support the view that for murder the life sentence should be the maximum rather than the mandatory sentence. There are many cases of murder where it is quite clear that there are mitigating factors which do not fit into the legal definitions which would allow a conviction for manslaughter or culpable homicide. In this type of case one can often be almost certain that the offender who has never offended before is very unlikely to offend again.
Examples of such cases occur in the family realm where we get the occasional instance of an elderly, possibly deranged, parent or an either physically or mentally severely disabled child being killed by somebody else in the house who, in the circumstances of the killing, cannot be fitted into the culpable homicide or manslaughter definitions. Similarly, one has the cases to which the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, referred of the battered wife, where there has been a long history of violence on the part of the victim and the killer decides that she has suffered enough and kills, but not in circumstances where the law allows the defence of provocation.
If a battered wife in the face of violence—at least in Scottish law—suddenly loses control of herself and kills, that would be a situation where provocation would reduce the crime from murder to culpable homicide, but there have been cases where we do not meet the rules on provocation where the battered wife, having been battered for months or years, decides apparently calmly and coldly that the batterer is to die and kills not when she has suddenly lost control. It is that type of case, and the other family situations, that are perhaps the most obvious examples of murder where a shorter determinate sentence would clearly be appropriate.
It may well be that the real problem is in having two categories of unlawful killing—in having the category of murder and the category of manslaughter—and that we should consider whether there should be only one offence of unlawful killing, leaving it to the judge to pass the appropriate sentence. I personally have long held that this is the position, and that it is not possible to divide the almost infinite variety of situations where people kill unlawfully into two rigid categories of murder and manslaughter. I would certainly suggest that the history of the attempt to divide murder into capital
420
murder and ordinary murder shows that that designation did not work. It was very difficult indeed to justify the categories, or to think how they could be more appropriately categorised into two compartments.
Parliament rightly decided that that did not work, and in my view it is probable that Parliament should consider whether the distinction between murder and manslaughter should depart and that we should have one crime of unlawful killing. For those reasons I suggest at this stage that Amendment No. 52 should not be agreed to.
Lord Windlesham: Although I wish to speak principally on Amendment No. 55 I make one preliminary observation on the subject matter of Amendment No. 52. This is to bring to the Committee's attention a recent change in practice as a result of the Handscomb case in the Divisional Court. Trial judges who pronounce sentences of life imprisonment, whether mandatory life sentences for murder or discretionary life sentences in other cases, are now being asked to write to the Home Secretary at the conclusion of the trial in all cases. The facility has existed for many years, but it is now a requirement that the trial judge should write in every case where a life sentence is passed expressing an opinion on the period of imprisonment necessary to meet the requirements of retribution and deterrence.
This period of time, the so-called tariff—which I have always regarded as an unfortunate expression—is needed to calculate the stage in the sentence at which the first review of the case by the Parole Board will take place. That is usually three years before the expiry of that period which is thought to be necessary for the purposes of retribution and deterrence.
The question that arises now is: what is the difference between a minimum recommendation in open court and a private communication which plays such a significant part in determining the period to be spent in custody? I have no answer to that question today, and I doubt whether the Home Office do, but it is something that will require careful consideration in the future.
Turning now to Amendment No. 55, which I support, the mandatory penalty for murder distorts sentencing in homicide cases; it causes indefensible anomalies in the time spent in prison; and it has the effect of diminishing the deterrent effect of what is the most severe sentence permitted by the criminal law. The mandatory life sentence, like so much else in our system of criminal justice, can only be understood if seen in its historical context. So long as capital punishment existed, there was a justification for a mandatory penalty for murder. If murder was regarded as a crime apart, so was capital punishment regarded as a penalty apart. Thus an equation was established and maintained between murder and capital punishment.
Although this equation between capital punishment and murder was severed more than 20 years ago, the legacy of the mandatory sentence still remained. The compromise offered in 1965 was that a conviction for murder should automatically lead to imprisonment for life, and that the courts should

421
have no power to vary the penalty decided upon by Parliament. But life sentences, unlike capital punishment, were not unique. Nor did they mean that the offender would necessarily spend the rest of his natural life in custody.
Ever since the first introduction of the life sentence as an alternative to transportation in the latter part of the 19th century, the Home Secretary had used his discretion to release lifers on licence after what he regarded as an appropriate period spent in prison. I simply make the point now that life imprisonment as a penalty does not stand in any unique relationship to murder, since it is the identical penalty that the courts may impose on conviction for a range of other serious criminal offences including rape, armed robbery, wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm, aggravated burglary, sexual intercourse with a girl under 13, and arson.
Therefore, what we have here is a penalty no longer unique, which also applies to several other offences— the number of which is being extended all the time by Parliament—with one special quality and that is its indeterminacy. The period of time to be served may be longer than a fixed sentence or it may be shorter than a fixed sentence, and it is consequently, for the reasons I have advanced, wholly misleading to regard the mandatory life sentence as a watered-down version of the previous mandatory penalty for murder—namely, capital punishment.
This brings me to the question: is life imprisonment the most suitable penalty for murder, if it is no longer unique? A number of High Court judges who try murder cases in the Crown Court would prefer the courts to be given unfettered discretion in such cases to impose either a life sentence—if that is merited—or a determinate sentence of imprisonment, or such other disposal as might be considered appropriate in the particular circumstances of the case.
We should recall that the mandatory penalty for murder precludes the court from making a hospital order. There are many people who, having been convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment, after a period of no more than a few weeks are transferred to a special hospital, because of their mental condition. In murder cases the court does not have that power to make a hospital order, as it does in every other conviction including manslaughter.
It was for reasons of this kind that the Butler Committee, which has been mentioned already in this debate, and which reviewed the law on mentally abnormal offenders, put forward as its first choice the abolition of the mandatory life sentence. It recommended that the law should be changed so as to make life imprisonment the maximum, rather than the mandatory, penalty for murder; in other words, exactly what Amendment No. 55 seeks to achieve. The committee pointed out that cases of murder occur which can be adequately dealt with by a determinate sentence, whereas the use of the life sentence in cases that do not really call for it dilute what should be the awe-inspiring nature of this penalty. Conversely, some manslaughters may be of a particularly brutal character, and may be more
422
culpable than domestic murders which have mitigating circumstances.
The alternative, also canvassed by the Butler Committee, is to abandon the distinction between murder and manslaughter, merging the two offences into a single offence of unlawful killing. The noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, and I have discussed this matter in the past, and we are at one that this is the more desirable of the two alternatives.
That, I believe, should be the target. I am not sure this Bill, and the amendments to it, is necessarily the place to achieve it. However, the aim is one that we should pursue if we hope to achieve those virtues which have for so long been sought in this branch of the criminal law: clarity, consistency and accessibility. For once I find myself going further than the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, and the noble Earl, Lord Longford. It is not often that they can be accused of timidity in matters of penal reform. However, Amendment No. 55 has the effect of making the life sentence a maximum, and not a mandatory, penalty for murder. It is a step in the right direction, and I believe that it is one calling for the support of the Committee.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Denning: I suggest that this is not the occasion on which we should amend the law. The case has been most persuasively submitted by the noble Lords, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, Lord Morton of Shuna and Lord Windlesham. Throughout the centuries murder and manslaughter have been distinguished in our common law and this is not the occasion on which to merge them together. All through the centuries murder and manslaughter have been defined and they must remain in our common law.
In the days of capital punishment juries used to take a merciful view and, when appropriate, find manslaughter instead of murder. Years ago I tried the case of an army captain who had been nagged by his wife beyond distraction, and he took out his revolver and shot her dead. Clearly in law that was murder but in the circumstances of such provocation the jury found him guilty of manslaughter only. I sentenced him to two years and there was applause in the gallery overhead. There the jury made a distinction between murder and manslaughter and took the merciful view. The distinction between murder and manslaughter must remain in our law until there is something much more comprehensive than this Bill—an offence of unlawful killing, which, I suggest, we cannot deal with now.
If the distinction exists I should like to consider the objects of punishment; the objects of sentencing a criminal to imprisonment. As I have always understood the matter, there are three. First, deterrence; to deter the offender and others from committing the crime again. Secondly, to try to reform him and make him better in the future. Thirdly, and perhaps the most important, retribution; punishment, if you like, but the emphatic denunciation by society of a crime. The judge is the spokesman of society and expresses that emphatic denunciation at the time of sentencing. That is why the judge tailors the sentence to the offence, whether

423
it is two, five, 10 or 15 years. In the length of his sentence the judge is expressing the denunciation of the crime of which the accused has been convicted and saying that he must serve that sentence because it is retribution owed to society for his wrongdoing.
If that is the object of punishment I come to this recommendation. Surely when Parliament inserted that provision they were expressing the feeling of society. Some crimes are so horrible and horrendous that the judge, representing society, should be able to recommend that an offender shall serve at least 15, 20 or 30 years. That is not binding: it is a recommendation which can be reconsidered if circumstances alter. Surely that was a sensible provision to make.
As has been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, it is now the practice of judges in cases of life sentences to write privately to the Home Secretary suggesting what the term should be. Indeed, I used to do so in capital cases. If it is done privately, would it not be better done publicly so that society can see what the judge feels about the case he has tried and about what the appropriate length of sentence should be? In other words, I am suggesting that the power of recommendation can be tailored to fit the particular case. If the case is such that there are mitigating circumstances then let the recommended term be short. If it is a horrendous case which calls for 25 or 30 years' imprisonment. let the judge say so on behalf of society.
I venture to think that in many of the horrendous cases of which we are aware society would approve a judgment which says, "This crime is so horrible that I recommend you serve at least 25 years". The judge on behalf of society is able to say that, always remembering that the sentence can be measured afterwards and reduced or allowed as the Secretary of State may think fit. In other words, I suggest that the time is not ripe for replacing the old distinction between murder and manslaughter or for altering this clause and that we should let it stand as it is for the time being at least.
Lord Hunt: I should like to speak briefly in support of Amendment No. 52 proposed by my noble friend. I am not sure that drawing upon my experience as chairman of the Parole Board will be of value; but it may be, even though it was 15 years ago. I had the privilege of holding the post for six years. In the light of that experience and on reflection—I noted that the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, very properly, as the current incumbent forbore from expressing an opinion—I have come to the conclusion that the determination of a date for eventual conditional release on life licence, no matter how heinous the crime (I stress those words) is adequately dealt with through the consultations with the Lord Chief Justice and the trial judge which the Home Secretary of the day, under the Criminal Justice Act 1967, is required by law to follow if the Parole Board makes a positive recommendation.
From that experience—certainly, this was the case in my time—my view is that minimum recommendations made publicly immediately upon the conclusion of a trial have an unduly inhibitory,
424
indeed almost prohibitive, influence on both the Parole Board and, I suspect, though I cannot speak for him, the Home Secretary. Of a number of positive recommendations carefully considered by the Parole Board, which included High Court and Crown Court judges during my years as chairman, I can recall only one case in which the Home Secretary accepted recommendations for eventual date of release made by the board. I cannot produce figures to demonstrate that contrast but my noble friend mentioned some hundreds of minimum recommendation cases over a longer span of years. It follows that during my six years many such cases arose in which we made a limited number of positive recommendations. But in those six years, only one was approved for release.
On reflection, I believe that it is wrong that the question of eventual release on licence should be so largely prejudged publicly in a negative sense at the beginning of what is bound to be a very long sentence rather than according to circumstances which may be very different 10 or more years hence from when the formal review takes place. Such a minimum recommendation, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, pointed out it should, may well reflect and perhaps satisfy public horror at the time. It may also be deemed to serve some general aim of deterrence. Of course it deters the particular offenders. But I and others would dispute the value of such exemplary sentences for purposes of general deterrence. It may well do a serious injustice to the individual concerned whose attitude and circumstances may have changed quite profoundly.
I make that point because I feel very deeply that the existing arrangements in the statute are quite adequate. Certainly, in my time, the effect was almost prohibitive. That is wrong. Only if there ceased to be a restrictive effect upon the deliberations of the board and the decisions of the Home Secretary would it be right to continue as at present.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I oppose Amendment No. 52 but only because I favour Amendment No. 52A which the Committee may well think is apt to deal with the problem about which the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, spoke so eloquently. I support Amendment No. 55 and if I were to enter the arena of some generic offence of unlawful killing I should walk all the way in the company of my noble friend Lord Windlesham. I am afraid however that I should part company with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning.
There are five reasons why I hope that Amendment No. 52A will commend itself to my noble friend the Minister and to the Committee. The first is that there is no appeal against the recommendation. Secondly, there is no consistency as to the circumstances which warrant a recommendation. It is idle to talk about judges being the servants of society if there is no consistency in the manner in which they serve. Thirdly, if my mathematics are roughly right, I calculate that this recommendation is about 95 per cent. effective. Fourthly, if consistency in sentencing is the lodestar of the due administration of criminal justice, Amendment No. 52A is requisite to avoid

425
manifest disparity, is it not? Lastly, the practice of learned judges writing letters to the Home Office is highly desirable and no doubt will continue; but, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, said—and here again, I shall walk with him if I may—that is no substitute for an appellate procedure as proposed in open court by Amendment No. 52A, is it?
I hope that my noble friend the Minister can approach the problems, which are wholly nonpolitical and emanate from a background of study groups which are in essence non-political, with an open mind, as I am sure he always does. I hope that he will consider the questions on their merits.
The Earl of Longford: It is many years since I ventured to disagree with my own Front Bench. In fact, I do not think I have disagreed with the Front Bench since I was actually leading it. I left on one occasion—
Lord Elwyn-Jones: Did you speak for yourself?
The Earl of Longford: That was on the question of abortion, which is rather aside from our discussion at the moment. My noble friend Lord Stewart reminds me that on questions of defence I have not seen eye to eye with what might seem to be the party line, but I discovered that line to be so generous, if I may put it that way, that I have not been too much bothered in that respect. I can say only that I hope my leaders will remember the old adage, "To understand all is to forgive all" because I want to speak in total disagreement with the line unfolded by our spokesmen just now. In other words, I want to support very strongly the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, on the abolition of this power to make recommendations.
Of course, I am a veteran of some of the older discussions. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, is a veteran of some of them also, but he adjourned for a time from this Chamber in search of higher prospects. I am glad that he returned. In 1956 he took part in the debates when the House of Lords threw out by a majority of two to one a measure for the abolition of capital punishment, which had been passed on a vote of two to one by the House of Commons. However, in 1965, the House of Lords by a vote of two to one passed an Act to abolish capital punishment. The Labour party line was entirely favourable to that. I have not, alas, thought it right to make contact with the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, although there is no one in this land for whom I have a higher respect. He was the Lord Chancellor at the time. To the best of my belief, the idea of judges making recommendations would have been most unwelcome to him. It was in fact pressed on the Government. For whatever reason, it was accepted at that time as a concession to the anti-abolitionist opinion, expressed so eloquently and comprehensively by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, to the Committee last night. That concession was made and has remained. That is history.
As to the Labour Party—not collectively, but in terms of the total membership—99 per cent. of the Labour people whom I have ever known have been
426
against capital punishment and would never have welcomed the idea of this sort of concession.
Let us look at the power to make recommendations, whether we think it is a good or a bad idea. The noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, has explained the way in which it has worked out inconsistently. One can argue along that line. I think that it is wrong in principle. We were told in a powerful speech by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, yesterday, although he is not present in the Chamber now—indeed, it is obvious, but it was well expressed by him—that public opinion is increasingly influencing sentencing policy. Twenty-five years ago I wrote a book called The Idea of Punishment; it is a small book, but I am glad to think that it is still on the shelves of the Criminological Institute of Oxford—I do not know about Cambridge. At any rate, it is tucked away on the back shelves and can be found there. It has stood its ground over the years. In the book I mentioned all the old elements of a just sentence—deterrence, reform, prevention and retribution with, no doubt, a word or two about reparation. I mentioned all the usual things, but I said nothing about public opinion.
Twenty-five years ago it would have been thought rather squalid to begin dragging public opinion into a grave question of human justice, the right sentence and so on. It had nothing to do with public emotions, nothing to do with The Sun newspaper or The Star, which, I am told, has sunk to new depths. I do not know whether it is still taken in your Lordships' House. There are other papers that are getting lower and lower. Indeed, I hope that a Motion is tabled on that subject at some time. As the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, pointed out yesterday, public opinion on this matter, even more than on other matters, is formed by the tabloid press front pages arousing the utmost hatred against criminals.
We are being asked to say that, when the man has been convicted, with headlines all over The Sun saying, "This is the most evil man in the world", that is the moment at which judges are qualified to say that the man should stay in prison, maybe for ever; at any rate, they are qualified to pass this definitive judgment. When this was discussed originally in 1965 no one thought that it was a definitive judgment but rather some gentle advice to be taken as the case might arise.
If I may pay tribute to the judges—it may he the last that I pay this afternoon—their reputation is so high that what they say becomes a little like the law of the Medes and the Persians. If only they were taken not quite so seriously it would not be so bad, but this becomes the law. As was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, the recommendations are very seldom overturned.
Noble Lords may associate me with one or two particularly well-known delinquents. In fact, the particular people with whom I have been associated for years, rather publicly, are not subject to recommendations so that does not arise here.
I know other delinquents—to use a blunter expression, criminals—who have had recommendations of 30 years. Do we assume that they are to serve 30 years? We all remember when one

427
of our noble colleagues passed a sentence of 30 years on the train robbers. That was thought pretty extreme. Not long after that the parole system came in so that they got out after 12 years, and some of the later sentences were reduced. The idea of actually serving 30 years would have seemed inconceivable, certainly in 1965 when the recommendations were introduced.
Does anybody really think that, as human beings, we are qualified to say that our fellows ought to serve 30 years in prison, whether or not they are dangerous? Of course, if they are dangerous, one may well say that they ought not to come out; if you like, that they are so dangerous that they ought never to come out.
Then we have the Parole Board under the admirable leadership of the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham. Presumably the Parole Board can tell us that the recommendations are pre-judging in practice the decisions of the Parole Board many years ahead. I think that that is monstrous.
I entirely support the recommendations of the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington.
4 p.m.
Lord Roskill: I support Amendment No. 52 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington. In the alternative, if the Government will not support that amendment, I shall support Amendment No. 52A and I certainly support Amendment No. 55.
I begin by inviting noble Lords to consider the circumstances in which this power was given to the judiciary. It arose on the abolition of capital punishment in 1965.
It is a strange irony that the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, and I should both be speaking in the debate—I see him nodding—for it fell to my lot to make the first recommendation in a very bad murder case in which the noble Lord's eloquence for the defence for once failed. It was a case which, if my memory is right, started even as a committal for capital murder. Two or three years before, that man would unquestionably have been executed. As it was, I was faced with the problem for the first time and discussed with the then Lord Chief Justice Lord Parker of Waddington what the right thing to do was.
In 1965 there was a large body of public opinion still supporting capital punishment and Lord Parker, certainly when I first became a judge in 1962, was one of them. He gradually moved his view round. It was, I believe—and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, the then Attorney-General, will remember this—as a result of a political compromise negotiated by the late Lord Parker, with the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton, which led to this power being given to judges. On the strength of the power being given to judges, Lord Parker supported abolition, supported as it was at that time by a majority of Queen's Bench judges.
That being so, the question arises whether 22 years later that power should be retained. I speak only for myself but I venture to speak after, in my time as a
428
Queen's Bench judge, having tried over 50 murders and in my time with the Court of Appeal having had a very large number of murders through my hands. I am unhesitatingly of the view that this power is outmoded and outdated. I am rather surprised to hear the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, saying otherwise.
I had the privilege of serving as a first vice-chairman of the Parole Board under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. This power is outdated for this reason. When this power was given there was no parole system. Therefore, it was necessary for the judge to have this power not only in the public interest but to give some guidance to the Home Secretary as to how the Home Office ought to exercise its powers to release. There is now no reason for that.
I vividly remember in about 1968 or 1969 discussing with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, when these cases began to come, as was inevitable, what we were going to do about them. We were in a complete dilemma because we did not want to appear to override the judge's recommendation. On the other hand, as the noble Earl, Lord Longford, said, the judge cannot possibly foretell in 1965 what will be right in 1970, 1975 or 1980. Therefore I should like to see this power go. I have no right to speak for anybody else. I have not asked anybody else. But as one of those who has been concerned with it over a long period, I hope that it will go. If it does not go, then a right of appeal should be given.
It was in the case in which the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, and I appeared that the Court of Criminal Appeal, as it then was, decided—if I may say so, quite rightly on the construction of the statute—that there was no right of appeal. That has subsisted ever since, but I have never thought it satisfactory and if the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, does not succeed in his main amendment I hope that he will be allowed to succeed with the other.
So far as mandatory life sentences go, I hope that my noble and learned friend Lord Denning will forgive me if I say, as one who is utterly devoted to him and who has learned much from him, that it is a very long time since he tried murder of any kind. To those of us who have tried it or had it through our hands more recently, what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, and others is absolutely right. The distinction between murder and manslaughter has become completely blurred. As I have tried murder, I have often wondered whether the accused would be standing in the dock on a charge of attempted murder or grievous bodily harm if the ambulance had arrived sooner and the man had been got to hospital sooner. It has become so capricious.
In its judicial capacity recently, your Lordships' House has had two very difficult murder/manslaughter cases. One was the somewhat notorious Welsh miners' case in the strike. I say nothing about that specifically beyond that the arguments in that case, to which I listened—I was a party to the decision—convinced me even more that the time had come to abolish the distinction between murder and manslaughter which, to my mind, has

429
been outdated ever since capital punishment was abolished, and that we should have one offence of unlawful homicide.
What will then happen? You will not have to worry about all the complications of diminished responsiblility, provocation and all the rest. Those of us who have had to sum up in these cases know the tripwires that can befall a judge. The burden of proof is one way on diminished responsbility; it is another way on provocation. How do you explain to an innocent jury where both arise, and how they resolve that problem, where there is possibly both diminished responsiblility and also provocation?
I say with regret that the law of murder and manslaughter has got into a mess. This is not the Bill in which to tidy it up, but it should be tidied up soon. It is perhaps a matter which the Law Commission could have a look at. But meanwhile, until it is tidied up, let us try to make such reforms as are necessary. Either let us abolish the minimum recommendation power or, if not. let us give a right of appeal and let us cease to have mandatory sentence.
We can all quote cases. I recall one that moved me very deeply, and I am sure that it moved the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, on the Parole Board. It was the case of a university teacher who had been driven absolutely to distraction by looking after a mongol child because his wife had equally gone almost insane. He put that child in a gas oven. The jury—quite correctly, under the judge's direction—found him guilty of murder. The learned judge. a most humane man, had to pass a life sentence. There was a good deal of publicity about it. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and I took steps to see that, contrary to the usual Home Office practice, the case came to the board almost immediately and I believe we had him out in six to nine months, very much improved by a spell in a prison hospital, though any longer period there would have done untold damage.
These are the problems. Nobody wants to keep people in prison. Nobody wants to pass a life sentence unless he has to. In an enormous number of these cases a determinate sentence would be perfectly adequate, and that would leave the Parole Board free to do what it wants to do, when it wants to do it. It is for those reasons that I venture to support these various amendments.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: I wonder whether, among this galaxy of experts, this non-expert could add a word or two, because it is a subject to which I have given a good deal of thought. Because of the very percipient and persuasive speeches to which we have listened, nobody could doubt that we are in the presence of a very real problem. The question is not so much whether the problem exists; it obviously does. The question is to identify the exact nature of the problem and then to ask ourselves what to do about these three amendments. I mention three, because I wish to say a word in parenthesis about Amendment No. 52A.
The reason for all this difficulty can be stated in almost two sentences. Parliament has never really grappled with the problem of the distinction between manslaughter and murder. That is the first proposition. The second is that in recent years
430
Parliament has never really defined what it thinks it is doing with the life sentence as such. Perhaps I may deal with the second of the two propositions first.
The life sentence in its present form is not a life sentence at all. It is a misnomer. It is an indeterminate sentence which will not end until something has happened which may vary according to the circumstances in which it is passed. I venture to query whether the life sentence in its present form really has any useful purpose at all and whether one should not, if one wishes to have a sentence of this kind, simply place a duty on the part of the judge to give a determinate sentence of some kind, one way or the other, because then the whole thing would come out into the open. I think it is quite wrong for a judge to write a private letter to the Home Secretary, the contents of which are never known to the public. Justice ought to be open and public wherever possible, and it is possible here.
Secondly, for the reasons which have been given more than once in this brief debate, I do not believe that the system of recommendation in murder cases has any useful purpose, if you once accept that the judge ought to be under a duty to give a determinate sentence and not an indeterminate sentence with a recommendation, even though that recommendation be in public. Let there be a duty to give a determinate sentence and then everybody knows what it is. Then let the convicted man go through the parole machinery as it exists at present, which has justified itself over the years and which came in at a rather peculiar moment of time, as my noble friend Lord Windlesham, and I think the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, reminded us. So much for the second of the two propositions.
The first is that nobody who has studied the history or the development of the distinction between murder and manslaughter could ever believe that it made sense. It happens that I sat and presided in one of the cases which was quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, the case of Hyams, on which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Kilbrandon, and the late Lord Diplock, gave dissentient judgments. I ventured there to show some of the wholly illogical origins of the distinction between murder and manslaughter. It was a by-blow originally of the Reformation when King Henry VIII took over the task for the civil courts of retaining the benefit of clergy in felony cases. There then existed felony until comparatively recently. That is how it started.
It was followed by an extraordinary series of judicial legislation cases in which the meaning of the words malice aforethought, ex malitia prepensata or malice prepense, as it was called in various languages, was extended, diminished, confused and always retained in some form. The result is that with certain statutory complications, like the Scottish doctrine which has been introduced of—
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: Diminished responsibility.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone:—it was introduced in order to mitigate the effect of the

431
Homicide Act 1957. The whole thing is now really a nonsense. There are really only two options. One is to abolish, as has been suggested more than once, the distinction between murder and manslaughter and make a single case of criminal homicide. The other would be to make a totally different distinction like that suggested by the late Lord Diplock in his dissenting judgment in Hyams of limiting murder to cases where there is deliberate intention to kill. I think that the former of those two alternatives is probably correct because murder, even so defined, is not so much a crime as a bundle of different crimes with different degrees of culpability attached to them. But I can quite understand that to divide murders into those where there is an actual intention to kill and those where there is not would be a logical line to defend if one wished to do that.
Coming back to the amendments, I do not believe that they would be acceptable except perhaps as makeshifts. I do not favour the amendment which is immediately under discussion, Amendment No. 52. Amendment No. 52A is much more attractive but I do not particularly like it because I do not believe in the judge's right of recommendation and it only depends upon making that appealable. Amendment No. 55 is also attractive but all the amendments are only makeshifts. Sooner or later we must tackle the real problems which revolve round the two propositions with which I began.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: I wish that the Committee were discussing Amendments Nos. 52, 52A and 55 together. I am firmly of the view that they should have been grouped together. We should then have had a very worthwhile debate with something meaningful in any vote that was taken. To distinguish between Amendments Nos. 52, 52A and 55 by way of separate debates seems to me to lead to an inconclusive result.
This debate has been absolutely enlightening in the sense that a very real problem in criminal law was grappled with by those of our noble and learned Members who are most experienced in these matters. An unanswerable case was made for the distinction between murder and manslaughter to go. If that is so, should not the Committee—and I say this with the greatest of deference—remember that the times when we consider a Criminal Justice Bill and it gets into the parliamentary slot are few and far between? Here we are dealing with a Criminal Justice Bill that covers many aspects of crime and punishment and we are possibly—I underline the word "possibly"—content with a debate on whether or not murder or manslaughter should be distinguished. No amendment has been tabled, we shall not be voting on one and an opportunity that possibly will not recur for quite a few years is being missed.
The first practical suggestion that I venture to make to the Minister is one that he obviously cannot answer at this moment. I suggest that on Report we should grapple with this problem of the distinction which should not be there between murder and manslaughter. I should have thought that it was absolutely possible for the Government to make up
432
their mind upon that aspect and, if not, for the Committee to make up the Government's mind for them. As I have said, this is an opportunity, especially after listening to these learned speeches from such experienced judges, which should not be missed. At this stage we must accept that there is no such amendment before us.
I venture to comment upon some of the speeches that have been so forcefully made in the debate. It is a fact that if we are left with the aspect of Amendment No. 52 on its own we shall have nothing at all to put in its place unless of course we have the determinate sentence in all cases, which is what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, pleaded for.
One of the difficulties of having a determinate sentence of life imprisonment is, as we know, that if that be so we are virtually leaving someone after he leaves the court of his trial with no hope of redemption except possibly at the end of heaven knows how many years, because the judge has said: "It is life and I meant life." That is one of the problems with which we have to contend.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: I wish to interrupt the noble Lord to say that I do not count life as a determinate sentence. When I used the word "determinate", I was using it in the sense of a sentence for a definite number of years. When I used the word "life", I regarded that as indeterminate because only God knows when that will end.
Lord Mishcon: I remember so well Mr. Justice Avery having a shot at taking the part of God and I remember one case for which he was quite famous. He was a hard judge and was known to be such but he dealt with a wave of crime in his own way. On one occasion he sentenced a man who had been before the courts on many occasions and who was 68 years old to 20 years' imprisonment. The man said from the dock: "But, my lord, I won't live that long." To which the learned judge replied: "Do your best, my man." So if we make a determinate sentence and there is no life sentence quite obviously some judges moved by the severity of the crime and the circumstances of it may impose a very long term. But I do appreciate that that would be subject to appeal.
With great respect to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Roskill, it is the judge at the trial who hears all the evidence, who sees the accused, who has gone into all the facts at the time and who has heard all the speeches that could be made in favour of the accused who should decide the original sentence subject to a question of appeal. He should decide that and not the Parole Board.
I have one anxiety but I need not go into it now as it has already been dealt with by those more eloquent than I shall ever be. My anxiety is that the custom of private recommendation must be wrong. A man is entitled to know what is said against him and those representing are entitled to make their representations knowing what the recommendation is. That is true. However, the custom of the Parole Board or the Home Secretary regarding themselves as in any way bound in this machinery by the judgment and the sentence of the judge which was made at the time of the trial should go. The Parole Board walks in, as it were, and has a look at what has happened to the man

433
after the trial. It is the Parole Board that can consider on the reports that it has whether the man has truly repented after he has made some kind of retribution to society and after he has been punished. One hopes then that the rehabilitation process has taken place and that the Parole Board can decide whether securing the safety of society and giving a man a chance can be matched if it acts in a merciful way.
I ask the Government first to see whether it is not possible in the Bill to clear up a matter which warrants clearing up in a Criminal Justice Bill. Secondly, until that has been done—we shall hear more about that later— we must keep the judge's recommendation which is made openly. But I once again ask that it be common custom as from now that the Parole Board and the Home Secretary do not regard themselves in the machinery that takes place as being bound by this recommendation in any way other than as looking at the situation as the judge saw it at the date of the completion of the trial.
The Earl of Caithness: On Amendment No. 52 the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, argued that the judge's power to recommend a minimum term to be served when a life sentence is imposed for murder should be abolished.
The essence of the noble Lord's argument is that minimum recommendations are made haphazardly and are therefore unfair. I do not entirely follow the noble Lord in that argument. The minimum recommendation is a device which is available to judges when they wish to mark the particular seriousness of a murder. Although all murders are serious (which is why society requires that the most severe penalty be imposed) some are especially abhorrent. The judge has available to him a means of saying, "This is an appalling murder; although this person's eventual release from prison will depend on a whole range of factors, a clear marker must be laid down now about the gravity of the offence". I think that is a very proper thing for the judge to say.
We have in this Committee already debated a number of issues which go to the very fundamental question of public confidence in the criminal justice system. Here we are dealing with the most serious issue of all—murder. Murderers must be properly punished and must be seen to be properly punished. Neither the potential murderer nor the man on the Clapham omnibus should assume that life means eight or nine years, whatever the circumstances of the offence.
The noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, argued that prisoners serving a minimum recommended period were at a disadvantage because the Home Secretary was unlikely to release them before the expiry of that period. That is not so, because the judge's recommendation, or lack of recommendation, is not the end of the story. Indeed, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Roskill, gave one example of just why that is not so.
In every case, whether or not a minimum recommendation was pronounced, the trial judge is asked for his view on the period which ought to be served to reflect the relative gravity of the offence. So every lifer has a tariff, irrespective of any minimum recommendation. In most cases, prisoners are not
434
released before the expiry of the minimum recommended period. But that is scarcely a matter for wonder. It would be far more worrying if the Home Secretary's view and that of the trial judge were frequently out of kilter. Nevertheless, there have been a few cases in which a release date has been fixed earlier than the expiry of the minimum recommended period. That demonstrates that the minimum recommendation is not followed slavishly when there is good reason to depart from it.
Before I turn to the details of Amendment No. 55, perhaps I may answer two points. The noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, suggested that the trial judge should be required to make a minimum recommendation in all cases. The idea was explored some years ago in the Scottish context.
Lord Morton of Shuna: May I interrupt the noble Earl? I was not suggesting that. I was suggesting that the power to make a recommendation should be there in the circumstances in which a life sentence was pronounced in non-murder cases.
The Earl of Caithness: I am sorry that I misunderstood the noble Lord. In that case, I shall have a look at what is said in the Official Report and return to that point at a later stage.
My noble friend Lord Windlesham asked about the relationship between the minimum recommendation and the tariff established by the Home Secretary in consultation with the trial judge shortly after sentence. I gladly acknowledge my noble friend's point that new procedures announced by my right honourable friend in the light of the Handscomb judgment bring the making of a minimum recommendation and the tariff-setting exercise close together in time. The new procedures were only introduced on 1st October of this year and this is an aspect which will need to be kept in view. I am grateful to my noble friend for making that important point.
I turn at this stage to Amendment No. 55. As the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington. has said, the Criminal Law Revision Committee said in 1980 in its report on offences against the person that it was,
"deeply and almost evenly divided on this issue".
Although the majority of Members of the Committee who have spoken have spoken for the amendment, I sense that opinion is divided on the matter. I believe that that is the feeling of society as a whole, and to me that is the nub of the matter. The arguments on both sides are familiar to the Committee. I do not propose to repeat them.
Several noble Lords have argued the case for change sincerely and persuasively. I respect those views; I believe that their arguments have a certain force. I doubt whether their arguments are sufficiently compelling to justify what would be regarded as a radical upheaval of our procedures for dealing with murderers. Despite the differences of views held on this issue, I do not believe that the present arrangements are widely considered to be unsatisfactory. To depart from them would be what the Criminal Law Revision Committee called "a leap

435
in the dark". That would be a risky course leading to uncertain rewards.
I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, that murder is a uniquely serious offence. Society demands that it be marked out as such. At present, the current law has the advantage of simplicity and clarity: if you commit murder, you are sentenced to life. Everybody knows that. It is a deterrent to the violent criminal and a reassurance to the innocent citizen. I think that many people would be very worried by a departure from that position.
This has been a useful debate and we have had the benefit of powerful arguments from my noble friend Lord Windlesham and several other Members of the Committee. The Committee will have gathered from my remarks that the Government have some difficulty in being receptive today to the changes that lie in these amendments. I should go further and say that we also have some difficulty with Amendment No. 52A.
Irrespective of merits, I agree with the noble and learned Lords, Lord Denning and Lord Roskill, that now is not the moment to disturb the existing arrangements. My noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham has said that the matter needs further discussion. Clearly the role of the Home Secretary must be considered and I support the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, in saying that that matter should be looked at on Report. At that stage, we shall have the advantage of the views of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor.
To press this matter to a Division now would, in the words of my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham, be enacting a makeshift amendment. I am sure that the Committee would not wish to do that on such an important matter. This has been a most useful and well-informed debate. I hope that the sponsors of Amendments Nos. 52, 52A and 55 will withdraw them so that further consideration can be given to the matter between now and another stage.
Lord Mishcon: Before he sits down, will the noble Earl also undertake to consider—and I only say "consider"—the question of including in this Bill a provision which allows the crime of unlawful killing to cover both murder and manslaughter as it now exists?
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: Perhaps I may also ask the Minister, before he sits down, whether he will deal with the matter, which has been universally condemned by all speakers, of private communication by the judge to the Home Secretary in relation to a minimum period of sentence.
The Earl of Caithness: I feel that both those matters should be looked at between now and another stage. Those are wide and complicated matters and I am sure the Committee would not wish to move to a hasty decision which might be regretted later.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: This has been a very rewarding debate. I hope the Minister has heard the
436
weight of opinion expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Roskill, and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and has taken into account the views of the late Lord Butler as they were expressed by him in previous years and that all these will have a profound effect on the Minister between now and the next stage of this Bill. I should have liked to include the views of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, who, having spoken with great passion in favour of abolishing the right to make a recommendation in a somewhat typical and quixotic way, then expressed the view that he would not support the amendment, which does exactly that.
Nevertheless, it is a sadness to hear the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, for the Front Bench of the Labour Party, being allowed, in spite of strong representation on the All-Party Penal Affairs Group, to take a different view from those members of his party who support that group. It is noticeable that no member of the Front Bench belongs to the group, but perhaps before the next stage of this Bill they will be converted.
The Minister says that the virtue of the recommendation is that it puts down a marker in the most heinous cases. I need only mention the Moors murder case. The whole point is that the learned judge did not put down a marker and the whole essence of this amendment is that judges do not put down markers. Some do and some do not.
Having heard the views expressed, it seems to me that the wise course to take here is not to press either of these amendments to a Division; but perhaps all of us can think clearly as to what views we shall put forward at the next stage of this Bill. I sincerely hope that the Government will come forward with something of their own. If not, at that stage further amendments will be put forward which I hope will encapsulate some of the views that have been expressed today. For the moment, I shall withdraw both amendments.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Beaverbrook: I think this would be a convenient moment to take the Statement. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Share Price Falls and Proposed BP Sale
4.35 p.m.
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Lord Young of Graffham): My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall now repeat the Answer which has been given by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to a Private Notice Question in another place. It is as follows:
"The sharp falls in share prices throughout the world over the past fortnight will tighten monetary conditions somewhat and are likely to have a dampening effect on world demand. It is far too soon to put any figures to this, but I have already

437
responded by reducing interest rates by one-half of 1 per cent. Interest rates have also come down in the United States.
"I will of course continue to watch the situation closely, and take whatever steps are required. I am also in regular contact by telephone with my opposite numbers in the other major industrial countries. Meanwhile, the robust economic health and sound public finances we have in this country put us in the strongest possible position to weather this storm, just as we successfully coped with the year-long coal strike and the collapse in the world oil price.
"As for the implications of the stock market slide for the BP sale, there is provision under clause 8 of the BP fixed price underwriting agreement for the underwriters to seek consultation with the Treasury if a majority of them form the opinion that there has been an adverse change of circumstances, as specified by the agreement, in the light of which they believe that they are no longer assuming a proper underwriting risk. I have been informed by N. M. Rothschild and Sons, on behalf of the UK underwriters, that a majority of them now take that view. They therefore sent a written representation to the Treasury yesterday afternoon seeking consultation with a view to terminating the offer for sale. I have to say I was surprised by this. I am now considering the points they have made, as I am contractually bound to do.
"The underwriting agreement sets out a series of steps which must be followed if the consultation process is triggered. The Treasury consider the representations and consult BP. Rothschild's also seek BP's views. Rothschild's and the Treasury then consult together. If they are unable to agree, they jointly approach the Bank of England for its assessment. I will take full account of that assessment before I take a final decision.
"I understand that a copy of the agreement has today been deposited in the Library.
"It is my intention to proceed as quickly as possible, consistent with the proper observation of the procedures. The House will understand that, now that the underwriters have invoked this consultation process, I cannot say more until the process is concluded. But I will gladly listen to the views of right honourable and honourable Members".
My Lords, that is the end of the Answer.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Young of Graff ham, for having given that Answer this afternoon. It broadly covers two grounds, as one would expect it to do. First of all, there is the impact of these disastrous events of the past week on the domestic and possibly the international economy. Secondly, the Minister has raised, of course quite properly, the whole question of the feature of the issue of BP shares.
I was a little surprised, if I may say so, at the bland manner in which the noble Lord expressed his confidence in the ability of the robust and successful economy of the United Kingdom to withstand any
438
consequences of these recent events. The words "sound economy" come very frequently from the noble Lord these days, and from the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
We on this side of the House have to lay down a marker that if words mean anything, "sound economy" does not mean the fortunes of a particular section of the economy; it means the economy as a whole. It is really an abuse of the English language to describe the British economy as a sound economy when there are no fewer than 11 million people in the country living at or below the poverty level, and over 3 million unemployed.
The first question I have to ask the noble Lord is: on the assumption that the medium-term financial strategy, as put forward by the Minister's right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, still has any validity, will the Minister assure the House that the precise plans put forward in the medium-term strategy last March still stand, notwithstanding the events of the past few days? In particular, do the Government consider that it is right to allow the value of the pound against the dollar to go steadily up. Does the Minister think that it would be right in terms of the competitiveness of British manufacturers, in terms of employment in manufacturing industries in this country, that there should be a growing tendency for it to be more difficult for our exports to penetrate to other countries and for a continuation of the subsidisation of our imports?
Does the Minister think that recent events will have any substantial impact upon interest rates? Does he consider that confidence in investment in manufacturing industry will in any way be up to the faltering level at which it is now, investment in manufacturing industry, even today, being some 14 per cent. below what it was in 1979? Can we have some answers to those questions?
One thing that has been proved over the past few days is that although the free play of market forces may be of considerable assistance as a servant of the country and also of the international community, market forces are, as such, a very bad master. They must now be accompanied by the assertion, first, of firm governmental policies, however interventional they may seem, and, secondly, by the initiation at the earliest possible moment of another meeting of the council of seven so that a firm policy, a generally accepted policy, may be worked out in order to avoid a similar situation.
As regards the BP issue, the City and the general public are no further forward than they were. However, I am bound to draw your Lordships' attention to the quite remarkable statement that the Chancellor of the Exchequer made to the City yesterday referring to the colossal drops that had taken place in share prices. He said:
"It was neither unexpected nor in any way unprecedented that sooner or later there would be a sizeable correction."
If it was not unexpected, then there must have been at any rate a lurking expectation in the back of the Chancellor's mind when the issue price of BP shares was fixed at 330p. Would it not have been more honest to have contained in the prospectus a specific statement rather than the general one that shares may

439
go down as well as up? Would it not have been a little more honest to have inserted that it would not be unexpected if a very considerable realignment of share prices took place including possibly those relating to the company itself?
We ourselves have never advocated the privatisation of public monopolies and, of course, we oppose the sale of these particular shares. However, if it is going to be done, then the utmost fairness has to take place. We sincerely trust that when the Chancellor reaches his decision he will bear in mind also the fate of those 100,000-odd citizens who, on the faith of a very hyped-up publicity campaign, complete with bands, television and the lot, have already purchased shares at 330p.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, we on these Benches also thank the Minister for repeating the Answer to this Private Notice Question asked in another place. I understand the view he has taken that in the circumstances he is not in a position to answer questions, but it does place a slight difficulty on those of us whose duty it is to ask questions. However, I will cope as best I can.
Perhaps I may make a comment or two in general summary of the views that we hold on these Benches. Of course we take the view that the real issue, the important issue, is the effect of the fall in prices on stock exchanges worldwide on the British economy and on the international economy. We must ask ourselves what, if anything, the Government can do to ameliorate any ill effects that there may be.
I am bound to bear in mind that to some extent the falls in the Stock Exchange prices are caused by economic circumstances, particularly in the United States of America, as well as having an effect on economic factors. Moreover, to some extent I have long since learned to appreciate that confidence feeds on itself, as does lack of confidence. The unfortunate fact is that confidence is slow to be built up and very quick to be destroyed.
In these circumstances, what are we asking the Government to do? Clearly, the Government have a responsibility to keep in mind the position with regard to interest rates. I hope the Minister can say that the Government are doing that. What has happened so far in the judgment of many is a step in the right direction, but only one step. A reduction in interest rates will obviously increase confidence, which is perhaps our major problem at this time. It will encourage economic growth and it will help to achieve what has already been referred to—a sensible sterling rate on the foreign exchanges.
There is also the question of the small shareholder which has been much canvassed. I need hardly repeat that we on these Benches have always favoured wider share ownership. In the circumstances, do we recommend some special treatment be offered to the small shareholder? I am unable to put that forward. I am not able to suggest how one easily defines a small shareholder. Many small shareholders have done no more than offer to spend money within their own
440
means—money which they have—and not spend money which they do not have in the hope of making a stagging profit, some form of speculation, or whatever the case may be. I am not able to say that there would be a great disaster befalling those small shareholders who have only spent within their means.
I also take it, and I am sure the House agrees, that it is a salutary experience and lesson for all would-be shareholders who are not aware of the fact that what goes up not entirely always comes down—to use wartime parlance—but often does. That should be learned by them and brought home to them. Although I repeat that we are solidly in favour of spreading share ownership, I am not able at the moment to make any recommendation with regard to the small shareholder. Therefore, I am asking the Government whether they can perhaps say now if it is part of their thinking that, whatever decisions they ultimately reach, they have in mind separate treatment for the small shareholder.
As regards the underwriters, I can easily imagine that it could be just as damaging to the standing of the City and to the growth of its services, and helpful to the individual underwriters, that the underwriters should be relieved of their contractual responsibility. In view of what the Minister said we will leave it at that for the moment, for him to be good enough to consider.
We conclude at this time that there is no compelling reason to intervene on behalf of the underwriters or small shareholders but that the Government should keep their eyes glued to the interest rate situation. We have no further questions to ask beyond what has been put so well from the Labour Front Bench at the present time, and I underline "at the present time." Nobody can foretell the future. A week is a long time in politics and two days a very long time on stock exchanges.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, but I should like to remind the noble Lord that my Statement actually said that,
"the robust economic health and sound public finances we have in this country put us in the strongest possible position to weather this storm"
I think that I should let that point rest, except to remind the noble Lord—it may have escaped his attention—that unemployment, while still too high, has fallen below 3 million and since the last election has been falling at a rate which exceeds any of the promises made by the Opposition parties.
The noble Lord asked some more questions about that. I think that I should leave the positon like this: my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer says that he cannot say more until the consultation process is concluded. There is of course no inhibition to asking questions; the only inhibition lies in my not being able to answer them. That puts me in a difficult position, as the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, recognised.
With regard to small shareholders, applicants for shares are bound by the terms and conditions of the offer. Once the applications have been made, they cannot be withdrawn without the agreement of the underwriters. The position rests until the matter has

441
been determined as a whole. Concern has been expressed by the noble Lords, Lord Bruce of Donington and Lord Diamond, about the general position. My right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that he continues to watch the position closely and will take whatever steps are required. He is in regular contact by telephone with my opposite numbers in the other major industrial countries. I am sure that all your Lordships, or, I suspect, those on the Benches behind me, will be satisfied that all is being done at present to keep a close watch on the general economic situation. The consultation process on the underwriting of BP shares will proceed.
Lord Polwarth: My Lords, will the Government consider asking the Stock Exchange Council to investigate to what extent the collapse of the market has been accentuated by the widespread dependence on electronic communications systems, with the consequent reduction in reliance on human judgment?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, as I have some responsibility for the financial markets, I shall bear in mind all that your Lordships say today. I do not believe that reliance on electronics has had that effect on the market. There will be time to look at all these matters in detail. I suspect that that time is still in the future.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is the noble Lord saying to the House and the country that the Government have no responsibility towards share applicants who may have lost small but important sums of money—their savings, and so on? That is what he has just said. Is there no way in which the Government are prepared to help the many thousands of people who have sustained substantial losses (in their terms, not in the terms of the big men of finance) as a result of the huge propaganda exercise and the whole razzmatazz which has been fully supported by the Government and especially by the noble Lord?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I fear that the noble Lord did not catch my reply, for which I apologise. I thought I made it absolutely clear that, under the terms of the underwriting agreement, once applications have been made they cannot be withdrawn without the agreement of the underwriters. I then said that that obviously awaits the result of the present consultation process. I believe in all sincerity that this is not the time to make emotional statements about the economic situation; it is time for cool reflection. I suggest that we should leave it at that.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, with regard to BP and the underwriters' request, is my noble friend aware that many people will share the surprise expressed by the Chancellor that they should have made that request at this stage? Is my noble friend aware that if they are relieved of the obligation into which they have entered and upon which they signed their contracts, it would give the appearance of
442
putting one group of people in the City into a position where they can win but cannot lose? If that safeguard is given to one group of people, it will undermine people's confidence in the City. The basis of the Government's general policy, as I understand it, is to allow them to act as agents for many important parts of government policy.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I shall pass my noble friend's views to my right honourable friend. I can do little more at this time other than say that.
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, perhaps I may express the hope that my noble friend will support his right honourable friend the Chancellor in taking a robust line with the representations made by the underwriting institutions, for the reasons that the noble Lord has just given.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I fear that I am even inhibited from saying whether I will take a robust line. The noble Lord must form his own conclusions.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, I appeciate that the Minister cannot say much more now, but as I understand it the Chancellor has asked for comments. My comment is that I wholly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls. If the underwriters are now let off from their contracts, the contrast between their treatment and that of the small shareholders will be ill thought of in this country. Further, the underwriters have had a pretty good time over the past 10 or 15 years. If the doctrine now is, "Heads they win; tails they do not lose", that will destroy the last vestiges of faith in the City.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I do not want to be drawn into this matter, but I did not in any way suggest that there would be one set of rules for underwriters and another for shareholders. I said that once applications from small shareholders have been made they cannot be withdrawn without the agreement of the underwriters. Obviously the position of the underwriters must depend upon the consultations with my right honourable friend the Chancellor.
Lord Morris: My Lords, what are the circumstances in which the fees payable to underwriters are returnable by them to the Government?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, it would not be right for me to go into the details of the underwriting agreement, save to say that a copy has been deposited in the Library. It is there for any of your Lordships to examine.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I have one final point for clarification so as to get the noble Lord absolutely right. Is he saying that if the underwriters agree that the applications that have already gone in should be cancelled and the money returned, that would in fact be accomplished?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, my words were: once applications have been made they cannot be withdrawn without the agreement of the underwriters.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is it implicit in my noble friend's last two or three answers that any concession to the underwriters, if that is thought necessary, would be conditional on similar concessions by them to small shareholders?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, what is implicit in my last two or three answers is that I am inhibited from answering.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I recognise the Chancellor's difficulty, whichever way he moves, in respect of the underwriting. But I am sure the noble Lord will accept that the most serious problem relates to the tighter monetary conditions that prevail, as the Chancellor indicated in his Statement, and which would be even tighter if the accepted the advice given by the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls. I leave that aside.
I accept that the Chancellor has already taken some steps to make the monetary conditions a little less tight by his reduction in interest rates and his consultations with the other signatories of the Louvre Accord. May we take it from the noble Lord that, although he cannot speak about the BP matter, the Chancellor will be working closely with the other signatories to take the opportunity as far as possible to loosen the monetary conditions by reductions in interest rates, especially in Germany and Japan, to ensure higher rates of growth to counter the inevitable effect of what has been happening in the markets?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, in his Statement my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that he was in regular contact by telephone with his opposite numbers in the other major industrial countries. I am sure that that is the case and will continue to be.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, I realise that the present discussion must relate to the BP share issue. May we have the noble Lord's assurance that we shall have an early opportuntiy to discuss the reasons and responsibility for the stock market crash?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, that is surely a matter which should be taken up through the usual channels.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, further to that point, surely the Statement includes the fall of the stock market as well as BP shares. If one leaves aside the BP issue, the noble Lord and his right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer have been at some pains to distance the fall of Stock Exchange prices from the British economy. Is he saying that the fall in the stock market last week and this week has nothing to do with the American deficit, nor with the deficit in manufacturing trade in this country, which is growing at an alarming pace?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I remind all in your Lordships' House that when the balance of trade figures were published last week we saw that the deficit on trade, which is the important figure, is some £800 million so far this year against a Budget forecast of £2½ billion for the whole year. So far, therefore, until the figures are published, the position is looking satisfactory. I am sure that many economists will write many books and give many lectures on the cause of the recent slide in the Stock Exchange and whether it is related to the deficit in the American economy or to the phases of the moon. It is too early to say at the moment. We are looking at present conditions.

Social Security Benefits
5.1 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Skelmersdale): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall repeat a Statement on social security benefits which has been made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, I wish to make a Statement about the next uprating of social security benefits and the introduction of a reformed system of income-related benefits. This will take place for most benefits in the week beginning 11th April 1988, the first full week in the tax year, and the same provisions will apply in both Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
"The retail price index published on 9th October showed an increase in prices over the 12 months to September 1987 of 4.2 per cent. Retirement pension for a married couple will accordingly rise from £63.25 a week to £65.90 and for a single person from £39.50 to £41.15. These increases of £2.65 and £1.65 a week respectively mean that the cash amount of basic retirement pension has risen by almost £35 a week for a couple since this Government came to office. The increase will add some £780 million to the social security budget next year. It must be seen in the context of significant improvements in pensioners' total incomes. Total state pension provision represents on average about half of pensioners' net incomes—and those net incomes have risen by 18 per cent. in real terms since 1979. The uprating increases will ensure that the value of this provision is maintained. They are fully in line with our pledges to pensioners and recipients of other linked long-term benefits.
"I have decided to uprate all contributory benefits, benefits for the disabled, war pensions and similar benefits by 4.2 per cent. also. Public service pensions will likewise increase by 4.2 per cent. as will statutory sick pay and statutory maternity pay paid by employers. Because of the payment arrangements for statutory sick pay and statutory maternity pay, the changes will take effect from the start of the tax year.
"In April 1988 we shall be introducing our new system of income-related benefits. Supplementary benefit will be replaced by the simpler income

445
support; housing benefit by a reshaped system aligned with income support; and family income supplement by the new family credit which will provide help to more than twice as many low paid working families. This new, more coherent and better targeted structure will direct help more clearly where it is most needed and will foster incentives to work.
"I shall shortly be laying before the House regulations for the new benefits. Since these are new schemes the regulations will include the relevant rates. I shall also be laying revised regulations on claims and payments which will provide common basic provisions between benefits. Earlier this month I consulted the local authority associations, as I am required to do under the Social Security Act 1986, on the proposed rates for housing benefit. Because of the close alignment of the benefit rates for all three income-related benefits, final decisions cannot be reached until I have considered their responses.
"The income support rates proposed are £33.40 for single people aged 25 and over and £51.45 for couples. These would also apply as the applicable amounts for housing benefit purposes and as the threshold in family credit. The family premium would be £6.15, the premium for a single pensioner £10.65 and for couples £16.25.
"The personal allowances include the average amounts which we expect householders who are income support claimants will have to pay next April as their minimum contribution to domestic rates. These amounts are £1.30 for couples, lone parents and single claimants aged 25 and over, and £1.00 for other single claimants over 18.
"Compared with the illustrative figures published at the time Parliament approved the reformed benefit schemes, the premium payments would be some 6½ to 7 per cent. higher—essentially the movement in the relevant price index. The personal allowances, leaving aside the element for domestic rates, would be some 4½ to 5 per cent. higher; including that element they would be 7 to 9 per cent. higher. So overall income support claimants would be receiving higher real levels of benefit than under the previous figures. The numbers of gainers from the structural reform would rise by a million—from 2.2 to 3.2 million.
"The number who gain or are unaffected would go up to 4.9 million, while the number who lose would drop to 3.7 million. In reality of course existing supplementary beneficiaries moving to income support would not lose any of their benefit at the point of change. We are spending £200 million to make sure of that.
"We are proposing to introduce the capital limits and the family credit and rate rebate tapers at the same level as those illustrated in the 1985 White Paper. Under the new schemes, housing benefit claimants at all income levels will be fully reimbursed for any increases in their rent. In view of this, I now propose that the rent taper should be 65 per cent. calculated on the basis of net income. This is equivalent to 42 per cent. in the present system based on gross income for someone paying standard rate tax and national insurance.
446
"For the convenience of the House I am today publishing tables which show the likely distributional effects of the new schemes. Copies are available in the Vote Office. I am particularly pleased to note that the figures show for sick and disabled people getting the disability premium an increase under the new scheme of nearly £5 a week in disposable income. This is in addition to substantial increases in estimated expenditure on the disability benefit themselves.
"Complementing the new structure of income related benefits, the social fund will be fully introduced next April. Its gross budget for community care grants and budgeting and crisis loans for the first year will be just over £200 million, of which some 70 per cent. will be in the form of loans recoverable over a period. A separate announcement will be made concerning social fund provisions in Northern Ireland.
"I turn now to child benefit, which currently costs over £4 billion, nearly 10 per cent. of the whole social security budget. Every 10p increase has a net additional cost of over £40 million. Yet higher child benefit would be of greatest help to people who are already relatively well-off and whose living standards are already rising. By contrast, it would give no extra help to over 3 million children in families on benefit, including low income working families: they gain the same from the uprating whatever is done to child benefit. Against this background, and the particular need to target help on those who most need it and to control the overall growth in social security expenditure, I have concluded that an increase in child benefit would not be the best use of resources at present. I therefore do not propose to increase the rate next April. One-parent benefit will, however, increase to £4·90 and the maternity payment from the social fund will be increased to £85.
"Let me emphasise to the House that even with no change in the rate of child benefit, we will be increasing, not reducing, the overall level of resources devoted to families with children. We will be spending £220 million extra on the new family credit and £100 million extra on families on income support. By contrast, a full uprating of child benefit would have cost £120 million. Moreover, family credit will go directly to help low income working families with children and will reach twice as many people as the present family income supplement. Thus more will be spent on families overall but the greatest emphasis will be on those with the greatest needs.
"The details of what this announcement will mean for individual benefits and the proposed housing benefit rates as issued for consultation are set out in a full schedule of rates which as previously is now available in the Vote Office and with permission will be published in the Official Report. The schedule also covers our proposals for board and lodging limits for the coming year.
"Overall the uprating increases will add some £1·3 billion to a social security budget, which already stands at over £44 billion this year. This is a substantial increase to spending on a programme

447
which is already the biggest in government. We believe that our proposals strike a fair balance between protecting the interests of the poorest and of those, such as pensioners, who have substantial reliance on state benefits; and protecting the interests of those whose taxes and contributions pay for benefits".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Following is the schedule referred to:

SCHEDULE OF MAIN PROPOSED SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFIT RATES FROM APRIL 1988
(weekly rates unless otherwise shown)

Old Rates 1987

New Rates 1988

Contributory Benefits

RETIREMENT PENSION

on own insurance—Category A or B

39·50

41·15

on spouse's insurance—Cat B (lower)

23·75

24·75

non-contributory—Cat C or D

23·75

24·75

—Cat C or D

14·20

14·80

additional pension, guaranteed minimum pension and graduated retirement benefit

increased by 4·2%

graduated retirement benefit (unit)

5·17p

5·39p

increments to basic and additional pension, guaranteed minimum pension, and graduated retirement benefit

increased by 4·2%

prescribed maximum amount of additional pension (also paid with widows' and invalidity benefits) (from 6th April)

29·11

34·75

addition at age 80

·25

·25

INVALIDITY BENEFIT

Invalidity pension

39·50

41·15

Invalidity allowance

higher rate

8·30

8·65

middle rate

5·30

5·50

lower rate

2·65

2·75

WIDOW'S BENEFIT

Widow's allowance

55·35

57·65

Widow's payment (lump sum)

1,000,00

Widowed mother's allowance

39·50

41·15

Widow's pension

standard rate

39·50

41·15

age related

54 (49)

36·74

38·27

53 (48)

33·97

35·39

52 (47)

31·21

32·51

51 (46)

28·44

29·63

50 (45)

25·68

26·75

49 (44)

22·91

23·87

48 (43)

20·15

20·99

47 (42)

17·38

18·11

46 (41)

14·62

15·23

45 (40)

11·85

12·35

Note: For entitlements arising before 11th April 1988 refer to age points shown in brackets.

UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT

over pension age

39·50

41·15

under pension age

31·45

32·75

occupational pension abatement

35·00

35·00

SICKNESS BENEFIT

over pension age

37·85

39·45

under pension age

30·05

31·30

MATERNITY ALLOWANCE

30·05

31·30

Old Rates 1987

New Rates 1988

STATUTORY SICK PAY

earnings threshold

39·00

41·00

standard rate threshold

76·50

79·50

lower rate

32·85

34·25

standard rate

47·20

49·20

STATUTORY MATERNITY PAY

earnings threshold

39·00

41·00

lower rate

32·85

34·25

INDUSTRIAL DEATH BENEFIT

Widow's pension

first 26 weeks

55·35

57·65

lower permanent rate**

11·85

12·35

**Subject to Parliamentary approval of the Social Security Bill 1987.

INDUSTRIAL DISABLEMENT PENSION

18 and over, or under 18 with dependants

100%

64·50

67·20

90%

58·05

60·48

80%

51·60

53·76

70%

45·15

47·04

60%

38·70

40·32

50%

32·25

33·60

40%

25·80

26·88

30%

19·35

20·16

20%

12·90

13·44

under 18

100%

39·50

41·15

90%

35·55

37·04

80%

31·60

32·92

70%

27·65

28·81

60%

23·70

24·69

50%

19·75

20·58

40%

15·80

16·46

30%

11·85

12·35

20%

7·90

8·23

Maximum life gratuity (lump sum)

4,290·00

4,470·00

Unemployment Supplement

39·50

41·15

plus where appropriate an increase for early incapacity at

higher rate

8·30

8·65

middle rate

5·30

5·50

lower rate

2·65

2·75

Maximum reduced earnings allowance

25·80

26·88

Constant attendance allowance

part-time rate

12·90

13·45

normal maximum

25·80

26·90

intermediate rate

38·70

40·35

exceptional rate

51·60

53·80

Exceptionally severe disablement allowance

25·80

26·90

GUARDIAN'S ALLOWANCE—each child

8·05

8·40

CHILD'S SPECIAL ALLOWANCE

8·05

8·40

Non-Contributory Benefits

Old Rates 1987

New Rates 1988

CHILD BENEFIT—each child

7·25

7·25

ONE PARENT BENEFIT

4·70

4·90

INVALID CARE ALLOWANCE

23·75

24·75

SEVERE DISABLEMENT ALLOWANCE

23·75

24·75

ATTENDANCE ALLOWANCE

higher rate

31·60

32·95

lower rate

21·10

22·00

MOBILITY ALLOWANCE

22·10

23·05

Old Rates 1987

New Rates 1988

WAR PENSIONS

Disablement pension (100% rates)

private or equivalent

64·50

67·20

officer (£ per annum)

3,363·00

3,504·00

Age allowances

40%–50%

4·50

4·70

over 50% but not over 70%

7·00

7·30

over 70% but not over 90%

10·05

10·45

over 90%

14·00

14·60

Disablement gratuity (£ per annum) base figures for

specified minor injury

4.290·00

4,470·00

unspecified minor injury

2,359·50

2,458·50

Unemployability allowance

personal allowance

41·95

43·70

adult dependency addition

23·75

24·75

addition for each child

8·05

8·40

Invalidity allowance

higher rate

8·30

8·65

middle rate

5·30

5·50

lower rate

2·65

2·75

Constant attendance allowance

part-time rate

12·90

13·45

normal maximum rate

25·80

26·90

intermediate rate

38·70

40·35

exceptional rate

51·60

53·80

Comforts allowance

higher rate

11·10

11·60

lower rate

5·55

5·80

Mobility supplement

24·55

25·60

Allowance for lowered standard of occupation (maximum)

25·80

26·88

Exceptionally severe disablement allowance

25·80

26·90

Severe disablement occupational allowance

12·90

13·45

Clothing allowance (per annum)

higher rate

88·00

92·00

lower rate

56·00

58·00

Education allowance (per annum)

120·00

120·00

War widows' pension (private)

widow

51·35

53·50

childless widow under age 40

11·85

12·35

age allowance

age 65 to 69

5·50

5·75

age 70 to 79

11·00

11·50

age 80 and over

13·85

14·45

child addition

11·60

12·00

addition for motherless or fatherless child

12·70

13·15

Unmarried dependant living as wife

49·30

51·45

Rent allowance (maximum)

19·55

20·35

Adult orphan's pension

39·50

41·15

Widower's pension (maximum)

51·35

53·50

PNEUMOCONIOSIS, BYSSINOSIS, WORKMAN'S COMPENSATION (SUPPLEMENTATION) AND OTHER SCHEMES

Total disablement allowance and major incapacity allowance (maximum)

64·50

67·20

Partial disablement allowance

23·75

24·75

Unemployability supplement

39·50

41·15

plus where appropriate an increase for early incapacity at

higher rate

8·30

8·65

middle rate

5·30

5·50

lower rate

2·65

2·75

Constant attendance allowance

part-time rate

12·90

13·45

normal maximum rate

25·80

26·90

intermediate rate

38·70

40·35

exceptional rate

51·60

53·80

Exceptionally severe disablement

allowance

25·80

26·90

Old Rates 1987

New Rates 1988

Lesser incapacity allowance

based on loss of earnings over

31·60

32·95

maximum rate of allowance

23·75

24·75

Common Provisions

DEPENDENCY ADDITIONS—ADULTS

For spouse or person looking after children, with:

retirement pension on own insurance, invalidity pension, unemployability supplement and, if beneficiary over pension age, unemployment benefit

23·75

24·75

non-contributory retirement pension, invalid care allowance and severe disablement allowance

14·20

14·80

sickness benefit if beneficiary over pension age

22·70

23·65

unemployment benefit

19·40

20·20

sickness benefit, maternity allowance

18·60

19·40

DEPENDENCY ADDITIONS—CHILDREN

For each child with:

retirement pension, widows' benefit, industrial death benefit, invalidity benefit, invalid care allowance, severe disablement allowance, unemployability supplement and, if beneficiary over pension age, with sickness or unemployment benefit

8·05

8·40

EARNINGS RULES

Retirement pension

75·00

75·00

Invalid care allowance

12·00

12·00

Unemployment benefit (daily rate)

2·00

2·00

Therapeutic earnings limit

26·00

27·00

Industrial injuries unemployability supplement permitted earnings level (annual amount)

1,352·00

1,404·00

War pensioners' unemployability supplement permitted earnings level (annual amount)

1,352·00

1,404·00

Adult dependency additions with:

sickness benefit if claimant is under pension age

18·60

19·40

over pension age

22·70

23·65

maternity allowance

18·60

19·40

unemployment benefit if claimant is

under pension age

19·40

20·20

over pension age

23·75

24·75

retirement pension, invalidity pension, severe disablement allowance and unemployability supplement where dependant:

is living with the claimant

31·45

32·75

still qualifies for the tapered earnings rule

45·09

45·09

retirement pension, invalidity pension and unemployability supplement where dependant not living with claimant

23·75

24·75

severe disablement allowance where dependant not living with claimant

14·20

14·80

invalid care allowance

14·20

14·80

Child dependency additions:

level at which child additions payable with long-term benefits are affected by earnings of claimant's spouse or partner

first child

85·00

90·00

each subsequent child

10·00

11·00

HOSPITAL DOWNRATING

20% rate

7·90

8·25

40% rate

15·80

16·50

Income-Related Benefits

Old Rates 1987

New Rates 1988

PROVISIONS COMMON TO ALL THREE BENEFITS

Capital

upper limit

6,000·00

amount disregarded

3,000·00

child's limit

3,000·00

Tariff income

£1 for each complete £250 or part thereof between amount of capital disregarded and capital upper limit

INCOME SUPPORT AND HOUSING BENEFIT—

COMMON PROVISIONS

Personal allowances

single

under age 18

19·40

age 18–24

26·05

age 25 or over

33·40

lone parent

under age 18

19·40

age 18 or over

33·40

couple

both under age 18

38·80

at least one age 18 or over

51·45

dependent children

under age 11

10·75

age 11–15

16·10

age 16–17

19·40

age 18

26·05

Premiums

family

6·15

lone parent (income support)

3·70

lone parent (housing benefit)

8·60

pensioner

single

10·65

couple

16·25

pensioner (higher)

single

13·05

couple

18·60

disability

single

13·05

couple

18·60

severe disability

single

24·75

couple (one disabled)

24·75

couple (both disabled)

49·50

disabled child

6·15

INCOME SUPPORT

Maximum amounts for accommodation and meals in

(a) ordinary board and lodging

between £45 and £70

between £45 and £70

(b) hostels

70·00

70·00

Maximum special increase ((a) and (b))

17·50

17·50

(c) residential care homes old age

130·00

130·00

very dependent elderly

145·00

155·00

mental disorder (not handicap)

130·00

130·00

drug/alcohol dependence

130·00

130·00

mental handicap

150·00

160·00

physical disablement

under pension age

190·00

190·00

over pension age

130·00

130·00

others

130·00

130·00

maximum Greater London increase

17·50

17·50

(d) nursing homes

mental disorder (not handicap)

180·00

185·00

drug/alcohol dependence

180·00

185·00

mental handicap

200·00

200·00

terminal illness

230·00

230·00

physical disablement

under pension age

230·00

230·00

over pension age

175·00

185·00

others (including elderly)

175·00

185·00

maximum Greater London increase

17·50

17·50

Old Rates 1987

New Rates 1988

Allowances for personal expenses for claimants in board and lodging accommodation and hostels

lower

single

10·00

10·30

couple

20·00

20·60

higher

single

11·15

11·50

couple

22·30

23·00

dependent children

under age 11

3·35

3·45

age 11–15

5·15

5·30

age 16–17

6·00

6·20

age 18

10·00

10·30

private and voluntary residential care and nursing homes

9·25

9·55

dependent children allowances above apply except age 18

9·25

9·55

hospital and local authority (Part III) accommodation

7·90

8·25

the Polish Home, Ilford Park

11·15

11·50

Housing costs

deduction for non-dependants aged 18 or over and in remunerative work

8·20

others, aged 18 or over or on income support and over 25

3·45

low earnings threshold

49·20

Deductions for direct payment of fuel debt

5% rate

1·70

10% rate

3·35

arrears of housing costs

1·70

Reduction in benefit for strikers

17·00

17·70

Disregards

standard earnings

5·00

higher earnings

15·00

war pensions

5·00

voluntary and charitable payments

5·00

students covenanted income

5·00

income from boarders

35·00

Expenses for subtenants

furnished or unfurnished

4·00

where heating is included, additional

6·70

HOUSING BENEFIT

Amenity deductions for

heating

6·70

hot water

·80

lighting

·50

cooking

·80

all fuel

8·80

Non-dependant deductions rent rebates and allowances aged 18 or over and in remunerative work

8·20

others, aged 18 or over or on income support and over 25

3·45

rate rebates, aged 18 or over

3·00

low earnings threshold

49·20

Expenses for subtenants

furnished or unfurnished

4·00

where heating is included, additional

6·70

Earnings disregards

where disability premium awarded

15·00

various specified employments

15·00

lone parent

15·00

one of a couple in employment

10·00

single claimant

5·00

Other income disregards

charitable or voluntary payments

5·00

war pensions

5·00

students covenanted income

5·00

Old Rates 1987

New Rates 1988

FAMILY CREDIT

Adult credit

32·10

Child credit

under age 11

6·05

age 11–15

11·40

age 16–17

14·70

age 18

21·35

Capital

upper limit

6,000·00

amount disregarded

3,000·00

child's limit

3,000·00

Tariff income

£1 for every complete £250 or part thereof between amount of capital disregarded and capital upper limit

Disregards

war pensions

5·00

voluntary and charitable payments

5·00

students covenanted income

5·00

Expenses for subtenants

furnished or unfurnished

4·00

where heating is included, additional

6·70

Applicable amount (i.e. taper threshold level)

51·45

MATERNITY PAYMENT

80·00

85·00

5.15 p.m.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for reading the Statement but I do not thank him for anything he said in it. I know that it is supposed to be within the rules of this House that Statements should not be the occasion for debate. I hope therefore that we may be given an occasion for fuller debate so that we do not take too long tonight on this Statement. But I must ask the noble Lord a few questions.
The retail price index, as published on 9th October, has been the basis of the changes in the pensions payment. But I am wondering whether the Government have considered that old people's expenditure does not always equate with the RPI because they often have different patterns of expenditure. Therefore linking the pensions' increase to the RPI does not always take care of old-age pensioners.
How much would the increase have been if the pensioners' upgrading had been linked to average earnings, as done by the previous Government? By linking it only to the RPI we are not increasing the standard of living of old people. We are just keeping them standing still. We are saying, "Your will receive 2p extra because the RPI is 2p extra". We are not including them in any increase in the average standard of living. We on these Benches think that the idea of linking pensions to the average standard of living and increase of wages was very important and did much more for old people. It is not fair just to say that they should stand still.
By how much would the Minister have to increase the pension if he had linked it to the level of earnings? I shall try to be as brief as I can because I know your Lordships have much to do, but I am looking at paragraph 5 in the Statement about housing benefit. There are to be some changes in housing benefit, but as there are to be changes in rent control we also have to consider increasing rents for decontrolled tenants. We wonder what is the connection between that and
454
the housing benefit changes which are about to be made.
In paragraph 7 the Statement says that:
"personal allowances include the average amounts which we expect householders who are income support claimants will have to pay next April on their minimum contribution to domestic rates".
We are all in a great muddle about rates and poll taxes. It is very difficult for us to understand from this Statement what will happen when the poll tax comes in. It uses the phrase "average amounts", but what if a family is below the average or above the average? There might be great hardships for a family who lives in a high rated area and where the only recompense is on an average basis. I do not want to go on much about this because I know we must talk about it again, but it is very important.
Paragraph 8 says that,
"personal allowances, leaving aside the element for domestic rates, would be some 4½ to 5 per cent. higher".
How can the Government say,
"leaving aside the element for domestic rates",
at a time when we do not know what domestic rates are to be? We shall insist on calling it a poll tax; the Government may go on calling it an element for domestic rates. How are we to know what impact that will have on the social security applications of people in need?
In paragraph 9 we are told that the number who gain will be 4·9 million and the number who lose will be 3·7 million. Are the Government really saying in this House that 3·7 million of our people are to be poorer because of government policies? Do they not care about the 3·7 million people who will have to lose as a result of what the Government are doing? I think we ought to know who these 3·7 million people are that the Government do not care about and are going to impoverish.
Then I come to paragraph 10 concerning housing benefit. The Minister has correctly read the Statement, which says:
"Under the new schemes, housing benefit claimants at all income levels will be fully reimbursed for any increases in their rent".
Will that cover new applicants, people who take advantage of the decontrol of rents which we anticipate and who therefore are faced with higher rents, or does this paragraph apply only to people who are at present on housing benefit? This is important, because there are many implications about the Government's intention to relax rent controls. If people find their rents going up, what is to happen to their housing benefit?
I now have to ask most importantly about the child benefit. I gather from the Statement that child benefit is not to be increased in combination with insurance. That is a serious and a rather sad statement. I spent some of my happiest times in the other place when we were working out this system. and I know that many noble Lords were also there at the time. We decided to abolish the child income tax allowance and to have a universal child benefit. That was agreed by all sides of the House and we were very glad that there was no argument about it. There was to be an acceptance by Parliament of the responsibility of the whole community for the welfare and the upbringing of children.

455
Since the abolition of the child tax allowance, child benefit increases have been the only means of maintaining some equity between taxpayers with children and taxpayers without children. That was agreed over the years. There was all-party support for the universality of the system. It was the only universal means of child support. All political parties thought that this was a good idea. One did not have to do the individual means testing. If people had children they should have some money. It was important because, having said that people were not going to get child allowance through their income tax, the only way to deal with child support was through child benefit.
Some Ministers have said that it is not good enough because a rich lady does not need it. I say to the Minister that a millionaire lady and a millionaire gentleman living together can receive between them mortgage tax relief not on £30,000 but on £60,000, just because they are not married. I find it extraordinary for the party of family care, which gives money to the non-family, to say that rich ladies should not have child benefit. They do not mind rich ladies having tax relief on a mortgage. I find that difficult to understand.
I shall not speak for too long, tempted though I am, but I must remind the Minister of the words of the Conservative Party manifesto:
"Child benefit will continue to be paid as now, and direct to the mother".
Perhaps the Minister can tell us what "child benefit will continue to be paid as now" means. Does it mean the actual sum as now, or as now as part of the social security that was linked to inflation?
Child benefit was not fully uprated in November 1985. That cut has not been restored. So when the Minister says that the amount will be held as it was, it is not being frozen as such but frozen at a subfreezing rate. There has been no increase to keep up with inflation since 1985. I very much regret that, and I know that noble Lords on all sides of the House regret it.
It is important to have one benefit which reflects the fact that the family is an important element in our society. We may say that we shall look after these people through family income supplement or whatever it is, but we know that the great benefit of the present arrangement is that child benefit is universal. There is no means test. Nobody has to go to the social security office. There are no procedures. But if we say that people must go and apply for the benefit if they think they are poor then we get into the position—and I ask the Minister to correct me if I am wrong—of a low take-up because of bureaucratic procedure.
I understand from questions I have asked in this House that on family income supplement there is a take-up of only two out of five. Child benefit has no bureaucratic procedure. If the Government are trying to say that they will freeze the present amount because people can ask for a little more on one of the other proposals then I say to them that there are many people in this country—and I am sure the Minister must know of some among his friends and
456
neighbours—who are just above the level of family income supplement but who need the money. They are not at the bottom, but if they are bringing up three or four children and want them to have a rich and happy life they need this money.
An important point is that the money goes to the mother and any reduction in the amount paid in child benefit reduces the family income. If more applicants go on to family income supplement then the money will not go to the mother. That is one of the most important aspects of child benefit. Anything which reduces the total value of child benefit means a reduction in the money which the mother has in her purse. I have not heard anything in the Minister's Statement to suggest that there will be full support for her. Let us face it; it is the mother who most often has to work out the family income.
I hope that we shall have an opportunity for a full debate, but in the meantime I felt I had to ask the Minister those few questions.
Lord Banks: My Lords, I too should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, for repeating the Statement made in another place. We shall of course need time to consider the figures contained in the Statement and also the figures which accompany it. It is the first time we have had actual figures as opposed to illustrative figures for the new regime to come into force in April, and we shall want to scrutinise those very carefully. The basic criticisms of the new regime which we made when the Bill was before the House last year remain. We shall look forward to debating the figures in this House when we have the regulations before us.
As prophesied in the press, child benefit is to be frozen. It is not to increase in line with prices. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, pointed out, this is the second year that this has been done. In 1985 there was a shortfall of 35p. This year there is to be a shortfall of 30p. We on these Benches deplore this reduction in the real value of child benefit. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, pointed out, child benefit was introduced partly as a replacement for income tax allowances for children, and therefore it should go up when personal allowances go up.
However, the single person's allowance is now 14 per cent. more than in 1979, the married man's allowance 17 per cent. more than in 1979, and child benefit 3 per cent. lower than in 1979. Of course we should bear in mind that the cost of the single person's allowance and the cost of the married man's allowance do not appear as government expenditure. That is the nonsense of the whole thing. If you turn the allowances into a positive cash payment it immediately represents benefit although the total cost to the Government may be no different at all.
In view of what has appeared in the press, I should like to ask the noble Minister whether he can give the House an assurance that the Government have no plans to abolish child benefit, to means test child benefit, or to tax child benefit. The Government seem to be hostile to universal benefits such as child benefit. But is it not a fact that they have a much better take-up than selective benefits and that they do not divide the population into independent and dependent sections?

457
Finally, we on these Benches would see as our long-term aim an integrated tax and social security system in the form of a tax credit scheme with, so far as possible, universal benefits allowing the tax system to redistribute so that the poorest benefit most from the combined effect of tax and benefit. We have seen child benefit as the first tax credit. We want to see the remaining personal allowances treated in the same way as children's allowances were treated. I invite the House to consider the scope that this would give for further help to the poorest.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, and to the noble Lord, Lord Banks, for their fairly moderate responses to the Statement. I am sure the whole House will join with me in welcoming one particular aspect of the Statement. Now that we are back on an even keel with the annual upratings, the increase in retirement pension seems a much more satisfactory amount than at the two previous upratings, although they were of course both fully in line with inflation.
Both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord kicked off, as it were, with the matter of pensioners. Perhaps I had better do the same in response. Pensioners' incomes grew on average by 2.7 per cent. a year in real terms between 1979 and 1985—that is 18 per cent. over the period—compared with only 0.6 per cent. a year between 1974 and 1979, which was 3 per cent. over the period. The figures are for income units. The rate of increase since 1979 has been more than twice as fast as for the population as a whole.
It is, of course, misleading to look only at pensioners' income from pensions. I am reminded that Beveridge, for example, never intended pensions to be more than a foundation for retired people's incomes. He wrote that rates of pension should be set under the assumption that,
"voluntary insurance and saving will be encouraged and made easy."
Other parts of the reforms have sought to achieve that objective.
The noble Baroness asked about the linking of pensions to earnings. The level of basic retirement pension would have been £43.70 for the single person and £69.90 for a couple in April 1987 if the pension had been increased in line with average earnings over the period November 1978 to September 1986. This compares with £39.50 and £63.25 actual rates. The cost of paying this level of benefit for retirement pensions. other linked benefits and supplementary pensions, would have been about £2 billion extra in 1987–88.
The noble Baroness moved on to the matter of housing benefits. I must tell her that the housing benefit controls will not deny people on low incomes access to help with their housing costs for accommodation that is reasonable for their needs. In 1979, expenditure on the equivalent of housing benefit amounted to £1.25 billion a year. Today it is over £5 billion. That is a quite staggering increase. In real terms the cost of the scheme has more than doubled.
Noble Lords opposite will, I have no doubt, quote reasons for this and I see the noble Baroness nodding.
458
Clearly unemployment and higher rent and rate levels have played their part. But that is far from the whole story. In my view, it would be highly irresponsible to ignore such rapid growth in expenditure and the fact that two households in the country—every two—are subsidising the rent and rates of a third.
I confirm to the noble Baroness that there is still no difference between people with children and those without so far as housing benefit is concerned. I think that that was her point. It is rent and rates that matter. The noble Baroness asked whether all housing benefit applicants would also be protected against rent increases. The answer, in short, is yes. There will be no difference in the treatment of claimants who get housing benefit now and those who claim in the future. The same rules will apply to everyone.
I believe that the whole House might do well to remember—and I think I include the noble Baroness and the noble Lord in this remark—that we are discussing an annual uprating statement. Therefore the matter of the community charge does not enter into it. It will not be in force before whoever speaks on this subject from this Box makes the next Statement and quite likely the one after that, although I would not hold the Government to that particular remark.
The noble Baroness and the noble Lord moved on to child benefit. As the Statement points out, child benefit represents 10 per cent. of social security expenditure. But of course any increases mainly benefit the better off whose real incomes are rising anyway. Higher child benefit gives no help to those on income-related benefits who lose with one hand what they gain with the other. When there is an increase in child benefit, this is essentially deducted from child dependency addition. Savings are being re-directed to those in greatest need. Whatever noble Lords say about the Social Security Act—and I hope they are beginning to find it slightly better than their original observations indicated—it was intended to move the benefits to those most in need. This is an example of that happening.
Despite the non-uprating, all mothers from April will still receive a worthwhile contribution towards the cost of children. Child benefit continues to help all income brackets, but with the cost at over £4½ billion a year regard must be had to the most effective use of those resources. We aim to target help to families who are in greatest need. I must remind the noble Baroness that there is no statutory requirement to uprate child benefit. The net saving is £120 million a year, but over £200 million extra a year will be spent on family credit compared to family income supplement.
It would be wrong to see the child benefit change in isolation. In fact, from her latter remarks, I do not think that the noble Baroness intended to see it in that light. The parallel improvements we are making next April in income-related benefits will end the worst feature of the poverty trap, and the introduction of family credit will improve the unemployment trap more directly and cost effectively by increasing family income from low paid work. My right honourable friend has no specific proposals at

459
present to change the nature of child benefit, but in view of its cost and its ill-targeted nature we clearly need to keep it constantly under review.
The noble Baroness and the noble Lord are worried that family income supplement and family credit is not paid to the mother. I can confirm that both those benefits will be paid to the caring parent and if that is the mother then the mother will receive it.
Last but not least, I was asked about the take-up of family income supplement. The current general level of take-up is not as bad as we are sometimes told. The latest published figures show that 89 per cent. of supplementary benefit expenditure, 88 per cent. of housing benefit and 65 per cent. of family income supplement is claimed. Secondly, we expect higher family credit take-up. This would be achieved by improved publicity and the fact that a bigger benefit will be better known.
I am sure that there are some points that I have failed to answer but I think that probably I have said enough for the time being.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I should like to support what was said by my noble friend Lady Jeger and the noble Lord, Lord Banks, in relation to the freezing of child benefit. The Minister must be aware that all those interested and involved in child poverty agree that universally child benefit helps poor families the most. Surely the Minister will agree that poor families with children have fallen behind in the poverty stakes. Compared with our European partners we have lagged behind in family support, and particularly as compared with the French, who are more generous with their universal benefits for children.
I understand that the freezing of child benefit will mean a 30p cut across the board in real terms. Does the Minister consider that families may not be compensated for a loss of child benefit because of the low take-up of family credit, about which the Government are worried? Will he confirm that child benefit will not become means tested or like the maternity benefit, falling so low that the Government will think it not worth handing out? Will he confirm that neither of those things will happen to child benefit?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, my right honourable friend has no present intention to means test child benefit.
When referring to child benefits I was referring to a difference of 30p. If people seriously wish to use that benefit to float people off income related benefits, approximately double the benefit would be needed at a cost of over £3 billion. The way to help poorer families is through income support and family credit.
Lord Jacques: My Lords, I should like to point out to the Minister that he has quoted Beveridge entirely out of context. Beveridge assumed that there was full employment and that people received wages out of which they could save. He would have been appalled by the mass unemployment that we have today.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, maybe he would, but the quotes I used were to illustrate the point that not even Beveridge intended that the pension benefit should be the total income of pensioners, and nor is it in 70 per cent. of the cases. That is a point which I made clear earlier.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords—
Lord Denham: My Lords, will the noble Baroness bear with me, because the Standing Orders are explicit on this point? A Statement should not be made the subject of a debate, and we are coming to that point. A large number of points have been made from the Front Bench opposite and from the Front Bench across the way. If we could get back to normal business I believe that the House would be more in keeping with Standing Orders.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, will the noble Lord promise a debate on this issue?
Lord Denham: My Lords, no I cannot promise that, because this is a matter for the usual channels. Sometimes the Government give time for an issue of this kind and sometimes the Opposition parties use one of their days. I can make no such promise.

Criminal Justice Bill [H.L.]
5.45 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge moved Amendment No. 52A.
Before Clause 39, insert the following new clause:
("Right of appeal against recommendation made under 1965 Act.
.—(1) A person in respect of whom a court has made a recommendation to the Secretary of State under section 1(2) of the Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act 1965 may appeal to the Court of Appeal against the recommendation.
(2) On an appeal under the section the Court of Appeal may—

(a) quash the recommendation which is the subject of the appeal; and

(b) in place of it make such recommendation as they think appropriate:

but the Court shall so exercise their powers under this subsection that the appellant is not more severely dealt with on appeal than he was dealt with by the court below.").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 52A was not grouped with Amendments Nos. 52 and 55 but was fully discussed. It had the most impressive support. There were splendid speeches from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Roskill, and other noble Lords. I am certain that if I put the amendent to the Committee I should carry the Committee with me. However, the noble Earl made a sensible and generous statement, that he would take away all three amendments—even though I have not asked him to take away Amendment No. 52A—and that we shall return to them at Report stage. Therefore I shall withdraw the amendment.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: Before the noble Lord withdraws the amendment, we must all think about matters before the Report stage. As Amendment No. 52A stands, and as the practice stands, I am bound to

461
say that it appeals to me. However, the noble Earl indicated that there may be some objection to it. With the consent of the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, will the Minister indicate what it is that he sees as objectionable?
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: I shall be interested to hear the answer to the noble and learned Lord's question.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Will the Minister take on board the obvious support in the Committee for Amendment No. 52A as it stands, and also the general support in the course of the debate, irrespective of the other larger issues which loom behind it, for the fact that the judges should no longer indulge in the private practice of writing notes to the Home Secretary but should state their reasons in open court so that they may be considered under the provisions of Amendment No. 52A?
Lord Morton of Shuna: In replying, the Minister will no doubt consider that in 1980 this Government gave such a right of appeal to Scottish cases with a recommendation. It seems slightly illogical that there should be that right of appeal in Scotland but not in England and Wales. I fully agree with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, in respect of private recommendations.
The Earl of Caithness: I am sorry that the Committee is debating this matter when during the debate on the last amendment I said that I would take it away. It seems to me to be wrong for the Committee to protract this matter further. I shall look carefully at what was pointed out to me by the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, after the last debate and also at what my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway said.
In answer to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, we do not believe that the right of appeal will have the effect that the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, thought it might. However, as he has not adduced the arguments that I thought he would, I cannot comment further.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: Before I withdraw the amendment, I reassure the Committee that something of this kind will come from either the Government or from us on these Benches at Report and therefore we can discuss the matter in its proper place. Discussing this amendment without Amendment No. 52 is short of the facts. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Henderson of Brompton Lord Henderson of Brompton moved Amendment No. 53:
Before Clause 39, insert the following new clause:
("Statutory minimum standards for penal establishments.
—(1) No person detained in a prison, remand centre, youth custody or detention centre shall be required to share a cell with another person.
(2) Dormitories in prisons, remand centres, youth custody centres and detention centres shall provide a minimum of 60 square feet per person if inmates are confined in them for 10 hours or less per day, and a minimum of 870 square feet per person if inmates are confined in them for more than 10 hours per day.
(3) The Secretary of State shall make regulations prescribing standards with respect to air volume, ventilation, heating, floor space and widow space in cells and dormitories, bathing facilities and sanitary facilities, to which prisons, remand centres, youth custody centres aand detention centres shall conform.")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 53, and at the same time I shall speak to Amendment No. 287, which is consequential upon it. In the same way as Amendments Nos. 52, 52A and 55, which gave rise to such a notable debate, this amendment also has the support of the Parliamentary All-Party Penal Affairs Group and I hope very much that it will be treated in the same way; namely, entirely in a non-party political fashion.
This new clause proposes minimum standards for penal establishments. It is a remarkable fact that as long ago as 1968 Parliament passed the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act which paved the way for minimum standards for keeping farm animals in custody. That Act gave power to Ministers to prepare codes of practice concerning the welfare of livestock on farms. The provisions of that Act came as a result of public disquiet about the conditions under which calves were kept for veal. Today there is widespread disquiet about the conditions under which prisoners are held in custody, especially where there is more than one prisoner and even as many as three prisoners to a cell, no integral sanitation and what is known as slopping out.
The British public, which is normally and quite rightly concerned with the welfare of animals, is certainly no less concerned about the custody of humankind. If animals in custody deserve to come under statutory codes of conduct, so too do humans. That is my reason for moving this amendment today. This measure is long overdue and indeed has been brought before Parliament on previous occasions.
I should like to read from a speech made by the Home Secretary to Parliament this year, only a day after the Home Affairs Select Committee of the House of Commons had reported, in which he said in the context of prison overcrowding:
"It is entirely right that there should be wide public discussion of our prisons. Yesterday the Home Affairs Select Committee published a report on prison conditions which will prompt just such a discussion, and the Government will be studying its recommendations".
He went on to say:
"Overcrowded prisons are bad because it is degrading to have three men without sanitation in a cell which the Victorians designed for one, and because in such circumstances discipline and control are extraordinarily difficult to assert and maintain".
My final quotation from this speech is:
"Those of us who actually have to run the system during this present difficult period should not be too proud to listen to advice".
I find that to be a wholly admirable speech by the Home Secretary and I very much hope that, through the noble Earl on the Front Bench today, he will listen to the advice of this Chamber. I should like to place particular stress on that part of the Home Secretary's speech in which he said that overcrowded conditions in prison were bad because,
"in such circumstances discipline and control are extraordinarily difficult to assert and maintain".
I move this amendment not purely on humanitarian grounds but also on grounds of discipline. I support that second contention and do

463
not wish to dilate on the humanitarian grounds, about which I think we all agree. I support the grounds of discipline as being the unanimous view of those who are concerned with prisons. For instance, in its first annual report in 1982 the prison inspectorate asked for specific binding standards which would serve it as guidelines.
That request was repeated in 1984. Who better than the prison inspectorate to ask for statutory guidelines? The inspectorate says that it is finding difficulty with the adopted criteria of humanity, propriety and value for money and thought it would be useful to have the guidelines provided by the Council of Europe. The prison department therefore would have to take into account something more than just what a reasonable man would regard as proper in the circumstances. It is argued that a set of standards is needed to which inspectors can make reference.
The prison governors have made much the same recommendation. They advocate minimum standards based on the European standard minimum rules for the treatment of prisoners. Then there was the May inquiry in 1979, from which one heard the same kind of recommendation. There are not only the inspectors and the governors but also the Prison Officers' Association, which has repeatedly expressed support for the introduction of a statutory code of standards. Moreover, the annual conference of prison boards of visitors also called for the introduction of such a code. Those recommendations, combined with the Home Secretary's remarks about the difficulty of keeping proper discipline and control in such conditions, must make this an urgent matter for the Government's attention. All those who are intimately concerned with the prison system want this provision and yet we do not have it. I find it very difficult to understand why.
This matter was raised in 1982 when the Home Secretary asked the Prison Department to draw up a code of standards for publication during 1983 as a basis for discussion. That seemed pretty hopeful, but 1983 was nearly five years ago. At that time it was said that the Home Secretary,
"certainly wishes to invite Parliament to give it full consideration and to express a view of how the work put into it should be carried out".
That proposal was inexplicably abandoned subsequently. So far as I know, all that exists is a Written Answer in February 1986 sent to Reg Freeson in another place, who asked whether the Home Secretary would introduce a code of minimum standards. The reply was that there were no plans to do so. So there were no plans after he had given hope that he would draw up a paper for public consultation and comment.
The publication of an official code has several advantages other than those that I have already listed. The code could form the basis of a planned programme of prison reform in the meanwhile if it is difficult to draw up such a code of conduct straight away. Ultimately it could be given the force of statute.
The Home Affairs Committee of the House of Commons in its report of April 1986 entitled, State and Use of Prisons commented:
"All our witnesses, other than the Home Office, supported the imposition of legally enforceable standards as a step towards improving prison conditions".
I wonder why the Home Office is the one who is out of step? I should like to ask the noble Lord why it is that the Home Secretary's declared intention was abandoned in 1986. I wonder whether the Home Office might not think again and reinstitute the process that was promised as long ago as 1982.
Of course I give credit to the Home Office for making improvements. It must have standards of its own. It could not otherwise build new prisons, for which it should be given all credit. Nevertheless, it is necessary for Parliament to lay down the standards. They should apply to such matters as cell occupancy, integral sanitation, access to work and recreation and food.
The answer given by David Mellor, who was the Minister of State in another place when the matter was raised under the same Bill in March 1987 before the election, was not good enough. He did not take into account the history, the widespread demand and the necessity for a commitment to reduce the prison population to manageable proportions, which would inevitably arise if the kind of standards that I and all those concerned with the country's prisons seek were put forward as a basic requisite. For all those reasons, I beg to move.
6 p.m.
Lord Renton: The noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, has done a valuable service in bringing the matter before us. I should like to indulge in a modest amount of personal reminiscence to put the matter into perspective.
In January 1958 I was appointed Under-Secretary at the Home Office in succession to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, who was appointed Financial Secretary to the Treasury as a result of Mr. Harold Macmillan's little local difficulty. The noble and learned Lord found, as I did, a very worrying situation in the prisons. I speak here of England and Wales; I do not include Scotland. There were prison places for fewer than 40,000 people, and about 7,000 were sleeping three to a cell. It was very worrying. We were lucky that my noble and learned friend went to the Treasury where he was able to be an advocate. As a result, we had what was then the largest building programme this century for prisons, remand centres and so on. Since that time the number of people accommodated in the prisons has about doubled and the number of men sleeping three to a cell has also about doubled. The situation is therefore far worse.
I am glad to say, however, that the Home Office now has the largest prison building programme ever in our history, bigger even than in mid-Victorian times when there was a real attempt to do something about the prison population.
The noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, has put before the Committee what I can only describe as a counsel of perfection, a new clause

465
containing obviously desirable measures. But, alas, it would take years to implement the provisions that he has put forward even if the prison population did not increase still further. As it is likely to increase, implementation is likely to take still longer.
While accepting the desirability of everything that the noble Lord has put forward in the new clause, I feel bound to point out that we are wasting our time—indeed, we are creating a misleading situation—if we pass laws that cannot be implemented in the reasonably foreseeable future. It is a depressing view to have to put before the Committee but I think that we have to be realistic. Meanwhile, the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, has set out obviously desirable guidelines. We should have what he recommends as the ultimate aim, but I think that it would be misleading if we were to add the new clause to the Bill.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: I totally disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Renton. He puts forward a view that is endemic in the Home Office. Unless there is a target and unless the standards are laid down so that everyone can aim for them, one will never start on anything.
Why on earth should one not have standards laid down against which to measure new prisons? We can examine new prisons and consider whether they are being built in line with standards in which we believe. If the standards are laid down, prisons can slowly be refurbished and brought up to modern requirements. In each case, the prison can be measured against the standards. We will never progress until we work out the minimum standards.
The noble Lord says that it is a policy of perfection. It is not perfection that there should be one man in one cell: this occurs in many countries in Europe where, as we know, European standards are laid down. But, once again, we are the black sheep, as we have heard so often in the Chamber recently. We are certainly the black sheep of Europe in respect of prisons.
I urge the Minister to explain why minimum standards—size of the cell, one person to a cell, the amount of light, the amount of air—cannot be laid down so that we have something at which to aim.
Lord Renton: As the noble Lord has asked me a question, may I be allowed to reply? I agree that we should lay down minimum standards. But the new clause purports to do much more than that. It purports to make it a minimum legal requirement that these things should be done, presumably at once. If they cannot be done at once, it is misleading to enact them in that way.
Lord Elton: I should like to add to what my noble friend has said. The clause states:
"No person detained in a prison, remand centre, youth custody or detention centre shall he required to share a cell with another person."
What happens when a person is sentenced to be detained and there is no empty cell to receive him is left to our imagination and administrative resources.
I wish to intervene on a practical point. One cannot consider the provision of accommmodation without considering the regime to be followed in the building
466
in which the accommodation is located. To have a single room to oneself is all very fine, dandy and desirable, provided that one goes there only to sleep and read one's book after the dinner break. However, if the pressure on the prisons and staff is such that one is there for 23 hours a day, for certain people that would be a close approximation to hell.
To say that as an act of kindness to prisoners you should sentence them to isolation with their consciences and imaginations, regardless of their psychological make-up, is a very dangerous thing to do. This does not address the main burthen of the noble Lord's intention but it is a very important side effect indeed. If you are going to give this as a minimum criterion, then you must also have minimum criteria of regime and release from the cell. The two together amount to what I can only describe as astronomical amounts of money, even if the prison population remains at its present high level. Therefore the third consideration that the Committee has to have in mind is the practicalities of implementation of the timescale thereof.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: The noble Lord is of course right. Without altering the behaviour in prisons on all sides, the proper accommodation would be unsuitable. The intention of my noble friend Lord Henderson—and if he has not put it quite rightly it can easily be altered—is that the Home Office will say, "We are perfectly clear that this is what we ought to aim at. We not only cannot do it at once. We cannot even begin until at least the year after next. But we are going to have a programme, week by week, in our 120 prisons, so that in 30 years at least prisoners in this country can be shut up in a way which is decent, instead of in the way that they are shut up now which is indecent". The words "decent" and "indecent" may exaggerate. In my opinion, they do not.
However, that is not the point. Nobody defends what is happening. The Home Secretary does not defend it and the noble Earl does not defend it. But what we are saying is that something must be done about it. This is an effort by my noble friend Lord Henderson. Do not let us say that he has got it wrong. Let us help him to get it right.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: The problem about this amendment is that it does not aim at setting minimum standards. It ordains them and requires their implementation at once. It would in those circumstances, as my noble friend Lord Renton has just said—and I use his term—be wholly unrealistic to expect any government to accept this amendment today on either the humanitarian ground or the discipline ground, although on both grounds— and I concede it at once—the spirit of the amendment is entirely well founded.
In the situtation as it is today in the prisons, it is idle to pretend that any government could in practical terms accept and implement this amendment. However desirable this code of statutory standards is, it could not be implemented today or in the foreseeable future, as I understand the position.

467
The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, has done us all a proud, valuable service in moving this amendment, if only in the hope that one day—and perhaps one day not too long away—the spirit of minimum standards of prison reform generally may be carried into legislation. No one who has not served a sentence of imprisonment, even an indeterminate sentence, as was once my lot, can hope to understand the stresses and the sub-cultures of prison life, and one must tread very warily in this area.
I am not only concerned with slopping out, which would come under subsection (3) of Amendment No. 53. I am also concerned in particular with subsection (1) of Amendment No. 53. Stripped down to its brass tacks a sentence of imprisonment should never be permitted to involve, encourage or allow sexual molestation, such as a requirement to share a cell may well involve, and if we are talking of minimum standards that, by my book, is the bare minimum.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: Perhaps I may say a few words in support of this amendment as I have my name down to it. I think that it is not the objective of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, or myself to press for the wording of this amendment, but it is a fact that over a very long period of time there has been a lot of support from many different and varied quarters for this minimum standard to be laid down.
This was started when there was not the highly critical position that there is in our prisons today, but even then it was thought right from a humane point of view and from the point of view of doing what is correct. Now the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, is saying that it is not only a case of doing what is humane and correct. It is critically important to do something about the conditions within our prisons to avert the catastrophe which quite clearly is menacing many of them. So I should like to support this amendment most strongly.
How can we ever expect prison staff to carry out that important care of people in prison, that important rehabilitation of offenders which must start early on in their prison sentence? How can they carry on this work when the conditions within our prisons are so appallingly bad? I always find it very difficult to understand why we impose certain conditions on other institutions, such as schools and hospitals—the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, mentioned animals, too, in the early days—yet we do not feel that we should impose the same conditions on an institution of enormous importance, such as a prison, where the work that goes on is of critical importance to the whole community in ways of bringing down reconviction rates and in all sorts of other practical ways, quite apart from the humane side of the matter.
So I hope that the Committee will not just brush this amendment aside as being impossible. That would be being most defeatist towards something which has been supported over the years. The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, referred to the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, said in 1982 that there must be a document from the Home Office which we
468
should all discuss. What has happened to it? It disappeared and did not come. It has now become even more vital that it should be discussed. We see this amendment as a beginning of the discussion, which is very important and which, we hope, will end in an agreement on minimum statutory standards within our prisons.
Lord Hylton: I speak as someone who has visited all the prisons in Northern Ireland and a fair few of those in England. I say in parenthesis that, through a strange chain of circumstances, the standards in Northern Ireland are infinitely superior to the standards in England. However, what I should like to do now is to thank my noble friend Lord Henderson and the noble Baroness for bringing forward this amendment. I hope very strongly that the Committee will accept it, because if it is accepted it will concentrate the mind of the Government on reducing the prison population to manageable proportions.
The present size of the prison population is unmanageable and I suggest that we are in a position from which we cannot escape simply by building, given the length of time that it takes from a proposal to build a prison to getting it actually open. What is needed is a major reduction in the population as it stands and a vastly increased use of non-custodial sentences. This will of course entail greater expenditure on probation, on community service orders and the like, but that is what we shall have to have.
Lord Mishcon: Before this debate is concluded, I should like to make a couple of observations which I hope will be of use. The first one is that people inside prisons regard us—we are supposed to be the voice of authority—as being the people who are responsible for the conditions in which they are expected to live.
We are the authority. Parliament is the authority that has decided that they have broken the law. The judge and the court have decided that but it is Parliament that has laid down the laws. When they are in prison it is establishment that is responsible for the conditions; it is authority which is responsible for the way in which they are expected to live. With that thought we should not wonder too much at the unfortunate figures of recidivism which we have heard before in this place and which are so depressing.
How can we hope to turn out from prison when they have finished their sentences people who have some respect for society when society seems to be content that they should be incarcerated in the conditions that have been described in the course of the debate. There are no politics or party questions involved. It is a shame that all noble Lords bear, irrespective of the part of the House in which they sit.
Having said that, it was absolutely pertinent for the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, to refer to some of the matters which could at least alleviate the number of people who are incarcerated and therefore enable us to come nearer to conditions which we might call civilised. That is no party point. It is something that the Government and all of us must remember when we come to parts of the Bill—we have already passed some of them—where we seem to be inclining with

469
some amount of lightheartedness towards increasing sentences and imposing more sentences that should carry with them a custodial penalty. I do not mean that we act in a lighthearted way but that is the reaction of some of us.
I mention lastly the practical side of all this. I agree, as the Committee would expect me to, with everything that my noble friend Lady Ewart-Biggs said. From the practical point of view we must do something when we come to discuss an amendment of this kind. One of the things that it would not be very practical to do would be to say that this shall be an enactment which is operative as from the passing of the Act, because if we do that we are doing something completely nugatory, which produces no result.
I am hoping, and I think everyone who has spoken is hoping, that the code of practice, the code of minimum standards, that was promised in 1982 should—I am addressing myself to the Minister when I say this— now be the subject of a direct promise to Parliament. It must be produced roughly along the lines of the matters contained in the amendment. We must have that as the visible target of minimum standards at which we must aim. But having aimed at that we must, whether on the basis of a reform of our remand procedures, the people we place on remand or the places where remand prisoners go, see that custodial sentences are given only when they constitute the right answer to the crime. If we have both the promise of the code of practice and a policy to keep the number of the inhabitants of prisons down we might achieve the result that everybody in every part of the House wants to see.
Baroness Ryder of Warsaw: I support the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, and all the other noble Lords who have taken part in the debate up to now. I can only stand here and say with great humility that I have been a social worker and that since 1945 I have visited thousands of non-German prisoners in German prisons.
We talk a lot about European prisons and their standards. Holland is of course particularly splendid in that respect and so are Norway and Sweden. It would be negative to mention tonight the severity that still continues in the East German and West German prisons. I am witness to that because I spend sometimes 12 hours or more of a day or a night in them. I have seen the way in which those prisons went about overcoming the problem of slopping out. As the Committee knows, each state in Germany is autonomous. Some states led in their reform of prison conditions. It was interesting to note the money that was poured in as long as 20 years ago by the different state parliaments to improve conditions in the cells.
There used to be up to five or six people in a cell that was meant for two or three men. I am going back to Germany quite shortly and I can state that in certain parts of the country there are still up to three people sharing a cell. That applies to the non-German prisoners as well as to the Germans. That of course is not the case in all the prisons, of which there are more than 200, but that situation still exists.
470
However, the slopping out problem has been overcome in all but two of the states by pouring in money. I do not see what we can do to alleviate our prison problems on a down-to-earth basis but we must have aims. It has been said that we must have aims and targets. Nothing in life is achieved without targets.
It may be impractical now to initiate an enormous new prison building programme as the Government may not have the resources or whatever. However, in my humble opinion it is a great pity that the problem was not tackled 25 years ago before the prison population increased to such a vast number. But we must also remember that we are not alone in this. We call ourselves members of the European Community but there are other countries which also have bad conditions. That sounds negative but it is true. I would not wish on anyone what I have seen in some of those places.
I think that discipline is lacking in the prisons of Britain compared to those of other countries. Brutality can never be condoned. The discipline of work under decent conditions and with no overcrowding is something we must aim for, both now and in the future. If we continue to tolerate, as I suppose we shall have to until the new prisons are built, the fact that there are three and four people to a cell, as I know from being with them daily and sharing their lives, prisoners will learn bad habits and wicked ways from the people they share cells with.
I crave the Committee's pardon for rising and prolonging this particular debate. I plead that we should have targets although it may seem impossible to reach them at the moment. We may not see them reached in our lifetime. But how can we, as the noble Lord has suggested, expect people to go out from prison as better people? They go out worse people, in my opinion. We must do something about that.
6.30 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: I too am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, not only for raising this very important subject but for bringing me back on to a territory where I am on slightly firmer ground than I have perhaps been in some of our earlier debates.
As the Committee may be aware, the Government are not persuaded that enforcing a code of minimum standards would itself contribute to improving life and conditions in prisons. However, there is nothing between the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, and those of the Committee who have spoken in favour of this amendment and the Government in the aspirations of the amendment which the noble Lord has moved. We prefer instead to tackle directly the heart of the problem: that is the shortage of prison places and inadequate facilities in many prisons. A code would not help in this. That is why we have our current massive programme of building and refurbishment, which is unprecedented in scale. I think it is worth reminding the Committee that in the last financial year we spent more on refurbishment than we did on new capital projects, despite the massive scale of those projects.
My right honourable friend the Home Secretary announced a further expansion a few weeks ago. As

471
a result, the programme now embraces plans for in excess of 20 new prisons as well as improvements to existing establishments. We have refurbishment schemes in 100 out of 125 establishments or thereabouts. Altogether this will provide over 21,000 new places. I have listened carefully to the views of the Committee. But I do not believe that the case for a code of minimum standards has yet been made out. I can, however, reassure the Committee that this does not mean that we are resistant to the idea of standard-setting within the prisons. Prison rules are, for example, quite specific about the minimum requirement of exercise for prisoners.
Turning to subsection (3) of the amendment, there are already standing orders which set out a variety of standards, including standards of heating. Although immune from the enforcement provisions of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, the Crown is nevertheless bound by the main provisions of the Act. Perhaps more directly relevant to this new clause, we published in 1984 a summary of design standards used in relation to new prisons. The design briefs for new prisons are based closely on these standards, which cover cell area, workshop space and provision for physical recreation, libraries and medical facilities.
The distinction which is thereby made between new prison accommodation and the existing estate highlights the point I am making. The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, has said that we must be clear what our aims are in new prisons. We are clear. We can and do meet satisfactory standards in new prisons. But for the existing accommodation, much of which dates back to Victorian times, the only solution is replacement or rebuilding and refurbishment on the lines we are undertaking. If the regulations which the new clause requires the Home Secretary to make provided for standards which all existing prison accommodation could in practice meet, they would have to be set at a low level, and it is hard to see what purpose they would serve.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: Will the noble Lord forgive me? He agreed with me when I said that we must refurbish properly, or words to that effect. Surely we cannot do anything without having a standard. Why can that standard not be expressed? That is what worries us. We know perfectly well that chairs with three legs are not accepted in prisons unless they are meant to be three-legged chairs. Wrong things are not accepted on purpose. Why can that not be stated? Why can we not say, "We have a vet y long way to go but we want each cell to be like this and in due course it can be made so"? That is all we ask.
The Earl of Caithness: I understood that the noble Lord was highlighting the fact that he differentiated the refurbishment of existing premises, given the size of cells or dormitories, which very much curtails what can be done. Some of the Victorian cells are larger and some smaller than the specific standards laid down by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton. In some prisons there are both larger and smaller cells in the same establishment. As I recall,
472
what the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, was speaking about specifically was new prisons. That was the point which I emphasised. We have the standard set out in the design brief for new prisons.
Lord Mishcon: Perhaps the noble Earl will permit me to interrupt, only because one is anxious to get something constructive out of the amendment, which deserves to be treated seriously. In old premises one cannot, in the foreseeable future, get the standard one wants. What I believe all sides of the Committee are asking for is this. It may be that in some cases we shall not reach what the noble Baroness, Lady Ryder, whom we were also delighted to hear this evening, called a target. We must have a target. It may be a target which we shall not be able to reach for five years or, in some cases, 10, 15 or 20 years. What we want is the target and we want it to be a civilised target which is agreed by the Home Office as being the eventual aim with every reasonable excuse understood as to why that aim cannot be reached in a few years' time. It may take much longer.
The Earl of Caithness: Our target is the amount of money that we are putting towards the problem. Under the last Labour Government, who actually reduced the amount spent on prisons, a sum of money that was regrettably heinously low resulted in a backlog. It is by spending money on the problem and by doing refurbishments within the existing constraints of the building that the problem will be tackled. Perhaps I may continue.
If, however, provision was made, as I imagine is intended, for standards to which we ought to aspire as a policy target, we should be specifying standards to which we knew existing establishments did not conform and which would require considerable additional resources (on top of the massive resources now being injected) and, indeed, time to implement. With great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, that does not seem to me to be a sensible way of setting about the improvements which all agree are necessary.
My noble friend, Lord Campbell of Alloway, hit the nail on the head when he pointed out that the amendment ordains minimum standards rather than simply setting targets. What happens if the ordained standards simply cannot be met? I should say that it is far better to work steadily towards the improvement in conditions that we all seek. Ordained standards seem bound to create inflexibility and impede rather than assist progress, because our efforts would then be distorted to meet standards rather than to raise standards all round.
The noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, says to the Committee that our prisons are overcrowded. Once again I must say to the Committee that not all our prisons are overcrowded. Under half of our prisons are overcrowded. Of those that are not overcrowded, I should say, having had an extensive trip to America, that our prisons are as good as the best that I saw in America and our worst prisons are by no means as bad as anything they can produce. I think that that confirms what the noble Baroness, Lady Ryder, said when she stated that she had seen worse on the Continent.

473
One thing which has struck me concerning the situation in the overcrowded sections of our prisons is the way that we treat our remand prisoners in comparison to the sentenced population. It is the remands who seem to suffer most from overcrowding.
Turning specifically to cell-sharing, our aim must be to reduce the sharing of cells, which I entirely accept is an unsatisfactory state of affairs. Our building plans have that in view. But I doubt if we shall ever eliminate cell-sharing altogether. Not all cellular accommodation is for single occupation, and some inmates prefer to share. My experience is very much the same as that of my noble friend Lord Elton when he went round the prisons.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Would my noble friend give way? I am very much obliged to him. It is perfectly all right if people want to share: what is not right is the requirement that they shall share. I wonder whether my noble friend the Minister can possibly take that on board as one of these targets; it is something we might seek to avoid.
The Earl of Caithness: That is indeed the difference but, as I was going to say, my experience was very much like that which my noble friend Lord Elton experienced that regardless of the unsatisfactory situation these people are in at the moment, they would prefer to share a cell than to be moved further away. We are talking about remands who have the extra privileges of visits every day. Notwithstanding the difficulties which sharing a cell sometimes creates, they would prefer to do that than be moved to a prison further away in the country where they could have a cell to themselves.
Lord Elton: I apologise for interrupting my noble friend yet again, but as he has prayed me in aid I should say to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway that of course I and, I am sure, my noble friend understand the predicament of some people who are harassed and exploited sexually if they are forced to be in cells with people of a particular cast of mind and nature. There are provisions within the service already for them to apply to be kept separately, for their own protection. It does not follow that that is very agreeable accommodation to be in, but the problem is recognised and I am sure my noble friend recognises it.
The Earl of Caithness: My noble friend expresses that point better than I could and I agree with him on the point which he made about regimes and the better regimes which one can produce. Indeed, one of the aspirations of Fresh Start, which is now in over half our prisons, is to provide a better regime for inmates, including those in remand centres. I have seen one at Manchester, where Fresh Start is working most satisfactorily and producing a better regime. Even if we had a perfect match between accommodation and population I doubt if it would be sensible to have as rigid a requirement as in subsection (1), which goes further than the corresponding provision in the European standard minimum rules.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, said that the adoption of this amendment would help to reduce the
474
prison population to manageable proportions and this would improve matters. I do not think that would help, because I agree much more with the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, it is on the question of remands that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary and I are spending so much time at the moment, trying to improve the situation for remands.
There is considerable work being carried out which I hope will come to fruition in the not-too-distant future which I shall be able to announce to the Committee and which I believe will be a better and much more satisfactory way of tackling this problem. We all have the same aspirations; this has thwarted governments over the years.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, has been very keen on this. He has tried, my noble friend Lord Elton has tried, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary and I are trying at the moment. I hope we shall be in a position shortly to announce some further measures to alleviate this very serious problem. In all honesty, I do not believe that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, will help, and I hope there are better and more efficacious ways of doing this.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: I have listened carefully to the Minister's reply but he has not answered the specific questions which I asked him. Those were: why was it that after 1982, Lord Elton, then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Prisons, announced that the Home Secretary would draw up or cause to be drawn up by the present department a code of practice, a code of standards for publication during 1983 as a basis for discussion? Why was that not drawn up after we had been promised that it would be?
6.45 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: I am sorry if I did not answer that point directly: I thought it was contained within my answer. Of course, in 1984 we produced a summary of design standards. There are the existing prison rules which cover much of what the noble Lord contains in his amendment but as the noble Lord knows a well as I do, what has thwarted us in many respects is the temendous increase in the remand population. There are 1,000 more in our prisons than this time last year. We believe that instead of laying down some standards which could not be achieved in any foreseeable future, spending a lot of time and energy of members of the department working out suitable minimum standards on which some of the reform groups have spent quite a considerable time, the right solution is to get round to spending the money which my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has been able to obtain on the refurbishment programme, so as to relieve the problem in a practical way.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: I am very grateful to those who have taken part in this debate and in particular to the noble Baroness, Lady Ryder of Warsaw, who lifted the standard of discussion very high. I also thought that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, spoke from experience and gave a new dimension to the debate. I feel, listening

475
to those who have been intimately concerned with imprisonment and either were themselves subject to it or have witnessed it closely, that the others who took part in the debate ought to feel somewhat humble in the light of what they have had to say.
I myself have just been reading of Primo Levi and his bitter experiences during the war. Quite frankly, I find the kinds of comments that came from Lord Elton were hopeless and chilly in the light of what we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ryder. I think Lady Ryder said quite rightly that nothing is achieved without targets: that is what we are after. I have been asking about targets and I have been answered with remands. It is like asking a question about apples and receiving an answer about oranges—it is simply not relevant.
Of course, I know that remand is very important, that is where the tripling of people in cells bites most, but it is not an answer to what I am saying. Does the noble Lord wish to intervene?
Lord Elton: If my noble friend will forgive me, I do, because in reply to what the noble Lord has said about myself I should point out that I was addressing the point in his amendment. It was an immediate enforcement of a standard which cannot be met and one which I think either would be wholly disastrous to the administration of the prison system or else could not be implemented for the foreseeable future.
The noble Lord is now addressing something quite different, as did other noble Lords, and the noble Baroness—that is, having targets. There the Committee is entirely with him, I think, and I would imagine that the first thing the Committee would like to do is to look at the design brief for new prisons, which I understand is published and could be put before your Lordships. It is in itself exactly the sort of target which the noble Lord is looking for.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: I thank the noble Lord very much. I am most grateful for that constructive response. Frankly, I should like to admit that the first part of my amendment is defective. I agree that it is inappropriate to ordain in a statute, as my amendment does in subsections (1) and (2).
On the other hand, to be fair, subsection (3) provides for the Secretary of State to make regulations prescribing standards in respect of other matters. I think that is how the matter ought to go forward. I agree with the criticisms of the noble Lords, Lord Renton and Lord Campbell of Alloway, about subsections (1) and (2); they are not desirable and I shall therefore not seek to press this amendment.
However, I see that the way forward is more in the terms in which subsection (3) is expressed. After this interesting debate, which I hope the noble Earl will take seriously and report back to the Home Secretary, I ask leave to withdraw the amendment, but on the assumption that I may come back to the House with an amendment of a rather different sort drafted on the lines of subsection (3) of this new clause.
Having said that. I now beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Henderson of Brompton Lord Henderson of Brompton moved Amendment No. 54:
Before Clause 39, insert the following new clause:
("Removal of Crown immunity from penal establishments.
.—(1) For the purposes of the food legislation and of health and safety legislation, prisons, remand centres, youth custody centres and detention centres shall not be regarded as property of or property held on behalf of the Crown.
(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide who is to be treated for any of those purposes as the occupier or owner of any premises specified in subsection (1) above, and such persons shall not be regarded as enjoying any status, immunity or privilege of the Crown.").
The noble Lord said: The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, most unfortunately is absent on personal grounds and has asked me to move this amendment on his behalf.
The amendment is a new clause designed to remove Crown immunity from penal establishments. Like the last amendment I hope this one will be received sympathetically by the Committee; indeed in this case not just by the Committee but by the noble Earl. I start with the fact that the National Health Service (Amendment) Act 1986 removed Crown immunity from hospitals following concern arising from a food poisoning outbreak at the Stanley Royd Hospital, Wakefield, in 1984 in which 19 patients died. Until then the Government had firmly resisted the erosion of or any encroachment on Crown immunity. That was a very important breach in the principle of Crown immunity and arose from a specific instance in which National Health Service premises were below the standard which would have certainly been detected and put right in any establishment outside a government establishment.
Exactly the same thing happened in the prison service. There was an outbreak of salmonella poisoning at Leeds Prison in the course of 1985, and that puts the prison service on a par with the National Health Service. If it is good for the National Health Service to have the rigours of the law and the full Health and Safety Inspectorate looking at its conditions, it seems to me entirely right that the same should apply to prisons. I cannot see the difference between the two and it seems an outdated concept of Crown immunity which should be swept away, particularly from prisons.
That is not just my view. It is the view, as I said on the last amendment, of all those who are concerned with prisons. For example, at the moment the local authority environmental health officers are called in but only at the wish of the prison medical officer. There is no statutory duty on the prison service to maintain proper standards.
The Chief Inspector of Prisons has complained frequently about dirty conditions and unhygienic practices in prison kitchens and I can give any number of examples from the prison inspectorate. If that is so, surely it should not be tolerated. I am told that prisons are inspected only perhaps once every nine or 10 years for health and safety at work. That simply would not be tolerated outside. Health

477
inspectors have a much more regular round than that.
Not only have the prison inspectors asked for this; so also have the prison governors. They have supported the removal of Crown immunity. I should have thought the Home Office would do well to accede to the pleas of those who actually have to look after the prisoners.
The Health and Safety at Work Act binds the Crown by its regulations but not in relation to enforcement. That is what we are after. There is no legal sanction now against the contravention of the Act by the prison authorities. I believe, as do the prison authorities, that that should not be so.
The Health and Safety Commission has long pressed the view, without any success, that amending legislation should be introduced. The Prison Officers' Association also agrees. That association has said that many safety measures and facilities for staff and inmates are abysmal and there is only the power of persuasion in order to improve these abysmal conditions.
In the 1985 report the Chief Inspector of Prisons said:
"Among the items we drew attention to were such recurrent problems as inadequate disposal arrangements for swill, lack of washing and changing facilities for kitchen staff, the absence of any provision for the separate storage of cooked and uncooked meat",
and so on. How can we tolerate that? The Government are hiding behind Crown immunity. I suggest that the time has come when prison establishments, like every other establishment, whether or not Crown services, and like the National Health Service, should no longer enjoy this immunity. I beg to move.
Lord Denning: Let me say a word in favour of this amendment. I remember well the controversy about the National Health Service. At one time it was exempt from the ordinary provisions of the law by Section 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947. Similar principles apply entirely to our penal establishments. Large numbers of people are living in them against their will, accommodated by the Crown and its servants, and the obligation to have proper regard to the legislation regarding health and safety should apply to prisons just as to hospitals and any other bodies. Therefore, I support the amendment.
Lord Renton: I was fully in favour of the removal of Crown immunity for the hospital services of this country. I still have an open mind on the question of whether it should be removed from penal establishments and I shall be interested to hear what my noble friend has to say about that.
As I mentioned earlier, as Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office, like others in this Committee have been, I had to read a great many letters sent by people in prison to their Members of Parliament. The MPs always referred these letters to the Home Office. It took up a large amount of one's time. My recollection is that only a very small proportion of the complaints made in those letters turned out to be justified.
I am not quite sure how the removal of Crown immunity would work. Presumably every person in
478
prison would have the right to start an action if he could find any complaint at all. They would all have legal aid and it would become an improved indoor sport compared with that of writing to one's Member of Parliament.
I hope that is not an entirely unworthy recollection and prediction but I think we need to know exactly how it is likely to work out and exactly what the practical implications will be. It may seem irrelevant but to my mind this provision would take us some of the way—not very far but some of the way—towards privatisation of prisons, a highly controversial matter and a proposal which at present I certainly do not favour.
Lord Morton of Shuna: We support the thinking behind this amendment. To deal with the last point of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, on this side we supported the provisions relating to hospitals but we certainly had no idea that in doing so we were supporting the privatisation of hospitals, and I do not think anyone would have suggested that. Surely the way to deal with this is for the relevant inspectors who inspect restaurants and any other establishment to be the people to inspect and enforce the standard. I should have thought it would be that way of enforcement rather than letters to MPs or others, though no doubt all such letters will continue as they always have done and I suspect always will. Surely it is necessary that the standard should be there, if for nobody else at least for the prison staff, who, among others, deserve to be protected from salmonella. Therefore, I support this amendment.
7 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: I understand the intention behind this new clause, but I have to say that we do not accept that standards of food hygiene and health and safety in prison service establishments fail to meet the standards required by statute. Neither do we accept the implication that the threat of prosecution is required to achieve an acceptable standard.
With the exception of the sections relating to enforcement and to prosecutable offences, the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 already binds the Crown. As a matter of policy we already comply with the enforcement provisions. Health and Safety Executive inspectors have unhindered access to all prison service establishments, and where they have issued Crown improvement or prohibition notices these have been complied with. Section 36(2) already provides that individual civil servants may be charged with offences under the Act.
As regards food hygiene, under arrangements introduced last year, annual hygiene inspections of prison service catering facilities are carried out by the department's own health and safety officers and regional catering managers, all of whom hold relevant professional qualifications, in most cases the Royal Institute of Public Health and Hygiene's diploma in food hygiene. This replaced the earlier inspection arrangements. The health and safety officers are wholly independent of the Prison Department. We believe that these inspections, which are subject to validation by a series of random inspections by an environmental health officer from

479
the DHSS, are at least as thorough as the sort of inspection a local authority environmental health officer might carry out and are sufficient to enable us to meet the standards required by the Food Hygiene (General) Regulations 1970. In addition to these arrangements, the Health and Safety Executive's own inspectors may inspect a prison's kitchen area at any time. I think that that gives a fairly clear indication of the rigorous conditions under which prison kitchens are inspected and which they have to meet.
The noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, commented on an outbreak of salmonella food poisoning at Leeds Prison in 1985 which involved five people. A local authority environmental health officer was brought in by the local health authority to investigate the cause and there is nothing in his report to suggest that poor standards of kitchen hygiene were a factor. That should be discounted from the argument.
My noble friend Lord Renton mentioned the pile of letters that one receives on one's desk every day. Some relate to food but, as he so rightly says from his vast experience, most are ill-founded. He has made a useful and probably accurate point about the practical effect of this amendment on the running of prison establishments.
Those who know prisons will appreciate what an important factor food is in relation to the good order and discipline of a prison establishment. If there is going to be trouble or discontent in a prison, it usually starts with food. If the food is bad and not up to the standard required, the prisoners will be the first to complain. I have now eaten at over 40 prisons in the United Kingdom. I made a special visit with a health officer to look at the kitchens to satisfy myself about the standards of diet and the conditions in which the food was prepared and served. The existing conditions and the new arrangements which toughen the inspections are satisfactory at present. I agree that Crown immunity is not sacrosanct, but it should not be removed without good reason. I do not think that we have had that good reason for its removal tonight.
The Government are prepared to keep the position under review and to consider carefully any evidence of deficiency in the existing arrangements. At present we are not persuaded that there is a case for lifting Crown immunity.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: I was delighted to hear of the recent improvements from the noble Earl. That is welcome. Implicit in the recent improvements is an admission of how bad conditions have been up to now. I am glad that rigorous conditions are now imposed by a proper inspectorate. I am also grateful to the noble Earl for saying that he will keep the matter under review and that he does not have a closed mind about the removal of Crown immunity.
One of the things that the prison inspectorate said in 1985 was that, if public confidence in the standards of hygiene applied to public institutions such as prisons was to be maintained, it might well be that the ending of Crown immunity was the price that had to be paid by the Government. The amendment invites the Government to pay that price—the small price of
480
removing Crown immunity, which the noble Earl has said is not sacrosanct—to establish public confidence in the standards of hygiene applied to public institutions. It seems to me that that is something that the Home Secretary would like to recruit and retain.
Clearly this is not the time to press the amendment, but I should like to ask the noble Earl to represent to the Home Secretary that public confidence would be improved by the removal of Crown immunity. Leaving that in the noble Earl's mind, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 55 not moved.]
Clause 39 [Life imprisonment for certain firearms offences]:
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 56:
Page 24, line 22, at beginning insert—
("( ) Part 1 of Schedule 6 to the Firearms Act 1968 (prosecution and punishment of offences) shall be amended as follows.
( ) The existing entry in the third column of the entries relating to an offence under section 2(1) (possessing, etc. shot gun without shot gun certificate) shall become paragraph (a) and after it there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
"(b)) On indictment".
( ) The following entry shall he inserted after the entry in the fourth column of the entries relating to an offence under that section, as an entry relating to an offence under that section tried on indictment: "Three years or a fine: or both.").
The noble Earl said: At the same time I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 58 and 59.
Following the horrendous events at Hungerford my right honourable friend the Home Secretary announced a package of measures to tighten up generally the laws governing firearms. The Committee will not expect me to go into detail about them now. Several of the proposals will require legislation and will no doubt come before this place before too long. One of the measures my right honourable friend mentioned was an increase in the penalty for possession of a shotgun without the appropriate certificate. Given that this Bill already includes provisions relating to penalties for firearms offences it seemed sensible to bring forward that proposal now.
Amendment No. 56 therefore brings the maximum penalty for being in possession of a shotgun without a certificate in line with the similar offence in respect of firearms, so that the maximum penalty on indictment for illegal possession will be three years' imprisonment or a fine or both. Although the systems of control are different, uncertificated possession of a shotgun is a serious matter, and it is right that substantial penalties should be available in the worst cases.
Amendments Nos. 58 and 59 are simply consequential drafting amendments to Clause 39. I beg to move.
Lord Morton of Shuna: This side of the Committee has no objections to the amendments, but this seems to us to be curious. If there is to be legislation changing the Firearms Act, which if we believe the press is to go through to completion perhaps before this Bill—which after all is in its fourth day in

481
Committee in this place, has still to reach another place and may well take some time—is there not a case for putting it all in the one Bill?
The Earl of Caithness: I do not disagree with the noble Lord that there is a case for that; equally there is a case for keeping the provision in a Bill which already deals with penalties. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary thought that that was the right way to deal with the matter.
Lord Mishcon: I wonder whether the Minister has considered the discussions which have been taking place in another place on this very matter. Naturally all of us will be with him in endeavouring to control the possession of firearms. All of us remember the disaster. It is unfortunate that disasters have to occur before Parliament decides to act. Some of us remember discussions at Question Time that have taken place since I became a Member of this Chamber on the question of further provisions to control the possession of firearms and penalties if those regulations are broken.
In view of discussion which has taken place in the other place, will the Minister, during the stages of this Bill, consider further provisions controlling the possession of firearms: namely, only one firearm being permitted unless there are very special reasons; the firearms themselves being kept at a place which one hopes will be safe, namely a club which has proper security provisions; and regulations governing the possession of ammunition? We all recognise that the peaceful, lawful use of firearms ought to be retained for those who are entitled to have the firearms and who make out a case for having them, their respectability and responsibility having been properly looked into by the authorities.
Many of us are unhappy, not because the Government have moved in the direction of this amendment but because they have not moved far enough. Without putting down amendments to his amendment, will the noble Earl consider between now and Report stage looking at the possession of firearms with a view to going rather further than this -present amendment? If he would communicate that in the usual way—namely, by a letter to me which is also placed in the Library so that anybody who cares to take part in this discussion can see it—we shall know whether it is sensible to put down further amendments at Report stage or whether, as I hope, this can be left to the Government.
The Earl of Caithness: I shall of course draw to the attention of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary the points that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has made. Notwithstanding what I have just said, I believe that there is a distinction between penalties with which we are dealing in this Bill and arrangements for control mentioned by the noble Lord which are perhaps matters for the proposed Bill to be introduced. Of course I am aware of what was debated in another place. I am also aware of recent meetings between the parties on this matter and I shall put forward to my right honourable friend what the noble Lord has said.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: May I, as the owner of a pair of shotguns which I hold perfectly legally, also ask my noble friend to remind his colleague that those of us who own shotguns for sporting purposes would be slightly alarmed if we had to get rid of one of them? And we cannot be expected to keep them in a club.
Lord Swansea: I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is a golfer. Some noble Lords may be. I wonder whether those who are golfers have ever tried to play a round of golf with one club. Firearms are used for many different purposes and in many different competitive disciplines. It is useless to talk of restricting ownership of firearms to one per person.
With regards to keeping them on club premises, not all clubs have their own premises. In any case, if they were so stored, a concentration of firearms and ammunition in one place would be a very tempting target for some bodies of which Members of the Committee will be well aware.
Lord Mishcon: Since I have been asked a question I must answer it. The standard of my golf is such that I find I do just as well with one club as with many. However, to take this matter more seriously, there are regulations proposed by the Home Office—in my view, very proper regulations—which govern the possession of knives and other instruments which can be used offensively. I feel that what has happened, unfortunately, at Hungerford, and could happen elsewhere, deserves at least the attention of the authorities with a view to seeing whether or not—be it at a club or through restriction of numbers—we have gone quite far enough in our restriction of firearms. That was all that I was asking the Secretary of State together with the Minister to consider.
Earl Bathurst: Does not the amendment of the noble Earl deal only with shotguns and not with having this relevant certificate thereof? That is a serious offence but it is not quite as serious as the kind of offence which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has described with regard to firearms. Firearms are not connected with this amendment. Would that be correct?
The Earl of Caithness: We are entering into a debate on shotguns and firearms which I hoped Members of the Committee would avoid until a later stage when the proposed legislation is before us. May I draw the Committee back to the amendment which is about penalties. I beg to move that amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Elwyn-Jones Lord Elwyn-Jones moved Amendment No. 57:
Page 24, line 22, leave out ("life imprisonment") and insert ("20 years").
The noble and learned Lord said: This can be dealt with briefly. Clause 39 of the Bill would increase from 14 years to life imprisonment the maximum penalty for two offences under the Firearms Act 1968 of carrying firearms in furtherance of crime. As a preliminary matter I ask this. Am I not right in understanding that the Police Federation—and, after

483
all, the police are liable to be in the front line in this situation—has expressed concern over what is proposed in Clause 39 as it may reduce any incentive for the armed criminal to refrain from using his gun and firing at the police as a means of escape? The possibility of receiving a life sentence for mere possession might well spur the armed robber or the rapist armed with a gun to kill anyone who might be a witness, or a potential witness, in order to increase his chances of not being tried or detected. The knowledge that he would receive just as severe a sentence for mere possession as for actually firing—namely, potentially life imprisonment—would be an added danger to those who have the responsibility for our protection and our care.
Instead of the penalty of life imprisonment, the amendment proposes to mark the gravity of this kind of conduct—it is very serious crime and there is a tendency for it to increase—by a term of imprisonment of 20 years. That ought to be a sufficient threat to deter. It ought not to run the risk of the Bill greatly increasing the dangers to those who are trying to enforce order. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: I do not understand the argument put forward by the noble and learned Lord. It seems to me that if a man might kill to avoid a sentence of life imprisonment it is quite possible that he would want to kill in order to avoid a sentence of 20 years' imprisonment. Therefore, there does not seem to be great validity in that argument. I support the Government on this matter.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: Surely there is a difference between life imprisonment and 20 years.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: Not for me!
Lord Elwyn-Jones: I am not talking about a sporting gentleman like the noble and learned Lord the former Lord Chancellor, whose dangerous practices with his guns everybody knows about!
Lord Monson: In common with distinguished noble Lords on what I think we still call the Alliance Benches, I gave notice that I would oppose this clause altogether because I believe the existing maximum penalties to be adequate, but I am attracted by the amendment put forward by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones. I think it represents a reasonable compromise between the position of the Government and what one might call the Liberal Cross-Bench position. I would support the amendment if the Opposition were to press it to a Division.
I cannot agree with the noble Lord, Lord Renton. If someone carrying out an armed robbery suddenly finds himself surrounded by the police, whether as a result of a tip-off or otherwise, and is well aware that he stands to receive exactly the same sentence whether he surrenders peacefully without a fight, without firing a shot, or tries to make his escape by shooting his way out of trouble—not necessarily shooting to kill but shooting to disable or to frighten—common sense suggests that he would
484
choose the latter course. If I happened to be a practitioner of armed robbery I feel fairly certain that would be my reaction.
Most armed criminals would choose to shoot their way out, not because they are inherently vicious, although they may be, but first and foremost because of the natural animal instinct for self-preservation, sharpened by a determination not to be sentenced to life imprisonment. Only the prospect or the probability of some lesser sentence is likely to induce them to surrender without a fight.
Another consideration—perhaps I am on dangerous ground here as I am not an expert—is that I imagine that determinate sentences are better for prison discipline and prison morale than indeterminate life sentences. Prisoners surely like to know exactly where they stand, however long the determinate sentence may be. It is interesting that this supposition seems to be confirmed by the great dislike of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, for indeterminate sentences, which he revealed to us earlier this afternoon while speaking to another amendment.
A third consideration is that the greater the number of crimes which attract a possible sentence of life imprisonment the more the unique and terrible crime of murder is devalued, assuming that life imprisonment remains the severest penalty for murder.
It is worth noting that, apart from the Police Federation, the Association of County Councils strongly opposes this clause for the reasons I have given. It makes two suggestions, one of which I do not think is a starter; but the other is worth considering. It is that greater use should be made of consecutive sentences. A criminal found carrying a gun could be given one sentence for possession of the gun and a consecutive one if he were actually to use it. Finally, I wonder whether the Minister when he comes to reply could tell us in what percentage of convictions for carrying a firearm with criminal intent over the past five years, let us say, the existing maximum penalties have been imposed. Secondly, have judges and other experts in the criminal law expressed their dissatisfaction with the existing maximum penalties which are available?
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: Perhaps I may point out to the Committee something which is perhaps not appreciated; namely, that already possessing a firearm with intent to endanger life carries a maximum of life imprisonment. To use a firearm with intent to resist arrest also carries life imprisonment. Surely it is right to keep some kind of balance between those offences. They carry life and other offences carry something less. This is surely the whole basis of sentencing policy.
There is one other reason for this amendment and not having life imprisonment; that is, that the number of lifers at the moment continues to rise as the years pass. Some 30 years ago the prison system had to deal with 140. Now the prison system has to deal with over 2,000. The number continues to rise and must do so. The proportion of sentences for non-homicide offences has risen from 6 per cent. to over 18 per cent. It seems to me that it is important not to increase

485
endlessly the number of persons who are sentenced to life imprisonment. This amendment is a cosmetic amendment, as we all know.
Lord Renton: Arising from what the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, has just said, we should bear in mind that we are not suggesting in Clause 39 a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment, but a maximum sentence to cover only the very worst cases. It could not possibly be very frequently that life imprisonment is awarded, but to cover the worst cases I think it should be on the statute book.
The Earl of Caithness: The Government believe that going armed while committing crime is in the first rank of gravity among offences. That is why we have proposed that criminals who carry firearms will be liable to the severest penalty. I believe that is also the view of the overwhelming majority of law-abiding citizens.
Crime involving firearms is still sufficiently rare in this country to shock us when it happens. Let us keep it that way. I believe it is our duty to give the clearest possible signal to the criminal, to the courts and to the law-abiding citizen that anyone who chooses to carry a gun for evil purposes does so at peril of the highest penalty the courts can impose for any offence.
The Committee has argued that the penalty for carrying a firearm and the penalty for using it must be different. It believes that Clause 39 removes the incentive to the criminal not to pull the trigger. Clause 39 is an incentive to the criminal not to carry a gun at all.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, prayed in aid the view of the police. It is true that when the criminal justice White Paper was published the initial reaction of the Police Federation was to fear that the incentive not to pull the trigger would be removed. But in its considered written comments, the Police Federation recognised the force of the argument for increased penalties though still voicing some concern at the lack of a further differential.
The Government do not think that the argument that the incentive not to shoot will be removed is a valid suggestion. We were also encouraged that the other police organisations who commented had no objection to the proposal and indeed were inclined to welcome it. It has been suggested that life imprisonment will never be needed for these offences. The proper test of a maximum penalty is whether it is justified in the worst case. Indefinite detention can be justified in the worst case of this kind to safeguard the public from highly dangerous people.
Let us suppose that the offender had previous convictions for using firearms and only luck or timely policing prevented him from using them again on the occasion in question. Is the maximum of life imprisonment really inappropriate in such a case? In practice, of course, the criminal will know that he will be punished in accordance with the gravity of his particular offence. A longer sentence will continue to be more likely if he uses a gun, and yet more likely if he wounds someone. If he goes as far as deliberately to kill, he knows that life imprisonment is inevitable.
486
The professional armed criminal will also be aware of the policy of my right honourable friend that those convicted of the murder of police officers or of murder in the course of armed robbery will not normally be released until they have served at least 20 years in prison. What the criminal must now work into his calculations is the risk of a longer sentence from the moment he puts the gun in his pocket. Parliament does not flinch from decreeing heavy penalties for evil crimes. Only two years ago noble Lords concurred in raising the maximum penalty for trafficking in Class A drugs from 14 years to life imprisonment. That was a clear signal of the severe view Parliament took of that appalling threat to society. I ask the Committee to show an equally determined response today.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, has suggested that 20 years would be a more appropriate maximum than life imprisonment. I have listened carefully to the arguments in support of that view and I believe they have a certain force, but I think that proposal falls short of what is required. To say that the maximum should be increased by a third does not make the point which the Government are seeking to make—that crimes involving firearms are not only more serious than other crimes but should be regarded in a different league altogether.
I would also draw the Committee's attention to the nearest equivalent offence on the statute book, that of aggravated burglary. Aggravated burglary already carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment and the justification for that is not questioned. It applies where a burglar has with him any firearm or imitation firearm, any weapon or any explosive, whether or not it is used. Clause 39 extends this principle to other serious crimes and I commend it to the Committee.
Before I sit down I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Monson, that I do not have the information in the form in which he asked for it. I have other information and therefore in order to answer his question I shall have to write to him.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: The noble Earl has referred to the view of the Police Federation that it would hope for an increase in penalty. That is precisely what the amendment does. At present the law says 14 years. The amendment proposes 20 years. Such information as I have suggests that the police are worried about what is in the Bill for the tactical reasons that I gave. I do not have any sympathy for those who carry firearms, but we must not worsen the situation by exposing the police themselves to the dangers which would flow from equality of punishment for possession and actual use of a gun.
The Earl of Caithness: Perhaps I may just make it clear that I was talking about the Police Federation's initial reaction. That was modified in its written comments. I said that the other police organisations which we consulted were in favour of our proposals.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: In the circumstances, I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 58:
Page 24, line 23, leave out from ("entries") to ("relating") in line 24.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 59:
Page 24, line 30, leave out ("subsection (1) above") and insert ("this section").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 39, as amended, agreed to.
The Earl of Arran: Before moving that the House do now resume, perhaps I may suggest that we return to the Committee stage at 8.35 p.m. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Fishing Vessels (Acquisition and Improvement) (Grants) Scheme 1987
7.33 p.m.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sanderson of Bowden): My Lords, I beg to move, That the scheme laid before the House on 3rd July be approved. With your Lordships' permission, it would be convenient to discuss the three instruments together.
In December last year the Council of Fisheries' Ministers agreed Council Regulation 4028/86 which continues with some modification previous measures to restructure the European Community's fishing fleet and provide for continuing financial assistance towards fish farming. The new regulation will run for a period of 10 years, although it will be reviewed after five years. The council regulation sets out the conditions under which member states may give financial assistance to the sea fish and fish farming industries and also provides for additional contributions from Community funds. These three instruments will bring EC regulation into effect in the United Kingdom and I would like to say a few words about each of them.
The most important scheme in terms of the proposed level of expenditure is the fishing vessels grants scheme. This scheme will extend earlier arrangements under which the fisheries Ministers are able to grant aid the construction and modernisation of fishing vessels. Our objective under this new scheme is to promote the modernisation of our fishing fleet, with particular emphasis on those vessels which make up our inshore and middle water fishing capacity, because the continuing prosperity of our fishing communities depends crucially upon this sector of the fleet. But there is a limited amount of fish to be caught so we have to ensure that modernisation does not significantly increase fishing capacity. We therefore have to tread a difficult path between bringing our fleet up to date on the one hand and holding down overall capacity on the other.
Perhaps I may briefly explain how fisheries Ministers propose to do this. First, we shall continue to use our licensing system to ensure that we do not introduce new vessels to catch fish stock which are already under pressure; and, secondly, we shall be
488
giving priority within the limited funds available to those applicants who undertake to withdraw a vessel from the fleet when a new one is introduced. Under the new scheme it is also proposed to reduce the grant rate for vessels larger than 33 metres in length to 10 per cent. and to restrict the maximum grant payable in respect of any vessel to £250,000. This will enable the maximum number of applicants to benefit from the available funds and is consistent with our wish to discourage any increase in fleet capacity through the introduction of large new vessels.
Apart from the larger vessels, the new scheme involves a higher rate of grant than its predecessor. The grant will be 30 per cent.—the maximum allowed by the council regulation—rather than the 25 per cent. under the earlier scheme. We made this change in order to compensate for the reduction from 25 per cent. to 20 per cent. in the available grant from Community funds. The potential overall maximum grant in most areas will therefore remain at 50 per cent.
The exception is the provision for higher grant rates for Northern Ireland and the West of Scotland. The council regulation stipulates that, in view of the particular problems of their fleets, successful applicants from Northern Ireland and the West of Scotland should receive additional assistance from Brussels some 15 percentage points higher than that available elsewhere. This will amount to grants from Community sources of 35 per cent. compared with 20 per cent. The Government support the underlying idea and consider it appropriate to allow the full rates of grant from both United Kingdom and Community funds to applications concerning vessels below 24 metres in length from these areas. These inshore vessels fish only local waters and their efforts bring direct benefit to the local economies. Larger vessels, on the other hand, operate more widely and could fish the same areas as vessels from England, Wales and other areas of Scotland which would not have benefited from the higher rates of Community grant. We have therefore introduced an abatement of 10 per cent. in the national grant rate for those Scottish and Northern Ireland vessels between 24 and 33 metres in length which receive a European Community grant. Their advantage is thus reduced to 5 percentage points compared with the 15 per cent. advantage available to the inshore fleet.
The Government are hoping to spend some £50 million on this scheme over the next five years. Demand for vessel construction and modernisation nevertheless seems likely to be greater than the available funds so it has been necessary to introduce a system of priorities for the allocation of awards. These have been agreed with the industry and preference is being given to applications concerned with urgent modernisation, replacement of vessels lost at sea and the replacement of vessels over 15 years of age, particularly where another vessel is withdrawn from the fleet.
The fishing industry has benefited from a capital grant scheme for many years and the continued availability of these grants has helped the fleet to adapt to the new opportunities available under the common fisheries policy and served to encourage the rejuvenation of the fleet to help it to operate safely

489
and efficiently. Over the three years from 1984 to 1986 United Kingdom fishermen benefited from some £23·5million in grants, and almost £11·5million in loans, plus a further £22·5 million of Community funding. This new scheme will allow the process to continue.
The second instrument, the Fishing Vessels (Financial Assistance) Scheme 1987, is designed to encourage vessel owners to investigate new fishing opportunities. Again its provisions reflect Community Regulation 4028/86. The scheme makes grants available towards the cost of approved exploratory voyages both to waters outside the Community and to waters of the member states where no Community legislation applies. The grants are restricted to vessels of 18 metres and above. Grants will also be available for joint ventures with non-member countries which involve the temporary transfer of vessels to third country waters. In the case of exploratory voyages, the Community will pay 20 per cent. of the approved costs and the Government 10 per cent. For joint ventures the grant will vary according to the size of the vessel and the time it is away. Payments from Community funds under this scheme will be matched by the Government
Your Lordships are no doubt aware that the Council regulation also provides for the continuation of grants for the decommissioning or laying-up of fishing vessels but we shall not be continuing with these measures in the United Kingdom. The earlier three-year decommissioning scheme successfully achieved a radical reshaping of the fleet and we feel that the limited resources we have available should be directed towards the construction and modernisation of fishing vessels; and although we shall not be carrying on with the laying-up grant scheme because it attracted little interest in the United Kingdom apart from a few instances in Northern Ireland, I would not rule out the possibility of introducing such a scheme if such a step should prove to be necessary later on.
The final instrument is the Fish Farming (Financial Assistance) Scheme 1987. This scheme provides fish farmers in Great Britain with a national grant rate of up to 10 per cent. to enable them to qualify for Community aid under Council Regulation 4028/86. This Community measure continues the previous arrangements under which the Commission could provide capital grants towards projects concerned with the construction, equipment, modernisation or extension of fish or shellfish farming units utilising salt, brackish or fresh water. The scheme does not extend to Northern Ireland where national backing is available from other sources. It also amends the Fish Farming (Financial Assistance) Scheme 1984 so that grants may be paid under that scheme in respect of projects approved by the Commission in December 1986 under Regulation 3733/85. The 1984 scheme had only provided for back-up grants to be paid on fish farming projects approved by the Commission up to 31st December 1985.
Regulation 4028/86 also provides assistance, for the first time, towards projects outside the Mediterranean area concerned with measures to protect and develop coastal fisheries resources. Such
490
measures may involve action to protect spawning or breeding grounds or to establish an environment attractive to fish and shellfish; for example, through providing artificial reefs or barriers.
This package of three schemes will enable our sea fish and fish farming industries to continue the important process of modernisation and development and benefit from significant levels of financial aid available from Community funds. As such, these schemes form an important part of our fisheries policy and I am pleased to be able to commend them to your Lordships and seek your approval of them.
Moved, That the scheme laid before the House on 3rd July be approved. [1st Report from the Joint Committee.]—(Lord Sanderson of Bowden.)
7.45 p.m.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, I am not sure of this but I think that this is the first time that the noble Lord has moved instruments in front of us and I think that maybe it is the first time that he has been at the Dispatch Box. Anyway, we wish him well and I hope to be quizzing him on perhaps more controversial matters than these.
I take the instruments in their numerical order and I should like to say a word about fish farming first. This is a big industry, as the noble Lord said, and it is growing, and growing with the help of grants. I understand that the grants are different in some areas. You can undertake fish farming inland, and some people feel that the inland areas, or the lowland areas, are not getting the same grants as the West of Scotland where most of the fish farming takes place. I wonder whether the Minister would care to comment on this.
There are always murmurings, and there have certainly been murmurings lately that fish farming, particularly for salmon, is being overdone. The animal lovers are suggesting that they are frankly becoming like broilers or like battery egg production. Neither of the two noble Lords is here tonight but I am sure that they will not object to my mentioning a discussion which I heard between them quite recently. The noble Lords, Lord Forte and Lord Sieff, were having a discussion as to whether farmed fish was as good as wild fish, particularly when it was smoked. It was quite interesting. The noble Lord, Lord Forte, said that he would not have any of the farmed stock in his hotels, and the noble Lord, Lord Sieff, was quite adamant that it was as good, if not better.
I met a fish farmer who put an interesting point to me. He said there was no stress in the killing of the fish from a fish farm but there was naturally considerable stress in line fishing and in net fishing of salmon. There was stress there, and that had an effect on the quality of the flesh. I happen to know that that is the case when killing animals, particularly cattle. One wants to kill them quietly and without any stress, and any old-fashioned butcher will tell you that that is essential if you want to have good meat. I just thought that I would make this point.
I understand that the Crown Commissioners have almost complete control of the leasing of the

491
foreshore and the seabed for this purpose and that sometimes they are a little sticky about it. Would the noble Lord care to comment on that?
Now I move to the main grants order, No. 1135. This continues the present grants and makes some increases, mainly, as the noble Lord pointed out, from 25 per cent. to 30 per cent., and naturally this is welcomed by everybody in the fishing industry in both countries and of course in Northern Ireland as well. The maximum is £250,000. May I ask the noble Lord whether that is the same as before? If it is the same as before, it is no use putting up the size of the grants and then fixing the maximum. That is not going to help somebody who is going for the maximum. I wonder whether he could help me there?
It is excellent that the work has to be done in the member state's country. This will help our shipbuilding industry, which is badly in need of more work. the point has been put to me that there are rather long delays in servicing applications. I know that this can happen in agriculture, and having to wait months and months after you have made a plan to do something is most frustrating. I wonder whether the noble Lord would care to mention that.
I think that the noble Lord mentioned—and I was going to ask him this—that the decommissioning grant has been stopped. I gather that this is mostly because there were too many malpractices. This seems a pity, because of course it helps the situation if people want to go out and decommission a boat.
The one fear—and I think the noble Lord mentioned it—is the question of overfishing. The more efficient you make a boat the more likely it is to catch more fish, and the more boats that are made more efficient then the more fish that are caught. That brings me to the next order, No. 1136, which is to entice people with grant for boats over 18 metres to go further afield and find fresh fishing grounds. This would help the situation.
I do not know but I cannot imagine, considering the amount of fishing that goes on—particularly from Spain, where they go all round the world, and all the other fishing—that there are new areas of fishing to be got, but perhaps the noble Lord has ideas as to where he would suggest that they should go. Certainly it would help our fishing boats over that size. We welcome these orders subject to the points that I have made.
I should like to make a further point which is perhaps not related to this matter. We are developing a tremendous amount of recreational work, particularly in marinas and suchlike. At the present moment the fishermen of Swanage are worried that the area in which they moor their boats and where their work is being done will be swamped by a marina. Does this come within the noble Lord's area? I see that he is shaking his head. The point had been raised by several fishermen from that area. No doubt it will come under some other body. I should like to keep it in the noble Lord's mind in case he can give any help to fishermen in those areas.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, as usual my noble kinsman has said many of the things that I was
492
going to say, but that will not stop me, as the Minister will be glad to hear, repeating them.
Dealing first with the order relating to fish farming, as I understand the matter we are giving a grant of 10 per cent. towards certain improvements. Can the Minister say how much the EC grant will be in addition to this? I do not think that is mentioned in the order but it will be interesting to know.
The point raised by my noble kinsman is relevant to the expansion of this industry. Nowadays when one travels round the beautiful areas of the west coast one sees large nets, enclosures and evidence of fish farming everywhere. There must be a point where this will be counter-productive to employment in the area if it spoils the tourist industry. It is a point that one should bear in mind. Perhaps this is not altogether relevant to the order, but I believe that the fish farming industry has done enormously well. It has been of great benefit to many areas, particularly those in the west. Might government assistance not be better directed towards marketing so that the industry does not run into the surplus problems which so many growing industries run into?
I have tasted farm salmon. I am not sure whether there is a difference in stress if one is killed one way or another. Either way I want to avoid it, but my noble kinsman may have a point as regards the lack of stress. These points may not be relevant to the order but they are relevant to the industry so perhaps the Minister could comment.
The same appears to be happening as regards the order for improvement and acquisition of fishing vessels. I assume from the order and from what the Minister said that we shall not grant-aid any more purse netting because that system could catch every fish in creation in a very short time. I approve of the direction of the order in that aid will go to the smaller boats. That will keep employment in the areas where it is needed. I shall be glad if the Minister will confirm that purse netting will not be grant-aided. A maximum of £250,000 still produces a boat with a pretty fair catching power. As I understand it, a boat will cost in the region of £1 million. In spite of the depreciation of money, that still appears to me to be a fair amount.
The other order is very interesting. As I understand the matter, the grants for joint ventures and exploration grants will be restricted to boats above 18 metres. Will the Minister say where he expects them to go and how the fish will be marketed? I think that assistance in marketing is more important than the finding of fish. I also welcome these orders, and for once I approve of what the government are doing.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, I should like to add my welcome of the orders to that of the two noble Lords who have spoken. I do not pretend to be informed in detail about shell fishing or salmon fishing. I believe that this is one of the most important growth industries in Scotland today and is of far-reaching importance to the economy of the whole country.
I should like to raise one point which has been raised with me. It is a curious situation that the Crown Commissioners give permission for people to farm. That seems to me to be outside what one

493
normally expects the Crown Commissioners to be engaged in. I am sure that they are admirable people but I sometimes wonder whether they are equipped to know the local conditions in certain parts of Scotland.
I should like to know what is the relationship between the Scottish Office and the Crown Commissioners or the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Is this the right way to deal with that part of salmon fishing development which is absolutely essential? I am given to understand that the Crown Commissioners have complete control of the bottom of the sea—to use a commonplace expression—for 12 miles out from low water. That control was never conceived in the original formation of the Crown Commissioners and I wonder whether this relationship is right.
To my mind the importance of the matter is that that is something which the crofters could do. The local people on the spot should have an opportunity of doing it, and the best way of achieving it is that they should have the opportunity immediately opposite their crofts. Is that matter being considered or are the Crown Commissioners dealing with a rotation as people make their application? I believe that this is an important matter and I should be grateful if the noble Lord could explain the situation today.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, for his kind wishes. This is not the first time that I have stood at the Dispatch Box, but it is the first time I have answered a series of questions with so many notes and it is difficult to check up on all of them.
I am pleased that all noble Lords who have spoken have generally welcomed what the Government are doing in this regard. Most of the discussion has been about fish farming and I should like to underline the importance that the Government attach to the whole of the fish farming industry. Noble Lords will understand that as a Minister at the Scottish Office I have an interest particularly in the growth and expansion of salmon fish farming in Northern Scotland and the islands.
I should like to deal first with the Crown Estates Commissioners because the noble Lords, Lord John-Mackie and Lord Mackie of Benshie, and the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, have mentioned their role. As has been surmised, their role is that they have control below the low watermark in coastal waters. The position of cages in the sea falls outwith the scope of planning controls because the courts have held that planning authorities' jurisdiction does not extend below the low watermark.
At present most seabed developments require a lease from the Crown Estate Commissioners as owners of the seabed. Applications for such leases are subject to a consultative procedure which ensures that the views of interested bodies are taken into account. Any developments on land associated with proposed sea-based fish farm developments are subject to normal planning controls. After much discussion in the earlier days, and moving rather faster than walking speed, we have had to consult with the Crown Estate Commissioners. Since
494
October 1986 there has been a change in the way they deal with these consultative procedures. For instance, advertisements about such applications now have to appear in local papers and there has to be a 45-day statutory notice period before any action is taken.
Implicit in what has been said is the question of whether the Government should extend planning control to sea fish farms, which I think is the interest of the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie. We have considered this matter very carefully on a number of occasions and proposals have been made to extend planning controls to sea fish farms, but we have always concluded that planning legislation is an inappropriate framework for exercising control of sea based developments, and extension of the planning function to territorial waters would have to embrace both development plan-making and development control; moreover, the preparation of a comprehensive sea use plan would have very considerable resource implications that would involve many authorities.
As regards development on land, the question arises of whether it is for local authorities to prepare and operate policies governing fish farm development. In fact we are watching this development very closely at the moment because, as has been made clear by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, who will understand that I am wearing my hat as the person responsible for tourism in Scotland, I see that as something that has to be kept under review. We will discuss at any time with any party the question of the extension of that vital industry. What we have to be very careful not to do is to stop it in its tracks. That is why the Government have taken that line about planning on the seabed.
I shall answer the various points that have been raised, but not necessarily in the order in which they came to me. It is perfectly true that there are variations in grant. I should like to give the House the position as it is at the moment. So far as grants under this order are concerned the normal situation as regards fish farms—and we are talking about normal circumstances—is that over the 10-year period the maximum grant is 25 per cent., with the exception of the West of Scotland where it has now been reduced from 50 per cent. to 40 per cent.
However, there are limitations on the applications. An application below £32,000 will not be considered in the overall capital expenditure, nor will one be considered above £1·1 million for a basic fish farm. However, if it is a hatchery and growing area for spawning, the amount considered in total goes up to £1·9 million. I hope I make myself clear on that matter since I was asked about what was happening to the actual figures for grants. I might add that over the past few years the area which has been most affected is the Highlands and Islands. As was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, perhaps things have been better up there than they have in other parts of the country. I shall not disagree with him. Nevertheless the problems in those areas are perhaps much greater than those in some other parts of the country.
There is one area that the Government are discussing with the Commission and on which we are making some progress; namely, trout farming. It is

495
not so easy to get what we want from the Commission, simply because the tonnage of trout in the European Community is more or less in balance whereas for salmon it is by no means in balance, but we are moving up quite sharply.
The question was raised about the figure of £250,000 being now a ceiling grant. It is not the same as before. There was no ceiling before. Every fishing vessel was looked at on its own merits to see whether it should receive a grant. We have brought this measure in quite deliberately to try to spread the amount of money for the reasons that I gave in my speech.
As regards the long delays, I have no doubt that your Lordships are aware that in June there was a general election, which played havoc with the timescale in relation to this matter of fishing vessels. One of the most difficult exercises has been to keep the shipbuilders, particularly those in places like Campbeltown, happy until we were able to process the grants. That has now been accomplished for this year. The sum of £17·5 million has gone in grants for fishing vessels. I am pleased to say that the requirements in most of the requests that have been made have been carried through. Certainly all the priority categories have been dealt with. I accept the point about long delays. I should have hoped that under normal conditions such delays would not have occurred but the general election intervened and that was the cause.
The Sea Fish Industries Authority, which is responsible for the issue and administration of these grants, worked extremely hard during August and by the end of August we were reaching the position in which the priorities were being considered and issued. I was asked where on earth one could go and look for fish. The scheme that I am outlining gives assistance to those who want to go further away to see if there are fish. Interest has been shown by one particular fishing company to go to the Falklands area to see whether, either by themselves or in co-operation perhaps with the Japanese, there may be business there. We are very keen on promoting that for the simple reason that the European Community now includes Spain, which, as your Lordships know, has a very large fishing industry and there will be constant and increasing pressure on stocks, so that we have to look absolutely everywhere. This instrument encourages people to go further away.
So far as concerns Swanage, as well as marinas, the leisure industry and the like, again wearing my tourist office hat, I have divided responsibilities but I have to admit that that is a responsibility of the Department of Transport. I shall be happy to pass on your Lordships' comments to my noble friend who deals in this House with matters in that area.
I think that I have given to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, the figures relating to grants. The maximum grant in fish farming is normally 25 per cent; it is 40 per cent. in the West of Scotland. I think I have answered the question concerning the problems of the Crown Estate Commissioners particularly in relation to the tourist industry.
The noble Lord mentioned one matter relating to purse-seiners and asked whether the grants would be
496
available for them. My reply is yes, because the scheme does not distinguish between the types of vessels that are eligible for grant aid. However, the 10 per cent. rate of grant for vessels over 33 metres in length, together with the maximum grant ceiling of £250,000, should ensure that a disproportionate amount of the limited funds available is not absorbed by such vessels, nor will it be possible to have topping-up grants to get round that matter and have more money put into the vessel. I take quite clearly the point made by the noble Lord and see the thrust of his argument. In the general context of my remarks about trying to ensure that the fleet that we are encouraging will not increase the capacity, particularly in such areas as purse-seiners, that is very much in the mind of the Government.
I think that answers the questions that were put to me and it only remains for me to commend the instruments to the House in due course.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down will he comment on the need to help in marketing?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, it is perfectly true that there is help for marketing. I have not looked through the papers to see exactly what it is. I am very keen on this issue. We are moving quite well in this area. From my discussions with the salmon fish farmers of the Shetlands it appears that they have taken on board the fact they have a year before the Norwegians come into the market again and perhaps give them more competition. What is perhaps more important is that, as the noble Lord will have noticed over the past week, the fish farmers in Scotland have combined with others under the aegis of Food From Britain but with their own slant to go ahead with marketing in a big way.
The noble Lord is right to point this out. The Government give every possible encouragement to marketing. It is clear that the speed with which the industry has grown brings in its train problems, one of which is to be able to sell fish at a good price. As the noble Lord will know, with salmon at £4,000 per tonne and an increasing turnover for salmon fish farmers, the business is a substantial one. The attitude of the Government and of the industry is to concentrate attention very much on marketing. Any help that we can give, we will.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, suppose that there is competition for one stretch of seashore between a local organisation and a large company, what sort of rules exist for deciding which should benefit? I believe it is important that local people should have some degree of priority. Can the noble Lord enlighten us a little on this?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I can do no more than pass on the comments of the noble Earl to the Crown Estate Commissioners. In the case of salmon fish farming, there is a mixture of small and large. In Shetland, it is all small and there are very few sizeable companies. It is useful, however, to have a balance between the big and the small. One has only to go to Fort William and see what is happening with the marine harvest development and the obvious

497
advantages to the economy, employment and so forth to realise that the subsidiaries of Unilever must exist along with the small people.
I am happy to pass on the comments. To my knowledge there is no batting order in regard to applications. Everything is considered on its merits at the time that planning permission is sought. Given the implication of the noble Earl that the small men should have a very good crack of the whip in respect to planning, I am happy to write to the Crown Estate Commissioners along these lines.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, given that the Crown Commissioners deal with the seabed and the foreshore and the local authority with the land, to whom would one go first if one wished to start fish farming? It is a problem. You can be turned down by one and be given permission by the other. What liaison is there between the Crown Commissioners and the local councils to ensure that there is a joint effort in granting planning permission?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, we are discussing two matters here. In the case of the seabed and salmon fish farming, one deals with the Crown Estate Commissioners. On the land, where the problem arises because one may need storage facilities, one deals with the local authority. The common denominator in the case of the Highlands area is the Highlands and Islands Development Board. That body assists with grants. Discussions have to take place. There are two different situations here, and that leads to the occasional problem. I assure the House that it is not easy.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Fishing Vessels (Financial Assistance) Scheme 1987
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the scheme laid before the House on 3rd July be approved.[1st Report from the Joint Committee.]—(Lord Sanderson of Bowden.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Fish Farming (Financial Assistance) Scheme 1987
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the scheme laid before the House on 3rd July be approved.[1st Report from the Joint Committee.]—(Lord Sanderson of Bowden.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.35 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.15 to 8.35 p.m.]

Criminal Justice Bill [H.L.]
House again in Committee.
Clause 40 [Increase in maximum term of imprisonment for cruelty to children and young persons]:
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 60:
Page 24, line 36, leave out ("ten") and insert ("seven").
The noble Lord said: I think we can all agree on two points. First, in this amendment we are not talking essentially about physical cruelty to children or sexual abuse of children. These crimes can be dealt with adequately, if the prosecuting authorities so choose, by existing laws governing assault, wounding, actual bodily harm, grievous bodily harm, manslaughter, indecent assault, rape and incest. What is essentially being covered is mental cruelty and mental bullying, neglect and what the NSPCC calls "failure to thrive", which I understand to mean starvation or semi-starvation. According to the NSPCC, this unhappy and shameful behaviour constitutes 10 to 12½ per cent. of all nationally recorded child cruelty. Because it is often difficult to prove compared with physical abuse, its actual incidence may well be higher.
The second point on which we can all agree is that, although the gravity of these non-violent offences varies enormously, the existing maximum sentence is undoubtedly too low. The question is: by how much? The Government propose quintupling the existing maximum sentence, which is an amazingly sharp jump by any standards. If the level they now propose is the right one, it surely must imply that successive governments over the past 50 years have been extraordinarily negligent—which is, of course, a possibility.
I do not suppose that mental cruelty and abuse has increased in recent years. Indeed, it is quite possibly lower today than it was 50, 100 or 150 years ago, if one thinks of the accounts one has read of famous people's childhoods. So we are left with, first, neglect and, secondly, starvation or semi-starvation. I wonder whether the noble Earl can tell us if these latter crimes have indeed increased sharply in recent years. If so, is this due to hard drugs, to soft drugs, to alcohol? Is it due to the instant gratification ethos, allegedly inspired by the late Dr. Spock? Is it due to the rising divorce rate? Is it due to the growing prevalence of so-called common law marriages, in which one partner has no actual kinship or emotional kinship with a child? Or, alternatively, is it because a high proportion of the parents and step-parents who behave in this way are people of extremely low IQ or are positively mentally retarded? If the latter is the case, one wonders whether 10 years spent in a conventional prison is the right punishment for people so mentally backward. Only when we have the answer to those questions shall we be able to judge whether the new maximum sentence—which was proposed at very short notice by the standards of most criminal law revision—is indeed the right one. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: Cruelty to children is, as the Committee recognises, an evil crime. I certainly

499
cannot agree with the noble Lord, Lord Monson, that 10 years is too harsh a maximum penalty. I understand that there are in fact few cases of cruelty to children which do not involve serious assault and so merit a charge of a more serious offence. However, such cases do exist, where there has been prolonged neglect of a very serious kind, or ill-treatment which while not actually involving serious physical assault is nonetheless very bad. Locking the child up for long periods in an extremely confined space may be an example. We must ensure that the courts have adequate sentencing powers to deal with those few cases. This was highlighted earlier this year by Mr. Justice Steyn in the case of Kimberley Carlisle, when he criticised the maximum penalty of two years as inadequate for cases in which cruelty was the only charge. We are talking about cases in which the offender is accused of,
"wilfully assaulting, in-treating, neglecting, abandoning or exposing a child in a manner likely to cause unnecessary suffering or injury".
A maximum sentence of 10 years puts this on a par with the penalty for maliciously administering poison so as to endanger life—I do not think that is unreasonable. I hope that on consideration the noble Lord, Lord Monson, will not press his amendment.
The noble Lord asked me why we had moved from what he considered to be a low figure of two years up to 10 years. I hope that I have covered that in my answer. We are dealing with a few cases but cases that, although few, are very serious and deserve a penalty of 10 years.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: Having heard that explanation from the Minister, I am bound to say that I agree that 10 years is not an excessive maximum, which is what we are talking about, for the gravest type of case. It really is a sad feature of our times, although these horrors may have happened before, that the public eye at any rate is more frequently drawn now to these abominations against our beloved children than has certainly been the case in my somewhat prolonged life. Therefore it is right that action should be taken.
The noble Lord, Lord Monson, is not an unsympathetic and inhuman creature, as I very well know, but in his submissions he did not deal with the allegation of the increase of the incidence of this kind of crime. Neither did the Minister. I wonder whether we can receive any further guidance on that lest the public become concerned that we may be moving towards excessive severity.
On the face of it the incidence appears to have increased, judging by the reports one sees of what goes on in the courts from month to month. It is, after all, a period when there can be no excuse for this kind of cruelty. Nobody can condone it because of difficult domestic conditions, hard though those may be. We are moving from ordinary neglect, perhaps due to lack of resources, to positive neglect and starvation or semi-starvation. We shall be ill judged if in this generation we do not take the most serious view of cruelty to our children of the kind that has been described. I support what is proposed in the Bill; namely, raising that maximum sentence to 10 years.
8.45 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: I regret to say to the noble and learned Lord that I do not have at my fingertips the figures that could answer the question that he asked me. I hope that he will accept that I shall write to him and to the noble Lord, Lord Monson, and that I shall of course place a copy in the Library. That may be the best way of dealing with that particular matter.
Lord Monson: I am grateful to the Minister for what he says about writing to me, and I look forward to that. He asserted that a 10-year maximum imprisonment for non-violent cruelty is not one whit too long: I am sure that he agrees that violent cruelty is already covered by other statutes. However, the Minister has not been able to explain, if that is the case, why the Government who, after all, have been in power now for over eight years have left it at one-fifth of that level all that time.
Nevertheless my amendment was essentially a probing one. It has elicited a bit of information and I hope it will elicit some more. Therefore I do not intend to take it any further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 61:
Page 24, line 36, at end insert—
("(2) Nothing in subsection (1) above shall effect the punishment for an offence committed before this section comes into force.").
The noble Earl said: This amendment simply ensures that the enhanced maximum sentence of 10 years will not apply to offences committed before this section comes into force which will be two months after the Act receives Royal Assent. I beg to move.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: That is obviously a fair provision and I am glad that the Minister has made that announcement.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 40, as amended, agreed to.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 62:
After Clause 40, insert the following new clause:
("Increase of maximum term of imprisonment on summary conviction of offences under prevention of Crime Act 1953 and maximum fine for offences under Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959.
.—(1) In section 1(1)(a) of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953 "six months" shall be substituted for "three months".
(2).The maximum tine that may be imposed for an offence under section 1 of the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959 shall be a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.
(3).This section shall not have effect in relation to anything done before it comes into force.").
The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 62, it may be convenient if I speak also to the related Amendment No. 277.
This new clause effects an increase in the maximum penalties for offences under two Acts which deal with the possession and sale of offensive weapons respectively. Currently the Prevention of Crime Act provides on summary conviction for a maximum penalty of imprisonment of three months and/or a fine of up to £2,000 for possession of an offensive weapon. It is usual for offences which are triable

501
either way, as this one is, to attract a maximum term of imprisonment of six months in the magistrates' courts. This amendment makes that increase and will obviate the need for a magistrate to commit to the Crown Court for sentence any offender whom he believes deserves a sentence of more than three months' imprisonment. I think the Committee will agree that any potential saving for the Crown Court is to be welcomed. While this is essentially a tidying-up exercise, the increase is entirely consistent with the Government's view that carriers of offensive weapons need to be cracked down on, and this amendment is entirely consistent with the package of measures we shall be discussing when we come to Amendments Nos. 226 to 229.
The maximum fine in the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959, which outlaws the manufacture and sale of flick knives and gravity knives, is currently set at level 4 on the standard scale, currently £1,000. The increase to level 5, currently £2,000, we believe is justified by the seriousness of the offence and brings it into line with the penalty for the similar offence of the sale of other specified offensive weapons which we shall be asking your Lordships to approve later during the passage of the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question. amendment agreed to.
Clause 41 [Corruption]:
On Question, Whether Clause 41 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Monson: Time and time again we have heard of the horrors and dangers of prison overcrowding and we have been warned of the absolute necessity of reducing the prison population in this country. But here in this clause the Government propose to raise the maximum prison sentence by a factor of no less than three and one half. Undoubtedly people convicted of the offence in question have been very naughty. Yet what is the point of sending wholly non-violent, mainly middle-aged men to prison for several years at enormous cost to the taxpayer and imposing ever greater strains upon the prison system in the process? Much less wasteful alternatives are available.
I do not for a moment argue that a custodial sentence may not be, arid usually is, appropriate for such a crime. Surely the right answer is a massive fine equal to two, three or four times any gains which may have been illicitly made, combined with a short, sharp prison sentence—with the accent upon short and sharp—or combined with a slightly longer prison sentence, only part of which is suspended. If in some way a community service order could be incorporated within the sentence, that would be particularly fitting for this offence. I was interested to see on the tape an hour ago that the Home Secretary was urging the much greater use of community service orders as an alternative to prison. I look forward to hearing the views of the Committee on the point.
The Earl of Caithness: The Committee will know that Clause 41 increases from two to seven years the maximum prison term for the two main statutory offences of corruption. At present the maximum term
502
is seven years only where the offence involves a public contract. The clause also provides for offences committed under the Public Bodies Corrupt Practices Act 1889 to be triable either way.
Those provisions give effect to the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Standards of Conduct in Public Life, chaired by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Salmon. It considered that offences not involving public contracts could be equally as serious as those which did involve public contracts. The disparity in maximum sentences was highlighted in the first of the Operation Countryman cases in 1982. The Recorder of the City of London complained in passing sentences on two of those involved that two years was the maximum he could impose, notwithstanding that the Salmon Commission proposed in 1976 that the maximum should be standardised at seven years.
The Criminal Justice Bill provides a legislative opportunity to effect the increase recommended and I hope that in view of this explanation the noble Lord, Lord Monson, will not press his opposition to the clause.
The noble Lord mentioned prison numbers. That is something which is in my mind every day. However, I think that notwithstanding that the clause might increase the numbers of people in prison, it is fair and equitable that a sentence should be seven years in order to keep it in line with equivalent sentences. Concerning the point about community service orders, which my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has again encouraged magistrates to use, that is a slightly wider area than this point.
Lord Monson: I appreciate the somewhat technical explanation given by the noble Earl. But he has said nothing about the suggestion of combining massive fines with short, sharp prison sentences. That still seems to me to be the answer for crimes which do not cause pain or suffering to individuals. This applies not only to this particular offence but also to many others. Of course bribery and corruption are thoroughly undesirable practices which should be strongly discouraged. But as I am making what is, in a literal sense, an after dinner speech, I cannot resist pointing out that governments of all political complexions practise electoral bribery as a matter of course. Taxes are invariably cut in the year preceding a general election; government contracts are awarded to firms with factories located in marginal constituencies and so on. This occurs not only in the United Kingdom but also in France, the United States, West Germany and elsewhere. Indeed, the entire common agricultural policy could be said to be one gigantic exercise in electoral bribery.
Governments may, and I am sure will, deny indignantly that their actions may have any affinity with common or garden bribery. They will claim that pecuniary advantage—the spoils of office—is the very last thing that they have in mind, and that all they are concerned with is the good of the country, which will certainly go to the dogs if the other lot comes to power. Whether the proverbial man from Mars would endorse that fine distinction, one cannot be sure. But having made my point, I shall leave it at that.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: I wonder whether the noble Earl has any evidence of the incidence of corruption. I see that the answer is no. It would illuminate our discussions if henceforth, when measures of this kind are brought before us, the Committee could know the extent of the mischief and the nature of the increased incidence, if any. Subject to that, I do not oppose the clause.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I share the views of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones. If we are invited to increase maximum sentences, I think we should have information of that sort. I am sure the Minister will supply it before the Report stage.
The Earl of Caithness: I stand guilty. I apologise to the Committee and I shall rectify the situation as soon as possible.
Clause 41 agreed to.
Clause 42 [Increase in penalty for insider dealing]:
On Question, Whether Clause 42 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Monson: I start by saying that my noble and learned friend Lord Wilberforce entirely supports my opposition to the clause. Most of us thought that the clause would be considered yesterday. Alas, that was not to be, and my noble and learned friend unfortuantely has other commitments this evening.
There are a number of reasons for opposing the clause. The first is that a more appropriate and efficient sentence would be, as in the case of the last offence we were discussing, a massive fine combined with a short. sharp, non-suspended custodial sentence.
The second reason is rather more complex. People in the City who are both highly respected and highly respectable—the two are not always synonymous—claim that insider dealing is a victimless crime. Although I cannot go along with them on that, I think it is fair to say that no single individual stands to lose very much as a result of insider trading. Indeed, the outsider may actually gain should he happen to be buying at a moment when the insider buys or selling at the moment the insider sells.
The third reason is that the whole issue is riddled with grey areas. If somebody picks up his telephone, gets a crossed line, as happens more and more often since the privatisation of British Telecom, and hears that such and such a company is about to produce disastrous results and rushes to sell his stock, is he then an inside trader? One supposes he must be. Should he really he liable for seven years' imprisonment in consequence of that overheard conversation?
Another grey area is the dealing by directors in shares of their own company. As a perennial outsider as far as public companies are concerned, I am always annoyed to read that directors of companies in which I hold shares have sold at the peak, just before poor results are to be announced, or bought just before unexpectedly good results are announced. Yet it seems that directors always manage to produce some legitimate reason for doing so.
504
The fourth reason is that the Government have only themselves to blame for the prevalence of insider trading. Despite protestations made over the years, short-term capital gains continue to be taxed at a maximum of 30 per cent.; earned income and partnership income is taxed up to 60 per cent: and long-term gains on assets acquired prior to 31st March 1982 can be taxed at well over 100 per cent. in real terms, because of the obstinate refusal of the Government to index the gains on assets acquired before that date. It is almost as if the Government had set out deliberately to encourage short-term speculation and to discourage plodding, long-term investment. I am sure that that is not what the Government actually intend. But it is an inevitable product of their fiscal policy. It is worth noting that capital gains tax was originally conceived to deal purely with short-term capital gains.
The fifth reason is one, I understand, which particularly exercises my noble and learned friend Lord Wilberforce. It is that the Government have not been prepared to wait and see whether the existing legislation works. Until two years ago, insider trading was not a crime at all. Instead, it was a disciplinary offence within most City firms. Those who, unlike myself, are in a position to know claim that since insider trading became a criminal offence action to clear out wrongdoers has become much more difficult, chiefly because of the much more positively hard and fast evidence required for a successful criminal conviction.
Raising the length of sentence will not help matters in this respect. The existing law has only been in effect for two years and three months: it is far too early to evaluate its effects. Why this sudden rush to change things? One cannot help suspecting that transient—and I emphasise the word "transient"—media hysteria may have pushed the Government into an almost panic decision. Most other changes in criminal law take years to be brought about. Insider trading is the "anti-flavour" of the month, as it were, the wormwood of the week.
Fair enough. But it is not a proper basis, in my submission, for legislation. Let us wait another year or two to see how the 1985 law, as it stands, works before deciding whether it is right to change it.
9 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: Insider dealing can be a major financial crime akin to issuing misleading statements about investments, or manipulating the market, as specified in Section 47 of the Financial Services Act 1986. The maximum term of imprisonment on conviction on indictment for these offences is seven years and the Government believe that the maximum term of imprisonment for the worst cases of insider dealing should be the same. That is the answer to the noble Lord, Lord Monson, as to why we have done it. It is important that we show overseas governments the seriousness with which the United Kingdom regards insider dealing. It is a practice which more of them are beginning to regard as a crime which should be eradicated from the world's financial markets through international co-operation and by adequate powers for investigation and sentencing at home.

505
That is why the earlier Bill was amended with all-party support in another place, to increase the maximum penalty to seven years. Raising the penalty also means that under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act insider dealing becomes an arrestable offence. The powers may not always be needed but the clear signal is given that those crimes are not placed in any protected category and that those who commit them will face the full force of law and the full powers of the police. From some statistics I can tell the Committee that the total number of prosecutions since 1980 on insider dealing is eight. On corruption, in 1985 40 people were sentenced under the two Acts compared with 76 in 1983. Of those, 19 were given immediate custody and 13 suspended prison sentences.
Notwithstanding those figures, I think it is right that the maximum—and as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, said, we are talking about the maximum—should be increased. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Monson, will no longer pursue his opposition to this clause.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: Once more I venture to support the noble Earl on this matter. This is an insidious crime which can be very damaging to the reputation of our commercial society. I think that what is proposed is not excessive for the severest and the most pernicious cases. It is a maximum penalty and that must be borne in mind.
Lord Monson: The Minister has pointed out that under the clause as it has been drafted, the crime of insider dealing becomes an arrestable offence. I think that is the strongest leg of his argument, with respect. The normal practice, surely, is to see how an existing law works out before changing it. This law has only been in effect since 1st July 1985 and it is far too early to see.
It is curious though perhaps not totally without precedent to alter a maximum penalty by such a large factor within such a short space of time before evaluating the working of the existing law. Nor has the Minister, I fear, dealt with the points made by experts on the subject. I am certainly not an expert, but the experts point out that before insider trading became a criminal offence far more people were brought to book and sacked because of the more lax rules of evidence required for such a course. In a sense, the criminalisation of this offence is making it harder to detect.
However, in view of the rather surprising lack of support for my views, or even contributions to the debate, I shall obviously not pursue the matter any further.
Clause 42 agreed to.
Lord Harris of Greenwich Lord Harris of Greenwich moved Amendment No. 63:
After Clause 42, insert the following new clause:
("Reduced penalties tar burglary and theft.
(1) The following section shall be substituted for section 7 of the Theft Act 1968—
"7. A person guilty of theft shall on conviction on indictment be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years."
(2) The following subsection shall he substituted for section 9(4) of the Theft Act 1968ߞ
"(4) A person guilty of burglary shall on conviction on indictment he liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years.".").
The noble Lord said: In moving the amendment, I should perhaps begin with an apology for not having been here for the last 24 hours or more. Although I had some amendments down in my name, as a result of a bereavement in my family I had to leave London for that period.
The amendment I am moving is unlike some of the propositions we have been asked to agree to in this Bill. We have been cheerfully agreeing to increase the maximum sentences for a number of crimes. some of them serious crimes and some where no doubt the argument is substantial for increasing the sentence. But it is a little ironic that we are spending our time increasing maximum sentences and at the same time complaining about the substantial increase in the size of the prison population.
This new clause which I am moving on behalf of the All-Party Penal Affairs Group would have the effect of reducing the maximum penalty for burglary from 14 years to 10 years and the maximum penalty for theft from 10 years to seven years. My first argument for this amendment rests on the exploding numbers in our prison system. I do not know the present figure. It has hovered between 48,500 and 50,000, and it has gone over 50,000. Earlier this month up to 1,300 prisoners were kept in police cells because there are in fact no spaces in remand prisons for unconvicted prisoners. Therefore, that in itself is a reason why this amendment deserves serious consideration.
Secondly, to a very substantial extent it more than balances some of the significant increases in the maximum terms of imprisonment which we have agreed to over the past four or five years. Thirdly, there is an additional argument. It was, I believe, six years ago that the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee said in its report on the prison service:
"Should the efforts now being made by the Home Secretary and other parties to change the direction of sentencing policy fail to bear fruit within a reasonably short time, we believe that Parliament should grasp the nettle and further limit the maximum length of sentences by statutory means".
That was six years ago and since then prison numbers have risen by several thousand.
There are of course two ways in which we can affect numbers in prisons. First, we can provide where it is appropriate for the early release under supervision of more prisoners; secondly, we can by legislation reduce maximum penalties in appropriate cases. No one can, I believe, underestimate the relevance of the issue we are discussing tonight in terms of the numbers convicted of such offences and held in our prisons. On any day no fewer than 9,000 prisoners—no less than a quarter of the entire sentenced population—are in prison because they have been sentenced for offences of burglary. A further 7,500—
one-fifth of the sentenced population—are there because they have been convicted of theft. We are therefore discussing tonight offences which approach half of the entire sentenced prison population.
It may be said that that is true, but most sentences passed for these offences are well below the

507
maximum. Thus, it may be argued, a reduction in maximum sentences will have remarkably little effect. I do not accept that argument. I believe that were Parliament to indicate that the maximum sentences for these non-violent offences should be significantly reduced it could well be reflected in the length of some sentences both for burglary and for theft. Given the very high proportion of people in prison having been convicted of these offences the effect on prison numbers could be substantial.
If sentences in the categories I have discussed were to be reduced by an average of just one month, allowing of course for remission and for parole, it is estimated that the average daily prison population would be reduced by about 2,000. Such a reduction in our prison population would immediately empty every police cell in this country and there would be a balance left over. On that basis there is a substantial argument and I look forward to hearing what the noble Earl has to say. I beg to move.
Lord Hylton: Having spoken earlier today and having urged that we need to make a serious effort to reduce our total prison population, I am bound to support this amendment. It is true to say that our sentences in this country are on average longer than those in most of Western Europe. Therefore, this is a small step in the right direction.
Lord Hunt: I rise to support the amendment. I believe it is true that every committee which has reported on the penal system during the past 10 years—we have the Advisory Council on the Penal System in 1977, the May inquiry in 1979 and the Home Office Research Study No. 35—has pointed out that longer sentences are no more effective as deterrents on individual offenders than are shorter ones and that much would be gained and nothing lost by scaling down the tariff of prison sentences. Would the necessary legislation bring this about? That is a key point in this amendment. As my noble friend has pointed out, we are talking here about offences against property; not against the person and not corruption or fraud.
That contention for shorter prison sentences has had the support of the Magistrates' Association, the Justices' Clerks' Society, the All-Party Penal Affairs Group, the prison governors' branch of the Civil and Public Services Association, the Chief Inspector of Prisons, the Prison Reform Trust—I could go onߞand every voluntary body which is expert and involved in penal reform. In its 1985 report The Sentence of the Court, the Home Office supported that view.
We are talking about the maximum sentence laid down in the Theft Act. For those who favour longer sentences being imposed on individuals guilty of that category of offence, as a general deterrence to others, I shall quote the 1972 report of the Advisory Council on the Penal System on the length of prison sentences. It stated:
"Evidence about the effectiveness of general deterrence is regrettably scant. Research findings are difficult to interpret and are inconclusive.
508
No further evidence in support of the theory of general deterrence has been adduced to my knowledge within the past 10 years. Despite all the reports and authoritative opinions, no legislative action has been taken to bring about a general lowering of prison sentences. No government appear to be willing to risk offending public opinion or, dare I say it, arousing the fury of the media—the clamour of the popular press—by what could be mistakenly interpreted as a soft attitude towards crime.
The Bill is surely an opportunity which we should not miss to move in the general direction current in many other countries in Europe and urged by so many people who are knowledgeable about crime and penal policy. The lowering of maximum penalties is a necessary step to set the tone, and to set this movement in train.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Silkin of Dulwich: I wish to say a few words in support of the amendment. The argument about the number of people in prison has been raised and supported by several noble Lords. There is no need to dwell upon it. I agree with what has been said. But in addition I support the amendment on other grounds, in particular that of consistency.
As far as one can, one tries to ensure that sentences for different types of offences are consistent with one another. No doubt that was in the mind of the Home Secretary when he included in the Bill the series of amendments with which we have just been dealing. It is interesting to look at those changes in the law in relation to this amendment.
In Clause 39, we have the penalty of life imprisonment for the possession of firearms. That is understandable in the context of the harm that could be done by that offence. In Clause 40, we now have a penalty of 10 years' imprisonment for cruelty to children which falls short of physical cruelty. That is a serious offence and one finds a penalty of that nature, which is above the penalty for theft, understandable. In Clause 41, we come down to seven years' imprisonment for corruption and for insider dealing.
To try to achieve consistency, we must compare the offences with which we are now dealing with those offences. I should have thought that a simple offence of theft is much more in line with the offence of corruption and insider dealing than with cruelty to children. Equally although burglary must necessarily attract a higher penalty than simple theft, because it involves entry into someone else's building, it should not be so much beyond the 10 years for cruelty to children as to put it in a much higher category. It seems to me therefore that the levels which are set out in this amendment are entirely in conformity with those which the Government have put forward for other offences in this Bill. I should have hoped that the Government would see the logic of that and agree to accept it.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: Before the noble Earl replies I should like to support what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Silkin, has just said and to remind the noble Earl that it was no lesser a person

509
than the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, who said in a notable debate earlier that consistency with regard to sentencing is the name of the game. I strongly support what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Silkin, has just said.
In addition to that, I remind the noble Earl of the Home Secretary's own words in January this year. Of course it is important to punish violent offenders, but he said that it serves no useful purpose to send more people to prison than need to be there, or for longer than necessary.
The Earl of Caithness: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, for raising this matter. This Bill makes a number of changes in maximum penalties for offences which, thankfully, are committed relatively rarely, and it is no bad thing to look critically at the maximum for two of the most common offences.
Perhaps I may deal with these in the order in which they arise in the noble Lord's new clause. Apart from minor motoring offences, theft is the most common offence of all. Each year, over 300,000 people are found guilty of or cautioned for theft or handling stolen goods. It ranges widely in seriousness. As we noted when debating the new clause tabled by my noble friend Lord Elton, some thefts are very minor indeed. The fine is by far the most commonly used penalty for theft, and the courts have recourse to an immediate custodial sentence in little more than 10 per cent. of the cases which come before them; rather less if one takes account of cautions.
However, some thefts are much more serious in character. They may involve very large amounts of money or priceless property, or they may have been perpetrated in a highly organised or particularly distasteful manner. It is, I think, important to bear in mind that the maximum penalty should be sufficiently severe to enable the courts to deal adequately with the worst imaginable case. Sentences of more than seven years for theft are extremely rare, but they are occasionally imposed.
For that reason, I am afraid that I cannot support the noble Lord's amendment, although I sympathise with his reasons for bringing it forward. It is also argued that a lower maximum penalty might encourage the courts to impose custody less frequently and for shorter periods. One cannot of course be sure about this, but I rather doubt if that would necessarily be the case. Imprisonment is, as I have said, used in only a small minority of cases, and the terms normally imposed are very much less than the 10-year maximum.
The Court of Appeal has given guidance to the courts to the effect that for offences such as theft, where an immediate custodial sentence is necessary it should be as short as possible. The Government strongly support that view. The prisons ought not to be used for minor offenders who can be dealt with in other ways, and we are anxious to encourage the fullest use of alternatives to custody. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary commented further on that this evening in another situation. But the courts must have the option of longer periods of imprisonment to deal with the more serious
510
offenders, and given the wide range of behaviour covered by the offence of theft, some of these—though not many—will be thieves.
Burglary is, generally speaking, a significantly more serious offence, because—particularly when it takes place in a private residence—it can be so invasive and damaging to the victim. Again, as with theft, the courts in practice resort very rarely to the most severe custodial sanctions, although custody as such is used more frequently. Of the 70,000 people convicted of burglary in 1985, some 24,000 received an immediate custodial sentence.
Again, I can understand the thinking behind the noble Lord's amendment and I am bound to look carefully at any proposal which is argued to hold out the possibility of easing the pressure on the prison population. But, again, I rather doubt if that would be the effect. Perhaps more important, the fear of burglary—particularly among the elderly, and the harm that does to the victim, lasting long beyond the time of the offence itself is so great that I believe that if we in Parliament appeared to downgrade its significance the public would be rightly dismayed.
I therefore cannot encourage the noble Lord to expect government support, though in view of what has been said and the unanimity of what has been said in support of the amendment of the noble Lord, I will draw it to the attention of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary and my honourable friend Mr. Patten.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: The noble Earl will not be totally astonished to hear that that, in the view of many of us, was a profoundly unsatisfactory reply. Of course it is right to say that there is a fear among the general public concerning people who burgle their houses and people who steal. That of course is true. The question is not whether there is fear and justifiable fear but whether sentences as long as these—which the noble Earl argues are very rarely utilised—should be kept on the statute book. He says two things. First, in relation to theft, the language he used, if I took a correct note of it, was that courts must have the option for longer sentences. But what is inherently right about the existing 14-year and 10-year sentences respectively? With great respect, he has not argued that. Neither has he dealt with the points made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Silkin.
I do not propose to prolong this discussion. but if we were to take these arguments seriously and accept the view that courts must very nearly have an unlimited discretion in these matters, we should be seeking a maximum of life imprisonment for nearly every offence in our criminal law, which would be manifestly absurd.
The noble Earl has said—I fear I have used the phrase myself once or twice in this Chamber—that he will report the matters which have been raised to his right honourable friend the Home Secretary. I very much hope he will do that. I believe the Government deserve the support of the Committee in terms of dealing with an exceptionally difficult situation in our prisons, but they will not receive totally uninhibited support from the Committee if they neglect to listen

511
when there has been nearly a unanimous expression of opinion in this Chamber. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 43 [Repeal of s. 134 of Magistrates Courts Act 1980]:
On Question, Whether Clause 43 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Hylton: The noble Earl when replying to the last amendment mentioned the seriousness of
512
burglary from private residences. I am sure we all agree with him on that. He went on to speak of the possible harm to elderly occupiers of houses and flats. There again no one would dissent. But I should like to ask the Government to consider at leisure whether the penalties for burglary of industrial, commercial, non-residential premises, could be reduced, even while keeping at their present level the penalties for burglary of private dwellings.
The Earl of Caithness: I should he happy to consider what the noble Lord said.
Clause 43 agreed to.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich Lord Harris of Greenwich moved Amendment No. 64:
After Clause 43, insert the following new clause:
("Holding of prisoners sentenced to penal establishments
—(1) Subject to subsection (2) below, where a person is in the custody of a constable whose duty it is to take him to a prison, remand centre, youth custody centre or detention centre in which his detention is authorised by law, the person may not instead lawfully be detained overnight in the custody of a constable.
(2) The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument provide that subsection (1) above shall not have effect in an area specified in the order for a period not exceeding twelve months.
(3) No order under subsection (2) above shall be made unless a draft has been laid before Parliament and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is designed to deal with the situation in which police cells are being used on a routine basis to hold remand and, in some cases, convicted prisoners. It lays down that the Home Office can use such accommodation only when Parliament has given its consent by means of affirmative resolutions passed by both Houses of Parliament.
Let me say at the outset that the whole question of remanding people to the custody of the police is a relatively new problem. As far as I am aware (though no doubt the noble Earl will be able to correct me if I am wrong) it was used for the first time on a significant scale when the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, was Home Secretary. There was then serious industrial unrest in a number of prison department establishments and he took the view that the police should be asked to hold a number of prisoners. I believe that he was absolutely right to make that request and it was absolutely right for the police to offer their wholehearted co-operation, as of course they did.
This amendment would enable police cells to be used in an emergency of that character in the future. But what we are discussing tonight is not an emergency. We are discussing the routine use of police cells when there is not, thankfully, as I think the noble Earl will probably be in a position to confirm, a major industrial relations crisis. Some of us have seen with pleasure what has appeared on the tape this evening about the position at Wandsworth. I had intended to say one or two mildly controversial things about that but the problem appears to have been removed, which I think we all welcome, and there is thus not, as I understand it, an immediate industrial relations crisis.
Let me therefore set out the views of one quite important witness. I refer to the previous Home Secretary Mr. Leon Brittan. To avoid the accusation that I have taken anything he said out of context I will, if I may, quote in full this passage of his article in The Times of 4th January 1984. This is what Mr. Brittan said after a period in which a significant number of Home Office prisoners, if I may so describe them, had been kept in police custody:
"I have repeatedly said that the practice is highly undesirable. Police cells were not built to hold such prisoners. Their use causes hardship both to the prisoners and to their visitors, especially lawyers. Valuable police resources are tied down. That is why I decided last July that the practice should cease and set the end of 1983 as a target
514
for bringing it to an end…The position will certainly be tricky for a few months to come. I cannot exclude the possibility of using police cells again if exceptional circumstances arise. I am confident, however, that once the immediate period ahead of us is over, our more long-term policies will begin to have effect. Our prison-building programme, the reduction of the minimum qualifying period for parole, the other measures designed to divert some offenders from custody; all of these factors should ensure that the routine use of police cells for prison overflow remains a thing of the past".
That is what the then Home Secretary, writing with all the authority of that office, wrote at the beginning of 1984. Within 24 hours the prisoners were back in police custody all over again and have been there with a few fluctuations—probably over the Christmas and New Year periods—ever since.
The numbers have fluctuated. Between March and December last year the numbers in police cells ranged from 51, in the week ending 22nd March, to 282 in the week ending 13th December. Since then the numbers have risen very substantially indeed. We have to take note of this factor as well. Despite the relatively small number of women as a proportion of the total prison population of England and Wales, in some weeks very nearly half the people kept in police cells have been women prisoners. Many of these women will not be convicted of any offence; and of those who are, many will not be sentenced to a period of imprisonment.
Yet these unconvicted women—and of course men as well—are being kept in cells which are intended to be used for perhaps an hour or so before a court appearance, or at worst overnight. But they are being kept there now not one night, not two nights, but sometimes for weeks on end. As Mrs. Ursula Richey, a magistrate and member of the Board of Visitors of Holloway Prison, has said,
"in conditions of sensory deprivation from the outside world".
This is a deeply disquieting situation. We are worried, and when I say "we" I mean two groups of people: first, many members of this Chamber, from all parts, and I believe also the police service who do not want to see themselves becoming a second prison service. The anxiety of the police has now reached such proportions that in one or two cases they have invited in the press and television in order to see the deplorable conditions in which they are being forced to hold remand prisoners. There is of course the other consequence so far as the police are concerned that sometimes hundreds of police officers are being taken off the streets to be used as part-time jailers.
Then there is the other problem, the position of trying to construct a criminal defence when in fact a solicitor finds that his client, who will be appearing before the courts in London, has been taken in some cases—my noble friend Lord Hutchinson told me in one case to Bodmin—as far away as Cleveland and Durham. Sometimes lawyers find, despite all the help they get—which is sometimes considerable—from the prison department great difficulty in finding out where they are in the first instance. They find that sometimes there are so many solicitors phoning up to try to find out where their clients are, and in which particular police station they are being kept, that it takes about two days, I am told by an official of the Law Society, to succeed in getting through to find out where that prisoner may be held.
We cannot possibly go on like this. There is no point in the Government saying, as they have said on a number of previous occasions, that they very much regret and deplore this situation. We have heard that for the last four years. It is now time that we got some definitive assurances as to what in fact is going to be done to deal with what has become a truly scandalous situation. I beg to move.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: I rise to support this amendment. The parliamentary all-party group has reported upon the use of police cells for prisoners who have been sentenced or remanded to penal establishments. It is indeed a disturbing report. One of the purposes of this new clause is to require the Home Secretary to obtain annual parliamentary approval for the holding in police cells of such prisoners.
The practice of the use of police cells has been a cause of continuing concern not only to us in the House but to the police, the prison and probation services, the magistracy, the justices' clerks and the legal profession. The problem has been especially acute in London. As the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, has said, the majority of those concerned are remand prisoners who have not yet been found guilty by the courts. They may well be acquitted or at least dealt with in some non-custodial fashion. This is the grave feature of the matter. The all-party group report is to the effect that such prisoners are held in cells designed to hold people for only a few hours with facilities for exercise, washing, bathing and visits which are frequently entirely inadequate. The police do their best to make the conditions better but the report rightly states that it is quite wrong that the police should be asked to act as prison officers holding prisoners in premises that are quite unsuitable for the purpose.
In December 1982, six members of the Parliamentary All-Party Penal Affairs Group visited prisoners held overnight in cells in the Lambeth police garage and Camberwell Court. A report on the visit prepared by the, if I may say so, admirable clerk to the group, Mr. Paul Cavadino, read:
"The conditions in the cells underneath Camberwell Court are by far the worst in which I have ever seen prisoners held in this country. Two prisoners are held in a cell which seemed to me little more than half the size of a Victorian-built prison cell. One sleeps on a mattress placed on a bench along one wall while the other sleeps on a mattress on the floor. They are kept in these tiny cells for over 23 hours out of every 24, being allowed out in groups for half an hour's association in a room along the corridor if police manpower allows. There is no daylight anywhere on this floor and all the light is artificial".
About five years later Aileen Ballantyne reported in the Guardian of 24th January 1987, conditions for women held in the cells under the South Western magistrates' court in Battersea in very similar terms. I shall not anguish the House with further detail of that matter.
As long ago as 1983 the then Home Secretary, the right honourable Leon Brittan, faced with mounting concern about the practice, announced in a Written Answer in another place that he would eliminate the
516
use of police cells by the end of the year. He said:
"The use of police and court cells to hold prisoners is one of the most worrying day to day problems in the penal system. Prisoners held by the police cannot get all the facilities to which they would be entitled in prison, and they represent a burden that the police should not be expected to bear".
He then said that subject to unforeseen circumstances he would hope to see the use of cells for this purpose eliminated by the end of the year. There was a brief improvement at the end of 1983 but, as the noble Lord has said, between March and December 1986 the average number of prisoners held each night in police cells ranged from 51 in the week ending 22nd March to 282 in the week ending 13th December. Further statistics are then set out. Many of the prisoners are women. The highest number of female prisoners in police cells during the year was 134 on the night of 9th December. This year the total number has risen as high as 953 on 9th October and 1,372 on 19th October.
These conditions are appalling and must not be allowed to continue. They impose an intolerable burden on the police and a far greater burden and punishment upon those who are kept in such conditions, many of whom, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, has said, will not be subjected to prison conditions in the event of conviction. Therefore it is hoped by this requirement in the new clause that annual parliamentary approval should be obtained by the Home Secretary that at least Parliament will have some control over that appalling situation.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: Perhaps I may just add that I hope the Minister will not refer to the POA situation in the prisons as being the cause of this scandal. That is merely an addition to the problem. As the Committee has heard, this situation has existed for the past four years. It is to the main, basic problem that this amendment is directed. The POA business simply added to it and is totally irrelevant to the basic problem. If there are industrial disputes in the prison, as the Committee has heard, subsection (2) gives the Minister power to deal with them by coming to Parliament.
I hope also that the Minister will not object to the form of the amendment. We already dealt with that when we discussed statutory minimum standards and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Ryder, whom I am glad to see in her place, said, it helps to have a target. That is vital. One has a target in other legislation. It is worth legislating that, "No person should go to prison for a first offence unless", and, "No person under a certain age should be remanded to prison unless". That kind of legislation lays down the policy. It remains a target. It is an attack on the routine state of mind and the routine use of cells, which once it starts develops into a routine and normal situation.
If such a situation exists in legislation then it has to he dealt with on a day-to-day basis and one has to come to Parliament and explain why there is a scandal. Perhaps I may say that this is one of the greatest scandals of today on the social side of policy in this country.
The Earl of Caithness: The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, has directed our attention toward a subject which has given Home Office Ministers much cause for concern. Over the last 12 months I can personally vouch for that. I fully appreciate and indeed I share the concerns expressed so eloquently this evening. I accept that conditions in police cells are frequently quite unsuitable, although I should add that the police do their best to provide whatever facilities they can. I accept that there are far too many prisoners presently held in police cells and that the need to hold a number of them in police stations far from their home may cause difficulty and hardship.
I accept that holding prisoners in that way causes difficulties for the police and sometimes for the courts. In short, I agree that we should put an end to the present situation in which so many prisoners are held in police cells and we must transfer them into prisons, where they should be.
I am sure that all Members of the Committee would like to join me in thanking the police for all they have done in this situation. The recent situation has been exacerbated and we have had a large number of prisoners in police cells, but I think that the police have done a wonderful job. Certainly in my position I am extremely grateful for the effort that they have made and the co-operation that they give the Prison Department.
The question before us is how this practice could and should he achieved. As I shall explain shortly to the Committee, I do not believe that this amendment is the right way to go about it. Before I do so, perhaps I should explain why we find ourselves in this situation. The causes are twofold. First, this year our prisons have experienced unprecedented levels of overcrowding. Before the Home Secretary took action through the remission rules to reduce the number by some 3,000, there were 51,000 people in prison this summer. They were held in accommodation designed for only about 42,000. The local prisons and remand centres which would normally house those held in police cells were the most overcrowded of all.
Our prison building programme, on which I commented earlier in today's proceedings, on present expectations will answer that problem in the longer term. What we are doing immediately is to take imaginative measures to provide more places of the kind that we need within the existing prison estate. That is the first reason for the current situation, but it is by no means the most significant.
Last Friday in the South-East, the area most affected, 1,142 prisoners were held in police cells. At the same time about 1,000 places at a few prisons in the South-East were denied to us by industrial action by the Prison Officers' Association. As the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, has observed, the position is now more encouraging. We have heard this evening that industrial action at Wandsworth has been temporarily suspended. However, I wish to say to the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, that, following my right honourable friend's announcement in July, we were on course to reduce the number in police cells to zero. We had reduced it from 700 to 200. Had it not been for industrial action,
518
I have no doubt that with our plans we would have reduced the number to zero. I hope that we shall shortly see numbers in police cells reducing dramatically as the prisons involved begin to operate at capacity once again.
The point I now wish to make is that neither of these factors—overcrowding or industrial action—would in any way be affected by this new clause, for the new clause does nothing to remedy the underlying causes but goes straight to the symptoms. The amendment begins by saying in effect, "Never mind why prisoners are held in police cells or what would happen if they were not. Let's just make it unlawful to do so and that will end the mischief". The amendment then goes on, presumably recognising that there might well be circumstances where there is nothing for it but to tolerate the mischief, to allow the Home Secretary to seek the specific approval of Parliament to hold prisoners in police cells in specified areas for a limited period.
What would be achieved by that? Would Parliament deny the Home Secretary such authority if the only alternative to holding prisoners in police custody was not to hold them at all, to let them go free? That is the choice we face at present. At best the new clause would remove an element of much needed flexibility and introduce delay at a point where delay can least be tolerated. At worst it would seriously inhibit the rule of law with courts having to release persons whom they wished to commit to custody, because there were no places available in prison.
There are other reasons besides overcrowding or industrial action why prisoners may finish up in police cells. When courts are at some distance from a local prison it may simply not be practicable or even in the interests of the prisoner to convey him to the prison late at night after a late court sitting. It might he even more difficult in hazardous weather conditions. In such circumstances it may he in the interests of all concerned to hold the prisoner overnight at a police station. The new clause would put an end to that in practice.
Nobody wants to see prisoners held in police cells, least of all the prison service. They are used only when there is no realistic alternative. Without them, however, the prison service would be wholly unable to respond to some of the situations with which it is faced from time to time. In that sense the proposed new clause would not be helpful.
Indeed, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, reminded us that those held in police cells are most usually those remanded in custody, those innocent until proven guilty. That merely supports the point that I was making on Amendment No. 53. This matter has horrified me as I have grown to understand a little more of the job.
I fully understand that the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, was not able to be present in the Chamber, but I direct his attention to our discussion on Amendment No. 53 where I hope that he will find some encouraging words. I agree that it is totally unacceptable to have prisoners in police cells from Durham to Cornwall. I hope that the action we are taking, which I described earlier today and just now, will convince Members of the Committee of our total determination to eradicate this problem.
Lord Hylton: Some of the noble Earl's remarks could be considered to be sympathetic on this matter, but the upshot is disappointing. I was particularly surprised and disappointed that he did not mention anything about greater use of the Bail Act, and much more widespread, large-scale use of bail hostels, bearing in mind that they do not necessarily have to be owned and operated by the Government but can also be put into action by voluntary bodies. I invite him now to say something about both points.
Baroness Seear: May I support what the noble Lord has just said, particularly in relation to women held in police cells. I fully accept that the noble Earl the Minister is appalled by what is going on and wants to do what he can to make things better. But what have the Government done in the way of increasing hostel accommodation for holding women on bail? You can get houses; you can convert houses. I was visiting the Griffin Society's provision only the other day. It is true that it is for after-care, but it is the same principle. You can convert houses into bail hostels. There is totally inadequate provision both for holding women on bail under reasonable conditions and for after-care.
If you can stop the number of people who return to prison, and the number of women who return to prison, because they are unable to re-establish themselves in society after they come out, you will drastically cut the number of people in prison. How many proper after-care hostels do we have? There are a few voluntary societies nobly struggling to make some sort of provision, but it is a miserable drop in the ocean. Theirs is a noble effort. If only the Minister would throw his weight behind getting more bail hostels and more after-care hostels and would divert some of the money going into building prisons into providing housing under those conditions, then we would begin to see some progress. Will he tell us that he will at least try to look into this matter and attempt to do something about it?
The Earl of Caithness: The noble Lord. Lord Hylton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, have raised the very important point of bail hostels. I should like to commend the work with which the noble Baroness is associated. It is highly respected by the Home Office and, indeed, if I may call the association to which she referred a pressure group, it is a more powerful pressure group because of its experience in this field and not merely a paper pressure group.
Since 1980, we have increased by over 300 the number of places in bail hostels, and Clause 116 of the Bill empowers the courts, when granting bail on condition that the accused resides in a bail hostel, to include a requirement to observe the rules of the hostel. This will, we hope, make it easier to arrange placements in hostels which the courts can accept as a satisfactory basis for bail.
We have drawn to the attention of local benches with exceptionally high rates of remand to custody that the use of remands is unusually high and have asked them to consider the reasons. This is the beginning of what I mentioned on Amendment No.
520
53, which is the serious effort that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary and I are making towards remands, more of which I hope to be able to tell your Lordships before too long. It would be wrong to inform the Committee before matters are completely finalised, but as soon as I have more encouraging news, which I am sure I shall be able to give, that will be the time to mention it.
10 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I fear that the noble Earl has convinced remarkably few people by the answers he has given this evening. Indeed, were we to contrast the statements he has made with great sincerity on a number of previous occasions with statements made by his predecessor, who also expressed deep regret and deep alarm, we would see that three or four years later we are hearing exactly the same thing, except that the 40 or 50 have become 1,200 or 1.300. Where is it going to stop? I accept, of course, that there have been problems in London. I accept that immediately. The new clause provides for precisely that situation. I would never argue that the drafting of any new clause or any amendment is impeccable but it sets out a system whereby Parliament would be invited annually to give its authority to what everybody now accepts is wholly undesirable. That is what the Minister says, what Mr. Whitton says and, I am quite sure, what the present Home Secretary says. Everyone accepts that it is unsatisfactory. but are we going to do anything about it?
In answer to the anxieties which have been expressed the Minister said two things. He paid a warm and unqualified tribute to the police for the wonderful job that they have done. We all agree with those words, but I must tell him that many chief officers of police are becoming deeply angry about what they are being invited to do. The situation that they see arising is dealing not with temporary problems such as the odd prisoner who is going to be kept overnight because it is inconvenient to take him to prison. What they resent is the arrival of 20, 30, 40 or 50 prisoners in counties which are 150 miles from the Metropolitan Police district and having to take their own policemen off the streets in order to deal with that influx of remand prisoners. I do not overstate the case. There are many chief officers of police who are becoming deeply alarmed about what they are being asked to do.
I come to the Minister's second argument. He said that there was not much point in passing this amendment because were Parliament to be invited to pass this resolution, who in Parliament would vote against it? Who would vote against the Home Secretary having those powers? If I may say so, that is not quite as powerful an argument as the Minister seems to imagine, and for the following reason. Let us look at one other example of an annual resolution which has to be approved by both Houses of Parliament. It is a totally dissimilar matter. It is the Prevention of Terrorism Act.
It is easy to see that there are many obvious dissimilarities between the Prevention of Terrorism Act and this new clause; of course that is true. However, I speak as a person who was a Minister when this Bill went through Parliament in the first

521
instance. The pressure which falls on the Home Office every year when these resolutions fall due to be debated is massive. Just consider how many inquiries have had to be instituted by Home Secretaries into what has been going on under the terms of the Prevention of Terrorism Act in order to reassure Parliament that everyone is behaving reasonably.
I believe that were there to be a requirement of this kind on the Home Office it would have the most remarkable effect in terms of concentrating minds in that department of state. Therefore I do not consider that that second leg of the argument is a very powerful one.
My noble friend Lady Seear raised the question, as I did previously, of women prisoners. It is deeply disturbing, as we both said, that such a high proportion of the prisoners now being kept in police custody are women. As I have indicated, that figure stands some weeks at nearly 50 per cent. I do not think that Parliament can just cheerfully let that go by year after year. As we know, many of those women have been remanded in custody because they are largely mentally disturbed people and the courts have frankly no idea what to do with them. That is why they are remanded in custody in such numbers. I can think of no circumstances where it is less appropriate to keep people in wholly unsuitable accommodation in police stations than in the case of mentally disturbed women. That view is echoed by many chief officers of police.
The Earl of Caithness: I am grateful to the noble Lord. I did not deal with that point and I apologise. I do not have the exact figures in the last 10 days or so because of the problems we have been facing. However, if memory serves me—and I shall write to the noble Lord if I am wrong—following what the Home Secretary announced in July, we reduced the number of women in police cells to zero. I think that the last time I looked, we had one woman on a very short-term basis, who was moved into prison. Therefore, the action that my right honourable friend took at that stage was highly effective. However, I could not agree more with the noble Lord when he says that the sitation we were in was very wrong.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I welcome that and no doubt the noble Earl will be able to write and tell us the up-to-date situation. Certainly the situation I outlined obtained for a very long period of time and the figures I gave stated precisely the numbers of women involved.
I should like to say to the noble Earl that many of us are simply not prepared to allow the situation to go on much longer in this particular way. Obviously I will not press the matter tonight. However, I think that the Government will have to accept the fact that they will at some stage have to vote us down on this issue. No doubt they can arrange that. However, Ministers are going to have to accept full personal responsibility for what is going on. I think that we have accepted too tranquilly what has been going on. It is time for the Committee to become
thoroughly bad-tempered about it.
522
Having said that, and having indicated that we will certainly come back at a later stage, I ask the leave of the Committee to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 44 [Suspended and partly suspended sentences on certain civilians in courts-martial and Standing Civilian Courts]:
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 65:
Page 26, line 25, leave out subsection (5).
The noble Earl said: Amendment No. 65 simply seeks to remove the words no longer required. The definition in subsection (5) is now contained in Schedule 9. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 44, as amended, agreed to.
The Earl of Longford The Earl of Longford moved Amendment No. 66:
After Clause 44, insert the following new clause:
("Parole Board to review life sentences after ten years have been served.
The following subsection shall be inserted after section 61(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1967—
"(1A) Without prejudice to his earlier release under subsection (1) of this section, the Parole Board shall advise the Secretary of State on the release on licence of every person serving a sentence of imprisonment for life after he has served ten years of his sentence and thereafter at intervals not exceeding five years.".")
The noble Earl said: This is an issue to which the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and I have attached great importance for a number of years. We are also speaking in line with suggestions and recommendations from the all-party penal affairs committee. It is an issue, in our view, of great importance and this is not the time of night to press it very far. I shall be asking leave to withdraw the amendment, having explained its nature and possibly getting some indication of the Government's attitude. However, I think it is something which the House as a whole should have a chance to study.
We are dealing here with life prisoners and with mental torture in some cases and mental distress in many cases, as compared with the physical distress which exists in overcrowded prisons. We are talking in this case of people who are left in prison for many years without hope. I think that they are denied hope unnecessarily.
There are many kinds of life prisoner. Noble Lords such as myself have visited them for any years. I believe that I am on visiting terms at the moment with about 10 such people, including one for rape, one for buggery and one for IRA offences. Whether one is in touch with such people or not, one is well aware that the conditions vary enormously. I think we are all aware that a high proportion of such people come out of prison in under 10 years. So we are not talking about that large section of the life prisoner population; we are talking about those who serve more than 10 years.
As to whether they ought to be given a chance to be considered, I would only submit that the provision of hope is the supreme advantage, the main glory of

523
the whole parole philosophy. If you deny hope to long-term prisoners you are in my eyes committing a grievous sin. If I say to a man, or if one lets it be known, that he will be in prison for many, many years, in some cases for 20 years without even being considered, one is committing just that grievous sin.
We shall be told that the case is considered by the Home Office, but I am afraid I cannot consider that a dispassionate view, in spite of all my admiration for the Home Office and for its various ministerial leaders. The first opportunity that comes to a prisoner of being considered by a dispassionate body is when the local review committee considers the case, and it is likely that the governor is a member of that committee. Certainly one other member of the committee will have interviewed the prisoner. If he is considered there, he goes to a central committee, which of course has not seen him, thus pursuing a very odd form of judicial process and providing no reasons for its decisions. At any rate that is the present arrangement. I am very glad to think that the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, a very highly regarded former minister at the Home Office, is looking into the whole system. However, I am not going into that system tonight.
Your Lordships might think on the face of it that there is no possible argument against what I am suggesting, but there is one argument which must be touched on in my few remarks. The argument which has been and which will be brought forward on occasions is that it is raising false hopes if you say to a man for whom a judge has recommended 30 years' imprisonment that he should be considered after 10 years; you are leading him up the garden path and giving him the idea that perhaps he might be released after not much more than 10 years. Of course the train robbers, as I mentioned this afternoon, were given 30 years and they were released after not many more than 10 years.
If you are going to pay slavish attention to these recommendations of the judges, then you are in a very difficult position. But that is an issue which was raised this afternoon and no doubt we shall come back to it again and again, so I shall not pursue it further this evening.
Let us leave out the question of the judges and look at the matter from the point of view of the official attitude expressed on the only occasion when there was an opportunity for expression by the noble Lord, Lord Beaverbrook. I tried to let the noble Lord know that I would be referring to him, but this is an official ministerial statement, which I mentioned to noble Lords opposite, so I hope I am not doing anything wrong in quoting what was said by him. He was drafted in at rather short notice, I remember, to make a statement for the Government. This is what he said, speaking for the Government, in reply to a debate that I raised at the end of November last year:
"Secondly, in considering all the circumstances of cases involving life sentence prisoners the board"—
that is, the parole board—
"is bound to take account, as it always has, of the requirements of retribution and deterrence, whatever its assessment of risk. In doing so, it will no doubt take account of any view expressed by the judiciary or by the Home Secretary, but it is certainly not bound by them, and in no sense is it resentencing such an offender". [Official Report, 4/11/86; col. 1091.]
524
That is perhaps a matter of semantics, but here at any rate is a trial with all the considerations taken into account which would be taken into account at a trial, except that the prisoner is not seen by anybody, any members of the court, and they have no reasons to give to him afterwards.
That is how it was described by the Minister on the last occasion, but of course nothing is said there about public opinion. Yet we are led to conclude now that very serious attention will be paid to public opinion. Therefore I do not want to repeat what I said this afternoon about the tabloids, and I shall draw to a close in a moment. I would, however, like to submit that if we do not accept an amendment of this character, even though the drafting could be improved, we are saying to a prisoner, "After 10 years you have no chance at all of coming out, however well-behaved, however good your prospects. Therefore we are not going to be bothered to see you and we do not want to raise false hopes". That would be an utterly inhuman and revolting attitude. I cannot believe that the humane Minister opposite wishes to be connected with that. However, I intend to ask leave to withdraw the amendment because I believe that the House as a whole should have these arguments properly deployed before it.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: I support this amendment, which bears directly on the policy which was instituted by Mr. Leon Brittan: a policy which in my humble opinion has done more harm to the prison system than any other single act by a Minister over the past decade. How it was possible overnight to lay down rules that life-sentence prisoners in certain categories of offender not because of the person but the category of the offence, should not have their sentence reviewed by anybody in authority for 17 years—that is, three years before the minimum time of 20 years—is completely inconceivable. To play cat and mouse with human beings simply for the purposes of political expediency is completely unforgivable.
This amendment deals with that inhuman situation which should never have happened at all. Knowing that the Minister is a man of humanity, as the noble Earl said, is it possible for him to continue in the office which he holds, leaving people for 17 years in prison with no hope and with nothing to look forward to, when we all know that the only hope for a long-term prisoner is the possibility of parole and the time when eventually he will come out?
I do not want to be too emotional about this matter, but the human condition involves emotion as well as reason. I suggest that the Minister, when dealing with such matters, must bear in mind emotion as well as reason. One need only consider a child growing up from one year to 17 years of age to have some concept of what it means to sit in prison for 17 years. To never have anyone visit at any stage to ask how you are getting on, how you are dealing with your sentence, what has been your behaviour, what is your family situation, and what matters have to be taken into account to see whether you should be eligible for parole, is an act of inhumanity which is difficult to describe. For those reasons, I support this amendment.
Baroness Ryder of Warsaw: From what I have heard this evening it seems that we have clearly concentrated our thoughts and our attentions upon the prisoner. That is only right and proper. However, we should also remind ourselves of the victims. What do we think of 17 years in regard to a person who has been murdered, or a person who has suffered distress which is quite beyond all comprehension or explanation?
I have had the privilege of visiting non-German prisoners in different prisons all over Europe. I do not wish to bore the Committee again, but I can only say that they comprise many different groups. First and foremost, there are people who commit such crimes that they should not be released into society. They do not belong in society. I am sorry, but I believe firmly and strongly about that. From all possible medical evidence it seems inevitable that they will commit further crimes.
Secondly, there are those who do not feel any sense of remorse. However, I do not suggest that we should not consider and counsel them. It is bad to generalise. I was not present earlier in the debate, when the Committee probably did not generalise. We should consider those people who have suffered from the offenders. Let us keep the matter non-party, as I am sure it is intended to be.
I plead for those people who have been so distressed that they will never recover. We do not have the severity and cruelty in our law that is seen in prisons in many other countries. There are double life sentences. People have no hope of even having one life sentence commuted. I thank the Committee for listening to me.
Lord Hylton: We should certainly consider the victims. I should like to pay tribute to the schemes devised by NACRO and other bodies for victim support. However, there is another consideration. In the case of life prisoners, we must think about their wives, relatives and families. If life sentences cannot he reviewed for many years, what incentive is there for the family to remain loyal to the prisoner? Very little, I think. On behalf of the families I appeal for careful consideration of this amendment, which I should like to support.
The Earl of Caithness: As the noble Earl, Lord Longford, knows, the sentences of all life sentence prisoners are kept under review by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. I know that he will say that is not enough for him, but it is a fact. The noble Earl would wish to go beyond that, and say that there should be a formal review by the Parole Board after the first 10 years of sentence if there has not been one earlier, and a further review at least every five years thereafter.
I am not persuaded that automatic reviews would serve any useful purpose. The present procedures ensure that cases are regularly considered and not lost sight of. Furthermore, there would be certain disadvantages. I cannot think that it is either fair or kind to raise hopes in a prisoner whose crime was so grave that he really cannot be seriously considered for release for very many years. A prisoner's case ought not to be reviewed until there is at least a
526
realistic prospect that this might lead to a recommendation by the Parole Board that he should be released.
The noble Earl, Lord Longford, talked about the provision of hope. A local review committee review involves reports being prepared on the prisoner by prison staff. He is told of his rights to make representations to the LRC. The probation service is asked to report on the home circumstances and to support a possible release plan. That may involve interviewing members of the prisoner's family, who will then have its expectations raised that the prisoner's release is imminent.
What can be more cruel than raising expectations in that way'? Where expectation has been raised, one can imagine the deep anguish caused to the prisoner's family when it discovers that he is not to be released, and in some cases may not be released for many years.
My experience comes from the letters that I have received when people have been turned down for parole. I am not talking about life-sentence prisoners particularly. After the three-month period that it takes for the LRC and the referral to the Parole Board, prisoners have their expectations raised. They anticipate that they are going to be released and, if the decision is unfavourable, I regularly get letters from the families saying how disappointing it is. It is a very difficult letter to have to write to say, "I am sorry. It is not a right, it is something that has to be considered by this independent body." We therefore have to think extremely carefully when we come to life sentence prisoners about raising the prospect of hope when there is no realistic chance of the Parole Board recommending a release.
There is also a danger that an unrealistically early review of a case involving a particularly serious crime would give rise to adverse publicity that could be of no advantage to anyone. The fact that a prisoner's case was to he reviewed would inevitably be interpreted to mean that the prisoner might soon he released and no amount of explanation or denial would remove that suspicion. One can imagine the reaction if it were thought that a person who had sadistically murdered a child was being considered for release after 10 years.
In every case where a formal review date is set for several years ahead, the Home Office will review the case on the basis of full reports from the prison at least every three years. Prison governors have been asked to report at any time any special circumstances or special progress made by a prisoner. In any event Ministers will review every case where a life sentence prisoner has been detained for 10 years. In practice therefore, and contrary to the impression given, cases are reviewed more frequently than the noble Earl proposes in his amendment but in a way which causes no distress to the prisoner or to the outside world. I believe that that is a very good system and I hope that the noble Earl will not press his amendment.
The Earl of Longford: All of us must congratulate the noble Earl on the gallantry with which he, not alone but almost alone, has sustained the burden of the arguments of the last two days. I see him there like Horatius standing on the bridge whence all but he

527
have fled—though the noble Earl, Lord Arran, has not fled, so the noble Earl has at least one supporter— and I am bound to say that he looks more and more tired as this evening goes on. That is not unnatural. I should have "conked out" many years ago. I cannot expect fresh thinking; certainly we have not had it from him in these last few remarks.
As I said earlier, I shall be returning to this subject. I am very grateful to those who have supported this amendment. The noble Baroness, Lady Ryder, will forgive me if I say that, when listening to her, my mind wanders away from her speech and I think of her wonderful achievements. Those are what stay in my mind. On the subject of victims, in order to curry a little favour with her, as far as I can remember there have been only five main debates on victims begun in this Chamber and I have started four of them, including the introduction of a Bill. Perhaps she will therefore exonerate me on that front. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Arran: I beg to move that the House be now resumed.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at half past ten o'clock.

  UNCTAD: CONFERENCE CONCLUSIONS
  UNCTAD: CONFERENCE CONCLUSIONS
  ECSC GRANTS
  ECSC GRANTS
  NORTHERN CYPRUS: TELEPHONIC COMMUNICATIONS
  NORTHERN CYPRUS: TELEPHONIC COMMUNICATIONS
  FOOD ADDITIVES
  FOOD ADDITIVES
  DAIRY INSPECTION CHARGES IN THE EC
  DAIRY INSPECTION CHARGES IN THE EC
  EAST NORTON BYPASS
  EAST NORTON BYPASS