Sitting of 28 October 1987

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  ABERDEEN HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
  Considered: to be read the Third time.
Oral Answers to Questions
  TRADE AND INDUSTRY

    British Telecom
    Dr. Reidasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he last met the chairman of British Telecom; and what matters were discussed.
    The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister of Trade and Industry (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): I have not yet met the new chairman of British Telecom. I had to cancel my appointment with him yesterday because I was engaged in proctracted Airbus negotiations. I hope that I shall meet him in the near future.
    Dr. Reid: May I express regret at the difficulty that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is having in arranging a meeting? I know that he will have difficulty in getting through to the chairman on the telephone.
    When the right hon. and learned Gentleman meets the chairman, will he reflect and admit candidly what a disaster privatisation has been for British Telecom? Will he admit to him and to the House that privatisation has meant low staff morale and low standards of efficiency and service? The only things that have not got lower are the quarterly bills. Will he express his frustration that, in the face of this disastrous performance, we have no power to intervene? Privatisation has meant a loss of millions of pounds to the taxpayer, a loss of power to the House and a loss of standards for consumers.
    Mr. Clarke: I agree with the director general's recent report and his comments that the standard of performance is not good enough and needs improving. I am glad that British Telecom is reintroducing standards of quality statistics at regular intervals and is setting itself targets and co-operating with the director general to see what can be done to remedy the matter. I do not accept that it is any consequence of privatisation. Our telephone service has not been perfect for many years, and there has been a decline in performance at the same time as a rise in demand and expectations that must be met. The process of privatisation, with growing competition and consumer choice, will help to improve the quality, and not work in the opposite direction.
    Mr. Hanley: When my right hon. and learned Friend meets the chairman of British Telecom, will he congratulate him on Telecom's decision to include postal codes in future telephone directories? Will he also pass on to the chairman the disquiet felt by many of my constituents who, for the first time, will have to pay for London telephone directories in the 01-area? They will have to pay £8 per set, and that is not a good advertisement for the efficiency of privatisation.
    Mr. Clarke: I shall certainly pass on to Mr. Vallance my hon. Friend's praise and strictures, which are both matters for the commercial judgment of British Telecom.
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: In addition to the points raised by the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid), will the Chancellor ensure that he relays to British Telecom the anger that many companies feel about being charged additional costs for repair and maintenance of lines? Such lines are often vital for export businesses. That has been the case in my constituency, and I am sure that it is the case elsewhere, too. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman ask British Telecom to review this aspect of its policy?
    Mr. Clarke: As I understand it, companies will continue to recieve the service that they pay for in their quarterly rentals. Those who require a higher quality, shorter notice and priority fault service will now have to pay for that. It was never free. Previously it was paid for by all subscribers. Now it will be paid for by those who receive it.
    I understand the concern in Scotland about the telephone service. I trust that the hon. Lady shares my pleasure that Mercury has recently introduced its services in Scotland two years ahead of schedule.
    Mr. Favell: One of the difficulties that my right hon. and learned Friend had with the privatisation of British Telecom was in ensuring healthy competition. Is healthy competition also at the forefront of his mind in connection with the proposed merger between British Airways and British Caledonian, because that one company would be 10 times as big as all its British competitors put together?
    Mr. Clarke: Competition in telephones is governed by our guarantees on the duopoly which will exist until 1990 in order to give Mercury time to become established. Then we will look at the prospects of widening the field still further. I know that my hon. Friend has strong feelings about the airlines merger, but he will realise that we are awaiting a report from the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.
    Mr. Stott: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is bound to be aware of the welter of criticism directed at British Telecom over the last 12 to 18 months by hon. Members, the general public, the National Communications Union and Oftel. As I spent all my working life in British Telecom, this decision is disappointing and very saddening. The Minister must be aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) was absolutely right when he said that these problems and poor performance are a direct consequence of privatisation and nothing else. As the Government are major shareholders in British Telecom, will the Minister use his influence to try to get British Telcom management to improve the quality of service? We must ensure that manpower levels in the industry are

    283
    raised in line with the recommendations of the telecommunications unions. If this were done, the quality of service—[Interruption]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Question please.
    Mr. Stott: If this were done, the quality of service would improve and customers would get the standard of service that they require.
    Mr. Clarke: I am quite prepared to join in the criticisms of British Telecom as long as they are fair and recognise the efforts of the director general and the management to remedy matters. I have already welcomed some of the recent steps and the targets that British Telecom has set for itself. The hon. Gentleman's charge that privatisation has caused all the difficulties is quite ridiculous. Although not the only contribution, the biggest single contribution to the troubles this year came from the strike held in defence of overmanning and restrictive practices. It is obvious that if the hon. Gentleman were responsible for British Telecom he would want to reintroduce to British Telecom the old overmanning and Spanish practices.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I am anxious to have more hon. Members asking questions than we have had in the past. May I ask for brief questions, leading to briefer answers?

    Rural Areas (Funding)
    Mr. Spellerasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will seek powers to offer access to European Community funding to rural areas of deprivation like north Devon which do not have assisted area status.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Robert Atkins): North Devon is entitled to support from the European agricultural and social funds. The assisted areas must have prior claim on the regional development fund.
    Mr. Speller: Does my hon. Friend accept that although agriculture is a vast and important industry in the west country it is not the only one and that many areas are desperately disappointed that, despite good ideas, they get no assistance with pump priming, which is so necessary to get outside private capital? Many of us feel that for the wrong reasons European money is not available to us. It is not right that all the money should go to inner cities or to other areas. Good ideas should be supported, wherever they come from.
    Mr. Atkins: I am aware of my hon. Friend's commitment to solving the problems that he so cogently argues. As the House knows, in its proposals for the reform of EC structural funds the Commission proposes concentrating on structurally less developed and declining industrial regions. What this means in practice for particular regions has yet to be fully worked out. I shall, of course, negotiate strongly for United Kingdom interests, especially those of my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Wigley: Will the Minister make sure that any changes in United Kingdom regional policy do not create a reason for the European Community not making available for development in rural areas that are suffering from deprivation the funds that have been coming
    284
    forward? Will he give an assurance that if the Government pay more attention to inner cities that will not be at the expense of the rural areas?
    Mr. Atkins: As the hon. Gentleman knows, although we in the Department of Trade and Industry have ultimate responsibility for regional aid, in the first instance we accept the advice, after consultation, of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales. The points made by the hon. Gentleman will have to be looked at. We have said that in any review which entails asking questions and seeking answers, a number of answers may come to a number of questions. We shall have to wait to see what they are.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that drawing lines on a map in any rural area, particularly north Devon, in no way indicates the situation on either side of the map? Does he accept that frequently one finds that areas that do not require assistance receive it and that other areas that on any fair basis should receive assistance do not? Can we get away from this nonsense of drawing lines on maps?
    Mr. Atkins: My hon. Friend will be aware that there was a considerable review and that the final map, produced in 1984, incorporated representations from Members of the House and from various regions. At the moment it is not in my mind to change that map, which is based on travel-to-work areas, which, although they have their limitations, none the less are the best building block that we have available at the moment.

    Life Assurance Policies
    Mr. Butterfillasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he is satisfied that the revised approximations of the surrender value of life assurance policies proposed in the revised Lautro rule book will give sufficient information to allow investors to make an informed choice of policy; and what observations he has received on the above matters from the Director General of Fair Trading and the National Consumer Council.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate and Consumer Affairs (Mr. Francis Maude): Subject to the Secretary of State's statutory responsibilities in respect of competition, it is for the Securities and Investments Board to satisfy itself about the adequacy of Lautro's rule book. The Director General of Fair Trading is at present considering the competitive effects of Lautro's proposed rules and will report to the Secretary of State in due course. No observations on these proposals have been received.
    Mr. Butterfill: My hon. Friend will no doubt recollect that the subject of surrender values has been of considerable concern to the constituents of many hon. Members and was the subject of considerable debate during the Committee proceedings on what is now the Financial Services Act 1986. Will my hon. Friend undertake to consult urgently on this matter, since it seems to me that at present the Lautro rule book is most unsatisfactory?
    Mr. Maude: I hear what my hon. Friend says. I stress again that this is a matter for the SIB and for the Director General of Fair Trading. We have a statutory duty to consider the director general's report in due course and to

    285
    consider the request of the Securities and Investments Board for consent to recognise Lautro. It would be wrong of me to comment in advance of receiving those representations.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Do the proposals in the Lautro rule book enable investors to understand the background to those companies in which they are perhaps investing their money? Would investors in insurance policies know that it was the double-crossing Prudential that sold out 4 per cent. of its Matthew Brown holding and enabled Scottish and Newcastle Breweries to move in and threaten the future of jobs in my constituency?
    Mr. Maude: The hon. Gentleman draws me into another area upon which, as he understands, legal responsibilities prevent me from commenting. The first matter he raised is one that the Securities and Investments Board will consider.
    Mr. John Greenway: Does my hon. Friend accept that the surrender value of a life assurance policy cannot be guaranteed and that recent events on world stock markets highlight the fact that, for many investors, a with-profits life assurance policy represents the best option, given that it provides many guarantees—unit-linked and other policies—where the direct relation between the value of funds and stock market prices can be all too difficult?
    Mr. Maude: The point that my hon. Friend makes is undoubtedly one that the Securities and Investments Board will consider.
    Mr. Gould: With the City now in the throes of a stock market collapse, is not the failure to bring fully into effect the Financial Services Act a gross dereliction of duty by the hon. Gentleman's Department?
    Mr. Maude: The hon. Gentleman, when he has time to consider, will realise the fatuity of that observation. He knows that this is a complex structure that has to be brought into force at the right time. There is absolutely no point in having the wrong system in place earlier. It is much better to get the right system in place. It will be brought into force at the earliest opportunity. He will know, in any event, that a large number of powers under the Act are already in force and being used.

    Research and Development
    Mr. Robertsonasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what support the United Kingdom is giving to the framework programme of research and development in the European Community.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I made clear our support for the framework programme at the Council of Ministers on 28 September when it was adopted. Thanks in large measure to our encouragement, the programme concentrates on the priority task of improving Europe's industrial competitiveness. The British research contribution to this European research effort is second to none.
    Mr. Robertson: The Minister knows that that is ludicrously complacent and that the delays and obstructionist actions of the Government since they originally put the spanner in the works of the framework programme have led to damaging delays and the break-up of new groups and has allowed the Japanese and the Americans to take advantage of the scarcity of research.
    286
    Will he undertake to fight the short-sightedness of the Prime Minister on this issue and make sure that the £289 million that was taken out of the European framework research programme is put back into it right away?
    Mr. Clarke: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's description of our role. The main contribution that we made to the discussions was to try to make the programme focus more clearly on genuine industrial priorities. We had very much in mind the need to compete with Japanese and American business on a European scale. I believe that we were principally responsible for improved targeting on key areas, such as information technology, industrial technology and telecommunications. The withholding of £289 million, which is pending settlement of the EC's overall budgetary decisions, will be reconsidered in the light of progress at the Copenhagen summit. It is not possible to go forward with any of these European programmes without having some regard to the overall budgetary disciplines of the European Community and the budget as a whole.
    Mr. Barry Field: I recognise the importance that the Government place upon research efforts, including those of the EEC. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that British industry needs to make much more effort in investing in future technology? For example, in my consituency Westland Aerospace has invested substantially in composite material technology, which has enabled it to price competitively to enter the Ariane 5 project.
    Mr. Clarke: I accept my hon. Friend's basic premise. There is a case for saying that British industry as a whole should make a greater contribution to its research and development programmes. I acknowledge the excellent record of Westland.
    Dr. Bray: Is the Minister aware that the consequence of Britain's opposition to the proposal in the framework programme, as originally advanced, has been that the worst features of it in the Government's eyes, such as joint research centre funding, have gone ahead, while the parts that have caught the rap are those that the Government would have liked to support, which have been the subject of delays, such as RACE and ESPRIT II?
    Mr. Clarke: The joint research centres have gone ahead because they have always been there. We have arrived at an understanding in the Council that we must seriously tackle the use of resources by the JRCs and ensure that, for example, more of their work is done for customers outside so that we ensure also the relevance and quality of what they are doing. I do not accept that we have caused damaging delays to the other programmes. The key ones, such as ESPRIT and RACE, are now going ahead with greatly enhanced budgets.

    Japan (Shoes and Leather)
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amoryasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what representations he has received about the level of duty imposed by Japan on imported shoes and leather.
    Mr. Atkins: The Government have received a number of representations about Japan's import restrictions on leather and leather footwear. We and the European Community continue to press the Japanese Government to reduce these.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Is my hon. Friend aware that Japan operates a tariff quota system against imported footwear and leather that restricts quota and tariff at rates between 20 and 60 per cent.? Does my hon. Friend agree that this is not a reciprocal trading arrangement and that if Japan is interested in contributing towards the correcting of present world trade imbalances it could start by moving towards freer trade in this area?
    Mr. Atkins: My hon. Friend touches upon a raw nerve. In the context of the leather industry and the United States and of reaching an agreement with Japan under the GATT; in 1985 the United States put the emphasis on raising its tariff barriers, whereas the EEC chose to press for market opening by Japan, and as a result achieved lower tariffs with an increasing quota.
    Mr. John Garrett: Is the Minister aware that the Japanese market has been closed totally for a long time to imports of British footwear, in the interests of protecting an under-privileged class in that prosperous country that happens to make domestic footwear? Is it not the case that Britain has never made adequate representations to open up the Japanese market in this area, with the result that footwear manufacturers in my constituency have suffered considerably?
    Mr. Atkins: The hon. Gentleman is aware that we take action whenever we can through the auspices of the GATT and through the European Economic Community.
    Secondly, I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Atkins: We are always ready to hear any representations from any industrial sector, and we are in close touch with footwear manufacturers.
    Mr. Cash: Will my hon. Friend use his best endeavours through the Uruguayan round in GATT; to ensure that effective measures are taken with the new Prime Minister of Japan, Mr. Takeshita, so that we receive a serious reduction in the amount of protectionism in Japan, which is currently contributing significantly to the difficulties in the world currency crisis?
    Mr. Atkins: Yes, Sir.

    Alnwick and Amble
    Mr. Beithasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he has any plans for further measures to attract industry to the Alnwick and Amble areas.
    Mr. Atkins: We are always prepared to encourage industry to invest in various parts of the United Kingdom, and Alnwick and Amble is no exception.
    Mr. Beith: If that is so, why does it remain an exception to the Government's development aid? Bearing in mind that the area has consistently higher levels of unemployment than many assisted areas, does the Minister realise that there will be disappointment in the area as he has nothing new to announce following the deputation that he received? Will he agree to visit the area soon to see how we are trying to help ourselves and how we are being prevented from doing that by discriminatory aids in other places?
    Mr. Atkins: The hon. Gentleman came to see me, and I also received a delegation from Northumberland
    288
    recently, and the case was made very cogently. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that I said to him, as I said to the delegation, that we are not minded at this stage to change the map, which took a long time to create and which we believe is in the interests of long-term investment and should be maintained as it is for a time. I am always delighted to receive invitations from hon. Members on both sides of the House to visit constituencies, and I was particularly delighted to receive an invitation to visit such an attractive part of the country as that represented by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith).

    Textiles (False Labels)
    Mr. Maddenasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what action is being taken about false labelling of textiles, especially the overstatement of wool content in garments; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Maude: The European Commission has been investigating this matter and I understand that its findings will soon be published. Local authorities are responsible for the enforcement of fibre content regulations in the United Kingdom, and last year they were advised by my Department about the concerns expressed by the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Madden: When will the Government take some effective action to stop overseas textile producers, especially the Italians, ripping off British textile consumers in the blatant way that they have been doing for years? Does he realise that ministerial huffing and puffing, ministerial stiff notes and ministerial wrist slapping mean nothing at all to Common Market crooks who are making a fortune out of placing false labels on textile products? When will he do something to stop that racket?
    Mr. Maude: I note what the hon. Gentleman says. However, we must consider how the regulations brought into force by Parliament are enforced. The West Yorkshire county council has brought a number of successful prosecutions. There have been 351 prosecutions nationwide under the regulations since 1978 and no fewer than 182 in West Yorkshire.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does my hon. Friend accept that by the time the procedures that we operate are carried through, the damage is done? Does he also accept that part of the problem lies with the European Community, which prevailed upon us to alter what was hitherto very adequate labelling legislation?
    Mr. Maude: The change to which my hon. Friend referred has no impact on this area. People who misdescribe goods will still be subject to prosecution under the Trade Descriptions Act 1968. That is the most effective way to stamp out that objectionable practice.

    Afghanistan
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the United Kingdom's trade with Afghanistan.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: United Kingdom exports to the market in 1986 were £11·4 million and imports £11·9 million. We neither encourage nor discourage trade with Afghanistan, and support for British exporters is confined to basic market information available from my Department on request.
    Mr. Dalyell: I want to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman a question of which I gave his Department notice. Has the Department of Trade and Industry any end user certificates for the Blowpipe missiles that have found their way to Kabul?
    Mr. Clarke: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his persistence. However, he knows perfectly well that it has never been the practice in the House for Ministers to answer questions of that kind or to give information on that sort of subject.
    Mr. Atkinson: Does my right hon. and learned Friend recall that when the Russians invaded Afghanistan in 1980 the European Community broke off negotiations with COMECON'? Surely the situation has not changed, as the Russians remain in Afghanistan and our approach to trade with Afghanistan should have a similar policy.
    Mr. Clarke: I described our policy on trade with Afghanistan, and obviously at the moment Afghanistan is best described as a difficult market because of the Russian occupation and the civil war that is in progress. With regard to the export of sensitive items that have been described, it is not the practice of Ministers to answer questions on those subjects in the House.

    Manufacturing Industry
    Mr. Knoxasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the most recent figure for output in manufacturing industry; and how this compares with the figure for the same month 14 years ago.
    Mr. Atkins: My hon. Friend will appreciate that monthly data can be erratic. However, since the trough of the recession in 1981 manufacturing output has increased by over 20 per cent. to reach a level of 111·5 in August 1987, based on 1980 equal to 100. This was about 3 per cent. lower than the level of output in August 1973.
    Mr. Knox: I welcome the recent improvement in manufacturing output, but is it satisfactory that manufacturing output is still lower than it was in August 1973, 14 years ago?
    Mr. Atkins: No. Of course, I would accept that that is a disappointing factor, but it reflects the poor performance of manufacturing industry in the 1970s. I should prefer to agree with the earlier part of my hon. Friend's question, which is that at the moment industrial activity in Britain is in fine fettle. If one talks to industries the length and breadth of the country, as I am now doing, one finds that they are extremely bullish about prospects and are looking forward to the future with a great deal of excitement and interest.
    Mr. Hoyle: The Minister talks of confidence, but what will now happen to manufacturing industry as a result of the collapse of shares, which shows that there is no confidence in the economy under the Government?
    Mr. Atkins: The hon. Gentleman betrays his ignorance by the tone of his question. As he will know, coming from an industrial constituency as I do, that if he were to talk to his local companies, big and small, they would tell him that no matter what is happening on the stock market they are doing very well and want to do better.
    Mr. Oppenheim: Should not Opposition Members temper their righteous indignation by bearing in mind that manufacturing output in 1979 was rather lower than it was in 1974?
    Mr. Atkins: My hon. Friend is right. I am not even sure whether the Opposition's indignation is righteous.
    Mr. Bruce: I and my colleagues disassociate ourselves from the official Opposition's apparent wish to will Britain into economic recession, but will the Minister accept that any sustained industrial recovery in Britain is dependent on international trade and confidence and industry's ability to obtain funds from the City? In those circumstances, will not pressing ahead with the BP share flotation tomorrow be likely to depress the City and make it more difficult for British industry to obtain funds to sustain its future investment?
    Mr. Atkins: I am delighted to hear that the hon. Gentleman, representing all his hon. Friends present today, takes a view which is at least contrary to that of the official Opposition. However, it is not for me to comment on the BP deal, which is very much a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Mrs. Peacock: Does not the investment in manufacturing that is now taking place in Yorkshire suggest that many companies are confident about Britain's economic future?
    Mr. Atkins: My hon. Friend is right. As a Lancashire Member as well, I can confirm that the north is doing exceptionally well.
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: Does the Minister accept that manufacturing output is not only lower than it was in 1973, but lower than it was in the second quarter of 1979? That abysmal performance has been matched only by those great manufacturing powers of Barbados, Fiji, Greece, Malawi, South Africa and Zambia. With that record from the years of oil opportunity, what does he expect now when industry is bring crucified by record high interest rates and a pound which has appreciated 18 per cent. in real terms since last September? Why does he not take his right hon. Friend the Chancellor by the elbow and say, "Look Nigel, enough is enough. Get interest rates down"?
    Mr. Atkins: The Opposition are struggling to find bad news when the fact is that if one travels, as many hon. Members should do and have done during the recess, among British industry, talking to companies and listening to what they have to say—[Interruption.] The CBI said only recently that things have been going exceptionally well. Anyone who flies in the face of that information is clearly trying to knock Britain instead of talk us up.
    Mr. Bowen Wells: What is my hon. Friend going to do about a part of manufacturing industry for which his Ministry is responsible, namely, Land Rover? When will Land Rover increase its production and competitiveness in the world market?
    Mr. Atkins: I suspect that that is slightly outside the terms of the question. None the less, it is a matter to which the company should pay considerable attention, which it is doing. My hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor), who is sitting behind me but is prevented from

    291
    contributing to the debate on this question, knows better than most what a success story Land Rover is and continues to be.

    British Space Centre
    Mr. Ernie Rossasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he expects to announce the level of financial support for the British Space Centre.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The Government have decided not to increase public expenditure on space above the current level, which is already running at over £100 million a year.
    Mr. Ross: Will the Minister bear in mind when he goes to the meeting on 9 and 10 November that the Japanese are currently considering a report from their space committee at NASA which proposes an increase in spending this year from 120 billion yen to 300 billion to 400 billion yen, with a further target of raising that spending—all on civilian space products—to 6 trillion yen by the end of the century?
    The Minister will know from the reports from Japan that it is targeting that spending on civilian products because of the dramatic recovery that it expects for space activity. Does he not consider it rather silly to go to the meeting with such a low spending plan for Britain?
    Mr. Clarke: I shall go to the meeting of the European Space Agency at the The Hague explaining that Britain wishes to play a constructive and useful role in the agency. However, we have argued repeatedly, and will continue to argue, that the ESA plan should be based on financial, scientific and commercial reality. We should judge carefully which targets to spend money on. I am sure that the Japanese have made a similar hard-nosed appraisal of their investment, and we believe that Europe should do the same in regard to its space effort.
    Mr. Batiste: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept the importance of the space industry to the country's technology base, and will he take this opportunity of reconfirming the Government's commitment to the success of that industry in the future?
    Mr. Clarke: Indeed I do accept the importance of the space industry. It is because we accept it that we are already spending such substantial sums on the space programme, and why we have taken part in the discussions on the European programme. I intend over the next few months to continue to hold discussions with British companies about the way in which we can obtain scientific and industrial value from our commitment to space. That is the message that I shall be taking to the ESA. It is no good arguing, however, that any money spent on any space programme is justifiable when it reaches the considerable sums arrived at by the European agency.
    Mr. Bermingham: Does the Minister agree that, unless we invest in the European programmes, we shall not retain our scientists and engineers, who will find opportunities, if not in Europe, in America and elsewhere? Does he also agree that if we are to play a useful part in the technological advances of the 21st century we must retain those scientists now?
    Mr. Clarke: We must encourage and support the scientists whom we have, and, in particular, we must maintain the undoubted lead that parts of the scientific
    292
    and industrial community have here—for example, in space satellites. We are telling the ESA that, while we shall continue our membership, we wish to question the objective of programmes such as Hermes, which appear to be based on a desire to achieve a European manned presence in space by the turn of the century. But there is no real doubt in the British scientific and industrial community about either the scientific or the commercial worth of that programme.
    Mr. Haselhurst: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that an essential preliminary to long-term decisions is a clear understanding between Government and industry on what our objectives should be? Is he confident that we can arrive at such an understanding in the time scale that is necessary if opportunities are not to be lost?
    Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend asks a cogent question. It is important that we continue as rapidly as possible the discussions taking place between the BNSC, British industrialists and myself to work out a clear strategy to define our objectives. It is unlikely that we shall have completed that by the time of the meeting at The Hague. On the other hand, I think that there is a very good case for asking the agency as a whole, and its members, to make a fundamental reappraisal of where they wish to target their efforts and on which programmes they ought to concentrate.
    Mr. Gould: Does the Minister agree with his right hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey and Walton (Sir G. Pattie) that in refusing further support for space research the Government have taken leave of their senses? Will he explain why he is right and why his counterparts in France, Germany, Italy, the United States, Japan, Canada and even India, all of whom spend more than we do on space research, are wrong?
    Mr. Clarke: My right hon. Friend the previous Minister for Information Technology took part in a Rome conference that sketched the outlines of the European Space Agency programmes. Since then the costs have more than doubled. Programmes such as Hermes, for manned space flight at the end of the century, have been added to the programme. When my right hon. Friend was in office, and since I have been in office, we have argued consistently that these plans are grandiose, not well targeted and do not provide for enough industrial and commercial participation. Simply to say that India spends more than we do on its space programme and that therefore we should spend millions more, willy-nilly, regardless of what ESA is putting forward, is not the most scientific or intellectual contribution to the debate.
    Sir Trevor Skeet: Should not my right hon. and learned Friend bear in mind the advice of ACOST, which, as reported in the national press, has suggested that either we should give sufficient money to space or get out of it? Is it not bad for international collaboration if we cease to take a positive line on both space and reasearch?
    Mr. Clarke: I have an advantage over my hon. Friend, because I have received the advice of ACOST, whereas he has to rely on newspaper reports. I shall be paying regard to the advice of ACOST. I agree entirely with my hon. Friend's conclusion that we must make a positive contribution, but a positive contribution is to request the

    293
    European Space Agency seriously to reappraise its programmes and stop being led into grandiose, prestige projects that are of dubious scientific and economic value.

    Research and Development
    Dr. Brayasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the latest figures for expenditure on research and development in British industry.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The most recent estimates for expenditure on research and development performed in British industry are for 1985. Between 1981 and 1985 there was an increase in real terms of 12 per cent. in research financed by industry. I welcome this rise. The main responsibility for spending more on civil research and development should continue to rest with industry, as the House of Lords Select Committee on Civil Research and Development recognised in its recent report.
    Dr. Bray: I welcome the increase in research and development in chemicals, electronics and motor vehicles, in particular since 1981, but does the Minister not agree that it is a matter of concern that since 1981 overall research and development in industry as a proportion of national income has fallen? With industry funding of research and development still so far behind that of our industrial competitors, is not the Government's attitude in response to the House of Lords Select Committee report still far too complacent? Are the Government not aware of the desperate state of science and technology in this country?
    Mr. Clarke: I agree in part with the hon. Gentleman's diagnosis of the problem. We should still like there to be increased investment in well-judged research and development by British industry. I am glad to say that the latest figures show that there has been a very welcome real terms increase. It may be that our figures are out of date and that we are still commenting on the position in the depths of the recession, whereas now it is very much better. We have promised to report back to the House of Lords and to the House when we have completed our review of the Government's research and development priorities.
    Dr. Hampson: Is it not the case that private companies that are involved in space research and development have said that they will pay their own whack but that they expect the Government to provide proper investment so as to increase the research and development technological base. We cannot be in something like the European Space Agency — a British initiative — by simply paying our basic membership fees and then expecting to take advantage of all its facilities.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I agree with my hon. Friend that some companies have continued to contribute and have contributed even more since August towards the preparatory work on some of the optional programmes of the space agency. It is also fair to say that most of the industries concerned share our concern about the way in which the European Space Agency produces its programmes and the limited acknowledgement that that agency sometimes gives to the part that industry and commerce have to play and ought to play in guiding priorities. I want to continue discussions with British industry to make sure that we have a much clearer strategy about where UK Limited ought to be going.

    European Economic Community
    Mr. Grocottasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the current deficit in the balance of trade between the United Kingdom and the other countries of the European Economic Community.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: In the 12 months to September the deficit was £8½ billion, on the balance of payments basis.
    Mr. Grocott: Will the Minister confirm that among the figures there is a £9 billion deficit in manufactured goods alone? Is it not the case that, especially since 1979, there has been a massive export of jobs in manufacturing industry from Britain to Europe? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give the House his latest estimate of the date when membership of the European Community will be beneficial to British manufacturing industries?
    Mr. Clarke: Comments of that kind have to be set against the historical basis, whereby I think it is right to say that Britain has always imported more manufactured goods from western Europe than it has exported to western Europe— [Interruption.] — well, certainly since about 1870.
    Our trade with the European Community has grown substantially since our membership. It now provides a market for about half our exports, whereas it provided a market for about a third of them before we joined the Community in 1970. The hon. Gentleman also ought to know that, in recent years, the balance between imports and exports between ourselves and the European Community has been improving substantially in our favour. Between 1986 and 1987, in the first nine months, exports grew by 20 per cent., while imports grew by 13 per cent. thereby improving the trade balance from our point of view.
    Mr. Yeo: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that if further progress is made towards the internal market our balance of trade will improve significantly, as we will be able to to increase our exports of financial services to other member states?
    Mr. Clarke: I certainly do, and I believe that that should be our biggest single priority when we consider the advantages that we can derive from the European Community. We should decide, as urgently as possible, exactly how British industry will respond to the change from our domestic market to the much enlarged single. European market, which undoubtedly will be completed by 1992.

    Birmingham
    Mr. Rookerasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he is satisfied with the progress made by the Handsworth task force in stimulating employment in Birmingham.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I am very satisfied with the progress made by the Government's Handsworth task force in stimulating employment in the Handsworth area of Birmingham. Since it was set up in February 1986 the task force has been very successful in targeting Government programmes more effectively in Handsworth. It has also worked closely with the local community and the private sector to encourage the growth of enterprise and employment for local people. In total 45 projects have received task force top-up support

    295
    amounting to some £2·4 million, which has helped to lever a further £4 million from private sector and other public sector sources.
    Mr. Rooker: I thank the Minister for that answer and pay tribute to that small contribution to the Handsworth part of my constituency. Is the Minister not disappointed that the task force was unable to help more people already in work stay in work by its refusal to fund the latchkey project at the Handsworth day care centre? The day care centre was told by the task force that it fulfilled all the criteria, but that it did not have a politically high enough profile. Does the Minister accept that that is not a good enough reason for not giving away Government money?
    Mr. Clarke: I very much doubt that that was the reason, and I shall inquire into it. I shall go back and look at that case again. I realise that the hon. Gentleman is constrained to give faint praise to the task force, and perhaps I should be constrained in giving faint praise to him and the Birmingham city council. There is, however, a high level of co-operation in Handsworth between the task force, the city council and on all political fronts. I shall certainly make sure that no projects are turned down for any party political or other political reason.

    Manufacturing Industry
    Mr. Canavanasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the latest balance of trade in manufactured goods.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: In the first nine months of 1987 there was a deficit on trade in manufactures of £4·8 billion.
    Mr. Canavan: Is the Minister not ashamed to stand at the Dispatch Box and confess that the manufacturing trading deficit for 1987 now looks so bad that it is in danger of beating even last year's record deficit of nearly £5½ billion? As a trading nation we would be down the plughole were it not for North sea oil. Would it not be in order for the Prime Minister to sack the Secretary of State responsible for this abysmal performance — the worst deficit in Britain's manufacturing history — instead of considering giving him another sinecure as chairman of the Tory party, whose policies are responsible for this fiasco?
    Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman knows that this country's overall trade position so far this year is better than forecast by the Chancellor in his Budget. It reflects the extremely encouraging outlook and continuing improvement in our manufacturing performance, so clearly described by my hon. Friend the Minister earlier. As he said, it is no good scratching about for particular statistics to try to demonstrate a pessimistic outlook. The hon. Gentleman should look at the latest Confederation of British Industry industrial trends survey, which is the most encouraging for many years in describing Britain's industrial and manufacturing outlook.
    Mr. Roger King: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that virtually every industry in the west midlands is experiencing an upturn in its export potential—and none more so than the motor car industry, where some of the tied manufacturers of European companies are re-exporting their products to mainland Europe? Is that not a testimony to the quality and productivity of the British worker?
    Mr. Clarke: One of the most encouraging aspects of our present manufacturing scene is how well motor vehicles
    296
    production is doing and how much, especially in the west midlands, performance is outstripping that of our European competitors. It is proving a very good investment for the multinational car industry. That is even extending to Scotland where, as my hon. Friend knows, Ford is anxious to invest in a new plant in Dundee —unless the labour and trade union movement succeed in driving away that investment with a return to the bad old industrial practices that have caused so much damage in the past.
    Mr. Pike: Does the Minister accept that many ordinary people judge the wealth and prosperity of the economy of this nation by our manufacturing industries and not by the paper wealth of the City? Is he aware that many industrialists and others are concerned about the Government's apparent complacency over Britain continuing to import more manufactured goods than it exports? When will the Government take real action to improve the position in our manufacturing industries? What action do they propose to rectify the current position?
    Mr. Clarke: The country needs all the earnings that it can get, both from the manufacturing and the service sectors of the economy, including our strong financial services sector. Of course, I take pleasure in the fact that manufacturing output and investment are now rising strongly. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) said, for many industries the current outlook is very much better than it has been for many years.
    Mr. Riddick: Will my right hon. and learned Friend do all that he can to persuade the American Government and Congress that they should not respond to the current financial crisis by erecting additional trade barriers, especially in textiles, which is of particular interest in my constituency?
    Mr. Clarke: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Obviously, we are concerned about some of the proposals before the American Congress. We very much hope that protectionist pressures will not grow and that the Administration and Congress will reject any such pressures. I am glad to say that our trading relationship with America is not especially threatened. For example, there was a successful outcome yesterday to the talks I had, as one of the Airbus Ministers, with the President's trade representative. We successfully eased misunderstandings and paved the way to an eventual agreement that would allow fair trade in the civil aircraft sector.
    Mr. Blair: Is the Minister aware that there is serious concern about the effect on international trade of the stock market collapse and the turbulence in the foreign exchange markets? Does he agree with the Chancellor's statement that the behaviour of the stock markets is absurd, and with the Prime Minister's statement that the behaviour of the foreign exchange markets is 95 per cent. speculation? If so, what are his Department's proposals to reassure those who manufacture in the real economy and to control those who speculate in the casino economy of the markets?
    Mr. Clarke: Obviously, it is important that in order to return to stability in the markets we should retain the present atmosphere of business confidence both in this country and in most of the other developed countries. The fact that the real economy of Britain is so strong should

    297
    reassure those investing in the markets. At a time of great concern throughout the world, it is possible to feel more confident in Britain because of our improvement in productivity and performance and the underlying strength of the economy.

    Oftel and Ofgas
    Mr. Malcolm Bruceasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he last met the directors of (a) Oftel and (b) Ofgas to discuss the level of consumer satisfaction and competition in the relevant industries.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I expect to meet the Director General of Telecommunications shortly and to discuss a number of subjects of current interest. Meetings with the Director General of Gas Supply are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy, I am glad to say.
    Mr. Bruce: Will the Minister acknowledge that the current anxieties about consumer interests and competition in both telecommunications and gas show the Government's mistake in privatising those organisations as monopolies and highlights their inability to open them up to effective competition or to regulate them? Will he comment on the fatuous remark of the Secretary of State for Scotland that it was up to British Telecom to promote competition against itself?
    Mr. Clarke: With respect, I do not regard either organisation as entirely a monopoly. At present British Telecom is in competition only with Mercury, but we have also liberalised parts of its business and in the longer term I believe that we can look forward to greater competition. British Gas is, of course, in competition with the electricity industry. It is important that these organisations are properly regulated and controlled, in the interest of consumers. In my area of responsibility the Director General of Oftel has all the powers that he requires. I am glad to say that he has initiated a large number of inquiries into the recent performance of the Post Office and British Telecom, and I believe that he is taking steps to protect the consumer interest.
    Mr. Sackville: When my right hon. and learned Friend meets the Director General of Oftel, will he point out that I have never had any cause for complaint about the telephone service and have received no complaints from my constituents?— [Interruption.] Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that 99 per cent. of the criticism that we hear is both gratuitous and political?
    Mr. Clark: The general view seems to be that my hon. Friend, as ever, is a lucky man in the experience of most of us. Nevertheless, he makes a valid point. We are all aware of public concern about shortcomings in British Telecom's performance. It should be remembered, however, that it has 22 million subscribers, a growing demand for services and increasing technological change in those services. It was also badly damaged by a serious strike earlier this year. Complaints should therefore be kept in proportion and refer both to the management and to the work force.
    Mr. Lewis: Will the Minister tell the Director General of Oftel that it is time for a crackdown on the soft porn being peddled by British Telecom on the premium services
    298
    and that the profit motive should come behind public good taste? I appreciate that the Minister is struggling to find an answer, as he did not expect this to come up today.
    Mr. Clarke: I suggest that when next speaking to his constituents the hon. Gentleman should rest his sore throat by using the telephone rather than trying to communicate directly. Most services of the kind to which the hon. Gentleman referred are provided by outside companies using British Telecom facilities and not by British Telecom itself. Nevertheless, there is some cause for complaint. We have set up an independent committee to consider the complaints received and to decide what services are suitable for our telecommunications system.

    Space Plan
    Mr. Atkinsonasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he expects to make a statement on his space plan.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The Government have decided not to increase public expenditure on space above the current level, which is already running at £100 million per year.
    Mr. Atkinson: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the British space industry has yet to be formally consulted on the space plan? When his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State visited the Space 87 exhibition in Brighton earlier this month, was he not impressed by the presence of the French space industry, which receives far more recognition and support from its Government than does our industry, and by the fact that it is far larger and employs more people as a result? Will my right hon. and learned Friend bear that in mind when he goes to The Hague next month?
    Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend says that the industry has not been formally consulted, but I think that most leading industrialists in this sector are in regular contact with the British National Space Centre. I am already having discussions with many people in the industry and I intend to continue discussions in the coming months to get our strategy clear. There is certainly heavy French participation in the European Space Agency and the French are pressing particular programmes. We have to collaborate with them as essential partners in many areas, but we must make sure, with them, that we are spending our money wisely on objectives of mutual advantage.

    Regional Aid
    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jonesasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was his Department's total budget for regional aid to industry in each of the English regions, Scotland and Wales in the last year for which full figures are available.
    Mr. Atkins: The figures for my Department's spend on regional aid to industry in each of the English regions, Scotland and Wales in 1986–87 will be issued in the Official Report.
    Mr. Jones: Is the Minister's Department now conducting a review of regional aid, and if so, what are the terms of reference? In view of the importance of regional aid to Wales, which aid has been slashed since 1979, during

    299
    the review will the hon. Gentleman consult the Secretary of State for Wales, who is known to be a keen supporter of regional aid?
    Mr. Atkins: When any new team of Ministers comes into office, it is right and proper that they should ask questions and receive answers. That is exactly what we are doing at the moment. We hope to have the answers to the questions that we posed in the not too distant future. In the meantime, of course, we always consult our right hon. Friends, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales is no exception.
    Following are the figures:

    Department of Trade and Industry payments of regional aid to industry in 1986–87 were as follows

    Area

    £ million

    North-East

    108·3

    North-West

    132·9

    Area

    £ million

    Yorkshire and Humberside

    37·0

    East Midlands

    10·6

    West Midlands

    9·9

    South-West

    20·6

    Scotland

    0·6

    Wales

    0·9

    GB Total

    320·8

    1. These figures cover regional development grants and regional selective assistance industrial and training grants. All figures are gross, before deducting domestic and European Community receipts.

    2. The figures exclude expenditure on the provision of land and buildings through the English Industrial Estates Corporation, the exchange risk guarantee scheme and business improvement services as it is not possible to provide a breakdown of these items by English region. The amount spent on each of the above elements in England during 1986–87 was £12·7 million, £20·3 million and £13·8 million respectively.

    3. Nearly all expenditure on regional aid to industry in Scotland and Wales is the responsibility of the Scottish and Welsh Offices respectively.

Mr. Adolfo Calero
Mr. Speaker: Point of order, Mr. Hoyle.
Mr. Doug Hoyle: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Terry Lewis rose—
Mr. Dennis Skinner: He was first.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I decide whom I call. Mr. Hoyle.
Mr. Hoyle: Are you aware, Mr. Speaker, that Adolfo Calero, the well-known terrorist and military leader of the Contras. is visiting the House of Commons at the moment? Apart from the double standards shown by the Prime Minister and the Conservative party in acting as hosts to that well-known terrorist, may I contrast the treatment of that man with the treatment of Mr. Bennett, whose pass was withdrawn, although he was an innocent person? Were you aware that that terrorist was visiting the House? As it lies within your powers, will you ask that man, that monster, who has the blood of innocent people dripping from his hands, to withdraw from the House immediately?
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Let me deal with one at a time. I have no knowledge that any regulation in regard to visitors to the House has been broken. If the hon. Gentleman has any knowledge of any regulation being broken, perhaps he will come and see me about it.
Several Hon. Members: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall take Mr. Ashby first.
Mr. David Ashby: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Surely there is a precedent, because in 1978 during the Sandinista revolution against the legitimate Government of Nicaragua, the Sandinista leader visited the House at the invitation of the Labour party.
Mr. Speaker: Precedent or not, I am not aware that any regulation has been broken.
Several Hon. Members: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I shall take the Opposition Front Bench spokesman.
Mr. George Foulkes: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. On behalf of the Labour Front Bench, I should like to support my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle). We know, Mr. Speaker, that at the moment you are dealing with access to the precincts of the House of Commons. I am sure that you will agree that it is important for you to be seen to be even-handed in the matter and to treat both sides and all Members of the House on an equal basis. As my hon. Friend said, I understand that Adolfo Calero, a Contra terrorist leader, known to have led that band of terrorists, killing innocent civilians in Nicaragua, has been invited into the House—[SEVERAL. HON. MEMBERS: "He is here"]—is present in the House at the invitation of Conservative Members. All that we are asking, Mr. Speaker, is that you look into the matter, find out the facts about the invitation and the exact
302
circumstances, and make a statement to the House about whether there has been, as my hon. Friend and I believe, a breach of the regulations.
Several Hon. Members: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I can deal with the matter. I shall certainly look into it, hut, as I said to the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle), I have no knowledge that any regulation has been broken. I cannot be responsible for anybody who is brought into the House by another hon. Member. That has never been the responsibility of Mr. Speaker, but, if any regulation has been broken, I shall gladly report to the House.
Several Hon. Members: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that I can say any more.
Mr. Bowen Wells: I should like to support your ruling, Mr. Speaker, because it is—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. That is terribly kind —[Interruption.] Order. We have a heavy day.
Several Hon. Members: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Is it a different point of order?—[Interruption.] Order. I have said what I am going to do about the matter and I cannot say any more.
Mr. Banks: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. It is a new point of order.
Mr. Speaker: A new point of order?
Mr. Banks: It is a new point of order, Mr. Speaker, because you have impressed upon the House the need to ensure that hon. Members of all parties are protected from the possibility of personal attack or outrage upon them as individuals. Many of my hon. Friends have attacked the policies and the attitudes of the Contra terrorists and we now hear that the leader of the Contras is here—an assassin, a man who has the blood of women and children on his hands, and who will undoubtedly be taking this opportunity to find out about Opposition Members who have defended the legitimate Sandinista Government of Nicaragua. This man should be dragged from the House. We need to be protected from him.
Mr. Bowen Wells rose—
Mr. Speaker: Perhaps I do need a bit of help.
Mr. Wells: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not in the best traditions of this House that those putting different points of view should be admitted without distinction? People representing the current Nicaraguan Government have been admitted on behalf of the Labour party, so this man, who is putting a contrary point of view, should be admitted also. I look to you, Mr. Speaker, to maintain such access to the House to the fullest of your power and ability.
Mr. Bruce Grocott rose—
Mr. Speaker: I do not think that I have any more to say on this.
Mr. Grocott: It is a different point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: A different point of order. Well, let me deal with them one at a time. I have already said that I shall look into this matter. If any regulations have been broken I shall, of course, report to the House but if regulations have not been broken, the matter is as the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) has said. This place has always been open to visitors provided that they come in with a Member. However, I shall certainly look into it.
Mr. David Winnick: When you say, Mr. Speaker——
Mr. Grocott: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. In any inquiries that you make, may I ask you to look into the question of who is paying for this terrorist's visit to this country? As you will appreciate, Mr. Speaker, it is the responsibility of all of us in the House to show some solidarity with sister legislatures and, as you know, the Congress of the United States is at the moment desperately attempting to bring the President to book for the way in which he has diverted funds to the Contras via Iranian arms sales. We owe it to the Congress of the United States to make sure that we know where the money is going.
Mr. Speaker: I cannot do as the hon. Gentleman suggests. That is nothing to do with me.
Mr. Patrick Cormack: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you take action if, and only if, this gentleman has applied to become a research assistant?
Mr. Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. When you say that regulations may not have been broken, will you bear in mind that many of my hon. Friends believe that the House of Commons, this honourable House, would be contaminated by having in our presence someone who is the leader of a notorious band of murderers who have carried out countless acts of terrorism? If I may, Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to ask the Serjeant at Arms to see where this person is, and to see to it that if this person is on the premises he is turfed out now. May I also ask you whether you intend to report back to the House today, because we are concerned about this issue and find no justification whatsoever for Tory Members to invite over a notorious terrorist when they pay lip service to opposing terrorism?
Mr. Speaker: I shall need time to look into the matter.

Questions to Ministers
3.39 pm
Mr. Terry Lewis: On an entirely different point of order, Mr. Speaker. In Question Time the leader of the SDP entered the Chamber just before his question, No. 13, was due to be called. One of his hon. Friends drew his attention to the fact that his question was on the Order Paper and the right hon. Gentleman fled like a frightened rabbit. That is a gross insult to this House and, at the very least, it shows a lack of leadership. Can you rule on the insult to the House?
Mr. Speaker: I really do not think that I can he responsible for why hon. Members seek to leave this Chamber.
Mr. Bob Cryer rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that all hon. Members have now signed the ballot and we should get on with it.
Mr. Cryer: On a point of order——
Mr. Speaker: No. Ballot for notices of motions.

Questions to Ministers

  BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR FRIDAY 13 NOVEMBER
  Members successful in the ballot were:

  Mr. Ivor Stanbrook

  Mr. Ken Eastham

  Mr. Sydney Chapman

  BILLS PRESENTED
    PROTECTION OF OFFICIAL INFORMATION
    Mr. Richard Shepherd, supported by Mr. Jonathan Aitken, Sir Nicholas Bonsor, Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn, Sir Ian Gilmour, Mr. Robin Squire, Mr. Teddy Taylor, Mr. Michael Foot, Mr. Merlyn Rees, Mr. Chris Smith, Dr. David Owen and Mr. Archy Kirkwood, presented a Bill to repeal section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911 and to make new provision for the protection of official information and articles, for the publication of certain documents, and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 15 January and to be printed. [Bill 20].
    SCOTCH WHISKY
    Mr. Bill Walker, supported by Mr. Allan Stewart, Mr. John McFall, Mr. Henry McLeish, Mr. James Wallace, Mr. Alex Salmond, Sir Hector Monro, Mr. Roger Sims, and Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn, presented a Bill to make provision as to the definition of Scotch Whisky and as to the manufacture and sale of whisky, and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 11 December and to be printed. [Bill 21].
    ABORTION (AMENDMENT)
    Mr. David Alton, supported by Mr. A. J. Beith, Sir Bernard Braine, Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours, Miss Janet Fookes, Mrs. Elaine Kellett Bowman, Dame Jill Knight, Mr. Seamus Mallon, Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock, Mr. Cyril Smith, Rev. Martin Smyth, and Mrs. Ann Winterton, presented a Bill to limit the period within pregnancy during which an abortion may be performed, subject to certain exceptions: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 22 January and to be printed. [Bill 22].

    CONSUMER ARBITRATION AGREEMENTS
    Mr. James Pawsey, supported by Sir Rhodes Boyson, Mr, Archy Kirkwood, Mr. Richard Page, Mr. Gerald Bowden, Mr. Robert N. Wareing, Mr. Frank Field, Mr. Phillip Oppenheim, Mr. Kenneth Hind, Mr. Edward Leigh, and Mr. David Ashby, presented a Bill to extend to consumers certain rights as regards agreements to refer

    305
    future differences to arbitration and for purposes connected therewith: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 29 January and to be printed. [Bill 23].

    MOTOR VEHICLES (WEARING OF REAR SEAT BELTS BY CHILDREN)
    Mr. Stephen Day, supported by Mr. Barry Sheerman, Mr. David Knox, Mr. Archy Kirkwood, Mr. Roger Moate, Mr. George Robertson, Sir Philip Goodhart, Mr. Eric Martlew, Mr. David Marshall and Mr. Ronnie Fearn, presented a Bill to make provision for the wearing of rear seat belts by children; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 5 February and to be printed. [Bill 24].
    MALICIOUS COMMUNICATIONS
    Mr. Andrew Stewart, supported by Mr. David Hams, Mr. Michael Lord, Mrs. Gillian Shephard, Mr. Greg Knight. Ms. Clare Short and Mr. Tim Boswell, presented a Bill to make provision for the punishment of persons who send or deliver letters or other articles for the purpose of causing distress or anxiety: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 12 February and to be printed. [Bill 25].
    SUNDAY SPORTS (No. 2)
    Mr. Nicholas Soames, supported by Mr. Denis Howell, Mr. George Robertson, Mr. Archy Kirkwood, Sir Eldon Griffiths, Mr. Charles Morrison, Mr. Richard Holt, Mr. John Carlisle and Mr. Andrew MacKay, presented a Bill to exempt races, athletic sports and other sporting events from the entertainments and amusements to which the Sunday Observance Act 1780 applies and to allow betting to take place on Sunday afternoons on tracks and on certain Sunday afternoons in betting offices: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 29 January and to be printed. [Bill 26].
    SLAUGHTER OF DEER
    Miss Emma Nicholson, supported by Sir Richard Body, Mr. Menzies Campbell, Miss Janet Fookes, Mr. Michael Jopling, Mr. Charles Kennedy, Mr. Gerard Neale and Mr. Tony Speller, presented a Bill to regulate slaughterhouses and knackers' yards in connection with the slaughter of deer; to make provision for the welfare of deer at slaughter; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 11 December and to be printed. [Bill 27].
    ENVIRONMENT AND SAFETY INFORMATION
    Mr. Chris Smith, supported by Mr. John Battle, Sir Richard Body, Mr. Sydney Chapman, Mr. Peter Hardy, Mr. Archy Kirkwood, Mr. Norman Miscampbell, Mr. Peter Pike, Mr. Allan Roberts, Mr. Dafydd Elis Thomas and Joan Walley, presented a Bill to establish public registers of certain notices served concerning health, safety and environmental protection; and for related purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 5 February and to be printed. [Bill 28].
    ACCESS TO MEDICAL REPORTS
    Mr. Archy Kirkwood, supported by Mr. Jonathan Aitken, Mr. Jack Ashley, Mr. Frank Field, Mr. Charles Kennedy, Mr. Austin Mitchell, Mr. Chris Smith, Mr. Robin Squire and Mr. Dafydd Wigley, presented a Bill to establish a right of access by individuals to reports relating to themselves provided by medical practitioners for employment or insurance purposes and to make provision for related matters: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 12 February and to be printed. [Bill 29].
    OPTICAL APPLIANCES (BLIND AND PARTIALLY SIGHTED PERSONS)
    Mr. James Lamond, supported by Mr. Alfred Morris, Mr. Jack Ashley, Sir John Farr, Mr. Dafydd Wigley, Mr. Robert N. Wareing, Mr. Tom Clarke, Mr. Andrew F. Bennett and Mr. Ernie Ross, presented a Bill to amend Schedule 12 to the National Health Service Act 1977 and sections 70 and 105 of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978 to enable registered blind or partially sighted persons to obtain optical devices provided under the National Health Service free of charge: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 12 February and to be printed. [Bill 30].
    PROTECTION OF ANIMALS (AMENDMENT)
    Mr. John Browne, supported by Mr. Harry Cohen. Mr. A. J. Beith, Sir Bernard Braine, Mr. Churchill, Mr. John Hannam, Mr. Charles Kennedy, Mr. Sydney Chapman, Mr. Eric Forth, Mr. Brian Sedgemore, Emma Nicholson and Mr. Hugh Dykes, presented a Bill to enable a court to disqualify a person from having custody of an animal on a first conviction of cruelty; and to increase the penalties for offences relating to animal fights in England and Wales and to penalise attendance at such fights in Scotland: And the same was read the First time: and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 11 December and to be printed. [Bill 31].
    LICENSING (RETAIL SALES)
    Mr. Andrew MacKay, supported by Mr. George Gardiner, Mr John Cartwright, Mr. Stuart Bell, Mr. Michael Colvin, Mr. James Couchman, Mr. Gerald Bermingham, Mr. Richard Page, Mr. John M. Taylor and Mr. Nicholas Baker, presented a Bill to amend the definition of 'sale by retail' in section 201 of the Licensing Act 1964; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 11 December and to be printed. [Bill 32].

    HOUSING (HOUSES IN MULTIPLE OCCUPATION)
    Mr. Brian Wilson, supported by Mr. Sam Galbraith, Mr. Donald Anderson, Mr. Charles Irving, Mr. Dafydd Wigley, Mr Ron Leighton, Mr. Chris Smith and Mr. Tom Cox, presented a Bill to update, strengthen and simplify the law and procedures relating to houses and buildings occupied by persons who do not form a single household; to define categories of such houses and provide standards to apply to them; to clarify the duty of owners of such houses to maintain those standards; to confer duties on local housing authorities to enforce the standards and assist improvements by grants; to extend and simplify local housing authorities' powers to make control orders

    307
    and compulsory purchase orders on the ground of harassment; to increase occupiers' rights to initiate improvements and to be rehoused in certain circumstances; to repeal existing provisions relating to such houses; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 12 February and to be printed. [Bill 33].

    UNFAIR REPORTING AND RIGHT OF REPLY
    Mrs. Ann Clwyd, supported by Mr. Merlyn Rees, Mr. Michael Foot, Mr. Norman Buchan, Mr. Roland Boyes, Mr. Dafydd Elis Thomas, Mr. Paddy Ashdown, Mr. Geraint Howells, Mr. Charles Kennedy, Mr. Robin Squire, Mr. Peter Temple-Morris and Mr. Roger Gale presented a Bill to give members of the public the right of reply to allegations made against them or to misreporting or misrepresentations about them in the Press or in broadcasts; to establish a Media Complaints Commission; to extend legal aid to actions for defamation; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 5 February and to be printed. [Bill 34].
    ABORTION (TREATMENT OF NON-RESIDENT WOMEN)
    Mr. Edward Leigh, supported by Sir John Biggs-Davison, Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours, Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman, Mr. David Amess, Mr. Alan Amos, Mr. Nicholas Bennett, Mr. Julian Brazier, Mr. David Evennett and Mr. John Watts, presented a Bill to require, subject to certain exceptions, a medical practitioner treating a woman not resident in the United Kingdom for the termination of pregnancy to give notice of such treatment to a medical practitioner in the country in which she is ordinarily resident: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 29 January and to be printed. [Bill 35].
    UNBORN CHILDREN (PROTECTION)
    Mr. Kenneth Hind, supported by Mr. Ken Hargreaves, Dame Jill Knight, Sir Bernard Braine, Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman, Mr. James Pawsey, Mrs. Ann Winterton, Mr. Henry Bellingham, Mr. Robert Hayward and Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock, presented a Bill to amend the law relating to human embryos produced by in vitro fertilisation, and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 22 January and to be printed. [Bill 36].
    HOUSING (WAITING LIST RESTRICTIONS)
    Mr. Donald Anderson, supported by Mr. Charles Irving, Mr. Tom Cox, Mr. David Knox, Mr. Chris Smith, Mr. Dafydd Wigley, Mr. Robin Squire and Mr. Ron Leighton presented a Bill to limit restrictions that can be imposed on access to and allocation from local authority housing lists; and to establish priority for certain persons: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 29 January and to be printed. [Bill 37].
    COMMUNITY HEALTH COUNCILS (ACCESS TO INFORMATION)
    Mr. Andrew Faulds presented a Bill to provide for access by the public to meetings of, and to certain documents and information relating to, Community Health Councils and committees of those Councils and for related purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 15 January and to be printed. [Bill 38].
    ABORTION (FINANCIAL BENEFIT)
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton, supported by Sir Bernard Braine, Dame Jill Knight, Mr. Gordon Oakes, Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours, Mr. Cyril Smith, Mr. A. J. Beith, Mr. Ken Hargreaves, Mr. David Amess, Rev. Martin Smyth and Mrs. Ann Winterton presented a Bill to amend section 2 of the Abortion Act 1967: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 11 December and to be printed. [Bill 39].

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
  Ordered,
  That the draft Companies (Mergers and Divisions) Regulations 1987 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Wakeham]

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 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]

Defence

  SECOND DAY'S DEBATE
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on amendment to Question [27 October]:
  That this House approves the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1987 contained in Cm. 101.
  Which amendment was 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 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 be 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."—[Mr. Denzil Davies.]
  Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
  Mr. Speaker: Before I call the Front Bench, may I say to the House that a large number of right hon. and hon. Members are seeking to take part in the second day of this important debate. It would be helpful if contributions could be brief. I have at the moment no authority to limit speeches to 10 minutes between 7 o'clock and 9 o'clock.
  3.46 pm
  The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Ian Stewart): This is the first occasion on which I have taken part in a defence debate from the Dispatch Box for more than four years. During that time, much has changed. Two things in particular struck me about yesterday's debate. The first was that the unilateralists on the Labour Benches, having lost the argument, are now desperately trying to rewrite history in order to align themselves with current developments in arms control. But we all know that if their antics had succeeded there would be no prospect of a worthwhile INF agreement to-day.
  The second thing that emerged so clearly yesterday was the absolutely chaotic state of defence policy on the Opposition Benches. What we might call the revisionist tendency on the Opposition Front Bench is reduced to
  310
  grumbling about our conventional forces. The hon. Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. Hughes) spoiled an entertaining contribution on his first occasion at the Dispatch Box by going on to claim that our armed forces were ill-equipped and demoralised. That was certainly true eight years ago, after they had been savaged by a Labour Government, but to-day it is a travesty of the truth.
  But even the hon. Gentleman's comments were put in the shade by the amazing call from the fundamentalist wing of the Labour Party for Britain to become a nonaligned power on the ground that the military threat to western Europe was a figment of imagination. I suggest that we should bring the debate back to reality.
  Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave a general account of our defence policy, and later my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) commented on procurement. I do not want to go over again the ground that they have already covered, and I therefore propose to devote most of my time this afternoon to the activities of the armed forces. Much of what I have to say will be concerned with activities outside the NATO area or within the United Kingdom, but that does not mean that we should overlook the fundamental importance of our membership of NATO, even though much of our contribution to it is relatively routine.
  Alone of the 16 members of the Alliance, the United Kingdom contributes forces to the whole range of deterrent capabilities, from strategic nuclear to conventional forces, and at the same time commits forces to all three of NATO's major commands, in Europe, the Channel and the Atlantic. Contrary to the gloomy predictions made yesterday by the hon. Member for Knowsley, South, we have every intention of keeping things that way. In Germany, we maintain the British Army of the Rhine and RAF Germany. In the eastern Atlantic and Channel, the Royal Navy contributes nearly 70 per cent. of NATO's available maritime forces. Finally, we provide for the air and ground defence of the United Kingdom base, which in time of war would be an essential base for operating in the rear, and for reinforcements.
  I am convinced that the effectiveness of NATO depends equally on the cohesion of its European members and on the fundamental commitment of the United States to our common defence effort. The right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) argued yesterday that our reason for having our own strategic deterrent was the fear that the United States might become detached from the defence of Europe. But that is not the point. Deterrence is a matter of perception, and the British strategic deterrent is an insurance policy against any aggressor making such a miscalculation. In fact, the United States has recently reaffirmed its central role in the Alliance through Exercise Reforger. During that exercise, the United States moved no fewer than 35,000 men and 4,800 vehicles across the Atlantic to participate alongside European forces in Exercise Certain Strike. There could be no clearer expression of the continuing and vital commitment of America to European defence.
  When I visited allied forces taking part in Certain Strike last month I was struck by the progress being made in improving the effectiveness, the readiness and the interoperability between the services of all the nations taking part. The same was true of exercise Central Enterprise, an annual, major, live flying exercise to practice interoperability of central region air forces, to

  311
  which the United Kingdom also made a substantial contribution. Since we last debated defence issues in February, the Royal Navy has been in the public eye a great deal.
  Mr. Denzil Davies: Will the Minister answer the question that I asked yesterday? On 25 May, representatives of all NATO Governments agreed to reinstate the 3 per cent. real growth in defence expenditure and commitment to NATO. Will the Minister tell us whether the Government still subscribe to that 3 per cent. real growth commitment and, if they do, where will they get the money?
  Mr. Stewart: That is an aspiration which remains to be fulfilled. This Government at least fulfilled a major increase in defence expenditure during the first half of the 1980s when we increased expenditure by 3 per cent. a year. The right hon. Gentleman will have to possess his soul in patience about our figures for future defence expenditure until the proper time for their announcement.
  Events in the Gulf area, which have attracted most of the attention to the Navy and on which I shall comment further in a moment, should not obscure the fact that a great deal of the Navy's activity takes place within the NATO area. This involves not only our regular commitment to the standing NATO squadrons in the channel and the eastern Atlantic, but participation in NATO exercises.
  More than 20 Royal Navy ships and Royal fleet auxiliaries took part last month in the NATO exercise Ocean Safari in the north Atlantic. This is the major maritime NATO exercise of the year, involving on this occasion ships from nine nations exercising deployment, training and integrated operations under NATO command. Among many other naval activities, I should mention the surfacing with two American submarines of HMS Superb at the north pole in May as part of a course of experiments and trials in the Arctic ocean. This was the first occasion at the pole on which a British submarine has surfaced in company with others in this way.
  As ever, the Royal Navy has been quick to give assistance when needed, notably in the rescue operation following the Zeebrugge ferry disaster in March. Royal Navy ships and helicopters were quickly on the scene and later, the fleet clearance diving team helped in the harrowing task of recovering bodies. The team earned praise from all sides for its professionalism, stamina and humanity, and I am sure that the House will join me in endorsing that praise. I also take this opportunity to express our gratitude to the Belgians for the way in which they conducted the rescue operation.
  The Royal Navy's fishery protection squadron continues to patrol our fisheries limits and our offshore oil and gas fields. The value of this can be seen from the fact that in the case of fisheries, more than 1,400 hoardings were conducted in the 12 months to last March and over 100 infringements were recorded. In the same period there were 268 search and rescue sorties by Royal Navy helicopters and clearance diving teams disposed of about 200 items of unexploded ordnance.
  Friendly relations with many countries have been fostered by ship visits. In particular, I welcome the contribution that the Royal Navy made to the restoration of closer relations between the United Kingdom and
  312
  Malta. Last year's visit by HMS Brazen gained her the Wilkinson sword of peace, and HMS Broadsword also recently made a highly successful visit to Valetta, both visits coinciding with the anniversary of the arrival of the Santa Maria convoy and the relief of Malta on 15 August 1942. HMS Brazen visited Mauritius last month. She welcomed many islanders on board and received the Prime Minister of Mauritius and their Royal Highnesses the Duke and Duchess of York.
  Recently, the eyes of the world have increasingly been turned towards events in the Persian Gulf. The Armilla patrol has been operating in this area since 1980, much longer than any other European navy. During this whole time, only six British merchant vessels have been attacked, and to date none has been attacked while an Armilla ship has been in its vicinity. This is a record of which the Navy can be proud.
  Mr. Denis Healey: Could the Minister enlighten us in respect of a report in the Sunday Times on 1 May by Mr. John Connell that Britain had pledged herself to maintain the Armilla patrol permanently in the Gulf as a condition of the Trident agreement in 1982? Can the Minister tell us whether that is true?
  Mr. Stewart: The right hon. Gentleman will know that that fell before my time, but it sounds a very implausible suggestion.
  The right hon. Member for Llanelli asked yesterday about its task. I can tell him that we have no plans to alter the current basis or area of operations of the Armilla patrol. I visited the ships of the patrol earlier this month and was greatly impressed by the skill and courage of our men. The possibility of attack is every present. To maintain a state of alert for extended periods, with the discomfort of wearing anti-flash gear, in the high temperatures and humidity of the Gulf, imposes a severe strain on the fittest of men. We will continue to try to find ways to reduce the discomfort of the task for those taking part, within the limits that the operation itself imposes. It was represented to me strongly by those on board HMS Abdiel that the air-conditioning systems on board were not designed for the demanding climate of the area. In response to these justified concerns, I am glad to be able to tell the House today that seven more air-conditioning units were despatched to the ship last weekend, and that 16 further units will be sent as soon as they become available.
  While recognising the inevitable risk in an operation of this kind, we view the Armilla patrol as a source of reassurance and a contribution to the stability of the area. The same applies to the deployment of the four Hunt class mine counter-measures vessels, operating in support of the Armilla ships, which have successfully disposed of five mines in the waters off Fujayrah. The purpose of their presence is entirely defensive and fully in accordance with the non-provocative objectives of our mission. In protecting the right to freedom of navigation through international waters, we are operating in the interests of all seafaring nations, and in that context we welcome the decisions of the Dutch, Belgian, French and Italian Governments to deploy naval vessels to the Gulf area. We exchange information with our allies on a routine basis and, while each nation properly retains autonomy in the control of its own ships, we are developing increased cooperation with the other western navies in the area. This

  313
  is the first occasion on which the navies of a number of European allies will be operating together outside the NATO area, and it offers new opportunities of coordinating our activities in the face of a common threat.
  Mr. James Hill: When my hon. Friend says "co-ordinating opportunities", is he assuming that perhaps the Western European Union, which comprises all those nations, will become reactivated to the point of co-operating in some of those far-distant places outside the NATO area?
  Mr. Stewart: It is important that the Western European Union has expressed support for what is now being done by the navies of member states, but I cannot see that the Western European Union is a suitable body to exercise any sort of operational control of that kind.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: Has the Minister any anxieties about the use of end-user certificates and the possible way in which British arms, either through third parties or other routes, could find their way to the Gulf? In particular, does he have concerns about the reported activites of Mr. Ben Banerjee and other arms middlemen?
  Mr. Stewart: The Ministry of Defence has long been concerned to ensure that the end-user certificate procedure is not abused. I remember answering similar questions four years ago when I was a procurement Minister. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Hove is fully alert to the problems in that area. We endeavour to ensure that that does not happen.
  Another continuing commitment of our armed forces is that of Northern Ireland. While all three services are involved, here it is the Army, including of course the UDR and the Royal Marines, which plays the leading role in supporting the Royal Ulster Constabulary in the fight against terrorism. Currently there are about 11,500 regular service personnel and some 6,500 UDR personnel in the Province. This includes the two additional battalions provided in 1986. The need for them, and indeed the level of service support as a whole, is kept under constant review, and, of course, we retain the ability to reinforce at short notice if need be. I am glad to be able to tell the House that, since the beginning of this month, we have been able to increase the operational flexibility available to the GOC by providing additional helicopter hours.
  I hope that the whole House will join me in expressing our appreciation of the courageous and skilful way in which our service men and women carry out their difficult and dangerous task in Northern Ireland. So far this year, 231 weapons and about 5,800 kg of explosive have been found. Bomb disposal teams have been called out to more than 1,100 incidents, and about 2,300 kg of explosive have been neutralised.
  I should like to draw the attention of hon. Members to three incidents in the past month which illustrate the skill and bravery of our soldiers. On 28 September, the alertness of military patrols in Londonderry led to the discovery of a van bomb containing nearly 800 kg of explosive, which was close to final assembly and could have caused severe damage to the city. On 16 October, Army explosives experts defused a van bomb containing over 250 kg of explosive, which was parked outside a police station in Belfast city centre, and was clearly set to explode within minutes. On the following day, they made safe a device containing 1,500 kg of explosive, packed in
  314
  a slurry tanker near Newtownsaville. This was the largest single bomb ever found in Northern Ireland, and within a built-up area it could have caused destruction up to a radius of 200 yards.
  In each of these cases, bravery and speed of reaction prevented possible loss of life and destruction of property on a substantial scale. But, sadly, these many successes have been achieved at great cost. Eleven soldiers have been killed and 85 wounded or injured in attacks this year. Eight of those killed and 10 of those wounded were members of the UDR, and I cannot speak too highly of the courage of members of the regiment who continue to serve their country in the face of a relentless threat to their lives both on and off duty.
  Sir Antony Buck: I am sure that my hon. Friend will carry the entire House with him in paying tribute to the Ulster Defence Regiment. I hope that similarly we shall pay tribute to our armed forces, who have sustained an enormous burden over so many years. They have exhibited enormous self-restraint, and I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree with me that probably no armed forces in the world could have sustained such a burden with the self-restraint that they have shown over such a prolonged period.
  Mr. Stewart: I endorse what my hon. and learned Friend has said, and especially his final remark. This speaks well for the professionalism and dedication of our armed forces.
  The recent storms in southern England have demonstrated the value of military aid to the civil community in an entirely different context. Over the weekend of 16 to 19 October, about 1,000 service men, most of them soldiers, assisted in dealing with the emergencies arising from damage caused by the high winds in the early hours of 16 October. They have undertaken a wide variety of tasks, including the clearance of fallen trees from main roads and rail links in Kent and Sussex, and from power cables in Surrey, Sussex, Hampshire and Kent, and assisting the electricity board to restore supply to areas cut off by damaged power lines. Generators have been provided to hospitals, nursing homes and old peoples' homes across the area, and in some cases to farms, water authorities and sewage works. Soldiers have delivered meals to people whose mobile homes were destroyed in Folkestone, and they are continuing to provide help to water and electricity boards in the task of clearing up the damage. Since the emergency began, the military have responded to over 500 requests for assistance and we have done our best to ensure that all available resources of equipment and manpower have been put at the disposal of the civil authorities when needed.
  We should not forget, however, the frequent calls that we receive in connection with disaster relief operations around the world. Overseas units of the Royal Engineers were deployed from Belize to assist in El Salvador, and Queen's Gurkha engineers from Hong Kong assisted in Vanuatu, the Cook Islands and the Solomon Islands. The Royal Air Force has also received many calls for assistance. A Hercules aircraft transported clothing to Harare in March for onward transmission by Oxfam to victims of fighting and famine in Mozambique. Closer to home, RAF search and rescue helicopters ferried firemen to fight a blaze on board, when a Liberian supertanker and a Polish cargo vessel collided in the Channel in May, while

  315
  a Nimrod provided on-scene command and control. Up to the end of last month, RAF search and rescue responded to more than 900 calls for assistance in the United Kingdom this year, resulting in the rescue of 675 people.
  Last week, I visited Royal Air Force Germany, which provided me with an admirable opportunity to see at first hand the very high standards of operational efficiency and readiness that are maintained by the RAF.
  Mr. David Winnick: I join the Minister in paying tribute to the duties that are carried out by members of the armed forces. I do not wish to discuss matters that are sub judice, but is the Minister aware that there is a worry that bullying, initiation rites and the rest seem to be on the increase in the Army? Would it be possible, if it has not already been done, for a strongly worded circular to be issued to units on this issue? At the end of the day, the amount of bullying would be minor, but if it exists to anywhere near the level alleged, it is extremely disturbing and should stop immediately.
  Mr. Stewart: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the adjutant-general has done exactly what he has suggested. The Army, as we do, deplores all forms of bullying. All allegations are thoroughly investigated and, if substantiated, appropriate charges are brought against culprits. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we take a serious view of bullying.
  Mr. Winnick: When was the circular issued?
  Mr. Stewart: I cannot remember the day on which that was done, but it was in the fairly recent past.
  Mr. Winnick: Is a copy of the circular in the Library?
  Mr. Stewart: I shall have to refer that question to my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman), the Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces, who deals with personnel matters.
  I was saying that I visited Royal Air Force Germany last week. A total of seven Tornado squadrons are now fully operational in Germany and these represent a significant enhancement of NATO's deterrent strength.
  The ability of our front-line airfields in RAF Germany to continue to operate during wartime will be considerably enhanced with the redeployment from the United Kingdom of 52 Field Squadron (Construction) Royal Engineers, planned for 1989. The squadron, of about 200 men, will be tasked to carry out airfield damage repair and will be based at RAF Bruggen in West Germany. The deployment of this unit to an area where it is most required constitutes a positive and cost-effective improvement to our defence contribution to NATO. Meanwhile, in the United Kingdom the first squadron of the air defence variant of Tornado, No. 29 squadron, will be declared to NATO on 1 November.
  Mr. Bob Cryer: Have any altered or improved instructions been given to staunch the loss of aircraft on low-flying exercises? Since 1979, we have lost well in excess of half a billion pounds-worth of aircraft, including 11 Tornados, which, at £17 million each, seems rather excessive. Will the Government try to staunch this massive loss?
  Mr. Stewart: The Government and the Royal Air Force take the greatest care to minimise accidents that are
  316
  involved in low flying. This is a matter with which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces is dealing. He and I are well aware of public concern about low flying. This form of flying is carried out solely for essential training purposes and not, as some have suggested, as a form of aeronautical bravado. The Ministry of Defence is currently reviewing procedures for the notification and regulation of low flying, including aspects of safety. We remain committed to keeping environmental effects to the minimum. However, the high standards of our air crew come only firm intensive training, and in today's environment that means that pilots must train frequently at low levels to enable them to escape detection by hostile radar or, if detected, to make them less vulnerable to attack.
  Finally, I should say that planning is now almost complete for Exercise Purple Warrior, the major joint force exercise due to take place in south-west Scotland between 4 and 19 November. Consultation with local residents and environmental and conservation groups has been extensive, and we shall do everything possible to keep inconvenience and the risk of damage to local interests to a minimum. The exercise is designed to practise joint force operations outside the NATO area, but holding it in the United Kingdom will greatly reduce the cost of deployment and logistics. It will also make this the first exercise in the United Kingdom to fall within the terms of the agreement of the Stockholm conference on security and co-operation in Europe, and on the evening of 9 November I shall accordingly be acting as host to observers from the Warsaw pact and other member countries.
  Mr. Dick Douglas: What is the status of the observers? How many will there be? In view of the Arms Control and Disarmament (Privileges and Immunities) Bill currently before the House, what accreditation will the observers be given by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office with regard to diplomatic immunity?
  Mr. Stewart: I will have to refer that last point to my colleagues in the Foreign Office. The arrangements will be as laid down in the Stockholm agreement and will be virtually the exact counterpart of arrangements made for our observers when attending exercises in Warsaw pact countries, and such visits were made in the summer.
  Mr. Douglas: How many observers?
  Mr. Stewart: I have not yet seen the exact number. The hon. Gentleman perhaps does not realise the way in which the arrangements are made. However, the number will be determined at the time and there will be no secret about that information when it is available.
  I very much hope that implementation of the observer provisions of the Stockholm agreement in this way will contribute to improving confidence and understanding between East and West. Before we can achieve progress on conventional arms control, each side will need to have accurate information about the other's manpower and equipment and the means of verifying such information and keeping it up to date. Unfortunately, we are a long way from that position just now. Lack of agreement on verification has been a major factor in the stagnation over many years of the talks on mutual and balanced force reductions. We are also discussing in Vienna a mandate for

  317
  new talks on conventional stability from the Atlantic to the Urals, but if such talks are to be fruitful, the Soviet Union and its allies in the Warsaw pact will have to change their policy of secrecy about their own force levels and armaments. I do not see how serious negotiations could take place unless they do that.
  Mr. Martin J. O'Neill: Is the Minister not being somewhat churlish? There is an opportunity in the initiative for a fresh page to be opened. Is it not unhelpful at this stage to make criticisms which I accept, in the context of the mutual and balanced force reductions, were valid, but which are unhelpful now when we are trying to enter a new era? Why must the Ministry of Defence always insist on rubbishing every opportunity before we get it started and very often leave the burden to the inadequate hands of the American President and all the difficulties that he has?
  Mr. Stewart: I was not aware that I was rubbishing anything. I was only calling for more information on which we could make progress with negotiations for arms control.
  The Warsaw pact also has a lot of explaining to do. It needs to explain why it has built up such a degree of superiority in the central region of Europe. No one doubts that it has an advantage of 3: 1 in artillery pieces, and of 2:1 in tanks and tactical aircraft. Not only that, but it needs to explain why its military procurement policy is designed not merely to maintain that superiority, but to enhance it. For example, in the three years from 1984 to 1986, NATO countries produced fewer than 5,000 tanks. During the same period, the Soviet Union alone produced more than 9,000. In the case of towed field artillery, the comparable figures are between 1,200 and 1,300 pieces by NATO and over 5,000 by the Soviet Union. Perhaps the peaceful intentions which the Soviets profess are genuine, but if so it is very difficult to see how such an aggressive build-up of armament can be consistent with them.
  Mr. Chris Mullin: Do the figures that the Minister has cited include figures for French armaments?
  Mr. Stewart: The figures do not relate to any countries in the Warsaw pact other than the Soviet Union or to countries outside the integrated military structure in NATO.
  Mr. Mullin: Do they include French armaments?
  Mr. Stewart: I have explained exactly what the figures consist of. They consist of one country on the Eastern side and a large number of countries on the Western side.
  One thing is for sure. If the West is to make satisfactory progress in negotiations for arms control, and reach agreements which do not undermine our security, we shall do so only if we make sure that we are not caught off our guard. The Labour party fought the last election on the unbelievable policy that we should negotiate from weakness. That is a policy that flies in the face of all the lessons of history. We must all be thankful that the British people had the good sense to elect a Conservative Government, since we are not only the one party to have a credible defence policy, but, as this debate has shown, we are the only party which can agree on its defence policy at all.
  4.15 pm
  Mr. Martin J. O'Neill: In welcoming the Minister of State for the Armed Forces back to the Ministry of Defence I am not very clear whether he is back to act as a Treasury Minister or as a defence retread. Whatever the capacity, it is encouraging to note that the MOD word processor is operating in the same way and the old lines are coming out.
  In his brief resume of last night's debate, the Minister referred to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. Hughes) as gloomy. That must be the last thing that we could ever accuse my hon. Friend of being, and certainly no one was gloomy as a result of his remarks last night.
  Opening the second day of a two-day debate is rather like finally reaching the front of a long queue in a self-service restaurant. One knows what is on the menu as one has seen what those in front have chosen to eat. One knows what one wants, but one is not sure whether there is anything left. That went through my mind as I listened to the Minister. He did not have a great deal to say about some of the issues that concern us, and he dismissed many of the remarks made by my hon. Friends last night as grumbling about conventional procurement. I am sorry to disappoint the Minister, but we will have to grumble rather more about that this afternoon because there are many questions that we want answered.
  I do not propose to touch on the Marconi raid. I was less than satisfied with the response last night of the Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement. It is clear that the MOD is keeping out of the issue, but the issue will not go away, and the MOD is often accused—I believe rightly—of being excessively secretive. The Ministry will come to regret not being more clear and forthcoming in its consideration of that point as events develop.
  Comments were made last night, and they have been made again this afternoon, about the amendments that have been tabled. I want to deal with the official Opposition amendment and spend some time on the implications of the Government's policy on the effectiveness of conventional defences, and particularly on the fleet and the morale of naval personnel. The amendment in the names of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and some Labour Members is an expression of their opinions. It bears little relation to Labour party policy—certainly to the policy on which we fought the election and the policy that was endorsed almost unanimously at the recent Labour party conference.
  The official Opposition amendment considers British membership of NATO as one of the cornerstones of our defence. We are linked, politically, historically and geographically, to the continent of Europe and we share many burdens and responsibilities with our near neighbours across the North sea and the Channel. We must recognise the important naval contribution that the country must make to the Alliance, and we must have regard to our relationship with the northern members of the Alliance. It is our objective to seek to reduce tension and explore possibilities offered by some of the recent statements made by Mr. Gorbachev on arms reductions in the Kola peninsula and northern Norway.
  In particular, we are encouraged by the responses from the Norwegian Government, which have been particularly

  319
  constructive. The fact that they are a Labour Government of the same political persuasion as ourselves does not preclude some support being given to their position by the Danes, but it is significant that the other major northern European member of NATO—the United Kingdom—has been extremely cool on that matter. Indeed, Britain's record over the past two to three years has been moving closer and closer to the bellicose maritime strategy promulgated by the United States—a strategy which we consider to be destabilising and dangerous for that part of Europe.
  The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Younger): I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not wish to mislead the House. He is not correct in saying that on this matter the Norwegian Government are of the same political persuasion as the Labour party. The Norwegian Government believe in and support the NATO policy of deterrence based on nuclear weapons. As I understand it, the official Opposition, as we apparently have to call them, do not believe in that now, so there is a major difference between the two.
  Mr. O'Neill: Whether consciously or unconsciously, the Secretary of State is seeking to confuse two issues. I am talking about the Norwegian Government's response to the Gorbachev remarks. I freely admit that there are often cascades of initiatives and proposals from the Soviet Union, few of which eventually appear on paper, but at least on this occasion the proposal for the denuclearisation of northern Europe has struck a chord with the Norwegian Labour Government and the Conservative and Liberal—for want of a better expression—Danish Government. On that we would have to agree, but the right hon. Gentleman's other interpretation is not accurate.
  Today I want to talk primarily about the continuing significance of the fleet's convoy support role and the slippage in our frigate ordering programme and its implications for the 50-warship Navy, for which there has been a consensus in the House as a desirable aspect of our defence policy.
  There is probably no more sensitive area of defence procurement than that of the link between our NATO responsibilities and the sustaining of the 50-warship Navy and the employment problems that are generated by those responsibilities in warship building. In the past few months a succession of reports have made gloomy forecasts about the future of our warship building. Indeed, last month Kleinwort Grieveson said:
  "A decade hence could see only one yard building surface ships and another building submarines."
  Last night the Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement gave us an outline of the Government's thinking on procurement and extolled the virtues of value for money and the value of competition in areas which previously suffered from the inefficiencies that flow from negotiating with only one supplier. The problems facing the Tyne and the Clyde illustrate the consequences of the Government's ordering programme.
  In every defence debate since the abandonment of the Nott review, successive Secretaries of State have promised that we would have a 50-warship Navy. To maintain that figure, three warships per year would have to be ordered. We are now told that the only thing that has altered since 1982 is the cycle. There is a new excuse now — that the
  320
  cycle of ordering and refitting has altered. That is a slightly different interpretation from the one that was placed on it by the editor of Jane's Fighting Ships. He concluded:
  "At the present rate of ordering and deletion, the fleet in 1990 will have 34 frigates and destroyers of reasonable age, plus five Leander class approaching their twentieth birthday and however many of the same class which have by then escaped the knacker's yard but will be in their third decade."
  Even more disturbing is the fact that the capability of our new frigates and destroyers is not what it could be. The type 22 will no longer be retrofitted with new towed array sonars and cuts have been made in the air defence systems for frigates and destroyers in much the same way as they were before the Falklands. In the week surrounding the Government's response to the Select Committee's report on the lessons of the Falklands it seems that, like the Bourbons, the Government have learnt nothing and forgotten nothing.
  The new type 23, HMS Norfolk, which was launched on the Clyde in July, will not be able to shoot down Exocets if the Sea Wolf missile system fails. Indeed, the experience of HMS London, which was fitted with the mark 3 Sea Wolf, suggests that all is not well even with the type 9–11. Without guns as backup, the type 22 and 23 frigates are vulnerable. That has been recognised by Yarrows, the lead yard, because it is providing its export customers with type 23s fitted with Phalanx rapid-firing guns as the last line of defence. However, from what we can understand, the Navy is not prepared to pay the extra £4 million to £5 million to afford our service men the best protection available. It is all right for foreign navies, but it is too good for the British Navy.
  Last night we had a linguistic debate about when a cut is not a cut. When financial constraints prevent the purchase of the best available kit for our sailors, that is serious for our defence. Whether or not it is called a cut, it is undercutting the defence of our service men and undermining the morale that is necessary in a volunteer force such as we have in Britain.
  It is little wonder that the combination of a slower rate of ordering and the longer refitting of manpower-intensive craft is causing a reduction in service morale. We now have the vicious circle of more and more trained personnel leaving because of the strain of long separations from their wives and families. They know that the Navy is about 10 per cent. short of officers in all branches—in particular, pilots, observers and engineers — and that that is reaching almost critical proportions in the Fleet Air Arm.
  The 1987 edition of "British Warships and Auxiliaries" said:
  "Many sailors might just as well be serving off the Falklands or off the Gulf for all the extra time they get with their families."
  When ships are refitting in home ports, service men must be at least 200 miles from either their base or the fitting yard to qualify for extra travel warrants home. As a result, many cannot afford more than an occasional weekend trip home, although their ships may be refitting for six months or more. With all those problems, the Navy is becoming a less attractive career for school leavers and graduates.
  So far I have spoken in the main about frigates, but the Navy requires a variety of craft, and some of my hon. Friends will want to discuss the products of the yards in their constituencies. Certainly we should be interested to discover, at some stage in the debate, what is happening about the auxiliary oiler replenishment 2 vessel and when

  321
  the order will be announced, because we were led to believe that it will he some time before the end of October or early November.
  It is significant that there has been some slippage in the ordering of minesweepers. If the ordering of minesweepers is not accelerated, more than 20 of the minesweepers and hunters will soon be more than 40 years old.
  What will happen about the amphibious and aviation support vessels in the event of hostilities in the northern region of NATO? The Norwegians would depend on the speedy arrival of the United Kingdom and Netherlands amphibious force, consisting of 7,500 Royal Marines and nearly 3,000 Royal Netherlands marines. They will require amphibious vessels and adequate aviation support. The amphibious ships, Fearless and Intrepid, need replacement.
  In February 1984 we were told that the future of an amphibious capability was being studied. In December 1986 we were told that there would be a £250,000 feasibility study. The ships are old and wasteful of manpower. The conversion of merchant ships is not acceptable. We have seen, in the Zeebrugge tragedy, the difficulties that can arise with some commercial ships if they are under particular strain. They may not be the best contenders for such work. I do not wish to appear alarmist, but an option, at which many of us have looked with some sympathy, is becoming less attractive. I imagine that that point will have to be considered in the feasibility study, although I hope that it will not be an excuse for the further extension of the feasibility study and that we shall be given a report as quickly as possible on that.
  We believe that the Navy requires and deserves two purpose-built amphibious vessels capable of offloading a heavy tonnage of equipment in as short a time as possible. Those ships will have to reinforce an area of Norway some 80 miles from the Soviet bases around Murmansk, and they will be vulnerable to air attack if they take too long to get rid of their stores. We also need new aviation support ships to replace Hermes and Bulwark. As the Royal Marines director of operations said recently, those are the critical ships of the amphibious fleet.
  There is a cynical view of the financial constraints under which the Ministry of Defence has to operate, described by the Secretary of State yesterday as:
  "the normal process of taking some items out of the programme and putting in others that are considered to be a higher priority."—[Official Report, 27 October 1987; Vol. 121, c. 214.]
  We now have a rather convoluted and protracted process of ordering and re-ordering. We start with the announcement of an internal examination, followed by a feasibility study — provided that it does not cost more than about a quarter of a million pounds, and provided that it takes at least two years. Then an announcement of a change in the cycle of refits is likely. Perhaps half the original ships will not be built, or will no longer be required in the form originally considered.
  There will then be another delay, followed by an invitation to tender. Once the tenders are called in, the contract will be awarded or not awarded, as the case may be. The MOD will probably recall the contract to see whether it can be revised downwards. All the time that that pantomime is going on, sailors are having to spend longer periods at sea, shipyard workers see lay-offs, redundancies
  322
  and closures coming nearer and nearer, and the naval dockyards have interruptions to their refit cycles. That is the record of the Government's ordering strategy.
  Many of us were pessimistic about the privatisation of the dockyards, but we had hoped that there would be a minimum of redundancies, or at least that the contractors had overestimated the likely job losses. We thought it possible that, following vesting day, the contractors would come along and say that they had overestimated the redundancies, and that it might be possible to operate with more people than they had anticipated. However, the announcement that 3,500 jobs at Devonport would go by next April is devastating news for the whole of the southwest. It can be little consolation to the workers from British Rail Engineering Ltd. who have been sacked that their work may now go to the dockyard at Devonport. As Mike Leece, the managing director of the private contractors, told the Daily Telegraph on 12 October:
  "The history of the yard is against us. For 300 years we have put the Royal Navy first and it is an uphill struggle to persuade a customer his work will be carried out even if a warship comes in for emergency repairs."
  Those of us who spent some time last winter debating the Dockyards Services Bill remember addressing day after day and week after week, a completely indifferent team of Defence Ministers. They were confident that the new yards would be able to get business without any difficulty. and guaranteed that the work available would be sufficient to minimise redundancies and keep everyone happy. However, the Government are ignoring the service that has been rendered to this country by the naval dockyards and the warship building yards. Not only are the Government failing the Navy and our seamen by their inability to order and re-equip our fleet adequately; they are betraying the people who have built and maintained the ships that have protected our shores, our shipping lanes and those of our allies.
  The stockbroking firms, the academics and the journalists have written off this great industry. It is often forgotten that the amount of work directly involved in the building of warships bears little relation to the number of jobs far beyond the shipbuilding yards and the contractors and subcontractors who produce the electronics and avionics for the ships. Job losses for the next 10 years are quoted at about 100,000, yet it is likely that in 10 years' time we shall have only one shipbuilding yard and only one yard for the construction of submarines.
  The Government are doing nothing about the problem. They are turning their backs on our allies. Answering one of the few points on which he did not pass the buck to the Under-Secretary of State, the Minister once again donned his Treasury hat and told us that there was little possibility of a 3 per cent. increase in conventional expenditure along the lines promised in the pre-election spree commitment of 25 May.
  A more worrying question, and one on which we must have an answer tonight, is what happened at the meeting of national armaments directors on 21 October. Our warship building industry has most to gain from the NFR 90 programme and the Euro-frigate going ahead. Our yards would receive orders for about 12 vessels to replace the type 24 destroyers. We should be losing a tremendous opportunity if, because of Government financial constraints — the business of taking one plan out of the budget and putting another in—we turned our backs on such an exciting project, which will guarantee employment

  323
  into the first decade of the next century. But that is the kind of thing that the Government have been forced to do by their total preoccupation with the funding and construction of Trident.
  If only a Defence Minister had the guts to stand up and say, "You cannot have all your defence commitments. The strain on the Navy, the Air Force and the Army is too great to bear the cost of Trident. We cannot get any more out of our defence industries." We have heard the saga of how Scott Lithgow has virtually been bled dry by being continually required by the Government to pare down its costs, to a point where it is likely to fail altogether. I hope that I am wrong, but the general feeling seems to be that the Secretary of State—who, in his days as Secretary of State for Scotland, was a strong supporter of Scott Lithgow—is now using every opportunity to trample it into the mud of the Clyde.
  That is a source of regret to the Opposition, because, at the last election, most of the shipbuilding areas returned Labour Members, and it is to us that they look for support and confidence. [Interruption.] Perhaps that is not true of Barrow and Furness. However, other parts of the shipbuilding industry look to us for support, because they know that they can get nothing from the Government. It is a national disgrace that generations of skill, talent and expertise are being thrown away for the sake of the Government's nuclear fixation.
  We are asking for a statement from the Under-Secretary, who seems to be doing all the sweeping up today, that the Government have decided—during the next five and a half hours—to change their priorities. I suspect that will not be forthcoming, for I do not think that this Government will change. They will sacrifice our armed forces in Europe as they are sacrificing most of the Navy, and will seek to prevent any form of effective nuclear disarmament involving Britain, because their commitment to nuclear weaponry is such that we cannot meet our conventional commitments and responsibilities.
  The standard argument is that nuclear weapons are cheaper than conventional weapons. The truth is that expenditure on nuclear weapons is beggaring our armed forces. Our soldiers, sailors and airmen are being denied the support that they require. Therefore, I have no doubt that my right hon. and hon. Friends will join me this evening in supporting the amendment that stands in the name of the official Opposition and in rejecting out of hand the White Paper and all that it stands for.
  Several Hon. Members rose——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. A large number of right hon. and hon. Members are seeking to take part in the debate, some of whom have sat for many hours awaiting their opportunity. Brief speeches would be much appreciated.
  4.40 p.m.
  Mr. Patrick Thompson: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me this opportunity to speak in the debate. I intend to make a few brief and specific points on the motion to approve the statement on the Defence Estimates. Before doing so, however, I have to admit that, after listening to the speech of the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill), I am no clearer about the real thrust of the Opposition's defence
  324
  policy than I was before. I note with interest that the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) is in his place. I doubt whether he is here to listen to my words. I suspect that we shall hear from him later in the debate. I look forward with fascination to the latest views that he will put forward on defence policy.
  Yesterday's debate reminded me of the general election campaign. The majority of the people whom I met on the doorsteps favoured the basic concept of deterrence. They were worried about the Opposition's policy. No matter which part of the constituency I visited or to which category of people I spoke, that message came over loud and clear. The Conservative party and Government's firm stance on defence has to be compared with the total disarray of the Opposition.
  Before the start of the general election campaign, many people supported the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. In Norwich and elsewhere they flirted with CND, but during the general election campaign they looked for other policies that they could support, which helped the Conservative party during the campaign. In this debate, the CND's stance is most closely identified with the amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), to which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence referred.
  What worries me about the CND campaign — I say this in the presence of the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock), who no doubt will listen with, interest to what I am about to say—is not that it does not deploy a rational argument; it makes many interesting points in the serious debate about arms control, defence and international relations. My main criticism of the CND is that in pressing its case it has continually deployed emotion and fear, particularly among our young people. That was a mistake, because it has rebounded on the CND. I hope that it will take my criticism seriously. Attention ought to be drawn more often to such criticisms.
  Ms. Joan Ruddock: I think that it is perfectly rational and understandable for people who are concerned about nuclear disarmament to draw to the attention of the public the tremendous cost in death and destruction in this country if there were to be a nuclear exchange. The Government calculate that there would be tens of millions of dead and injured and that this country would be completely devastated. I believe that that is an emotional matter and that it is reasonable to say so.
  Mr. Thompson: The point that I am trying to make is that it is equally valid for those on the other side of the argument to point to the even greater risk of destruction and loss of life through a nuclear holocaust that could be brought about if those policies were ever put into effect. I am not debating which side of the argument would lead to the greatest destruction. I am criticising the unscrupulous use of fear and emotion. It is fair enough to draw attention to the destruction that would be caused if there were a nuclear holocaust, but I do not accept the unscrupulous and irrational way in which that is being done.
  The NATO Alliance would be destroyed if the views of the majority of Opposition Members were to be translated into action. It is worth reminding hon. Members that 160 Labour-led local authorities have declared nuclear-free

  325
  zones and peace parks. The true policy of the Opposition is therefore most closely identified with the amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield.
  Mr. Allan Rogers: The hon. Gentleman castigates Labour-led local authorities for declaring nuclear-free zones. However, in the last Parliament the Chief Whip wanted his area to be declared a nuclear-free zone. He led a campaign to prevent the dumping of nuclear waste in his area. What is wrong with the Labour party and Labour local authorities wanting nuclear-free zones when the Chief Whip on the Front Bench of the Tory party also wants them, especially in his backyard?
  Mr. Thompson: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that there is no connection between my point and the disposal of nuclear waste. I do not intend to be drawn down that path. My first point about the White Paper will not be debated a great deal during the next few hours. The White Paper refers to service personnel leaving the Army, the Navy and the Royal Air Force because of family problems. The White Paper refers to changes in society and attitudes and to the fact that that is causing problems. I ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State who is to reply to the debate to take on board the fact that I would support a close examination of this point.
  The White Paper refers to the reserves. It is good news to me that we are to continue to expand the Territorial Army, the Royal Naval Reserve and the Royal Air Force Reserve. However, I ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and his colleagues to recognise further the value of the reserves, to provide greater resources for the reserves and to highlight the relationship between the reserves and the general public. The profile of the reserves is too low. I should like greater priority to be given to drawing the attention of the public to the excellent work that they do.
  Furthermore, there should be a close link between the reserves and the concept of civil defence and planning. I am a strong supporter of civil defence. I have asked my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and his colleagues many questions on that subject. In the past there has been greater co-operation between the reserves and civil defence. There should be just as much co-operation now.
  The White Paper does not refer to the excellent work of the cadet forces. They do a great deal for our young people, and their work should be given greater priority. More attention should be paid to the work of the combined cadet forces in the schools, the Army cadet force and the other cadet forces that help and do so much for young people. I simply ask for a positive response on that aspect when the Minister replies to the debate.
  Finally, I return to the opening speech of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. He referred to the question of chemical weapons and the stockpile that is being built up by the Soviets. Of course, our unilateral gesture in the 1950s was not followed by the Soviet Union. To return to the opening theme of my speech, that gesture presents yet another lesson for CND. We made a unilateral gesture that was not followed. Now however — as was made clear in the White Paper — we are progressing towards a ban on the production, stockpiling and deployment of chemical weapons. That is good news. I support the steps towards such multilateral disarmament. We all want a reduction in those stockpiles. I wished to refer to chemical
  326
  weapons because they were mentioned by my right hon. Friend yesterday and they offer a lesson for those who are somehow in favour of unilateral gestures.
  It is Conservative policy to keep up the strength of our defences, to maintain the independent deterrent, to maintain the strength of our conventional forces and, as I have specifically pointed out., to maintain our reserves and cadet forces. That must be infinitely preferable to the total disarray of Opposition policies. It is therefore quite clear why there was so much support for us in the recent general election.
  4.51 pm
  Mr. Denis Healey: Much of the debate until now has centred on whether Trident inflicts, as we on this side of the House believe, crippling damage on the equipment and efficiency of our conventional forces. I want to consider briefly the effect of the Trident programme on our defence and foreign policy.
  Most Ministers, in common with the Minister who opened the debate this afternoon, have been somewhat ambiguous and mealy-mouthed about the reasons why the Government support the Trident programme. They have sought to disguise the Prime Minister's motivation by the kinds of phrases that have been used by the Minister this afternoon. Fortunately. the right hon. Lady has been quite unequivocal about it.
  I think that the clearest statement that the Prime Minister gave of her views was the one that she made on Moscow television earlier this year to the people of the Soviet Union, when she justified our acquisition of what she called an independent strategic nuclear force on the grounds that
  "Nuclear weapons are the only means allowing a small country to stand up to a big one".
  There is no doubt that that is the right hon. Lady's view and, to be fair, many ordinary people in the country feel that that may well be the case. That is one reason why they support her.
  Of course, if one took seriously what the Prime Minister said, the implications for nuclear proliferation and for an increase in the danger of a nuclear holocaust would be horrifying. Fortunately, hardly any other small countries—I can think of only one—have taken the route to which the Prime Minister has pointed. She has been inspired by that belief. The irony is that because of her conviction that
  "Nuclear weapons are the only means allowing a small country to stand up to a big one"
  the course on which she has led Britain has had bizarre and Because the Prime
  Minister has now made Britain totally dependent on the United States for the supply and maintenance of its strategic nuclear missiles and for the testing of its warheads, Britain is totally incapable of standing up to that great power on any major issue of defence or foreign policy. I suggest that that is something that should disturb Conservative Members as much as it disturbs us.
  The long period during which this dependency on the United States will last is rarely recognised. According to the Government, the initial supply of Trident missiles will not be completed until the next century. Under the rent-a-rocket arrangement, we have to swap those Moss Bros missiles every seven or eight years for other missiles from the American stockpile. That will be so as long as the Trident force is operational, which I trust will be some 30 years from the launch of the first submarines.

  327
  At any time in the next 40 years the United States has the physical ability to cease supplying our Trident forces with missiles or to refuse to replace them. Many Members may say, "Yes, it may have the ability, but it would never refuse to supply the missiles or to replace them, because it is committed by treaty to continue to supply them." Such people have short memories. Indeed, the Minister has a shorter memory than most. He cannot even remember what happened in 1982, under his Government's Administration, when the Trident agreement was signed. I should have thought that it was his duty to inform himself on that point as soon as he took office.
  The fact is that, under President Truman, the American Administration broke the wartime agreement on nuclear co-operation with Britain as soon as the war ended. In the early 1960s, the Americans broke the agreement to supply Britain with the Skybolt missile because they decided not to go ahead with the production of the Skybolt missile for themselves. I know that that was before the Minister's time, but—
  Mr. Keith Mans: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will remember that when he was Secretary of State for Defence he relied much more heavily on American armaments for the defence of this country. Does he not remember the Polaris programme that he commissioned relied on American rockets? Does he not remember the F111s? Does he not remember the Phantom aircraft? All of them could have been withdrawn by the Americans if they so wished. What is this sudden change of heart?
  Mr. Healey: What is the parliamentary word for tripe? There must be something suitable.
  We did, in common with the present Government, buy a fair amount of equipment from the United States. Only the other day the present Government ditched the Nimrod project and decided instead to buy the American AWACS. Everything from the United States, including the Polaris missile, was our property from the moment the transfer took place. That is not the case with the Trident D5 missile, which must be returned to the United States and replaced every seven years. The Government finally had to admit that last night.
  We have precedents for the Americans breaking nuclear agreements with Britain when it is in their interests to do so. There are many signs, of which the Government are well aware, that the present American Administration are considering policies—indeed, they are adopting policies—that would make it necessary for Americans to deny Britain the D5 missile.
  At Reykjavik last year, President Reagan agreed with Mr. Gorbachev—he reported to Congress accordingly a week later—that their first objective was to eliminate all ballistic missiles from the armouries of both super-powers. That would mean that there would be no D5s to give to Britain. Secondly, in recent weeks it has become clear that President Reagan and Mr. Gorbachev are hoping to reach agreement on a 50 per cent. cut in strategic nuclear missiles during the first half of next year—an agreement to be signed at the second summit in Moscow towards the middle of next year following the hoped-for Washington summit.
  That agreement, if it is reached —and we would all agree it is highly desirable — will involve a very heavy
  328
  reduction on both sides of submarine-launched missiles. When Mr. Shevardnadze and Mr. Shultz met last week in Moscow, the Russians offered to limit the number of submarine-launched warheads — not missiles — to 1,500 or 2,000 a side. That offer was welcomed by the Americans as a great step forward.
  Do the Government really believe that, after such an agreement, the United States would provide us with missiles that are capable of carrying at least 640 warheads and, if the full complement were placed, 900 warheads? Do the Government really believe that the Americans would continue with the present agreement if they were restricting their own submarine-launched warheads to 1,500 or 2,000? Would they allow us to have 640 to 900, a third or a half of their forces — indeed, a third or a half of the Soviet forces? Does anybody think it conceivable that the Russians would agree to a 50 per cent. cut if the United States was immediately providing Britain with half as many missiles as the Russians and Americans were destroying? I suggest that it is absolutely inconceivable.
  The Minister says that he is keen on glasnost. I am also keen on glasnost. Indeed, the Secretary of State came out for glasnost yesterday, but he still will not tell us the most elementary fact about the existing British nuclear force. The American and British experts on the subject think that there are now only two warheads carried in every Polaris missile, yet the Minister refuses to tell us. He keeps talking about the number of warheads carried when Polaris was introduced in 1964, which was three. The Russians claim that Polaris carries six warheads.
  What about a little bit of glasnost from the Minister? This is an important fact and he is giving away nothing which the Russians do not claim to know, although what the Russians claim to know differs from what the experts in Britain and the United States claim that they know. Why does the Minister not finally come clean and tell us how many warheads he plans to put in the nose cone of the D5 missiles that he is planning to buy from the United States, because that is of major importance to the prospects for disarmament agreement in the strategic field?
  From the Government's point of view, the risk of the Americans breaking their agreement to supply us with D5 missiles is a very real one. If the Minister is not aware of that, the Prime Minister certainly is. That is why, immediately after Reykjavik she scurried off to Camp David, and she went there again this year. She seems to have a season ticket to Camp David because she feels that it is her duty and in our national interest to go at least once every six months to Washington to declare what she calls "implicit confidence in the President's integrity". The last time that the right hon. Lady did that was during the first week of the Irangate disaster.
  It is clear that the type of strategic force that the Government have contracted to buy from the United States makes us totally dependent on the decisions of the American Government, who may decide to interrupt the agreement. To discourage the Americans from taking such a step we are now toeing the American line on issue after issue — on disarmament, on defence and, indeed, on foreign policy. It was a Conservative Government, formed by Harold Macmillan, who started a process that was intended to lead to a comprehensive ban on nuclear tests.
  The Government have now excluded the possibility of such a ban, and the Secretary of State said that the reason for that is that we cannot go ahead with our own nuclear

  329
  programme unless we can test the missiles. Although the Government had intelligence information showing that the Krasnoyarsk installation was not a battle command station for a Soviet star wars system, they refused to admit that they had that information. However, since then a group of American congressmen, together with photographers and defence experts, have been to look at Krasnoyarsk on the ground and have verified the information collected by intelligence sources.
  Another, and particularly disturbing, example is that only last Thursday the Foreign Secretary described the ABM treaty as an unacceptable constraint on the strategic defence initiative. That was a disturbing remark, which appeared to pass without notice at the time. The plain fact is that all that the Russians are asking for as a condition of proceeding to a 50 per cent. cut in strategic weapons is that the United States Administration should stick to the narrow interpretation of the ABM treaty, which was accepted by every American Administration — Republican and Democrat — until the Reagan Administration, and which is endorsed by every one of our European allies, but about which the British Government do not have the guts to tell the truth.
  Dr. Keith Hampson: I am grateful to my Leeds neighbour for giving way — he was a distinguished Secretary of State for Defence. Will he follow the logic of what he is saying? He has spelt out what he thinks is an unhealthy relationship with America. Years ago I heard him explain why he was concerned that American interests would be switched to the Pacific and that there would be problems in keeping them in Europe. Therefore, is there not some logic in saying that as the right hon. Gentleman, when Secretary of State for Defence, used to believe that Europe needed a fallback on some nuclear deterrent—I have not yet heard him say this—he favours this country's collaboration with France to have a proper European nuclear deterrent?
  Mr. Healey: No, and I explained that during my swan song — well, not really my swan song, because I am singing again today. During my last speech from the Labour Front Bench in July, I explained why I had changed my position on this matter. The hon. Gentleman has let the Government's cat out of the bag. The case for a British independent deterrent is the belief that the American deterrent is not reliable. Obviously, the Prime Minister clearly believes that. That is why she said what she did to the viewers of Moscow television. However, the Government are going, not for an independent deterrent, but for one that is bought from the United States over a 20-year period and must be in service for 30 years, during which period the missiles must be returned to the United States once every seven years, and the warheads of which, although they are British, have to be tested on American test sites.
  If we take the Prime Minister's view, there is a case for following the French—and I suspect that that is what the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), the ex-leader of the SDP, would like to do. However, that is not what the Government are doing, and it is not even what the SDP is openly proposing today—I mean the ex-SDP. Indeed, I am not aware of anyone in this country in any political area who is proposing that, with the possible exception of my noble Friend on the Front Bench—I refer to the hon. Member for Woolwich
  330
  (Mr. Cartwright), and I use the term "noble" not in the class sense but as an expression of personal esteem — who is about the only chap who will move at a rate of knots towards the Gaullist position on nuclear weapons.
  As I was saying before I was so pleasantly interrupted, we have become wholly dependent on the vagaries of American policy. Of course, sometimes it has good effects. The Prime Minister was clearly deeply suspicious—indeed, hostile—to the INF agreement when it was first put forward, and she made that clear in some unguarded remarks. However, once she became aware that the American Administration were determined to pursue it, she fell into line. The Secretary of State for Defence told us in July that he thought that he would have to consider putting cruise missiles on submarines and having more B52 bombers in Britain to replace the capability given up by NATO in the INF agreement. I shall make a prediction: it is now clear that the Americans do not want to follow that route, so we will not hear a peep out of the right hon. Gentleman along those lines from now on.
  However, in some ways more serious, because it is a continuing process, is the extent to which the Government's dependence on the United States for a strategic nuclear force is corrupting areas of our foreign policy to which it is not strictly relevant in any way. We were the only ally of the United States to give it facilities for the raiding of Tripoli last year. The reason, obviously, was the nuclear dependency. We have had pusillanimous pussy-footing from the British Government about Nicaragua, El Salvador and the possibility of a settlement in Latin America. Why? It is because they are frightened of offending the American President in case it backfires on his readiness to supply us with Trident.
  There is also the inexplicable behaviour of the Government towards the crisis in the Gulf. A few moments ago I asked the Minister about Mr. John Connell's report in The Sunday Times on 1 May that the continuation of the Armilla patrol in the Gulf was a condition of the Trident agreement in 1982. He did not know, but perhaps when he——
  Mr. Stewart rose—
  Mr. Healey: Oh, so the Minister has found out, has he?
  Mr. Stewart: When the right hon. Gentleman intervened during my speech I had not seen the article. However, I thought it highly implausible. I was right—it
  Mr. Healey: I am surprised to hear that, because Mr. Connell is one of the most highly regarded of all British defence correspondents. He was writing, not in the Morning Star or even Marxism Today, but in The Sunday Times—an organ—if that is the right word, and I am sure that it is—of Mr. Rupert Murdoch and which cannot be accused of truckling to the Soviet Union or even to the Labour party or the CND. There have been other reports about conditions attached to the Trident agreement; for example, those relating to Diego Garcia. I have no doubt that my hon. Friends on the Front Bench will pursue these matters during Question Time, as I shall be doing, in the coming months.
  Whatever the reason for our forces being in the Gulf, during Question Time last week the Foreign Secretary told us that our policy in the Gulf is fundamentally different from that of the United States. Perhaps the Minister can tell us how it is different. Indeed, he would be doing a

  331
  service to the world if he could explain American policy in the Gulf, because the Americans appear to be very uncertain about it. There is common ground in the House, which emerged during Question Time last week, that the greatest danger to Britain's interests and to world peace would be for members of the Western alliance to express partiality in favour of either Iraq or Iran.
  The Americans have expressed partiality, and it is a bit thick for the Minister to say again today that we have ships in the Gulf to guarantee freedom of passage through international waters, when two thirds of the attacks on foreign shipping in the Gulf have been carried out by Iraq, not Iran, and when every attack carried out by American forces has been against Iran. In one case it was because Iran had attacked a ship, not in international waters, but in Kuwaiti territorial waters, which a week earlier had been explicitly excluded from the area of American concern by no less a person than General Vernon Walters, the American ambassador to the United Nations. Every time that the Americans have taken military action against Iran they have been congratulated, usually by the Prime Minister, and sometimes by the Foreign Secretary. I have no doubt that the Secretary of State has added his ounce—or milligram—from time to time.
  Most disturbing of all is the Government's reason for rejecting a United Nations force in the Gulf. The Russians have offered to contribute to such a force or to withdraw their ships in favour of such a force if the Americans will do the same. The Government say that they favour working with the Russians for a peaceful solution to the conflict and that they want to work with the Russians for an arms embargo against Iran. Why then will they not agree to the setting up of a United Nations force?
  We were given the most extraordinary collection of reasons last week, the most striking being the claim that it was not possible to have an international force if the people on the different ships spoke different languages. Come off it! I do not mean you, Mr. Deputy Speakser, but the Secretary of State and the Minister. NATO has several international maritime forces. I have made a note of the languages spoken by the members of those forces. They speak English, French, German, Italian, Norwegian, Danish, Dutch, Turkish and Greek. I dare say that none of the captains of those vessels speaks Turkish much better than the Secretary of State. Yet, as we are constantly told, that international force, speaking all those languages, has kept the peace for the past 40 years in NATO.
  The United Nations had international forces in Cyprus and the Lebanon with the same mix of languages, to which Finnish was added. The Secretary of State's familiarity with that language is, of course, legend in all the bars of Helsinki. If the Government have no better argument than that for opposing a United Nations force in the Gulf, they should stop opposing it and support it. It is by far the best hope of keeping the peace in that area and the only way to ensure that Britain and the West maintain their influence in that part of the world both during the war and after the war is over.
  I ask the Government to think again about their Trident programme. It is clear from what the Secretary of State said yesterday that there are very difficult choices on the way. Having faced the same problems 20 years ago, I can tell the Secretary of State that there is no answer to be found in candle ends or salami cuts. That is the way to
  332
  overstretched services, plummeting morale and operational inefficiency. The only way to make the cuts that the Government have decided as a quantum, with a further 5 per cent. to come in the next few years, is to drop some of the commitments — and Trident should be the first to go.
  I conclude with this thought, and I hope that the Minister will give us his observations on it. We need Trident only if we cannot rely on the United States in a crisis, but if we cannot rely on the United States in a crisis. can we rely on the United States to provide us with Trident? There is a clear contradiction there which deserves to be explored. If we continue with the Trident programme, we risk crippling our expenditure on conventional forces for no real military advantage and with serious political disadvantage, which can be summed up as a period of prolonged and humiliating dependence on the United States that will corrupt the whole of our foreign and defence policies.
  5.18 pm
  Miss Ann Widdecombe: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to make my first speech in the House in this important debate. In doing so, I pay tribute to my distinguished predecessor, Sir John Wells, who served the constituency with dedication and distinction for 28 years. His period of service will be remembered by his former constituents with respect and affection, as I am sure it will also be remembered by Members of the House. He earned respect for his exemplary chairmanship of many important parliamentary Committees and affection for the colourful way in which he sometimes drew attention to the needs of his constituents. On one occasion, he arrived for the day's business on a horse. On another, he enlivened proceedings in the Chamber by eating an apple—a Kentish apple, of course—during the debate. I hope to follow his example in dedicating myself to the service of my constituents, but I shall not be eating any apples in the Chamber, as history attests rather strongly to the unfortunate results of ladies eating apples where they should not.
  My constituency has suffered badly from the recent wind storms. As a horticulturist, Sir John Wells would have understood all too well the misery and devastation suffered by many farmers, expecially the fruit farmers whose industry takes up such a large part of the constituency that I have the honour to serve. I hope that the Government will see fit to provide some compensation, in however cautious and measured a way, to those who have lost their livelihood not just in the immediate term but for years to come, because it will be some time before replanted trees can be expected to produce crops which will generate income.
  Leaving the country areas for the town of Maidstone, I am proud to have in that town concrete and tangible evidence of the Government's firm commitment to the National Health Service in the shape of a large new modern hospital. I regret to tell the House, however, that, due to inequitable distribution of funds by the South East Thames regional health authority, that hospital is not being used as fully or as beneficially as it should be. On an appropriate future occasion, I hope to draw attention to the difficulties experienced by my constituents as a result of that inequitable distribution of funds.
  I address myself to the debate and to the Opposition amendments in the sure knowledge that I address myself

  333
  to a subject of the utmost importance and interest to my constituents. I begin by congratulating the Government on the Defence Estimates and particularly on the sound basis on which they have drawn up plans for the nation's security. I believe that the people of Britain will draw great comfort and reassurance from the fact that they are governed by a party which is wholly committed to an effective nuclear deterrent.
  I spent many hours yesterday and some today listening to Opposition Members decrying the Trident programme. I thought that they had been sufficiently effectively answered yesterday, but today we have heard the same tired arguments, based on the same flawed logic. Both in their amendments and in the many distinguished speeches that we have heard, the Opposition have claimed that the Trident programme is undesirable because it eats into conventional defence expenditure. There is a severe absence of logic in that statement. It is true that if we did not spend the money on Trident we could use it to purchase conventional weapons or, indeed, anything we liked — sacks of potatoes, biros, pounds of butter, or whatever. If we are to spend Trident money on something other than Trident, we must ask ourselves whether the optional thing that we are purchasing is capable of doing the job of Trident. If it is not capable of doing that job and fulfilling the aims of Trident, it does not matter that we could buy it with Trident money. It is totally irrelevant.
  The sole objective of Trident is to deter a potentially hostile force from launching a nuclear attack on this country, or to deter a hostile force with overwhelmingly superior conventional forces from attempting to use that superiority to launch a conventional attack. Therefore, if we are to give up Trident to buy conventional weapons, we must demand that those weapons are an equally effective deterrent.
  The statement on the Defence Estimates suggests that, if we devote all the Trident money to conventional weapons, we might be able to buy and maintain 300 tanks for an armoured division. I am sure that it is very laudable and worthy to buy 300 tanks for an armoured division but, when the Warsaw pact countries have a superiority of 30,000 tanks, it will not be a very effective deterrent. We can do the same arithmetical exercise for artillery, where we are outnumbered by 3:1, and in anti-tank guided weapons by 1·6:1. We can continue that exercise, but we shall not end up with a replacement that serves the same aim as Trident. We shall simply replace something designed to do one job with something designed to do a totally different job.
  Opposition Members were not terribly kind to the Government last night when summing up. The hon. Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. Hughes) said that he would not award a CSE pass to the Government for the reasoning behind their Defence Estimates but, after listening yesterday and for several hours today to the Opposition, I do not believe that they have reached a standard of elementary logic which would get them through the 11-plus. Perhaps that is why they have such an antipathy towards that examination. My nephews and nieces at the age of eight or nine, let alone 11, could have told Opposition Members that, if they are given the bus fare to get home and they spend it on a taxi ride, they will not get the same value because the bus will take them only a few yards.
  If we spend the Trident money on 300 tanks or whatever—frigates are much beloved of the Opposition
  334
  —we shall find that we have gone not even a few yards or feet but only a few inches towards an effective deterrent, whereas Trident would do the entire job, so the logic is flawed. If we all took to the hills—as the Opposition came perilously close to suggesting not long ago—and invested our Trident money in bows and arrows, those bows and arrows might outnumber those of the Warsaw pact countries and would be about as useful as some of the arguments put forward by the Opposition.
  Opposition Members are trying to have it all ways when they argue that, if we are to have an independent deterrent, it must be truly independent. I am not quite sure what Opposition Members stand for. The distinguished and right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) said that we do not have a truly independent deterrent because the Americans will do the servicing. We said very clearly—I am sorry that the Opposition did not understand the point—that we shall always have control over some of the missiles. Does the right hon. Gentleman seriously believe that, when he sends a suit to the cleaners, he has no clothes at all and must come into the Chamber in a state of sartorial dilapidation because he has no suit?
  Finally, in desperation, Opposition Members decided to try to claim that the conventional imbalance was a figment of the Government's imagination, that it did not exist, and in support of that they triumphantly produced a document brought out by the International Institute for Strategic Studies and quoted it with the reverence normally reserved for Holy Writ. They said, "Look, this says something entirely different." I have read that document and I find that within its figures there is ample evidence, which is clearly set out and not at all disguised, that the Warsaw pact enjoys an overwhelming numerical superiority of conventional weapons. I commend page 226 to the Opposition for further study. They may not have got that far.
  The amendment submitted in the name of the Leader of the Opposition is serious, because it exhorts the Government to take a headlong flight to abandon and abolish all battlefield nuclear weapons simultaneously with reductions on the conventional side. That is simply and solely the wrong timing. There must be no further reductions beyond the INF treaty agreements. There must be no further reductions in nuclear weapons until such time as the conventional imbalance — whether one believes the Government's document or the IISS document—is eliminated.
  In that context, I should like to ask my hon. Friend the Minister for reassurance later. It is said that the statement on the Defence Estimates was drawn up at a time when the finer ramifications of the INF proposals, particularly the inclusion of shorter-range intermediate missiles, had riot been fully understood. Such are the massive implications for our conventional spending, not only for Britain, which already spends the third highest percentage of gross domestic product in NATO on defence, but for all our NATO partners, that we should be assured that not only will there be no simultaneous negotiations for the reduction of battlefield nuclear weapons, but that there will be a good long cool gap before any agreement that we may reach on conventional weapons while we assess the implications.
  So desperate were the anti-Trident Opposition that they said that there was supposed to be an escalation of the arms race. One sees such words in the amendments. That is interesting. An arms race implies that each side is trying

  335
  to keep up with the other, but as I read it, the number of warheads on Trident is a lower proportion of Warsaw pact warheads than Polaris was when we first had it. So that is not an escalation.
  The Opposition used the worn-out argument that because the warheads were independently targeted, we had increased our numbers. However, if one is talking about an arms race, one must also look at what the other side is doing. Surely it is only prudent, when designing a system, to say that if one ever reached the highly undesirable state when one needed to increase one's warheads, one should have the system to make that possible. The cost of the Chevaline operation that was forced upon the Labour Government can be interpreted as the cost of not having sufficient forward defence planning at the time of procurement.
  I regret that in this, my first speech in the House, I have had to devote so much time to the wild and woolly arguments of the Opposition. I am also rather surprised that they are still putting forward in the House the Alice-in-Wonderland reasoning that lost them the June election. I say to them: Come back from Wonderland. Do not go through the looking glass with Alice. Instead, stay in front of the looking glass and take a good long look. Do the Opposition's policies reflect public opinion? No. But more importantly, do their policies have any bearing on the real world? Surely the answer must still be no. Thus the Opposition should stand at that looking glass and look in. But my belief is that the general public, as exhibited in poll after poll, have reason to be thankful and grateful to the Government who have drawn up their plans on a sound and effective deterrent rather than being able to offer no strategy and no alternative.
  5.34 pm
  Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: I briefly opposed the hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) in the 1983 general election when she was contesting Plymouth, Devonport, and I was campaigning in the city and the dockyard as Labour's defence spokesman, but now I hasten to congratulate her on an outstanding maiden speech, delivered appealingly, with great confidence and with the authority that befits someone who, through her family and education as well as her political campaigning, has close links with the armed services, especially the Navy. But the hon. Lady also spoke provocatively, and I know that many of my hon. Friends will genuinely look forward to her next speech and to her being called in the Navy debate. However, all of us will join in congratulating her on her speech, which was made without notes, without so much as a hesitation or a diminution of verve, or command of her subject, although some of us ached to challenge her.
  Britain is to spend more than £19 billion on defence in the year ending next April. In cash terms that is a tiny increase over last year, but in real terms it is a decrease, yet according to the defence White Paper, the Secretary of State for Defence in introducing it yesterday, and all the Conservative Members who followed him, with the exception of the hon. Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates), everything is all right with Britain's defences. It is not.
  The reality is that the Navy is not getting the ships that it needs to fulfil its assigned roles in NATO, and the British
  336
  Army remains the worst equipped of the main armies of NATO Europe. The White Paper gives no hope for much improvement—on the contrary. The results of the past three lean years have not yet begun to be felt.
  New orders for type 23 frigates have been delayed. Just six ships have been ordered in the past three years. The Navy is becoming overstretched. Participation in NATO exercises has dropped by one third. Maintenance and training are suffering. Ultimately, the Navy may be unable to meet NATO force goals and other national commitments.
  Little more than half the 50 minesweeper and hunter orders planned under a £1 billion modernisation scheme will be completed by the 1995 deadline. Ironically, the mine warfare forces were the one part of the Navy that was boosted under the 1982 defence review, which otherwise hit the Navy hard. Six AWACS aircraft have been ordered to replace the abandoned Nimrod, where eight is really the minimum that the RAF needs to keep a constant watch.
  The Army does not have enough helicopters, antiaircraft weapons, artillery or missiles, nor really enough men. New orders are being delayed. The Army's Chieftain tanks are obsolescent and need replacing in the early 1990s. No serious money has been allocated to build or buy a successor model in good time. The Army badly needs a multiple-launch rocket system to replace outdated artillery. Spending on all those conventional items should rise if all the lessons of the Falklands war are to be implemented, according to a report on the 1982 campaign published recently by the Select Committee on Defence.
  The main question raised by the White Paper is how long the Government will keep the lid on defence spending. The costs of equipment and the cost of men are both rising, yet defence outlays have been virtually flat in cash terms since 1985–86. That gap is nothing like the chasm that is likely to open up between commitment and resources in the next few years. Some analysts believe that funds for new equipment must be cut by more than a third during the next five years. Others calculate that a gap of £8 billion is opening up between what is willed and what is likely to be available to pay for it. However, if one searches for that in the Defence Estimates, one will search in vain.
  The hon. Member for Hampshire, East, who is the Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence, put his finger on the button yesterday afternoon when he said:
  "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."—[Official Report, 27 October 1987; Vol. 121, c. 241.]
  The European fighter aircraft project, which could cost Britain more than £6 billion, has not been included in the latest long-term costings. How can the Government proceed with their full development without cutting another important defence commitment to pay for it? The Secretary of State presumably believes that a cash crisis can be averted by deferring projects and spreading their cost over a longer period. That may well be overoptimistic. The cost of Trident, now moving towards its peak, and the decline of defence spending by 8 per cent. in real terms over the next five years, will squeeze the budget hard.
  Nor will cutting some marginal commitments outside the NATO area or the more efficient management of procurement be enough. Equipment costs will continue to

  337
  escalate, so that the country will either have to pay more proportionately for defence than it does now, or adjust its commitments. Whatever the commitments, the House may depend upon it that it will be conventional arms, not nuclear arms, that will suffer. If past form is a guide, the likeliest conventional area is sustainability.
  Page 17 of the White Paper properly draws attention to the need for conventional defence improvement and claims:
  "considerable progress had been made towards a more effective conventional posture".
  Will the Minister state what the United Kingdom has contributed towards that "considerable progress"? Ammunition stocks are the only item to which one can find a reassuring reference in the White Paper. What of operational reserves, stocks of vital equipment, intelligence, C3 and early warning? On page 17 the White Paper properly justifies the improvement of NATO's conventional defence posture so as
  "to avoid being put in a position of undue reliance on the early use of nuclear weapons".
  It is becoming increasingly urgent that we should do so to redress the imbalance of forces favouring the Warsaw pact. In so far as that conventional imbalance exists, it is considered throughout the Alliance to be an obstacle in the way of nuclear disarmament.
  There can be no question about responding to Mr. Gorbachev and his arms control challenge. Indeed, there seems little doubt that the movement in arms control would not have come about without far-reaching Soviet concessions. To be sure, many of Mr. Gorbachev's proposals and declared concessions have had a rich payoff in enhancing the Soviet image. However, we cannot allow the NATO-Warsaw pact military balance to be held up as an obstacle to nuclear disarmament. Ascertaining an accurate picture of the military balance between NATO and the Warsaw pact is not easy, because it involves a detailed comparison of many quantitative factors. The task is rendered extraordinarily difficult and complex by the asymmetrical nature of the armed forces of the two sides. Therefore, from the outset it is important to keep in mind that no single measurement can possibly give a comprehensive and accurate representation of the military balance between the two alliances.
  How does the Soviet Union view the conventional balance? Until recently we have had to rely in the public arena on statements made and proposals tabled at arms control negotiations to build a picture of its assessment of the NATO-Warsaw pact balance. However, during 1987 the Soviet Union has issued for the first time two volumes of a year book "Disarmament and Security 1986". Although the year book has a number of obvious limitations, the significance of its publication and its dissemination in the West should not be underestimated.
  Whether we like it or not, and whether or not we acknowledge it—the Government do not acknowledge it on page 4 of the White Paper, or, as it was described by some of my hon. Friends last night, the "potted history of the Soviet Union over 60 years" —the initiative in arms control is being taken by Mr. Gorbachev. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the Western Alliance to determine what it actually wants from arms control and to explore every avenue with the Soviet Union on how to get there. There are, for example, increasing signs that the Soviet Union is ready for cautious questioning of its military doctrine and
  338
  strategy. In May the Warsaw pact proposed military-to-military discussions with the objective of ensuring that the doctrines of both sides rest on defensive principles. Such an overture should not immediately be eschewed.
  In conclusion, the decisive test for the future phase of arms control is not yet upon us, but for the first time in post-war history a qualitative change in the military relationship between East and West seems possible. In the next decisive phase of arms control negotiations, both sides will need to demonstrate conclusively that sufficient political will exists to ensure that a serious disarmament process is here to stay. Our Alliance should seize the initiative and test Soviet will to achieve equitable and verifiable solutions.
  5.48 pm
  Mr. James Kilfedder: When you took the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you appealed to hon. Members to be brief. I intend to assist you and other hon. Members by doing so and by restricting my remarks to Northern Ireland.
  I wish to join in the fulsome tribute paid to the soldiers of the Regular Army and to the members of the Ulster Defence Regiment who, together with the Royal Ulster Constabulary, courageously face the Provisional IRA, which is a well-trained and ruthless terrorist organisation. The decent and law-abiding people of Northern Ireland fully support the members of the security forces in the battle to rid the Province and the kingdom of those callous and criminal elements and, indeed, to rid the Province of all terrorists, regardless of their political tag. No one in Ulster is safe from the murderous activities of the Provisional IRA. My heart goes out in sympathy to people who live in lonely areas in the Province, such as farmers who serve in the Ulster Defence Regiment and in the police force, because they are easy soft targets for the terrorists.
  At the start of today's debate, the Minister gave the numbers of those serving in the Ulster Defence Regiment and the Regular Army who have been murdered this year. Eleven soldiers—eight of them members of the UDR—have been murdered this year. That is a heavy price and it does not conjure up the tremendous agony suffered by their relatives. Our sympathy goes out to all those who have been bereaved or who have suffered as a result of terrorist atrocities.
  The continuing violence is a sad reflection on the forecasts that the Anglo-Eire agreement would produce peace, stability and reconciliation. I fear that the agreement has encouraged the Provisional IRA to further atrocities, believing that it needs only one more push to destroy Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom. Yet, despite the casualties to which the Minister referred in his opening speech, and despite the atrocities which have been visited upon the security forces and, indeed, the ordinary people of Northern Ireland, the morale of the UDR and the Regular Army is excellent, just as the morale of the Ulster people is high. They will not be defeated by terrorists. That is the message that goes out from me and should go out from this House.
  A few months ago when I was on an all-party delegation I met soldiers who had recently served in Ulster and I was impressed by their spirit, keenness and efficiency. They all felt that they had been doing a worthwhile job in Northern Ireland, albeit a dangerous one. Their only complaint was the unfairness of the contest there. In any ordinary battle, they face the enemy dressed

  339
  in enemy uniform and fight on equal terms, but in Northern Ireland it is a different contest on different terms. At any moment, whether on or off duty, British soldiers or RUC officers could be murdered by the Provisional IRA, shot in the back by a cowardly sniper or blown apart by a car bomb detonated by remote control after they or the police had been enticed into the danger zone as a result of a spurious call.
  British soldiers must act within certain strict restrictions, and they always operate under the sanction of being charged with murder if in the heat and fear of the moment they act too quickly. Inevitably, Republican claims are made after every incident when British soldiers shoot an IRA terrorist that the dead terrorist was an innocent bystander or that the IRA man was not given a chance to surrender. Obviously, to me that is nauseating propaganda, bearing in mind that Provisional IRA terrorists torture and kill in cold blood, without the slightest grain of mercy and giving no chance to the soldier, policeman or civilian to surrender. No, they destroy ruthlessly. That is why people in Northern Ireland, like me, are proud of British soldiers.
  As the hon. and learned Member for Colchester, North (Sir A. Buck), who served with distinction in the Ministry of Defence, said, British soldiers exercise remarkable restraint. That is something for which they should be credited. Whenever attacks are made on British soldiers, whether on members of the UDR or on regular soldiers, we in this House should always remember the atmosphere in Northern Ireland and the real danger of death to every soldier and citizen. We should thank them for what they are doing in the Province to help bring about the conditions which may lead to reconciliation and political progress. I cannot talk about political progress in this debate, but I know that, whenever there is an atrocity by the IRA, it sets back the day of reconciliation in Northern Ireland.
  Sir Antony Buck: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for mentioning that yesterday I paid tribute to our armed forces and the burdens that they bear. Perhaps I can now pay a tribute of equal strength to those who serve in the UDR and the services of law and order who live in communities which contain terrorists who seek to maintain local discipline by putting a Black and Decker drill through a man's kneecap and by blowing people up haphazardly. Perhaps those people bear an even greater burden than our armed forces.
  Mr. Kilfedder: I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman. I said at the beginning of my speech that I would be brief, so I shall now close my remarks.
  As I have seen so much death and destruction from terrorists' bombs and bullets in Northern Ireland for over 18 years, and as I have lived in that state where the shadow of death hangs over everyone, I am committed to peace and reconciliation there. I hope that we can have progress before long and before many others die. But equally, I should like to see rapprochement between nations. Therefore, I welcome the present climate of detente and I hope that President Reagan and Mr. Gorbachev can get together so that we can rid this world of nuclear weapons.
  5.55 pm
  Mr. Jack Ashley: I hope that the hon. Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder) will forgive me if I do not take up his points; I want to speak about bullying and brutality in the Army. I do not know what the financial cost of that is, but I know that the human costs are heavy.
  We all want tough, well-trained soldiers, but that is entirely different from brutalised young recruits. Already, cruel and indecent conduct has been proved at courts martial. Young men have been kicked and beaten, and physically and mentally broken; they have been transformed from balanced youths into nervous wrecks. They have been subjected to vicious, humiliating and degrading initiation rites which included some forms of enforced nakedness and buggery.
  Last night, a woman telephoned me at home about her son who had run away from the Army in fear. She said that he had left the Army and his family. He now has no base, no job and no future. Officially, he is a deserter. In fact he is a petrified youngster. One man wrote to me that he was so threatened in the Army that he tried to take his own life. He is still absent without leave. The House will know about the tragic case of Jeffry Singh who hanged himself at Shorncliffe barracks. His father alleged that he was bullied and brutalised into committing suicide.
  It is amazing that we have no idea about the extent of this disturbing problem. The Under-Secretary of State told me that this information was
  "not held centrally and could only be collected with disproportionate cost and effort."
  However, I know that the Minister is taking bullying and brutality seriously and I welcome the efforts that he and General Mostyn, the Army's adjutant-general, are making.
  Both the Minister and the general have listened to the views of a deputation of hon. Members and have taken vigorous action, which I also welcome. Both have described bullying and brutality as "abhorrent" and General Mostyn has told all commanding officers to deal with it.
  My views, however, differ from those of both the Minister and the general in a number of respects. They think that the numbers of those who are subjected to bullying and brutality are low. I say that we only see the tip of the iceberg. That is partly because some of the letters that I have received from frightened soldiers and worried parents are anonymous. The writers apologise for not giving their names, but say that I will understand why they cannot. The identical thread running through those letters if fear of bullying, reprisals, the Official Secrets Act and threats from officers and NCOs. It is significant that before the current court martial took place—I cannot comment on it, of course—it was reported that witnesses were temporarily removed from their battalions for their own safety. Why? Because of fear.
  Such an atmosphere of intimidation means that few soldiers are willing to complain and even fewer to give evidence. They really are frightened and living in fear. However, without witnesses there can be no convictions, so the actual number of convictions for bullying and brutality is misleading. That number is a gross underestimation of the size of the problem. That is why I say that we only see the tip of the iceberg and why I believe that the problem is far larger than it appears to be at present.

  341
  The Minister is happy with the existing arrangements for dealing with these cases. Recently, in a televised debate with me, he said that there is now an independent system under which commanding officers are obliged to investigate every incident, and if it is serious enough they call in the Special Investigation Branch. The Minister may be happy with those arrangements, but he lives in a world far removed from that of petrified young recruits. How are terrified young men to complain to one corporal about the behaviour of another, if that corporal is a friend of the first? All of us who served in the Army know that colleagues and pals had a drink together; so if someone complains to one corporal, his complaint may concern that corporal's friend, which is causing the young recruit to be frightened of both of them. So it is unlikely that a recruit will do that.
  Will the young man who has been brutalised really go to the commanding officer's door and say, "Excuse me sir, I have a problem"? It just does not happen. When I was in the Army, the commanding officer was like the Speaker of the House of Commons—he was elevated to a high pedestal. We were afraid of him, we respected him and would not dream of approaching him. No raw recruit will stroll up to a commanding officer and complain. So the Minister is wrong in assuming that the present methods of complaining about brutality and bullying are OK. They are far from that.
  On the rare occasions when a commanding officer has received a complaint, it is his decision as to whether to call in the Special Investigation Branch. Where is the independence in that? If the commanding officer decides, that is not independent. I am not saying that the CO would not perform his duty. Often, the commanding officer will do his duty, but he may be blinkered. He may, and does, instinctively side with the officers—senior and junior. Commanding officers, naturally, do not want bad publicity for their regiments. So the present system is not independent, and terrified young soldiers certainly do not see it as such. It is wholly inadequate, as is the system of relying on education inspectors and other types of formal monitoring.
  The Army is recruiting young lads of 16 and 17. Many of them will benefit from the physical fitness and disciplined community life, but when the sadists infiltrate, young lives can be destroyed. They are being destroyed now in the Army by brutal and sadistic treatment. That has been proved by courts martial in the past. I cannot comment on current courts martial and those yet to come, but past ones have proved that this offensive brutalisation of young men is going on. It must be stopped. The police do not recruit young men of 16 or 17 and the armed forces did not do so during war. If it is necessary to recruit them—I do not think it is, but if the Minister does—it is essential that there should be a fully effective, independent system of investigating allegations and monitoring the treatment of recruits.
  We have a fine Army, but it is tarnished by the cruelty of some vicious thugs. No Minister or general can defend a system that permits that.
  I conclude by putting the following proposals to the Minister, I hope he will take them into account, and reply to them later. First, I suggest that there should be a general amnesty for young recruits who have gone absent without leave from regiments in which there has been proven bullying. For example, if a young recruit has found the sadistic, sexual initiaton rites of the King's Own Scottish
  342
  Borderers intolerable—as has been proved in previous courts martial—he should not be further punished. All such deserters should be reprimanded and then allowed to leave, for their benefit and for that of the Army.
  Secondly, a new system of centrally collating all complaints and allegations of bullying and brutality should be set up, so that the Minister knows the nature and size of the problem—or at least more about it—so that he is not just guessing, and probably overlooking, the serious difficulties of young recruits.
  Thirdly, a special Army ombudsman should be appointed. Soldiers, or even parents, with allegations of mistreatment or violence should report to him with complete confidence in his impartiality and independence. The ombudsman would have no regimental ties. He should have no friends in high or not so high places and no advantage in urging silence. He could be the one genuinely independent instrument that could rescue the Army's good name. He could change the ethos of bullying and put an end to current malpractices.
  Then the Army can get on with its task of producing tough, well-trained, disciplined soldiers, without brutalising recruits. I suggest that the proposed Army Ombudsman look at future problems and be concerned with the long term. This proposal would not invalidate the need for an immediate independent inquiry into the serious allegations that have already been made about bullying and brutality in the British Army. This is a serious problem in the Army. I am glad to know that the Minister is taking action and I know that he will do what he can in good faith. We differ in our analysis. My proposals are a radical departure but I hope that the Minister will consider my suggestions and will let me have his answer in his own good time.
  6.10 pm
  Mr. James Couchman: It is always a great pleasure to follow a speech by the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley). He makes his case with great clarity and sincerity and I am sure that in winding up the Minister will comment on what the right hon. Gentleman said. The right hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not follow him down the same road. I have two or three points to make, but before doing so I pay fulsome tribute to the eloquent maiden speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe). This is the second occasion on which I have been able to pay tribute to a new Kent colleague and it gives me great pleasure to do so.
  About 20 years ago, when I was very young and callow, I was a junior officer in the Maidstone Conservative association, and at that time I became an admirer of the predecessor of my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone. When I entered the House in 1983 Sir John Wells was a great friend to me and to this day we remain firm friends. My hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone is very welcome as his successor and has shown that she will give us much to think about in the coming months.
  I am delighted at the mention on page 31 of Cm 101 about the Royal Engineers. This year is the 200th anniversary of the granting of the royal charter to the Royal Engineers, and the sappers have their spiritual home in my constituency where the Royal School of Military Engineering and the depot regiment are located at Brompton barracks. Since the sad demise of my predecessor, Sir Frederick Burden, in July, only the Royal

  343
  Engineers are extant as members holding the freedom of the borough of Gillingham. Since the closure of the naval dockyard at Chatham, the Royal Engineers have maintained the very strong military ties in my constituency. We all enjoy and admire those ties.
  We salute the excellence of the skills of the Royal Engineers and the prodigious support that they have provided for the British Army over their 200 years. We salute the courage of the Sappers responsible for the hazardous task of explosive ordnance disposal. Paragraph 425 sets out in detail the continuing level of such disposal that the Sappers share with the Royal Army Ordnance Corps and with units from the Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy. The Corps of Royal Engineers undertakes construction in remote parts of the world and relief work in worldwide disaster situations. In its long history, the corps has produced many notable soldiers and the Royal Engineers truly live up to their motto which is, I believe, "Ubique"—everywhere. I hope that the Royal Engineers will continue to prosper for the next 200 years. I shall certainly continue to pay my tribute to the Royal Engineers throughout my tenure in the House.
  My second point is about arms control. During the past week our hopes have been raised and then dashed. We thought that the obstacles to a treaty on intermediate nuclear forces had been finally overcome. The visit to Moscow last week by George Shultz should have been the precursor to a truly historic treaty that would have represented a turning point — a lowering of the high water mark of nuclear armament. To some extent our hopes were dashed by a seemingly incomprehensible slowing of progress by the Soviet leader, Mr. Gorbachev. Just today, the pace has again quickened and we must pray for a successful conclusion to this phase of arms control.
  Does anyone seriously believe that we would have achieved that breakthrough if NATO had not taken its twin-track decision in 1979 and, more importantly, had not followed it through by the deployment of cruise and Pershing missiles? Does anyone seriously believe that the Soviet Union would now be willing to withdraw the SS20 and shorter range missiles if NATO had been deterred from the deployment of missiles by the unilateralist peace campaigners?
  Why are the Opposition so blind to the lack of credibility of their unilateralist policy? Our lead in abjuring chemical weapons is a bleak and dispiriting warning to those who would lead us down the yellow road of unilateralism. Perhaps I should say it is a warning to those who would have led us down that road had they not received a third bloody nose at the polls on 11 June. In no small way that was due to the incredibility of the Opposition's defence policy. Those same one-sided disarmers would now compound their appeasement by giving up our independent nuclear deterrent, probably with no commensurate reduction in Soviet weaponry or, at best, in return for the Soviets reducing by just 3 per cent. their nuclear stockpile. That would be a reduction of 3 per cent. in return for our giving up 100 per cent. of our independent deterrent. When will the Opposition learn that appeasement only ever whetted the appetite of an imperialistic hegemony?
  We all hope that the current INF agreement will lead to reductions in chemical, conventional and strategic nuclear arsenals. However, we must ensure at all times that
  344
  we are not gulled by Soviet presentation to the world's press and onlookers into giving away an unbalanced proportion of our defensive capability. It would be easy to become fired with enthusiasm for the present agreement and push on to further treaties which would leave us in a position of vulnerability or even jeopardy. We would do well to follow the caution of our German allies. In particular, the class of battlefield nuclear weapons must not be negotiated away without major political developments between the Soviet Union and its Warsaw pact satellites and between the Warsaw pact and the West.
  No one who has stood on either side of the Berlin wall could believe that the time has come for us to lower our guard. We are at a turning point. There is a slight easing in relations from the grimmest days of Brezhnev, Chernenko and Andropov. Any small step is welcome, but we are a very long way from becoming once again allies with the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union's willingness to treat on the INF class of nuclear weapons is borne more out of economic pragmatism than from any real desire to ratchet down the arms race or, indeed, to reduce its offensive and defensive forces.
  My third point is a tribute to another defence interest of immense importance in my constituency. In this case, it is a weapons system supplier rather than a unit of the armed forces. I recognise that GEC Avionics Limited is a name that evokes some concern among some hon. Members, mostly because of the dismal Nimrod-AEW saga. GEC Avionics has a major factory in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Medway (Dame Peggy Fenner). It employs about 6,000 highly skilled people from in and around the Medway towns, including my own constituency. GEC Avionics of Rochester has been successful in gaining lucrative export orders for state-of-the-art, high-technology aids for pilots of advanced planes. In the past five years more than £1 billion of exports have been earned from head-up displays, air data computers and, most recently, night vision goggles for the pilots of the United States AV8B advanced Harriers. Sadly and ironically, GEC Avionics has sold very few of these items to the Royal Air Force.
  The avionics side of GEC is not the only arm of this great company recently to achieve a major export order from the United States. Earlier this month, in partnership with the American company Rockwell, Marconi Communications achieved an order from the Pentagon worth £1·8 billion for high-frequency, anti-jam radios for most of the United States navy ships, and there is a hope of further orders for other NATO navies. This success contrasts with our disappointment over Plessey's frustrated endeavours to win a contract for Ptarmigan two years ago. These successes by GEC reassure those of us who have argued for the Atlantic two-way street in defence procurement. Our sales to our premier ally are profitable in themselves, but, perhaps more importantly, they cement the very special relationship that Conservative Members value and cherish but which the Opposition, and notably today the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), take every opportunity to undermine and derogate.
  The extraordinary amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) finally nails to the mast the Labour party's true defence colours—white tinged with yellow. The Opposition want a neutralised and de-equipped Britain that is out of NATO. That is not what the people want and they showed us that on 11 June. That is not what Conservative Members want. We have pride

  345
  in our troops, such as the Royal Engineers that I mentioned earlier. We support our allies from a position of strength, and that is why we must retain our independent nuclear deterrent. We must encourage weapons systems suppliers, such as GEC, in their endeavours to develop and sell systems on our behalf. That is why we have devoted and continue to devote so much of our national resources on the defence of our realm.
  6.20 pm
  Mr. John Cartwright: I take a somewhat more optimistic view of the international arms control environment than the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman). We are debating these important defence issues against a markedly different background from the one that we have been accustomed to in the recent past, and that is because of the impending agreement on intermediate nuclear weapons. It is important to say at the outset that the impending INF agreement involves a number of important precedents. It will be the first time that modern, sophisticated and accurate weapons systems will be not just withdrawn, but destroyed. It will be the first time that we have intrusive verification procedures involved in an arms control deal. It is also the first arms control agreement that involves deep cuts favouring NATO.
  It is worth placing it on record that the Soviets will give up something approaching 1,600 warheads, while NATO will lose 348 out of a total of 572. That must be a good deal in anybody's language. In view of some of the muttered criticisms that we have heard on both sides of the Atlantic, it is also worth saying that the deal does not decouple the United States from the nuclear defence of Europe, it does not undermine the ability to have a flexible response and it does not herald some unstoppable slide towards a denuclearised Europe. There are ample nuclear assets in Europe to do the job.
  I am therefore somewhat suspicious of talks about plugging the gap that will be left by the removal of the cruise and Pershing missiles. Such talk is extremely dangerous. It makes little sense to negotiate away ground-launched cruise missiles only to bring them back again in an air or submarine-launched form. Having said that, I think there is a strong case for improving the striking power of NATO's manned aircraft by providing them with a stand-off weapon with a range of something like 400 km that could be nuclear or conventionally armed. That is not introducing a new class of nuclear weapons into Europe; it is simply the sensible improvement of existing assets. I very much welcome reports that the Governments of the United Kingdom and France are examining the possibilities of that sort of approach.
  One of the possible fallouts from the INF deal is the danger of unjustified euphoria about the progress of arms control negotiations. Certainly, among some in this country, there is a sense of what one might call nuclear Micawberism—the idea that we do not have to take any difficult decisions about the future of Britain's nuclear weapons because something is certain to turn up at Geneva that will prevent us from having to go through that unpleasant business. I think that all of us want to see arms control negotiations progressing. We all hope that they will succeed, but we cannot base the defence policy of this country on hope. Nor am I impressed by the proposition that Britain should retain nuclear weapons simply as a ticket of admission to super-power
  346
  negotiations and that Britain's nuclear weapons should be solemnly laid on the table at those negotiations as some sort of bargaining counter.
  If arms control negotiations do continue to proceed successfully, then obviously a time will come when Britain's nuclear weapons must be included in that process. However, we have to be clear about the objective of such negotiations. As other hon. Members have said in the debate, it simply cannot be a straightforward missile-for-missile reduction deal with the Soviet Union. The logic of that would be to leave the United Kingdom with no strategic nuclear capacity, while the Soviet Union would have quite enough to destroy us many times over. That sort of negotiation would simply be back-door unilateral nuclear disarmament dressed up to look like some sort of negotiated balanced disarmament proposal.
  The majority of the British people are quite right when they take the simple straightforward view that, while other nations have nuclear weapons that can and do threaten this country, Britain is entitled to retain a minimum nuclear deterrent of its own that is sufficiently effective to deter any nuclear threat.
  It is in that sense that I look now at the issue of the Trident programme. I think it is well known that I have argued since 1979 that Trident was unsuitable as a minimum deterrent for this country because of its cost, its excessive firepower and its over-dependence on the United States. I have argued, as have other alliance Members, that other nuclear systems were more appropriate to Britain's needs. I did not accept that it was a simple choice between Trident or nothing. However, I have to recognise that the situation has now changed.
  However eloquent or witty the appeals from the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), I do not believe that the Government are going to scrap the Trident programme before the next general election. When we get to that point in 1991 or 1992, we have to face the fact that cancelling Trident would involve throwing away vast sums of public money already spent or contractually committed to the Trident programme. Any attempt to find a replacement for Trident would simply add more to that bill and, worse still, would involve a damaging delay at a crucial period.
  I cannot believe that, if in 1991 we took a decision to find some other nuclear deterrent to replace Trident, we could have that alternative deployed and operational by the time that the first Polaris submarine has to be phased out in the mid-1990s. Therefore, I accept that, at the next election, the choice will be the simple one that it was not in 1987. It will be a choice of either having the Trident system or having no nuclear deterrent at all. In that. situation, I have to bite the bullet and say that it has to be Trident rather than no nuclear deterrent, even though I would be happier if the firepower of Trident was reduced to bring it back to the striking power of the existing Polaris system.
  I am glad to see that, in the discussion of Britain's nuclear deterrent, there is now a wider acceptance of the idea that we should see Britain's nuclear weapons in a much more European setting and that in particular we should be exploring the possibilities of practical cooperation with the French on nuclear issues. When the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), other hon. Members and I proposed this in the summer of 1986, there were concerted attempts to rubbish it. I notice that the Government are now quietly getting on with the

  347
  job of studying just what can be done on a co-operative basis with the French on nuclear issues, and I very much welcome that development.
  There is an improved atmosphere in terms of arms control, and there are now much greater possibilities for progress than we have seen for some time. There have been substantial signs of progress in the strategic nuclear weapons negotiations. To an extent, they are held in hostage because of the problems over the SDI system and the negotiations on space and defensive weapons, but even there we are beginning to see a greater willingness by the Russians and the Americans to accept that both sides are deeply committed to research in the field and that both sides therefore have a sense of common interest in trying to work out what sort of research or testing is acceptable to each of them. More important, both sides have a common interest in trying to establish a regime in terms of anti-ballistic missile systems that prevents any sudden break by one side putting the other at risk. I am hopeful still that we can get some sense out of that negotiation.
  The Secretary of State was quite right yesterday to draw attention to the problem of chemical weapons. I was sad that he did not refer to the progress in the negotiations at Geneva under the umbrella of the UN disarmament conference. It is the British Government and the British delegation which have played an important part in trying to solve the difficult problems of verification, and I pay tribute to the delegation for its efforts. Even here we have seen a shift in Soviet attitudes that may well indicate a greater willingness to accept a form of challenge-verification of chemical weapons. There are signs of improvement even in that difficult area.
  I have always taken the view that short-range battlefield nuclear weapons are the most dangerous of nuclear systems because they are based so far forward, are designed for war fighting and are thus weapons that inevitably lower the nuclear threshold. The NATO military commanders argue that these systems have a deterrent value because they prevent the masssing of Soviet armour on the central front, which is essential to any conventional Soviet attack. In my view there is therefore a powerful argument for saying that we should negotiate about these short-range nuclear systems at the same time as we undertake conventional arms negotiations. In that way, progress in one area can, to some extent, be taken into account in the other. That seems to be a sensible approach.
  It is important that, with the greater sense of optimism about progress in other arms control forums, we do not overlook the risks that flow from Soviet superiority in conventional defence in Europe. It was our concerns about the conventional imbalance in the first place that caused us to deploy nuclear weapons to the extent that we did.
  As the Minister reminded us, the MBFR talks are winding down to a predictable end after 17 years of not terribly productive discussions. We have the prospect of new discussions involving 23 nations covering the entire area from the Atlantic to the Urals, which will operate within the framework of the conference on security and cooperation in Europe.
  We should be realistic about the scale of the problem that faces us in trying to secure the conventional defence progress that we desire. If we are to achieve what we want, we shall have to look for deep and unequal cuts. If we get
  348
  anything that is less asymmetric than the INF deal, for example, we shall weaken security in Europe, not improve it, and by so doing we shall weaken NATO's defence capability in the conventional area. That underlines all our experience of recent negotiations, which is that arms control alone cannot guarantee stability and security. Control must be accompanied by sensible conventional defence improvements. We know that pressure on defence budgets will not make that easy, and nor will the demographic changes in key NATO nations.
  I have drawn attention in previous defence debates to some of the problems that will accompany demographic changes. I have seen recent calculations that suggest that the number of young men in the 15 to 24 age group in the United Kingdom will decline by about 24 per cent. between 1985 and the year 2000. In the Netherlands, the fall will be 31 per cent. and in the Federal Republic of Germany the fall will be a staggering 40 per cent. The same trend will be seen in all NATO nations except Turkey. On the other hand, there is likely to be an increase in potential manpower within the Warsaw pact, with the sole exception of East Germany.
  The impact of these demographic changes for British forces is clear. It is evident that the armed services will have to compete in an even tougher market for potential recruits. Account must be taken of the cost of attracting them, and especially the cost of retaining experienced, trained personnel, which will increase dramatically as a result. I am surprised that the Estimates contain only the barest mention of the problem. Paragraph 612 states:
  "the recruiting of other ranks may become more difficult as the population in relevant age groups falls."
  That seems to be something of an underestimate of the problem that will face us over the next few years.
  I think that there would be a measure of support in the House for the idea that, for as long as we can judge, deterrence will rest on a mix of nuclear and conventional defence. Our aim must be to achieve a stable, secure and verifiable balance of forces at much lower levels than those that now prevail, and that desirable objective cannot be secured by arms control alone. Sensible and prudent modernisation and improvement of our forces will be just as important. That underlines the need for us not to regard arms control and effective defence as alternatives that are in conflict with each other. They must go hand in hand if we are to achieve the secure and lasting peace that we all want.
  6.36 pm
  Mr. Keith Mans: I welcome the Estimates and I wish to deal with certain personnel issues that arise from them. Before doing so, however, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) on a most eloquent maiden speech, which was made without notes, on a subject that everyone in the Chamber will agree is a complicated one.
  I congratulate also the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) on coming out finally in favour of Trident. It is a pity that so few of his former colleagues in the Liberal party were in the Chamber to hear what he had to say. Much of what he said could well have been said by a Conservative Member. Perhaps that is an omen for the future.
  I shall comment briefly on the most amusing speech of the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), a distinguished Member of this place. To put it mildly, he

  349
  was rather critical of the Trident missile programme. This is interesting. He was critical largely because he felt that it was not an independent nuclear deterrent, but one that relied upon the United States. It is clear that the only essential difference between the purchasing of these missiles and the Polaris missiles lies in the servicing arrangements. However, the right hon. Gentleman maintains that because of this one difference the Trident deterrent is not independent and is entirely reliant on the United States. This is despite the fact that these missiles are to be serviced only every eight years, which gives the Government, or any future Government, a reasonable time to produce other methods of servicing should circumstances change in the United States, and I hasten to add that I consider that to be a most unlikely event.
  I welcome the belated recognition by many Opposition Members of the importance of conventional defences as part of a balanced deterrent. During the late 1960s and late 1970s a succession of defence reviews, promulgated by Labour Governments, concentrated solely on the reduction of our conventional defences. Review followed review and missile and aircraft programmes were cut.
  I shall take up one or two of the points raised by the right hon. Member for Leeds, East, who during his tenure of office as Secretary of State for Defence relied much more fully than any of his predecessors or successors on purchasing from the United States for our defence needs.
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Does my hon. Friend recall that in 1977 the Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for IsIwyn (Mr. Kinnock), voted in favour of a 1·5 per cent. cut in conventional forces and a 3·5 per cent. cut the following year, although he criticised those cuts as inadequate? How can we believe him now when he says that he wants to see more conventional forces?
  Mr. Mans: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. During the 1960s and 1970s—more specifically the 1970s—the then Labour Government increased expenditure on our nuclear defence programme by proceeding in a most secretive manner with the Chevaline warhead enhancement programme. It is clear from reports and diaries that even part of the Cabinet of that Government did not know what was going on. It is rather extraordinary that the Labour party is now criticising the Government for not cutting nuclear weapons instead of conventional weapons, when the history of the matter shows that again and again the Labour party cut conventional weapons first.
  I want to consider the personnel policy within the Defence Estimates, and more specifically I urge the Minister to review the conditions of service of all service men continually to ensure that retention rates—to which the hon. Member for Woolwich referred—are sufficient to justify the high cost of training our service men. Despite the present level of unemployment, the armed services have in the past suffered a steady drain of skilled personnel to civilian occupations. That trend is particularly evident among those specialisations where training costs are highest—especially in the training of aircrew. With the rapid reduction of unemployment that has taken place over the past year, combined with the demographic changes that will take place in future, there are certain to be shortfalls in skill levels across the board. It is clear that this trend will get worse.
  Unfortunately, the recent report by Air Marshal Robson, which attempted to address the problem of
  350
  aircrew, focused on the terms of service rather than on the conditions of service of service men. Even so, the proposals were accepted only reluctantly and not implemented in full. I suspect that that was the response because certain departments in the armed services still believe that personnel policies can be drawn up and implemented with little regard to the labour market outside the armed services.
  The armed services must compete for the same people as outside occupations, whereas the training costs in the armed services are much higher. As a result, it is of paramount importance that the services keep trained personnel for as long as they need them. At the moment, that is achieved through direct or indirect financial sanctions when various service personnel want to leave, or it is achieved through a simple refusal to allow them to leave if they go above the level permitted under the premature voluntary retirement conditions of service.
  I believe that that is the wrong way to approach the problem. For instance, the refusal of promotion unless an officer waives his option to leave the service only leads to a feeling of disillusionment about the service in general and about its ability to retain its best and brightest personnel in particular. It is odd that someone who is deemed to have the right qualities to be promoted, based on his record, should be forced to sign away those rights before being promoted.
  I suggest a more positive approach towards the armed services retaining the personnel that they want to retain. Because of the high cost of training, that will result in a net gain to the defence budget rather than cost more. Let me state a basic example. It is a well-known fact that it costs about £3 million to train a Tornado pilot to operational readiness standard. It is also true to say that the maximum number of years of front-line service that the RAF can expect from one pilot is 16 years. If we can persuade more people to stay on, for example eight pilots for two years, that would save the cost of training one additional pilot. I realise that that is a reasonably simplistic example, but it shows the relationship between encouraging aircrew to stay on and the huge costs of training new pilots, which is bound to rise year by year.
  The first and most obvious step to facilitate that is to remove an anomaly that has caused resentment among a great many service men for a long time. In future, specialist pay should be counted into a service man's salary for pension and gratuity purposes when he leaves the service. That would reward those who have taken on the specialisations and result in a higher retention rate specifically in those areas where skills are in short supply. Also, service men could be paid to stay in the service when they reach an option date, rather than pay them only if they leave and then, perhaps, as has happened in the past, invite them back afterwards when there are not enough personnel left with a particular trade or qualification. That has caused — and would still cause if it were reintroduced — a great resentment among those who decided to stay in the first place.
  Following on from that, I understand that there are moves afoot to reduce pension commutation rights of service men. I strongly urge the Minister not to continue with those proposals, as once again they will act as a disincentive for people deciding whether to stay on or leave the service.
  Finally, a most irksome aspect of a service man's life involves the petty bureaucratic regulations over

  351
  allowances, which cause much distress and annoyance, particularly when it is known that enforcement results in an increase rather than a decrease in defence expenditure. Those regulations are many and varied and I shall mention only one tonight. Service men have the costs of storing their belongings when they go abroad paid for by the Ministry of Defence. However, if they wish to take their belongings with them they must pay the removal costs. It is clear that, on average, it is cheaper to allow people to take their belongings with them than to store them. There would be a net gain to the defence budget by taking a clearer view on that matter and allowing service men going on tour to Germany to take their belongings with them. I hope that the Minister will look closely at those regulations and alter them to meet the genuine needs of service men, and at the same time I suggest that no extra cost would be imposed on the defence budget.
  I have said that I welcome the Defence Estimates. However, if we are to maintain our defences at their present high state of readiness and retain — and I emphasise this point — the highly qualified service men upon whom that readiness depends, we need to look closely at service men's conditions, and not terms of service, and take more positive moves to ensure the retention of those people, and specifically to retain the best of those service men.
  6.47 pm
  Ms. Joan Ruddock: When I opened this dark blue shiny brochure that passes for a White Paper on the Defence Estimates, I was reminded of a similar Government publication that I received in 1980. I received that as a resident of the district of Newbury where cruise missiles were due to be deployed. That glossy Newbury brochure contained similarly propagandist pink and blue force level reduction diagrams and pictures of nuclear hardware in scenic locations. That brochure also claimed:
  "Cruise missiles are a vital part of the West's life insurance policy."
  It went on to argue that the aim of using them would be to persuade the Russian leadership, even at the eleventh hour, to draw back.
  Cruise missiles are going. In my view, neither the White Paper nor yesterday's debate have thrown any light on how the British Government are reassessing NATO's defence strategy post INF. Yesterday the Secretary of State for Defence talked mysteriously of adjustments. There is no mystery. We all know that sea-launched cruise, air-launched cruise and new tactical missiles are being considered. I believe that that is the response of children who have had their toys taken away. That response fails to examine the vital questions, "Why were the missiles deployed?" and "Will the reasons for their deployment disappear with their removal?"
  Why were the missiles deployed? I am sure that the House would be interested in the views of Les Aspin, the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee in Washington. He said recently that the INF decision
  "was intended to address these doubts by putting some visible strength and credibility back into nuclear linkage."
  If his opinion is valid, those European doubts, which I understand the British Government shared, would presumably reappear with the disappearance of that
  352
  linkage. Aspin calls this the conceptual flaw in the pending INF agreement. He further admits that the United States Administration never expected the Soviets to accept the zero option and that it began solely as
  "a masterful public relations stroke".
  No wonder the Government are discomfited. No wonder they will not come clean on what they mean by adjustments post an INF agreement. They told us that SS20s were the threat. Now General John Galvin, head of NATO's forces in Europe, is saying that the risk of nuclear war will be greater post an INF agreement and the removal of those self-same SS20s.
  General Galvin is asking for buttressing. We may not know what the Secretary of State means by adjustments, but I understand that General Galvin is asking for longer-range Lance missiles and air-launched stand-off nuclear missiles such as might be carried in the British Tornado.
  Where do the Government stand? Will they now not only oppose the multilateral nuclear disarmament of tactical short-range missiles, but support the addition of new battlefield nuclear weapons? I trust that the Minister will tell the House when he replies. But whatever the Government's posture, it is unlikely to please our German allies, who are desperate to remove the threat of battlefield nuclear war on their territory.
  The truth is that no war can be fought in Europe with any hope of gain for anyone. The Soviets know that, and we know that if we are being honest. The potential of an INF deal offers the West an opportunity that the Government have singularly failed to grasp. It obliges Conservative Members to stop whingeing about conventional imbalance and to ask how it can be addressed rationally and constructively, not only in the interests of Western security, but in the wider interest of ending the cold war and developing mature relationships with the countries of Eastern Europe.
  The denuclearisation of Europe is possible. Conventional force reductions by the Soviet Union are a possibility. Why did not the White Paper at least analyse the merit of strategies related to such possibilities? I can tell the House why. It is because the Government are committed to a massively expensive useless virility symbol called Trident.
  Yesterday the Secretary of State declined to answer my question on the circumstances in which Trident would be used. He does not want it on the public record, because a nuclear exchange involving Trident would result in the deaths of 40 million British citizens and the destruction of Britain. There are no circumstances in which that weapon system could be used in the defence of the British people.
  Nuclear deterrence has become incredible. Until Conservative Members are prepared to admit it, they cannot offer Britain a secure defence.
  6.53 pm
  Mr. Julian Brazier: I hope that the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) will forgive me if I do not follow her arguments. In her maiden speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) made the clearest case that I have ever heard for saying that Britain's defences must continue to rest, as they have done for almost 40 years, on a nuclear foundation.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates) rightly said that the Government were most courageous in the difficult economic years of the early

  353
  1980s in maintaining and increasing our defence spending. I agree that, having now had a slight pause in the growth of spending, many Conservative Back Benchers would wish more power to the elbow of our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence in his coming discussions with the Treasury.
  Most of the debate so far has focused on the amount of resources allocated to defence. I want to focus on the narrower issue of the management of those resources. Part of the reason for the significant outflow of junior officers among the high flyers is disillusionment with the present organisational structure within the Ministry of Defence. As we are just coming up to the third anniversary of its reorganisation in January 1985, this may be a good time to review that.
  G. K. Chesterton once said that if one generation chooses to defend the indefensible, the next will dispense with the indispensible. I believe that happened in the reorganisation three years ago. Many desirable things took place, not least the bringing together of the Army, Navy and Air Force staffs into a unified group. But at the same time a number of elementary mistakes were made in the management structure which are doing real harm to the future of our armed forces.
  The Ministry of Defence's structure is not always obvious to those outside. Let me briefly explain what the central staffs do. Their main roles are to examine intelligence estimates of the threat, to formulate operational requirements on which the Procurement Executive buys equipment, to examine longer-term policy, to determine overall military priorities and fit them into the long-term costings and to provide the command structure for operations.
  One point of distinction is often missed, particularly when looking at procurement. The central staffs are involved in looking at the total fabric of defence. They have to take a view on the overall chess board, looking at the chess pieces of both sides. In contrast, the Procurement Executive is involved only with individual pieces. The importance of that arm's-length relationship can be brought out by taking the case of the Luftwaffe in 1939. That had an effective procurement function which produced large numbers of first-class equipments in a short time. Unfortunately for it, but fortunately for Britain, it did not have a proper central staff set-up with an operational requirements group. The result was that it produced good equipment, but that did not form a balanced and coherent air force, the most famous example being that the Luftwaffe's fighters and bombers could not achieve radio communication with each other during the battle of Britain.
  The central staffs were reorganised in 1985, and I want to consider four features of that reorganisation. The first concerns the intelligence staffs. They are obviously critical. We must get the threat right if we are to plan correctly. Astonishingly, the critical position of Director General (Intelligence), the man with overall responsibility not only for briefing the Secretary of State for Defence but for sitting on the Cabinet's Joint Intelligence Committee, the man who took a dispassionate view of intelligence matters, independent of the day-to-day running of the intelligence set-up, was abolished. Instead, the busy Chief of Defence Intelligence, as he now is, has been asked to take on all those extra commitments, without formal access to the Secretary of State. I am sure that in the case of the present
  354
  Secretary of State that is not a problem, but it illustrates the way in which intelligence was downgraded three years ago.
  The second change is more complicated. I mentioned earlier the formulation of operational requirements. It is an advantage for that to be done on a defencewide basis.If one is considering helicopters, for example, there is a lot to be said for looking at them with Army, Navy and Air Force teams together.
  Unfortunately, instead of combining three staffs into one, three years ago we decided to combine three staffs into two. We now have a defence staff that carries all the responsibility for formulating those operational requirements and, in another department, for formulating overall military priorities within our programmes. That staff sits side by side with the organisation of management and budget, which has most of the authority for voting money. All the military staffs are in the defence staffs; all the financial staffs are in the Organisation for Management and the Budget. As a result, no submission to the equipment policy committee, where these central staffs meet the Procurement Executive — or, indeed, to Ministers — can be made within one department. Everything, even the most minor items, must start in one department and move on to another.
  I shall illustrate in a moment why I think that the present Secretary of State and his team are doing an excellent job. However, that should not blind us to the fact that they have inherited a system with weaknesses from the previous incumbent, and a good deal can he done to improve it.
  Let me quote my favourite business writer, Peter Drucker, describing what happens if a large organisation is split up so that different professional groups are in separate departments. This book was borrowed from the Treasury library, so what it says must be true!
  "As soon as it"—
  such an organisation—
  "approaches even a modest degree of size or complexity, `friction' builds up. It rapidly becomes an organisation or misunderstandings, feuds, empires and Berlin-Wall building. It soon requires elaborate, expensive, and clumsy management crutches—coordinators, committees, meetings, trouble shooters, special dispatchers — which waste everybody's time without, as a rule, solving much."
  Mr. Drucker goes on to point out that, in such a set-up., innovation tends to die, because no radical solution will: survive the long travel down the corridors of power through all the various committees.
  I do not believe that that is now the position in the Ministry of Defence, because of the present Secretary of State's light touch on the tiller. However, I see a danger that we are beginning to move in that direction. We hear from those who have served—and, in some cases, are serving — in military staffs that they would welcome constructive criticism from another department; but, because the Organisation for Management and Budget has no uniform personnel, they feel that all that they get is financial carping.
  Conversely—there are no goodies and badies in this regard — people on the financial side feel that the military people have lost all touch with financial reality. I know something about that, because I worked in a finance department for four years. The position is worsened by the fact that we now have seven tiers of checking up. Besides the Organisation of Management and Budget, which first scrutinises the defence staff's

  355
  proposals,the equipment policy committee, which brings them together with the Procurement Executive and the Ministers, there are sometimes four more tiers. There is the MOD's internal audit team, the Treasury, the Comptroller and Auditor-General's staff — who are becoming more and more active—and the Select Committee on Defence. As a result, there is very little time for the defence staffs to get on with creative work.
  The solution is to bring those staffs together under one roof. We must take from the Organisation of Management and Budget the critical staffs involved with operational requirements and with resources and programming, and move them into the defence staff, so that the requirements and overall programmes are put together in one place, under one boss, and can be delegated down the line. The equipment policy committee and, in more substantial cases, Ministers, will then receive recommendations put together through the brainstorming of one unified group.
  General Sir Frank Kitson has pointed out that for many years there has been little scope for bright young officers to reach senior positions of power and influence in the MOD. That has always happened in peacetime. There is no tri-service staff college that a junior officer can attend in order to make the best possible contribution to the present centralised defence staff—a staff which, as I have said, I strongly support. Promotion of such an officer is still controlled from his own individual service. He is encouraged — indeed, in some instances, coerced — to continue to play the old-fashioned inter-service rivalry game.
  If we want to obtain real value from the excellent step forward of bringing the three services together, we must do it by creating a fast stream of bright young officers who go through a unified instead of a single-service staff college training, and who are answerable for their promotion prospects on the staff side to a unified defence promotion board instead of a single-service one. Most important of all, to prevent such officers from becoming "military yuppies", they should have current field experience. I believe that General Kitson is right, although I would go further than him.
  Finally, there is a shortage of numbers in key departments. The reorganisation of 1985 rightly cut out enormous amounts of waste, not only in the MOD but in other headquarters. Because, in two pamphlets, I suggested that that should be done, I feel — from the lowest of worm's-eye views—partly responsible for the unfortunate fact that, in the process of eliminating waste, two or three critical departments within the central staff were cut below the level needed for effective operation. That applies especially to the intelligence and operational requirements staffs. But I am delighted that, under the present Secretary of State, some rebuilding is beginning.
  Let me summarise by pulling the four points together. First, I think that we should reinstate the crucial post of Director General (Intelligence). As before, he should be a retired uniformed officer, outside the cut and thrust, and he should report directly to the Secretary of State for Defence. Secondly, I think that we should create a fast stream of bright young officers with the tri-service staff college and promotion board. Thirdly, we should ensure that, within the operational requirements, intelligence and resources and programming staffs, we have enough people to define the requirements and the threat correctly. We
  356
  shall be able to save hundreds of millions of pounds later if we get the requirement right now. Fourthly, and most important, I believe that we should move the critical financial staffs involved with requirements and programming from the Organisation for Management and Budget into the defence staff, so that the formulation of requirements and priorities can be done under one roof.
  I firmly believe that I am pushing on an open door, because that is exactly what the present defence team has just done in the Procurement Executive. Ten or 15 years ago, the Procurement Executive suffered from the terrible Chinese wall syndrome that we now have in the central staff. The financial staffs were in one department; the quality staffs were in another; the contract staff were in a third. One by one, those groups have come in from the cold, and have been unified into the directorates and project teams. The decision by the present Secretary of State to bring the crucial contracts staff into the directorates means that we have a fully unified Procurement Executive, and that is what I should like to see in our central staffs.
  For reasons that have already been set out in some detail during the debate, I believe that we have today the strongest armed forces that we have had for a generation, because of the extra resources that the Government have chosen to devote to defence. I ask the Secretary of State and his staff to consider those four recommendations to ensure that that is still the case in the 21st century.
  7.9 pm
  Mr. Ron Leighton: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) on an outstanding maiden speech. One might not agree with everything that she said, but she delivered her speech with great confidence and without notes. It is a great pleasure to welcome another of the far too few female Members of Parliament. Her speech showed that she will have a great future in this House.
  We are debating the Defence Estimates against the background of progress in talks on disarmament. For decades there has been immobility. Now it seems that the log-jam is to be broken and that there is to be movement. The conferences at Reykjavik and Geneva have given us hope. We can realistically expect an agreement on intermediate nuclear forces.
  A couple of months ago I was able to discuss this matter with the State Department in Washington, and I came away with the view that the State Department is firmly committed to such an agreement. A whole class of weapons will now be removed. Cruise and Pershing will go. Greenham Common will be able once again to revert to being a pleasant part of the English countryside. The super-powers are now talking of a 50 per cent. cut in strategic weapons. We want to move on to progressive cuts in, and the elimination of, strategic nuclear weapons, with effective verification. There should also be international on-site inspection of chemical disarmament, the inspection of space research laboratories and permanent verification posts to monitor the movement of conventional forces. None of this should be jeopardised by moving the arms race into space.
  Britain should be giving a lead to and supporting all this. We should welcome the first rays of the sun, the first beacons to illuminate and dispel the funereal gloom with which we have been surrounded. But what is the reaction of the British Prime Minister? It is one of violent

  357
  opposition. So obsessed is she with the worship of nuclear weapons that, despite previous lip service to the zero-zero option, she immediately scurried to Camp David to oppose and obstruct the whole process. She is opposed to the denuclearisation of Europe. So Conservative policy—the policy of this Government—is out of step with world trends.
  The Prime Minister went to Moscow. That is always a good ploy before a general election. We saw it used before, when Macmillan donned his white hat and went to Moscow. There was a sort of love-in with Gorbachev, but that did not extend to removing nuclear weapons. When the Prime Minister had the opportunity to make a broadcast on Moscow television, we heard an astonishing hymn in praise of nuclear weapons. She told us that the only defence of small countries was to have nuclear weapons.
  Let us think about that. If that is true, we should give nuclear weapons to all small countries, then everybody could deter everybody else. That is the logic of the present Prime Minister's point of view, but it is absolutely insane. If these awesome weapons were to proliferate and spread in that way, inevitably someone, somewhere, at some time—whether by accident or design — would initiate their use, with cataclysmic results.
  Because of that fundamental truth, previous British Governments worked for the establishment of a nonproliferation treaty. Under that treaty we are obliged to work for nuclear disarmament. Article VI of the treaty says:
  "Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to the cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date, and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control."
  That is what we are committed to under the treaty. Why should other countries abstain if we are not prepared to do so? We undertook to strive to give up our nuclear weapons, but this Government are reneging on that undertaking with Trident, which is a big advance on our nuclear capacity. That is dangerous and deplorable. There is no sensible, respectable or justifiable reason for this country to have nuclear weapons.
  It is very instructive to look at the history of British nuclear weapons. During the second world war the research and manufacturing project was a joint British-American effort. That project was transferred to the United States. At the end of the war the Americans refused to give those secrets to us, or to share them with us. The British Government were very miffed. As a result, they decided to build one for themselves.
  It is very instructive to ask why. The Cabinet papers reveal why they decided to do so. Was it to frighten or to deter the Russians? No, it was nothing to do with that; it was to impress the Americans. We were told that otherwise they would not treat us seriously or as an equal; that we would no longer be one of the big three. The bomb was therefore seen as our entrance ticket to the conference chamber. It was a status symbol; it was the way to reserve our seat at the top table.
  The reason for Britain possessing nuclear weapons is vanity, which is the least reputable of motives. It has not worked. We do not have a seat at the top table; we are not at Geneva; we are not at any of the super-power summits; we are just a spectator; we are informed afterwards by the
  358
  American Secretary of State when he is on his way back to the United States. Nevertheless, the nuclear arms race has marched on as a form of madness.
  At the end of the last war there were three nuclear weapons. Now there are over 60,000 — an incredible overkill. Those warheads have the destructive power of over 1 million Hiroshimas. In other words, we have the power to blow up the world umpteen times. We must ask ourselves whether that is a rational activity for human beings. The world is spending over £1 million a minute on arms. That is insane and obscene, alongside so much hunger, poverty and disease.
  Another effect of this huge expenditure in the United States, especially alongside President Reagan's tax cuts, is that it has caused the United States' budget deficit. That deficit has led to the stock exchange crash, which has caused more damage to capitalism than the threat of Communism. The high interest rates that are needed to finance that deficit are ruining the Third world and are leading it to default. They are a threat to the world's banking system.
  The huge vested interest in this stupendous arms expenditure—Eisenhower called it the military-industrial complex — has to have an alleged justification. That is what is called "the threat." What is the threat? It is, of course, the Soviet Union. Were it not for the hydrogen bomb, we are expected to believe, the Soviet Union would immediately roll its armies over western Europe, somehow get across the Channel and then roll all over Britain. That is the justification for this huge arms expenditure.
  I have always had great difficulty with that notion. It is convenient for those who profit from the arms race, but it is not very convincing to suggest that the Russians want to act in so irrational and insane a way. I watched Peter Ustinov's recent television programmes, especially the last one, in which he referred to the fact that Russia has been invaded many times. It was invaded by Napoleon; it was invaded during the Crimean war; it was invaded during the first world war; and it was invaded during the wars of intervention after the revolution. It was also invaded during the second world war, during which 20 million Russians perished. Peter Ustinov said that the Russian attitude was defensive. I find that to be a much more realistic and convincing appraisal.
  Those who live by the bomb say that no major war in Europe has taken place for 40 years because we have the bomb—that the bomb has kept the peace and deterred the Russians. That is rather like saying that on the way to the debate today I saw a black cat and that therefore all cats are black.
  There is another explanation for there being no war in Europe for 40 years. It is that the Russians never intended to attack us in the first place, first because that would have been insane and the height of stupidity—and I do not believe that the Russians are insane — and, secondly, because they know that to do so would cause a third world war—in which America would inevitably be involved, as it was in 1917 and 1942—and that they could not expect to win.
  The fact that we have had no war in Europe for 40 years has nothing to do with the bomb. Within a generation., France and Germany went twice to war. They will not go to war again, but is that because of the hydrogen bomb? Of course it is not. It is for other reasons. The human race must get away from the notion that the preservation of peace is dependent upon the horror of a nuclear holocaust.

  359
  Chernobyl has shown us that whoever uses nuclear weapons will poison themselves as well as any enemy, that they will pollute the planet and contaminate the very environment that gives rise to life. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) has explained on many occasions that those who use nuclear weapons will inflict upon us a nuclear winter. It is dubious whether any life will survive after the use of such weapons, but certainly this country would be finished. Six large hydrogen bombs dropped down the spine of this country would render it a devastated, uninhabitable and radioactive ruin. The use of nuclear weapons is not militarily credible and we can only commit suicide by their use.
  It is impossible to conceive of any circumstances that would justify the use of such weapons. When the Secretary of State was asked to specify the circumstances in which he would use such weapons, he was lost for words, and quite so. There is no sense in using such weapons.
  The sensible and realistic course for Britain is to divest itself of nuclear weapons and have an effective non-nuclear defence. Some say that if we did not have nuclear weapons we would be naked and be open to blackmail. However, the vast majority of nations do not have nuclear weapons. What example is there in history of a country being subjected to nuclear blackmail? Sweden does not have nuclear weapons, nor does Japan. Have those countries been invaded or subjected to blackmail? It is much easier to get to Japan from Russia than to Britain. We are told that the removal of nuclear weapons from Britain would strain the British-American Alliance. However, Japan has no nuclear weapons, and no foreign bases on its soil, but has that put a strain on the Pacific Alliance? Why should anyone claim that a British non-nuclear policy would destroy or destabilise the Western Alliance?
  Let us consider some examples. In 1956 France withdrew from the NATO military arrangements altogether and asked for the removal of all United States bases. In other words, France went far further than Labour party policy. Did that decision lead to the fragmentation of NATO or the United States decoupling from Europe? In 1974 Greece withdrew from NATO. Between 1969 and 1972 Canada took decisions to relinquish its nuclear role in NATO. In fact, seven out of 16 NATO countries—roughly half—do not have nuclear weapons or allow nuclear weapons on their soil. Therefore, we are not talking about something that is unprecedented. New Zealand has just adopted the same policy.
  If we followed such a policy, we should join those nations marching away from the holocaust and away from the exaggerated fantasies and careless rhetoric of the cold war. We should bear in mind that Milton said:
  "Let not England forget her precedence of teaching nations how to live."
  The removal of nuclear weapons more than anything else is the area in which we should participate and give a lead. If we divested ourselves of those weapons it would be good sense, morally and militarily.
  7.23 pm
  Mr. John Browne: I declare an interest as a standing member of the Territorial Army and also a potential interest in the SDI programme.
  360
  Before I start my speech I should like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) on her outstanding maiden speech. I join many of my hon. Friends in saying that I am absolutely certain that she is a valuable addition to the House and that we shall have many interesting and exciting speeches from her.
  I welcome this debate because it is one of great importance to everyone because we all want peace—not peace at any price, but peace with freedom. We realise that we must pay for that freedom.
  I would like to restrict myself to three items—first, recruitment, secondly, the SDI programme and finally the arms reduction talks.
  On the matter of recruitment I will cut out a lot of what I would have said because of the excellent speeches from my hon. Friends the Members for Maidstone and for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier). They said many interesting things and they have my support. However, I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench to consider carefully the problems of recruitment in the armed forces and especially the disincentive of overstretch. That problem exists in many ranks and in particular within key ranks of officers and noncommissioned officers. Those people achieve certain skills and are being especially over-stretched. That has an effect on married families and can lead to enticing people to leave the armed forces prematurely. That is an especially great problem when it is combined with the adverse outlook for demographic recruitment potential. We should seek creative ways of bringing people into the armed forces and keeping them in the forces for a length of time commensurate with the skills and teaching that they receive.
  I should also like to urge the increased use of the Territorial Army. I do not think that my hon. Friends mentioned this. The Territorial Army is a relatively cheap option if it is correctly used. I know that the Ministry of Defence is using the Territorial Army, but I would urge the Ministry to give greater consideration to its extended use to try to make up and reduce the over-stretch on the regular armed forces. In particular, I wish to refer to what happens when emergencies occur and the problems that we have with Queen's Order No. 2 — the general mobilisation order. I believe that it would be much more reasonable if we could have a graduated mobilisation of people in the Territorials so that that order would not automatically be seen as a general mobilisation.
  If members of the Territorials and the reserve forces could be used in conjunction with the regular forces—even in contingencies that would be popularly considered as "bush fires" —that would be helpful. For example, if we had volunteers on the Royal Navy ships in the Gulf that would help. The operation in the Gulf—the long patrols and long periods away—is putting a tremendous strain upon the families of the sailors of the Royal Navy. The use of volunteer reserves in such circumstances might be an interesting proposition.
  With regard to SDI participation, I believe that the Estimates reflect our pleasure at the fact that we have regained parts of that programme. The sum of £34 million has been mentioned in the Estimates. However, if that figure is judged in comparison with some of our NATO allies, for example, Germany, that sum appears to look

  361
  small. If that sum is judged in terms of the sums awarded to some of the states of the United States—the most notable is California—it looks almost infinitesimal.
  We must be much more aggressive in pursuing and obtaining participation in the SDI programme. We must seek to equal, let alone better, some of our NATO allies. We have fantastic skills in this country that could be marketed better than the skills of many of our NATO allies, yet we are nowhere near the leading position with regard to SDI participation. In fact, Britain is not in a good position at the moment and I urge the Government to be much more aggressive in pursuing and obtaining this business. Of course this is not easy. It was not until nine years ago that Britain became more aggressive in marketing its products. Now we have a much more difficult thing to market — skills. We have the skills in such high technology areas and we must be much more professional in marketing them.
  The Americans make much use of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. It is probably the greatest centre of technical excellence in the world. That institute is being used by the American Administration as a conduit for obtaining SDI participation for American corporations. I believe that we must concentrate on our centres of excellence in technology. We must market their skills and abilities and ensure that they are used as conduits to enable British corporations to participate in the SDI programme.
  With regard to arms reduction, I listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright). I have great respect for his views. I was pleased to hear his adoption, even if only by force majeure, of the view that we are correct in pursuing the Trident option. I noticed that at the beginning of his speech, he said we have to deter a potential aggressor from contemplating a nuclear attack upon us. I urge that we think more widely than only a nuclear attack and include chemical, biological and conventional forces. That is the reason for Trident—its hitting power, and its increased range, which makes it more difficult to detect. I do not criticise the hon. Gentleman's speech in any way; I respect it and was pleased to hear it.
  Most hon. Members would agree that the arms race is not merely a matter of weapons, but one of mutual distrust. Weapons are merely the symptom of mutual distrust; therefore, to achieve disarmament we have to reduce the existing mutual distrust. The critical element of reducing this mutual distrust is to seek good will on both sides, and to have satisfactory verification, particularly challenge verification. That is the critical element in achieving mutual trust which will lead eventually to mutual and balanced force reductions.
  We must think of arms reductions as both balanced and integrated. We must look at nuclear defence not on its own, but as part of an integrated defence system, including chemical, biological and conventional forces. We must not be tempted into thinking that we have achieved something marvellous by banning only nuclear weapons, or one part of the nuclear defence system; we must look at the whole integrated system of defence forces.
  We are now on the threshold of a balanced, integrated disarmament era, a thing that was totally undreamed of even five years ago. We are entering an era of movement in arms control and arms negotiation. Indeed, the years 1987 and 1988 are as different from 1984 and 1985 as the blitzkrieg was from static trench warfare. We are moving from a static slugging match, where everyone threw more
  362
  and more resources into defence, to an era of movement. We have to take advantage of that, and at the same time beware that we are not outflanked. We are on a threshold which involves not only great risks, but great opportunities. We are here not from a strategy of weakness or popular retreat, but as the result of a strategy of strength, good will and the diligent and prudent pursuit of peace with freedom.
  It would not be right at this stage to fail to congratulate my hon. Friends and members of the Government responsible for defence and foreign affairs on this. outstanding achievement. It is tremendous, and we should be grateful for it, and I should like to offer my personal congratulations to the Government and to the other Governments who helped to achieve this situation.
  Some people have urged that we take an easier option — one of unilateral disarmament — but we should consider the Punic wars. Even in those ancient times, when Rome and Carthage were the two super-powers and Carthage decided upon unilateral disarmament in favour of trade, it was vanquished to such an extent that today historians argue about the precise location of Carthage. And that was in the days before gunpowder, and the Romans did a real number on them. I urge people to talk in terms of unilateral disarmament to read that history.
  Today, as we look to an era of balance and integrated disarmament, which has now become a realistic option, one name, above all others, stands out on the world stage—that of Mr. Gorbachev. As part of the Inter-Parliamentary Union delegation in December 1984, I had the honour to meet Mr. and Mrs. Gorbachev in varied situations over a number of hours. Much has been written about Mr. Gorbachev, and I shall not repeat the many assessments of his character. However, I wish to share two basic impressions. One is what I feel to be the key position of the Soviets in the arms talks, and the other is what I believe to be two important characteristics of Mr. Gorbachev.
  The key Soviet position in the arms control talks is focused on the strategic defence initiative. I gained the overwhelming impression in 1984 that the Soviets were desperate—but desperate—to negotiate even a halt to, but if possible a cancellation of, the SDI programme. The Soviets know the awesome power of an SDI programme. They should know better than anyone because they are the only people with even a rudimentary form of SDI in position. They also know that the key to an effective programme is computer power. The programme does not have to be 100 per cent. effective—even a 60 or 40 per cent. SDI programme would have a great effect on the strategic balance in the world, and even upon the downside of nuclear proliferation. They know that the minimum computer power is the ability to make 40 million calculations a second, and they also know that they will not catch the United States on computer power for years, if ever. They are ahead at the moment, but once the United States invests in an SDI programme it will soon lead the Soviets.
  That is a powerful influence in the Soviet's decision-making. They realise that even a semi-effective SDI programme—perhaps only 50 per cent. effective—means that the more that nuclear strategic missiles are reduced, the more that plays into the hands of a relatively ineffective SDI programme, especially if only one side has it. If the Soviets have an SDI programme that is only 10 or 20 per cent. effective, a strategic reduction plays more

  363
  into their hands than into the hands of the West, which currently does not have an SDI programme in place. If a country is only 20 per cent. effective with today's arsenal of intercontinental ballistic missiles, and there is a reduction of 50 per cent., that country becomes 40 per cent. effective at the new level. That is something that we must watch carefully when pursuing arms negotiations.
  The Soviets are desperate to negotiate the SDI programme. That was shown at Reykjavik and again this week when they were ready to discuss INF, and then suddenly threw in the SDI card. They hope that the West, through popular pressure in democracies, will yield. Therefore, the SDI has dealt an ace card to the hands of the West in arms negotiations.
  There are two characteristics of Mr. Gorbachev on which our negotiators would do well to concentrate. First is his charisma—Western-style charisma—which he has not only the ability but the apparent willingness to exploit through our media directly into our homes. Hardly a day passes without that man, who was unknown in 1984, being on the front page of every serious newspaper. Almost every day of the week he is a major headline on television and radio. We must take that into account, because we could easily underestimate the change that he could achieve in the Soviet Union in motivating management and workers. Combined with the natural patriotism of the Russian people, we could easily be surprised by the rate of change achieved in the Soviet Union, just as many people have been surprised by the rate of change in Communist China.
  Mr. Gorbachev's charisma is also exercised in his ability to talk directly over the heads of our negotiators and leaders to grass roots throughout the western world. By using our news media, he could become a world leader for any group in the world that suits his purpose. I venture to guess that he is already one of the most popular leaders, if not the most popular, in the world. How many people in the western world do not know of Mr. Gorbachev? If, during polls, people are asked about world leaders, many appear never to have heard of their own leaders. Mr. Gorbachev, however, is well known in the West and, in a way, he is popular. He has the ability to lull populations into a false sense of security and to talk unbalanced billions of dollars off our defence budgets. He can also split alliances.
  Mr. Gorbachev's second characteristic is tremendous self-confidence based on track record and an open-mindedness that has proved successful. His self-confidence has two interesting points — first, the ability to be flexible and, secondly, the ability to be creative. Indeed, he has already been creative. At Reykjavik he wrong-footed the West with his amazing creativity and panache. The Soviets won the public relations battle. If President Reagan had not been such a great communicator he could have been tarred as a warmonger when he returned from Reykjavik.
  Mr. Gorbachev can use that tremendous creativity to change the balance of public perceptions in the West. It is now easy for our Western leaders to return from talks with Soviet leaders looking like warmongers because we did not give away everything. That has never happened before. Since 1945, the stone-faced Soviets have said, "Niet, niet,
  364
  niet", and have always appeared to be the spoilsports. Now, it could easily be a Western leader who is accused of that.
  It is important to remember that, because we are in an era of movement on arms talks — one that demands enhanced integrity from Western leaders because they now have to judge what they give away at arms negotiations in the real interests of the West against what will look good and avoid them being branded warmongers. We must constantly remember that our leaders must be careful not to sell out simply because to do otherwise would risk them being called warmongers.
  Mr. Gorbachev has heralded a new era of public relations and public perception. Out has gone the brutal Russian bear and in has come a reasonable, responsible and even reassuring Russia. However, the Soviets' longterm goals may not have changed a great deal—if at all—but their methods and style have changed. The West must be alert to that and, above all, be united. The Estimates show that the British Government, for one, are determined to adopt those three criteria. I wish them good fortune in these difficult, challenging but exciting negotiations and in their judgment of the options available to us.
  7.44 pm
  Mr. Harry Cohen: A week or so ago a Harrier jet went out of control and flew, pilotless, some 200 miles before crashing into the ocean. The Government's defence policy is in a similar state—out of control and heading for disaster. Despite vast increases in spending, adding 5 per cent. per annum since the Government came to office to an already very large budget, it is acknowledged that the armed forces are probably in a worse state, relatively speaking, than they were before the second world war.
  The Navy is a good example. On 22 February this year the Sunday Telegraph reported:
  "By the summer, the strength of the Navy will be less than the level planned by Sir John Nott, when he was Defence Secretary in 1981."
  On 10 July The Independent carried the headline:
  "Navy sending sitting-ducks to sea".
  A headline in The Times on 10 April stated:
  "The Fleet's Up the Creek".
  Despite all that, there are to be cuts totalling hundreds of millions of pounds. That money will not be redistributed to the social sector — to education and housing — as I would wish. The cuts are due to financial crisis and mismanagement, and the money is needed particularly to pay for the Government's nuclear obsession—a topic to which I shall return in due course. The cuts will mean more job losses, but there will be no Government action to provide replacement jobs.
  The excessive waste in the Defence Estimates is caused by a combination of muddle, mismanagement and inadequate control by the Ministry of Defence, and excessive profiteering by racketeers in the defence industry monopolies cushioned by the Ministry of Defence. There are plenty of examples. In the light of all the talk about glasnost, I hope that the Minister will bring some glasnost to this country and comment on the examples that I shall give.
  For instance, the programme to replace the self-propelled howitzer artillery guns with the SP70 ended in disaster, with £88 million of taxpayers' money down the drain. The Army's artillery command computer — the

  365
  Bates system — is reported to have doubled in cost to some £200 million so far, with further costs to come, as the project has been delayed at least four years and will in any event not achieve what it set out to achieve. The Secretary of State had the nerve to talk about improved contract performance, but where is the improved performance in that instance?
  Marconi and its subsidiaries have been accused of fraud, non-payment of royalties and making excessive profits, not to mention the unexplained deaths of three of its employees. The House should have answers to all those points. I congratulate the MOD police on having at long last taken action, but it should have been monitoring those contracts long ago so that such waste and fraud could not take place. More than £1 billion was wasted on the Nimrod early warning system. It is all very well for Conservative Members to say that that began under a Labour Government, but the Tory Government have seven and a half years of waste to answer for.
  The AWACS to replace the Nimrod system cost £860 million for six. Another two will push the total over £1 billion, excluding spares. Yet a press report of 5 October stated that a senior Pentagon scientist, Dr. Tom Amlie, had said that the system
  "would 'not last 30 minutes' in a war".
  According to Dr. Amlie:
  "the unarmed aircraft could be shot down with great ease once hostilities had started …
  The system's powerful radar, designed to detect low-flying enemy aircraft between 200 and 300 miles away, will act as a beacon to Warsaw Pact fighters carrying missiles which home in on radar signals".
  It was further reported:
  "AWACS aircraft in Saudia Arabia have twice failed to spot aircraft being flown into the country by defecting Iranian pilots."
  That is the kind of programme on which we are wasting £1 billion.
  We saw pictures of the Tornados in the press today. The Foxhunter fire control radar which enables them to operate does not work, although it has cost £650 million so far. It is already 60 per cent. over budget and the MOD has given it another four years to work, at an extra cost of at least £100 million—so far as we can ascertain, as the figure has been deleted from the major project list in volume two of the Defence Estimates on the ground that it is "confidential." In fact, it has been deleted to cover up the enormous waste of public money.
  UKADGE, the United Kingdom air defence ground environment — defence radar operation centres, computers, communication systems and control systems—was expected to cost £400 million, but is already to cost £1 billion or more. Moreover, it is alleged, the system will be vulnerable to electronic magnetic pulses. The RAF's friend or foe identification system does not work either and is still shooting down our own and other NATO aircraft in trials. The waste is immense.
  Then there is land use. There are more than 3,000 bases in this country, with a replacement value of £50 billion at 1982 prices. That figure must be much higher now. According to the Ministry's own study, those sites are being significantly underused. In 1986 the Ministry had 14,000 empty homes and 4,000 had been empty for more than a year, despite the severe homelessness problem in this country. What a waste.
  366
  Millions of pounds are wasted every time one of the low-flying aircraft crashes. At least £70 million was wasted on the Zircon project.
  Mr. Cryer: The Ministry of Defence makes much play of glasnost, but so far it has refused to reveal the total cost of aircraft lost in routine flying accidents since 1979. Is my hon. Friend aware that the cost is almost certainly £1 billion and that at least £500 million of that can be verified, including 11 Tornados at £17 million each?
  Mr. Cohen: My hon. Friend is right, and that is just a fraction of the billions that the Ministry wastes overall, as my examples show.
  The Ministry of Defence has not even started on glasnost in respect of Zircon, which is not shown in these or any previous Defence Estimates, despite the £70 million that has already been wasted. If any local authority had wasted even a fraction of that amount, its councillors would have been dragged by the scruffs of their necks through the courts, surcharged and disqualified. There is one law for them and another for the Ministry of Defence. That is a scandalous situation. I have referred the waste of money on Zircon to the Comptroller and Auditor General and I shall be watching to see whether he reports. We do not want any whitewashing in that respect.
  The Falklands accounted for £2,088 million between the end of the conflict and April this year, as The Times has reported, with a further £257 million this year. The Government have made no attempt to resolve that situation and to bring down those horrendous costs. There have been plenty of examples of waste, so let us have some answers from the Ministry of Defence. Instead of answers, the Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement gave us platitudes about value for money when he wound up the debate last night.
  With regard to the high cost of equipment, I have a report entitled "World Military and Social Expenditure for 1986", issued by World Priorities in Washington and the armaments and disarmament information unit at the university of Sussex, which states:
  "Price increases of 300 to 400 times between 1945 and 1986 have been common for weapons systems performing the same basic functions, such as tanks, destroyers and transport planes."
  The report puts the matter in perspective. It states that price escalation on this scale in the civilian market would have resulted in an average family car, which 40 years ago cost £704, costing £210,000 today. Inflation in the defence industry has been much higher than domestic inflation.
  The Ministry of Defence is the major customer for the defence industry, and it is a soft touch. It is charging high prices and getting away with it. The Ministry of Defence is also a soft touch for such monopolies because it acts as a wedge in any Government — particularly this Government — thus ensuring a continuing arms race, high prices and high profits for those industries. The case for public ownership of those major defence industries is overwhelming, for several reasons. Vast sums of money and vested interests are involved, leading to high prices and excessive profits, there is no real competition or control and the Ministry of Defence is by far and away the major customer. Public ownership would save the taxpayer billions of pounds and help to halt the private vested interests that contribute towards war.

  367
  The biggest waste of all is nuclear weapons. Billions of pounds go down the drain on weapons that cannot be used. It is worth analysing the Secretary of State's comment on this point yesterday. He said:
  "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."—[Official Report, 27 October 1987; Vol. 121, c. 210.]
  Presumably the Secretary of State is saying that he is prepared to sacrifice this country for the NATO Alliance and for the United States. We could be destroyed. That is the logical conclusion of his statement. The Secretary of State went on to say that we should be prepared to use nuclear weapons. If we use them, it is not a question of survival. To use them would be suicide. Those remarks are an indictment of the Secretary of State and the Government.
  The intermediate nuclear forces agreement is a welcome start, but there are a couple of questions that we must ask about it. Will the agreement be circumvented by compensatory deployment in other areas? Will there be cheating? The answer is yes. There are many areas where cruise missiles are being converted from their present land bases to sea and air bases. Aircraft bombers, such as the modular stand-off bomber, are being used for nuclear purposes. There is a replacement for the Lance missile—the battlefield nuclear shell. There has been a vast increase in Trident nuclear warheads, when the super-powers are trying to reduce their arsenals. The world is demanding reductions, but with Trident we are making increases as well as wasting £10 billion down the drain in the process.
  It was interesting to hear the speech by the spokesman for the rump of the Social Democratic party, the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright), who is not here now. His colleagues have also not been present for the rest of the debate. He said that his party would be in favour of all those nuclear weapons, including Trident. No wonder the immediate response from the hon. Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans), who followed him, was that should be on the Tory side. All the SDP's policies are pro-nuclear.
  Star wars is also a way of circumventing the spirit of the agreement and the demand by the public that we should reduce armaments. The Government are cheating and all the time looking forward to increase nuclear armaments and the nuclear arms race outside the limited range of the agreement. Yet they have the nerve to describe the fact that there is an agreement as a triumph for their policies, when they had no place at Reykjavik or at any of the other negotiating tables. So much for our allegedly independent nuclear weapon. It did not give us a place at any of those tables.
  Will there be more nuclear weapons in the world, even after INF, than before President Reagan and the Prime Minister started on their arms expansion? There will still be more nuclear weapons after INF than at the beginning of the Reagan presidency. Therefore, there has not been an enormous achievement in that respect. It is still a massive overkill.
  Will INF lead to further nuclear arms deductions in Europe and the world? It should, but the Prime Minister has said that, as far as she is concerned, no way—it has gone far enough. We must fight that. It is an unjustifiable position. We must keep up the pressure for further agreements and get rid of that massive overkill. It has been
  368
  said that there are over 60,000 nuclear weapons in the world. The annihilation is waiting to happen, and we cannot afford it. We in this country cannot afford the cost or the risk, which is much too great. There is a proliferation of accidents and dangers.
  We cannot uninvent nuclear weapons, but we can renounce them. Such a course would be much safer for Britain. We cannot afford the waste in the Tory Defence Estimates. That money should and could be much better used for the welfare of our people. I want a fraction of the money wasted on nuclear weapons to come into Leyton, to improve the housing, the Health Service and the education of the children there. We cannot afford that waste.
  The Tory defence policy is like the Harrier that we read about last week. It is heading for a crash, and we do not want the British people to go down with it.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. The winding-up speeches are expected to begin at about 9.20 pm. Several hon. Members who have sat in the Chamber for a good part of the day still hope to speak, so I appeal for brief contributions.
  8.5 pm
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett: The speech by the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) was extraordinary in many ways — first, because he is a Socialist accountant, which seems to be a contradiction in terms, and, secondly, we heard a Labour Member talking about waste. I began to wonder whether I was listening to someone on the road to Damascus, but what the hon. Gentleman meant by waste was the things that he did not agree with, not waste in the real sense of the word. The hon. Gentleman is an expert on waste as he represents a borough where the rates went up by 62 per cent. this year, so we listened with interest to his expertise.
  I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) on her maiden speech. I have never listened to a speech of such fluency and expertise, made with hardly a note. As my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne) said, we look forward to her further contributions.
  In my election campaign, I put into my election address the phrase:
  "Defence of the nation is the government's first duty."
  When I spoke in the campaign, on every occasion I stressed the importance of making sure that this country is properly defended. On every occasion my Labour opponent never mentioned the subject. It was only when it was dragged out of him in questions that he even attempted to talk about that most important subject. He was embarrassed, as are Opposition Members, by official Labour party policy.
  Before I discuss the topics that have been raised by some Opposition Members, I should like to mention two constituency subjects concerning defence, which are close to my heart. The first is the Royal Naval armaments depot at Milford Haven in my constituency and the related depot at Trecwn just outside it. At the moment they are the subject of an inquiry, known as the Glover inquiry, although I understand that Mr. Glover has since moved on. I appreciate that any inquiry or review into the future of those depots must start from the position of their importance to the future defence of the country. It is

  369
  important that there is a role for the mine depot — ensuring that we have conventional mines for the Royal Navy for use in our waters for defensive purposes.
  However, I ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to take into account also the important economic and social consequences of the depot for the town of Milford Haven. The town has 30 per cent. unemployment, and if the depot were to close, or be transferred, it would have a dramatic effect on the town. Nearly 300 jobs are at risk there. I hope that the Minister will take the economic and social circumstances of the depot into account in the inquiry.
  The second matter is the RAF search and rescue facility at Brawdy. I am delighted to see that in volume 1 at paragraph 426 of the annual statement reference is made to the Sea King helicopters at Brawdy, which rescued 28 people from the Kowloon Bridge in November 1986. At the moment the search and rescue facility at Brawdy, along with the other search and rescue facilities in RAF and Royal Navy bases around the country, is the subject of a review. I understand that Bristow Helicopters has made an offer to take over the running of those facilities.
  It would be wrong for us to privatise that activity—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am delighted that for once in my life I have the support of the Opposition. I am sure that I shall not receive their support for the rest of my remarks.
  Although I am a firm supporter of privatisation, I believe that, when we are talking about military matters, where it is important to have military discipline because the helicopters have to be on 24-hour standby and we cannot risk having strikes, it is important that those facilities remain under the control of the RAF.
  This has been a fascinating debate for those of us who are new to the House because we have had the enjoyment of listening to several speeches by long-established parliamentarians. I refer in particular to the speeches by the right hon. Members for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) and for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). It was interesting to hear what they said and what the official spokesmen did not say. I believe that the Chesterfield amendment is the real voice of the Labour party. I am only sorry that Mr. Speaker did not select that amendment. In a Division we could have seen the split in the Labour party. I am sure that if the amendment had been selected, there would have been strong support for the Chesterfield camp from within the new Labour party.
  The speech by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield can be described only as vintage Bennery. He rewrote history. He set up straw men that he then proceeded to knock down. For instance, he talked about the American empire and derided any threat from the USSR. That reminded me of Sydney Webb and the other Left-wing intelligensia who went to the USSR in the 1930s and returned singing the praises of the Russian system. It seems that nothing has been learnt by the Left wing of the Labour party since then. There was no mention by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield about the Russian empire that controls so many countries. The difference between the USSR and the United States is clear. Of course, the United States is not perfect, but to compare that country in any way with a totalitarian dictatorship—for that is what the Communist countries are—and to pretend that a country that has free elections, a free press and free speech is in any way comparable to the USSR or even, in the view of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield, less attractive than the USSR is absurd.
  Mr. Cryer: In view of the wicked perils of the Soviet Union that the hon. Gentleman has just described, does he think it wise that his leader, the Prime Minister, should go to the Soviet Union and engage in lengthy conversations with the leadership and appear on Soviet television?
  Mr. Bennett: Absolutely. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made an excellent speech on television. It was the first time that the Russian people had been able to hear about the joys and benefits of capitalism. For the Labour party to pretend that there is any comparison between the two systems shows the poor level of thought that exists on the extreme Left wing of that party.
  The right hon. Member for Chesterfield also said that he did not
  "believe that for one moment the Soviet Union has ever planned a military attack on Western Europe."—[Official Report, 27 October 1987; Vol. 121, c. 242.]
  The right hon. Gentleman is at liberty to believe anything that he likes, and he does believe some strange things. However, the fact remains that in 1945 Churchill warned the Soviets that if they did not stop at the previously agreed lines, action would be taken. Churchill's threat in 1945 established the boundaries of Western Europe as far as the Communist bloc was concerned. However, it did not establish the boundaries of Eastern Europe. The right hon. Member for Chesterfield was careful not to talk about Eastern Europe, but we have seen one country after another fall under Communist influence since 1945. It happened in Czechoslovakia in 1948. Russian military intervention took place in East Germany in 1953 and in Hungary in 1956 and in Czechoslovakia in 1968. We have seen what happens whenever those subject people wish to throw off the shackles of Communism. It was on those occasions that we saw the true face of the Soviet regime as it sought to ensure that they remain subject. It is that regime that the right hon. Gentleman thinks is better than the American system and the American way of life.
  I challenged the right hon. Member for Chesterfield on this matter yesterday. At column 246 of the Official Report I asked him why he did not resign when his party was in government between 1964 and 1970, and 1974 and 1979 when he was a Cabinet Minister. He sat through 11 years of a pro-nuclear Labour Government as a Minister and had a collective responsibility in the Cabinet from 1974 to 1979. However, not for one moment did he contemplate resignation. He was careful to stay in office. He told me that we all make mistakes.
  The right hon. Gentleman makes mistakes all the time. I was delighted when I obtained a copy of his book, "Out of the Wilderness". I am sure that official Opposition spokesmen hope that the last volume will be called "Back in the Wilderness", but if the right hon. Gentleman has his way, it will not be. Page 48 of that book contains a photograph showing the right hon. Gentleman advertising a rally in 1954 for the H-bomb national committee, which was the forerunner of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that he makes mistakes. Indeed, he was anti the bomb in 1954, but for 11 years he was willing to serve in a pro-nuclear Government. Perhaps he could explain why he has suddenly found all these principles only when he is in opposition.
  I have spent enough time discussing the embarrassment of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield. However, he continued by referring to the famous book of the right

  371
  hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent, which is entitled "Guilty Men". The right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent has had an honourable and consistent record of supporting CND. However, he, too, felt quite happy to serve in the Wilson and Callaghan Cabinets between 1974 and 1979. I collect the publications of the Left Book Club which is why I have a copy of "Guilty Men". What is interesting about that book, which was published in 1940, is that it does not mention the real guilty men before the second world war. I refer to the official Labour Opposition who, from 1936 to 1939, voted against rearmament and increased expenditure on defence in every Defence Estimate debate, just as they will today. They have not changed their colours. Those were the real guilty men before the second world war, and today's Opposition will be guilty if they do not support the Government's policy.
  It is interesting to compare the amendment that was tabled today in the name of the Leader of the Opposition with an amendment that was tabled by Mr. Attlee on 9 March 1936. The wording is not dissimilar. Mr. Attlee's amendment proposed that
  "the safety of this country and peace of the world cannot be secured by reliance on armaments but only by the resolute pursuit of a policy of international understanding, adherence to the Covenant of the League of Nations, general disarmament, the progressive improvement of international labour standards".—[Official Report, 9 March 1936; Vol. 309, c. 1841–42.]
  That amendment was tabled by Mr. Attlee two days after Hitler walked into the Rhineland. That was the way in which the Labour party operated in 1936 and that is the way in which it operates today.
  At least the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent has been consistent. It has been interesting to listen to the contortions of the official Opposition spokesmen in the debate. First came the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), who retired from the Front Bench just a few weeks ago. His speech was in his usual disingenuous style. He accused the Government of relying heavily on the United States. He made the usual crude anti-Americanisms, which he must make for internal political reasons. He then went on to attack his erstwhile American colleagues. He said that the Labour party would increase reliance on the nuclear umbrella of the United States if we are not to have our own independent nuclear deterrent. One cannot interpret his speech in any other way. Presumably, therefore, we must rely on the Americans. It is interesting to note that when the Leader of the Opposition appeared on "This Week, Next Week" on 29 September 1986 and was challenged about relying on America's nuclear weapons, he said:
  "If we are not prepared to use the weapons system ourselves, we certainly would not be asking anyone else to jeopardise themselves by the use of that nuclear weapon. It would be immoral to do so."
  However, the next day the right hon. Member for Leeds, East said that the United States is a member of NATO and that possession by the United States of nuclear weapons is obviously a deterrent. Unlike his leader, the right hon. Member for Leeds, East was prepared to rely on American nuclear weapons.
  There is a moral dimension to this issue. As a leading European and world power and as a nuclear nation, we have a moral as well as a political duty to maintain an independent nuclear force and to help in our own defence.
  372
  It is not anti-American to support having our own nuclear deterrent. As a strong world power, we have a moral duty to help in our own defence.
  Of course, Opposition Members would rather not talk about the official policy of the Labour party. I listened yesterday and this afternoon to their Front-Bench spokesmen. It is interesting to note that they do not have an official policy on nuclear deterrence. In fact, there was considerable confusion amongst them about the concept of deterrence. That was shown by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) when he backed up his hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) in questioning the Secretary of State. They have a policy that has been cobbled together for internal political reasons and it varies from day to day — [Interruption.] Opposition Members may laugh, but we should look at just one week in the policy-making of the Labour party. If we take the week from 27 September to 3 October 1987, on Tuesday 29 September the official policy of the Labour party favoured a vague review of defence policy. On the following day, Wednesday 30 October, following a speech by the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) which warned about civil war in the Labour party, that unilaterilist policy was abandoned. The Leader of the Opposition said on television that it was a jolly good speech, and added:
  "We are maintaining our non-nuclear defence policy and you know it. I said it yesterday."
  Within minutes the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) was contradicting the right hon. Gentleman on the same television station, saying:
  "We have announced we are going to have a review … we can hardly announce the conclusions of the review before we have even started it."
  Naturally, by the following morning the speech of the hon. Member for Brent, East, which had been a jolly good speech the previous day was under attack from the official member of the NEC of the Labour party responding at the Labour conference debate as being immature, and the hon. Gentleman was attacked as exploiting the nuclear issue for his own political advantage.
  That is one simple week in the life of the Labour party's nuclear defence policy. The policy cannot remain constant for more than five minutes, depending on which spokesman is called to defend it. It is no wonder that the public believe the Labour party as much today as they did on 11 June. We can see from the Government's position in the opinion polls that, as the gap between the Conservative and Labour parties widens, Labour party policy today has even less credibility.
  If the Labour party's policy is now predicated on the INF talks being successful, what will it do if they fail? I hope the talks will not. Will the Labour party then back the retention of cruise—the very reason why the USSR is willing to talk — or will it still insist that cruise is abandoned? What is the Labour party's position on IBMs? Does it now support Polaris and its replacement by Trident, in the words of one hon. Lady, as a "bargaining counter"? Again, why should the USSR listen if it knows that a Labour Government means only to use that as a bargaining counter? The USSR then knows that it can wait and bluff through any negotiations which may be undertaken by a Labour Foreign Secretary. Labour Britain will give them up.
  The fact is that the British people know that Labour party activists—I do not say Members of this House—

  373
  are riddled with barely disguised fellow travellers who would accept any little morsel, or even none, before throwing away our independent nuclear deterrent. It only remains to be said that Labour's defence policy is a mess because it is full of irreconcilable contradictions and riddled with holes. It was rejected on 11 June and it will also be rejected, rightly, at the next general election.
  8.22 pm
  Mr. David Young: I am struck by the amount of time the Government have spent attacking the Labour party. If the Labour party's policy is as bad as they say, why should they worry about it? The reason is that the Government are trying to disguise their own failures.
  Let me remind Conservatives that they were in government when the Falklands campaign started. Had Argentina invaded a few months later, after the carriers had been sold, Admiral Woodward could not have mounted a fleet. Let me remind them what their preparations were—Argentina is not a major power—that at the end of that campaign some of our batteries were down to six shells per gun. Those were the preparations that they had made for the defence of this country.
  The fact is that a country this size cannot sustain both a nuclear and a conventional weapons policy. Therefore, our nuclear policy depends on us going to the American nuclear pawnshop for Trident. But, remember, the Americans are craftily keeping the redemption certificate so that they control any use we make of Trident. Conventionally, we are prepared to rob Peter to pay Paul. That means that none of the services receives the equipment or support which it is entitled to expect. Much of our equipment is out of date. The Army still has 900 Chieftain tanks in service. These tanks put up so much smoke that they are targets from miles away. Is that how we should supply our armed forces?
  Much of our radar for air defence is out of date. We now have six American AWACS systems and it is doubtful whether they would cover Britain as we should be covered. In fighter defence we depend on obsolete Phantoms and Lightnings. Under the Labour Government we had ordered Tornado replacements, but because their radar has not arrived, they appear in many cases to be used as trainers. However, I believe that some radars arrived yesterday — only three years after the projected date. Tornados must be the most expensive training aircraft in history. But what were our fighters supposed to do if a war had taken place meantime? They were carrying ballast instead of radar. Perhaps the Government's solution was that they should fly over the enemy aircraft and drop the ballast, in the same way as first world war figher pilots used to take up bricks and drop them on the enemy.
  Then there is the question of the trainer ordered from Brazil — the Tucano — presumably for political rather than operational reasons. Its programme is falling behind. The MoD tells us that its policy is to deter a potential enemy. I would think that any potential enemy would be grateful to them; indeed, I would not be surprised to see some members of the Government gaining decorations for services to Russia. We cannot claim that we are deterring if our equipment is out of date, if some of it does not arrive at the right place at the right time and if we are never ready to meet the crisis that the equipment and forces are supposed to meet. That is the challenge that I put before the Government this evening.
  374
  Our merchant fleet is disappearing and we have managed to declare redundant many of the skilled men who prepared the Falklands fleet. When our minesweepers go on a limited operation in the Gulf — it should not have been a major operation — they have to wait to be fitted with chaff launchers and other missile deterrents. That is the result of a policy of a Government who Maim they are prepared to defend Britain.
  Although in some areas we have smaller forces than the Russians, our greatest assets are the flexibility, initiative and training of the members of our services. But all training, flexibility and loyalty depends on morale. While the Government spend £3 million training an operational Tornado pilot and £1 million on training a navigator. how do they boost morale? They bolster morale by denying the RAF sufficient training, so building up frustration. They support our sailors, who spend months away from their families, by making it as difficult as possible for them to visit their families when they may be stationed on the same island. The Government do not allow additional travel warrants unless service personnel are 200 miles from their families. By cutting local overseas allowances in Germany to save £17 million, the cost of one Tornado—they seem to drop out of the sky all over the place—the Government incur the justified wrath of those serving in Germany whose morale depends on allowances to meet family costs.
  Industry after industry has been handed over on a plate to the Americans—witness, for example, the Westland helicopter industry. The biggest employer in my constituency is British Aerospace, which makes missiles, and the company is terrified every time it thinks the Ministry of Defence is reviewing a contract, lest it go to the Americans. There is also a factory in my constituency that is owned by a textile firm called Lantor. The major shareholders in that firm are Tootal in this country and an American firm, Westpoint Pepperell Inc. The company in Bolton has discovered a material that is extremely light, for use in protecting personell in chemical warfare. Into the material are built certain elements that allow it to absorb chemicals; it is a world beater. And what do the Government do? They reward the firm by telling it that they are cutting their ordering capability, to the extent that the American section of that firm is now bidding for contracts. So, as a result of the MOD's policy, that investment programme in Bolton, which has a high unemployment rate, has had to be cancelled. If that is a Government showing loyalty to British workers and firms, I wonder how one hopes to maintain the loyalty of the people on whom one's forces depend.
  Our forces are only as independent as our control of the industries that supply them. Once those are put into foreign hands, not only is unemployment created here but people abroad are given the power to rule our forces' policy decisions. If we are not careful, I am afraid that the European fighter aircraft will be cancelled. Once that goes, the orders go to the Americans.
  I know that several hon. Members are waiting to speak, but it is important to say that the country must define the global role in which our forces should operate. We are dragged along behind American policy. We were involved in Libya when the Americans chose to attack Tripoli. Unfortunately, the Americans had got it wrong, because the people behind the bombing of the La Belle night club in Germany, for which the American raid was retribution, were the Syrians. That did not stop the Prime Minister

  375
  supporting the Americans in what was American Government terrorism. Yesterday, we attacked Libya; today we are dragged behind the Americans into what could be a Gulf war; what happens tomorrow? Do we become no more than a section of the operational armed forces of America, controlled and manipulated from Washington?
  It is no good claiming to have an independent deterrent if the orders come from the country that supplied it. It would be much better if the Government concentrated on making Britain independent of all countries—including America. NATO was originally founded as a group of equals, each giving what it could afford to the common good, but sharing as equals a common policy-making process. That has now changed to the point at which, under the present Government, NATO has become more like the Warsaw pact—a super-power element decides, and the rest of us are dragged along behind. That is not an association of free men or equals; it is an alliance dominated by a central power for its own interests.
  What has worried me in all the negotiations is the Government's attempt consistently to argue that nuclear weapons must be kept. Of all the countries in the negotiations, we are the country hanging on to nuclear weapons for their own sake and making excuses for not getting rid of them. I sometimes feel that the Government would sooner have a nuclear war in which they could say, "You see, even in dying we have been proved right," than make any concession that would enable the world to live in peace.
  8.34 pm
  Mr. David Tredinnick: I am grateful for having been called this evening, especially as I visited British front-line troops in the spring of this year, together with 15 other Conservative candidates. I am happy to say that all 15 are now hon. Members of the House.
  I want to share with the House some of the experiences that we had on that trip and that are relevant to the debate. Secondly, I want to examine political relations as they appeared to be changing in Germany. Thirdly, I shall speak about British dependencies and morale. I am aware that other hon. Members wish to follow me, so I shall keep my eye on the clock.
  I am particularly pleased to speak today because I served in Germany with the British troops as an officer in the Army some years ago, and I say from the bottom of my heart that I am delighted that we are, at last, moving towards reductions of nuclear missiles. An INF agreement is very much on the horizon. I believe that it is there only because the Government were prepared to stand firm and force the Russians to the negotiating table, and not to accept the notion put about by Labour Members that we should disarm ourselves before the other side considered doing so.
  While in Germany we had the opportunity to talk to German and British troops, and I was surprised at the attitudes of those troops towards any proposed nuclear treaty. Most British troops, of all ranks, with whom I discussed the issue seemed lukewarm towards the idea of intermediate nuclear disarmament, because of the tremendous inequalities and imbalances between conventional forces. If we achieve that INF treaty, we must move on as soon as possible to a treaty that covers conventional
  376
  and biological weapons. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe), who made a distinguished maiden speech this evening, that that must be the next stage. The troops with whom I discussed the matter asked why I was surprised by their lukewarm attitude to nuclear treaties, given that the other side has 57 divisions and we have only 26. The other side has twice as many tanks and aircraft, and three times as many guns too.
  It is important to consider the quality and the configurations of the troops that face NATO. It may be thought that the other side has only a conscript army, but that is far from the truth. In Russia, the word "guards" denotes first-class, highly-trained troops, as, I may say, it does in other countries, too. What do we find when we examine the deployment of Warsaw pact troops in Germany? We find that our forces are up against the 2nd Guards Army, the 3rd Shock Army, the 8th Guards Army, the 20th Guards Army, and the 1st Guards Tank Army, supported by East German troops in two army groups. All these units are motorised. The distance that they have to travel to reach our forces is not great; it takes one hour by taxi from the border to the Rhine, and two hours by tank. That is what the German Member of Parliament for Detmold told us, although he said that the Russians did not know about the traffic problems in his constituency. From there, we were fortunate in being able to go to East Germany.
  Mr. Jimmy Hood: There is not much traffic in East Germany.
  Mr. Tredinnick: The hon. Gentleman is correct, but there is a lot of military activity.
  Mr. Hood: Just like Soweto.
  Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Has the hon. Gentleman ever been to Soweto?
  Mr. Tredinnick: The hon. Gentleman has made two helpful interventions. He laughs and jokes about Soweto. I have been to Soweto, and he has not. [Interruption.] I had a look at the problems there, too, because it is much better to go and see and form one's own opinions. The changes that have taken place there are another issue.
  One issue that came up in Germany—which is far away from Soweto—was the so-called German question. This was brought up on several occasions. I found the nature of the question very strange. I wanted to know what it was, because it was continually being raised. Was it just about East German-West German relations? When one questioned the academics and the distinguished people with whom we had discussions, we found that it was part of a much greater question.
  We went for a briefing to the 21st Panzer Corps at Detmold and there was a map on the wall to assist in the briefing. I and some of my colleagues looked at the map, but it was not a map with borders that we recognised because it showed the borders of Germany in 1937. When we talk about the German question, we must understand that many Germans consider the German question as something that deals not just with East German-West German relations. Rather it includes east Prussia, Silesia and the other lands that Germany lost at the end of world war 2. We are moving into a phase of closer relations between East and West Germany, and the sentiment that

  377
  we found in Germany must be kept in mind as we see the two German nations appearing to form closer relationships.
  The hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Mr. Young) spoke about the Falklands. Under no circumstances should we discuss the Falklands with the Argentinians until they have formally ceased hostilities. They have not done so, and must do so first. If we did have discussions with them now it would be interpreted as weakness.
  I remind the House that after the Falklands had been invaded, and before the task force was sent, Spain suspended negotiations about Gibraltar. The Spanish Government scandalously used Gibraltar recently to sabotage the carefully negotiated agreement on European air fares. That was disgraceful and we must not let that blackmail influence us.
  Finally, I shall speak about morale. We heard about waste from the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen), which is very close to Walthamstow, where a safe Labour seat fell to the Conservatives because of the enormous waste and rate increases in the area.
  Mr. Cohen: We shall win it back next time.
  Mr. Tredinnick: I doubt that because in London Conservatives tend to hold seats won from Labour and that can be seen from the results of the last two elections.
  In conclusion, I say yes to INF, but we must move on to a conventional weapons agreement. Secondly, we should bear in mind that to many Germans' the German question goes beyond East German-West German relations in the sense of the geographical boundaries set at the end of the war. Thirdly, we must remain firm on the Falklands and on Gibraltar. Finally in terms of morale, I draw the attention of the House to figures that show that the premature retirement rate under this Government is much better than it was under the Labour Government.
  8.45 pm
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: One of the shortcomings of our parliamentary system is that having set up Select Committees the House too often pays insultingly scant attention to their reports. Colleagues of all parties spend hours beavering away taking evidence, and skilled and conscientious Clerks of the House burn the midnight oil on draft reports, while the rest of us are casual about the fruits of their work. Far too little parliamentary attention is given to the work of the Select Committee on Defence.
  My second reason for using my time to return to the report of the Select Committee on Westland is that, whereas many colleagues perceive the Westland affair as the day before yesterday's issue and a few ardently hope that Westland can be swept under the carpet, I subscribe to the old-fashioned view that telling the truth to the House is today's issue. Certainly as long as those involved, however exalted and senior Ministers they may be, are still in office, this is a matter of paramount importance.
  Paragraph 184 of the Select Committee's report refers to the Prime Minister's statement recorded in the Official Report of 27 January 1986 given in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) who, as so often before and since in the past 15 years, asked the right question.
  The Prime Minister said:
  378
  "I did not know about the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry's own role in the matter of the disclosure until the inquiry had reported."—[Official Report, 27 January 1986; Vol. 90, c. 657.]
  The Select Committee was obviously incredulous, because in paragraph 184 of its report the Committee stated:
  "We asked Sir Robert Armstrong about this; and he thought it 'strange, but I believe that to be the case.'"
  Paragraph 185 says:
  "The Secretary of the Cabinet's description of this as strange is something of an understatement. Parts of a classified document have been made public—a document of the same classification, incidentally, as the papers which Mr. Ponting disclosed."
  I spent 11 days in the Old Bailey and perhaps I may be forgiven for having my thoughts about that.
  The Select Committee's report says:
  "Not only was the document classified; it was advice from a Law Officer to one of his Ministerial colleagues, and its disclosure, in the words of the Solicitor-General, immediately and flagrantly violated' the rule of confidentiality of such advice. The disclosure was also, again in the words of the letter's author, 'highly selective'."
  I hope that you will not take it amiss, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I insert in my speech that I hope that Lord Havers enjoys better health in his retirement. Some of us are grateful for his many personal courtesies during his distinguished eight years as Attorney-General.
  The right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan) is one of the ablest lawyers of his generation, a QC who knew about the Law Officer's letters. I do not believe for a moment that it was his original idea selectively to leak a Law Officer's letter.
  The Select Committee's incredulity escalates in paragraph 186. It says:
  "It is to be presumed that Mr. Powell and Mr. Ingham were present when the Prime Minister discussed the matter with her office. From the Cabinet Secretary's evidence it appears that Mr. Powell knew that the Solicitor-General's letter was on its way. We know that Mr. Mogg spoke to Mr. Powell and told him that Mr. Brittan wanted the Solicitor-General's view put in the public domain. We know that Mr. Powell and Mr. Ingham refused to disclose the letter from Downing Street. We know that Mr. Ingham knew in advance about the method of disclosure, because it was agreed in a telephone call between himself and Miss Bowe. It must also have been known to Mr. Ingham at that stage that Mr. Brittan had given his authority for the disclosure—otherwise Mr. Ingham was discussing the details of how to make a disclosure that had no Ministerial authority whatsoever."
  The sequence of events recounted by the Prime Minister is incredible, as it requires us to believe that she never asked a single pertinent question about a scandalous situation that directly affected her Government.
  To accept her full explanation it is necessary to believe that both she and Bernard Ingham behaved entirely out of character; that she never thought to ask a man in her office, with whom she worked in conditions of great intimacy, how a leak of major political significance had been affected; and that he, who knew more about the art of leaking than anyone else, had never told her what had happened. At best, it showed that she was a Prime Minister who was apparently unable to control her own officials but who approved of the use of smear tactics against a fellow Minister.
  Then we come to paragraphs 187 and 188, to which no proper reply was offered in the Government's response, Cmnd. 9916, as it characteristically skirted difficult issues.
  It is the same kind of dismissive, cynical long answer that the Defence Secretary gave to the Select Committee on 29 October last year — cols. 344 and 345 of the

  379
  Official Report—when he devoted three minutes to the fourth report and 24 minutes to the technicalities of helicopters.
  It was this kind of long answer that led the Economist on 1 February to say:
  "In the raucous atmosphere of the Commons on Monday, it was impossible for opposition (or government) MPs to get answers to straight questions. However, it was significant that replies were not given to two crucial questions asked by a Labour shadow spokesman, Mr. John Morris: 'Did the prime minister canvass her advisers or any minister before she requested through her office the solicitor general to write his letter or to put that letter into the public domain? Secondly, when she set up the inquiry, did she know that it was an official leak?' The question had to be fielded by the leader of the house, Mr. John Biffen. Mr. Biffen, a man of unimpeachable honesty, did his best: 'Those points have been dealt with by the prime minister' …."
  As the Economist said, "They had not," and they never have been.
  This is the kind of non-answer that the Prime Minister gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) on 14 July. The Official Report states:
  "Mr. Fatchett: When the Prime Minister said on 27 January 1986 in the middle of the Westland affair that she did not expect to be Prime Minister by 6 o'clock that evening what did she mean?
  The Prime Minister: That allegation has been made many times. I have nothing further to add to the many statements and replies that I have already given."—[Official Report, 14 July 1987; Vol. 119, c. 965.]
  At Question No. 4 for that day, I asked the Prime Minister:
  "Will the Prime Minister make just one reference to the "many times" when she has said that she knew what she had done as an explanation of why she said that she might not be Prime Minister at 6 o'clock that evening?
  The Prime Minister: I have repeatedly told the hon. Gentleman that I have nothing to add. He knows full well that I am here and that I am intending to stay."—[Official Report, 14 July 1987; Vol. 119, c. 969.]
  Doubtless the Prime Minister was intending to stay, but it does not answer the question.
  At paragraph 187 the Select Committee states:
  "187. It must therefore be the case that Mr. Ingham and Mr. Powell were in a position to tell the Prime Minister on 7 January what turned out to be the principal findings of Sir Robert Armstrong's inquiry more than a fortnight later. They knew that Mr. Brittan had given his authority, because, according to the evidence before us, they were told so by Mr. Mogg. They knew, or certainly Mr. Ingham knew, that Miss Bowe was going to give the information unattributably to the Press Association. They could not, of course, know of the 'differences in understanding' between No. 10 and the DTI which Sir Robert quoted in his inquiry, but these do not carry the same significance as the fact that the disclosure had been authorised by a Cabinet Minister."
  The Select Committee further stated, at paragraph 188:
  "188. Yet on 7 January Mr. Ingham and Mr. Powell did not share their knowledge—not with Mr. Nigel Wicks, the Prime Minister's Principal Private Secretary, not with Sir Robert Armstrong and not with the Prime Minister. Sir Robert told us he believed the reason the Prime Minister was told nothing was that
  `it was understandable that people would expect the matters to be dealt with in the inquiry and would expect to give their accounts of the matter to the inquiry'."
  The Committee said that that was speculation on Sir Robert's part. Members of Parliament can be forgiven for being contemptuous about the so-called inquiry by the Cabinet Secretary. Never has a Nelson eye been more adroitly used on behalf of Ministers — shades of Sir Lawrence Helsby and the late Lord Burke Trend.
  380
  During the Recess I indulged in the dangerous pastime of reading books, and one I read was Rodney Tyler's "Campaign". Tyler is a man very close to Tim Bell. At page 1, chapter 1, paragraph 1, sentence 1, Tyler began:
  "It was an extraordinary turnaround in fortunes from the moment on 27 January 1986 when Mrs. Thatcher secretly confided to a close associate that she might have to resign, to the occasion, almost a year later, when she found herself, also in great secrecy".
  Authors usually take great care in honing their opening sentences. But on pages 3 and 4, Tyler is even more explicit. He said:
  "On the eve of the crucial Westland debate she herself felt shaky enough to doubt her future (although some around her later sought to dismiss this as late evening anxieties of the sort that had disappeared by the following morning). It is certainly true that if Leon Brittan had chosen to, he could have brought her to the brink of downfall, by naming the real culprits inside Number 10. Instead, he chose to remain silent."
  Who are these real culprits? Have they been sacked or shunted sideways into Whitehall's outer Mongolia? Have they ceased to prosper or do they languish like Leon? Not so.
  Mr. Ingham went to Vancouver to conduct, as my right hon. Friend for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) put it, anti-Heseltine-type guerilla tactics against the host Canadian Prime Minister.
  Mr. Powell, uniquely as far as I can ascertain, while remaining in the same post at Downing street, has become an Under-Secretary at the Foreign and Commonwealth Relations Office.
  I have re-read "Not With Honour" by Magnus Linklater and David Leigh, in which it was stated:
  "The Prime Minister knew about the leak. She was pleased it had been done. There was a meeting between Brittan and her after the complaint from Mayhew. Only the two of them were present … Brittan assumed she knew of [the leak's] origins. You must draw your own conclusions."
  In the summer I saw Mr. Linklater in Edinburgh and he stuck exactly to what he had been told.
  Then there is the elegantly written volume by the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) who, to use his own favourite word, is one of the "disregarded", but equally well-informed. He described the 1922 Committee in the last week of January 1986 in Committee Room 14. In his book, he said:
  "Leon Brittan's trial in absentia was in the great tradition.
  Brittan was to be the necessary sacrifice. Mrs. Thatcher's statement that afternoon had, for all its equivocation, fingered her secretary of state. She may have tried to protect him but the result was to leave him naked to his enemies. The atmosphere in the committee room was highly charged."
  The hon. Member for Aldershot continued:
  "Later that evening there were rumours to the effect that 'Leon will spill the beans'. But he did not. Instead he resigned on the following day, disregarding Mrs. Thatcher's efforts to persuade him to stay put. His speeches since on Westland have been devoted to attacking Heseltine's part in the affair."
  We want to know what "the beans" are, and the only possible beans are those of truth about the Prime Minister's behaviour. As she confirmed to David Frost during a pre-election broadcast on the Sunday morning, she thought that she might not be Prime Minister on the night of 27 January because she did not know that the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks would remain silent and be a scapegoat or would reveal his role in the affair, and her role, and spill the beans. She did not know that, and that is precisely why she doubted whether she would be Prime Minister at six o'clock that night.

  381
  Before leaving the works of the hon. Member for Aldershot, I should draw some attention to the role of the then Government Chief Whip, the present Leader of the House of Commons. In a dramatis personae he states:
  "John Wakeham, the government chief whip. The keeper of the party's interest. Worked first to keep Heseltine within the government, but grew increasingly anxious about the political consequences about so public and violent a disagreement, helped to concoct Mrs. Thatcher's ultimatum which she delivered at the cabinet meeting on 9 January 1986. Shrewd, mild in manner, his contribution to keeping the ship afloat, with two men overboard and the Captain confined to her cabin, was decisive."
  This is the writing of a Conservative Member. He continues:
  "John Wakeham issued an order of the day which contained the trite if effective message that it was time for all good men to come to the aid of the party. We did."
  That man, the then Government Chief Whip, is now the Leader of the House of Commons, and those who are Leaders of the House of Commons should never be party in any way to misleading the House. I am afraid that the present Leader of the House, in his previous incarnation, was part of the Prime Minister's behaviour towards the House. The right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks might reflect with Cardinal Wolsey that
  "Had I served but God as diligently as I have served the King, he would not have given me over in my grey hairs."
  I then made inquiries, which brings me to the difficult problem of sources, which is common to journalists and politicians. I have to judge whether angry people were, first, in a position to know and, secondly, telling the truth.
  I have come to believe that Mr. Charles Powell, working in Downing street with the rank of undersecretary of state, did his duty. But had he not done so, he would have been shunted out of Downing street, and not put in an unprecedentedly senior post.
  I believe that Mr. Powell and Mr. Ingham kept the Prime Minister fully informed about all that occurred as it occurred. That is not surprising, as the selective leaking of a Law Officer's letter was probably the Prime Minister's own idea in the first place.
  I do not think that the House should be surprised at this behaviour, because we have seen only recently the ruthless operation in Canada. Had the Prime Minister said otherwise than in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) on 27 January, she could have hardly have remained in No. 10 Downing street. I remind the House of what she said:
  "I did not know about the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry's own role in the matter of the disclosure until the inquiry had reported."—[Official Report, 27 January 1986; Vol. 90, c. 657.]
  That had to be said at that point to protect the Prime Minister's position. Had she not made such a claim, the removal van would have been outside No. 10 Downing street.
  One question is whether civil servants should be party to such behaviour. I admit that they are put in an extremely difficult position because, understandably, they wish to continue their careers rather than tread the path of Clive Ponting.
  I give notice to the House that I propose to pursue this matter as incessantly as possible until an inquiry has been set up and the following examined: Mr. T. P.Abraham, Sir Robert Armstrong, Miss Collette Bowe, Sir Brian Hayes, Mr. Bernard Ingham, Mr. John Michell, Mr. John Mogg, Mr. Richard Mottram, Mr. Charles Powell, Sir Clive Whitmore and Mr. Nigel Wicks. They should come before
  382
  some form of inquiry or a Select Committee of the House of Commons to answer questions, and I believe that as honourable civil servants they would do so.
  If the House says that it is not interested in the truth and that the events that I have set out are past history, I can say only that they do not relate to a minor event. It was an event in which the Prime Minister lost the cleverest member of her Cabinet, the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks. She lost also the greatest expositor to his party conference of a case and one of the few orators of our generation, the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine).
  If it is said that we should regard all this as water under the bridge, I can say only that if the House is not interested in the truth, it should be. For a quarter of a century I have had the privilege of being a Member of this place and I believe passionately that Parliament should get from Ministers, however exalted, and from those who are created by the House, and who ultimately theoretically depend on the House, the truth. If we do not get the truth, the whole British system breaks down.
  9.4 pm
  Mr. Derek Conway: It is always an interesting challenge to follow the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). However, regardless of our political differences, I believe that this place would be far worse for his absence. For all that, I thought that the House was debating the Defence Estimates. For one horrid moment I thought that perhaps the hon. Member for Linlithgow had slipped to item No. 9 of the Remaining Orders of the Day and Notices of Motions on the Order Paper relating to knitting yarns in the European Community.
  The last time that we had occasion to be together in a defence debate, the hon. Member for Linlithgow took my hon. Friend the Minister to task over the matter of low-flying aircraft. The hon. Gentleman has rightly pursued that matter, and it is a concern in many places, not least in my constituency. I did not have the opportunity to intervene in the hon. Gentleman's speech then, because he did not feel able to give way, to remind him that my hon. Friend the Minister has been very helpful in my case, because he advises me when RAF exercises, particularly of a low-flying nature, are to take place over my constituency. His advice enables hon. Members to advise their constituents when such exercises are to take place. That is very helpful, and I want to put on record the fact that that is valuable advice for constituents. I hope that that practice will continue.
  Within the Defence Estimates, the Territorial Army is listed as 2 per cent. of the budget. I have developed a reputation for harping on about the TA, partially because I serve and have a particular interest in it. As well as forming 2 per cent. of the Defence Estimates before the House as laid out on page 53 of the White Paper, hon. Members should bear in mind that the Territorial Army presently supplies 40 infantry battalions to our armed forces. That figure is in annex C. Of those 40, five are the newly created phase II enhancement battalions under the TA expansion programme.
  When we bear in mind that we are talking about 2 per cent. of the budget for all the Territorial Army volunteer reservists commitment to the armed forces providing 40 infantry battalions with the TA cap badge, it is interesting to note that there are 50 regular battalions. Therefore, I

  383
  suggest that the Territorial Army is providing very good value for money. That is why I was particularly glad to note that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence recently visited Germany to observe Exercise Keystone — a major Territorial Army and Regular service exercise.
  I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on his visit to the exercise, but I should take him to task. He did not come to see our battalion, the 5th Light Infantry. Although the corps commander had insisted that the exercise should be dry, I am sure that, as the Secretary of State emanates from Scotland, we could have made his reception with the 5th Light Infantry most worthwhile.
  I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will have been impressed by the enthusiasm of those taking part in that exercise, particularly the TA. Hon. Members should bear in mind that many people who give up time to take part in TA activities and in particular exercises actually lose pay as a result. It is more than a hobby for many families; it is a genuine sacrifice. Exercise Keystone seemed particularly long, but it enabled part-time soldiers to get into the swing of things. However, it is important for exercises involving travel abroad that those responsible within the Ministry of Defence ensure that the Territorials can return to the United Kingdom in time to fulfil their civilian commitments. There was some doubt whether that would happen after that exercise. I hope that that point will be noted in relation to future exercises.
  Undoubtedly, the Territorial Army commitment within our defence services and within the Defence Estimates proves to be a very effective part of NATO. One of the areas of concern to which I have referred previously is that we are more and more centralising the armed forces within the United Kingdom into large Regular depots. The danger is that we will remove from communities within the United Kingdom a form of military presence, and that may be seen as sinister. That is why it is particularly encouraging that the Government have increased the TA by five infantry battalions so that the 40 battalions can maintain a military presence within the communities—as is the case within Shrewsbury—and be seen as part of the community, in defence of the community and in no way as a sinister arm of the Government.
  I am a little disappointed that the Defence Estimates contain only four references to the Territorial Army. Initially, that may sound generous, but three of those are brief statistical references in section 2, and the fourth is an even briefer reference on page 37 of section 1. Bearing in mind the size of the Territorial Army and its role within our armed forces, it has been rather neglected in the Defence Estimates.
  Before too long, the House, and those within it who are interested in defence matters, will have to consider the future of voluntary and part-time military service within the United Kingdom. At present, recruitment levels are undoubtedly good, and the training, facilities and equipment provided for the Territorial Army are excellent. But, as our national economy is strengthening and booming, it is becoming harder for those involved in Territorial Army activities to obtain leave from their employers, not only for weekend training, because many now have to work on Saturdays, but for exercises.
  384
  Some employers who are now proving reluctant to allow employees to take part in Territorial Army activities are suppliers of equipment to the Ministry of Defence. They should take note that it is part of their duty as United Kingdom employers to enable their employees to take part in part-time military service. As many of them rely on Ministry of Defence contracts, it may be necessary before too long to consider a code of practice which would ensure that minimal release for Territorial Army activities could be assured.
  Since the last time that we debated Defence Estimates, there has, fortunately, been progress on the relationship between the unemployed who earn money in the Territorial Army and the Department of Health and Social Security offices. Attitudes have varied across the country, and in many places in the past they have been to the detriment of those serving in the Territorial Army. There have been changes in calculating the monetary value of training and drill nights, but the Ministry of Defence must come to grips with the DHSS regarding weekend deductions.
  I understand that those who are unemployed but who serve as part-time firemen do not lose financially. That is not the case in the Territorial Army. My right hon. Friends will have had the opportunity not only to meet the generals but many of the men serving in the Territorial Army on Exercise Keystone. If they spoke to those who are unemployed, they may have learnt of the difficulties that their families face when they return to the United Kingdom as a result of the delay in regaining their social security benefits.
  It is important for Britain to understand the importance of the services in no less a place than the House itself. In the days when national service gave a number of Members to these Benches, the understanding of life in the services was greater, but that is undoubtedly diminishing. That is why we hear less of the traditional voices from the Opposition Benches, of those who, at one stage, used to represent much more the strong service vote which exists for the Labour party.
  The hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Garrett), who is not in his place at the moment, has an interest in his local battalion—the 6th Fusilier battalion based in the north-east. All hon. Members who make contact with a Regular or Territorial Army unit will find a warm reception and genuine delight that an interest is being taken in their training and concerns. I hope that that will become much more of a feature across party lines so that modern attitudes in the services can be better understood.
  Earlier, one of my colleagues referred to a visit that he paid to Germany as a candidate. Many visits to the armed forces are arranged for candidates, but fewer for serving Members. If my right hon. Friend could address that question in the Ministry of Defence, there may be a greater understanding of the need for sensible Defence Estimates.
  In a few days' time, a number of hon. Members—again, I am sure, from both sides of the House—will attend Remembrance day services in their constituencies. One of the stranger titles for someone of my age to hold is that of president of the Shropshire Normandy Veterans' Association. While I was clearly—I hope clearly—born some years after the second world war, it is a title in which I particularly delight, because those brave men served the country with skill and determination. It is especially important for those of my generation, and, I hope, my children, to understand the sacrifice made during that

  385
  conflict—a conflict that I believe would not have come about had we not listened to the siren voices of unilateralism.
  The Estimates will confirm that there is still a conventional imbalance between NATO forces and the forces of the Warsaw pact. As long as that conventional imbalance exists, we must ensure that we maintain not only a nuclear deterrent within NATO, but an independent nuclear deterrent, to ensure that our nation's future and its freedom of speech can never again be put in jeopardy.
  9.15 pm
  Mr. John McFall: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to contribute to the debate. I shall be mindful of the time, as the summing up must be done in five minutes.
  I was much intrigued by the debate on "rent-a-Trident", as it was called last week — whether we buy missiles or not. Whether that was due to the deviousness of MOD officials or to a lack of perspicacity on the part of journalists, I leave open to question. Yesterday, the hon. Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates), a Max Boyce incarnation, proclaimed loudly and defiantly that he had been there. The "there" referred to the base at Faslane and Coulport. It seems that there was a difference of opinion on what was said by MOD officials there. As the hon. Member of Parliament for that constituency, let me say that it might have helped if the MOD had invited me along. I might have been able to impart a balanced or objective aspect to the debate, and the confusion between MOD officials and the press might then have been cleared up immediately.
  The right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), a former Secretary of State for Defence, has called Trident a weapon of last resort. I have to ask what has happened to the weapons of primary resort. In our area, the conventional weapons budget is being decreased. There is a 35 per cent. decline. Only yesterday, the managing director of Yarrow said on local television that, if the type 23 frigate orders were not placed, at least 500 of the 4,000 jobs there would have to go.
  If Trident is to go ahead, as the Government stoutly maintain, what are their assurances for the jobs at Coulport? It was stated last week in the newspapers that the servicing will be done at King's Bay, Georgia. The Trident missiles will remain in tubes on the submarines for seven years, but the warheads will have to be tested. They will be tested on the United States sites, but will they be serviced in the United Kingdom? If so, will the operational patterns for servicing the warheads be the same as are now used with Polaris?
  Those issues are of real importance to my constituency and the jobs there. I can see nothing to support those jobs in this year's public expenditure review. It confirms the rundown in the amount and quality of non-nuclear equipment for the armed forces, as was mentioned in yesterday's debate by my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies).
  Trident is just a manifestation of this Government's policies. It is privatisation, with the United States as the vendors. They are the Grand Metropolitans of the defence industry. Conservative Back Benchers say that privatisation is all right, as long as it is not the defence industry and as long as it is not in their back yard. Trident denies to the
  386
  United Kingdom an effective military strategy for the 1990s. The Government are red-faced, because that was exposed last week.
  The White Paper is based on a false premise: the use of nuclear weapons. We are told that nuclear weapons have kept the peace for 40 years. However, we have to consider the statements of the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on our intervention in the Gulf. Perhaps the peace has been kept for 40 years because a number of countries that do not speak the same language have banded together. If that is so, vive la difference.
  If the White Paper is to have credibility, the Secretary of State must say under what circumstances he will use nuclear weapons. He refused to do so yesterday. The honesty and the morality of the Government's case rest on the answer to that question. Until then, the defence budget, which is heavily weighted towards nuclear weapons, must be rejected. Public investment must be for the. public good. As it is manifestly not so in this instance, the statement on the Defence Estimates must be rejected.
  9.21 pm
  Mr. Allan Rogers: This two-day debate has raised interesting and probing questions. I congratulate and thank my right hon. and hon. Friends for their substantial contributions, in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy). His kindness and generosity in helping new Members of the Opposition defence team is a tribute to his character and personality.
  I congratulate the hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) on her maiden speech. It was noncontroversial in parts. I congratulate her also on her long sightedness. She has obviously used one of the tricks of the Chamber, which means that she will serve her constituents well—as did her predecessor, Sir John Wells.
  The debate has demonstrated that in all parts of the House there is a strong commitment to the defence of this country. What most insults Opposition Members are gratuitous remarks, such as those of the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett). Opposition Members, as can be seen from our record, our general politics and our commitment to this country, are just as committed to the defence of Britain as is any Conservative Member. We may have a different view of how to defend this country, but it is insulting to suggest that Opposition Members are not prepared to defend Britain. If the hon. Member for Pembroke were to come to my constituency he would see many white memorial stones to miners, steel workers and factory workers who gave their lives for the defence of this country. They volunteered to defend their country in the 1930s, when many members of the hon. Gentleman's party and class were consorting with Hitler and the Nazis in Germany. The Opposition do not therefore need any lessons in patriotism from Conservative Members of Parliament.
  We are prepared to recognise and accept changes, but it is fairly obvious that the old gung-ho Victorian values still control and shape the policies of the Conservative party. In this White Paper the Government are talking big, but acting small. Although the Secretary of State said yesterday that there would be no cuts, an analysis of the words and figures in the document prove that to be a lie. We see a picture of developing neglect and an inability to maintain our conventional defences.

  387
  The defence posture that the Government are trying to maintain is not strategic, credible or economically sustainable. The Government's defence policy is rather like someone who takes out insurance against burglary and every other contingency and then leaves the door wide open. The acknowledged cuts and the delayed decisions show that Britain is incapable of meeting her NATO conventional commitments together with the burden of nuclear modernisation.
  Such problems are not recognised only by Labour Members. The Chairman of the Defence Select Committee recognised them yesterday. If anyone bothers to read the hon. Gentleman's contribution in column 241 of Hansard, he will learn that the hon. Gentleman is concerned that the mismatch between commitment and resources is bound to grow as a result of the White Paper. He said:
  "What concerns me is that there is no sign that the Government … have taken a strategic view on what must be put into our defence resources in the next four or five years."
  It does not require my right hon. and hon. Friends or myself to demonstrate what this Government White Paper is about. It has been done perfectly well by the Chairman of the Defence Select Committee.
  Mr. Michael Mates: I was quoting the words that the Select Committee used in its report on the statement on the Defence Estimates of the previous Parliament. I simply want to put it on record that they were the words used by the Committee on the statement on the Defence Estimates 1986, and which the hon. Gentleman could and should have read last year.
  Mr. Rogers: I am sorry. I would hate to correct the hon. Gentleman who has such experience, but if he will bother to read his own words he will note that he rose at 7.36 pm and that his speech covered four columns. At the top of the fourth column he said:
  "Having said that, I shall make one or two brief remarks on my own account. The Committee does not exist".—[Official Report, 27 October 1987; Vol 121, c. 241.]
  He then proceeded to speak on his own account. If the record is wrong, I am sure that he will correct it.
  Mrs. Kellet-Bowman: In the column to which the hon. Gentleman has just referred, my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates) categorically referred to the magnificent achievements of the Government.
  Mr. Rogers: Indeed. The Chairman of the Defence Select Committee stands condemned by his words, and the Government, too, stand condemned by his words.
  Throughout the debate the Government have conjured up the same old sterile arguments about defence spending increasing between 1979 and 1984. That is absolutely correct, and we have not disputed that, I remind Conservative Members that, shortly, 1984 will be four years past. For Conservative Members to carry on as they do makes for sterile discussion and is a waste of time. The real point at issue is what the Government are doing today and what they will do tomorrow.
  By the Government's own admission, and according to their facts and figures, they will cut the defence budget. That budget will be cut from £17·2 billion in 1984–85 to £15·9 billion during the period 1984 to 1990 at 1984–85 prices. That is an 8 per cent. real cut, and it cannot be
  388
  denied, because the Government state that in the Estimates. The Secretary of State has tried to deny it, but paragraph 603 of the Estimates states:
  "the defence budget is expected to decline by some 5 per cent. in real terms over the 1986 Public Expenditure Survey period".
  Mr. Younger: Will the hon. Gentleman also give the figure for the real increase over the highest budget of the last Labour Government?
  Mr. Rogers: The Secretary of State should not be so upset. It might well be a great comparison with Victorian times, which probably suits the Conservative party.
  There is a real cut, and it comes in a budget which is elastic in the sense that the Government are trying to stretch diminishing resources over increasing possibilities, but which is inelastic in economic terms. Its inelasticity stems from the high percentage of the defence budget spent on standing charges such as salaries, wages, pensions, maintenance and the irrevocable commitments to collaborative ventures. When all that is taken into account, it means that the total spend on production of equipment by 1989–90 will have fallen by about 39 per cent. from its 1984 level. The implication is for cancellations, the slowing down of acquisitions and the running on of equipment beyond its economic and operative life.
  Mr. Mates: I hesitated before interrupting the hon. Gentleman's speech, because I am aware of the time factor. However, although a certain amount of robust give and take might be allowed, I must put right that complete misquotation. I refer the hon. Gentleman to my speech, when I said that the Government had made a significant achievement. I then said:
  "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."—[Official Report, 27 October 1987; Vol. 121, c. 241.]
  I was faithfully reporting what the Committee, of which I was then the Chairman, had warned. They were not freelance remarks. They were the remarks of an agreed Committee.
  Mr. Rogers: I wish that I had not given way. I should have realised that the hon. Gentleman is one of the original Heseltinies, so I should have expected him to whinge about these issues.
  I recently attended a Battle of Britain memorial service. It was a moving occasion which showed that we had not forgotten the sacrifice of young lives in the battle against Nazism and the Right-wing reactionaries of Europe. It was a privilege for me to represent the Labour party at that memorial service, which was also attended by the Secretary of State.
  During the Battle of Britain we had, as well as our brave pilots, the best radar and aircraft in the world. However, today we are relying on a 1941 system for airborne early warning. We must wait until 1991 for a replacement system that will, even then, be inadequate. We cannot go over old ground on the decision to drop Nimrod and purchase AWACS — a decision described in the Estimates as the most significant procurement decision of the year. Both sides of the House are obligated to ensure that that decision does not leave us woefully unprotected. It has meant that at least £860 million must be found from an already overstretched budget to pay for six aircraft—

  389
  and even then we will not have adequate coverage. Air Chief Marshal Sir David Craig has said that six aircraft are not enough to provide the necessary cover that we require in this country. While we wait, five of our old Shackleton aircraft must be maintained until 1991, even though their radar was designed in 1941. Does the Minister intend to order the two further AWACS that we so desperately need? Are we to have the 165 Tornados, or must we go to the back of the queue until the Saudis have all theirs? What is happening to the second batch of the 40 Harrier GR5s? Are they to be cut, as is widely rumoured?
  What is happening to the Tucano project? Yesterday the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), who is not present today, praised that project, but was soon corrected by the Minister. There seemed to be a note of despair in the Minister's voice when he said:
  "There is a few months' slippage on deliveries".
  I remind the House that 130 Brazilian Tucanos were ordered against the advice of the RAF, instead of the British Aerospace PC9s, which are now entering service in the Saudi air force at a rate of two per month, with a total of 28 this year. Meanwhile, we still do not have our training aircraft. Because of the delays in delivery of the Tucano, air crews have to stretch the life of the Jet Provost, which entered service in 1956, before many of our young pilots were horn.
  An important issue was highlighted in the newspapers today. The Minister said yesterday:
  "radars to an agreed interim standard have already been delivered".—[Official Report, 27 October 1987; Vol. 121, c. 270.]
  What does that mean? Does it mean that they only half work, that they work only half the time or half the distance, or that they see only half what is there? What exactly is meant by "interim standard"? Will the Minister acknowledge today that it will take another four years' work and a further £100 million to put this matter right?
  The strictures of time and of the debate do not allow me to say all that I should like to say about the shortcomings in our conventional defence, but I shall refer briefly to the problem of low flying. In this context, I apologise for not having been able to attend when the Minister met some of my Welsh colleagues yesterday. There have recently been a number of tragic accidents in which brave and skilled young men have been killed and an even larger number of relatives bereaved. It is a miracle that no civilians have been killed. Two young service men were killed near Treventer in the constituency of the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells), and it was fortunate that two nearby houses were not destroyed with further loss of life.
  I hope that the Minister will examine this problem urgently. There is no increment of skill acquisition in such flights. At 100 ft and 500 mph the only response can be a reflex response, and reflexes can be developed otherwise than by dicing with death. Every such flight is a one-off gamble. A bird strike, a mechanical failure or even sheer bravado can make each flight unique. The Minister must realise that people do not get better at Russian roulette by practising.
  It is clear that the real issue is no longer whether we are to have Trident, but whether we can afford adequate conventional defence as well. The Government say that they have an absolute commitment to adequate defence,
  390
  but it is clear from the facts presented in the White Paper that the cuts will mean that planes cannot fly, ships cannot sail and tanks cannot be moved.
  As the hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) said in last year's debate:
  "we must view with anxiety the decision to cut defence expenditure".—[Official Report, 1 July 1986; Vol. 100, c. 885.]
  Like his grandfather, the hon. Gentleman might turn out to be a beacon of rightness against a background of Tory wrongness.
  If the outcome warrants it, the Government should amend their policies to take account of the changes. We in the Opposition have a vested interest in defending our country—[Interruption.] As I said before, the mantle of patriotism sits ill on some Tory Members, whose links with the neo-Fascist elements in this country remind us of what happened to their party in the 1930s.
  The obsessions, dogma and hatreds of the Tory party and the Prime Minister have trapped them in a ghetto of nuclear bigotry. They are prepared to sacrifice the real defence of this country on the altar of their bigotry. We shall not follow them down that road, and that is why we shall vote against them tonight.
  9.40 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Roger Freeman): We in the Conservative party welcome the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) to his new position. We look forward to many colourful interventions and contributions, but permanently from the Opposition Benches.
  This has been a wide-ranging debate. In the few minutes available to me, I shall try to answer as many points as possible. I join other hon. Members in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) on her contribution, when she made an eloquent and persuasive defence of Trident. We look forward to many speeches from her in defence debates.
  Several hon. Members have spoken about the morale of the armed forces, including the hon. Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. Hughes) last night and the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) today. Fundamental to good morale is the confidence of service men that they are and will continue to be properly paid. The Government have accepted and implemented the findings of every report of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body, and that is fully recognised by our people.
  In consultation with the Treasury, the Ministry of Defence is reviewing the range of allowances payable to service men in carrying out their duties. We are aware that there are several anomalies in those allowances and some areas in which improvements would be welcome. That is a complex area and it would serve no useful purpose to rush what must be a thorough and sensible exercise, but we are determined to bring that review to a satisfactory conclusion as soon as possible.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) referred to the Robson report. I know that he is a former RAF pilot and concerned about the terms and conditions for those who serve in the RAF. The report, which was initiated by the Air Member for Personnel, is being taken seriously by the RAF. Half the recommendations have already been acted upon and the rest are being staffed. I take my hon. Friend's point about the anomaly of the

  391
  gratuity paid at the eight-year point to short-service commission pilots. I appreciate that it creates tensions. I also take my hon. Friend's point about the anomalies created by paying a storage allowance to service men, but not helping them to move their furniture, equipment and belongings abroad. We are looking seriously at both points.
  We are also paying close attention to the accommodation provided for service men, married and single. My hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) referred to that yesterday. Expenditure on married quarters more than doubled between 1982–83 and the current year, but I do not underestimate the difficulties of funding all the work which, ideally, we should like to undertake to raise standards. Much of the housing stock is elderly. In other contexts, for example, schools and hospitals, many hon. Members will be familiar with the problems associated with much of the construction work undertaken in the 1960s.
  More and more service families expect to own their own homes. That has led to a significant reduction in demand for our married quarters. We have therefore set in hand a programme to reduce the stock of vacant married quarters. Over the next three years we have set ourselves the target of disposing of 7,500 married quarters. That should produce substantial receipts for the benefit of the defence budget as a whole and contribute to the national stock of privately owned houses. We intend that as many as possible of these houses should be sold under the " sales to service men" 30 per cent. discount scheme.
  Recruitment for all three services remains buoyant. Competition is strong in a few specialist areas, but that represents national trends. Overall, our recruiting targets are being met. There is no shortage of well-qualified young people wishing to join the armed forces, and with good reason.
  We have heard the usual suggestions of gloom from Opposition Members about the premature voluntary retirement rates. I am grateful for the chance to put the record straight tonight. The number of premature voluntary retirement applications and exits from the armed services have been level since mid-1986. The slight upward trend of the early 1980s, which I mentioned in the last debate on the defence statement has been stopped and the rates of PVR applications and exits is still substantially lower than the rates in 1978–79 which were a direct result of the Labour Government's pay policy for the forces. However, the absolute numbers of those leaving the services are still too large. In an ideal world, we should like them to be lower. Naturally, within the overall figures, several areas need to be watched closely, but the figures and the facts speak for themselves. Our armed forces are in good shape and excellent spirits. Recruiting is good, exits are stable and morale is high.
  The hon. Member for Clackmannan asked me about the second auxiliary oiler replenishment vessel and when we intend to make an announcement on it. We are currently negotiating the order for the second AOR with Swan Hunter shipbuilders under the conditions that were outlined by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 24 April 1986. We are awaiting a revised tender from the company as the two previous bids that we received were
  392
  too high. I hope that Swan Hunter will be able to submit an acceptable bid to take advantage of its preferential opportunity to gain the order.
  The hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) asked about the European fighter aircraft and whether it was financed and provided for. I assure him that in our defence programme, financial provision has been made for EFA.
  My hon. Friends the Members for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) and for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) referred to search and rescue. At the moment we are studying two aspects of the military search and rescue facilities. It will help the House if I explain what we are looking at. First, on the present military deployment of the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force helicopters, we are trying to deploy those assets as efficiently as possible, in close consultation with the Department of Transport. We hope to be able to announce the outcome before very long. The Government are fully aware of the need to have satisfactory levels of search and rescue coverage around our coastline and in mountainous areas for military and civilian purposes.
  The second aspect is the initiative that was taken by Bristow Helicopters Ltd, which came to us with a suggestion for transferring to commercial contractors the search and rescue helicopter service that is currently provided by the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force. Bristow believes that a commercial service would meet civil and military search and rescue needs at less cost than the present arrangements. We are studying these ideas. Indeed, we are bound to study them and we shall take into account the forceful points that have been put to us not only in writing but in the House during the past two days' debate.
  I wish to comment briefly on bullying in the Army. That was raised by the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) and by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace). All hon. Members would condemn bullying. It is a serious offence, whether committed by non-commissioned officers of junior ranks, or the peer group—soldiers bullying other soldiers—and tough disciplinary action is taken. The right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South made three suggestions: an amnesty for those absent without leave, a central complaints record and an ombudsman for the Army. I shall reflect on his suggestions with my colleagues in the MOD and reply to him. He has made it clear that he does not expect an answer tonight, but at a more convenient time and I undertake to reply to him.
  I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman that we are only seeing the tip of the iceberg. Since January 1986, only 20 allegations have resulted in disciplinary action. We have an Army of 150,000 men and an annual intake of 25,000 to 30,000, so we must set this serious matter in context. On entitlement, young soldiers and recruits must understand their rights. We are continually reviewing how young service men and women can be more accurately and comprehensively informed of their rights and how they can exercise them. They have the right to appeal, not only up the chain of command, but directly to their commanding officer.
  Mr. Ashley: Although the Minister mentioned that number, does he agree that the allegations are far more numerous than the official complaints made, but do not come to light because of fear?
  Mr. Freeman: I was about to deal with the so-called fear of reprisal, to which the right hon. Gentleman refers. I am sure that he will agree with me that it is important to encourage service men and women to reflect their anxieties promptly and properly to commanding officers and that those complaints should be investigated independently and thoroughly by the special investigation branch of the military police. Moreover, officers and NCOs should recognise that they have a duty and responsibility to supervise their men at all times. Life in the armed services is tough, difficult and onerous for the officers and NCOs who have a 24-hour, seven-day-a-week job making sure that those under their command are properly supervised and reflect any serious allegations properly.
  The adjutant-general wrote a private letter in July, but as it is an internal Army letter it is not appropriate to be placed in the Library. He wrote to commanding officers of all units in the British Army asking for a response by 1 December on whether they were clear that there was no intimidation or bullying in their units and, if there was evidence of it, what steps they would take. I should like to see the results and perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House if we returned to this issue in the Army debate later in the year when more information will be available.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North and the hon. Members for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) and for Orkney and Shetland raised questions about low-flying aircraft. I am sure that all hon. Members will appreciate the need for realistic training for our RAF pilots. The criticisms made about low flying — it was adequately defended by my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North—were essentially that it was too dangerous and unnecessarily realistic. Most low flying is done at 250 ft and flying at 100 ft is carried out only in three sparsely populated areas. Only 0·5 per cent. of all low-flying missions are at 100 ft and it is carried out prior to further exercises at that height and lower in Canada. In war, our pilots would have to fly lower than 100 ft, faster than they are permitted to fly at present and at night. This training is absolutely essential for them, and the whole House will join me in complimenting our pilots on their skill and bravery. The accident trend is down. The number of accidents in 1987 is the same as for 1986 and the long-term secular trend is down. There have been no civilian fatalities in the 1980s.
  Several of my hon. Friends, especially those who serve in the Territorial Army, spoke about the reserves. My hon. Friends the Members for Windsor and Maidenhead (Dr. Glyn), for Norfolk, North (Mr. Howell) and for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Conway) referred to the need for greater employer support for the reserves, and the Territorial Army in particular. I agree with them. The period from the end of national service in the early 1960s to today constantly grows. Hon. Members' experiences of the activities of the Regular Army and reserves are now rapidly dating. Therefore, the Ministry of Defence is considering how best we can inform and educate the public about the valuable role and service performed by the reserves. We are working closely with the National Employers Liaison Committee, which is so ably headed by Mr. Tommy Macpherson.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) raised a number of interesting points about the organisation of the Ministry of Defence since my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) arrived there and undertook certain organizational
  394
  changes. My hon. Friend's points will be noted by officials at the Ministry of Defence. We have introduced tough, value-for-money targets in that Ministry and have saved £30 million already as a result of contractorisation. We believe strongly in delegating financial responsibility to commanding officers. That constitutes part of the reorganisation.
  The Opposition's own defence review has, we understand, begun today. It will take some considerable time to be completed, and we wish it well; the House awaits its conclusions. In the meantime. Opposition Members have three choices tonight, because there are three distinct factions within the Labour party.
  First, there are the multilateralists, led by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), who wrote in The Guardian on 18 September:
  "I insist that to single out defence as the one inviolable item in our 1987 programme would be absurd. It would be ridiculous to protect even from scrutiny the most unpopular proposal in the manifesto."
  The right hon. Gentleman's choice tonight is to vote with us in support of the statement on the Defence Estimates.
  The second option open to Opposition Members is to support the official Opposition Front Bench. Its view is to cancel Trident and divert resources to increasing conventional expenditure. The right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) should now start casting his mind forward to the next election, when Trident will be fully committed and there will be little expenditure to divert from it to conventional expenditure. The right hon. Gentleman may be about to suggest in his defence review the offering of Trident in multilateral negotiations. If he does, it would be a gross discourtesy to the public, for the simple reason that the Opposition also propose to cancel Trident in any case.
  The third and final choice open to Opposition Members is to support the unilateralists, led by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), who has tabled an amendment that has not been selected. At least the right hon. Gentleman has been unambiguous, consistent and clear in his policy, which is the true policy of the Labour party. I have been trying to discover in which faction the hon. Member for Rhondda is encamped, so I took the trouble of looking at his election address. I looked through it carefully for his statement on defence, but there is a complete blank on defence.
  Mr. Rogers rose——
  Mr. Freeman: The Conservative party is the only party with a defence policy. It is a policy with a clear commitment and the only sensible, sane and popular defence policy. I commend it to the House.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 219, Noes 346.

  Division No. 35]

  [10 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Beckett, Margaret

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Bell, Stuart

  Allen, Graham

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Anderson, Donald

  Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Blair, Tony

  Ashton, Joe

  Blunkett, David

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Boateng, Paul

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Boyes, Roland

  Barron, Kevin

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Battle, John

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  395

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Hoyle, Doug

  Buchan, Norman

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Buckley, George

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Caborn, Richard

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Callaghan, Jim

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Illsley, Eric

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Ingram, Adam

  Canavan, Dennis

  Janner, Greville

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  John, Brynmor

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Clay, Bob

  Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

  Clelland, David

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Kilfedder, James

  Cohen, Harry

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Coleman, Donald

  Lambie, David

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Lamond, James

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Corbett, Robin

  Leighton, Ron

  Cousins, Jim

  Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)

  Cox, Tom

  Lewis, Terry

  Crowther, Stan

  Litherland, Robert

  Cryer, Bob

  Livingstone, Ken

  Cummings, J.

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Loyden, Eddie

  Dalyell, Tam

  McAllion, John

  Darling, Alastair

  McAvoy, Tom

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Macdonald, Calum

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  McFall, John

  Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)

  McGrady, E. K.

  Dewar, Donald

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Dixon, Don

  McKelvey, William

  Dobson, Frank

  McLeish, Henry

  Doran, Frank

  McNamara, Kevin

  Douglas, Dick

  McTaggart, Bob

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Madden, Max

  Dunnachie, James

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Mallon, Seamus

  Eadie, Alexander

  Marek, Dr John

  Eastham, Ken

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  Martin, Michael (Springburn)

  Fatchett, Derek

  Martlew, Eric

  Faulds, Andrew

  Maxton, John

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Meacher, Michael

  Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)

  Meale, Alan

  Fisher, Mark

  Michael, Alun

  Flannery, Martin

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Flynn, Paul

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Foster, Derek

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Foulkes, George

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Fraser, John

  Morley, Elliott

  Fyfe, Mrs Maria

  Morris, Rt Hon A (W'shawe)

  Galbraith, Samuel

  Morris, Rt Hon J (Aberavon)

  Galloway, George

  Mowlam, Mrs Marjorie

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Mullin, Chris

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Murphy, Paul

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Nellist, Dave

  Gordon, Ms Mildred

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Gould, Bryan

  O'Brien, William

  Graham, Thomas

  O'Neill, Martin

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Patchett, Terry

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Pendry, Tom

  Grocott, Bruce

  Pike, Peter

  Hardy, Peter

  Prescott, John

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Primarolo, Ms Dawn

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Haynes, Frank

  Radice, Giles

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Randall, Stuart

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Redmond, Martin

  Henderson, Douglas

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Hinchliffe, David

  Reid, John

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Richardson, Ms Jo

  Holland, Stuart

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Home Robertson, John

  Robertson, George

  Hood, James

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Rogers, Allan

  396

  Rooker, Jeff

  Wall, Pat

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Rowlands, Ted

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Ruddock, Ms Joan

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Salmond, Alex

  Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Short, Clare

  Williams, Rt Hon A. J.

  Skinner, Dennis

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Wilson, Brian

  Smith, C. (Isl'ton & F'bury)

  Winnick, David

  Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Spearing, Nigel

  Worthington, Anthony

  Stott, Roger

  Wray, James

  Strang, Gavin

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Straw, Jack

  Thomas, Dafydd Elis

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Mrs. Llin Golding and

  Turner, Dennis

  Mr. Ray Powell.

  Vaz, Keith

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Carttiss, Michael

  Alexander, Richard

  Cartwright, John

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Cash, William

  Allason, Rupert

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Amess, David

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Amos, Alan

  Chapman, Sydney

  Arbuthnot, James

  Chope, Christopher

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Churchill, Mr

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Ashby, David

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Colvin, Michael

  Atkins, Robert

  Conway, Derek

  Atkinson, David

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Cope, John

  Baldry, Tony

  Cormack, Patrick

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Couchman, James

  Batiste, Spencer

  Cran, James

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Beith, A. J.

  Curry, David

  Bellingham, Henry

  Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Day, Stephen

  Benyon, W.

  Devlin, Tim

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Dicks, Terry

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Dover, Den

  Body, Sir Richard

  Dunn, Bob

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Durant, Tony

  Boswell, Tim

  Dykes, Hugh

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Eggar, Tim

  Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Evennett, David

  Bowis, John

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Fallon, Michael

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Farr, Sir John

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Favell, Tony

  Brazier, Julian

  Fearn, Ronald

  Bright, Graham

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Forman, Nigel

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

  Forth, Eric

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Freeman, Roger

  Burns, Simon

  French, Douglas

  Burt, Alistair

  Fry, Peter

  Butcher, John

  Gale, Roger

  Butler, Chris

  Gardiner, George

  Butterfill, John

  Gill, Christopher

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Carrington, Matthew

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  397

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Gorst, John

  Lyell, Sir Nicholas

  Gow, Ian

  McCrindle, Robert

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  MacGregor, John

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Greenway, John (Rydale)

  Maclean, David

  Gregory, Conal

  Maclennan, Robert

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

  Grist, Ian

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Ground, Patrick

  Madel, David

  Grylls, Michael

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Mans, Keith

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Maples, John

  Hannam, John

  Marland, Paul

  Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')

  Marlow, Tony

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Harris, David

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Mates, Michael

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Hayes, Jerry

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Hayward, Robert

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Mellor, David

  Heddle, John

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Miller, Hal

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Mills, Iain

  Hill, James

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Hind, Kenneth

  Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Moate, Roger

  Holt, Richard

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Howard, Michael

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

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

  Morrison, Hon P (Chester)

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Mudd, David

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Neale, Gerrard

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Howells, Geraint

  Neubert, Michael

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Newton, Tony

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Onslow, Cranley

  Irvine, Michael

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Irving, Charles

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Jack, Michael

  Paice, James

  Jackson, Robert

  Patnick, Irvine

  Janman, Timothy

  Patten, John (Oxford W)

  Jessel, Toby

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Pawsey, James

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Portillo, Michael

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Kennedy, Charles

  Price, Sir David

  Key, Robert

  Raffan, Keith

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Redwood, John

  Knapman, Roger

  Renton, Tim

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Knowles, Michael

  Riddick, Graham

  Knox, David

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Lang, Ian

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Latham, Michael

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Rost, Peter

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Rowe, Andrew

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Ryder, Richard

  Lightbown, David

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Lilley, Peter

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Lord, Michael

  Scott, Nicholas

  398

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Tracey, Richard

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Tredinnick, David

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Trippier, David

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Shersby, Michael

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Sims, Roger

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Walden, George

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Wallace, James

  Speed, Keith

  Walters, Dennis

  Speller, Tony

  Ward, John

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

  Squire, Robin

  Warren, Kenneth

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Watts, John

  Stanley, Rt Hon John

  Wells, Bowen

  Stem, Michael

  Wheeler, John

  Stevens, Lewis

  Whitney, Ray

  Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

  Widdecombe, Miss Ann

  Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Wilkinson, John

  Sumberg, David

  Wilshire, David

  Summerson, Hugo

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Wood, Timothy

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Woodcock, Mike

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Yeo, Tim

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Thorne, Neil

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Mr. Robert Boscawen and

  Thurnham, Peter

  Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.

  Amendment accordingly negatived.
  Main Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 332, Noes 221.

  Division No. 36]

  10.15 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Alexander, Richard

  Brazier, Julian

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Bright, Graham

  Allason, Rupert

  Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

  Amess, David

  Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)

  Amos, Alan

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Ashby, David

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Burns, Simon

  Atkins, Robert

  Burt, Alistair

  Atkinson, David

  Butcher, John

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Butler, Chris

  Baldry, Tony

  Butterfill, John

  Batiste, Spencer

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Carrington, Matthew

  Bendall, Vivian

  Carttiss, Michael

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Cash, William

  Benyon, W.

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Chapman, Sydney

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Chope, Christopher

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Churchill, Mr

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Body, Sir Richard

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Colvin, Michael

  Boswell, Tim

  Conway, Derek

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Cope, John

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Bowis, John

  Couchman, James

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Cran, James

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  399

  Curry, David

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Day, Stephen

  Hunter, Andrew

  Devlin, Tim

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Irvine, Michael

  Dicks, Terry

  Irving, Charles

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Jack, Michael

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Jackson, Robert

  Dover, Den

  Janman, Timothy

  Dunn, Bob

  Jessel, Toby

  Durant, Tony

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Dykes, Hugh

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Eggar, Tim

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Evennett, David

  Key, Robert

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Fallon, Michael

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Farr, Sir John

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Favell, Tony

  Knapman, Roger

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Knowles, Michael

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Knox, David

  Forman, Nigel

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Lang, Ian

  Forth, Eric

  Latham, Michael

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Freeman, Roger

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  French, Douglas

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Fry, Peter

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Gale, Roger

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Gardiner, George

  Lightbown, David

  Gill, Christopher

  Lilley, Peter

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Lord, Michael

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Lyell, Sir Nicholas

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  McCrindle, Robert

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Gorst, John

  MacGregor, John

  Gow, Ian

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Maclean, David

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Greenway, John (Rydale)

  McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

  Gregory, Conal

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

  Madel, David

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Grist, Ian

  Malins, Humfrey

  Ground, Patrick

  Mans, Keith

  Grylls, Michael

  Maples, John

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Marland, Paul

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Marlow, Tony

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Hannam, John

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')

  Mates, Michael

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Harris, David

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Hayes, Jerry

  Mellor, David

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Hayward, Robert

  Miller, Hal

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Mills, Iain

  Heddle, John

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Moate, Roger

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Hill, James

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Hind, Kenneth

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Morrison, Hon P (Chester)

  Holt, Richard

  Moss, Malcolm

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Neale, Gerrard

  Howard, Michael

  Nelson, Anthony

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

  Neubert, Michael

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Newton, Tony

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)

  400

  Onslow, Cranley

  Stevens, Lewis

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

  Paice, James

  Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)

  Patnick, Irvine

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Patten, John (Oxford W)

  Sumberg, David

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Summerson, Hugo

  Pawsey, James

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Portillo, Michael

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Price, Sir David

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Raffan, Keith

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Thorne, Neil

  Rathbone, Tim

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Redwood, John

  Thurnham, Peter

  Renton, Tim

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Tracey, Richard

  Riddick, Graham

  Tredinnick, David

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Trippier, David

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Rost, Peter

  Walden, George

  Rowe, Andrew

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

  Ryder, Richard

  Walters, Dennis

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Ward, John

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Warren, Kenneth

  Scott, Nicholas

  Watts, John

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Wells, Bowen

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Wheeler, John

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Whitney, Ray

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Widdecombe, Miss Ann

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Wilkinson, John

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Wilshire, David

  Shersby, Michael

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Sims, Roger

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Wolfson, Mark

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Wood, Timothy

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Woodcock, Mike

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Yeo, Tim

  Speed, Keith

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Speller, Tony

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Squire, Robin

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Mr. Robert Boscawen and

  Stanley, Rt Hon John

  Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.

  Stern, Michael

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Buchan, Norman

  Allen, Graham

  Buckley, George

  Anderson, Donald

  Caborn, Richard

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Callaghan, Jim

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Ashton, Joe

  Canavan, Dennis

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Barron, Kevin

  Clay, Bob

  Battle, John

  Clelland, David

  Beckett, Margaret

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Bell, Stuart

  Cohen, Harry

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Coleman, Donald

  Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Corbett, Robin

  Blair, Tony

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Blunkett, David

  Cousins, Jim

  Boateng, Paul

  Cox, Tom

  Boyes, Roland

  Crowther, Stan

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Cryer, Bob

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Cummings, J.

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  401

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Dalyell, Tam

  Henderson, Douglas

  Darling, Alastair

  Hinchliffe, David

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Hogg, N. (Cnauld & Kilsyth)

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Holland, Stuart

  Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)

  Home Robertson, John

  Dewar, Donald

  Hood, James

  Dixon, Don

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Dobson, Frank

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Doran, Frank

  Hoyle, Doug

  Douglas, Dick

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Dunnachie, James

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Eadie, Alexander

  Illsley, Eric

  Eastham, Ken

  Ingram, Adam

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Janner, Greville

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  John, Brynmor

  Fatchett, Derek

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Faulds, Andrew

  Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Mô)

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)

  Kilfedder, James

  Fisher, Mark

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Flannery, Martin

  Lamond, James

  Flynn, Paul

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Leighton, Ron

  Foster, Derek

  Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)

  Foulkes, George

  Lewis, Terry

  Fraser, John

  Litherland, Robert

  Fyfe, Mrs Maria

  Livingstone, Ken

  Galbraith, Samuel

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Galloway, George

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Loyden, Eddie

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  McAllion, John

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  McAvoy, Tom

  Gordon, Ms Mildred

  Macdonald, Calum

  Gould, Bryan

  McFall, John

  Graham, Thomas

  McGrady, E. K.

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  McKelvey, William

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  McLeish, Henry

  Grocott, Bruce

  McNamara, Kevin

  Hardy, Peter

  McTaggart, Bob

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Madden, Max

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Haynes, Frank

  Mallon, Seamus

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Marek, Dr John

  402

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Rooker, Jeff

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Martin, Michael (Springburn)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Martlew, Eric

  Ruddock, Ms Joan

  Maxton, John

  Salmond, Alex

  Meacher, Michael

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Meale, Alan

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Michael, Alun

  Short, Clare

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Smith, C. (Isl'ton & F'bury)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Spearing, Nigel

  Morley, Elliott

  Stott, Roger

  Morris, Rt Hon A (W'shawe)

  Strang, Gavin

  Morris, Rt Hon J (Aberavon)

  Straw, Jack

  Mowlam, Mrs Marjorie

  Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)

  Mullin, Chris

  Thomas, Dafydd Elis

  Murphy, Paul

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Nellist, Dave

  Turner, Dennis

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Vaz, Keith

  O'Brien, William

  Wall, Pat

  O'Neill, Martin

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Patchett, Terry

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Pendry, Tom

  Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

  Pike, Peter

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Prescott, John

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Primarolo, Ms Dawn

  Williams, Rt Hon A. J.

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Radice, Giles

  Wilson, Brian

  Randall, Stuart

  Winnick, David

  Redmond, Martin

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Worthington, Anthony

  Reid, John

  Wray, James

  Richardson, Ms Jo

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Robertson, George

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Mrs. Llin Golding and

  Rogers, Allan

  Mr. Ray Powell.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House approves the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1987 contained in Cm. 101.

Foodstuffs (Radioactive Contamination)
10.28 pm
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Donald Thompson): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 7183/87 on maximum permitted radioactivity levels for foodstuffs, feedingstuffs and drinking water in the case of abnormal levels of radioactivity or of a nuclear accident; and urges the European Community to assure a common standard of health protection by adopting a rational set of scientifically based Intervention Levels for foodstuffs.
I should like to make it clear at the outset that this debate is not about the details of the precise levels of radioactivity that may be permitted in food to be put on the Community market following any future nuclear emergency. Those precise details are still being discussed in Brussels and Strasbourg.
This debate is about the principles to which the Government attach importance—that the agreed levels should be related to scientific advice, particularly when it is provided by the Community's experts. I am glad to say that a number of the Commission's proposals have already taken into account the United Kingdom's views on a number of important aspects, but as negotiations are still in progress it would be inappropriate for me to be more specific at this stage, apart from saying that we believe that we have reached agreement on precisely what should be the mechanism for triggering future action, and how it should be applied to areas such as foodstuffs and tap water.
However, there is a considerable difference of opinion on one issue. That has arisen because the Commission, although it accepts the advice of its experts under article 31 of the Euratom treaty on all other radio nuclides, has divided the figure for radio caesium by four. The rationality of this action is in dispute.
The Ministry's explanatory memorandum sets out the background to the Commission's proposal. The draft regulation aims at establishing Community-wide levels that would be applied as soon as a nuclear emergency was identified. However, it may be helpful if I explain in more detail just what the Commission is proposing, and why.
The accident at Chernobyl in the USSR on 26 April 1986 threw up a plume of radioactive material, which was then carried to various parts of Europe. All EEC countries, except Portugal and most of Spain, suffered contamination of varying degrees.
At Community level, the most apparent threat was from the possible import into the EEC of heavily contaminated food from the Eastern bloc. Therefore, on 12 May the EEC banned all imports of fresh food and livestock from within a 1,000 km radius of Chernobyl. On 30 May this ban was replaced by a Council regulation that specified maximum permitted radioactive levels for all third-country foodstuffs. That regulation has been extended twice, and is currently due to expire at the end of this month. The regulation was not based on scientific advice but sought to reconcile the actions taken unilaterally by certain member states—often for presentational as much as for scientific reasons.
Throughout 1986 and the early part of this year the European Commission came under increasing pressure to put forward a draft regulation on a more scientific basis
404
that would automatically implement pre-agreed threshold levels for the radioactive contamination of food in the event of a future nuclear accident, whenever that may take place. By this means it was hoped to avoid a repeat of the confusion and indecision at Community level that arose immediately after Chernobyl. Consequently, after first seeking advice from a group of experts set up under article 31 of the Euratom treaty—commonly known as the article 31 group, or the group of experts—and convening an international scientific seminar at Luxembourg in April 1987, the Commission submitted a proposal for a Council regulation on 16 June 1987. That proposal has led to this debate.
As I said earlier, the proposed regulation lays down maximum permitted radioactivity levels in foodstuffs. If agreed, these levels would, in the event of a future nuclear emergency, be automatically applied right across the Community. Unlike the post-Chernobyl controls on third-country imports, they would apply to all foodstuffs marketed within the Community, whatever their origin, and would mean that any foodstuffs above the level set could not be marketed. In many cases such foodstuffs would have to be destroyed.
It is therefore important that the levels applied should be the right ones, and based on the best scientific advice available to the Community. We welcome the proposal to establish Community-wide criteria to be applied to foodstuffs in the event of another major nuclear emergency. However, we have been deeply disappointed to find that, in drawing up its proposals, the Commission has arbitrarily lowered—in fact divided by four—the two figures recommended by the article 31 group—its own group of experts—for caesium 134 and caesium 137. Its reasons for doing so are unclear.
As some hon. Members will be aware, the nuclides were the main source of contamination following Chernobyl. However, it does not automatically follow that they will be our main worry following any future accident. The result of the Commission's actions means that the regulations as drafted propose maximum permitted levels of caesium 134 and 137 that are entirely different from those proposed for the isotope strontium 90.
Inevitably perhaps there are a number of more detailed points that are currently under discussion in Brussels. However, the main focus of our concern has been, and remains, the level that will be applied under the proposed regulations.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: Does the Minister agree that the basic reason why the May 1986 proposals were so ineffective was that there was a specific decision to exclude East Germany, although parts of it fell within 1,000 kilometres of Chernobyl? As the new regulation deals with imports from third countries, can the Minister tell us whether, once again, it has been decided to treat East Germany as part of the European Community? Does he agree that if the Community does so, it makes the regulation nonsense, because food will simply pour in from other parts of east Europe through East Germany?
Mr. Thompson: I shall deal with the first part of my hon. Friend's question. There was a great deal of confusion after the Chernobyl accident and therefore some countries made unilateral decisions. For that reason, we had to have a Community-wide agreement, and that is why we are discussing that agreement tonight.

405
On the detailed point about East Germany, I do not think that such specific questions have yet been resolved in the Community and the Council. There are many detailed points currently under discussion in Brussels. The main focus of our concern remains the levels that will be applied under the proposed new regulations. We attach importance to the adoption of the article 31 group's figures in their entirety.
Mr. Taylor: Does the Minister agree that if East Germany were to be excluded, that would be in breach of the inner German trade agreement, which has the same status as the Treaty of Rome? Will the Minister endeavour to find out the answer before the end of the debate? It would be nonsense for us to vote for or against a principle of a regulation unless we knew whether the inner German trade agreement was discussed.
Mr. Thompson: My hon. Friend is always helpful with his detailed and important questions—[Interruption.] I am trying to help my hon. Friend. I am sure that his question has been heard and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Welsh Office, will, if possible, give him an answer at the end of the debate.
The Commission's modified figure currently proposed are higher than the post-Chernobyl levels for caesium 134 and 137 applied in the United Kingdom and higher than those applied to third-country imports under the current EC regulation. Because the interim figure of 1,000 bq/kg recommended immediately after the Chernobyl accident was set up very strictly at that time, it was not certain whether other radionuclides might have contaminated produce. A very wide margin was therefore adopted on the understanding that the article 31 group would look at the overall picture and make appropriate adjustments. That it has now done, and it has set out a table covering all radionuclides, and not just iodine and caesium, which were the two that most affected the United Kingdom in the aftermath of Chernobyl.
As the House knows, we adopted an equally cautious approach when we set our national controls on sheep from the heavily affected areas in the United Kingdom following Chernobyl. However, the proposed new regulations for use in any future emergency lay down specific figures for the whole range of radionuclides and benefits from the results of detailed scientific work.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: I come from a nuclear constituency where, over decades, we have noted that scientist after scientist has come forward demanding that the levels be reduced. Indeed, the International Commission for Radiological Control has itself reduced levels. Is it not possible that those eminent scientists might make a mistake? Perhaps in 20 or 30 years, decisions taken now to release all the lamb that currently cannot go on to the market may turn out to be wrong. Does not the Minister understand that millions of people in this country actually believe that that may happen because they have witnessed scientists changing their position? Could that not happen again?
Mr. Thompson: The debate tonight deals with a future accident, not the lamb that may be released now. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has read the European document and noted that from page 31 onwards the group of scientists has given detailed explanations of how it
406
proceeded and why it reached its conclusions. It may be that the hon. Gentleman simply does not trust scientists——
Mr. Campbell-Savours: The Minister quotes the scientists, but that is exactly what happened in the late 1950s and the 1960s when Ministers came to the Dispatch Box and justified the work of scientists which, today, is regarded as useless. It is no longer relevant. The discharges from British Nuclear Fuels plc into the Irish sea were for years regarded as acceptable. It was from further work by scientists that we recognised that mistakes had been made. That is why BNFL is now spending £400 million on reducing discharges into the sea. Does the Minister now endorse the possibility that another error may well be made because scientists have, for whatever reason, decided that they can set new levels?
Mr. Thompson: I am not saying that another error cannot be made. We can all list scientific errors that have had tragic consequences. However, those errors have eventually been put right—not by politicians, but by scientists who stand on the shoulders of their former colleagues. The scientists will be the first to spot those errors, not the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Frank Cook: Bearing in mind, word for word, exactly what the Minister has graciously said, will he explain why there is so much haste when he must know that the International Commission for Radiological Protection is, right now, reviewing the whole basis on which international recommended standards were first set? As a result of the work of Professor Ted Radford, it is generally thought that the Commission is likely to review those standards to make them at least two, possibly five times and, some claim, even 15 times safer. Therefore, how on earth can we think of relaxing standards now?
Mr. Thompson: There is haste because of the growing pressure to sort out this business in the Community. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has not missed the provision in the document for exactly the contingencies that he mentioned. The article 31 group of experts is committed to reviewing its advice as new advice comes forward. To do otherwise would be to ossify and make nonsense of all the regulations. They must be reviewed.
We are not, of course, saying—
Mr. Cook: Answer the question.
Mr. Thompson: I am coming to it now.
We are not, of course, saying that the latest article 31 figures are the last word on the subject. The proposed new regulation itself makes it clear that the levels to be applied immediately following an accident would subsequently be reviewed in the light of the particular circumstances surrounding the accident and new knowledge available. It also provides for the levels in the parent regulation to be reviewed in the light of latest scientific data. However, the article 31 group recommendations represent the best scientific advice currently available and should therefore form the basis of the proposed Council regulation.
To sum up, we support the principle behind the EC proposal to establish maximum permitted radioactivity levels for foodstuffs that would automatically be applied on a Community-wide basis in the event of a future nuclear emergency.
Mr. Churchill: Are the proposed EC levels stricter or more liberal than what has applied

407
hitherto in the United Kingdom, and stricter or more liberal than what the United Kingdom Government proposed to the European Commission?
Mr. Thompson: The present proposed regulations are more liberal than those that we have applied, and the concluding regulations have not yet been agreed. However, we believe that such levels must stem from a sound and consistent scientific base.
10.47 pm
Dr. David Clark: I hate to take issue with the Minister right from the start, but he was slightly disingenuous in trying to confine the debate to the narrow principle of how the levels of radioactivity in foodstuffs in the Community should be reached. As I understand it, we are taking note of the European Community document No. 7183/87, which is wide and far-reaching.
I disagree with the Minister when he says that we are talking only about future accidents. In a sense, we are not. If agreed, the regulation will come into force from next Monday. It means that sheep and other foodstuffs caught up in the Chernobyl accident will be covered by the document. Indeed, at a stroke the Minister will get out of his difficulty, because all the sheep currently covered by the present restrictions will be set free.
In essence, this important debate is about raising the safety levels of the radioactivity permitted in foodstuffs in Britain from 1,000 bq/kg to 5,000 bq/kg.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: In view of the cautious levels adopted by the Government after the Chernobyl accident, which was not their fault or responsibility, is the hon. Gentleman now trying to say that somehow we want to ignore all that and literally open up the markets? If he is, it is obvious that that is exactly what we have not done since the Chernobyl accident.
Dr. Clark: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman does not understand the document that we are debating. I am arguing exactly the contrary. It is his Government who intend to open up the market. We are arguing that the present level and the present restrictions should be maintained. If the regulation is approved, the becquerel readings will be increased to 5,000 kg. Therefore, sheep in Cumbria, north Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland will be deristricted.
We know that the matter was discussed at the European Foreign Ministers' meeting on 19 and 20 October and that they found it impossible to reach a decision. We know that Britain, with France and Spain, went for a higher level than the Commission was recommending, and that the Germans and the Danes disagreed. We hope that there will be an emergency meeting of the Foreign Ministers of the Community tomorrow night and that the views of the House will be reflected at that meeting.
As the Minister explained, the kernel of the Government's case is that the new limit is safe because, so the Minister argued, it is recommended by scientists. That this Government of all Governments should call scientists in their aid is somewhat ironic, because this Government are the most anti-science of any Government that we have had since the war. We have already seen the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food decimate the Soil Survey and create hundreds of redundancies in the Natural
408
Environment Research Council and the Freshwater Biological Association. Only last week they were reported as contemplating slashing the Ministry of Agriculture research and development budget from £112 million to £52 million, throwing 3,000 scientists out of work. My hon. Friends and I could therefore be excused for being a bit sceptical about the Government praying in aid scientists. We would treat that with the same suspicion as one would treat a vegetarian who recommended lamb cutlets.
Mr. Kenneth Hind: Should the hon. Gentleman ever be in the position of my hon. Friend the Minister, in such a situation whose advice would he take, his own or that of the expert scientists?
Dr. Clark: The hon. Gentleman has posed a serious question and I assure him that I shall answer it, because it would be irresponsible of me not to do so.
To understand the significance of the proposals before us this evening we must examine the position in which the Government find themselves. The situation is not as the Minister explained. If the regulation comes into force it will affect all foodstuffs in the Community. We have seen the post-Chernobyl situation. I accept that that was not in any way the responsibility of this Government or of any other Government in the Western world. However, the Government were caught flat-footed and they dillied and dallied. Indeed, although the Minister said that it was not true, it was six weeks from the first monitoring and the first telexes arriving on the Minister's desk before any action was taken.
Mr. Donald Thompson indicated dissent.
Dr. Clark: The Minister shakes his head. It is recorded that the monitoring began to take place on 4 and 5 May 1986, but it was 20 June 1986 before any restrictions were announced by our Government. The Government were right to take that action, but they should have taken it earlier. They put restrictions on the movement of sheep in Cumbria, north Wales and Scotland. They chose the critical level of radioactivity for caesium 137 of 1,000 bq/kg. That was a higher level than that set by most other European countries. The Swedes took a level of 300 and the Germans 600. Therefore, ours was not a restricted level in any way. However, I shall not disagree too much with that.
We believe that when introducing those measures the Government considered that they would last for only a short time. Indeed, Ministers led everyone to believe that. However, 18 months later, we have restrictions not only in the original areas, but 39 farms in Scotland are now included, and 100 farms in Northern Ireland are covered for the first time.
The truth is that the problem has not gone away, and will not go away, because the half life of caesium 137 is 30 years. I understand that the biological half life is less than that, but this problem will lead to restrictions in many areas for several years to come unless the Government manage to raise the level for restrictions.
The Minister may say that the Government will not count the present restricted sheep within the catchment area. How, then, will they explain to their farming friends in Cumbria, north Wales and Scotland that the safe level for future accidents is 5,000 but for past accidents it was 1,000? There is no logic in that. It means that the sacrifice, anxiety and hard work of the farmers in upland hill areas has been in vain. We need an answer to that.

409
The Minister made great play of the fact that the limit of 5,000 bq/kg was recommended by the article 31 group of scientists, but he did not tell us that a larger meeting of scientists held under the auspices of the European Commission in April 1987 could not agree on the new recommended level. The Minister assures us that the levels are safe, but any radiation dose to man causes some increase in the risk of long-term consequences. The consumption of food contaminated at any level implies some risk. As the House knows, the only absolutely safe level is zero.
'The level of safety is a subjective judgment. Obviously, the higher the level, the greater the risk. The decision
"must he based on a balance between the magnitude of these risks and the costs in money resources and social disruption of any protective action."
Those are not my words, but the words of the article 31 group, and that is the key issue.
When we deal with these issues, Ministers frequently remind us that there is natural radiation and, of course, they are correct. Surely, then, we should compare natural radiation with radiation in an emergency. Might it not be wise, for example, to examine the natural level of radiation in sheep? Perhaps we could take a pre-Chernobyl example of the radiation of sheep in an area near Sellafield, close to the area which my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) represents. It is not usually accepted as exactly nuclear free.
In a letter of 24 October 1986, British Nuclear Fuels plc confirmed that research on sheep grazing on salt marsh pasture in the Ravenglass area, which is close to Sellafield, had shown those animals to have less than 100 bq/kg before Chernobyl. While acknowledging that little attention was paid to sampling meat from fell sheep, BNFL undertook some analysis pre-Chernobyl from sheep in Eskdale and found a level of only about 4 bq/kg of caesium 137. Therefore, those levels of 100 bq/kg and 4 bq/kg might be a starting point for a measure of natural radiation, although they were in the immediate vicinity of a nuclear establishment. I remind the House that the Government are advocating a level of safety no less than 1,250 times that found in the Eskdale sheep.
Scientists are deeply divided on the matter, and in this sphere of knowledge there is a rapidly changing situation. Everyone acknowleges that. The recent studies from Nagasaki and Hiroshima suggest that for the past 40 years we have been underestimating the danger levels, and scientists throughout the world are now recommending a complete rethink.
Current risk estimates used by the EEC are those produced by the International Commission for Radiological Protection. That same body now admits that new data from Japan support a twofold increase in the safety limits. Other scientists, such as Professor Edward Radford, the former chairman of the United States BEIR III, argue for an eight to tenfold increase. Of course, the higher the safety limits, the higher the bq/kg readings.
It comes down to a matter of judgment. My hon. Friend the Member for Workington has already described how, in the past, politicians of all parties have accepted advice given by scientists with the best will in the world, but, in a matter such as this, one must always err on the side of safety—and ten times on the side of safety. Ultimately, the key issues are public health and the retention of public
410
confidence. By lowering safety standards, as the Government are suggesting, they are risking losing public confidence.
I said that I did not disagree with the Government's decision to lay down a level of 1,000 bq/kg. That level has retained the confidence of the general public, as is exemplified by their continuing to buy lamb. If the levels of permitted radioactivity are raised, as the Government wish, there will be a public reaction that might mean that lamb will be boycotted and sheep farmers badly hurt.
We maintain that the Government made a complete hash of the handling of the Chernobyl disaster and that is why they fear a public inquiry into the matter. The Government have compounded their incompetence by secrecy and cover-up. The public are beginning to realise that, and the Government see the lowering of safety levels as their only way out of the problem with farmers. The Government are wrong to lower the safety standards. Public health and safety are of paramount concern. That is the issue that we shall be trying to impress on the Government in the course of the debate.
11.3 pm
Mr. Teddy Taylor: I want to ask the Minister a few questions, to which I hope he will be able to respond. I hope that he will agree that it is unusual and unsatisfactory to ask the House to approve a procedure for imposing levels of radioactivity when there has been no agreement—it seems unlikely that there will be one for some time to come—on what the levels are.
Knowing that my hon. Friend has an open and flexible mind, I ask him how he would have felt if, as a Back Bencher, he had heard the Chancellor of the Exchequer say that he wanted the final, formal approval of the House for his Budget, even though it would be some time before he decided what rates of tax were to be fixed. That is the position in which we find ourselves tonight. The Minister is asking for our approval for an arrangement, the basis for which we do not yet know.
The Minister should also bear in mind the feeling of an injustice having been committed that there will be among those who have been complaining about what they regard as the unduly strict levels after Chernobyl if a higher level is now fixed. The basic question is that of what the status of the EEC is to be in the regulations. The Minister will recall that the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs came to the House on 8 May 1986 and said that he was going to announce a package of proposals to deal with the emergency. He said that all foodstuffs would be restricted from coming into the EEC if they came from within a radius of 1,000 km of Chernobyl.
However, on reading the details, we found that this was not the case. Large parts of Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia, which were more than 1,000 km away, were included in the ban, but the whole of East Germany was excluded. The Minister must know that that drove a coach and horses through the restrictions. It is well known that vast quantities of materials poured into the EEC through West Germany straight from East Germany, and the only people who control what comes from East Germany are the East German authorities. That is one of the reasons why we have such difficulties trading with German). The inner German trade agreement provides a vehicle whereby virtually all the products of the Eastern bloc come into East Germany and straight into the EEC. That is not a

411
silly little arrangement that we can change by regulations here. The inner German trade agreement has the same status as the treaty of Rome. That is why, when they imposed the Chernobyl restrictions, the Government said that it had been done by excluding East Germany.
The Minister has a great knowledge of agriculture. Could he tell me how it is possible to isolate and identify a Polish pig from a Czechoslovak pig or an East German pig? How is it possible to tell whether skimmed milk comes from East Germany, Czechoslovakia or Rumania? It cannot be done, and we rely entirely on the West German authorities to impose these restrictions. The Department of Trade and Industry is well aware from the multitude of evidence that has been sent to it that there is not the slightest indication that the West German Government try to ensure that goods coming in are only from East Germany and that those going out have the necessary provisions put on them.
On 8 May 1986 the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs said: that the West German authorities
"are well aware of that alleged loophole, and I am sure that they will take the necessary precautions."—[Official Report, 8 May 1986; Vol. 97, c. 256.]
What is proposed here is rather different. A permanent arrangement is proposed whereby labels will be fixed on goods that are placed on the market. First, can the Minister tell us precisely what is meant by "placed on the market"? Does that mean simply offered for sale, does it mean traded across Community frontiers or does it mean traded generally? It is very important that we should know straight away whether with these new regulations the same absurd loophole will exist as existed in the original regulations of 8 May 1986. If it does, we are wasting our time.
The second question that we are entitled to ask the Minister is why this is being done as an EEC arrangement. Would it not be infinitely better to pursue this through the international authorities and the World Health Organisation—if there is a real need?
The third question is the one that worries me most. Can the Minister tell us precisely how he intends to protect the Third world against the export of these radioactive materials, bearing in mind the evidence that the European Community's alleged humanitarian food aid programme has been used as vehicle for the export of radioactive materials?
The Minister may say, "Where is the evidence?" I draw his attention to the formal complaint made the other day to the EEC by the Government of Ghana in which they complain bitterly that radioactive skimmed milk powder had been sent to Ghana by the EEC and, according to their estimates, it was highly radioactive. This, of course, was taken up by the Commission, which said that according to the information from the German Government it was not quite as radioactive as the Ghanaian authorities said.
The point I want to make is that there were two sources of skimmed milk powder—one consignment of which went from the Federal Republic of Germany. We understand that this came from eastern Europe. The second source was Czechoslovakia. Under the existing regulations, both should have been stopped, unless in the case of the Czechoslovak milk powder some way was
412
found of getting it to Ghana without crossing the frontiers of the EEC. Can the Minister say exactly how it was possible under the existing regulations for this radioactive skimmed milk powder supplied under the so-called food aid programme to go to Ghana?
I think that the Minister is well aware from the recent report of the Court of Auditors that the food aid programme has many shameful aspects. Materials in a totally inedible state are supplied to starving countries. A great deal of money is involved and when we have this specific case of the formal complaint from the Government of Ghana, we need to interpret it.
Fourthly and finally, if we bring in these regulations and if bringing to market simply means selling goods within EEC countries, how is it possible, or would it be possible to stop the export of radioactive materials from eastern Europe through East Germany to West Germany under the inner German trade agreement—bearing in mind that the country of export would not be West Germany but that West Germany was simply providing a vehicle? The Minister may think that this is nit picking but it is not nit picking when we have one specific formal complaint from the Government of Ghana and a number of other alleged instances of radioactive foodstuffs which apparently could not be sold in western Europe but which were being put through the food aid programme of the EC.
If these new regulations existed and if the levels were agreed, would the Minister regard the export of food from eastern Europe through West Germany as an export of West Germany or of eastern Europe? They are serious matters and we are entitled to some answers. If the Minister has any doubts, I ask him to look at the report into food aid to the Third world. I believe that all hon. Members should read that report because I believe that they would agree that it is shameful that public money is being wasted, not to provide relief to those Third world countries, but to dump substantial substandard goods, in this case alleged radioactive goods, or goods that do not even arrive. It is a shameful business and I suggest to the Government that, instead of bringing forward a resolution tonight that does not consider the question of radioactive levels, they should hold talks in Brussels to try to get some answers so that they can put a real proposition before the House and not an instrument that does not even contain proper figures.
11.10 pm
Mr. Richard Livsey: The subject that we are debating tonight—the maximum permitted levels of radioactivity in food and water—has a certain amount of urgency as a result of Chernobyl. There is too much haste when certain decisions are being taken at a European level and when it would be wiser to look more acutely at what is going on. The haste is a reaction to the amount of radioactivity that came from Chernobyl, the effects of which have been different in different countries.
If one looks at the ways that the fallout affected countries such as Germany, Spain—hardly at all—and Wales, one sees that there is a great variation. It is quite noticeable that Germany, being one of the worst affected countries, had one of the best safety levels. That is quite significant. The biggest criticism of the proposals is that they are a compromise and that there is no scientific basis for them. A worrying feature is that, in respect of caesium

413
134 and 137 levels in milk products and other farming products, there is no logical basis for the Commission's conclusions.
We must surely be concerned that there will be a relaxation from 600 bq/kg to 5,000 bq/kg for other major foodstuffs at a European level. This reinforces the evidence that it was a wise decision in the United Kingdom to impose a level of 1,000 bq/kg. Many hon. Members attacked the Government at that time for introducing a limit of 1,000 bq/kg because in Holland and Germany, in particular, the levels set were much lower. There seem to be good reasons for that. The effect of this level has been that farmers in North Wales, Cumbria and south-west Scotland have had to struggle very hard throughout the last 18 months on a 1,000 bq/kg limit for lamb. This has resulted in real hardship. Are farmers now going to give up that struggle for a massive relaxation of those restrictions because, as we have heard, they are still under restriction. It will be an unsatisfactory state of affairs if those proposals are relaxed. Compensation has been paid out to those farmers in the order of £4·5 million. There are still about 50 cases under review in north Wales. I thank the Secretary of State for Wales for taking those cases under review. However, there are other farmers in north Wales still in need of further compensation. There must be a wide-ranging review of the current situation. Indeed, one must ask why it is that in Trawsfynydd a farmer and his wife were examined in hospital and registered levels of contamination of 4,500 bq/kg. That is a serious matter that must he considered, bearing in mind that the general imposition was a limit of 1,000 bq/kg.
The efforts of our hill farmers must not appear to be in vain. The current limit errs on the side of safety and I ask the Minister to ensure that all farmers are properly compensated for the contamination that is still present in the hills, especially as there is no guarantee that next year there will not he similar levels of contamination. I hope that that will not be the position, but if it is I ask for an assurance that there will be further compensation. The proposals before us suggest that the Government will cop out of their responsibilities.
Mr. John Home Robertson: The hon. Gentleman is drawing attention to the way in which the regulations bear on the farming community of certain areas. Will he confirm that no representations have been made by the farming unions of Scotland, England or Wales that the limits should be increased in the way suggested? Instead, they are calling for adequate compensation. Our proceedings this evening must raise speculation whether the alterations are proposed for the purpose of saving money.
Mr. Livsey: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Farmers have borne the imposition of realistic standards with fortitude and have won the admiration of most of the population in accepting levels that have been regarded as reasonable. In so doing, they have given the population the confidence to buy lamb.
We should not play with human health. The current limit of 1,000 bq/kg is one that can lead to a low level of human cancer, and we must not ignore the fact that there will be a few such cases in certain areas. According to risk estimates of the International Commission on Radiological Protection, a level of 5,000 bq/kg could result
414
in anything up to 29,000 cases of cancer throughout the European Community. That is a factor of which we should take note.
Why are these proposals before us when current United Kingdom standards are at an adequate level? Why is there to be a relaxation? Following the Chernobyl incident, there were high dosages of radioactivity in Germany. Secondly, France is dependent upon nuclear power for its energy. Thirdly, the British Government are placing more dependence on nuclear power in the form of pressurised water reactors. This means that there is a greater likelihood in future of nuclear accidents somewhere in Europe. There is a large stake in nuclear power and the EEC, in relaxing standards, is responding to that. My colleagues and I believe that it should not tamper with standards. The levels set by the British Government are adequate and the public have confidence in them.
Common sense should prevail this evening. The Liberal party frequently supports European legislation, but it seems that we are being asked this evening to put human health on the line and to place people's livelihoods at risk For these reasons we do not believe that these proposals should be supported.
11.19 pm
Mr. Peter Thurnham: I am disappointed that we are debating these issues tonight in the knowledge that we shall be negotiating next week in Europe. Surely it would be more sensible to wait until we. have completed the negotiations to our satisfaction before reporting to the House. Instead, we are being asked to debate the issues and reveal our position this evening.
Mr. Hugh Dykes: Surely that would negate the whole process of scrutiny in this House whereby an EEC instrument is debated thoroughly to guide and help the Government to reach a decision whenever a Select Committee makes that recommendation.
Mr. Thurnham: We still do not know what' we are scrutinising. Therefore, I believe that it would be better to go to next week's negotiations before we debate the matter here.
Although I was very pleased to hear the robust attitude taken by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (M r. Taylor), I was very disappointed by the Opposition's attitude. There has been some scaremongering, and questionable figures have been put forward. The limits produced by the Euratom experts are safe. The Opposition's figures assume that people will eat nothing but contaminated food. I was very sorry to hear the figure of 29,000 deaths referred to by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey). That figure will cause great alarm if people believe that so many deaths might occur. That figure assumes that people would continually eat nothing but highly contaminated food. However, we know that fortunately only a small amount of food has been contaminated.
I live in Cumbria, and to a small extent I am engaged in rearing sheep. Fortunately, I was not affected, but I know that great concern was expressed by people living nearby when they realised just how much some farmers were being affected.
Mr. Kenneth Hind: Does my hon. Friend agree that the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, did not

415
answer the question that I put to him about whose advice he would take? Perhaps the Opposition spokesman will bear in mind the old legal adage that a lawyer who advises himself has a fool for a client. Does my hon. Friend agree that the people to take advice from are the experts, that they have made very clear what is happening and that the Government have taken their advice? Does my hon. Friend agree that that is the sensible course of action?
Mr. Thurnham: Indeed. I was concerned that we did not receive an answer from the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman to that very good question. The hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) could not answer it. He made out that the Conservative party was not a scientific party. What qualifications does the hon. Member for South Shields think that his right hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) has in this matter? I do not think that the right hon. Member has any qualifications in science, whereas the Conservative party has chosen a leader who has an honours degree in a science subject. How can the hon. Member for South Shields possibly accuse the Conservative party of not being scientific when the Leader of the Opposition has no qualifications in science? If the hon. Member for South Shields were responsible, whose advice would he take?
A balance must be struck in this subject. We must consider the right level. If the experts advise a level of 5,000bq/kg, it is arrogant of Opposition Members, and especially of the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), to be disparaging about the way in which the figures are decided. We must consider how the scientists have arrived at the figures and decide whether they have taken sufficient account of the available evidence. If they have taken sufficient account of that evidence, we should accept their findings and not double guess them and claim that we are cleverer than the people who have examined all the evidence.
I was very disappointed at the attitude expressed by Opposition Members that we should not accept the evidence of the experts who have been asked to report on this matter. Scientists are the only people who can carry out measurements in this area and work out the results. It is therefore absurd that we should suddenly divide the experts' figures by four.
In the negotiations next week, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will continue to take the robust attitude that he has taken in other negotiations with our European friends. I do not accept that we should be railroaded into accepting a lower figure.
Does the variation from the experts' recommendation affect Britain more than any other EEC member? If so, should we not fight our corner and stick out for the level that we believe to be safe and which has been recommended by the experts, rather than give in to any scaremongering or machinations which have come up with a lower figure? Therefore, I hope that my hon. Friend will be robust and pay no attention to the points made by the Opposition.
11.25 pm
Mr. Eddie McGrady: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity this evening to speak for Northern Ireland. I say that in the confidence that my colleagues, of whatever party, would support my grave concern on this issue.
416
I am particularly concerned that the Minister did not seem to specifically declare his intentions about the negotiations that he proposes to carry on next week or the week after in Europe.
The kernel of the issue is whether the British people can have confidence in the safeguards initiated by the Government and legislated for.
I sincerely hope that the precedent set by BNFL in its famous principle "as low as reasonably achievable"—ALARA—given the economic and social factors, will not be applied in the post-Chernobyl era of nuclear pollution. Country by country, economics are dictating the level of radiation that is said to be acceptable to us.
Each country seems to be capable of producing a scientist to back up its argument. If the Government are to base their legislation on scientists, to what group of scientists shall we listen? Will it be to scientists on this side of the Atlantic ocean or to those of the United States, who, I am reliably informed, state categorically that the levels of safety in the United Kingdom and Europe are 10 to 20 times poorer than those in the United States? There we have at least two different comments on what is safe and what is not.
Surely, if scientists set a level, the public should demand a safety net below that and we should introduce regulations to provide that added safety margin. Therefore, it was with grave concern that I thought I heard the Minister say that he would try to negotiate a lower safety factor than that in the table in annex I. I am not clear what the intentions of those negotiations are to be.
In the post-Chernobyl era it is significant that the report of the EEC's economic and social committee shows that the Government were one of the least concerned in Europe about the implementation of the various safeguards and restrictions. Of the five or six different activities carried on by many European Governments, the British Government only initiated a hotline. One wonders whether that was a radioactive hot line or simply a hot air hot line.
The confidence of the public in Britain and Northern Ireland has been eroded and undermined. It needs a reassurance that the legislation will protect them and their families in the future.
The farming community in Northern Ireland has only recently discovered that 100 farms have been affected, although we were told after Chernobyl that there was nothing to worry about. Yet a year later restrictions have been applied to 100 farms.
The Minister seems to find it difficult to understand why the proposal in annex 1 gives a fourfold increase in the safety factor.
It seems strange to me, although there may be reasons for it, that we insist and have always insisted that the way to handle land contamination is to keep the herds on contaminated land. Is it not more appropriate, subject to proper economic recompense for the farmer, to move the stock from the land on which they are continually ingesting radioactive material through the food chain, to clean areas, and thereby run the radioactive material out of the system? Surely that is a more scientific way of approaching the problem, although proper and adequate compensation must always be provided.
I am not enamoured of scientists. I come from South Down, which has suffered over the years from scientific platitudes about Sellafield and its discharge into the Irish sea. Year after year, the safety level has become lower and

417
lower. The least that the Government can do is to ensure that the consensus under annex No. 1 of the report is a starting point. In no circumstances should they try to negotiate a less safe safety factor for the people of this country.
We appear to be talking only in the context of a Chernobyl-type disaster, but many disasters are happening every day. At Sellafield alone, we have a continuous 40-year leak into the Irish sea.
When the new levels are reached, who will monitor them? The Government's record on monitoring is very poor. Lancaster county council was able to assess the Chernobyl disaster some time before the Government. The lack of confidence in the Government's monitoring system is borne out by the plethora of local authorities now installing their own radionuclide detection systems. That lack of confidence is due to the duplicity of the Government, and the lack of concern and of proper statements coming from them.
It must always be remembered that we are talking about human life, into future generations. Such matters should not be measured solely by the economics of today.
11.32 pm
Mr. Tim Boswell: Tonight's debate is one of the consequences of the Chernobyl disaster, which was unprecedented and which gave rise to many lessons. At that time, l had the opportunity of serving as special adviser in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I shall not speak about that experience tonight, except to say that we and Europe had much to learn, and that we are still learning.
I felt that the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) was less than generous in his comments about the Government's action following Chernobyl—not only the finding of the problem and the taking of action to control it, but the money that was spent. After all, £4·5 million is a substantial sum; it is also £4·5 million more than the originators of the accident produced.
I welcome the proposal for a common regulation, first, because it would impose a common regime of control throughout the member states of the European Community. It would also impose restrictions and controls equally on imports and on domestically produced food. I hope that that will answer the point put by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor).
I feel that it is important for us to maintain and sustain, and encourage the Government to sustain, the principle of being driven by the scientists. We have heard nothing from the Opposition to explain why their wisdom is greater than that of the experts.
There has been some recourse to the argument that some experts might think differently or that they are divided, but when calling on expert advice I have always followed the basic rule offered by the country, saying, "There is no point in hiring a dog and barking yourself." The move, for purely political reasons, from a purely scientific appraisal, is part and parcel of a rather disturbing tendency in Europe. We saw it in regard to Professor Lamming's expert group on beef hormones. It happened to suit a number of member states to fry their political fish and disregard the scientific evidence. If we continue to do that, there is little chance of our curtailing the damage.
I am extremely suspicious of the way in which Opposition Members have put their case. There has been
418
some scientist shopping and much of what I call a safety arms race. Many figures have been given. We were given some terrifying figures by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey), which assume, I think, constant consumption of all foodstuffs, regardless of origin, at a level of at least 5,000 bq/kg, which is not realistic. The hon. Member for South Shields spoke of sheep being found with 100 bq/kg before Chernobyl. When people suggest that zero bequerels is a desirable level, we must consider, as they have not, whether we can achieve it.
Ms. Joan Walley: The Government have alleged that we are scaremongering, not relying on scientific advice and not acting in the interests of public health. We believe that there is no level below which radiation is harmless. When talking about safety levels, we are talking about a level above which something represents an unacceptable risk to the public. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is now evidence from scientists who have had a chance to study reliable data on the effects of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki which suggests that our present levels—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. An intervention has to be a direct question or very pertinent. Will the hon. Lady, who is making a speech rather than an intervention, bring her remarks to a close?
Ms. Walley: The point is that we believe that our data are valid and that there is new scientific evidence that suggests that the hon. Gentleman's data are not.
Mr. Boswell: I think that we are scientist shopping again. I believe that the European expert group are the right people to decide. The levels that we are discussing are not on the borderline. They already contain a built-in assurance of safety so that a commodity is as safe as can reasonably be expected.
We have difficulty with measuring miniscule levels and enforcing such safety levels in member states. We also have a problem associated with sheep that have been reared on mountain pastures where the rock is high in natural radioactivity. I do not believe that we get a level of zero there. There is a danger, a friction and a myth involved in demanding assurances of absolute safety. Such can never be possible with food safety.
Mr. Dykes: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is much more in the document than figures to be decided in the negotiations? The procedures and safety requirements are even more important, and it would be wrong for the House to bind the Government to a figure that would be misleading in the negotiations.
Mr. Boswell: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend.
If a choice has to be made between the fiction of an absolute assurance of absolute safety and proposals that are based on the work of an expert committee that has established a certain scientific basis for certain set levels, I know which of those seems to be most plausible to me and, I hope, to the rest of the House.
11.39 pm
Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones (Ynys Môn): I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to make a contribution to this debate. I promise to be as brief as I possibly can.
We welcome the moves towards harmonisation of regulations that set out the levels of radiation in food and

419
water. In the aftermath of the Chernobyl incident, we in Wales saw the problems that were caused by the different levels that were adopted in the EEC states, particularly over the export of Welsh lamb to France. The French are prepared to use many tactics to prevent the import of Welsh lamb, and the lack of a cohesive Community approach was a gift to them.
We are surprised to find that we are debating this matter at a time when the Community has failed to adopt a common approach to the problem. Public confidence was maintained when the Government set the level at 1,000 becquerels. Therefore, many Opposition Members are asking the Government why they are attempting to shake public confidence by trying to raise that level to 5,000 becquerels.
I understand that the European Commission is suggesting a caesium limit of 1,250 bq kg, whereas the United Kingdom, France and Spain are pushing for a higher level—5,000 bq kg—at a time when agreement has not been reached in the Council of Ministers. Denmark, West Germany and the Netherlands, however, are asking for a considerably lower level.
The Government seem to be preparing the way to go it alone, if the EEC does not agree to a formula. That would be a grave mistake. By pushing for a higher level, the Government may make EEC agreement impossible. What is the scientific evidence—I stress scientific evidence as distinct from scientific judgment—upon which the Government are relying to support that higher level?
In putting forward its proposals, the European Commission says:
"Scientific views on this subject are by no means unanimous and are still in a state of rapid development."
Conservative Members referred to scientific judgment. I remind them of the fact that scientists from both the National Radiological Protection Board and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said that the caesium contamination from Chernobyl would take about 60 days to clear. The fact is that 540 days have now gone by since the Chernobyl disaster, and no scientist can say when the problem in north Wales, Cumbria and Scotland will be cleared up.
I ask the Minister, when he replies to the debate, to deal with compensation for farmers in those parts of the United Kingdom that are still designated as restricted areas. My hon. Friends the Members for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Thomas) and for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) have sheep farmers in their constituencies. I ask the Minister to give a categorical assurance that if the Government intend to raise the level there will be no cuts in the compensation that is paid to farmers and to say that they are totally committed to paying compensation at the level that has already been agreed.
11.44 pm
Mr. Ron Davies: This has been an important and interesting debate. The attendance in the Chamber throughout the debate reflects the Opposition's concern and the concern and uncertainty that is felt on the Government Benches.
I should like to thank the hon. Members for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) and for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones), both of whom have spoken in support of the case outlined by
420
my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark). I am tempted to say that their presence this evening has given something of a Celtic flavour to the debate. I hope that we can say that the same is true of Welsh lamb after the current round of negotiations. I fear that we shall lose that flavour if the Government have their way in the negotiations in Europe.
Mr. D. E. Thomas: No chance.
Mr. Davies: I appreciate that the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy feels strongly about this matter.
The key issue that we are debating is the Government's contention that scientific opinion clearly states that the level of 5,000 bq is an acceptable level. The Government further state that that level should be accepted as the norm and that opinion is united in support of that. However, I believe that the Minister is aware that scientific opinion both here and in Europe is deeply divided about this matter.
The European Commission is recommending a 75 per cent. reduction in the level recommended by its scientific advisers, but political opinion is also deeply divided. Germany, Denmark and Italy have adopted a view that is different from the view advocated by Britain and France.
The hon. Members for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) and for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) queried the basis upon which the Opposition approached this debate. They asked whose scientific advice should be accepted. However, the issue that we are resolving this evening is not a scientific issue, but political. Governments are elected and, in a democracy, Governments are responsible for their actions. Those Governments must receive and consider scientific advice but, at the end of the day, the judgments are political. The issue is not whether we accept the view of scientist A or B, but the impact of the scientific recommendations on the health, welfare and economic well-being of our communities. That is the political judgment that must be made.
The article 31 group, which is at the heart of the debate, is clear about the role that it has been asked to perform. The scientists admit that they are laying down carefully considered guide levels for measurable radioactivity, but above those levels politicians must decide to take action based on the consultative and regulatory functions that are laid down in the draft legislation. In their report the scientists say that, in the final analysis, practical application of the advice they give will not be made solely on consideration of the risks to health. They appreciate that there are broader considerations.
However, the Minister made it clear that the Government are prepared to ignore the warnings and that they see no reason why the scientists' recommendations should not be implemented in their entirety. Even the Commission in the explanatory memorandum that is before us states:
"scientific views on this subject are by no means unanimous".
If scientific opinion is not unanimous, whose opinion would the hon. Members for Bolton, North-East and for Daventry receive, given that they refuse to believe that the judgments are political? This is at the heart of the matter.
The Government are prepared slavishly to accept scientific evidence and opinion when there are good grounds for doubting the validity of that evidence. It is something of a novelty for this Government to accept

421
scientific evidence as though it were cast in stone. They usually regard facts as, at best, irrelevant and, at worst, a hindrance to the pursuit of their policies.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): Nonsense.
Mr. Davies: The Minister is a member of the Foreign Office team. The Foreign Secretary is probably the individual most suited to address his mind to the quality of mutton and dead sheep.
Let us consider the issue of nitrate pollution. In 1985, when addressing the quality of water supplies, the Government gave the assurance through their spokesman in another place that quality standards would not be set on the basis of existing levels, but must follow from a scientific determination of levels needed to protect the environment. The Government claimed that they would accept advice on the scientific levels and implement them. It would have cost them £200 million to accept that advice and, needless to say, they chose not to do so and are now being taken to court by the European Community. Therefore, it is difficult for us to accept that the Government slavishly follow scientific advice at all times.
The Government are refusing to see through research at Liverpool university, which is being funded by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, on the effects of radiation and the consequences of Chernobyl. They will not wait for the results of that research. They have a record of accepting the shoddy way out. Whenever they have been called upon to make a judgment, whether on acid rain, environmental pollution, water quality, the quality of our bathing beaches or the quality of our air, they have taken the shoddy option. They are now showing, yet again, that to that litany they are prepared to add the pollution of our food supplies.
The Government are asking for the support of the House. I do not think that they have proved their case, and hope that hon. Members will vote against them.
11.52 pm
The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mr. Wyn Roberts): I have only a short time in which to answer the points that have been raised, which we certainly appreciate, on this important issue. The proposed levels are still being discussed by the Council of Ministers, and if agreement is not reached the Council still has the option to extend regulation 1707 for a stated period while it reaches agreement on arrangements for future emergencies.
I cannot overstress two points. First, we are discussing standards to be applied in an emergency, and they are not the same as routine, long-term standards. Secondly, it is important that a first response to an emergency should be sufficient, but not over-reactive, and therefore we wish to apply the best current scientific thinking to setting practical emergency standards.
There has been a curious attack—an anti-scientific mood—in some of the Opposition speeches, including that of the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark). I draw his attention to the words in the proposal:
"The Commission is satisfied that as far as the principal object of this Regulation—the protection of public health—is concerned the scientific advice offered to it is probably the most thorough available anywhere in the world."
Of course, the point is accepted that scientific knowledge is still in a state of rapid development.
The scientific judgments are based on unanimous and consistent recommendations by the International
422
Commission on Radiological Protection. The World Health Organisation is looking into the matter, as are the International Atomic Energy Agency and the United Nations scientific committee on the effects of atomic radiation.
Several hon. Members have referred to the discrepancy between national standards established after Chernobyl and still in operation and the standards the Government are seeking to establish in the new regulation. That discrepancy arises only in relation to caesium isotopes. As my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said, the EC post-Chernobyl standards for caesium isotopes were set with deliberate caution because uncertainty about the presence of other, more dangerous, nuclides. Although the Community standards established at that point in EC regulation 1707/86 applied only to imports from outside the Community, many countries applied national standards based upon them because we had to protect not only our own consumers but our valuable export trade in lamb and sheepmeat. It was therefore necessary for United Kingdom standards to reflect the international position.
One tends to forget that about 22 per cent. of our lamb and sheepmeat goes into exports 21 per cent.of it to the EC. One hesitates to think what might have happened had we not taken the action that we did, which was announced by the then Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling), on 20 June last year, when he referred specifically to the need for reference to international standards.
That very point underlines the importance of establishing sound scientifically justifiable standards in case of any future emergency. The standards for the caesium isotopes proposed by the Euratom article 31 group reflect the latest scientific opinion, informed by the experience gained after Chernobyl. Of course, they still have to be accepted.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) raised several points. I shall try to answer one or two of them. The regulation will affect all trade in food marketed in the European Community. There are no exemptions for East Germany, the Eastern bloc or any other country, as my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) said.
The East Germans could not afford to trade in any meat or other foodstuffs that did not comply with agreed EC levels—
It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted Business).
The House divided: Ayes 187, Noes 127.

Division No. 37]

[12 midnight

AYES

Alexander, Richard

Baldry, Tony

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Batiste, Spencer

Allason, Rupert

Bellingham, Henry

Amess, David

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Amos, Alan

Bevan, David Gilroy

Arbuthnot, James

Boswell, Tim

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

Bowis, John

Ashby, David

Brazier, Julian

Aspinwall, Jack

Bright, Graham

Atkinson, David

Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Browne, John (Winchester)

423

Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

Buck, Sir Antony

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Burns, Simon

Lightbown, David

Burt, Alistair

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Butcher, John

Lord, Michael

Butler, Chris

MacGregor, John

Butterfill, John

Maclean, David

Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

McLoughlin, Patrick

Carrington, Matthew

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Cash, William

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

Miller, Hal

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

Chapman, Sydney

Monro, Sir Hector

Chope, Christopher

Neale, Gerrard

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Nelson, Anthony

Conway, Derek

Neubert, Michael

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Nicholls, Patrick

Cope, John

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Cran, James

Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Paice, James

Curry, David

Patnick, Irvine

Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Porter, David (Waveney)

Day, Stephen

Portillo, Michael

Devlin, Tim

Powell, William (Corby)

Dickens, Geoffrey

Price, Sir David

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Raffan, Keith

Dover, Den

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

Dunn, Bob

Renton, Tim

Durant, Tony

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Dykes, Hugh

Riddick, Graham

Eggar, Tim

Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

Roe, Mrs Marion

Evennett, David

Rowe, Andrew

Fairbairn, Nicholas

Ryder, Richard

Fallon, Michael

Sackville, Hon Tom

Farr, Sir John

Shaw, David (Dover)

Favell, Tony

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Shelton, William (Streatham)

Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Forth, Eric

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Fox, Sir Marcus

Speed, Keith

French, Douglas

Squire, Robin

Gale, Roger

Stanbrook, Ivor

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Stanley, Rt Hon John

Gill, Christopher

Stern, Michael

Goodlad, Alastair

Stevens, Lewis

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Gow, Ian

Summerson, Hugo

Greenway, John (Rydale)

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Gregory, Conal

Temple-Morris, Peter

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

Grist, Ian

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

Thorne, Neil

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Thornton, Malcolm

Hanley, Jeremy

Thurnham, Peter

Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Tracey, Richard

Harris, David

Tredinnick, David

Haselhurst, Alan

Trippier, David

Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

Twinn, Dr Ian

Hayward, Robert

Waddington, Rt Hon David

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Walden, George

Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

Hind, Kenneth

Warren, Kenneth

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Watts, John

Howard, Michael

Wells, Bowen

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

Wheeler, John

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Whitney, Ray

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Widdecombe, Miss Ann

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Wiggin, Jerry

Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

Wilkinson, John

Irvine, Michael

Wilshire, David

Jack, Michael

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Jackson, Robert

Winterton, Nicholas

Janman, Timothy

Wood, Timothy

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Woodcock, Mike

424

Yeo, Tim

Tellers for the Ayes:

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Mr Stephen Dorrell and

Younger, Rt Hon George

Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.

NOES

Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Leadbitter, Ted

Armstrong, Ms Hilary

Lewis, Terry

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Livsey, Richard

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Battle, John

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Beckett, Margaret

Loyden, Eddie

Beith, A. J.

McAllion, John

Bermingham, Gerald

Macdonald, Calum

Blair, Tony

McFall, John

Boyes, Roland

McGrady, E. K.

Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

McKelvey, William

Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

McLeish, Henry

Buckley, George

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Callaghan, Jim

Marek, Dr John

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

Martin, Michael (Springburn)

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Martlew, Eric

Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

Maxton, John

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Michael, Alun

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Clay, Bob

Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

Clelland, David

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Morgan, Rhodri

Cohen, Harry

Morley, Elliott

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Mowlam, Mrs Marjorie

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Murphy, Paul

Cousins, Jim

Nellist, Dave

Cryer, Bob

O'Brien, William

Cummings, J.

Patchett, Terry

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Pendry, Tom

Dalyell, Tam

Pike, Peter

Darling, Alastair

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Primarolo, Ms Dawn

Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)

Quin, Ms Joyce

Dewar, Donald

Redmond, Martin

Dixon, Don

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Dobson, Frank

Rowlands, Ted

Doran, Frank

Ruddock, Ms Joan

Dunnachie, James

Salmond, Alex

Eastham, Ken

Short, Clare

Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

Skinner, Dennis

Fatchett, Derek

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Fearn, Ronald

Smith, C. (Isl'ton & F'bury)

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)

Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)

Spearing, Nigel

Foster, Derek

Strang, Gavin

Foulkes, George

Thomas, Dafydd Elis

Fyfe, Mrs Maria

Vaz, Keith

Galbraith, Samuel

Wall, Pat

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Walley, Ms Joan

Golding, Mrs Llin

Warden, Gareth (Gower)

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Wareing, Robert N.

Grocott, Bruce

Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

Hardy, Peter

Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

Henderson, Douglas

Wigley, Dafydd

Hinchliffe, David

Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

Home Robertson, John

Wilson, Brian

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Winnick, David

Howells, Geraint

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Hoyle, Doug

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

Illsley, Eric

Tellers for the Noes:

Ingram, Adam

Mr. Frank Haynes and

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Mr. Allen McKay.

Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 7183/87 on maximum permitted radioactivity levels for foodstuffs, feedingstuffs and drinking water in the case of abnormal levels of radioactivity or of a nuclear

425
accident; and urges the European Community to assure a common standard of health protection by adopting a rational set of scientifically based Intervention Levels for foodstuffs.

Pontefract District Health Authority
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lightbown.]
12.9 am
Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: I am grateful for this opportunity of presenting to the House the serious financial position of the Pontefract district health authority. I must inform the Minister and the House that my hon. Friends the Members for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien), for Hemsworth (Mr. Buckley) and for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) associate themselves with my remarks, and that my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield hopes to draw the House's attention to the problem in his area as soon as it is possible and convenient.
The serious financial constraints facing the Pontefract area health authority arise from a package of cuts totalling £1,652,000 that has already been required this year. Those cuts are likely to remain for the duration of the short-term programme. In addition, there is considerable doubt about the unit's ability to maintain this level of cuts next year.
Two near miracles were achieved in Pontefract in the early summer. On Monday 10 August the emergency and casualty department of Pontefract general infirmary was closed for 12 hours between 9 pm and 9 am each day. That serious decision was taken for a hospital whose catchment area includes major industries—mining and chemicals—and two major motorways. The surprise was that within two or three days the hospital was able to announce its reopening, because it had been able to find some doctors to staff the unit—doctors that it had been unable to find for months before.
The second miracle was the admission by the Minister that the Pontefract general infirmary was seriously underfunded and consequently run down. No one suggested that it was an inefficient hospital. No one could; there were figures to prove that it was efficient. In England, we now spend £724 per case, and in Yorkshire the figure is £662, but in Pontefract we spend only £580, which is well below the national average. We have not an inefficient authority but a seriously underfunded one.
Let us examine the figures. For 1987–88, £25,198,000 was the revenue allocated in the budget. That represented much less than the authority's projections. Its budget was for £26 million. So, from the first day of the financial year, there was a shortfall of £802,000. Recognising that it had a major problem, the health authority started closing wards, delaying appointments and generally cutting back on staff.
We are not discussing a hospital situated among leafy suburbs; it is in an area of high unemployment, where people suffer from chronic chest complaints and major industrial diseases, and where it is difficult to recruit young doctors. Unfortunately, the measures taken did not achieve the economies required to bridge the gap between the health authority's projections and the revenue offered. Yet the hospital was not inefficient, and it was spending a fifth less per case than the national average.
In case the Minister thinks that this is special party political pleading, I shall make two points. My mailbag is crammed with letters not only from patients and their families complaining about hospital waiting lists, but from local industrialists. I have them here and they are available for perusal by any hon. Member, and certainly by the Minister. They all recognise that the cuts have gone too

427
far. I have letters that I hope to present to the Minister from 47 patients and members of staff of the Castleford and Normanton hospital. The operating theatre there is about to close. The local newspaper, the Pontefract and Castleford Express regularly highlights the problem in front-page headlines. In letters to the press, a local general practitioner asks if we are to expect improvements only after we have the poor sleeping on mattresses in corridors in the manner of Third-world countries.
I recently had a letter from a Methodist minister, and it is worthy of quotation. It is from the Rev. John B. McCarthy, the superintendent minister of the Castleford Methodist circuit. The letter says:
"As Hospital Chaplain at the Castleford & Normanton Hospital in the Pontefract Health Authority I write to express my deepest concern at the proposals which will result in a grave deterioration in the health and welfare of the people in this area. I have ministered in Castleford, Pontefract and district for twenty four years, during which time I have visited the local hospitals regularly, and for the past two years have been a hospital chaplain. The standard of nursing in our hospitals is of the highest quality, and during the past two years in particular I have been deeply moved by the ready testimony of patients at Castleford to the excellent care and encouragement they have received from the hospital staff.
I can only make a plea that such a high quality of nursing should be continued by maintaining the wards at the Castleford & Normanton hospital. In the present climate of fear and anxiety which affects everyone, but particularly the older members of the community, I believe it is essential that we should have confidence in our hospital service, and I plead with you to exercise your influence to build up this confidence.
For the sake of those who need helping most please do all you can to encourage Her Majesty's Government to direct more money to support the Health Service in this community."
I have many such letters from people who are not at all involved in politics.
The matter does not end there. Last Thursday the doctors in the area took an unprecedented step. As far as I am aware, it was unprecedented, although such steps may have been taken elsewhere. They published in the local newspaper an article which has no political bias, but which expresses great concern. It says:
"People of the five hospitals (Served by the Pontefract District Health Authority). Divisions of geriatrics. Are you aware of the proposed cuts planned for your hospital service? The Health Authority's … budget is overspent by £805,000—but we are efficient. Pontefract spend: £580 per case; Yorkshire spend: £662 per case; England spend: £724 per case. No more money is available. Drastic cuts are inevitable. Emergencies will be treated but the waiting time for Routine General Surgery, Orthopaedics and Urology will escalate.
Effects of cuts after 1 year:

(1) General Surgical waiting lists will double to more than 2,000.

(2) Orthopaedics—present waiting time 8 months—after cuts will rise to 22 months.

The hospital service is at the mercy of the politicians."
The advertisement was referring not to me; it was referring to the Minister and the Government that she represents. The advertisement goes on to say:
"Are you prepared to accept this inadequate service? We look to you the community to take action."
It says that people should tell their councillors and Members of Parliament, and concludes:
"This advertisement has been inserted and paid for by the Consultants at Pontefract General Infirmary."
Those consultants are apolitical. Authorities and hospitals are inefficient, but the inefficiencies in Pontefract
428
hospitals are the result of the sloppy, inefficient thinking of the Government and the greed of some of the consultants. The Government stand for free enterprise, and as part of that stance they encourage the opening of local private hospitals. A new hospital called Methley Park was opened on the edge of my constituency three years ago. The secretary of that hospital, Mr. J. Whitfield, was a Member of Parliament for Dewsbury. When the hospital was just an idea, doctors and consultants in the area were invited to become shareholders. Many did, and that compromised their integrity. Their desire for money compromised their medical ethics.
The directors' report of 31 December 1985 revealed that in the first two-year period the hospital lost £547,674. The chairman of the hospital suggested that all concerned should market it. They tried very hard and, as the Minister will be aware, before the last election the Government made money available to shorten hospital waiting lists. The Pontefract area received about £90,000 to £100,000. The health authority produced a plan whereby the Pontefract general infirmary would take 660 patients off the hospital waiting list. Unfortunately, that was not acceptable to the consultants. Therefore, the health authority produced another plan whereby the private hospital would perform only 302 operations for the same money. The consultants who refused to perform operations at Pontefract were the same consultants who performed those operations at the private hospital. That is a serious situation.
The health authority was put in the position of being blackmailed. It had no option but to agree. I hope that serious consideration of these matters will be brought to bear in future.
Services are beginning to crumble in Pontefract. The result of recent decisions is that the waiting list will increase by 1,300. In other words, it will nearly double. It must be remembered that earlier in the year 300 were taken off the list when 600 should have been removed from it. I shall attempt now to bring my remarks to a conclusion because I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) would like to intervene in the debate for a few minutes.
We shall lose 64 beds at the Southmoor hospital. The geriatric unit at the Pontefract general infirmary is to close. I could continue on that theme, but instead I shall put some questions to the Minister. Does she stand by her statement in her letter of 26 August 1987 that the Pontefract area health authority is underfunded? Does she accept that health care in my constituency has reached a dangerous level? Does she accept that consultants should not be encouraged to become shareholders in hospitals near the catchment area of their prime employer, the National Health Service? Will she consider establishing a judicial inquiry into the procedures that were implemented at the meeting of the Pontefract district health authority on 12 October 1987? Great concern has been expressed in local circles about the validity of the vote.
I ask the Minister to investigate why the procedures of consultation with the community health council and other interested bodies, including local authorities, were not implemented before a decision was taken. Most importantly, will the Minister give serious consideration to provide extra funding to enable the authority to withdraw its decision to introduce savage cuts in patient care?
I should like to know whether Methley park hospital received any funding from the business expansion scheme.

429
Finally, will the Minister please consider my request to visit Pontefract and investigate the serious issues to which I have referred?
Mr. William O'Brien rose—
12.27 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mrs. Edwina Currie): I congratulate the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) on winning the ballot and gaining the opportunity again to raise on the Adjournment the important matters that involve the Pontefract district health authority. I met the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Harrison) in Sheffield on 14 September to discuss Pontefract and Wakefield's respective financial positions. I know that Bryan Askew, the chairman of the Yorkshire regional health authority, has done likewise on several occasions, and most recently on 16 October 1987. With those meetings and this evening's debate, I hope that the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford feels that he is being given every opportunity to represent his constituents, with whom I feel rather familiar.
Bryan Askew and I have said that a major cause of the tight financial position of some districts in Yorkshire and elsewhere has been their success in treating ever increasing numbers of patients. This increased productivity is excellent but local management has continually to balance it against the expected growth in income. Yorkshire districts on the whole are doing just that and are to be applauded for all their efforts in this direction. I wish particularly to put on record my admiration for the steady and sensible efforts of Roy Widdowson, the chairman of Pontefract, and George Barnes, the district general manager, who try to keep local Members well briefed.
It is the responsibility of all health authorities, as with other organisations, to work within their budgets. There was a statutory obligation not to overspend, and I accept that in Pontefract this may have required some difficult decisions to be taken and priorities to be reassessed, but to the authority's credit it has sought to do this in a sensible and rational way. I am advised that the measures taken for this year, 1987–88, should not significantly affect the volume of patient care. The proposals for 1988–89 will need to be worked out in detail and where appropriate they will be subject to consultation. I take note of the hon. Gentleman's questions and I look forward particularly to responding to his invitation to visit Pontefract. I have no doubt that I shall be treated with the greatest courtesy that is typical of Yorkshire people, especially if he promises to come with me on the day.
The track record of the Health Service is one of continuing success, and sadly that is all too often overlooked by the critics. Some 6·5 million in-patients and more than 37·5 million out-patients were treated in England last year and that is an all-time record. I am sure that we would all like to pay tribute to the hard work and dedication of the doctors, nurses and the staff of the Health Service which those figures demonstrate.
We are now involved in the biggest hospital building programme ever seen in the Health Service, worth more than £3 billion. We are employing over 11,300 more doctors and dentists and more than 51,000 nurses and midwives than in 1979. We have new and better services, such as the computerised call and re-call schemes to ensure
430
that women at risk will be screened for cervical and breast cancer, and we are the only country outside Scandinavia to make national progress in that way. Yorkshire's first breast cancer screening centre will be at Huddersfield, with several more centres opening to provide a countrywide service by 1990. We have been making the reduction 0.r waiting times for hospital treatment a major priority. We are providing £50 million over two years, which should lead to an additional 100,000 people on the waiting lists being treated this year and a similar number next year.
Mr. William O'Brien: May I ask a question about funding?
Mrs. Currie: I may answer the hon. Gentleman's point in my next sentence.
Pontefract district health authority is receiving over £82,000 from the waiting list fund this year to carry out 725 extra operations on people on its waiting lists during 1987–88. The specialties involved are urology, gynaecology and orthopaedics. The waiting list in the Pontefract DHA. fell by 350 cases in the six months to March 1987. The number of urgent cases waiting more than a month has also fallen quite dramatically. The number of non-urgent cases waiting more than a year rose by 70, but that represents a relatively small proportion of the total waiting list. The figures do not reflect the additional operations to be carried out with money from the waiting list fund. It is also worth putting on record the important fact that the Yorkshire regional health authority intends to carry out work on increasing health promotion. It hopes to increase its budget on that from under £300,000 to nearly £3 million over the 10-year planning period.
Mr. O'Brien: The procedure on closing hospitals means that there should be consultation with CHCs and other community interests. What procedures have been carried out in the case of the closure of the Wardle Aldam hospital in the Pontefract district area, where the decision was taken to close the hospital without consultation? Will the Minister ensure that DHSS guidelines are carried out in our area?
Mrs. Currie: I am satisfied that the guidelines have been followed. Any permanent change, if the CHC disapproves, must come to Ministers and go through the appropriate consultation procedures. However, temporary changes are entirely within the purview of the district health authority, and that is a matter of fact.
If we consider what has been happening in Yorkshire and Pontefract in a little more detail we find that the gross revenue spending for Yorkshire has risen from £313 million in 1978–79 to an initial revenue cash allocation this year of £786 million. We expect, therefore, that it will have an increase of some 27 per cent. in real terms over the earlier figure. That is quite dramatic. Capital spending in Yorkshire has also increased dramatically to more than £70 million. The total released by land sales is also commendable and the figure since 1978–79 is £8 million.
It is also worth putting the growth in Pontefract on record. I want to make comparisons with the year 1982, when the new district health authorities were formed. Last year Pontefract health authority treated 22,765 in-patient cases which is a 14 per cent. increase over the 1982 figure. It dealt with more than 117,000 out-patient attendances, a 13 per cent. increase over the 1982 figure and it dealt with over 20,000 day-patient attendances, a 78 per cent. increase over the 1982 figure. That is hardly a

431
"grave deterioration in the health and welfare of Pontefract people."
as stated by the Methodist minister referred to by the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford.
More staff are employed—especially more front-line staff—and there is more money. In 1982–83, the figure for Pontefract was just about £20 million. This year the initial cash allocation is £28·25 million and I am sure that the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford will realise that that is a substantial increase.
Capital spending in Pontefract has also shown an improvement, and there are more improvements to come. Pontefract has already benefited from increased capital spending with the completion of the new geriatric and psychiatric unit at Pontefract general infirmary in 1981 which cost £2 million. A long list of projects that are under way or shortly to start also includes the day surgery unit of £1·7 million, which has already been started, the intensive treatment unit and coronary care unit costing £0·7 million, which will be started this financial year, new accident and emergency department and out-patient facilities, replacement wards for Pontefract general infirmary, which are to start shortly, and a long-stay unit for the mentally ill which is planned to start in 1990–91.
Mr. Lofthouse: The hon. Lady will recollect that there was some difference between us about Sheffield's total allocation. The regional health authority confirms that the allocation was £25,188,000 for this financial year. Is the Minister saying that that is wrong and that it is £28 million? If that is the case, the local authority does not know about it.
Mrs. Currie: My advice is that the initial cash allocation for this year was £28 million, as I have just said. The hon. Gentleman should be aware that a health authority spends money from several different pockets, which may include proceeds from land sales or the special initiatives that I have mentioned. That is the figure that is being spent.
In all, some six major schemes costing over £9 million are due to start this year or next, with further development later. That is where the point about what might be meant by underspending arises.
The regional strategic plan provides for Pontefract to receive an extra £6·9 million of revenue after allowing for inflation by 1993–94 to enable the authority to develop its own services for its own people. The extra money therefore recognises that work currently undertaken in other districts on behalf of Pontefract will be taken over by Pontefract. That cannot be done overnight. It depends on how the new more efficient facilities are brought on stream and how they function and on the achievement of the region's target for cost-improvement programmes, which I know that the hon. Gentleman will actively support.
432
The Government and the regional health authority recognise that, in order to look after its own people locally, the health authority will require additional resources in future. It does not mean that people are being prevented from seeking treatment now, but it does mean that they are having to travel too far and are receiving that treatment in old facilities which require replacement. That might also explain the sharp difference in the cost per case. If the complicated cases cannot be dealt with in Pontefract, they must go somewhere else and that will affect the cost per case in Pontefract. The figures are not comparable.
However, I have looked again at the performance indicators that I showed the hon. Gentleman when I met him in Sheffield, and it is worth putting them on the record briefly. They are only a guide to areas that need to be investigated, but they at least demonstrate that there may be patterns of work that could be tackled.
The gap between patients in general medicine beds in Pontefract is 2·9 days which is among the worst turnover intervals in Britain. It means that beds may be lying idle for long intervals between cases. The annual number of patients per obstetric bed is among the lowest 10 per cent. in the country. That is not because of the length of stay is unduly long. Other explanations suggest themselves.
If we look at the occupancy of beds, we find that for nearly all the main specialties, with the exception of gynaecology, Pontefract is well below the England averages and sometimes very much below. In general medicine fewer than 70 per cent. of beds are occupied. That is less than it used to be. In general surgery only 66 per cent. of the beds are occupied and that is much the same as it has been for many years. In ear, nose and throat, only 39 per cent. of the beds allocated to that specialty are occupied and that is a drop on previous years. Those are the figures for 1986.
Those figures are not the whole truth. I am sure that local investigation is required to discover the underlying reasons, but there is clearly scope for tackling the questions. Nor is it a matter of doing loads of day cases instead at the moment because most specialties do not do very many, while the larger numbers in general medicine and general surgery have not changed much in recent years. We expect that that will improve as the new day surgery facility comes on stream.
I hope that I have managed to convince the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends that Pontefract is benefiting considerably from national initiatives and local efforts. It is to be congratulated on its progress and—
The motion having been made after Ten o'clock on Wednesday evening and the debate having continued for half an hour, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at twenty-one minutes to One o'clock.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Education Reform
  Mr. Colvin
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether religious instruction will be included in the national core curriculum; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Religious education is already a compulsory subject for pupils in maintained schools under the provisions of the Education Act 1944. The Government's recent consultation document on the national curriculum reflects our strong conviction that religious education must continue to be taught in schools and makes clear that time must continue to be found for it for all pupils. We shall seek to ensure that the present statutory requirements relating to religious education are enforced as effectively as those proposed for the foundation subjects of the national curriculum.

  General Teaching Council
  Mr. Cartwright
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received about the case for a general teaching council; what consideration he has given to this proposal; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend has received no representations recently about the establishment of a general teaching council. Our position has been for some time, and remains, that we are prepared to consider the case for such a body if a specific proposal made is likely to command widespread support from all the interests involved.

  Schizophrenia
  Mr. Goodlad
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the latest progress in research into schizophrenia.

  Mr. Jackson
  I understand from the Medical Research Council, which receives its grant-in-aid from the Department, that the Council's schizophrenia and allied conditions committee has recently reviewed the current state of research in this area. A report of the committee's findings, including recommendations for future research, will be published shortly.

  In addition the Department of Health and Social Security is funding epidemiological research on morbidity and mortality in schizophrenia at the unit of clinical epidemiology, Oxford and is also supporting studies on community-based services for people with mental illnesses such as schizophrenia.

  Mr. Goodlad
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how much the Medical Research Council spent of its 1986–87 budget on research on (a) mental
  256
  health and (b) schizophrenia; and what percentage these figures represent of the Medical Research Council's total budget.

  Mr. Jackson
  It is for the Medical Research Council to determine its priorities from within the annual grant-in-aid which it receives from the Department's science budget. I understand that in the financial year 1986–87 the Medical Research Council spent £9·4 million, 8 per cent. of its overall budget, on research on mental health, including research on addiction. Out of its expenditure on mental health, the Council spent £506,000, 0·4 per cent. of its budget, on schizophrenia. The Council is also funding other work in which mental health and schizophrenia are minor components.

  Social Workers
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what efforts are being made to maintain provision of courses of training for social workers specialising in work with the deaf; how many colleges are providing such courses; and if he will list them and provide comparable figures from five years ago.

  Mr. Jackson
  Initial training courses for social workers do not include any specialist element related to working with the deaf, but the development of a two-year post-qualifying Open University course by distance learning is under consideration.

  Some local education authorities provide training courses in colleges of further education on communication with the deaf, as part of their adult education programme; also, charitable bodies offer courses for people working with the deaf and hearing-impaired. The number of such courses is not known, nor are the figures for five years ago.

  Conductive Education
  Mr. Bowis
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps are being taken by the Government to provide or encourage the provision of conductive education for children with motor disorders; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dunn
  My right hon. Friend has agreed to provide grant assistance of £326,000 to enable Birmingham university to carry out a research evaluation of the conductive education project being established in Birmingham by the Foundation for Conductive Education. In the Government's view, it would be preferable to await the outcome of this assessment before coming to any decisions about wider provision of conductive education for children with motor disorders.

  Sixth Forms
  Mr. Greg Knight
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list the number and names of all city areas in England which do not have any schools with sixth forms within their city boundary.

  Mr. Dunn
  Information on schools in city areas is not readily available centrally.

  Derby (Post-primary Education)
  Mr. Greg Knight
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many representations he has

  257
  received (a) in favour of and (b) against the proposals of Derbyshire county council for the reorganisation of post-primary education in the Derby city area.

  Mr. Dunn
  My right hon. Friend received around 800 representations objecting to the proposals. In addition, a number of statutory and non-statutory objections were lodged with the LEA.

  CERN
  Mr. Dalyell
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proposals he has to fund CERN; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  The United Kingdom's subscription to CERN is paid by the Science and Engineering Research Council from its grant-in-aid. Following the report of the Kendrew review into United Kingdom participation in high energy particle physics, the United Kingdom proposed a review of CERN with a view to identifying savings that would reduce the subscription of member states. The CERN Council agreed to set up such a review under the chairmanship of Professor Abragam and the final report is expected within the next month.

  Pupil Costs
  Mr. Shersby
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the current annual cost to public funds of educating a child at a maintained secondary school.

  Mr. Dunn
  The latest information available is for the financial year 1985–86. The net recurrent institutional expenditure per secondary school pupil in England in that year was £1,175. This figure includes the cost of salaries and wages, premises and certain supplies and services. It does not include the cost of school meals, central administration and inspection, debt charges and revenue contributions to capital outlay.

  School Teachers
  Mr. Greenway
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has considered the report of the working group on the collection of ethnically-based statistics on school teachers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  The report of this working group, which was set up by my predecessor in answer to a recommendation of the Swann committee, recommends that I should require local education authorities to provide aggregate and anonymous data on the ethnic composition of their school teacher forces. I accept this recommendation. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales agrees that the proposals should apply to Wales as well. We now intend to consult all interested parties on the arrangements for data collection. A draft circular has been issued for consultation today and copies have been placed in the Library together with copies of the working group's report.

  Education Standards
  Mr. Thurnham
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what further proposals he has for improving educational standards; and if he will make a statement.
  258
  Mrs. Rumbold
  The Government have published consultation documents setting out their detailed proposals for educational reform. Copies of these and of the main responses to have been placed in the Library. We hope to introduce an Education Bill embodying our proposals in the next few weeks.

PRIME MINISTER

  Crayford
  Mr. Evennett
  asked the Prime Minister whether she has any plans to visit Crayford.

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

  National Insurance Files (Access)
  Miss Mowlam
  asked the Prime Minister, pursuant to her reply of 23 October, Official Report column 905, why she will not refer to the Security Commission's allegations concerning improper access by security service officers to national insurance files.

  The Prime Minister
  These allegations relate to matters of a kind which do not come within the Security Commission's terms of reference.

WALES

  Welsh Assembly
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to publish urgently a consultative paper regarding a Welsh Assembly; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  No.

  Craig-y-nos Castle
  Mr. Livsey
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will instruct his Department to give grade one listing to the theatre at Craig-y-nos castle.

  Mr. Grist
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given to him by my right hon. Friend on Monday 26 October.

  Mr. Livsey
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales why sales details for Craig-y-nos castle are not currently available to prospective purchasers from the nominated estate agent's office.

  Mr. Grist
  Now that we have decided that the theatre should be listed grade I and the remainder of the building listed as grade II the property will be placed on the market. Sales details will then be available to prospective purchasers.

  Mr. Livsey
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will change the terms of sale for Craig-y-nos castle from freehold to leasehold in order that his Department may retain its interest in the long-term future of the building.

  Mr. Grist
  No. A previous attempt to sell the leasehold of this property did not produce a satisfactory offer. The freehold of Craig-y-nos is soon to be offered for sale, with the theatre subject to a grade I listing and the remainder of the building at grade II. This should realise the maximum financial benefit for the NHS while offering the protection listed status affords.

  Farms (Radioactivity)
  Mr. Ron Davies
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales how many farms in Wales have been affected by restrictions on the sale or movement of livestock due to excessive levels of radiation since the nuclear plant explosion at Chernobyl.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Around 5,100 holdings in north Wales were affected when restrictions were first introduced on 20 June 1986. Currently some 416 of these holdings are still subject to restrictions. Schemes to permit the movement and marketing of sheep from restricted holdings were introduced in August 1986 and are continuing.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Emergency Aid (Airline Contracts)
  Mr. Foulkes
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the air companies his Overseas Development Administration has contracted to deliver emergency aid in each of the years 1979 to 1987.

  Mr. Eggar
  Information in the form requested is not readily available. Civil and military airlines used in our disaster relief operations include the following:

  MISR Overseas Airways

  Cargolux

  ZAS Airlines

  Martinair

  Trans Arabian Air

  Lufthansa

  Transport

  JAL

  AER Turas

  Aeroflot

  ARAX Airlines

  Sabena

  African International

  Air France

  Airways

  PIA

  Belgian Air Force

  Polish Air Force

  Flash Airlines

  Varig

  Air Atlantique

  St. Lucia

  Air Botswana

  MEA

  KLM

  TMA

  UTA

  Ford Vlahos

  GASAIR

  Iran Air

  Gemini Airlines

  LAP

  Heavylift Cargo Airlines

  TAP

  Southern Air Transport

  SAA

  Transamerica

  Korean Air

  Qantas

  Air Algerie

  Flying Tigers

  La Point

  German Cargo Services

  Yemen Airways

  Alitalia

  British Airways

  Iberia

  British Caledonian

  TAROM

  Sudan Airways

  TAAG

  Garuda

  Panamerican

  Royal Jordanian Airlines

  Airbridge Carriers

  The Royal Air Force

  Anglo Cargo Tradewinds

  The Queen's Flight

  Southern Air Transport
  Mr. Foulkes
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will issue instructions that the Overseas Development Administration should enter into no further contracts with Southern Air Transport.

  Mr. Eggar
  No

  Emergency Aid (Airline Contracts)
  Mr. Foulkes
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what non-commercial considerations are used in selecting an air company for the delivery of emergency aid.

  Mr. Eggar
  Each disaster response is considered on its merits. The primary concern in the delivery of disaster relief, irrespective of the mode of transport used, is the speed, effectiveness and cost of the operation.

  Heat Grid (London)
  Mr. Cohen
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy what is the estimated cost of building a heat grid of insulated hot water pipes for London.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  The Government have no estimates of the cost of building a heat grid of insulated hot water pipes for London as a whole.

  However, following publication of the Marshall report on "Combined Heat and Electrical Power Generation in the United Kingdom", the Government commissioned W.S. Atkins and Partners Ltd. to carry out a study on the feasibility of combined heat and power district heating in nine cities.

  The report of this study, published as Energy Paper No. 53 in 1984, estimates that the cost of laying heat mains in the boroughs of Tower Hamlets and Southwark alone could be of the order of £174,574,000 at 1982 prices.

  Electricity
  Mr. Wray
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy what improvements he seeks in the performance of the national elecricity generation and supply system.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The industry has a statutory responsibility to provide efficient and economical supplies of electricity. It is our intention that privatisation should lead to improvements in this service which will benefit the consumer.

  Severn Tidal Group
  Mr. David Nicholson
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he now expects to receive the final report of the Severn tidal power group; how much public funding has been committed to this investigation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The Severn tidal power group expects to produce its report towards the end of 1988. The study is expected to cost £4·26 million and the cost is being shared equally between the Severn tidal power group, the Central Electricity Generating Board and my Department.

  South African Coal Industry
  Mr. Hood
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy what contacts there have been between Ministers or officials in his Department and representatives of the London office of the South African coal industry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  None.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Storm Damage
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will make a statement on the actions he has taken in his capacity relating to the areas damaged by the hurricane on 15–16 October;

  (2) if he will list the areas damaged by the 15–16 October hurricane which he has visited in his capacity as coordinator of relief operations; and what procedures he has adopted to secure advice on the nature and extent of the damage.

  Mr. Hurd
  The immediate test of responding to the damage caused by the storms on 15–16 October fell to the emergency services, the local authorities and public utilities. In order to ensure that they were fully supported in their attempts to deal quickly and effectively with the consequences of the storms, I obtained regular situation reports, from early on 16 October, from the areas most badly affected. In the light of the initial reports on the morning of 16 October, I called an immediate meeting of the Ministers most directly concerned, which reviewed in detail the information available and the action which each Minister was taking in the field of his own responsibilities.

  Passports
  Mr. Wheeler
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will make it his policy that the laminate chosen to protect the personal details page of the new European Community common format British passport be the most secure available;

  (2) if he will make it his policy to give the highest priority to the level of security in choosing the laminate used to protect the personal details page of the new European Community common format British passport;

  (3) if he has had discussions with the Governments of Australia and Canada regarding the most secure laminate used in their passports and as to what level of security was thereby obtained.

  Mr. Renton
  The laminate chosen will need to meet exacting security requirements. The Government are aware that the type of laminate used by the Governments of Australia and Canada offers a satisfactory standard of security.

  Medical Health Review Tribunals
  Mr. Irving
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps his Department currently takes when, in relation to a patient to whom section 73 of the Mental Health Act 1983 applies, a mental health review tribunal includes in its written decision a recommendation that a patient be granted leave of absence or be transferred to another hospital or be transferred into guardianship.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Any such recommendation received in the Home Office is acknowledged, and any comments are offered which can usefully be made at that stage. Correspondence with the tribunal is copied to the patient's responsible medical officer, since it is for this officer to consider the recommendation in the first instance. If the responsible medical officer submits a proposal based on a tribunal's recommendation, full account is taken of the tribunal's views. At any subsequent hearing of the case, the 262
  statement which the Home Office provides will explain the outcome of any recommendation which the tribunal had made.

  Mr. Irving
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he intends to seek the amendment of section 73 of the Mental Health Act 1983 to give mental health review tribunals statutory power to make recommendations that a patient to whom section 73 applies be granted leave of absence or transfer to another hospital or transfer into guardianship.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  No.

  Schizophrenia
  Mr. Goodlad
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of those convicted of crimes in England and Wales in each of the last five years have ever been admitted to National Health Service mental illness hospitals and units with a main diagnosis of schizophrenic psychosis.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The information requested is not available centrally. The readily available information, which is given in the following table, relates to persons compulsorily admitted to hospital under part V of the Mental Health Act 1959, part III of the Mental Health Act 1983 or the Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1984. They provide for the admission to hospital by the court of a person convicted of an offence or under certain circumstances of a person who the court is satisfied did the act but did not convict him. Further details are given in "Statistics of Mentally Disordered Offenders England and Wales 1984"—Home Office statistical bulletin 31/85; it is planned to bring this bulletin up to date early next year.

  Persons classified as suffering from mental illness compulsorily admitted to National Health Service hospitals under a hospital order, after transfer from a Prison Department establishment or recalled following an earlier discharge; England and Wales, 1982–86

  Number

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Subject to special restrictions on discharge

  128

  113

  143

  136

  152

  Without special restrictions on discharge

  529

  661

  758

  644

  624

  All

  657

  774

  901

  780

  776

  Prisons (Staffing Levels)
  Mr. Steinberg
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what changes have been made in the staffing levels at Frankland, Durham and How Newton prisons from the levels agreed between the manpower team, local management and Prison Officers Association representatives.

  Mr. John Patten
  The fresh start review teams did not set and agree complements with local management and staff. Their task was to make recommendations about management structure, working arrangements and complements for consultation locally, regionally and at headquarters. Final complements have not yet been promulgated.
  263
  Mr. Steinberg
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received about the adequacy of staffing levels proposed for prisons under the fresh start scheme.

  Mr. Hurd
  Trade union representatives have been consulted about staffing levels under fresh start at each establishment. Discussion at local, regional and national level has in most cases brought about a resolution of any differences. Staffing matters have been raised in two recent meetings which I have had with representatives of the Prison Officers' Association.

  Mr. Steinberg
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his policy on the recruitment of prison officers in one area for posts in another; and how many vacancies have (i) occurred and (ii) been advertised in (a) Durham and (b) London in the past year.

  Mr. John Patten
  Recruitment for the England and Wales prison service is on a national basis as prison officers are a mobile grade. Advertising, whether in the press or jobcentres, is therefore for mobile posts and not for specific vacancies in particular establishments.

  While account is taken where possible of an individual's preferences and domestic circumstances, officers may be required to fill posts in any establishment in England and Wales. In the 12 months October 1986-September 1987, 24 new entrant prison officers were posted to establishments in County Durham and 216 to the London area.

  Prison Staff
  Mr. Steinberg
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of prison staff have accepted the interim measures under the fresh start scheme; and what proportion of prison staff will be on the fresh start pay structure from 1 November.

  Mr. Hurd
  Over half—53 per cent.—of prison staff in the unified grades were on fresh start working on 25 October, including 17 per cent. working under transitional local agreements. We remain firmly committed to a cut off date of 1 November for introducing fresh start at all establishments. The extent to which this is achieved depends on the outcome of local discussions. The position is not yet clear.

  Firearms
  Mr. Steel
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what compensation will be available for the owners of automatic firearms which he proposes to ban;

  (2) if he has any plans to restrict the magazine capacity of registered automatic weapons;

  (3) if he will make it his policy to have individual shotguns registered;

  (4) if he will make a statement on the implication for gun control or the absence of present certification for ammunition loading kits.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  As my right hon. Friend announced in the House on 26 October in the debate on firearms, we are considering suggestions in addition to the proposals already announced for strengthening the controls on firearms. These include the matters raised by the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel) which will he carefully examined. We hope to 264
  announce comprehensive proposals by the end of November with a view to introducing a new firearms Bill before Christmas.

  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, pursuant to his policies for more effective control of firearms, he will offer refunds for the unexpired portion of firearms licences; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  No. The fee reflects the cost of issuing a certificate and a refund for an unused period of its validity would not be justified.

  Police National Computer
  Mr. Cohen
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it is proposed that the police national computer be linked with his Department's computer centre at Bootle; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  There are no plans to link the police national computer with the Department's computer centre at Bootle.

  Child Prostitution
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will institute an urgent inquiry into child prostitution.

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

  Missing Children
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will instigate an immediate inquiry into the number of children reported to the police as runaways from home or local authority care.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Responsibility for investigating reports of missing persons, including children who run away from home or local authority care, is a matter for chief officers of police. The Association of Chief Police Officers has set up a working party to review police procedured for dealing with inquiries relating to missing persons and in the light of its report we will consider the need for action by the Home Office.

  Dog Licensing
  Mr. Wiggin
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when and in what form he proposes to amend the legislation on dog licensing.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I have been asked to reply.

  Clause 32 of the Local Government Bill would have the effect of abolishing the duty on dog licences in Great Britain, and part IV of schedule 6 to the Bill would repeal the various references to dog licences which would be redundant on abolition of the duty. The Bill is currently being considered by Standing Committee A.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  EC-Israel (Relations)
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the nature of the dispute between the European Economic Community and Israel which led to the visit to Israel on 10 October by Mr. Cheysson; and if he will make a statement.
  265
  Mr. Mellor
  I understand that M. Cheysson took advantage of his routine visit to Israel to discuss the Community's concern to secure early implementation by the Israeli authorities of the measures for access to EC markets for produce from the occupied territories, agreed by the Community last year. He also raised some outstanding difficulties about the operation of the Tamah tax which is imposed on imported goods that compete with domestic Israeli products.

  Iraq (Chemical Weapons)
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Iraq about their use of chemical weapons in the Gulf conflict; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  The Iraqis can be in no doubt of our condemnation of the use of these weapons. We have raised the question on a number of occasions recently, for instance when my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary met the Iraqi Foreign Minister in New York, and during the new Iraqi ambassador's introductory calls at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will raise at the Security Council of the United Nations the use of chemical weapons by Iraq in the Gulf conflict; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  We raise at every suitable opportunity the deplorable use of chemical weapons by Iraq. We strongly supported the statement by the president of the Security Council on 14 May, demanding a halt to the use of their weapons in accordance with the 1925 Geneva protocol. We played a leading role in obtaining SCR 598 which deplores, inter alia, the use of chemical weapons in the conflict.

  Equal Opportunities
  Ms. Richardson
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs 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 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 jobshare, part-time working and parental leave.

  Mr. Eggar
  There are two equal opportunity officers in the diplomatic wing and one in the aid wing. The proportion of their time allocated to equal opportunity work is 15 per cent., 10 per cent. and 10 per cent. respectively. They combine their equal opportunity duties with personnel management, policy and training responsibilities as assistant heads of departments.

  Cross-border Trade (Republic of Ireland)
  Mr. John David Taylor
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of the Republic of Ireland following the recent decision by the EEC Commission that the Dublin Budget restrictions on shoppers visiting Northern Ireland are in conflict with EEC legislation; what effect the Budget restrictions have had on the economy of border towns in Northern Ireland; and if he will request an urgent removal of these budgetary restrictions to cross-border trade in Ireland before Christmas in the current year.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We made clear to the Commission in April that the measures taken by the Irish Government were in our view inconsistent with EC law. The Commission has now instituted legal proceedings against the Irish Government under the EC treaty. We hope that these proceedings will lead to the measures being rescinded. Although this is primarily a matter of EC law, we have also taken up the matter directly with the Irish Government, on a number of occasions. The issue of what impact the measures have had on the economy of Northern Ireland is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Human Rights
  Mr. Millan
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if Her Majesty's Government intend to sign the European convention for the prevention of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment when the convention is opened for signature on 26 November.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Yes.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Beggs
  asked the Attorney-General if he has any plans to review the use made of the legal aid system in Northern Ireland; and what is his assessment of the current level of abuse to the system.

  The Attorney-General
  The legal aid system and the criteria determining the availability of legal aid in Northern Ireland are broadly similar to those pertaining in England and Wales. The relevance to Northern Ireland of the proposals contained in the White Paper "Legal Aid in England and Wales: A New Framework" (Cm. 118 published on 26 March 1987) is currently being assessed.

  Legal aid legislation in Northern Ireland incorporates certain safeguards against abuses. There is no evidence of major abuse of the system.

  Commonhold
  Sir Brandon Rhys Williams
  asked the Attorney-General what information he has in regard to the meaning of the word commonhold used as the title of the Law Commission's report, Cm. 179, and when it was first used in relation to property occupied as flats.

  The Attorney-General
  The word commonhold has at present no dictionary meaning. It was adopted by the working group responsible for the report Cm. 179 at the
  267
  start of its deliberation as being apt to describe a form of freehold tenure involving common rights and obligations. At the time of its adoption the group was unmindful of its earlier use by my hon. Friend in a series of private Member's Bills on co-ownership of flats going back to 1978.

  Freehold Flats
  Sir Brandon Rhys Williams
  asked the Attorney-General if it is the Government's intention to take steps to implement the recommendations of the Law Commission in regard to freehold flats.

  The Attorney-General
  The working group report Cm. 179 to which my hon. Friend refers was published by the Law Commission as recently as July last. A decision on implementation will he taken when the recommendations have been fully considered.

  Judges and Magistrates
  Mr. Fraser
  asked the Attorney-General what steps are taken before appointment to ensure that magistrates and judges are free from racial prejudice.

  The Attorney-General
  Before appointing or recommending the appointment of a candidate to judicial office the Lord Chancellor carries out wide-ranging consultations with the judiciary and senior members of the legal profession in order to assess the personal and professional suitability of all candidates.

  In the case of lay magistrates the Lord Chancellor and the Chancellor of the County Palatine of Lancaster receive annual recommendations from their local advisory committees about new appointments to magisterial benches within their respective geographical areas. The persons appointed are required to be personally suitable for judicial work and one of the purposes of the interviews which candidates undergo is to satisfy the committees that they possess the necessary judicial qualities.

  Anyone who is found to be racially prejudiced would be excluded from further consideration for either a professional or a lay appointment.

  Mr. Fraser
  asked the Attorney-General how many judges have been reprimanded by the Lord Chancellor in the last 12 months.

  The Attorney-General
  Two.

  Illegitimacy
  Mr. Kirkwood
  asked the Attorney-General when the provisions of the Family Law Act 1987 which relate to illegitimacy will be implemented.

  Membership of the Judicial Studies Board

  Qualifications

  Committee responsibilities

  Chairman

  The Right Hon. Lord Justice Mustill

  Lord Justice of Appeal

  Members

  268
  The Attorney-General
  The Lord Chancellor intends to bring the Family Law Reform Act 1987, which reforms the law relating to the consequences of birth outside marriage, into force when the necessary resources arc available. Bringing part II of the Act (Rights and Duties of Parents etc.) into force will require considerable expenditure in terms of staff and legal aid, for which resources will not be available until after 1988. Other plans and priorities will determine when resources can be made available thereafter, but the Lord Chancellor will keep the matter under close review.

  The Lord Chancellor hopes to bring the rest of the Act, which does not involve the expenditure of significant resources, into force by early 1988.

  Marconi
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  asked the Attorney-General whether he will make a statement as to the progress of the inquiry into Marconi.

  The Attorney-General
  Inquiries by the Ministry of Defence into allegations of fraud in connection with Ministry of Defence contracts with Marconi have been in progress since March 1987. The investigating officers have recently sought and received advice from the Crown Prosecution Service fraud investigation group, and the inquiries are expected to continue for some months under the direction of the fraud investigation group.

  Judicial Studies Board
  Ms. Richardson
  asked the Attorney-General whether he will (a) list the members of the Judicial Studies Board, (b) state the criteria for selection of members, (c) list the relevant qualifications of present members, (d) indicate the number of Trades Union Congress-nominated places, and (e) indicate how many Trades Union Congress-nominated places are held by women.

  The Attorney-General
  The information requested is as follows:

  (a) Present members of the Judicial Studies Board are shown in the list.

  (b) There are no formal criteria hut, because of the nature of its work, membership of the board and its committees mainly comprises judges and judicial officers with relevant experience. Membership also includes academics, civil servants from the Home Office and Lord Chancellor's Department and, in the case of the magisterial committee, representatives from bodies involved in the provision of magistrates training.

  (c) Relevant qualifications are set out in the list.

  (d) None.

  (e) None.

  269

  Qualifications

  Committee responsibilities

  The Hon. Mrs. Justice Butler-Sloss, DBE

  High Court Judge (Family Division)

  Co-Chairman of Civil and Family Committee

  The Hon. Mr. Justice Hutchison

  High Court Judge (Queen's Bench Division)

  Co-Chairman of Civil and Family Committee

  The Hon. Mr. Justice Ognall

  High Court Judge (Queen's Bench Division)

  Chairman, Criminal Committee

  His Honour Judge Sir David West-Russell

  Circuit Judge and President of the Industrial Tribunals (England and Wales)

  Chairman, Tribunals Committee

  His Honour Judge White

  Circuit Judge

  Member of Civil and Family Committee

  His Honour Judge Dyer

  Circuit Judge

  Member of Criminal Committee

  His Honour Judge Stuart-White

  Circuit Judge

  Chairman, Magisterial Committee

  Mr. Igor Judge QC

  Barrister and a Recorder

  Member of Civil and Family Committee

  Mr. G. A. Ensor

  Solicitor and a Recorder

  Member of Criminal Committee

  Mrs. R. E. R. Thomson, JP

  Magistrate and Chairman of Training Committee of the Magistrates' Association

  Member of Magisterial Committee

  Mr. W. J. Bohan

  Civil Servant, Home Office (Criminal Policy Department)

  Member of Criminal Committee

  Mr. B. Cooke, JP

  Civil Servant, Lord Chancellor's Department (Head of Judicial Appointments Group) and Secretary of Commissions

  Member of Magisterial Committee

  Dr. D. Thomas (Studies Consultant)

  Senior Lecturer in Law, Fellow of Trinity Hall, Institute of Criminology, University of Cambridge

  Additional Members of Committees

  Qualifications

  Criminal Committee

  His Honour Judge Lawrence

  Circuit Judge

  Master D. R. Thompson, CB, QC.

  Registrar of Criminal Appeals

  Mr. R. Stoate

  Civil Servant, Lord Chancellor's Department (Judicial Appointments Group)

  Civil and Family Committee

  Mr. Registrar M. G. Hawthorne

  County Court and District Registrar

  Mr. Registrar G. N. A. Angel

  Registrar, Family Division

  Professor S. M. Cretney

  Dean of the Faculty of Law, University of Bristol

  Mr. J. R. A. Hanratty

  Civil Servant, Lord Chancellor's Department (Judicial Appointments Group)

  Magisterial Committee

  Mr. P. G. N. Badge

  Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate and a Recorder

  Mrs. A. Tasker, JP

  Magistrate and Chairman of the Central Council of Magistrates' Courts Committees

  Mr. D. H. Kidner, OBE

  Justices' Clerk

  Mr. R. E. Nottridge

  Justices' Clerk and member of the Standing Conference of Training Officers

  Mr. G. Norman, JP

  Civil Servant (Lord Chancellor's Training Officer for Magistrates)

  270

  Qualifications

  Mr. G. K. Sandiford

  Civil Servant, Home Office (Criminal Policy Department)

  NB Members of the tribunals committee have not yet been appointed.

ENVIRONMENT

  Royal Herbert Hospital, Woolwich
  Mr. Cartwright
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when the Royal Herbert hospital buildings at Woolwich were acquired by the South-East Thames regional health authority from the Property Services Agency; at what cost; and for what purpose.

  Mr. Chope
  The Royal Herbert hospital buildings at Woolwich were transferred, without payment, to the South-East Thames regional health authority in March 1981. The authority planned to use part of the site as a residential centre for the mentally handicapped and severely disturbed and to dispose of surplus land not required for this purpose. I understand that another location was subsequently chosen for the residential centre and that the site has remained unused. The authority plans to dispose of it and is investigating the planning position prior to a sale on the open market.

  Water Meters
  Ms. Primarolo
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if the charge for the installation of the compulsory water meter is to be passed on by the proposed privatised water authorities to the customer; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The Public Utility Transfers and Water Charges Bill which has now received its Second Reading stipulates that the undertaker will bear all the costs arising
  271
  out of the installation of a meter and any associated equipment if it is installed at the request of the water undertaker.

  Peregrine Falcons
  Mr. Ron Davies
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he envisages any change in his policy of granting licences for the taking of wild peregrine falcons; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Yes. The Government intend to follow the advice given by the Nature Conservancy Council that, save in exceptional circumstances, licences will not be given for taking wild peregrine falcons after 1988.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many licences for taking wild peregrine falcons have been issued in 1985, 1986 and 1987 to date.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The number of licences issued by the Department and the Scottish Office for taking wild peregrine falcons was:

  1985

  1986

  1987

  England and Wales

  2

  2

  1

  Scotland

  3

  2

  8

  These 18 licences resulted in 12 birds being taken.

  Falconry (Quarry Licences)
  Mr. Ron Davies
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many quarry licences for falconry were issued in 1985, 1986 and 1987 to date; and what quarry species were involved.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The number of quarry licences issued for falconry was:

  1985

  1986

  1987

  England and Wales

  68

  72

  59

  The quarry species involved have been blackbird, skylark, meadow pipit, lapwing, song thrush, black-headed gull, moorhen, fieldfare, redwing. I understand that the details in Scotland are:

  1985

  1986

  1987

  Scotland

  3

  3

  5

  involving song thrush, blackbird, skylark, and meadow pipit.

  County Hall, London
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will estimate the value of county hall, London; and if he will make a statement as to its future use.

  Mr. Chope
  It is not possible to give a precise estimate to the value of the county hall complex in advance of the results of the marketing exercise which the LRB is conducting. The future use of the buildings will be for the new owners to determine, subject to the appropriate planning and listed building consents. My right hon. Friend, granted permission on 20 October for the change of use of the county hall complex to offices. He also indicated that hotel use of the main block could be appropriate in the event of a satisfactory resolution of 272
  listed building considerations. Copies of the decision letter and of the inspector's report on the planning appeals have been deposited in the Library.

  Empty Properties
  Mr. Thurnham
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what current estimates he has for the numbers of publicly-owned empty properties.

  Mrs. Roe
  The latest estimates derived from local authorities' annual housing investment programme returns for 1987 are as follows:

  Vacant dwellings at 1 April 1987—England

  Thousands

  Owned by:

  Local housing authorities1

  112

  Other public sector bodies2

  15

  Total publicly-owned

  127

  1 Includes overspill estates.

  2 Includes housing owned by new towns, county councils (for example, police houses). Government departments and nationalised industries and other public bodies. Many of these dwellings are vacant because of operational requirements, notably those owned by the Ministry of Defence, and others have been acquired for demolition, for example, by the Department of Transport. The Government are encouraging the sale of housing which is not required and many of those that are vacant are in the process of disposal.

  Mr. Amess
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many council houses have been empty for six months or more during the last five years.

  Mrs. Roe
  This information, which local authorities were asked to provide for the first time in their 1987 housing investment programme returns, is not yet available.

  Telford Development Corporation
  Mr. Grocott
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the names of the members of the Telford development corporation, together with the period of office that each one has served and the date when their term of office expires.

  Mrs. Roe
  The names of the board members of the Telford development corporation, together with the periods of office that each one has served and the dates of expiry of their appointments, are as follows:

  Appointment

  Service at 1 October 1987

  Present Term Expires

  Chairman

  Lord Northfield

  12 years 5 months

  31 October 1987

  Deputy Chairman

  F. J. Jones

  10 months

  30 November 1990

  Members

  P. Court

  3 years 5 months

  31 July 1988

  Councillor M. J. Davies

  10 years 11 months

  16 January 1989

  Dr. I. F. Gibson

  12 years 9 months

  Non-finite appointment

  R. Hall

  7 years 9 months

  31 May 1988

  Sir Fred Hardman

  7 years 8 months

  30 April 1988

  273

  Appointment

  Service at 1 October 1987

  Present Term Expires

  Councillor L. Holbrook

  12 years 9 months

  16 January 1989

  Mrs. E. J. Holt

  12 years 5 months

  Non-finite appointment

  Councillor R. A. H. Lloyd

  10 years 11 months

  16 January 1989

  R. A. H. Thomas

  2 years 8 months

  30 April 1989

  P. M. Vine

  12 years 5 months

  16 January 1989

  I announced on 22 October that Mr. Jones was to succeed Lord Northfield as chairman on 1 November, when Mrs. Holt would become the new deputy chairman. Mr. R. A. Gammie joins the board on that day.

  Pollution
  Mr. Cohen
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he proposes to restrict the use of chlorofluorocarbons; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  On 16 September the United Kingdom, together with the European Community, most member states and some 16 other countries, signed the Montreal protocol on substances that deplete the ozone layer. This provides for consumption of chlorofluorocarbons to be halved by the end of the century and for the halons to be held at the 1986 levels. This is a major environmental agreement in the negotiation of which the United Kingdom played a full part.

  Public Inquiries (Costs)
  Mr. Cash
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will introduce legislation for the payment to objectors at public inquiries of their reasonable costs on the issue of a certificate that the issues in question raise matters of sufficient public interest, such costs to be mandatory when an objector produces an acceptable alternative to the acquiring authority.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Successful statutory objectors at inquiries into compulsory purchase and analogous orders are normally awarded their costs, as explained in DOE circular 2/87 issued on 17 February. Otherwise, the Government remain unconvinced of the case for public funding of objectors, for the reasons set out in paragraphs 63–65 of its response to the fifth report from the Environment Committee, Session 1985–86.

  Endangered Species
  Mr. Cohen
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will estimate the extent of illegal trading in endangered wild animals in (a) Britain and (b) the European Community; and what proposals Her Majesty's Government have to curtail this activity.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The Department cannot estimate the extent of illegal trading in endangered wild animals. The European Commission has undertaken a review of the implementation of CITES throughout the Community. A report is expected in the new year; any further measures thought necessary to curtail illegal trading will be considered in the light of that report.

  Yorkshire Water Authority
  Mr. Hardy
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment on how many occasions the Yorkshire water
  274
  authority has applied for a change in consent limits in regard to the effluent from one of its works; and on how many occasions such consent has been refused.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The Department's records of sewage discharge consents do not readily distinguish between limits for new discharges and changes in the limits for existing discharges: the information is available in the register maintained by the water authority.

  The Department has granted about 500 consents to the Yorkshire water authority since the present arrangements came into effect in January 1985. No applications have been refused outright, but not all applications are granted in their initial form.

  Mr. Hardy
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what proportion of Yorkshire water authority sewage treatment works in South Yorkshire produces discharges which exceed the required consent limits in more than 5 per cent. of the samples taken; and what action is being taken to reduce pollution from sewage works.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The information requested is not available in this form. Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution is conducting inquiries with all water authorities to determine the reasons for the non-compliance of sewage treatment works.

  River Pollution
  Mr. Hardy
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the proportion of fish deaths caused by sewage pollution in South Yorkshire rivers; and on how many occasions prosecutions were undertaken.

  Mr. Moynihan
  In the past 12 months, five out of 18 fish kills in South Yorkshire rivers were attributable to sewage pollution. Several hundred coarse fish died in the five incidents. Of the five incidents, three led to formal inquiries by the water authority into the operating practices at the sewage works that caused the pollution. Remedial actions have been implemented in all five instances. No prosecutions have been undertaken.

  Mr. Hardy
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects the Rivers Don, Rother and Dearne to be clean enough to support fish; and what plans the Yorkshire water authority has to restock these rivers.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The Yorkshire water authority is working towards improvements in the quality of three rivers so that by the year 2001 they should all be capable of supporting good coarse fisheries. Some stretches should be supporting fisheries well before then. The water authority has no current plans for restocking these rivers.

  Structure Plans
  Mr. Adley
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will (a) list the dates on which the current structure plans for each non-metropolitan county in England were approved by his Department, (b) tabulate the period of time for which each county structure plan is relevant, (c) indicate the number of new houses proposed to be built during the lifetime of the plan and (d) indicate the levels of housing for each county already reached at the latest available date.
  275
  Mr. Waldegrave
  Information on housing provision in structure plans, as at 31 March 1987, will be contained in a paper to be published shortly by my Department. I shall arrange for a copy to be sent to my hon. Friend as soon as it is available.

  District Valuer
  Mr. Stern
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to encourage local authorities to privatise the offices of district valuer or city valuer.

  Mr. Chope
  I hope that in all their activities local authorities will consider the possibility of achieving better value for money by using private firms as an alternative to direct employment by staff. But we have no plans at present to make authorities expose their valuation services to competition.

  Land Use
  Mr. Thurnham
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what consideration he is giving to the establishment of a national land use survey with a view to setting up a land use register; what survey methods he is evaluating; and what priority he proposes to give to designation of land suitable for new housing in inner cities.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave him yesterday.

  Planning Applications
  Mr. Macfarlane
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many article 10 notices his Department has issued in (a) 1986 and (b) 1987; and if he will list them.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Article 10 of the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1977 empowers me to issue directions restricting the grant of planning permission by a local planning authority in any particular case. The power is most often used to give time to consider whether to direct under section 35 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 that a particular application be referred to me for decision. A total of 135 Article 10 directions were issued in 1986, and a further 59 up to the end of June 1987. Detailed information on the cases concerned is not held centrally.

  Agricultural Derating
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the scope of agricultural derating; and whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government that derating should apply to buildings used to store EEC intervention stocks.

  Mr. Chope
  Agricultural derating is limited to land and buildings used solely in connection with agricultural operations. We have no plans to change that position. Buildings used to store intervention board produce, including farm buildings, do not qualify for relief and are liable to be assessed for rates under normal valuation procedures.

  Town and Country Planning
  Mr. Michael Brown
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what are his proposals for amending the
  276
  Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisement) Regulations 1984, in the light of the response to his Department's consultation paper issued last July.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Comments on the consultation paper were received from 33 representative organisations and a considerable number of individual firms with an interest in the Government's proposals. These comments have been thoroughly considered and I am arranging for a copy of the submissions to be placed in the Library of the House where the originators have given their consent.

  Many of the Government's proposals concerned administrative provisions to improve and simplify the practical operation of the present advertisement control regime and were generally welcomed. I propose to introduce these provisions into the Control of Advertisements Regulations in due course.

  Most interest centred on proposals for granting deemed consent for five additional categories of outdoor advertisements and for stricter limits on the deemed consent for the display of boards advertising the sale or letting of residential property.

  I intend to lay before Parliament as soon as possible regulations, under section 63 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, to amend the Control of Advertisements Regulations on the following lines:

  (1) to grant deemed consent for—

  (a) the illumination of temporary poster hoardings around construction sites, while building operations take place;

  (b) the display of four-sheet poster panels on purpose-designed highway structures;

  (c) the continued display of an advertisement already being displayed on a site on 1 April 1974—replacing the present provisions in regulation 11 of the Control of Advertisements Regulations;

  (d) the display of temporary directional signs, by housebuilding firms, to sites they are developing;

  (e) the display of outdoor signs for properly authorised "Neighbourhood Watch" schemes; and

  (2) to limit the display with deemed consent of estate agents' boards for residential property sales or lettings—class III(a) in regulation 14 of the Control of Advertisements Regulations—so that—

  (a) the maximum permitted area of any board is restricted to 0·5 sq. m.—approximately 2 ft. 3 ins. by 2 ft. 3 ins., and 0·6 sq. m. for conjoined boards;

  (b) only one board may be displayed with deemed consent on each property for sale or letting; and

  (c) any board displayed with deemed consent is not allowed to remain on display after the date of legal commitment to the sale or letting to which the board relates.

  I propose that the amending provisions for the display of estate agents' boards with deemed consent should come into effect one year from today, in order to give those concerned time to make arrangements for the change.

  I am satisfied that, taken together, these amending provisions will result in a worthwhile simplification and reduction in the scope of outdoor advertisement control, while at the same time satisfactory safeguards to amenity and public safety will be maintained.

  Additionally, the Department and the Welsh Office will be issuing shortly a consultation paper about the possible display of specified types of illuminated advertisement with deemed consent. Comments will be welcome.

  Compulsory Purchase of Land Regulations 1982
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has to amend the Compulsory Purchase of Land Regulations 1982.

  Mrs. Roe
  The Department wrote on 24 September to the local authority associations and others inviting comments on the drafts of regulations to replace those of 1982. The revisions are needed to implement section 43 of the Housing and Planning Act 1986 — compulsory acquisition of land on behalf of parish or community councils—and to correct various errors and omissions. I have placed a copy of the consultation letter in the library.

  No-Fines Dwellings (Walsall)
  Mr. Winnick
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when his Department was first notified of the conditions of the Wimpey No-Fines dwellings in the Blakenall area of Walsall; and whether those conditions exist in such properties in other boroughs.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [pursuant to his reply, 21 October 1987, c. 830]: Walsall metropolitan borough council informed the Department in August 1984 of an income support scheme that it had initiated for tenants of Wimpey No-Fines houses with high heating costs. But it was not until 22 July 1987 that a deputation of residents from the Blakenall estate, led by the hon. Member for Walsall North, (Mr. Winnick) complained about the condition of their Wimpey No-Fines houses

  These conditions are not unique to the Wimpey No-Fines houses in Walsall, although they do not appear to be particularly severe on the Blakenall estate. By today's standards, many Wimpey No-Fines houses are inadequatley insulated and inefficiently heated, and poor maintenance of the external render, windows and doors can allow water penetration into the walls, thus increasing the problems of internal damp and condensation. Many other houses of traditional construction suffer from similar defects, but whereas building professionals arc generally familiar with both these problems and their remedies in traditional houses, this is not so for houses of non-traditional construction.

  The Building Research Establishment—BRE—has under way a number of research programmes aimed at providing owners of non-traditional houses, and their professional advisers, with accurate information on their forms of construction, and authoritative advice on good practice in their inspection, assessment, repair, maintenance and improvement. Over the next year the BRE plans to extend its work to houses made of poured—"in situ"—concrete, including Wimpey No-Fines. Officials from my Department have already suggested including the Blakenall estate in this programme, if an empty house can be made available for survey by Walsall MBC.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Rooker
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the source of the reference to Japanese inhabitants in the discussion of overseas local government taxes in the Green Paper "Paying For Local Government" (Cmnd. 9714).

  Mr. Howard
  The source, which is given in a footnote to figure K1 in the Green Paper, is "Local Public Finance in Japan", Jichi Sogo Centre, Tokyo, 1982.
  278
  Mr. Rooker
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how users of non-commercial night shelters will be assessed for poll tax purposes.

  Mr. Howard
  Community charges registration officers will be able to designate properties with a rapid turnover of residents for the collective community charge. The landlord of a designated property will be liable for the charge and will recover a contribution from each adult who stays in the property.

  Mr. Rooker
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimates he has made of the extra postage cost to local authorities of sending out monthly poll tax demands compared with domestic rate demands.

  Mr. Howard
  Community charge demands will, like rate bills, be sent out at the beginning of the year or when a person becomes liable to pay.

  Mr. Patnick
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will be taking powers to carry the present system of rate capping through the proposed new system of local government finance, in order to discourage councils from levying excessive community charges.

  Mr. Howard
  The main incentive for local authorities to restrain their spending under the new system will be the greater accountability to the local electorate which the community charge will establish. My right hon. Friend believes that it would be proper, however, to retain some form of safeguard against the possibility of a few reckless authorities having no regard to the consequences and seeking to levy an excessive charge to pay for high spending. The legislation that the Government are bringing forward this Session will therefore contain provisions for an authority's charge to be reduced, subject to affirmative resolution of the House, if my right hon. Friend determines that it is excessively high or represents an excessive increase over the previous year. The scheme will operate within the same financial year, so that charges which first fall for payment in April will, if they are found to be excessive, he reduced during the summer. Charge payers will either receive a refund or will have their payments for the rest of the year appropriately scaled down to achieve the same effect.

TRANSPORT

  Civil Engineers
  Mr. Thurnham
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will reconsider his plans to alter the role of the civil engineer in carrying out construction contracts, in view of the opposition of the professional bodies concerned; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  No. In his reply of 23 July 1987 to my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), my right hon. Friend made it clear that he had carefully considered the views of all concerned before reaching his decision to introduce the new arrangements on a trial basis. There will be further consultation on the details of these arrangements before they are introduced next year.

  M66
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he has now received the report of the

  279
  inspector for the public inquiry into the route of the M66 of Denton to Middleton; and when he will announce his decision.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Yes. The report raises complex issues which we will have to determine. I shall make a further announcement as soon as possible.

  Seat Belts
  Sir John Farr
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will introduce legislation as soon as possible to require private contractors to fit rear seat restraints when transporting children.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Seat belts or child restraints are required in the rear of all new cars and taxis first registered after 1 April 1987. I have no plans to extend these requirements to older vehicles. It is up to those negotiating contracts to consider whether restraints should be provided as a condition of the contract.

  We strongly encourage the fitting and use of appropriate rear restraints in cars and for exposed seats in coaches.

  Cabotage
  Mr. Ron Brown
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he has received recent representation from trades unions about the introduction of cabotage in 1992; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  On two occasions in the last six months my right hon. Friend has received written representations on road haulage cabotage from members of the Transport and General Workers Union. I met a deputation from the union on 22 October.

  My right hon. Friend reiterated the Government's policy on road haulage cabotage in his speech to the Freight Transport Association on 14 September. We are aiming for a European Community in which United Kingdom hauliers can trade as freely as they now trade within the United Kingdom. To achieve this we must ensure that the conditions of competition under which hauliers operate are brought much closer together. Internal restrictions on road freight and compulsory tariff regimes are incompatible with a truly liberalised system. This policy was endorsed in a debate in the Standing Committee on EC documents on 18 March.

  M5
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport what is the estimated cost of the present widening scheme for the M5 south of Birmingham.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The estimated cost of the present widening works on the M5 between junction 5 (Rashwood) and junction 6 (Warndon) is £19·1 million. Works costing £700,000 are also in progress between junction 4 (Lydiate Ash) and junction 4A (Catshill) in preparation for widening that length starting next year.

  M40
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport what is his estimate of the additional cost of providing three-lane capacity on that section of the M40
  280
  for which he is currently proposing two lanes; and what this represents as a percentage of the total cost of the proposal for this section.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The estimated cost of the published proposals for the dual two-lane Waterstock to Wendlebury section of the M40 is £57·5 million. This includes provision for earthworks and structures to accommodate a dual three-lane motorway when traffic justifies it. It would cost an additional £4 million—7 per cent. of the cost — to provide the third lanes at the outset.

  A49
  Mr. Goodlad
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects work to commence on the A49 trunk road improvement at the junction with A533, Barrington Cross roads; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Next year. We have asked our agents, Cheshire county council, to complete the design of a traffic signal control system. The options which we have been considering since I wrote to my hon. Friend in July proved to be less satisfactory than signals which can be installed at a significantly lower cost than was then thought.

  Roads
  Mr. Cohen
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport which principal local roads in Leyton will require strengthening within the next 10 years.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Local roads in Leyton are the responsibility of the London borough of Waltham Forest.

  Mr. Cohen
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport how much money was allocated to local authorities to tackle disrepair on local roads in each year for the last eight years.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Public expenditure provision for local highway maintenance since 1979–80 has been as follows:

  Year

  £m

  1979–80

  591

  1980–81

  708

  1981–82

  710

  1982–83

  799

  1983–84

  844

  1984–85

  902

  1985–86

  972

  1986–87

  1,115

  1987–88

  1,264

  Mr. Cohen
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether his Department provided additional funding for the A1(M) tunnel construction at Hatfield in excess of the cost for a normal road in cutting, and as a contribution to the annual running costs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The tunnel scheme, selected following public consultation, was more expensive than the open cut option also put to the public and there are greater maintenance costs. Both options offered a good economic return but the tunnel scheme had environmental advantages and provided potential for redeveloping a wide area over and on both sides of the new road.

  At the request of the local authorities, the original tunnelled section was lengthened and the design

  281
  strengthened to accommodate the redevelopment. The authorities contributed towards the extra costs involved. The Department has also recovered some of the scheme costs through disposal of land, or legal interests in land, on and adjacent to the tunnel lid.

  Sleeper Services
  Mr. Kirkwood
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will review the powers available to British Rail which enable it to withdraw sleeper services from the east coast route without ministerial authority.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  No. My right hon. Friend's consent is required where there are objections to any proposals from BR for the withdrawal of all passenger services from a particular line or station. But whether or not to provide sleeper services is properly a commercial matter for British Rail.

  Parking
  Mr. Warren
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will review with the appropriate authorities whether to keep main routes into and out of London free of parked vehicles; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Parking control and enforcement is one of the options being considered in the second stage of the London assessment studies announced in July. The assessment studies cover four areas of London with particularly severe transport problems and are intended to identify practical options for tackling them within a reasonable time scale.

  Buses
  Mr. Warren
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will review with the appropriate authorities the value of the bus lane system in London; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We expect London boroughs to accord priority to public transport vehicles when this is justified on overall economic grounds. Bus lanes in London have been the subject of recent studies. We are consulting the appropriate authorities on new advice on the design and assessment of bus lanes.

  Mr. Cohen
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport what action he proposes to take to ensure that London Buses Limited installs a taut wire strip system on the doors of its one-person operated buses to ensure passengers do not get their limbs trapped; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The Department is looking into ways of improving the safety of bus doors. I shall write to the hon. Member when we have further information.

  Transport Policies and Programmes
  Mr. Robert Hughes
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will place copies of the transport policies and programmes for 1986–87 and 1987–88 of every local authority in the Library.

  Mr. Channon
  Transport policies and programmes are prepared and issued by local highway authorities. Their distribution is a matter for the individual authorities.

  Motorway Accidents (Lorries)
  Mr. Cartwright
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received about the involvement of heavy lorries in motorway accidents; what consideration he has given to the matter and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We receive many representations about motorway safety, particularly about the standard of driving on motorways. Serious accidents on the M4 and M6 in September resulted in a number of suggestions from road users, 'some of which we will consider alongside detailed police reports. Motorways remain our safest roads. The involvement rate of heavy goods vehicles in motorway accidents has decreased since 1981.

  Air Traffic Controllers (Suspensions)
  Ms. Quin
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport how many air traffic controllers have been suspended following mid-air incidents between jets in the London area air space.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The suspension of air traffic controllers following air misses in the London flight information region is a matter for the Civil Aviation Authority.

  Aircraft Safety
  Dr. Godman
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if his Department has held recent discussions with the Civil Aviation Authority and commercial airlines regarding the carriage of self-righting life rafts; and if he will make statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  No. Civil aviation safety regulation is wholly the responsibility of the Civil Aviation Authority, which has the necessary technical competence in these matters. I will draw the attention of the chairman of the authority to the hon. Member's inquiry.

  Herald of Free Enterprise
  Mr. Home Robertson
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the occasions on which officials of his Department inspected the Herald of Free Enterprise ferry vessel and/or issued certificates covering its use as a passenger ferry during the last five years; and if any recommendations were made, or requirements imposed, concerning equipment or procedures associated with the bow doors.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  The Herald of Free Enterprise was surveyed and certificated by officials from my Department as follows:

  Date

  Place

  Passenger and safety certificate

  February 1982

  Amsterdam

  Renewed

  February 1983

  Bremerhaven

  Renewed

  January 1984

  Dover

  Extended

  March 1984

  Newcastle

  Renewed

  February 1985

  Newcastle

  Renewed

  February 1986

  Newcastle

  Renewed

  February 1987

  Dover

  Extended

  Several visits to the ship were made in connection with each renewal of the passenger and safety certificate to survey the ship and her equipment. Each renewal survey

  283
  included examination and testing of the bow doors and their operation. Normal maintenance work, such as renewal of the sealing, was required, after which the doors were again tested. As to procedures, the approved stability booklet contained a specific statement that the bow doors should be closed before the vessel proceded to sea.

EMPLOYMENT

  Co-operatives
  Mr. D. E. Thomas
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment when he next expects to meet trade union representatives to discuss action to encourage the development of co-operative enterprises.

  Mr. Cope
  We have had no requests from trade union representatives to meet to discuss co-operatives. Although I would be very ready to consider any requests for such meetings, I would recommend that discussions are first held with the national Co-operative Development Agency.

  Industrial Training Boards
  Ms. Richardson
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will list (a) the members of the

  Industry Training Board Membership

  Industry Training Board

  Employer Members

  Employee Members

  Educationalists

  Clothing and Allied Products

  Chairman:

  Mr. M. Berwin

  Mr. G. Bowen

  Mr. A. Mauchan

  Mr. T. Edge

  Mr. R. J. Bright

  Mr. F. Dickinson

  Mr. W. P. Bohm

  Mr. G. Edward

  Mr. T. Evans

  Mrs. E. Ellison

  Mr. P. Garland

  Mr. A. J. Hawkins

  Mr. R. C. Pearson

  Mr. J. R. Harwood

  Mr. H. North

  Mr. P. Williams

  Mr. J. D. Jackson

  Mrs. A. Spencer

  Mr. R. A. Wheeler

  Mr. C. N. Tindley

  Construction

  Chairman:

  Mr. R. A. Duncan

  Mr. G. Brumwell

  Mr. J. A. Carter

  Mr. D. Gaulter

  Mr. N. A. Dyer

  Mr. E. Clayton

  Mr. B. D. Cheshire

  Mr. G. M. Fordy

  Mr. D. Crawford

  Mr. D. Coatesworth

  Deputy Chairman:

  Mr. W. S. Hilton

  Mr. T. Dunn

  Mr. R. D. McMurray

  Mr. T. Clements

  Mr. L. G. Kay

  Mr. G. P. Henderson

  Mr. G. B. Smith

  Mr. H. Kronheim

  Mr. C. Kelly

  Mr. R. F. Wills

  Mr. S. H. Moon

  Mr. C. Lovell

  Mr. N. J. Wright

  Mr. R. R. Prettie

  Mrs. T. Prosser

  Mr. W. J. Stewart

  Mr. A. Scott

  Mr. J. Stevenson

  Mr. K. Sneddon

  Mr. D. G. Stradling

  Mr. A. Williams

  1 vacancy

  Mr. W. Young

  Engineering

  Chairman:

  Mr. G. J. Armstrong

  Mr. P. Burns

  Professor W. A. Gambling

  Mr. H. A. Whittall

  Mr. L. Ashworth

  Mr. A. B. Davies

  Mr. A. Cass

  Mr. P. M. Ball

  Mr. G. Eastwood

  Mr. R. J. Hartles

  Mr. R. T. N. Bowen

  Mr. A. Ferry

  Mr. W. E. Buckley

  Mr. A. E. Dodd

  Mr. F. Howell

  Mr. J. Murray

  Mr. H. Metcalfe

  Mr. W. Jordan

  Mr. G. A. Peers

  Mr. F. Miller

  Mr. P. J. Roots

  Mr. J. Tuckfield

  Mr. D. Smith

  Mrs. P. Turner

  Hotel and Catering

  Chairman:

  Mr. I. Bell

  Mr. C. Cook

  Mr. R. C. Cunningham

  Mr. J. Travers Clarke

  Mr. R. Dickson

  Mr. S. Erden

  Miss B. Hughes

  Mr. K. M. Forbes

  Mr. V. Hince

  Mr. J. O'Connor

  Mr. E. Franks

  Mr. E. P. Newall

  Mrs. M. C. Pevec

  Mr. D. Hearn

  Mr. W. Nortcliffe

  Mr. D. Trewortha

  Mr. N. Inkster

  Mr. J. L. Richardson

  Mr. M. J. Kettell

  Mr. T. Sullivan

  Mr. I. Petrie

  1 vacancy

  284
  industrial training boards, (b) the criteria for selection of members, (c) the relevant qualifications of present members, (d) the number of Trades Union Congress-nominated places and (e) how many Trades Union Congress-nominated places are held by women.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The table gives details of members of the seven industrial training boards. Employer and employee representatives are appointed by the Secretary of State for Employment after consultation with appropriate employer and employee organisations. Educationalists are appointed by the Secretary of State for Employment after consultation with Ministers concerned with education in England, Scotland and Wales. No specific qualifications are required for appointment, so details of members' qualifications are not held centrally. Of the 51 places for employee members, only the seven on the hotel and catering board are filled after consultation with the Trade Union Congress; the other employee members are appointed after consultation with organisations representing employees in the relevant industry. Three employee members are women.
  285

  Industry Training Board

  Employer Members

  Employee Members

  Educationalists

  Offshore Petroleum

  Chairman:

  Mr. J. T. C. Hay

  Mr. A. Campbell-Reid

  Captain W. R. Hirst

  Mr. P. H. Page

  Mr. G. W. McCullogh

  Mr. W. Duncan

  Professor B. McNaughton

  Mr. J. R. Pearson

  Mr. J. M. Keenan

  Dr. A. Watson

  Mr. A. Armstrong

  1 vacancy

  Plastics Processing

  Chairman:

  Mr. J. Barton

  Mr. J. Bowers

  Dr. J. Brennan

  Mr. J. Eccles

  Mr. E. R. Duffin

  Mr. K. Harper

  Dr. H. T. Taylor

  Mr. W. H. Jones

  Mr. T. Lyle

  1 vacancy

  Mr. D. Williams

  Mr. R. Ward

  Road Transport

  Chairman:

  Mr. D. Gent

  Mr. J. Ashwell

  Mr. L. Smith

  Mr. J. R. Armstrong

  Mr. I. Creek

  Mr. G. Hawley

  Mr. N. D. Lewis

  Mr. J. C. Davidson

  Mr. A. Kitson

  Mr. P. Mitchell

  Mr. J. G. Mellor

  Mr. P. McCoy

  Mr. R. Redwood

  Mr. G. F. Pygall

  Mr. J. Moore

  Mr. J. Pearson

  Mr. K. Rogers

  Mr. M. Murphy

  Mr. L. J. Bassett

  Mr. L. Smith

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Wareing
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he proposes to take to combat discrimination against disabled people in employment in the light of the findings of the London north industrial tribunal in the case of Sarah Bloomfield, case no. 01307/87/LN/A; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Government believe that a voluntary approach through encouragement and persuasion offers the best chance of success in this area. The Government will continue to promote good practice on the employment of people with disabilities through the disablement advisory service. Existing employment legislation offers resource in cases of unfair dismissal including those involving people with disabilities.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Meacher
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment by how much he estimates the monthly fall in the unemployment figures since June 1986 was affected each month by (a) the increase in YTS and other special employment measures, (b) restart or stricter application of the availability for work rules and (c) increased employment from rising industrial output.

  Mr. Fowler
  The effect of employment measures on the unemployment count has hardly grown since June 1986. It is not possible to provide reliable monthly estimates of the effect on the count of YTS, but the trend in the seasonably adjusted series, which excludes school leavers will have been only marginally reduced. The effects of restart or stricter application of the availability for work rules cannot be quantified. It is very difficult to separate their effects from those resulting from rising industrial production.

  Mr. William Powell
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the estimated net change in the United Kingdom labour force for each year between 1988 and 2003.

  Mr. Lee
  My Department's latest projections of the size of the civilian labour force in Great Britain, including figures for each year 1988 to 1991, were published in the 286
  May 1987 issue of "Employment Gazette" (table 2 on pages 256–257), a copy of which is in the library. Projections for years beyond 1991 are not available.

  Restart
  Mr. Meacher
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many persons have been interviewed each month under the restart programme since it started; of these, what percentage each month have entered employment; and what percentage have left the register but not obtained a job.

  Mr. Fowler
  The number of people interviewed under the restart programme is shown in the table. We have no means of knowing what percentage of those interviewed have entered employment or left the register but did not obtain a job. The aim of the restart interview is to help an unemployed person into employment by selecting the best way open to them from a wide range of employment, training and job search opportunities available. Around nine out of 10 of those interviewed are made offers which might lead ultimately to employment and 70 per cent. agree to pursue an offer made to them at their restart interview.

  Numbers of Restart Counselling Interviews

  Number

  June 1986

  51,355

  July

  110,387

  August

  86,329

  September

  98,973

  October

  159,192

  November

  155,262

  December

  106,834

  January 1987

  198,165

  February

  184,531

  March

  126,587

  April

  86,466

  May

  142,382

  June

  180,584

  July

  240,540

  August

  191,852

  September

  182,162

  Mr. Macdonald
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give the total number of claimants in the Western Isles who have had a restart interview in

  287
  each month since the commencement of the scheme, and the percentage of these who have subsequently found full-time work.

  Mr. Lee
  I regret that the information is not available in the format requested. However, figures for the number of people who have received restart interviews in the employment service areas covering the Highlands and Islands, and Renfrew, Dumbarton and Argyll are shown.

  It is not possible to say how many of those people interviewed under the restart scheme ultimately find full-time jobs since we do not follow up every participant.

  Highlands and Islands area

  Number of restart interviews — June 1986–March 1987 = 5,698

  Number of restart interviews — 9 April 1987–25 September 1987 = 4,335

  Renfrew, Dumbarton and Argyll area

  Number of restart interviews — June 1986–March 1986 = 8,557

  Number of restart interviews — 9 April 1987–25 September 1987 = 17,716

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many claimants in Dunfermline, East have been refused benefit following a restart interview in each month since the commencement of the restart scheme.

  Mr. Hood
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give the total number of claimants in the Clydesdale constituency who have been refused benefit following the restart interview in each month since the commencement of the restart scheme.

  Mr. Lee
  Any refusal of benefit subsequent to a restart interview follows not from the interview itself but from the decision of an independent adjudication officer operating under long-standing legal rules adopted by successive Governments.

  Industrial Tribunal Awards
  Mr. William Powell
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment when he proposes to introduce provisions for the payment of interest on industrial tribunal awards.

  Mr. Nicholls
  I have no immediate plans to do so.

  Timesharing (Exhibition)
  Mr. Michael Brown
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment if his Department has considered an application for an exhibition relating to timesharing to be displayed in the Upper Waiting Hall.

  Mr. Lee
  I have accepted an invitation to open an exhibition on timesharing in the Upper Waiting Hall on 16 November.

  Docklands
  Mr. Leighton
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many staff the Manpower Services Commission has dealing with the problems of London's docklands, including training.

  Mr. Cope
  Responsibility for the work of the Manpower Services Commission in the London docklands area is shared between a number of offices which cover a greater area than the docklands boroughs. A precise figure for the number of MSC staff involved with the docklands is therefore not available.
  288
  Mr. Leighton
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment how much money the London Docklands development corporation has spent to date on training for employment.

  Mr. Trippier
  I have been asked to reply.

  The London Docklands development corporation has spent approximately £2,527,000 on training initiatives of benefit to docklands residents.

  Closures
  Mr. Hood
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list all closures which have resulted in 25 or more redundancies in the Clydesdale constituency in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The information requested cannot be provided since details of redundancies confirmed by individual companies are provided to the Manpower Services Commission on in confidence basis.

  Sex Discrimination
  Mr. Greenway
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether the Government are intending to amend section 51 of the Sex Discrimination Act.

  Mr. Cope
  The Government will be bringing forward legislation as soon as parliamentary time permits to amend section 51. It is intended to ensure that discriminatory acts which are required by legislation pre-dating the Sex Discrimination Act will not be lawful except where such actions are compatible with the European Community equal treatment directive.

  The Government are also proposing at the same time to remove from other legislation discriminatory provisions in the employment field which are no longer thought to be justifiable under the directive. This will be achieved either by extension to the other sex or by repeal.

  A consultation document on the detail of these changes will be issued shortly. It will, in addition, include proposals in relation to legislation which restricts the hours arid other conditions of work of young people, some of which also treats male and female young people differently.

  Redundancy Payments
  Mr. Greenway
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he intends to amend the age limits for statutory redundancy payments contained in section 82 of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978.

  Mr. Cope
  As soon as legislative time is available it is proposed to increase the age limit up to which women can receive a statutory redundancy payment from 60 to 65 years to bring their position in line with the provision for men. In future statutory redundancy payments will be paid to both men and women up to the age of 65 or to the normal retirement age for the job where that is below 65 and non-discriminatory. The change will bring the provisions on statutory redundancy payments in line with those on unfair dismissal.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Hawkins
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether any changes will be made to his Department's cash limits or running costs limits for 1987–88.
  289
  Mr. Fowler
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimates, the following changes will be made. The cash limit on class VII, vote 1 employment programmes will be increased by £19,465,000 from £1,394,811,000 to £1,414,276,000 mainly due to increased expenditure of £20 million on the community programme, where take-up is running at a higher level than expected, partly offset by minor switches elsewhere.

  This increase is more than offset by a reduction of £38,275,000 in the cash limit on class VII, vote 5 Manpower Services Commission from £1,988,128,000 to £1,949,853,000. £28 million of this reduction is due to lower than expected initial take-up of the new job training scheme; and superannuation costs will be around £8·5 million lower following the transfer of certain MSC staff to the Department of Employment. The remaining £2 million reduction is due to a lower than anticipated number of entrants to the youth training scheme.

  The cash limit on class VII, vote 4 Health and Safety Commission is increased by £500,000 from £93,735,000 to £94,235,000. Increased expenditure of £1,013,000 to enable the nuclear installations inspectorate to recruit up to their agreed complement of inspectors and to meet other extra running costs not foreseen when Main Estimates were set, is partly offset by extra receipts of £513,000 on this vote. The remaining £500,000 increase in the cash limit is offset by a £450,000 reduction in the cash limit on DHSS administration and miscellaneous services Vote class XV, vote 5 and a £50,000 reduction in the cash limit on the Department of Energy's administration and miscellaneous services vote class VI, vote 3.

  There is a token £1,000 increase in the DE administration cash limit class VII, vote 2. Therefore overall there is a net reduction in DE Group cash limits of £18,309,000. The Department of Employment's running costs limit will be increased by £74,277,000 from £400,098,000 to £474,375,000. This is the net effect of machinery of government changes, and reduced spending on unemployment benefit administration which the Department of Employment operates as agent for the Department of Health and Social Security arising from lower unemployment, part of which is used as an offset to an increase in the HSC's running costs limit.

  The Health and Safety Commission's running costs limit is increased by £1,013,000 from £86,516,000 to £87,529,000. This increase is fully offset by the reduction within the changes to the Department of Employment's running costs limit referred to above and a reduction in the Department of Energy's running costs limit.

  The Manpower Services Commission's running costs limit is reduced by £88,207,000 from £434,750,000 to £346,543,000. This is the result of the transfer to the Department of Employment class VII, vote 2 of certain MSC staff engaged on enterprise and employment functions.

  Consequently the running costs total for the Department of Employment group as a whole is reduced by £12,917,000 from £937,076,000 to £924,159,000.

  Rates
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give the average domestic rates bill in Dunfermline, East for each year since 1978 in (a) cash terms and (b) real terms, showing, in each case, the percentage change between years.
  290
  Mr. Lang
  I have been asked to reply.

  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave on Monday 26 October.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Director General of Telecommunications
  Mr. Maclennan
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he last met the Director General of Telecommunications; and what subjects were discussed.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I expect to meet the Director General shortly and to discuss a number of subjects of current interest.

  Inner Cities
  Mr. Steen
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is his programme for the coming year regarding the rejuvenation of the inner cities.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I am pleased to say the work of our 16 inner city task forces is going ahead well with more than 200 projects supported since the initiative began in February 1986. The private sector is playing a growing part in our efforts.

  Ms. Walley
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the inner cities initiatives.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I am pleased to say the work of our inner city task forces is going ahead well with more than 200 projects supported since the initiative began in February 1986. The private sector is playing a growing part in our efforts.

  Industrial Output
  Mr. Marlow
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the output of British industry as a whole; and how this compares with the level of April 1979.

  Mr. Atkins
  The output of British manufacturing industry is expanding rapidly and the prospects for further growth are excellent. Since the trough of the recession at the beginning of 1981, the output of the manufacturing industries has increased by over 20 per cent. to reach a level of 111·5 in August 1987, based on 1980 equal to 100. This was 0·5 per cent. higher than the level of output in April 1979.

  Car Sales
  Mr. Morley
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what percentage of cars sold on the British market was imported from overseas in the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Atkins
  In 1986 imports accounted for 56 per cent. of the United Kingdom car market. In the first nine months of 1987, the import share has fallen to some 52 per cent.

  Insurance
  Ms. Short
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he proposes to take action to prevent

  291
  insurance companies refusing cover or charging exorbitant rates in inner city areas; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I recognise that the availability of insurance cover can pose difficulties in the inner city. That is why I reached an agreement with the Association of British Insurers and the British Insurance Brokers' Association to help overcome this problem by setting up insurance contact points in inner city areas. I am glad to say that several local authorities have now joined us in these arrangements. We shall be keeping a close eye on their results.

  Consultative Committees
  Mr. Wareing
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans he has to propose changes in the controls exercised by consultative committees over United Kingdom trade with the Soviet Union and other countries.

  Mr. Atkins
  A new Export of Goods (Control) Order will be made shortly.

  Manufacturing Industry
  Mr. Cryer
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the level of manufacturing output at the most recent practicable date compared with 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  Manufacturing output in the three months to August 1987 was I per cent. above the average level for 1979. Since the trough of the recession at the beginning of 1981, manufacturing output has increased by some 20 per cent. and in the three months to August is was nearly 6 per cent. higher than a year earlier. Manufacturing industry is now growing faster than the rest of the economy and the prospects for further growth are most encouraging.

  Mr. Hoyle
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what are his forecasts for investment in manufacturing industry in the current year and for 1988.

  Mr. Atkins
  The latest investment intentions survey carried out by my Department indicates that in 1987 investment in manufacturing industry, including leased assets, will be about 4 per cent. higher than in 1986 with a larger increase expected between 1987 and 1988. Investment in 1986 is estimated at £7·1 billion at 1986 prices.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the ratio of new investment to depreciation in British manufacturing industry for the last available year.

  Mr. Atkins
  In 1986 gross domestic fixed capital formation by United Kingdom manufacturing industry, including leased assets, at current prices was about 102 per cent. of its capital consumption of fixed assets on a national accounts basis and at current prices. There are difficulties in measuring capital consumption as it is a broad brush estimate of the economic lives of fixed assets rather than the lives assumed in business accounts.

  Mr. Pike
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what has been the change in output in percentage terms on a constant value basis in the manufacturing industries from 1979 to date.
  292
  Mr. Atkins
  Manufacturing output in the three months to August 1987 was 1 per cent. above the average level for 1979.

  Regional Aid
  Mr. Hind
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the total of regional development arid selective assistance grants awarded to north-west firms in 1986–87.

  Mr. Atkins
  The value of applications for new regional development grant approved to north-west firms in 1986–87 was £37·9 million and the value of offers of regional selective assistance grants accepted by north-west firms in 1986·87 was £41·6 million. In addition, £82·9 million was paid in 1986–87 to north-west firms in respect of applications received under the old regional development grant scheme.

  Franchise Selling
  Mr. Fraser
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will refer the practice of franchise selling to the Consumer Protection Advisory Committee under the Fair Trading Act 1973.

  Mr. Maude
  No, Sir.

  Outer Cities
  Mr. Janner
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what proposals he has for tackling the problems of the outer cities.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Many of the lessons we are learning from the inner cities initiative are also relevant to urban areas in general. We are reviewing the methods by which various government programmes are targeted on our cities.

  Research and Development
  Mr. Wigley
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the regional distribution of his Department's budget for research and development.

  Mr. Atkins
  A table indicating the breakdown of the regional distribution of the DTI's budget for research and development is available in the Official Report.

  Following is the information:

  DTI support for research and development in regions:

  1 April 1985 to 10 September 1987

  Region

  Offers

  Per cent.

  Assistance £ million

  Per cent.

  East Midlands

  90

  (7·5)

  3·2

  (3·0)

  North-East

  51

  (4·3)

  2·9

  (3·0)

  North-West

  108

  (9·0)

  11·2

  (11·0)

  Scotland

  55

  (4·6)

  2·5

  (2·5)

  South-East

  489

  (41·0)

  49·7

  (49·6)

  South-West

  107

  (9·0)

  9·5

  (9·3)

  Wales

  52

  (4·3)

  2·5

  (2·3)

  West Midlands

  154

  (13·0)

  13·2

  (13·0)

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  85

  (7·0)

  5·4

  (5·4)

  Total

  1,191

  £100·1

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what funds Her Majesty's

  293
  Government are committing to the research programmes recommended by the IT86 committee as a successor to the Alvey programme of research in information technology.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I am considering the recommendations contained in the IT86 report as part of our review of the priorities in the field of research and development for the Department of Trade and Industry.

  Industrial Aid
  Mr. Fallon
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how much industrial support has been given by Her Majesty's Government to the northern region since 1983.

  Mr. Atkins
  The amount of industrial support made available to the northern region by way of regional grant and assistance from my Department since 1983 is £659 million. Industry in the region has also received support directly and indirectly from many other Government programmes.

  Regional Initiatives
  Mr. Cran
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he is prepared to have discussions with the representatives of other regions wishing to emulate the Northern Development Company initiative; and whether his Department will support similar initiatives in the same way.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I should welcome my Department being kept informed of progress in other regions towards the creation of fully representative bodies analagous to the NDC. We would have to consider any requests for support on their merits and in the light of the funds available at the time.

  Privatisation
  Mr. Nellist
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will introduce a comprehensive system of departmental monitoring of privatised concerns.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  No, Sir.

  Inner City Task Forces
  Ms. Armstrong
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what provision he is making to bring local democratic accountability to the inner city task forces.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I am not clear what exactly the hon. Member means by "local democratic accountability". I regard myself as accountable to Parliament for the work of the task forces.

  Domestic Furniture (Flammability)
  Mr. Gregory
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he last held discussions with trade and consumer representatives on flammability of domestic furniture; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  I met representatives of the industry yesterday. I am currently evaluating the very extensive responses, including the views of consumer interests, to our consultation on the proposal to make new Upholstered Furniture (Safety) Regulations on the basis 294
  of a classification and code of practice approach to match resistance, rather than on the basis of direct testing. I shall make a further statement when I have completed my review of this consultation and other matters needing to be taken into account in the new regulations.

  Post Office
  Mr. John Marshall
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what information he has about the performance of the Post Office meeting its delivery targets for first class mail in each quarter since the current method of statistical evaluation was introduced in 1979; if he will introduce legislation to remove the Post Office monopoly; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Butcher
  Since the Post Office introduced its current quality of service monitoring information system in 1980 it has sent the Department copies of the leaflets which it publishes quarterly and makes available at Crown post offices. The leaflets give details of the latest quarterly and annual quality of service performance. As to the Post Office's letter monopoly, I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to my hon. Friend, the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) on 24 July.

  Pension Funds
  Mr. John Marshall
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will take steps to regulate the ability of pension funds to invest in the shares of their parent company; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  I have no present plans to do so.

  Mr. John Marshall
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will introduce legislation to require pension funds to disclose when they deal in the shares of their parent company; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  Under the Occupational Pension Schemes (Disclosure of Information) Regulations 1986, for which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services is responsible, pension schemes are already required to disclose in their annual accounts particulars of any self-investment in excess of 5 per cent. of the total value of the net assets of the scheme. The regulations came into force on 1 November last year. In addition, pension schemes are subject to the normal Companies Act provisions which require the disclosure of an interest equal to or more than 5 per cent. of the relevant share capital of the company concerned.

  Furs (Imports)
  Mr. O'Brien
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will take steps to ban the import of furs from those countries where the use of steel-jawed leg hold traps is still permitted.

  Mr. Atkins
  The import of furs, skins and other products from endangered species of wild animals is already tightly controlled under conservation legislation. Nevertheless, the Government remain most concerned about the continued widespread use of the steel-jawed leg hold trap—which is prohibited in the United Kingdom—to take certain other animals in the wild. Much fur is farmed or caught in more humane ways and a ban on imports of all fur from those countries still permitting the
  295
  use of the trap is likely to be seen as disproportionate and contrary to our Community and international obligations. However, my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade is considering what can be done, although there are serious practical difficulties, which I should not want to minimise.

  Register of Shareholders
  Mr. Cohen
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on her Majesty's Government's proposals in respect of register of shareholders.

  Mr. Maude
  The consultative document "Delivery of Annual Accounts and Returns to the Registrar of Companies", issued in August 1986, raised a number of issues on registers of shareholders. I hope to make a statement in the next few weeks on company law deregulation more generally which will cover our intentions in this area.

  Manufactured Goods
  Mr. Wray
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster which countries in the world are the major importers of British manufactured goods; and how this compares with the situation in 1974 and 1981, respectively.

  Mr. Maude
  In 1986 our top 10 markets for manufactures took 62 per cent. of our exports worth £34 billion. Figures for these and our chief markets in 1974 and 1981 are in the following table:

  United Kingdom exports of manufactured goods1

  Rank and country

  £ million

  1974

  1.United States of America

  1,474

  2.Federal Republic of Germany

  798

  3. Netherlands

  760

  4.France

  757

  Major imports of manufactured goods 1979–1986

  value: £ million

  SITC (R2) division

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  78. Road vehicles

  3,943·2

  3,351·6

  3,408·1

  4,489·6

  5,753·8

  5,957·6

  6,800·6

  7,939·7

  75. Office machines and automatic data processing equipment

  1,330·4

  1,393·4

  1,631·7

  2,121·9

  3,017·5

  4,102·7

  4,510·0

  4,545·1

  77. Electrical machinery, apparatus and appliances nes and electrical parts thereof

  1,410·5

  1,518·5

  1,759·6

  2,179·1

  2,805·8

  3,846·7

  4,276·9

  4,446·4

  89. Miscellaneous manufactured articles nes

  1,551·0

  1,691·3

  2,043·8

  2,224·9

  2,655·5

  3,238·7

  3,420·9

  3,998·9

  65. Textile yarn, fabrics, make·up articles nes and related products

  1,691·1

  1,543·7

  1,761·6

  1,927·6

  2,320·2

  2,705·4

  3,032·0

  3,162·6

  74. General industrial machinery and equipment nes and machine parts

  1,351·6

  1,414·7

  1,394·9

  1,634·4

  1,845·2

  2,249·9

  2,603·9

  2,755·4

  64. Paper, paperboard and articles of paper pulp, of paper or of paperboard

  1,240·3

  1,286·7

  1,536·9

  1,675·1

  1,905·8

  2,280·4

  2,532·0

  2,703·0

  66. Non-metallic mineral manufactures nes

  1,889·4

  1,938·0

  1,443·4

  1,520·3

  2,085·4

  2,269·3

  2,242·6

  2,661·7

  76. Telecommunications and sound recording and reproducing apparatus and equipment

  796·5

  823·6

  1,291·4

  1,586·2

  1,915·9

  1,848·3

  2,130·6

  2,402·3

  84. Articles of apparel and clothing accessories

  1,194·1

  1,230·7

  1,438·4

  1,500·0

  1,601·3

  2,011·7

  2,090·1

  2,386·7

  Major countries from which manufactured goods imported 1979–1986

  value: £ millions

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Federal Republic of Germany

  5,286·9

  5,134·6

  5,314·7

  6,723·3

  8,869·4

  9,978·8

  11,589·3

  13,082·2

  USA

  3,543·8

  4,676·1

  4,634·3

  5,071·5

  5,982·2

  7,718·5

  8,363·6

  7,050·8

  France

  2,997·3

  2,988·4

  3,055·0

  3,372·5

  4,010·7

  4,556·5

  5,099·8

  5,727·1

  Japan

  1,441·2

  1,665·6

  2,154·0

  2,571·6

  3,250·2

  3,650·0

  4,036·4

  4,858·8

  296

  Rank and country

  £ million

  5.Irish Republic

  558

  6.Australia

  550

  7. Belgium/Luxembourg

  551

  8. Sweden

  541

  9.South Africa

  477

  10. Canada

  420

  1981

  1. United States of America

  3,527

  2. Federal Republic of Germany

  3,163

  3. France

  2,460

  4. Netherlands

  1,868

  5. Irish Republic

  1,721

  6. Belgium/Luxembourg

  1,557

  7.Italy

  1,370

  8. Nigeria

  1,293

  9. Switzerland

  1,177

  10. South Africa

  1,111

  1986

  1. United States of America

  8,173

  2. Federal Republic of Germany

  6,369

  3. France

  4,216

  4. Netherlands

  3,132

  5. Belgium/Luxembourg

  3,043

  6. Italy

  2,480

  7. Irish Republic

  2,371

  8. Sweden

  1,461

  9. Switzerland

  1,425

  10. Saudi Arabia

  1,221

  1 Standard International Trade Classification Sections 5 to 8.

  Source: United Kingdom Overseas Trade Statistics.

  Mr. Wray
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what are for each year since 1979, the United Kingdom's major imports of manufactured goods, and what are the 10 most important countries, from which such goods are imported in terms of volume, quantity and cost.

  Mr. Maude
  Information is available only in value terms and is given in the following tables:
  297

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Netherlands

  1,842·6

  1,873·5

  2,058·3

  2,366·4

  2,881·5

  3,415·6

  3,830·5

  4,260·9

  Italy

  1,965·3

  1,839·7

  1,867·8

  2,287·6

  2,735·4

  3,253·4

  3,673·5

  4,068·7

  Belgium/Luxembourg

  1,880·7

  1,891·1

  1,937·0

  2,310·0

  2,470·3

  2,765·1

  3,068·9

  3,401·3

  Switzerland

  1,779·5

  1,820·0

  1,372·6

  1,548·8

  2,097·4

  2,412·3

  2,285·5

  2,881·6

  Sweden

  1,269·8

  1,161·8

  1,170·1

  1,260·9

  1,495·4

  1,802·3

  1,994·5

  2,313·1

  Irish Republic

  872·1

  987·7

  1,031·1

  1,201·1

  1,376·7

  1,569·8

  1,680·2

  1,786·0

  Source Overseas Trade Statistics: Standard International Trade Classification Revision 2, Sections 5 to 8.

  Note: 1986 figures provisional.

  Citizens Advice Bureaux
  Mr. Foulkes
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what grant-in-aid was given to the citizens advice bureau service for (a) recurrent costs and (b) development work in (i) Scotland and (ii) England and Wales in each of the past three financial years; and what are the proposed figures for the coming year.

  Grand-in-aid expenditure by NACAB and SACAB (£1,000s)

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88 (Estimate)

  NACAB

  SACAB

  NACAB

  SACAB

  NACAB

  SACAB

  NACAB

  SACAB

  Recurrent costs

  4,775

  422

  5,452

  460

  5,915

  483

  6,151

  559

  Bureau grants

  1,618

  278

  1,728

  339

  1,800

  356

  1,857

  367

  Total

  6,393

  700

  7,180

  799

  7,715

  839

  8,008

  926

  Mr. Foulkes
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in which parliamentary constituencies in the United Kingdom citizens advice bureau services are not available.

  Mr. Maude
  I understand that there are approximately 100 out of the 650 parliamentary constituencies in the United Kingdom where citizens advice bureau services are not available. The full list of these constituencies is not yet available, but I will write to the hon. Member with this information as soon as possible.

  Lonrho (Accounts)
  Mr. Tim Smith
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what assurances Lonrho plc has given him concerning its accounts for future years.

  Mr. Maude
  Lonrho has told the Department that the company's future accounts will set out the basis and dates of valuations of its fixed asset investments and the names and qualifications of the valuers.

  British Home Stores (Bids)
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will refer to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission the current bids for British Home Stores plc; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  The proposed acquisition by Benlox Holdings plc for Storehouse plc is being considered by the Director General of Fair Trading. My right hon. and noble Friend will make his decision whether to refer the proposed acquisition to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission in the light of the Director General's advice.
  298
  Mr. Maude
  The table shows the total amount of grant-in-aid given by the Department to the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux and to the Scottish Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux respectively for each of the last three years, with the amounts actually spent on recurrent costs and on grants to individual bureau by each association. An estimate is also given for the current financial year. Corresponding figures for the coming year are not yet available.

  Professional Liability
  Mr. Key
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what representations he has received in the past year on the subject of professional liability; and if he will set up an independent inquiry with a view to legislating in this area.

  Mr. Maude
  Representations have been received from hon. Members and from bodies representing a number of professions including accountants, lawyers, surveyors, architects, patent agents, consulting engineers, town planners and consultants. The subject has also been debated in another place.

  In the light of these representations, we have decided to commission a series of fact-finding studies into selected professions to establish the nature, scope, extent and implications of the liability problems they face. The studies will look at three groups of professions — auditors; architects — consulting engineers — construction surveyors; and other surveyors; and will be undertaken by independent study teams with standard terms of reference, copies of which have been placed in the Library. Membership of the study teams will be announced in due course.

  Investor Protection
  Mr. Warren
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will institute an inquiry into the implication for investor protection of the effect on the ending of on-floor trading on the recent pattern of dealings and price movements on the London stock exchange; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  [pursuant to his reply, 27 October 1987]: The Department monitors the stock exchange, in particular its

  299
  evolution and development as an efficient, competitive and suitably regulated central market which affords proper protection to investors. In addition the Financial Services Act which will come fully into force early next year, sets out arrangements for the statutory recognition of all investment exchanges which meet requirements set out in the Act. The stock exchange is expected to be one of the bodies applying for recognition.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Schizophrenia
  Mr. Goodlad
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much his Department spent on research into schizophrenia in each of the last five years; and what proportion each figure was of expenditure on the Health Service research programme.

  Mr. Needham
  In 1987–88 funds amounting to £8,973 have been allocated for research related to schizophrenia. This represents 2·82 per cent. of the clinical research budget. No awards for schizophrenia research were made in the previous four years.

SOCIAL SERVICES

  Kimberley Carlile
  Mr. Kirkwood
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has any plans to order a public inquiry into the death of Kimberley Carlile, following the withdrawal of three social workers from the proceedings of the present private hearing; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  No. I understand that the inquiry has not been unduly hindered by the non-availability of some witnesses and that the chairman has indicated that his report will be delivered in the near future.

  Ancillary Services
  Mr. John Marshall
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is his latest estimate of the financial effects of competitive tendering for the provision of ancillary services in the health services.

  Mr. Newton
  Health authorities reported £100 million in annual savings generated by the competitive tendering initiative as at 30 June 1987: £76 million from domestic (cleaning) services, £16 million from catering services and £8 million from laundry services. We expect this figure to increase as further parts of these services go to tender.

  Hip Replacements
  Mr. John Marshall
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the current average cost of a hip replacement operation in the National Health Service.

  Mrs. Currie
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given in the Official Report on 3 June 1986 at column 533 which was based on an exercise conducted on the 1984–85 figures. The estimated cost in large acute hospitals was shown as £3,300 in 1986–87 figures. A study is in progress to update the information but it is not expected to show a substantial change.

  Commercial Tendering
  Mr. Allen
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has offered any guidance to regional and district health authorities on the desirability of licensing or leasing in respect of commercial tendering for National Health Service work and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  Yes. A health authority inviting tenders for a laundry service must offer contractors the opportunity of providing the service from the existing National Health Service laundry, assuming there is one. A letter from the then management board chairman to regional health authority chairmen in January 1986 covers this, and advises that such a laundry should be leased to the successful tenderer. However, in response to a specific query we have also offered one regional health authority advice on licensing.

  Committee on Safety of Medicines
  Ms. Richardson
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will (a) list the members of the Committee on Safety of Medicines; (b) state the criteria for selection of members; (c) list the relevant qualifications of present members; (d) indicate the number of Trades Union Congress nominated places; and (e) indicate how many Trades Union Congress nominated places are women.

  Mr. Newton
  The members of the Committee on Safety of Medicines are:

  Professor A. W. Asscher, BSc, MD, FRCP, (Chairman), Professor of Renal Medicine, University of Wales, College of Medicine,

  Dr. G. Booth, B Pharm, PhD, FPS, MCPP, Senior Lecturer in Pharmacy Practice, University of Bradford and ex-President of the Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain

  Professor A. M. Breckenridge, MD, MSC, FRCP, Professor of Clinical Pharmacology, University of Liverpool

  Professor J. G. Collee, MD, FRCP, FRCPath. Professor of Bacteriology, University of Edinburgh

  Professor P. H. Elworthy, B Pharm, PhD, DSc, MSc, CChem, MRSC, FPS, MCPP, Emeritus Professor of Pharmacy University of Manchester, Visiting Professor in Pharmaceutics at King's College, London and School of Pharmacy, London

  Professor A. T. Florence, PhD, DSc, CChem, FRSC, MPS, MCPP, Professor of Pharmaceutics, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow

  Professor M. W. Greaves, MD, PhD, FRCP, Professor of Clinical Dermatology, University of London

  Professor H. S. Jacobs, BA, MD, FRCP, Professor of Reproductive Endocrinology, Middlesex Hospital Medical School, London

  Dr. W. A. Jerrett, MB, BCh, FRCGP, General Practitioner, Glamorgan

  Professor M. J. S. Langman, BSc, MD,MBBS, FRCP, Professor of Internal Medicine, University of Birmingham

  Professor D. H. Lawson, MD, MB, ChB, FRCP(Ed), Consultant Physician in Clinical Pharmacology, Glasgow

  Mr. F. E. Loeffler, FRCS, FRCOG, Gynaecologist, London

  Professor J. O'D McGee, MD, PhD, FRCPath, MA,

  Professor of Morbid Anatomy, Oxford

  Professor A. E. M. McLean, BM, PhD, FRCPath, Professor of Toxicology, University College Hospital, London

  Dr. Elizabeth Mayne, MB, BCh, BAO, MRCP, FRCPath, Department of Haematology, University of Belfast

  Professor S. R. Meadow, MA, FRCP, DCh, Professor of Paediatrics and Child Health, Leeds University

  Professor S. A. Montgomery, MD. BSc, MB, BS, FRCPsych, DPM Eng, Professor of Psychiatry, St. Mary's Medical School, London

  Professor G. Nuki, MB, BS, FRCP(Ed), FRCP(Lond), MRCS, Professor of Rheumatology, University of Edinburgh

  301

  DR. B. L. Pentecost, MD, FRCP, Consultant Physician, Birmingham

  Professor M. D. Rawlins, MD, FRCP, BSc, Professor of Clinical Pharmacology, University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  Professor M. P. Vessey, MB, MD, FFCM, Professor of Social and Community Medicine, University of Oxford

  Members are appointed for their expertise in medicine and pharmacy. There are no Trades Union Congress-nominated places.

  Family Planning
  Ms. Harman
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) what is the number of community clinic sessions, (family planning) in (a) Camberwell district health authority and (b) Lewisham and North Southwark district health authority in 1985 and 1986;

  (2) what was the number of registered patients, (family planning) in (a) Camberwell district health authority and (b) Lewisham and North Southwark district health authority for 1985 and 1986.

  Mr. Newton
  The available information is given in the table.

  Information has been provided on the number of patients seen which will not equal the number of registered patients as not every registered patient will be seen in a particular year. Information on the number of registered patients is not held centrally.

  Family planning services

  1985

  Camberwell DHA

  Lewisham and North Southwark DHA

  Number of family planning clinic sessions

  2,689

  4,326

  Patients seen1

  13,472

  27,395

  1 Includes those patients seen by the family planning domiciliary service.

  Contraceptive Services
  Ms. Harman
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what was the number of claims submitted by general practitioners for contraceptive services in 1985 and 1986 covering Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham Family Practitioners Committee.

  Mr. Newton
  I regret that information is not collected centrally in this precise form. An estimate of the number of claims submitted in 1985 and 1986 is 40,650 and 42,910, respectively.

  Abortions
  Ms. Harman
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what was the abortion rate for women resident in (a) Camberwell district health authority and (b) Lewisham and North Southwark district health authority for 1985 and 1986.

  Mr. Newton
  The figures are shown in the table.
  302

  Abortions rates for residents of Camberwell DHA and Lewisham and North Southwark DHA 1985 and 1986

  Area of usual residence

  Abortion rate1

  1985

  1986

  Camberwell DHA

  32·1

  36·6

  Lewisham and North Southwark DHA

  23·8

  29·7

  1 Rate per 1,000 women aged 15–44

  Ms. Harman
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what was the number of abortions performed on women resident in (a) Camberwell district health authority and (b) Lewisham and North Southwark district health authority in 1985 and 1986.

  Mr. Newton
  The figures are shown in the table.

  Abortions to residents of Camberwell DHA and Lewisham and North Southwark DHA 1985 and 1986

  Numbers of abortions

  Area of usual residence

  1985

  1986

  Camberwell DHA

  1,603

  1,855

  Lewisham and North Southwark DHA

  1,681

  2,214

  Patients (Screening)
  Mr. Wareing
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what plans he has to circulate a code of practice for doctors on the screening of patients who are at risk of hearing loss after certain infectious illnesses; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  The Department would not normally issue guidance on matters of this sort, as the management of individual patients is the responsibility of the clinicians concerned.

  Disabled Babies
  Mr. Wareing
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he is satisfied with the present provision of services to the families of new-born disabled babies; if he proposes any changes in the present arrangements; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  Arrangements for the provision of services by district health authorities to the families of such babies considered to be at risk of disablement or handicap were set out in the reports of the Maternity Services Advisory Committee and we do not propose any changes to these arrangements.

  Multi-Handicapped Visually-Impaired People
  Mr. Wareing
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received about the standard of service provided for multi-handicapped visually-impaired people in mental handicap hospitals; what steps he is taking to improve this service; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  The Royal National Institute for the Blind has sent to the Department for consideration a copy of its report "Out of Isolation" which concerns the development of services for multi-handicapped visually-impaired adults, including those currently resident in mental handicap hospitals. It is for health and local authorities in co-operation to consider how best to the needs of all handicapped people in their areas but the Department has
  303
  given wide circulation to "Helping Mentally Handicapped People with Special Problems", the report of a DHSS study team published in 1984. This reviewed current approaches to meeting the needs of mentally handicapped people with special problems, including those with visual handicaps, and made suggestions for improvements in services for them. The national development team for people with a mental handicap is available to advise authorities on such services. In addition, the Department has agreed to grant-aid the South Regional Association for the Blind towards the cost of employing a development officer to help plan community-based services for multi-handicapped visually-impaired people.

  Public Expenditure White Paper
  Sir Brandon Rhys Williams
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will publish an updated version of table 3.15.12 of volume 2 of the public expenditure White Paper (Cm. 56-(ii)) for 1986–87, making use of the most recently available data.

  Mr. Portillo
  The information requested is produced only once a year, and will be published in the social security chapter of the 1988 public expenditure White Paper.

  Schools of Radiology and Radiography
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give for 1987 a table showing for each school of radiology and radiography (a) how many students entered for the course to be examined that year, (b) how many dropped out, (c) how many took the examination and (d) how many passed.

  Mr. Newton
  This information, which is collected by the College of Radiographers, is not immediately available.

  I shall let my hon. Friend have a reply as soon as possible.

  Sterilisation Operations
  Mr. Tim Smith
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many reversal of sterilisation operations were carried out by the National Health Service in 1986.

  Mr. Newton
  In 1985, the latest year for which information is available centrally, 2,400 people were treated in National Health Service hospitals for tuboplasty or vasoplasty after previous sterilisation.

  Tattoos
  Mr. Tim Smith
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what proportion of patients waiting for plastic surgery are waiting to have tattoos removed.

  Mr. Newton
  I am sorry I cannot give my hon. Friend the information he seeks. Information available centrally on in-patient waiting lists is categorised according to the specialty of treatment only, and not according to the intended method of treatment/operation.

  Child Care and Family Services
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what plans he has to legislate on the basis of his White Paper on child care and family services.
  304
  Mr. Newton
  We shall want quickly to review the proposals in the White Paper in the light of recommendations in Mrs. Justice Butler-Sloss's report of the Cleveland inquiry when this is received. Subject to that, we intend to introduce a Bill as soon as parliamentary time is available.

  Agency Nurses
  Mr. Janner
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will provide figures or estimates for the amount of Government expenditure on the hiring of private or agency nurses to provide cover for National Health Service shortfalls.

  Mr. Newton
  The annual accounts of health authorities in England record all their expenditure on the employment of non-National Health Service (agency etc.) nursing staff in total only. The summarised accounts for 1986–87, as yet unaudited. show this expenditure as £70,787,525.

  East Berkshire Home Authority
  Dr. Glyn
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will take steps to overcome the financial difficulties experienced at East Berkshire health authority in meeting the cost of unbudgeted pay awards; if he will consider central funding of these awards; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  East Berkshire health authority has received a cash allocation this year of £69·5 million, 6·5 per cent. more than in 1986–87. The allocation includes a special addition to help health authorities maintain and develop services following this year's review body awards. The health authority must take the necessary steps to balance the cost of service developments against other cost pressures.

  London Weighting
  Dr. Glyn
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if, in view of the effect on the recruitment of nurses, he will extend the London weighting allowance for existing staff to East Berkshire.

  Mr. Newton
  The boundaries within which London weighting are payable are a matter for negotiation between the management and staff sides of the London weighting consortium of the General Whitley Council.

  AIDS
  Mr. Kirkwood
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list in the Official Report those organisations that receive funding for AIDS-related work.

  Mr. Newton
  I refer the hon. Member to my replies to my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mrs. Shephard) on 23 October and to the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) on 26 October. With effect from 26 October we have also given £4·1 million to the Health Education Authority to carry on the AIDS public education campaign.

  Agency Doctors
  Mr. Kirkwood
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) if he will make a statement on the cost to the National Health Service per annum of employing agency doctors;
  305
  (2) if he has any plans to restrict charges made by agencies supplying doctors to the National Health Service.

  Mr. Newton
  The estimated cost to health authorities in England of medical and dental staff engaged through agencies is £14·9 million. This represents 1·18 per cent. of the pay bill for medical and dental staff, compared with 0·84 per cent. in 1979·80. We have no plans at present to restrict the charges made by agencies, but a number of health authorities are currently taking or considering steps to contain costs and reduce reliance on agencies, and we shall be monitoring their progress.

  Birth Statistics
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether, following the implementation of the Family Law Reform Act, it is still possible to give an accurate breakdown of birth statistics comparing legitimate with illegitimate births.

  Mr. Newton
  Yes. The information collected by registrars of births still allows accurate statistics of births to be compiled according to legitimacy.

  London
  Mr. Tony Banks
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what has been the total number of bed losses in NHS hospitals in London for each of the past five years; and, of these, how many were acute beds.

  Mrs. Currie
  [pursuant to her reply, 20 July 1987, c. 71]: The information requested is given in the table. Reductions in bed numbers do not necessarily mean loss in services. Better use of beds, changing clinical practices and the ability to treat more cases as day cases without patients having to stay in hospital overnight mean that many more cases are being treated in the facilities available. Over the four-year period the number of inpatient cases treated per available bed rose from 17·9 in 1982 to 21 in 1986 and in-patient cases treated per available bed in the acute sector rose from 30·5 to 36. The numbers of cases treated in all specialtie—sin-patient and day cases—increased by 8·7 per cent. to 1,290,244 cases, and in all acute specialties increased by 4·3 per cent. to 1,037,936 cases.

  NHS Hospitals in London

  Year

  Average daily number of available beds

  Reduction in available beds between years

  1982

  60,697

  1983

  59,591

  -1,106

  1984

  57,092

  -2,499

  1985

  55,146

  -1,946

  19861

  52,708

  -2,438

  1 Provisional figures

  NHS Hospitals in London

  Average daily number of available beds in the acute sector

  Reduction in available beds between years

  1982

  28,995

  1983

  28,497

  -498

  1984

  26,749

  -1,748

  1985

  25,807

  -942

  19861

  24,432

  -1,375

  306
  1Provisional figures.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Wigley
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what was the total amount spent in each district authority area in Wales on housing benefit in each year since the inception of the scheme at outturn and 1987 prices.

  Mr. Portillo
  [pursuant to his reply, 21 July 1987, c. 170]: The information requested is shown in the tables.

  Table 1

  Expenditure on housing benefit in Welsh district authorities 1982–83

  Authority

  Outturn £

  1987 prices £

  Aberconwy

  304,355

  379,154

  Alyn and Deeside

  397,836

  495,609

  Arfon

  508,495

  633,463

  Blaenau Gwent

  1,115,837

  1,390,066

  Brecknock

  156,413

  194,853

  Cardiff

  2,870,216

  3,575,603

  Carmarthen

  247,887

  308,808

  Ceredigion

  294,097

  366,375

  Colwyn

  281,524

  350,712

  Cynon Valley

  468,995

  584,256

  Delyn

  569,513

  709,477

  Dinefwr

  158,492

  196,278

  Dwyfor

  112,438

  140,071

  Glyndwr

  218,225

  271,856

  Islwyn

  497,797

  620,136

  Llanelli

  585,208

  729,029

  Lliw Valley

  389,816

  485,618

  Meirionnydd

  185,629

  231,249

  Merthyr Tydfil

  670,760

  835,607

  Monmouth

  346,793

  432,021

  Montgomery

  249,284

  310,548

  Neath

  491,889

  612,776

  Newport

  1,560,648

  1,944,194

  Ogwr

  1,004,630

  1,251,529

  Port Talbot

  488,372

  608,395

  Preseli

  481,430

  599,747

  Radnor

  86,649

  107,933

  Rhondda

  518,947

  646,484

  Rhuddlan

  256,841

  319,963

  Rhymney Valley

  1,136,366

  1,415,640

  South Pembrokeshire

  312,979

  389,897

  Swansea

  1,898,264

  2,364,783

  Taff-Ely

  743,065

  925,681

  Torfaen

  811,964

  1,011,513

  Vale of Glamorgan

  813,529

  1,013,463

  Wrexham Maelor

  1,00,068

  1,245,846

  Ynys Mon

  600,531

  748,118

  Note: The figures for 1982–83 reflect the fact that housing benefit was partially introduced from November 1982, and fully from April 1983.

  Table 2

  Expenditure on housing benefit in Welsh district authorities 1983–84

  Authority

  Outturn

  1987 prices

  £

  £

  Aberconwy

  2,770,139

  3,303,536

  Alyn and Deeside

  3,170,052

  3,780,453

  Arfon

  3,524,583

  4,203,250

  Blaenau Gwent

  6,977,879

  8,321,486

  Brecknock

  1,598,140

  1,905,866

  Cardiff

  21,952,027

  26,178,940

  Carmarthen

  1,974,770

  2,355,016

  Ceredigion

  2,505,862

  2,988,371

  Colwyn

  3,228,152

  3,849,740

  Cynon Valley

  3,525,111

  4,203,879

  Delyn

  4,107,642

  4,898,578

  Dinefwr

  1,307,237

  1,558,948

  Dwyfor

  1,098,679

  1,310,232

  Glyndwr

  1,790,566

  2,135,344

  307

  Authority

  Outturn

  1987 prices

  £

  £

  Islwyn

  3,576,724

  4,265,430

  Llanelli

  4,503,729

  5,370,932

  Lliw Valley

  3,576,574

  4,265,252

  Meirionnydd

  1,657,250

  1,976,357

  Merthyr Tydfil

  4,590,467

  5,489,630

  Monmouth

  3,121,273

  3,722,281

  Montgomery

  1,921,882

  2,291,945

  Neath

  3,719,921

  4,436,200

  Newport

  11,276,341

  13,447,626

  Ogwr

  7,795,218

  9,296,205

  Port Talbot

  3,467,404

  4,135,061

  Preseli

  3,455,399

  4,120,744

  Radnor

  980,362

  1,169,133

  Rhondda

  3,773,504

  4,500,101

  Rhuddlan

  3,258,364

  3,885,769

  Rhymney Valley

  7,787,510

  9,287,013

  South Pembrokeshire

  2,355,598

  2,809,138

  Swansea

  13,029,886

  15,538,820

  Taff-Ely

  4,894,978

  5,837,517

  Torfaen

  5,657,883

  6,747,321

  Vale of Glamorgan

  5,866,380

  6,995,965

  Wrexham Maelor

  6,005,369

  7,161,717

  Ynys Môn

  3,958,925

  4,721,225

  Table 3

  Expenditure on housing benefit in Welsh district authorities 1984–85

  Authority

  Outturn £

  1987 prices £

  Aberconway

  3,233,471

  3,697,147

  Alyn and Deeside

  3,488,459

  3,988,700

  Arfon

  4,099,903

  4,687,825

  Blaenau Gwent

  7,953,853

  9,094,427

  Brecknock

  1,918,139

  2,193,198

  Cardiff

  25,558,080

  29,223,081

  Carmarthen

  2,338,854

  2,674,243

  Ceredigion

  3,049,313

  3,486,581

  Colwyn

  3,769,468

  4,310,006

  Cynon Valley

  4,782,881

  5,468,741

  Delyn

  4,403,197

  5,034,611

  Dinefwr

  1,854,263

  2,120,162

  Dwyfor

  1,211,438

  1,385,157

  Glyndwr

  1,978,590

  2,262,318

  Islwyn

  4,430,481

  5,065,807

  Llanelli

  5,020,298

  5,740,203

  Lliw Valley

  3,758,387

  4,297,336

  Meirionnydd

  1,804,686

  2,063,476

  Merthyr Tydfil

  5,714,809

  6,534,306

  Monmouth

  3,311,660

  3,786,548

  Montgomery

  2,179,563

  2,492,110

  Neath

  4,215,275

  4,819,741

  Newport

  12,480,450

  14,270,133

  Ogwr

  10,023,888

  11,461,303

  Port Talbot

  3,787,801

  4,330,968

  Preseli

  3,791,901

  4,335,655

  Radnor

  1,108,414

  1,267,359

  Rhondda

  2,541,603

  2,906,066

  Rhuddlan

  3,905,977

  4,466,090

  Rhymney Valley

  9,536,720

  10,904,275

  South Pembrokeshire

  2,727,903

  3,119,081

  Swansea

  14,821,046

  16,946,368

  Taff-Ely

  6,289,986

  7,191,963

  Torfaen

  6,845,832

  7,827,517

  Vale of Glamorgan

  6,422,840

  7,343,868

  Wrexham Maelor

  6,666,526

  7,622,499

  Ynys Môn

  4,569,018

  5,224,210

  Table 4

  Expenditure on housing benefit in Welsh district authorities 1985–86

  Authority

  Outturn £

  1987 prices £

  Aberconwy

  3,602,835

  3,877,911

  Alyn and Deeside

  3,812,003

  4,103,049

  Arfon

  4,632,189

  4,985,857

  308

  Authority

  Outturn £

  1987 prices £

  Blaenau Gwent

  8,476,072

  9,123,220

  Brecknock

  1,992,590

  2,144,724

  Cardiff1

  30,159,466

  32,462,141

  Carmarthen

  2,725,054

  2,933,112

  Ceredigion

  3,562,375

  3,834,362

  Colwyn

  4,335,977

  4,667,029

  Cyon Valley

  4,658,485

  5,014,160

  Delyn

  4,602,692

  4,954,108

  Dinefwr

  1,713,261

  1,844,068

  Dwyfor

  1,336,843

  1,438,911

  Glyndwr

  2,186,170

  2,353,084

  Islwyn

  4,767,206

  5,131,182

  Llanelli

  5,373,050

  5,783,282

  Lliw Valley

  3,887,159

  4,183,944

  Meirionnydd

  1,962,175

  2,111,987

  Merthyr Tydfil1

  6,147,747

  6,617,127

  Monmouth1

  4,365,897

  4,699,233

  Montgomery

  2,468,077

  2,656,515

  Neath

  4,388,349

  4,723,399

  Newport

  14,884,973

  16,021,441

  Ogwr

  10,344,711

  11,134,530

  Port Talbot

  4,151,593

  4,468,567

  Preseli

  4,385,572

  4,720,410

  Radnor

  1,192,231

  1,283,258

  Rhondda

  4,929,628

  5,306,005

  Rhuddlan

  4,424,658

  4,762,481

  Rhymney Valley

  9,702,133

  10,442,891

  South Pembrokeshire

  3,207,215

  3,452,086

  Swansea1

  16,363,043

  17,612,361

  Taff-Ely

  6,853,527

  7,376,794

  Torfaen

  7,156,647

  7,703,057

  Vale of Glamorgan

  7,071,089

  7,610,967

  Wrexham Maelor

  7,375,515

  7,938,634

  Ynys Môn

  5,132,232

  5,524,078

  Note The outturn figures have been extracted from local authorities' final claims to housing benefit subsidy some of which (at1) have not yet been audited.

  Table 5

  Expenditure on housing benefit in Welsh district authorities 1986–87

  Authority

  Outturn

  1987 Prices

  £

  £

  Aberconwy

  4,330,322

  4,525,186

  Alyn and Deeside

  4,140,675

  4,194,700

  Arfon

  4,582,320

  4,788,524

  Blaenau Gwent

  9,187,800

  9,601,251

  Brecknock

  2,301,530

  2,405,099

  Cardiff

  36,450,000

  38,090,250

  Carmarthen

  3,061,509

  3,199,277

  Ceredigion

  4,020,500

  4,201,423

  Colwyn

  4,852,280

  5,070,633

  Cynon Valley

  5,233,813

  5,469,335

  Delyn

  5,037,000

  5,263,665

  Dinefwr

  1,988,785

  2,078,280

  Dwyfor

  1,645,490

  1,719,537

  Glyndwr

  2,566,300

  2,681,784

  Islwyn

  5,054,862

  5,282,331

  Llanelli

  5,531,364

  5,780,275

  Lliw Valley

  4,198,287

  4,387,210

  Meirionnydd

  2,427,421

  2,536,655

  Merthyr Tydfil

  5,482,000

  5,728,690

  Monmouth

  4,313,837

  4,508,085

  Montgomery

  2,763,900

  2,888,276

  Neath

  4,666,711

  4,876,713

  Newport

  14,801,000

  15,467,045

  Ogwr

  11,548,455

  12,068,135

  Port Talbot

  4,108,975

  4,293,879

  Preseli

  4,665,100

  4,875,030

  Radnor

  1,343,000

  1,403,435

  Rhondda

  5,643,400

  5,897,353

  Rhuddlan

  5,011,000

  5,263,495

  Rhymney Valley

  10,617,272

  11,095,049

  South Pembrokeshire

  3,541,644

  3,701,018

  Swansea

  17,357,600

  18,138,692

  309

  Authority

  Outturn

  1987 Prices

  £

  £

  Taff-Ely

  7,666,390

  8,011,378

  Torfaen

  10,312,769

  10,776,844

  Vale of Glamorgan

  8,200,000

  8,569,000

  Wrexham Maelor

  7,401,800

  7,734,881

  Ynys Mon

  6,105,446

  6,380,191

  Note: The outturn figures have been extracted from local authorities' mid-year revisions of their estimates of housing benefit costs made when claiming payments on account of subsidy.

  Table 6

  Expenditure on housing benefit in Welsh district authorities 1987–88

  Authority

  Outturn

  £

  Aberconwy

  4,203,000

  Alyn and Deeside

  4,481,692

  Arfon

  5,082,000

  Blaenau Gwent

  9,986,730

  Brecknock

  2,364,000

  Cardiff

  34,400,000

  Carmarthen

  3,136,606

  Ceredigion

  3,994,730

  Colwyn

  5,155,500

  Cynon Valley

  5,480,690

  Delyn

  4,845,000

  Dinefwr

  1,956,650

  Dwyfor

  1,579,910

  Glyndwr

  2,355,000

  Islwyn

  5,165,970

  Llanelli

  5,937,175

  Lliw Valley

  4,383,046

  Meirionnydd

  2,147,797

  Merthyr Tydfil

  6,646,000

  Monmouth

  4,821,997

  Montgomery

  2,819,480

  Neath

  4,993,532

  Newport

  15,280,000

  Ogwr

  11,382,782

  Port Talbot

  4,500,000

  Preseli

  5,005,500

  Radnor

  1,251,000

  Rhondda

  5,962,200

  Rhuddlan

  5,528,000

  Rhymney Valley

  11,109,547

  South Pembrokeshire

  3,714,532

  Swansea

  17,552,800

  Taff-Ely

  8,433,030

  Torfaen

  10,583,528

  Vale of Glamorgan

  7,957,000

  Wrexham Maelor

  7,210,623

  Ynys Mon

  6,233,500

  Note: The outturn figures have been extracted from authorities' preliminary estimates of housing benefit costs made when claiming payments on account of subsidy.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Milk
  Mr. John Marshall
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the current price of liquid milk in Britain; how this compares with the price in other EEC countries; and what is his assessment of the effect on the price differential of the Milk Marketing Boards' monopoly.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The retail price of ordinary pasteurised milk varies from 20p per pint to 27p per pint depending on the packaging used and the type of retail outlet through which it is sold. The price range is even wider if other types of drinking milk are included. Comparison with the price in other member states is 310
  therefore very difficult and is further complicated by currency fluctuations and by differences in fat contents. There is, however, no evidence that our milk marketing arrangements result in a price to the consumer which is out of line with that in other member states.

  Data Protection Act
  Mr. Cohen
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food 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. Donald Thompson
  The policy in my Department towards fees for subject access under the terms of the Data Protection Act, is as follows:

  (a) members of staff will not be charged for reasonable access;

  (b) other data subjects will be charged a standard fee of £10 for access to each registration.

  My Department has made 40 registrations under the Act.

  In organising the registrations, officials have sought, wherever possible, to restrict individual registrations to geographical areas or specific areas of work. Ten registrations have only members of staff as the data subjects. Of the other 30 registrations, five registrations cover administrative functions in the Department's five regions and a further six registrations cover the work of ADAS in the regions and Wales. Although possible, it is thought to be unlikely that an individual would wish to access all of these 11 regional registrations. The remaining 19 registrations cover the work of the various divisions concerning the agricultural, fishing and food industries.

  The number of registrations to be accessed by data subjects to obtain all personal data held about them in my Department will, therefore, vary considerably from case to case according to the business interests of the individual, at a cost which could range from £10 to £300.

  However, whilst data subjects may refer to the data protection register to determine which registrations are likely to hold their personal data, it is intended that an explanatory leaflet will be sent by my officials to each data subject who requests access, as a guide to the coverage and contents of each registration, with a view to minimising the costs to the data subjects.

  Dairy Farmers (Incomes)
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was the estimated income of dairy farmers in (a) England, (b) Wales, (c) Scotland and (d) Northern Ireland in 1978–79, 1982–83, 1983–84, 1984–85, 1985–86 and 1986–87 expressed at 1978 prices.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The information requested, expressed in 1978–79 real price terms, is given in the table. I regret that figures for 1986–87 are not yet available.

  £ thousands

  England

  Wales

  Scotland

  Northern Ireland

  1978–79

  8·8

  7·3

  6·4

  7·7

  1982–83

  8·2

  6·5

  7·4

  6·7

  311

  England

  Wales

  Scotland

  Northern Ireland

  1983–84

  4·6

  5·2

  4·9

  5·6

  1984–85

  4·9

  3·7

  4·8

  5·4

  1985–86

  6·1

  5·6

  3·3

  3·3

  Notes:

  (a) Net farm income is defined as the return to the farmer and spouse for their manual and managerial labour and on tenant type capital in livestock, crops, machinery etc., but not on land and buildings. It is calculated before the deduction of interest payments on any farming loans.

  (b) The incomes for 1982–83 and subsequent years have been expressed in 1978–79 prices by deflating by the all items retail prices index with 1978–79 = 100.

  Source: Farm Business Survey.

  CAP (Surpluses)
  Mr. Grocott
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the cost, in the latest year for which figures are available, of disposing of Common Agricultural Policy surplus foodstuffs.

  Mr. MacGregor
  Community expenditure on export refunds and internal disposal subsidies, (including loss on sale out of intervention) for commodities in structural surplus (cereals, sugar, olive oil, wine, beef, milk and milk products) in 1986 was 12,726 million ecu (£8,245 million).

  Radiation
  Mr. Ron Davies
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many farms in England have been affected by the restrictions on sale or movement of livestock due to excessive radiation levels since the nuclear plant explosion at Chernobyl.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  1,670 holdings in England were affected when restrictions were first introduced on 20 June 1986. Currently 150 of these holdings are still subject to restrictions.

  Schemes to permit the movement and marketing of sheep from restricted holdings were introduced in August 1986 and are continuing.

  Storm Damage
  Miss Widdicombe
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what compensation he will make available to farmers in Kent who suffered losses during the storm of 15 and 16 October; if he will make special compensation available to fruit farmers; if he has any plan to visit affected farms in Kent; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I informed the House on 22 October, in reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) that, whilst I am very sympathetic to the losses to farmers as a result of storm damage, I see no reason to depart from the longstanding position, which is that farmers normally bear the cost of bad weather. The majority normally insure against such risks and it is not the practice of the Government to pay compensation in situations of this kind.

  Nevertheless, some farmers have lost a very large number of hedges and trees and the environmental impact has been considerable. I am therefore having urgent consultations with the European Commission to see if
  312
  increased rates of grant can be given under the agriculture improvement scheme for shelter belts, hedges arid traditional walls.

  So far as fruit farmers are concerned, I am still assessing the losses in consultation with the NFU and others, arid will consider the position after I have done so.

  I am very much aware of the situation in the affected area in Kent.

  Pesticides
  Dr. David Clark
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to support efforts to strengthen the international code of conduct on the use and distribution of pesticides, with particular reference to article 9 on information exchange at the forthcoming Food and Agriculture Organisation council and conference; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I have been asked to reply.

  There is not yet sufficient practical experience of operating the existing information exchange procedure based on the FAO code of conduct and the UNEP London guidelines to decide whether the code of conduct needs to be modified.

  Dr. David Clark
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will list, with regard to the interim notification scheme and the London guidelines for the exchange of information on chemicals in international trade, part 11, notification and information regarding banned and severely restricted chemicals, how many notifications of control action and what relevant information has been sent to other countries when an export of such a chemical is occurring; and if he can list the chemicals notified, the companies involved and the countries to which they have been sent and on what dates;

  (2) if he is satisfied that, under the provisions of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985, adequate information has been provided voluntarily by pesticide exporting companies to permit the Government to fulfil their international obligations for information exchange on banned and severely restricted pesticides; what information has been provided concerning the products countries and date of export; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I have been asked to reply to these questions.

  The United Kingdom was among the first countries to implement the UNEP provisional export notification scheme and the UNEP London guidelines.

  The United Kingdom has issued control actions for 41 chemicals which are listed at table 1, 22 of which can be used as pesticides. In accordance with the requirements of the UNEP scheme, the notification of control action contains information concerning the reason for the control action, the title of the legislation under which the substance is controlled and the name and address of a contact point from whom further relevant information may be obtained, and any exceptions or derogations. Copies of all the legislation referred to in the control actions are available from the international register of potentially toxic chemicals and the United Kingdom banned or severely restricted chemicals are listed in the second issue of the United Nations consolidated list of

  313
  products whose consumption and/or sale have been banned, withdrawn, severely restricted or not approved by Governments.

  A list of 22 export notifications, four of which can be used as pesticides, is at table 2. The date, destination and name of the compounds exported is given. Details of the companies involved are confidential. All this information has been provided voluntarily, but under part III of FEPA 1985 Ministers may require the provision of any information necessary to fulfil their international obligations to supply information.

  Table 1

  Aldrin

  4-Aminodiphenyl and its Salts

  Amosite

  Arylmercury Compounds

  Auramine

  Azobenzene

  Benzidine and its Salts

  Cadmium Compounds

  Calcium Arsenate

  Chlordane

  Crocidolite

  DDT

  Dianisidine

  1, 2 Dibromoethane

  Dichlorobenzidine

  Dieldrin

  Endrin

  Inorganic Fluorides

  Hexachlorobenzene

  Kepone

  Magenta

  Mercury (I) Chloride

  Mercury (II) Chloride

  Mercury (II) Oxide

  Methoxethyl Mercury Acetate

  Methyl Mercury

  L-Napthylamine

  B-Napthylamine and its Salts

  1-(1-Naphthy)—2-Thiourea

  4-Nitrodiphenyl

  Nitrofen

  Organomercury Dips and Steeps

  Polychlorinated Biphenyls and Polychlorinated Terphenyls

  Phenyl Mercury Acetate

  Phenyl Mercury Salicylate

  White Phosphorous

  Potassium Arsenite

  Selenium Compounds

  Sodium Arsenite

  1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane

  O-Tolidine

  Table 2

  Date of notification

  Importing country

  Name of banned or severely restricted compound notified

  September 1986

  Sudan

  Aldrin

  Italy

  Phenyl Mercury Acetate

  November 1986

  Netherlands

  Auramine

  West Germany

  Auramine

  Venezuela

  Auramine

  Australia

  Auramine

  Tunisia

  Auramine

  Egypt

  Auramine

  Italy

  Auramine

  Mexico

  Auramine

  Norway

  Auramine

  Portugal

  Auramine

  December 1986

  Nigeria

  Aldrin

  Argentina

  Magenta

  314

  Date of notification

  Importing country

  Name of banned or severely restricted compound notified

  February 1987

  Belgium

  Auramine

  Spain

  Auramine

  May 1987

  Nigeria

  Pheny Mercury Acetate

  June 1987

  Tanzania

  Magenta

  Algeria

  Magenta

  Nigeria

  Sodium Arsenite

  July 1987

  Canada

  Mercury Chloride

  September 1987

  West Germany

  Magenta

SCOTLAND

  Radiation Monitoring
  Mr. MacDonald
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what consideration he has given to establishing a series of permanent radiation monitoring stations in the Highlands and Islands.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by the Prime Minister to my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, North (Sir T. Skeet) on 30 June, at columns 65–67 in which she announced the framework of a new national plan for responding to radioactivity incidents which may occur outwith the United Kingdom. The monitoring network which will be set up under the plan will consist of more than 80 fixed stations for the initial detection and measurement of radioactivity, of which about 15 are likely to be in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland.

  Rates
  Mr. MacDonald
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the average domestic rates bill in the Western Isles for each year since 1978 in (a) cash terms and (b) real terms, showing, in each case, the percentage change between years.

  Mr. Lang
  The information requested is set out in the table.

  Western Isles Islands Council

  Average domestic rate bill

  Percentage change

  1987–88 prices

  Percentage change

  £

  £

  1978–79

  60

  —

  122

  —

  1979–80

  67

  12

  117

  -4

  1980–81

  94

  40

  138

  18

  1981–82

  128

  36

  171

  24

  1982–83

  151

  18

  188

  10

  1983–84

  160

  6

  191

  1

  1984–85

  175

  9

  200

  5

  1985–86

  181

  3

  195

  -2

  1986–87

  194

  7

  203

  4

  1987–88

  206

  6

  206

  2

  Notes:

  1. Source—Rating Review.

  2. The GDP deflator b has been used to convert average rate bills to 1987–88 prices.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the average domestic rates bill in

  315
  the Monklands, West constituency for each year since 1978 in (a) cash terms and (b) real terms, showing, in each case, the percentage change between years.

  Mr. Lang
  This information is not held centrally.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the average domestic rates bill in East Lothian for each year since 1978 in (i) cash terms and (ii) real terms showing, in each case, the percentage change between years.

  Mr. Lang
  The information requested is set out in the table.

  East Lothian District Council

  Average domestic rate bill

  Percentage change

  1987–88 prices

  Percentage change

  £

  £

  1978–79

  165

  —

  335

  —

  1979–80

  198

  20

  344

  3

  1980–81

  280

  41

  411

  19

  1981–82

  413

  48

  552

  34

  1982–83

  380

  -8

  474

  -14

  1983–84

  348

  -8

  415

  -12

  1984–85

  387

  11

  442

  7

  1985–86

  433

  12

  466

  6

  1986–87

  460

  6

  481

  3

  1987–88

  549

  19

  549

  14

  Note: The GDP deflator has been used to convert average rate bills to 1987–88 prices.

  Mr. Doran
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the average domestic rates bill in the Aberdeen constituency for each year since 1978 in (i) cash terms and (ii) real terms showing, in each case, the percentage change between years.

  Mr. Lang
  The information requested is set out in the table.

  Aberdeen District Council

  Average domestic rate bill

  Percentage change

  1987–88 prices

  Percentage change

  £

  £

  1978–79

  133

  —

  270

  —

  1979–80

  161

  21

  280

  4

  1980–81

  199

  24

  292

  4

  1981–82

  239

  20

  319

  9

  1982–83

  289

  21

  360

  13

  1983–84

  300

  4

  358

  -1

  1984–85

  301

  0

  344

  -4

  1985–86

  344

  14

  370

  8

  1986–87

  378

  10

  395

  7

  1987–88

  390

  3

  390

  -1

  Notes:

  1. Source—Rating Review.

  2. The GDP deflator has been used to convert average rate bills to 1987–88 prices.

  Mr. Wilson
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the average domestic rates bill for Cunninghame, North constituency since 1978 (i) in real terms, (ii) showing in each case the percentage change between years.

  Mr. Lang
  This information is not held centrally.

  Mr. Hood
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the average domestic rates bill in the
  316
  Clydesdale constituency for each year since 1978 in real terms, showing the percentage change between the years in each case.

  Mr. Lang
  The information requested is as follows:

  Clydesdale District Council

  Average domestic rate bill 1987–8 prices

  Percentage change

  1978–79

  264

  —

  1979–80

  251

  -5

  1980–81

  296

  18

  1981–82

  354

  19

  1982–83

  394

  11

  1983–84

  379

  -4

  1984–85

  389

  3

  1985–86

  409

  5

  1986–87

  443

  8

  1987–88

  504

  14

  Notes:

  (1) Source—Rating Review.

  (2) The GDP deflator has been used to convert average rate bills to 1987–88 prices.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will give the rate fund contribution figure for Scotland for each year from 1978 to 1987;

  (2) if he will give the rate fund contribution figure for Edinburgh district council for each year from 1978 to 1987.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is set out in the table:

  Outturn rate fund contribution

  Year

  Scotland

  Edinburgh

  £ million

  £ million

  1978–79

  55·6

  1·1

  1979–80

  72·9

  2·9

  1980–81

  79·4

  0·7

  1981–82

  106·3

  3·1

  1982–83

  124·7

  6·1

  1983–84

  117·9

  4·0

  1984–85

  139·1

  6·7

  1985–86

  97·3

  3·2

  1986–87

  76·2

  5·3

  1987–881

  43·6

  1·8

  1 Estimated figure.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will give the rate fund contribution figure, repriced for inflation, for Scotland for each year from 1978 to 1987;

  (2) if he will give the rate fund contribution figure for Edinburgh district council, repriced for inflation, for each year from 1978 to 1987.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is set out in the table:

  Outturn Rate Fund Contribution at 1987–88 Prices1

  Year

  Scotland

  Edinburgh

  £ million

  £ million

  1978–79

  113·0

  2·2

  1979–80

  126·7

  5·0

  1980–81

  116·4

  1·0

  1981–82

  141·9

  4·1

  1982–83

  155·2

  7·6

  1983–84

  140·5

  4·8

  317

  Year

  Scotland

  Edinburgh

  £ million

  £ million

  1984–85

  158·9

  7·7

  1985–86

  105·9

  3·4

  1986–87

  79·6

  5·5

  1987–882

  43·6

  1·8

  1 Using GDP deflators.

  2 Estimate.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give Edinburgh district council's rate fund contribution figure as a proportion of the total rate fund contribution figure for Scotland for each year from 1978 to 1987.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is set out in the table:

  Per cent.

  1978–79

  2·0

  1979–80

  4·0

  1980–81

  0·8

  1981–82

  3·0

  1982–83

  5·0

  1983–84

  3·0

  1984–85

  5·0

  1985–86

  3·0

  1986–87

  7·0

  1987–881

  4·0

  1 Estimate.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will give the percentage change in rate fund contribution over the previous year for Scotland for each year from 1978 to 1987;

  (2) if he will give the percentage change in rate fund contribution over the previous year for Edinburgh district council for each year from 1978 to 1987.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is set out in the table:318

  Percentage Change in Rate Fund Contribution over Previous Year

  Scotland

  Edinburgh

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  1978–79

  +31

  +33

  1979–80

  +31

  +162

  1980–81

  +9

  -77

  1981–82

  +34

  +368

  1982–83

  +17

  +95

  1983–84

  -5

  -34

  1984–85

  +18

  +66

  1985–86

  -30

  -53

  1986–87

  -22

  +67

  11987–88

  -43

  -66

  1 Based on estimates.

  1978–79 to 1986–87 information based on outturn figures.

  SSHA (Tenants)
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing the number of tenants living in Scottish Special Housing Association rented accommodation in the constituency of Monklands, West in each year since 1979.

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

  Tourism
  Mr. Kirkwood
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from the tourist industry in Scotland about the level of funding made available to the Scottish tourist board; and if he will state what increases he proposes in 1988's block grant to the Scottish tourist board.

  Mr. Lang
  A number of representations have been received from the tourist industry about the level of funding for the Scottish tourist board and my noble friend the Minister of State recently met a delegation from the Scottish Confederation of Tourism. Decisions on the level of funding for 1988–89 will be taken soon.

  Tourism
  Mr. Kirkwood
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is satisfied that the allocation of the funds from central Government made by the Scottish tourist board adequately takes account of the needs of the local area tourist boards; and if he will make a statement outlining the increases he proposes in 1988's allocation to assist the development work being undertaken by the area tourist boards.

  Mr. Lang
  It is for the three partners in area tourist boards—the trade, local authorities, and the Scottish tourist board or the Highlands and Islands development hoard in its area—to consider the balance of funding. The trade is expected to make a substantial contribution to the operation of area tourist boards whose main function is servicing visitors to their areas. Government assistance can only be supplementary. It is for the relevant board to determine how much it allocates to area tourist hoards in relation to its priorities and the resources available.

  Housing
  Mr. Doran
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing the number of tenants living in Scottish Special Housing Association rented accommodation in the Aberdeen, South constituency in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Wilson
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing numbers of tenants in Scottish Special Housing Assocition accommodation in Cunninghame, North constituency since 1978.

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

  Pupils (Statistics)
  Mr. Galbraith
  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 Strathkelvin and Bearsden constituency for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Information on schools in Strathkelvin and Bearsden can be obtained from Strathclyde regional council.

  Arts
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland, if he has any plans to establish an independent council with responsibility for the arts in Scotland with similar powers and responsibilities to those of the Scottish Sports Council; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  No.

  Free School Meals
  Mr. Pendry
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give, for each education authority in Scotland, the number of children who take school meals who are entitled to free school meals by reason of (i) their family being entitled to family income supplement or supplementary benefit, and (ii) the discretionary power of the local authority to extend free meal provision.
  320
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  This information is not held centrally.

  AIDS
  Mr. Wray
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the rate of increase in new sufferers of AIDS both in Scotland as a whole and in the Strathclyde region; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Up to the end of September 1987, 31 persons in Scotland had been registered with the Communicable Diseases (Scotland) Unit as suffering from AIDS; this represents an increase of 17 over the cumulative total of AIDS cases in Scotland reported up to the end of September 1986. Since the figure for a particular region may be very low, and its publication may in consequence endanger medical confidentiality, a geographical breakdown of AIDS cases in Scotland is not at present published.

  Mr. Wray
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the latest figures of National health Service patients treated for AIDS.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Up to the end of September 1987, 31 cases of patients in Scotland suffering from AIDS had been reported to the Communicable Diseases (Scotland) Unit. Of this total, 15 had died.

  School Meals
  Mr. Wray
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what instructions he will give to the proper authorities so that they closely check that, after the abolition of meal facilities for school children at school, the nutritional needs of such children do not suffer;

  (2) what steps he will take to ensure that, after the abolition of meal facilities for school children at their schools, such children will be able to choose the kind of food which contains the nutritional values they require for their good health and development;

  (3) what steps he has taken to ensure that the compensation given after the meal facilities for school children are abolished will cover the needs for adequate nutrition of the children.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  It is not the Government's intention to abolish school meal facilities. From 1 April 1988 the children's rates of family credit will take account of the cost of school meals and it is estimated that more pupils will be assisted with the cost of school meals than qualify under family income supplement and discretionary schemes now. These changes will not constrain the freedom of education authorities to decide the form and nutritional content of school meals.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will publish a table showing the predicted level of the personal community charge in Dunfermline, East in the financial year 1989–90, calculated on the basis of (a) 100 per cent. collection, (b) 95 per cent. collection, (c) 90 per cent. collection, (d) 85 per cent. collection, (e) 80 per cent. collection, (f) 75 per cent. collection, and (g) 70 per cent. collection;
  321
  (2) if he will publish an estimate of the numbers of staff that the community charge registration officer in Fife will be required to employ in order to complete registration on the community charge register of all adults in Fife.

  Mr. Hood
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will publish an estimate of the numbers of staff that the community charge registration officer will be required to employ in order to complete registration of all adults in the Clydesdale constituency;

  (2) if he will publish a table showing the predicted level of the personal community charge in the Clydesdale constituency in the financial year 1989–90, calculated on the basis of (1) 100 per cent. collection, (2) 95 per cent. collection, (3) 90 per cent. collection, (4) 85 per cent. collection, (5) 80 per cent. collection, (6) 75 per cent. collection and (7) 70 per cent. collection.

  Mr. Lang
  No. These are matters for the local authorities concerned.

  Pupil-Teacher Statistics
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  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 Dunfermline, East for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Information on schools in Dunfermline, East can be obtained from Fife regional council.

  Mr. Hood
  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 (1) primary and (2) secondary schools in the Clydesdale constituency for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Information on schools in Clydesdale can be obtained from Strathclyde regional council.

  Scottish Special Housing Association
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing the number of tenants living in Scottish Special Housing Association rented accommodation in Dunfermline, East in each year since 1979.

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

  Closures
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list all the closures that have resulted in 25 or more redundancies in Dunfermline, East in each year since 1979.

  Immunisation Acceptance Rates—Measles

  Percentage

  Children born in

  11973

  1974

  1975

  1976

  1977

  1978

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  Immunised by end of

  1976

  1977

  1978

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Scotland

  48·6

  50·8

  54·5

  56·0

  51·8

  54·4

  57·0

  60·3

  64·3

  72·7

  76·0

  Argyll and Clyde

  —

  42·4

  48·7

  51·3

  50·1

  48·8

  55·5

  59·5

  64·1

  71·7

  72·8

  Ayrshire and Arran

  —

  44·1

  46·3

  43·1

  34·8

  43·3

  46·6

  52·0

  54·5

  66·1

  72·7

  322
  Mr. Lang
  The information requested cannot be provided since details of closures and redundancies confirmed by individual companies are provided to the Manpower Services Commission in confidence.

  Higher and Further Education
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many pupils from Dunfermline, East 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. Hood
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many pupils from the Clydesdale constituency have obtained places in higher or further education in each year since 1979; and if he will express that number as a percentage in each group for each year.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information is not readily available.

  Nuclear Waste
  Mr. Wallace
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what cumulative volume of (a) high level, (b) intermediate level and (c) low level nuclear waste has been created by the operation of nuclear installations in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is not available in the form requested because much of the waste from the operation of Scottish nuclear installations arises at Sellafield when fuel is reprocessed and is not separately identifiable. However such waste is included in the national radioactivity waste inventory published in the annual reports of the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee—RWMAC—which also contain information about the wastes being stored at Scottish nuclear installations.

  In general, low level wastes are disposed of as they arise and the most recent information for Scottish sites is in the Scottish Development Department Statistical Bulletin No. 1/1986 — "Radioactive Waste Disposals from Nuclear Sites in Scotland: 1980 to 1984". The bulletin and the RWM AC reports are available in the Library.

  Immunisation
  Dr. Moonie
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will provide a table giving details of all childhood immunisations in Scotland, for each health board, for the years 1976 to 1986 inclusively.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information requested is in the table:
  323

  Children born in

  11973

  1974

  1975

  1976

  1977

  1978

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  Immunised by end of

  1976

  1977

  1978

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Borders

  —

  74·7

  75·2

  75·6

  71·3

  65·7

  64·8

  82·1

  84·9

  88·2

  92·7

  Dumfries and Galloway

  —

  65·8

  65·9

  68·0

  62·1

  65·7

  64·1

  69·6

  69·9

  77·5

  83·5

  Fife

  —

  61·6

  61·8

  59·0

  60·2

  59·2

  61·6

  62·0

  72·0

  81·4

  85·6

  Forth Valley

  —

  59·9

  63·1

  67·0

  68·7

  69·9

  71·1

  67·5

  78·5

  79·2

  88·1

  Grampian

  —

  66·8

  64·2

  66·9

  65·9

  64·1

  62·8

  68·1

  72·0

  79·1

  82·3

  Greater Glasgow

  —

  50·3

  50·5

  50·7

  43·8

  51·6

  58·7

  62·7

  62·3

  71·3

  75·2

  Highland

  —

  52·9

  54·1

  58·6

  54·4

  52·8

  58·7

  60·6

  60·2

  77·3

  84·3

  Lanarkshire

  —

  30·6

  50·1

  55·4

  43·9

  47·6

  45·5

  46·9

  50·4

  59·4

  63·1

  Lothian

  —

  48·9

  52·5

  53·8

  53·5

  52·5

  53·7

  57·7

  66·1

  73·7

  72·4

  Orkney

  —

  51·8

  62·3

  77·0

  48·2

  83·4

  70·8

  82·6

  81·7

  77·0

  80·0

  Shetland

  —

  50·4

  64·6

  43·6

  44·9

  63·6

  67·1

  66·9

  76·8

  77·2

  71·9

  Tayside

  —

  64·6

  61·0

  62·2

  57·3

  60·5

  63·3

  65·8

  70·2

  77·4

  78·1

  Western Isles

  —

  20·3

  33·0

  33·3

  45·5

  36·2

  36·1

  39·8

  32·3

  47·5

  53·2

  Source: Form ISD(S)11 pt 1

  1 Data on live births and neonatal deaths, required in the calculation of rates, are only available by health board for children born in 1974 and onwards.

  Immunisation Acceptance Rates—Diphtheria

  Percentage

  Children born in

  1974

  1975

  1976

  1977

  1978

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  Immunised by end of

  1976

  1977

  1978

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Scotland

  72·7

  77·8

  79·1

  75·8

  79·3

  79·8

  83·0

  82·7

  85·2

  86·6

  85·6

  Argyll and Clyde

  68·2

  82·3

  77·5

  75·7

  78·7

  77·9

  84·5

  79·1

  82·6

  81·3

  83·6

  Ayrshire and Arran

  61·3

  72·4

  66·6

  68·9

  76·5

  77·4

  79·0

  83·3

  82·9

  87·6

  90·0

  Borders

  98·3

  80·8

  92·0

  88·7

  84·8

  93·9

  95·3

  97·9

  97·1

  97·8

  93·6

  Dumfries and Galloway

  90·1

  92·0

  90·5

  87·1

  89·3

  90·2

  88·0

  89·5

  90·9

  90·5

  92·7

  Fife

  87·2

  84·2

  85·8

  85·3

  87·2

  87·7

  90·3

  88·1

  90·9

  93·4

  90·0

  Forth Valley

  79·5

  81·9

  89·5

  86·0

  89·0

  86·3

  85·5

  84·5

  90·7

  91·5

  93·0

  Grampian

  82·7

  84·7

  88·4

  86·2

  83·3

  84·1

  84·6

  83·3

  84·2

  88·5

  87·6

  Greater Glasgow

  64·7

  67·0

  63·6

  63·2

  71·7

  74·2

  82·6

  81·1

  82·4

  85·4

  85·7

  Highland

  76·5

  78·2

  75·7

  77·6

  80·2

  79·0

  84·1

  72·2

  86·1

  89·8

  90·7

  Lanarkshire

  61·9

  76·0

  92·9

  75·0

  76·4

  79·7

  76·7

  77·1

  82·4

  83·6

  82·5

  Lothian

  76·2

  83·0

  79·8

  78·6

  82·9

  77·8

  80·1

  87·9

  88·5

  84·2

  76·5

  Orkney

  72·7

  89·4

  100·0

  76·1

  97·6

  95·8

  100·0

  95·6

  95·7

  72·7

  100·0

  Shetland

  69·9

  100·0

  100·0

  91·2

  89·3

  84·7

  92·5

  90·2

  90·1

  87·1

  88·8

  Tayside

  83·0

  76·3

  78·6

  73·9

  75·9

  79·6

  85·8

  84·0

  83·8

  88·3

  86·8

  Western Isles

  54·4

  88·1

  75·3

  83·0

  69·1

  57·9

  63·6

  60·3

  66·5

  69·0

  71·3

  Source: Form ISD(S)11pt1

  Immunisation Acceptance Rates—Pertussis (Whooping Cough)

  Percentage

  Children born in

  1974

  1975

  1976

  1977

  1978

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  Immunised by end of

  1976

  1977

  1978

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Scotland

  55·2

  55·4

  49·1

  47·7

  51·8

  53·7

  58·1

  60·0

  68·6

  69·2

  70·7

  Argyll and Clyde

  51·9

  61·1

  47·6

  47·9

  51·3

  53·4

  60·3

  59·1

  68·6

  67·5

  69·6

  Ayrshire and Arran

  41·2

  87·9

  37·1

  36·1

  49·0

  53·5

  55·4

  60·8

  67·6

  70·6

  75·1

  Borders

  60·8

  58·0

  55·8

  60·0

  60·9

  68·3

  72·2

  77·7

  81·9

  83·1

  80·6

  Dumfries and Galloway

  72·1

  69·9

  67·1

  59·9

  64·6

  65·3

  68·1

  70·9

  75·6

  74·1

  79·8

  Fife

  61·7

  55·0

  42·3

  45·2

  48·5

  49·4

  55·4

  55·2

  65·5

  67·7

  69·3

  Forth Valley

  65·9

  56·8

  52·1

  50·8

  62·0

  63·2

  67·9

  69·0

  77·6

  77·6

  82·3

  Grampian

  64·7

  63·4

  53·4

  55·1

  55·1

  57·5

  61·2

  63·9

  69·2

  74·3

  75·5

  Greater Glasgow

  59·9

  52·7

  49·2

  49·1

  51·6

  53·3

  59·7

  58·7

  66·4

  66·5

  68·9

  Highland

  66·9

  64·3

  48·6

  47·9

  49·2

  52·8

  59·4

  48·4

  69·8

  74·2

  75·0

  Lanarkshire

  38·7

  55·5

  58·0

  41·6

  47·6

  53·0

  48·9

  52·9

  61·3

  64·1

  65·5

  Lothian

  52·3

  58·4

  46·9

  48·7

  51·7

  50·0

  54·7

  62·8

  71·9

  65·9

  62·6

  Orkney

  60·0

  62·7

  41·0

  26·5

  40·3

  41·7

  55·2

  62·7

  74·0

  56·4

  83·8

  Shetland

  33·0

  13·0

  38·1

  50·7

  41·9

  45·7

  58·9

  61·8

  67·0

  64·2

  71·5

  Tayside

  57·2

  57·7

  47·3

  46·5

  51·4

  51·8

  59·9

  64·2

  71·2

  73·5

  75·6

  Western Isles

  48·8

  75·5

  60·8

  62·5

  46·6

  41·2

  49·7

  44·2

  60·2

  59·7

  61·2

  Source: Form ISD(S)11pt1
  324 325

  Immunisation Acceptance Rates—Tetanus

  Percentage

  Children born in

  1974

  1975

  1976

  1977

  1978

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  Immunised by end of

  1976

  1977

  1978

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Scotland

  72·8

  77·7

  79·0

  75·8

  79·4

  79·9

  83·0

  82·7

  85·1

  86·6

  85·7

  Argyll and Clyde

  68·2

  82·4

  77·6

  75·9

  78·9

  77·9

  84·5

  79·1

  82·5

  81·4

  83·6

  Ayrshire and Arran

  61·9

  72·5

  66·6

  69·0

  76·5

  77·4

  79·1

  83·3

  82·9

  87·7

  90·0

  Borders

  98·6

  80·9

  92·2

  88·8

  84·8

  93·9

  95·4

  98·2

  97·2

  97·8

  93·7

  Dumfries and Galloway

  90·2

  92·0

  90·6

  87·1

  89·4

  90·4

  88·1

  89·7

  90·9

  90·6

  92·7

  Fife

  87·3

  84·3

  85·9

  85·5

  87·2

  87·9

  90·5

  88·2

  90·8

  93·4

  90·0

  Forth Valley

  79·5

  81·9

  89·5

  86·0

  89·0

  86·3

  85·5

  84·5

  90·7

  91·5

  93·0

  Grampian

  82·7

  84·7

  88·5

  86·3

  83·4

  84·2

  84·7

  83·4

  84·2

  88·6

  87·6

  Greater Glasgow

  64·7

  66·9

  63·5

  63·1

  71·9

  74·3

  82·6

  81·1

  82·5

  85·4

  85·7

  Highland

  76·6

  78·8

  76·2

  78·7

  81·0

  79·7

  84·2

  72·3

  86·2

  89·9

  90·8

  Lanarkshire

  61·8

  75·0

  91·2

  74·4

  76·3

  79·6

  76·5

  77·2

  82·1

  83·3

  82·7

  Lothian

  76·6

  83·2

  80·0

  78·7

  83·0

  78·3

  80·4

  87·9

  88·2

  84·2

  76·5

  Orkney

  72·7

  89·4

  100·0

  80·5

  98·0

  95·8

  100·0

  95·6

  95·7

  72·7

  100·0

  Shetland

  69·9

  100·0

  100·0

  91·2

  89·3

  84·7

  92·5

  90·2

  90·6

  87·1

  89·4

  Tayside

  83·1

  76·4

  78·8

  74·0

  76·1

  79·7

  85·9

  84·0

  83·9

  88·7

  86·9

  Western Isles

  54·4

  88·1

  75·3

  83·0

  69·1

  59·3

  63·6

  60·3

  63·7

  68·7

  69·2

  Source: Form ISD(S)11pt1

  Immunisation Acceptance Rates—Poliomyelitis

  Percentage

  Children born in

  1974

  1975

  1976

  1977

  1978

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  immunised by end of

  1976

  1977

  1978

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Scotland

  69·6

  76·6

  79·0

  75·2

  79·5

  81·9

  82·4

  81·9

  84·2

  85·1

  85·3

  Argyll & Clyde

  66·0

  84·5

  86·7

  75·1

  77·1

  78·1

  83·5

  79·0

  82·5

  81·5

  83·6

  Ayrshire & Arran

  60·7

  68·9

  66·7

  70·0

  75·7

  77·1

  78·0

  82·4

  81·5

  86·4

  88·8

  Borders

  94·3

  75·4

  89·8

  91·1

  80·6

  92·9

  96·0

  96·8

  95·3

  98·3

  93·3

  Dumfries & Galloway

  90·9

  93·0

  90·8

  90·4

  90·5

  91·4

  87·9

  90·4

  89·7

  90·0

  93·4

  Fife

  84·6

  81·5

  83·3

  82·1

  85·9

  91·0

  91·0

  85·5

  89·1

  90·2

  86·2

  Forth Valley

  79·2

  80·9

  89·6

  86·6

  87·8

  87·3

  85·8

  82·9

  89·8

  90·3

  92·8

  Grampian

  80·6

  87·9

  84·1

  84·1

  82·9

  82·4

  84·8

  83·8

  83·4

  85·4

  87·0

  Greater Glasgow

  64·1

  66·7

  63·6

  63·0

  72·1

  74·4

  82·6

  81·1

  82·3

  85·3

  85·7

  Highland

  82·1

  79·8

  80·0

  76·2

  77·8

  79·6

  82·9

  68·3

  86·3

  89·5

  90·3

  Lanarkshire

  55·2

  73·0

  91·9

  72·3

  77·0

  28·9

  74·9

  78·3

  81·3

  81·9

  82·0

  Lothian

  69·2

  77·5

  78·1

  80·6

  88·0

  93·6

  80·7

  86·2

  86·0

  80·6

  78·4

  Orkney

  74·1

  89·0

  100·0

  70·8

  97·6

  90·0

  93·8

  82·5

  85·5

  69·5

  97·9

  Shetland

  72·0

  98·9

  100·0

  93·0

  89·0

  85·5

  92·5

  93·9

  88·6

  90·3

  88·8

  Tayside

  73·7

  76·1

  76·1

  72·8

  75·5

  78·7

  80·7

  81·7

  83·4

  86·5

  85·3

  Western Isles

  53·7

  88·5

  66·0

  78·7

  63·3

  58·1

  64·7

  56·8

  65·5

  67·3

  68·9

  Source: Form ISD(S)11pt1

  SHARPEN Report
  Mr. Hood
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the Government's response to the SHARPEN report, "Scottish Health Authorities Resource Priorities for the Eighties and Nineties".

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  No. I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) on 26 October 1987. A statement by the Government will be possible only after advice about the report Scottish Health Authorities Review of Priorities for the Eighties and Nineties—SHARPEN — and its recommendations has been received from the Scottish Health Service Planning Council which will consider the report in detail at its meeting in March 1988.
  326
  Mr. Hood
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give details of the circulation of the report on the Scottish Health Service "Scottish Health Authorities Resource Priorities for the Eighties and Nineties".

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) on 26 October 1987.

  Carstairs State Hospital
  Mr. Hood
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will detail planned capital expenditure for Carstairs state hospital to improve facilities for patients.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  My right hon. and learned Friend is presently considering proposals by the state hospital management committee for upgrading the ward accommodation at the hospital.

  Dredging Operations
  Mr. Robertson
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any intention to police and control dredging operations arising from widespread seabed trawling for shellfish off the Scottish coastline.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Almost all seabed trawling for shellfish in waters off the Scottish coast takes place in muddy grounds where nephrops—prawns—are found. Light gear is used and disturbance of the seabed is minimal. Fishing operations are subject to European Community conservation and control measures which are vigorously enforced by the fishery protection service. My right hon. and learned Friend has no plans to introduce further control measures.

  Adult Education
  Mr. Robertson
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish in the Official Report statistics for the most recent available period, and for the five previous years, relating to Government expenditure on adult education in Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Scottish Education Department does not maintain separate records of educational expenditure for those who have reached the age of majority.

  National Health Service
  Mr. Hood
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing for each year since 1979 (a) the number of National Health Service beds in Clydesdale constituency and (b) the number of National Health Service staff in terms of full-time equivalents.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  This information is not available centrally on a constituency basis.

  Haemophilia Centres (Funding)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if his Department will provide funding for the haemophilia centres in Edinburgh and Glasgow to enable them to carry out AIDS-related work.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The funding of the haemophilia centres in Edinburgh and Glasgow is a matter for Lothian and Greater Glasgow health boards to consider in the context of the various demands which AIDS and HIV infection are placing and will place on them.

  Air Misses
  Mr. Home
  Robertson asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the reports of near misses involving aircraft in Scotland in the last five years; and if he will publish the reports which have been made following investigations of these incidents.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Civil Aviation Authority is responsible through National Air Traffic Services —NATS— for airspace management. The authority has told me that the total reported air misses over Scotland and adjacent inshore waters were as follows:
  328

  Number

  1982

  20

  1983

  19

  1984

  22

  1985

  12

  1986

  19

  1987

  117

  1 To 1 October.

  Reports of the investigations carried out by NATS into reported air misses are confidential and are not made public.

  Benefits
  Mr. Macdonald
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people in the Western Isles are currently in receipt of (a) supplementary benefit, (b) invalidity benefit, (c) housing benefit (d) sickness benefit, (e) mobility allowance and (f) maternity benefit; and how many people have received single payments in the current financial year.

  Mr. Portillo
  I have been asked to reply.

  Social security benefits for the Western Isles are paid by the Department's office at Stornaway. Housing benefit is dealt with by the Western Isles regional council. The information requested is as follows, the dates are the latest dates for which information is available.

  1. Supplementary benefit claimants as at 28 July 1987 were 4,574.

  2. Sickness and invalidity benefits claimants at 20 October 1987 were 717; separate records are not kept of recipients of sickness and invalidity benefit.

  3. Mobility allowance is administered centrally and details are not available of the numbers of beneficiaries in the Western Isles.

  4. Maternity benefit claimants at 20 October 1987 were five.

  5. Single payments: During the current financial year until 20 October 1987 there have been 519 decisions which resulted in either a full or part payment.

  6. Housing benefit: Information is not available in the precise form requested. In the current financial year the provisional figure for rate rebate recipients is 4,215. This figure is the normal pointer used for housing benefit recipients.

  Rents
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will give the average rents for council houses in Edinburgh in each year from 1977 to 1987;

  (2) if he will give the average rents for council houses in Edinburgh in each year from 1977 to 1986, repriced for inflation;

  (3) if he will give the average rents for council houses in Edinburgh in each year from 1977 to 1987, repriced for inflation.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is set out in the table:

  Average Weekly Council House Rent in Edinburgh

  Year

  Cash prices

  1At 1987–88 prices

  £

  £

  1977–78

  5·17

  11·64

  1978–79

  5·71

  10·50

  1979–80

  6·52

  11·34

  1980–81

  7·63

  11·18

  329

  Year

  Cash prices

  1At 1987–88 prices

  £

  £

  1981–82

  9·54

  12·73

  1982–83

  11·04

  13·74

  1983–84

  12·28

  14·63

  1984–85

  13·53

  15·46

  1985–86

  13·35

  14·37

  1986–87

  13·39

  13–99

  1987–88

  15·00

  15·00

  1 Using GDP deflators.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Child Benefit
  Mr. Wareing
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has had regarding the imposition of taxes on child benefit; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Major
  This subject was discussed during the social security review that preceded the Social Security Act 1986.

  Job Creation
  Mr. Cohen
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of jobs created for the expenditure of £1 billion in (i) defence spending, (ii) public transport, (iii) construction, (iv) health and (v) education.

  Mr. Major
  Irrespective of composition, higher overall public expenditure is unlikely to have any lasting beneficial effect on the level of employment for the economy as a whole. Estimates of the short-run effects are unreliable because they depend critically on the economic model and the underlying assumptions that are used.

  Data Protection
  Mr. Cohen
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make a statement on the current status of the Government data network project, including a description of the discussions he has had with the Data Protection Registrar concerning the project.

  Mr. Major
  Following the shortlisting in March this year, further discussions and demonstrations have taken place with consortia. It is expected that memoranda of agreement will be signed shortly and tenders invited before the end of the year. A final decision on whether or not to proceed will be taken after tenders have been evaluated.

  The Paymaster General met the Data Protection Registrar on 8 September and discussed the nature of GDN as a shared physical network facility for data but which will consist of a collection of virtual networks for each of the participating Departments. Further work is continuing on guidance to be offered to Departments about good practice to be adopted before linking to GDN. The Paymaster General and the Data Protection Registrar also discussed how the DPR might carry forward his planned contact with the four participating Departments, which are themselves responsible for the care and ownership of data transferred across the network.

  Mr. Cohen
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer 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.
  330
  Mr. Brooke
  The Treasury's policy towards fees for subject access under the Data Protection Act will be to make no charge to employees and ex-employees. For anyone else the charge will be £10.

  The Treasury has two registrations under the Act: one for the Chessington computer centre as a bureau, the other for the remainder of the Treasury as a user and a bureau.

  The total cost to a data subject for each access request will be £10.

  Inland Revenue
  Mr. Tim Smith
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects the Inland Revenue to publish its accounts (1) for the year ended 31 March 1986 and (2) for the year ended 31 March 1987.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The Inland Revenue's appropriation account for the year ended 31 March 1986, together with a summary statement of the revenue receipts for that year, was published with the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General in November 1986. Similar accounts for the year ended 31 March 1987 have been submitted to the Comptroller and Auditor General and will be published with his report in due course.

  A more detailed account of revenue receipts for the two years in question will be contained in the Board of Inland Revenue's next report. Following the recommendation of the Public Accounts Committee and the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service the report will in future be based on a financial year, rather than a calendar year as now. In consequence the next report will cover the 15 months ending 31 March 1987: it is due for publication in December 1987.

  Income Tax
  Sir Brandon Rhys Williams
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will recalculate the figures given in the answer to the hon. Member for Kensington on 23 March 1987, Official Report, column 35, about personal allowances on the basis of the existing income tax rate of 27 per cent., and assuming weekly basic incomes of (a) £10, (b) £11 and (c) £12.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [pursuant to his reply, 21 October 1987, c. 790]: The yield to the Exchequer of replacing all existing personal allowances with basic incomes of £10, £11 and £12 per week would be £5 billion, £3 billion and nil respectively in a full year at 1987–88 income levels. The offsetting costs from allowing tax discounts on earned and unearned incomes for each individual are estimated to be as follows:

  Weekly tax discount on earned income

  Cost in a full year at 1987–88 income levels

  (£)

  (£)

  3·00

  4

  6·00

  8

  7·50

  10

  Weekly tax discount on investment income1

  Cost in a full year at 1987–88 income levels

  (£)

  (£)

  3·00

  3

  6·00

  5

  7·50

  6

  21·00

  10

  30·00

  11

  331
  1 Assuming that occupational pensions and state retirement pension are treated as investment income.

  BP Share Offer
  Mr. Chris Smith
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list all the underwriters and sub-underwriters, both United Kingdom-based and foreign, committed to the current BP share offer, and the maximum proportion of financial commitment in each case.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The obligations of the United Kingdom and overseas underwriters for the BP offer are set out in paragraph 7 of section 10 of the United Kingdom prospectus, a copy of which has been placed in the Library.

  The names of the 17 United Kingdom underwriters are given on page 1 of the United Kingdom prospectus. However, in the United Kingdom this underwriting risk has been passed on to a large number (measured in hundreds) of sub-underwriters, generally investors such as United Kingdom pension funds and insurance companies. The United Kingdom underwriters are liable to take up shares to the extent they are not taken up by sub-underwriters.

  The four United States underwriters are Goldman, Sachs & co., Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated, Salomon Brothers Incorporated and Shearson Lehman Brothers Incorporated.

  The three Canadian underwriters are Wood Gundy Inc., McLeod Young Weir Limited and Dominion Securities Inc.

  The five Japanese underwriters are Daiwa Securities Co. Ltd., the Nomura Securities Co. Ltd., the Nikko Securities Co. Ltd., S. G. Warburg Securities (Japan) Inc. and Yamaichi Securities Company, Limited.

  The 87 European underwriters are as follows.

  Swiss Bank Corporation International Limited

  Algemene Bank Nederland NV

  Banca Commerciale Italiana

  Banque Bruxelles Lambert SA

  Banque Nationale de Paris

  Banque Paribas Capital Markets Limited

  Commerzbank Aktiengesellschaft

  Creditanstalt-Bankverein

  Credit Suisse First Boston Limited

  Deutsche Bank Capital Markets Limited

  Dresdner Bank Aktiengesellschaft

  EBC Amro Bank Limited

  Enskilda Securities—Skandinaviska Enskilda Limited

  Generale Bank

  Girozentrale under Bank der osterreichischen Sparkassen

  Aktiengesellschaft

  Mediobanca—Banca di Credito Finanziario SpA

  Pierson, Heldring & Pierson NV

  Swiss Volksbank London Branch

  Union Bank of Switzerland (Securities) Limited

  Die Erste osterreichische Spar-Casse—Bank

  Genossenschaftliche Zentralbank Aktiengesellschaft

  Osterreichische Landerbank Aktiengesellschaft

  Zentralsparkasse und Kommerzialbank Wien

  Banque Inernationale a Luxembourg SA

  Dewfin SA

  Kredietbank NV

  Kredietbank SA Luxembourgeoise

  Petercann Securities SA

  Bayerische Hypotheken-und Wechsel-Bank Aktiengesellschaft

  Bayerische Landesbank Girozentrale

  Bayerische Vereinsbank Aktiengesellschaft

  Berliner Handels-und Frankfurter Bank

  DG BANK Deutsche Genossenschaftsbank

  Hamburgische Landesbank—Girozentrale

  Schweizerischer Bankverein (Deutschland) AG

  332

  Vereins-und Westbank Aktiengesellschaft

  Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale

  Banque Indozuex

  Banque de I'Union Europeenne Caisse Centrale des Banque Populaires

  Caisse des Depots et Consignations

  Caisse Nationale de Credit Agricole

  La Compagnie Financiere Edmond de Rothschild Banque

  Credit Commercial de France

  Credit Industriel et Commercial de Paris

  Credit Lyonnais

  Lazard Freres et Cie

  Rothschild et Associes Banque

  Societe Generale

  Banca Nazionale del Lavoro

  Banco di Roma

  Credito Italiano

  Istituto Bancario San Paolo di Torino

  SIGE SpA

  Bank Mces & hope NV

  F van Lanschot Bankiers NV

  Nederlandsche Middenstandsbank nv

  Cooperative Centrale Raiffeisen-Boerenleenbank BA (Rabobank Nederland)

  Bergen Bank A/S

  Den norske Creditbank

  Den Danske Bank of 1871 Aktieselskab

  Kansallis-Osake-Pankki

  Privatbanken A/S

  Svenska Handelsbanken PLC

  Union Bank of Finland Ltd

  Banca del Gottardo

  Banca della Svizzera Italiana

  Bank in Liechtenstein AG

  Bank J Vontobel & Co AG

  Banque Paribas (Suisse) SA

  Compagnie de Banque et d'Investissements

  Darier & Cie

  HandelsBank NatWest

  MM Hentsch & Cie

  Julius Baer International Limited

  Leu Securities Limited

  Lombard, Odier International Underwriters SA

  Pictet International Ltd

  Privat Kredit Bank

  Rothschild Bank AG

  Sarasin Investment Management Limited

  Swiss Cantonalbanks

  Unigestion SA

  SG Warburg Soditic SA

  Banco de Bil:o SA

  Banco Hispano Americano SA

  Banco Santander de Negocios

  Banco de Vizcaya

  Mr. Chris Smith
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will institute inquiries into discussions which have taken place between certain underwriters of the current BP share issue about the organisation of concerted buying operation to lift the price of existing BP shares on the market and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  If the hon. Member has evidence of any activity of this nature in connection with the BP share sale, he should notify me immediately.

  Value Added Tax
  Mr. Frank Field
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what decisions have been made on the imposition of value added tax on bus travel in the United Kingdom following the European Economic Community's considerations on the harmonisation of value added tax rates in its various member states; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  We have already made it clear that we would not accept proposals which restricted our ability to use zero rating.

  Alcohol
  Dr. Godman
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much revenue was raised from taxes on alcohol in the financial year 1986–87; and what were the comparable figures for 1984–85 and 1985–86.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The information is as follows (figures are in £ million)

  Excise

  1VAT

  Total tax

  1986–87

  4,195·6

  2,150

  6,345·6

  1985–86

  4,197·3

  2,050

  6,247·3

  1984–85

  3,760·6

  1,890

  5,650·6

  1 Estimated VAT receipts based on consumers' expenditure data.

DEFENCE

  Nimrod Early Warning Programme
  Mr. Warren
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the progress of his review of the failures of management in his Department during the Nimrod airborne early warning programme, and on the findings of that review.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The review to which my hon. Friend refers was to examine our arrangements for the scientific and technical specification and monitoring of major projects against the background of our experience with Nimrod AEW. It has now been completed and the report is being examined. I will write to my hon. Friend as soon as this work is completed.

  Anglo-American Community Relations Committee
  Ms. Richardson
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will (a) list the members of the Anglo-American Community Relations Committee; (b) state the criteria for selection of members; (c) list the relevant qualifications of present members; (d) indicate the number of Trades Union Congress-nominated places; and (e) indicate how many Trades Union Congress-nominated places are held by women.

  Mr. Freeman
  An Anglo-American community relations committee exists at each of the main bases made available to United States forces. There is no central committee.

  The chairmanship of each local committee carries no financial reward and the person appointed by me is selected from a list of volunteers. The secretary of each committee is, without exception, the community relations adviser to the base and is a MOD-employed civil servant. The viewpoint of the base authorities is represented by the RAF commander and the United States base commander. The remaining members of each committee representing the local community are volunteers appointed by the chairman, without reference to MOD.

  Given the voluntary nature of these committees, no organisations other than the base authorities are represented. Therefore the question of Trades Union Congress nominated places does not arise.

  Arms and Ammunition (Security)
  Mr. Pike
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence what instances of theft of ammunition or firearms have occurred
  334
  in the last 12 months at training establishments of air training corps or other similar bodies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  Over the past 12 months there have been 53 break-ins at a total of 3,327 service cadet corps establishments resulting in the theft of the following firearms and ammunition:

  Firearms

  Ammunition

  Air Training Corps

  5 x ·22" rifles (1 rifle recovered)

  4,877 rounds of ·22" ammunition (838 rounds recovered)

  Army Cadet Force and Combined Cadet Force

  18 x ·177" air rifles (6 air rifles recovered)

  Nil

  Sea Cadet Corps

  Nil

  Nil

  In addition 39 inert non-firing drill purpose rifles have been stolen, of which 16 have been recovered, and 107 inert drill purpose rounds of which 35 have been recovered.

  Mr. Pike
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence what security arrangements are made for ammunition and fire arms in the possession of air training corps and other similar bodies.

  Mr. Freeman
  Firearms held by service cadet forces are stored in secure or structurally approved armouries, except that where it is not possible or economical to provide an armoury small bore ·22" rifles and ·303" non-firing drill purpose rifles may be stored in approved steel arms chests. Ammunition is stored in regular service armouries or properly constructed ammunition stores except that where it is not possible or economical to provide an ammunition store small quantities of small arms ·22" ammunition may be stored in approved steel containers; ammunition is kept separate from firearms.

  Equal Opportunities
  Ms. Richardson
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence 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 departmental 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. Sainsbury
  The departmental equal opportunities officer, who is generally responsible for industrial relations policy in the Department, allocates some 5 per cent. of personal working time to specific equal opportunities work. The promotion of equal opportunities is an integral part of personnel management, and it is not possible to attribute specific costs. The departmental equal opportunities officer or his representative regularly meets colleagues from other Government Departments at committees chaired by the office of the Minister for the Civil Service, and at other meetings to discuss specific
  335
  issues. Action is being taken to ensure that women have access to relevant training, including women-only courses, and equal opportunities awareness is being promoted on all appropriate courses and through an instruction to all staff. In conjunction with the MOD Council of Civil Service Unions, a survey has been conducted to determine the demand for job-sharing and part-time working. As a result a circular is being issued throughout the Department drawing attention to the possibility of creating job shares or part-time posts. Arrangements exist to accommodate requests for special leave to cope with domestic responsibilities.

  Northern Norway
  Mr. Cartwright
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence what requests have been received for British forces to fill the gap left by the Canadian decision to withdraw the CAST brigade from the reinforcement of northern Norway.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  No request has been made for British forces to assume this role. The Canadian proposal to withdraw the CAST brigade from its role in the reinforcement of northern Norway is presently the subject of assessment by NATO military authorities, in accordance with normal procedures. The United Kingdom already makes a significant contribution to the defence of northern Norway and will, along with allies, give careful consideration to the NMA's assessment.

  Fort Chaffee, Arkansas
  Mr. Cohen
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the number of troops expected to take part in operations next year at the Joint Readiness Training Centre at Fort Chaffee in Arkansas; and what is the purpose of the training.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  I have nothing to add to my answer of 22 October to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) at column 874.

  Irish Sea (Submarines)
  Mr. John David Taylor
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence when the Royal Navy, through the Flag Officers Scotland and Northern Ireland, will arrange a meeting with the Northern Ireland fishing industry to discuss submarines in the Irish Sea, as was suggested in the letter of 15 April from his Department to the Northern Ireland Fish Producers Association Ltd.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  An invitation has now been sent to the Northern Ireland fish producers organisation to attend a meeting on this subject with representatives of the Royal Navy.

  Rosyth Dockyard
  Dr. Moonie
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence if in the light of the recent court decision in favour of Mr. Alex Falconer, MEP, he will now seek to identify all those who have been exposed to excessive levels of asbestos at Rosyth dockyard; he will provide proper screening for lung damage for those concerned; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Employees at Rosyth dockyard who may have been exposed to asbestos fall into two 336
  categories; those whose work requires them to operate in an environment where they may be exposed to high levels of asbestos dust and those who may have been accidentally exposed to low levels of dust. The former, classified as registered asbestos workers, are provided with personal protective equipment and are subject to special health surveillance procedures laid down by the Health and Safety Executive. Every effort is made to ensure that safe working practices eliminate the possibility of accidental exposure but individuals who believe that they may have been exposed in this way are able to request that their personal records be annotated to that effect. These methods of identification continue to be available following the transfer of the dockyard to commercial management in April 1987.

  With regard to health screening, existing health checks for registered asbestos workers include regular chest X-rays. In addition, my Department made available in November 1986, and again in early 1987, facilities at Rosyth for full plate X-rays for any MOD employee who was about to transfer to Babcock Thorn and who, not being a registered asbestos worker, had not had access to this level of scrutiny for some time.

  Courts Martial
  Mr. Ashley
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will make a statement on procedure for Army courts martial, including the procedure for selection of Army officers to adjudicate;

  (2) what training is given to Army officers who adjudicate over courts martial; and approximately how frequently in a year any one officer undertakes the duty.

  Mr. Freeman
  Serious cases are usually investigated by the Special Investigation Branch, Royal Military Police, who submit a report to the commanding officer. It is the CO's responsibility then to decide what, if any, action is to be taken. If he is of the opinion that the case should be tried by court-martial, after complying with certain formalities, he will send the relevant papers to an officer empowered to convene courts-martial, usually of the rank of brigadier or above. If this officer agrees that trial by court-martial is appropriate, he will convene a court. Legal advice is, of course, available to the officers concerned at all stages.

  All Army officers are required to undergo instruction in military law as part of their general training, and have to pass an examination in this subject. They are also expected to attend trials as an officer under instruction on a number of occasions before they actually sit as a member of a court. Additionally, many officers will have practical experience of the disciplinary process by virtue of an appointment as adjutant or assistant adjutant of their unit. So far as the selection of officers to compose a particular court is concerned, the usual practice is to nominate the president by name, and to delegate to the commanding officers of various units the duty of nominating a suitably qualified officer to sit on the court. Courts-martial trying the more serious cases will have a judge advocate sitting with them to advise on the law and to sum up the facts for them.

  It is not possible to say how frequently in a year any one officer sits with a court, as this will vary from individual to individual.
  337
  Mr. Ashley
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence on how many occasions over the past five years a court martial has ruled that charges be dropped because of lack of evidence.

  Mr. Freeman
  Cases where a court martial has accepted a submission of no case to answer or has used its power to stop a case are not separately recorded and could be identified only at disproportionate cost.

  Bullying and Brutality
  Mr. Ashley
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence at what level in the armed forces complaints about bullying are held; how many units at this level there are; and what would be the cost of relaying the information to his Department for central collation.

  Mr. Freeman
  Investigations are held variously at unit or command level, and with reference to MoD centrally where the circumstances dictate. I will write to the right hon. Member on the further detail.

  Mr. Ashley
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence during the current year, what action has been taken by the Adjutant General, Sir David Mostyn, that has been specifically aimed at preventing bullying and brutality.

  Mr. Freeman
  Bullying is not tolerated in the British Army. The Adjutant General regards such matters very seriously and takes every opportunity including his annual conference and his numerous visits to units at home and overseas to remind commanders of the importance of careful supervision at all levels. More specifically, in January he directed that a letter be sent to senior commanders drawing their attention to recent alleged incidences of bullying. The subject was discussed at his conference in May and in July he wrote further to all commanders, to remind them of the need for continued vigilance, and for firm disciplinary action to be taken against offenders in cases where allegations of ill-treatment or bullying are substantiated. He has asked commanders to report back to him by December after thorough investigation in their own areas of command, and to make proposals fo future means of combating bullying.

  Mr. Ashley
  asked the Secretary of State for defence if he will make provision for soldiers to be able to make complaints about bullying to Army personnel who are not in the same battalion.

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer the right hon. Member to the answers I gave him on 2 April,Official Report, at column 565. Provision already exists for a soldier to complain not only up his own chain of command but also to senior visiting officers. It is also open to him to approach other officers in a unit, not in direct line of command, or various welfare agencies. He may also submit a redress of grievance.

  Mr. Ashley
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence on how many occasions over the past five years it has been found that initiation rites of an undesirable nature are taking place in the Army; what was the source of information; and what action was taken.

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

  Mr. Ashley
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many Army courts martial there have been in each of
  338
  the last five years; how many of them have been concerned with Army brutality; in how many of these the accused was found guilty; and what sentences were imposed.

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

  Mr. Ashley
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence on how many occasions over the past five years witnesses for a pending court martial involving bullying have been temporarily removed from their regiment for their own protection.

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

  Mr. Ashley
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence how frequently it is found impossible to pursue allegations of bullying because no witness is willing to give evidence.

  Mr. Freeman
  Where the complainant himself is prepared to give witness, inquiries are invariably initiated.

  Anonymous allegations of bullying are most difficult to pursue, because there is no full statement of the complaint, nor sufficient detail of alleged offences, to enable proper investigation.

  Mr. Ashley
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he has received any indications or suggestions that fear of the consequences restrains recruits from complaining about Army bullying.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Army is well aware that there could be a reluctance on the part of some recruits to complain about bullying, and that this can be a risk when dealing anywhere with matters of this kind. All possible steps are taken to try to overcome this difficulty. Each soldier knows of his right to go over the head of his immediate commander, to a higher level, if this should prove necessary, or to approach any senior visiting officer. Other forms of advice and help are also available, for example, the unit medical officer, the padre, the families' officer, and the staff of welfare agencies such as the WRVS and SSAFA.

  Absent Without Leave
  Mr. Ashley
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence if any form of counselling or contact with welfare officers is automatically provided after personnel are absent without leave.

  Mr. Freeman
  Counselling is not provided as a matter of course. However, if during the investigation of his case or in discussion with the soldier concerned the commanding officer felt that counselling would be of any value, this would be arranged.

  Mr. Ashley
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the punishments that are given when Army personnel return or are found after being absent without leave, showing how many people received each punishment, in the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Freeman
  Punishments vary widely according to the circumstances and seriousness of each case. Trivial absence of a few hours or half a day would probably mean only a fine or lesser punishment, but a more serious case could entail detention or dismissal. In cases where the commanding officer judges that the soldier is not blameworthy, or where there proves to be a good reason for absence, there would not necessarily be any punishment.
  339
  On the further detail requested, I will write to the right hon. Member.

  Sentencing Policy
  Mr. Ashley
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence what procedure the Army has, similar to judges' sentencing conferences, to enable a general discussion by relevant people about the level of sentences.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Army holds a biannual discipline seminar which is attended by the permanent presidents of district courts-martial, and by representatives of Army Legal Services and of the disciplinary branches of formations responsible for convening courts martial. The 340
  Judge Advocate General or his representative also attend. Additionally, the Judge Advocate General, from his experience of sentencing in Crown courts, advises convening officers in the great majority of cases.

  Young Recruits (Experience)
  Mr. Ashley
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence what restrictions are placed on the freedom of young recruits who voluntarily leave the Army within six months to talk publicly about their experiences in the Army.

  Mr. Freeman
  There are no restrictions placed on recruits who leave the Army, other than the normal obligations not to disclose information learnt in the course of their official duties.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR Oil the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Liverpool.
Viscount Runciman of Doxford Viscount Runciman of Doxford— Took the Oath.
Viscount Barrington Viscount Barrington— Took the Oath.

Lord Pym
The Right Honourable Francis Leslie Pym, MC, having been created Baron Pym, of Sandy in the County of Bedfordshire, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Carrington and the Lord Home of the Hirsel.
Lord Joseph
The Right Honourable Sir Keith Sinjohn Joseph, Baronet, CH, having been created Baron Joseph, of Portsoken in the City of London, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Young of Graffham and the Lord Vinson.

River Lea: Improvements
2.55 p.m.
Lord Renton: 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 are proposing to take to improve the quality and appearance of the River Lea, particularly in its lower reaches.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the primary responsibility for maintaining and improving the quality of the River Lea rests with the Thames Water Authority. The quality of the river upstream of Tottenham Lock is generally satisfactory but downstream some stretches are of poor quality. I understand that the water authority's aim is to bring the lower reaches up to at least class 2 in the national classification scheme. It would then be of fair quality and should be capable of supporting reasonably good coarse fisheries as well as having some general amenity value.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that partly encouraging reply, but is he aware that when I went along this waterway in July, I could hardly see the surface of the water because of floating rubbish and water weeds, that there were reeds encroaching from the banks and that it was silting up at various places? Is my noble friend aware that this could and should become an attractive waterway for thousands of people? Will he pass on to the Thames Water Authority our strong feelings about this matter?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I very much appreciate my noble friend's comments and I shall certainly pass them on to my noble friend the Secretary of State. The British Waterways Board is making every effort to keep the waterway free from litter and has instituted a clean-up campaign. It is now experimenting with a newly designed refuse collection vessel.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, although it is encouraging to hear that the British Waterways Board is going to clean up, is the Minister aware that no single authority is responsible for clearing the rubbish out of this or any other river, unless the water flow is impeded or unless there is pollution? Does he not think that in urban situations such as this it would be a good idea for the Department of the Environment to take on some responsibility? I stress this particularly for urban rivers because the riparian owners can scarcely be expected to look after their bit in these situations.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I fully accept that there are quite a lot of authorities involved with this particular river. However we believe that they are capable of coming together and providing satisfactory results. I draw the attention of the noble Baroness to the fact that the British Waterways Board is at the moment viewing a joint development with a private undertaking in the Limehouse Basin which will include a housing complex with a marina and other facilities. This is now subject to ministerial approval for the British Waterways Board capital investment provision. It is a good example of positive action taking place to improve localities.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that for many miles the new river meanders along the same terrain as the River Lea: for instance, through Enfield and Edmonton? Is the Minister aware of proposals by the Thames Water Authority to create a new waterway and thereby make the new river redundant? Will the Minister undertake to have conversations with the Thames Water Authority to persuade it not to proceed with that proposal but to enhance the already historic character of the new river by making more investment in it and thereby creating better management?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am interested in the noble Lord's remarks but I feel that they are rather wide of the Question on the Order Paper.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, perhaps I may ask a question as one who on occasion navigates the River Lea. Is the noble Lord aware that a great deal has been done of late to improve the banks, although a great deal still needs to be done both to the banks and to the water? Is the noble Lord further aware that what this waterway really needs is to be used for the purposes it was built for—for commercial cargo? That is what should be established on this waterway. It is ideally situated for this purpose but this use is inhibited by the dock labour Acts.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the noble Viscount has a distinct advantage over me in his knowledge of the water. I can confirm to him that last year a 1·3-mile stretch of the towpath was restored.

Nicaragua: US Action
3.1 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 have made representations to the United States Government to cease their action in Nicaragua.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, we regularly discuss the situation in Central America with the United States Administration, and they are fully aware of our views.
Lord Molloy: My Lords. I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he not agree that it is perfectly obvious that we are not having much luck with the Americans in sustaining the hopes expressed by every knowledgeable political commentator in Great Britain? Does he not further agree that the entire situation with regard to the Contras and to that part of the world has had some distasteful ramifications in other places? Would it not have helped the American Government if they had accepted the Central American peace accord which was signed by President Ortega himself and by four other presidents who are noted as tremendous supporters of President Reagan and the United States of America? That could be the beginning of an end to this issue.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, we have consistently advocated a peaceful negotiated solution to the region's problems. We therefore warmly welcome the Central American peace agreement and will continue to encourage the Central Americans to resolve their problems peacefully.
Lord Thomas of Swynnerton: My Lords, will my noble friend ask his right honourable and learned friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to make equal representations to the governments of Cuba, East Germany and the Soviet Union to cease their intervention in Nicaragua? Without such intervention there would not have been action of the kind the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, complains about.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I very much note my noble friend's remarks.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we welcome Her Majesty's Government's support for the Guatemalan peace agreement. Will the Minister go one step further and say whether Her Majesty's Government are prepared to press the United States Government to initiate talks with the Nicaraguan Government to see whether this unhappy matter can be settled?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, as I said, we believe that the problems of the region cannot be solved by armed force. We have consistently urged restraint on all sides and the United States has been kept aware of our views. I do not think there is anything else I can add to that.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I am very much obliged. By "restraint on all sides", does the Minister mean restraint on the United States Government as well?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, it means precisely what I said—restraint on all sides.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that recent press reports concerning the possible talks between the Sandinista Government and the Contras give rise to some cautious optimism?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, anything we can find that gives cause for optimism is worth looking at. I have not seen those particular reports but I am sure my noble friend is right.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, have the Government extended their congratulations to President Arias of Costa Rica on winning the Nobel Peace Prize for the Central American settlement plan of which mention has been made? Are the Government aware that this plan calls on all the Central American countries to set up internal reconciliation commissions? Are the Government aware that Nicaragua was the first of those countries to do so and that Cardinal Obando, commonly regarded as the leader of the Right in Nicaragua, has accepted the chairmanship of that commission? Will the Government—
Noble Lords: Speech!
Lord Kennet:—invite the United States to abide by the ruling of the International Court and stop its intervention?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the answer to the noble Lord's first question about congratulating Arias is, yes.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, in his earlier answers the Minister said that Her Majesty's Government have made it quite plain to the United States Government what their policy is. What is the policy of Her Majesty's Government? In particular, what is their policy towards United States support and finance for the Contras in Nicaragua?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, that question has been answered innumerable times from this Dispatch Box. I have said that we have consistently advocated a peaceful negotiated solution to the region's problems. That is why we welcome the Central American peace agreement. We will continue to encourage the Central Americans to resolve their problems peacefully. There is a limit to the number of different ways in which that can be expressed.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, will the Minister take on board the valid point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery, that there seems to be a changing attitude of mind? The peace accord is being welcomed in the United States. Even President Reagan has made some remarks to encourage it. Why do not our Government now say that he ought to

535
encourage it, and indeed do more than that and be prepared to sign the treaty, which would achieve so much? The American people think that that ought to happen in Nicaragua. The restoration of many freedoms is guaranteed by that treaty.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I really do not know what else I can say other than that we warmly welcome the Central American peace agreement.

Middle East: Nuclear Weapons
3.7 p.m.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Govenment which countries in the Middle East are carrying out tests on thermo-nuclear warheads and neutron bombs and have not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, we have no evidence that any countries in the Middle East are carrying out such tests.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, if the noble Lord will make further investigations into specific journals in the Library he will see what is not unreasonable evidence that some four or five countries are preparing to go this way. As a leading nation which always has been sane and sensible in its approach to very many things, we could indicate to the United Nations that we should try to get these nations which are now starting this business to sign the nonproliferation treaty.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, certainly signing the non-proliferation treaty would be a valuable confidence-building measure to improve stability in the Middle East. It would also help to encourage other non-signatories in the region to sign and thereby reduce tension and reduce the chances of a nuclear arms race in the region. I can assure the noble Lord that Her Majesty's Government have called upon Israel, for example, to sign the nonproliferation treaty.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, what will happen if these nations tell us to go and take a flying leap?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, in that case we shall continue to pressure them, persuade them and do whatever we can to encourage them to sign that treaty.

ANC: Prime Minister's Description
3.9 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 the Prime Minister's description of the African National Congress of South Africa as a terrorist organisation represents their collective opinion.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the ANC proclaims the legitimacy of the armed struggle. We can only be opposed to that.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, that is hardly an answer to the Question. Is it not the case that both the Foreign Secretary and the Minister of State at the Foreign Office have officially met representatives of the African National Congress and that therefore the Government recognise the African National Congress as one of the participants in what we hope will be a dialogue leading to a peaceful South Africa?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, when my right honourable and learned friend the Foreign Secretary met Mr. Tambo my right honourable and learned friend was president of the EC Foreign Affairs Council. The proposal for a meeting with Mr. Tambo stemmed from the mission to Southern Africa which was entrusted to my right honourable and learned friend by the heads of government at the June 1986 European Council. My right honourable friend the Minister of State at the Foreign Office met Mr. Tambo as part of our policy of dialogue with a wide range of parties in South Africa.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, at Nassau Her Majesty's Government supported, as I recall it, the declaration to revoke the banning of the ANC and strongly supported the declaration to release Nelson Mandela. Do Her Majesty's Government still support those two proposals?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, certainly Her Majesty's Government stand by the declaration at Nassau.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, that really is a vague answer even for a Minister. Would the noble Lord be good enough to be more specific and say whether Her Majesty's Government are still in favour of revoking the ban on the ANC in South Africa, and are they still as strongly in favour of releasing Nelson Mandela as they said they were at Nassau?
Lord Glenarthur: Yes, my Lords. I do not think we have ever said anything other than that we support the release of Nelson Mandela. We stand by what was said at Nassau and we will continue to do so.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: And the revocation of the ban on the ANC?
Noble Lords: No!
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: This is crucial.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I do not think I can go further than say what I have just said, and that is that we still stand by what was said and what the Government committed themselves to at Nassau.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, are the Government not in some danger of falling into a deep schizophrenia in this matter? Either the ANC is a terrorist organisation, as the Prime Minister says, or it is an organisation fit to be met by the Foreign Secretary, fit for the Foreign Secretary to demand the revocation of the ban on it, and fit to maintain a legal office in London. Which is it? Is it not obvious that it is the latter?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I should have thought that what really counts is what the ANC itself says and does. Perhaps I may refer the noble Lord to the statement made by Mr. Makatini of the ANC. When talking about ANC violence, he said:
"The violence could only include attacks on British and other Western companies refusing to disengage and hasten the collapse of the apartheid system".
I think that says it all.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the ANC for 50 years practised nonviolence and that at the end of that 50 years the result of their policy was apartheid? Does the noble Lord recall that his noble friend Lord Whitelaw, the Leader of the House, last Thursday spoke in his Statement of the need for internal discussions within South Africa? Will the noble Lord say categorically that the British Government regard the ANC as one of the legitimate representatives of African opinion who should take part in the dialogue leading to a peaceful South Africa?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I do not think that I can go into a subject as complex as this in any greater detail than I have already set out to do. We believe that the armed struggle in South Africa impedes rather than promotes the cause of fundamental change in South Africa, and obviously violence can only entrench white attitudes. We have always condemned unequivocally indiscriminate acts of terrorism such as car bombings wherever they occur. We understand the frustration of the black community but we believe that change must come about by peaceful means.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to say a word about the two short debates standing in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Lovell-Davis and Lord Carter. As is customary in short debates, the mover is allowed approximately 15 minutes, and the Minister should rise to reply not less than 20 minutes before the scheduled end of the debates. In the case of the short debate in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lovell-Davis, this means that all other speeches should be limited to a maximum of 10 minutes and in that of the noble Lord, Lord Carter, to six minutes. If any noble Lord should speak at greater length, it would inevitably be at the expense of later speakers in the debate.

Income and Corporation Taxes Bill [H.L.]
3.15 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to consolidate certain of the enactments relating to income tax and corporation tax, including certain enactments relating also to capital gains tax; and to repeal as obsolete Section 339(1) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970 and paragraphs 3 and 4 of Schedule 11 to the Finance Act 1980. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I must take this opportunity to congratulate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, upon his accession to the Woolsack. We came to know the noble and learned Lord when he was Lord Advocate. We found him able in debate and reasonable in his reactions, always ready if necessary to reconsider the position in the light of the argument. We like Ministers who are prepared to take things back for reconsideration.
I am personally delighted to see an identifiable Scotsman on the Woolsack. I understand that it is very many years since a Scottish lawyer assumed this high office. Indeed, I understand that it is possible that he is the first Scottish lawyer to become Lord High Chancellor. We regretted his translation to the Bench, and we are glad to see him back.
Campbell, in his Lives of. the Lord Chancellors, says of Brougham:
"Although born in Scotland he had not been endowed with the second sight, or coming events casting their shadow before".
All of us feel that the noble and learned Lord can do better than that, and we much look forward to what we feel sure will be a constructive tenure on the Woolsack.
Perhaps I may say finally that we deeply regret the departure of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Havers. The noble and learned Lord was well liked in the other place and in this House and we are very sorry to lose him. We hope that he will continue to attend this House as often as he can and give us the benefit of his experience. We wish the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, good fortune in his great office.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, perhaps at this point I may be permitted to say that, as the great, great grandson of Hal Dundas, the first Viscount Melville, I particularly welcome the appointment of a Scot to the office of Lord High Chancellor of this kingdom, thus emphasising, as I see it, the essentially federal nature of our constitution.
I should also like to say, in addition to what the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, has said, that we on these Benches also deeply appreciated the all too brief services of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Havers. We much regret his departure on the grounds of ill-health and wish him a very happy retirement.
The Lord President of the Council (Viscount Whitelaw): My Lords, I should first like to thank the noble Lords, Lord Cledwyn and Lord Gladwyn, for their generous remarks about my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay, the new Lord Chancellor. I am extremely grateful to the noble Lords for what they have said. I should like to associate my noble friends with that same welcome to my noble and learned friend, who is not unknown to us and with whom many of us have worked with great pleasure in the past. We should also like to be associated with the congratulations to him.
We also wish to be associated with the kind remarks that the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, has made about my noble and learned friend Lord Havers. Obviously for me, as one who as served with the noble and learned Lord in many capacities in another place, this is a painful experience. I deeply regret the circumstances which made my noble and learned friend feel that the burden and stress of the job of Lord Chancellor was too much for him. I am sure that the whole House would wish to be associated with me in hoping that his health will be fully restored at the earliest possible moment.
Baroness Hylton-Foster: My Lords, we on the Cross-Benches are proud that one who graced our Benches is now established on the Woolsack. We send him all our good wishes on his appointment and look forward to hearing from him.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am extremely grateful for the kind words that have been spoken. It is particularly sad for me that I am here because my noble and learned friend Lord Havers felt unable to continue. He was an extremely good friend and close colleague while I was in government as Lord Advocate. It is with great regret that I knew that he was too ill to continue. It is typical of his generosity, and it is heartening to me in taking on this position, that he spoke so generously of my appointment when he learned of it.
I was encouraged to assume this important and arduous office by my experience of this House in the past. I knew that I could expect, not only from the Government but from all sides of the House, understanding if not always agreement. It is a great honour for me, and also a fitting honour for Scotland, that at this time this office has come to me. Thank you.
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Copyright, Designs and Patents Bill [H.L.]
3.22 p.m.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Young of Graffham, I beg to introduce a Bill to restate the law of copyright with amendments, to make fresh provision as to the rights of performers and others in performances; to confer a design right on original designs; to amend the Registered Designs Act 1949; to make provision with respect to patent agents and trade mark agents; to confer patents and designs jurisdiction on certain
540
county courts; to amend the law of patents; to make fresh provision penalising the fraudulent reception of programmes; to make the fraudulent application or use of a trademark an offence; to enable financial assistance to be given to certain international bodies and for connected purposes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Beaverbrook.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Consolidation Bills: Joint Committee
3.23 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Lord Ackner be appointed a member of the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills in the place of the Lord Mackay of Clashfern.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Child Health Services
3.24 p.m.
Lord Lovell-Davis Lord Lovell-Davis rose to call attention to the state of child health services in the United Kingdom, with reference to the recent report Investing in the Future: Child Health 10 years after the Court Report (Policy and Practice Review Group; the National Children's Bureau); and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Court Report was published over 10 years ago in December, 1976. Entitled Fit for the Future, it was the first review ever undertaken of child health services in this country. The group of knowledgeable and dedicated people who, under the chairmanship of Professor Donald Court, one of this country's leading paediatricians, devoted three years of hard work to its production, unlike some committees, looked forward optimistically to its major recommendations being taken up by government and the professions. That was its only error of judgment.
Ten years later, in the foreword to the report that we are now considering, Investing in the Future, the chairman of the Policy and Practice Review Group of the National Children's Bureau, Professor Philip Graham, states:
"There is good evidence that children's needs have been given lower priority over the last 10 years than previously".
So much for all the experience, expertise, time, trouble and devotion freely expended by the members of the Court Committee, and so much for our children. The fact is that within the National Health Service children and young people (13 00BD; million or 27 per cent. of our population) are not a priority group even though in their 1981 document Care in Action the Government identified services for children as a priority and repeated their concern that health authorities should develop plans for an integrated child health service.
One of the principal recommendations of the Court Committee was for an integrated service to help parents care for their children so that they could perceive the services as being relevant, all of a piece, with prevention as the main thrust and close ties between the preventive and curative elements. However, since the Griffiths reorganisation of the National Health Service in 1984 the management of children's services has become increasingly fragmented. There is no such thing as an integrated health service.
I welcome the report of the review group. It may be disheartening but it is timely. When I first saw its sub-title, Child Health 10 Years after the Court Report, I was pleased because I had been intending to ask for a debate on that very subject, because in February, 1977, I had the privilege of initiating the first debate on the Court Report in your Lordships' House. I am also delighted that one of the participants in that debate, the noble Baroness, Lady Faithful, is with us this afternoon, not least because of her role as president of the National Children's Bureau.
Investing in the Future looks at the pattern of child health services in the mid-1980s and compares it with the situation when the Court Committee reported 10 years ago. Ten years after the Court recommendations this latest review points out that since then we have lived through two major reorganisations in the National Health Service, tighter financial constraints have been imposed on the health, education and social services, and there have been changes in family formation and in the social structure, with greater levels of unemployment and individual financial hardship. All those factors have influenced the health and development of our children.
The report continues:
"Meanwhile disenchantment with the way that the child health services are working has grown among many of the professional groups concerned".
In pointing out that there has been no lack of committees, reports and studies on the subject, the review group states bluntly:
"We have been most unimpressed by the action that has arisen as a result of these studies and deliberations".
And, my Lords, well they might be.
The Court Committee recognised the crucial need for effective working relationships between the health, education and social services. The Policy and Practice Review Group set its report, just as Court did in 1976, firmly within a social and economic context. In doing so, it gathered a wide range of views from health, education, social work and voluntary services. It decided that, instead of attempting to cover all the many areas considered by the Court Committee, it would concentrate on preventive services, the school health services and services for adolescents. Those cover the three broad divisions of early life; the very young child with its parents, the school child and the adolescent. They are also the areas which the review group considered to have been most neglected.
Before taking off into the rather grey skies of the review group's findings and reaching the clearer air of their recommendations, it is fair to point out that the
542
report acknowledges some local improvement in the direction that Court indicated, principally, that there is:
"greater awareness amongst parents and professionals that parents can and should take greater responsibility for their children's health."
The report then moves on to identify key points of special concern and it is hardly surprising that it first refers to one of the most grim scenes in that distressing panorama; namely poverty and disadvantage. We are constantly being told that we are living in a booming, economically stronger society. If that is so, it is all the more reason why we should be ashamed of the fact that the proportion of our children living in poverty has increased, that many more children live in families deemed homeless, with all the accompanying ill-health and misery that that implies, that more children today have unemployed parents and more face unemployment themselves as young adults. Our inner cities are violent, racist, unsafe and frightening places for all children. Children from ethnic minority groups, who are among the most disadvantaged, present new and formidable challenges to the health and social services.
Then there is family breakdown which, irrespective of material conditions, means that more children than ever before will face the trauma of having to cope with the divorce or separation of their parents and the prospect of living in a single-parent family or adjusting to the new partners of their divorced parents.
Finally, the review group turned to the changes in health problems and changes in the health services themselves. The health service problems have changed little in the 10 years since Court. In fact, many of them have grown worse. Immunisation rates remain unsatisfactory, physical abuse is still a major problem, and it is clear that sexual abuse is a far greater and infinitely more complicated problem than most of us have ever realised.
More children and young people today are dying from solvent abuse and drug addiction—indeed more are committing suicide. The young are drinking more and it is a sad reflection on the effectiveness of our efforts at prevention that they are even smoking more. Teenage pregnancy is still a serious problem and the only major change is that today there is actually an increased risk of morbidity in the young mother and her baby.
In the face of those terrible facts, what progress has been made in the integration of health services for children, as the Court Committee recommended over 10 years ago? The depressing answer is "very little". In fact, the present report even states that:
"In some respects there has been a decline in those very areas in which the Court Committee hoped to see improvement".
It is at this point that the Policy and Practice Review Group addressed itself to the areas which it considered of particular concern. That is the heart of the report and I shall devote the remainder of my speech today to those priorities and the recommendations made by the group.
As I indicated earlier, services for young children and their families were chosen as one of the three major areas of concern. A family has two main

543
requirements from the health services, the first of which is to get help in a crisis. That is the area of acute medicine, involving general practitioners or hospitals or both. The second need is based on a long-term relationship between parents and the child health services. Parents must get the support and help that they need to raise healthy children or to bring up a chronically sick or handicapped child. At certain times they will want access to immunisation, developmental check-ups on hearing and sight tests. Those are the areas of preventive medicine. Where are they to obtain these services? Court estimated that about 10 per cent. of children are never seen by a doctor except when an emergency takes them to hospital.
The Court Committee looked at the problem from the point of view of the family and recommended in favour of one first-line source of advice for preventive and acute medicine; namely, the general practitioner in combination with the health visitor and the social worker—that is, the primary health care team. They emphasised the need for special training for all those dealing with children. What progress has been made in 10 years in integrating preventive and acute medicine?
That brings us to the core of the problem—the so-called "turf problems" which bedevil not only child health services but the National Health Service as a whole. The Court Committee did not expect its recommendations on prevention instantly to be put into effect; Donald Court said that it might take 20 years to implement them fully, but I am sure that neither he nor the members of his committee expected that the professions would still be arguing about their territorial rights and practices 10 years later. The children cry out for attention and all that the grownups can do is squabble about who does what. The question is: who in the Government is supposed to be doing what? What is needed here is a strong lead from the Government and an end to the present arguments and confusion.
The second area of particular concern identified by the review group is the school health service. Way back in 1976 the Court Report stated:
"There has been growing concern about the school health service [and] its ability to meet the current needs of the children in school and their teachers and parents".
Ten years later the only discernible change is in the wording of the review group's comment:
"There is a widespread view that, in many areas of the country, the quality of the school health service fails to meet the needs of children, parents and teachers".
There is still no national or local policy aimed at achieving rational and efficient co-operation between GPs and school doctors or resolving the underlying dichotomy between promoting health and treating illness.
Among the recommendations made for the school health service in both Court and the report before us are that every school should have an appropriately trained and named doctor and nurse; that there should be a comprehensive examination of all primary school entrants at about the age of five with parents present; that there should be "open door" personal health counselling for all children in
544
secondary education, with independent access to doctor and nurse; and that there should be a routine health interview between the age of 13 and a year before the pupil leaves school. The group also points to the need for a clear definition of the work of the school doctor and nurse and an agreed code of conduct to guide the professional activity of family doctors, school nurses and school doctors.
The last review of the school health service was carried out in 1974, even before the Court Report. Does the Minister not consider that it is time for another look at the service?
The third area of special concern to which the review group turned its attention was adolescents. The Court Report, which devoted a full chapter to adolescents, stated:
"In recent years it has become increasingly evident that adolescents have needs and problems sufficiently distinguishable from those on the one hand of children and on the other of adults to warrant consideration as a distinct group for health care provision".
So, how have the children's health services been adapted to meet the problems and needs of that special group? The short answer is that they have not. It appears from the review group's report that:
"There has been virtually no movement to improve services for adolescents who are ill, or healthy but experiencing life problems, and rather slow movement to improve services for the chronically handicapped".
One of the Court Committee's recommendations was that there should be provision for small adolescent units in hospitals or, failing that, for a partitioned "adolescent area" in a children's ward. The report before us repeats, 10 years on, that:
"An adolescent ward should he established in each health district".
The present situation is perhaps most graphically illustrated by a recent report from The Caring for Children in the Health Services Group, entitled Where are the Children?, which shows that 62 per cent. of adolescents are in mixed adult-children wards. Most adult patients in hospitals are older people so that adolescents are being nursed in wards where most of the patients are over 65.
Now, the main problems of adolescents are not those of ill-health but of emotional adjustment to the adult world. Those problems will be found in a high proportion of adolescents admitted to hospital. It is for this reason that they need, above all, their own environment, treatment from understanding and appropriately trained doctors and nurses, and readily available services from psychologists, social workers and child and adolescent psychiatrists.
The problems for the handicapped adolescent, unable to take part in normal teenage activities, as he or she tries to negotiate this period of intense emotional and intellectual ferment, are hard to imagine. That they need special care and support is undeniable, not least, as the report says,
"to counter the marked reduction in the quality of both health and welfare services available to disabled teenagers as they enter adulthood".
The report calls for the establishment by 1990 of district health teams to provide the services needed by the young/adult handicapped. Will the Government respond to this and address the overall health problems facing adolescents?
I referred earlier to the major areas of concern, but there is one more which is highlighted in the review

545
group's report. This fourth area is headed "Responsibility for Children". They might well have put a question mark after it, for where is the integrated child health service which Court recommended over 10 years ago?—where the extra paediatric training, the general practitioner paediatricians, the specialised health visitors, the consultant community paediatricians?
The new body recommended by Court, the children's committee, set up by the Labour Government in 1978 was abolished by the Conservative Government in 1981. Ministers have no statutory duty to report to Parliament on health services for children. The effect of these 1974 and 1982 reorganisations of the health service, which among other things took out the area health authorities, was to remove even the obligation on health authorities to employ a senior nurse and doctor whose first responsibility is for child health matters. Consequently, at no level in the National Health Service can responsibility for child health he identified.
Why are we not looking after our children's health as we should be, or providing them with the services they so desperately need? In Investing in the Future the review group identify two main contributory factors. The first is all too frighteningly familiar in our health and social services: lack of resources. Apparently, this country cannot afford even to look after its children properly and this of course, as the report says, is,
"linked to a lack of commitment to the care of children at government. local authority and health authority level".
The second contributory factor must seem incomprehensible, if not reprehensible, to the layperson: the
"unwillingness both by government and by the professions to come to firm decisions about who should have responsibility for different aspects of the preventive services".
With the Government apparently washing their hands of the whole affair, the professionals are left to quarrel among themselves and nothing gets done.
Why, as a country, do we seem unable to recognise and accept the importance of investing in our children? They are our future. Quite apart from having to shoulder in adult life the heavy responsibilities imposed by a complex and difficult world, we should realise, simply as a matter of self-interest, that they are also going to have to look after us and discover how to deal with a large and growing number of very elderly people.
Professor John Tomlinson, a member of the Policy and Practice Review Group and also of the Court Committee, in a recent article in The Times Education Supplement writes:
"The Review Group throw out a challenge to those who manage health and other services. How are children's services planned, delivered and monitored? Who is responsible for coverage? Why do differences exist between districts? Why, for example, after correcting for differences in child population, do some districts run five times as many child health clinics as others?"
This afternoon I hope that other noble Lords on all sides of the House will join me in demanding that the Government, the DHSS and the professions take up this challenge—and provide our children with the services they desperately need.
The report contains a number of important recommendations, many directed to district level. I should like to ask the Minister whether he will tell the House what the Government intend to do to give the leadership called for in this report. Also, do the Government intend to monitor and report on progress? For years there has been talk about making children a priority group. I ask the noble Lord: when are children going to be made a priority group? Also, do the Government intend to use the machinery of the review system to ask for a report on progress towards the integration of child health services, and the setting up of child development and young/adult handicapped teams? Government have a responsibility, which they cannot devolve, to care for the next generation.
In this shockingly materialistic society we are constantly being exhorted to invest in British Gas, British Airways, British Telecom, British Petroleum. Why are we not investing in British Children; investing in the future? My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Trafford: My Lords, first, let me say that the noble Lord, Lord Lovell-Davis, has performed a public service in putting down this Motion. He has given your Lordships' House the opportunity to focus on a very important question—that of child health. I can certainly agree with the statements made in both of the reports named in the Motion, that there can be no more important investment for the future than healthy children.
The Court Report, as the noble Lord said, was the first of its kind. Before this there was little organisation, but much disjointed activity about child health matters. The report called for an integrated service:
"to facilitate the ability of parents to care for their children",
and that is a direct quote from the report. It emphasised many ways of doing this, but basically it tried to link up all those existing services through the family practitioner service, through primary and secondary care functions, and recommended a number of other developments, such as the development of so-called general practitioner paediatricians—I suppose you would call them semi-specialists—in this field to co-ordinate it. It also recommended special provisions for the disabled, the disturbed and the mentally deficient.
Over the last 10 years quite a lot has happened, if not enough, between these two reports, not least the very considerable development of medical technology in this field, such as the development of neonatal intensive care units, special care baby units, neonatal surgery, and so on. These developments, however, are also criticised in the later report on grounds of their rather impersonal approach to the child, the child's parents and the events surrounding the admission of a child to such units.
Time does not permit me to discuss in detail all these various recommendations and comments that are made in the report, and I should like to concentrate upon three—the health service changes, professional inter-rivalry, which has already been

547
referred to, and the fundamental and underlying question of poverty and deprivation.
First, there are the changes in the health services concerned. Over these last few years, and indeed even more so before, child health has been something of a football, for whereas, for example, the area health authorities, as we have already been told, had a statutory responsibility to set up a chain of responsibility, it is true that the newer district health authorities are not obliged to do so and often do not have them. But Court set a target, and, between the time that Court reported and today, there has been a change from some 10 per cent. to some 66 per cent. of districts that have some form of child care team in operation. There are great variations in their actual activities. Court recommended the specially trained GPP to take primary responsibility for child health, and of course advocated various supporting functions of child health visitors and nurses, school nurses and the like.
A great many differences in these variations have taken place, and with considerable enthusiasm these have been promoted in certain areas; for example, Oxford, Dorset, Nottingham and Sheffield. I am sure that many of your Lordships know of many other places where this has happened. The child development teams, as they are now called, and the district handicap teams, as they used to be called, have functioned in a somewhat patchy way and, unfortunately, some one-third of districts are still without such teams.
Much is made in the National Children's Bureau report of the structure that could help to push forward the development of child health. It speaks of liaison teams, community paediatricians, links with the district nursing officers, the training of paediatricians, district teams and so forth. I certainly laud those aims, but I challenge the means.
Elsewhere the report states:
"There has been no lack of committees … We have been impressed by many of them. We have been unimpressed by the resulting action".
I regret to see, however, that much of the report's recommendation is to do with setting up further teams or committees. I have had a lot of experience of such teams. To borrow the report's own words, I have been unimpressed.
I think that the Warnock Committee in 1978 was much nearer the mark when it said:
"there should be a named person who will provide a single and continuing point of contact".
It might seem to your Lordships that the obvious one is the consultant community paediatrician, who should make it his or her business to be in touch with all the appropriate services and who could guide parents and their children and arrange for any help. By all means let us recommend this, but not, I hope, too many teams and committees. I have been a member of too many such teams, including child abuse teams, and I have felt very frustrated. Nowadays the mere name "multidiscipliniary team" conjures before me the image of wasted hours of waffle, often in the best technical jargon but with little to show for it at the end.
548
This leads me to the second point on which I wish to comment—the interprofessional disagreements. There is perhaps a lack of understanding here, which I am sure the Minister would rapidly point out. The basis upon which the health service was set up in regard to practitioner services was that every citizen should have a family doctor with responsibility for the care of that patient. This of course includes children in all respects.
It is indeed the basis of the so-called independent contractor status of the general practitioner. He often sees any other involvement as an invasion of his territory, yet, wearing the hat of a school doctor, he may do the same to one of his own colleagues without realising the paradox. Worse still, the general practitioner may in some way feel that there is interference from someone called a clinical medical officer or a district community physician, whom he would often regard as some form of administrative doctor. The whole charade goes on in reverse if it is the clinical medical officer who intervenes.
This, I am afraid, is a responsibility that must rest with the profession. I know who will be blamed and the Minister knows who will be blamed: it is the DHSS and therefore indirectly the Government. I have only one suggestion for my noble friend the Minister in this connection. It is to see that every district appoints a consultant community paediatrician of sufficient rank and standing with appropriate sessions at the district general hospital, or, if there is one, a children's hospital to create the necessary machinery and to forge the necessary links. I suggest that these people should be instructed to make an annual report on progress not only to their own district health authorities but also to the DHSS.
I believe that the DHSS could form out of its family division or whatever a special interdepartmental organisation with the Department of Education and Science and the Home Office and should present a report to Ministers on a three-yearly or five-yearly basis, to be laid before Parliament. I accept that this is not easy for there are interdepartmental rivalries in the Civil Service as indeed there are in the medical profession. If there are responsibilities for the hold-ups, these two suggestions might go some way to assist in the development of the child health service.
Finally, I turn to the question of poverty and deprivation. Nearly 40 years ago in a well-known election speech on the improved health of the nation, the Radio Doctor, Dr. Charles Hill, made a famous comment in which he said that it was not MPs but penicillin that was responsible. I would not wish to deny the valuable contribution of penicillin and other antibiotics to health, but actually Lord Hill had it the wrong way round. If by MPs he meant what Parliament does, or the social or economic state of the nation over which it presides then he was completely wrong, for there is now overwhelming evidence that socio-economic factors influence health. In stark terms, people in social class 5 lose on average six years of life to people in social class 1.
That is a very important fact. It overshadows all the medical activities, discoveries and successes over the past 40 years, however much we doctors might like to think that any change was due to our own

549
skills. This applies particularly to children, and is manifest in all the parameters that one cares to mention—physical health, mental health, disturbance rates, educational achievement, and possibly the crime rate. Between social classes 1, 2 and 3A. there is little difference. From social class 3B through to 4 and 5, there is a sharp and progressive decline.
I do not wish to widen the discussion—rather, I do, but I shall not—but it is a fundamental factor in many of the problems that we discuss in other debates, whether on the inner cities, education or whatever. There are all sorts of unfortunate reactions to the publishing of these figures. That is why I listen with a degree of cynicism to some comments made on the health service, social services or employment.
I believe that the fundamental problem must be targeted correctly; it is of course people. I hear all about the ancillary measures, be it housing, change in benefits or the development of small businesses and so forth, which I believe to be important but secondary.
Many years ago I made a maiden speech in another place—nobody listened, I might add—but I am afraid that I have not yet seen the evidence to change my mind. Depending on how one counts them, there are 50 to 400 different possible grants, benefits, supplementary payments, pensions, rebates and the like. All these should be amalgamated into one benefit payable through the tax system and graduated to avoid the poverty trap.
An axial point of requirement can he calculated on the basis of age, marital status, number of children and the like. One knows that the level of change is between socio-economic classes 3A and 3B. By means of negative income tax, this can be adjusted. Thus, if your income was above your requirement, you would pay tax; if it was below your requirement. in or out of work, you would be paid. Incentives can he built in, but there is no time now to discuss that.
That to my mind would be a true social contract between government and people, and all the ancillary engines of public or private origin could still be used to accelerate the development. It should be the next great social reform of the coming years. It has always been talked about but has been deferred on the grounds of cost, difficulty of introduction or because it is too radical. I believe that it is a necessary step to achieve the social contract that I mentioned. While it is not a be-all and end-all answer, it will certainly provide a more just and fair foundation upon which to build.
3.59 p.m.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Trafford, has implied in a truly splendid speech, there is nothing more important to the nation than the health of our children. Indeed, it is upon our children's health—and incidentally, upon their education—that our social future depends. We should all be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lovell-Davis, for giving us an opportunity to discuss the matter, even though he exceeded his time by seven minutes, for which the rest of us will do our best to make amends.
550
The Court Report was a wise and perceptive document. Its recommendations were widely acclaimed; but, as this new report by the National Children's Bureau makes clear, too few of those recommendations have been implemented, in a short debate such as this I shall merely pick out three specific aspects of this subject in which I have some experience and about which I have some knowledge and some suggestions to make.
First I shall comment on the need for integration, for links as the noble Lord, Lord Trafford, said and to which the noble Lord, Lord Lovell-Davis, referred. In both reports it is stated that children very often receive their health care from a wide variety of sources such as the community consultant paediatrician, the general practitioner, the school medical service, the hospital service and others. It has been my experience from many years spent in medical practice that when many people are responsible for a patient's health there is a tendency for no one person to accept the responsibility. I found that with the elderly and it is now true with children.
I too should like to see a named individual in each area with specific responsibility to monitor the adequacy of the provisions for child health care in that area. In some areas there is such a person because people with initiative, enterprise and qualities of leadership have taken up that position; but we cannot wait for that to happen. We must make sure that it happens in every area.
I wish to highlight and underline what has been stated in both reports and in the two speeches that we have heard today about the socially and economically disadvantaged. Section 6 of the latest report dealing with patterns of mortality, morbidity and handicap seems to me to echo the words of the Black Report, Inequalities in Health, and the later report of the Health Education Council.
I listened with great interest to a debate that took place here last week on inner cities. I did not take part in that debate, but it is perhaps of some interest to noble Lords that the week before I spent a day in Moss Side in Manchester in the company of a social worker and a consultant venereologist trying to talk to a number of 12 year-old girls many of whom were regularly engaged in prostitution and most of whom were riddled with venereal disease. That is a child health problem. It is not a problem to which I have any immediate solution; but in the light of this debate, and the debate on inner cities, it is right that I should have mentioned that particular very sad and distressing experience that I had only a fortnight ago.
I now move on to the subject of nutrition. This is a subject about which a junior Minister in another place has said a great deal in many places. When I first entered the other place many years ago as a member of a small party, sometimes we voted with the Government (which was a Labour Government at that time) sometimes with the Conservative Opposition. I soon learnt to tell which party was which because on average the Conservatives were three inches taller than the Labour Members. I was able to confirm that fact scientifically as a doctor in the House during the years that followed. That difference arises on the one hand from centuries of

551
good nutrition, and on the other hand from centuries of inadequate nutrition. Improved nutrition for our children in deprived areas is absolutely vital.
I now wish to say something about a substance which perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Trafford, and I daresay the noble Lord, Lord Rea, who will be speaking presently, will regard as dangerous. That substance is milk. There are doctors who think that every bottle should carry a government health warning. I am well aware of the potential dangers of excessive ingestion of cholesterol and animal fats, but I believe that milk as a source of nutrition for under-nourished children is very valuable indeed. I believe that the disappearance of free school milk was a very sad step.
Only a year ago on the 5th November 1986 I asked a Question of Her Majesty's Government. That Question was:
"What would be the cost of restoring free school milk to all children attending state primary schools?"
The Answer that I received from the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, was:
"The annual cost of offering one-third of a pint of milk free to all children attending state primary schools in the United Kingdom on each school day is estimated at £10 million".—[Official Report, 5.11.87: col. 1175.]
That is chicken feed. I believe that the restoration of free school milk would help nutrition in some of the underprivileged areas. I have no doubt that it would receive enthusiastic support from the dairy farmers but that is another matter.
I refer briefly to the sections on immunisation which appeared in both reports. This is a vital subject and there is no doubt that adherence to the immunisation programme has effected radical changes in the health outlook of our children. Noble Lords will know that the immunisation programme has been damaged from time to time by rumours about the potential dangers of certain vaccines, in particular pertussis or the whooping cough vaccine. After the case of Johnny Kinnear, the case of Susan Loveday is coming before the courts. She claims that the whooping cough vaccine left her brain damaged. The judge in the case has wisely decided that first he must decide whether or not the vaccine does or does not cause brain damage.
Not long ago I introduced a short debate on an Unstarred Question on this subject asking the Government about steps that had been taken to introduce and develop a wholly safe and yet effective vaccine. The noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, who was replying told the House that work was going on with a new acellular vaccine and not the whole cell vaccine. The noble Baroness also said that the vaccine had been pioneered and developed at Porton Down and that it was now ready for clinical trials. However one of the scientists at Porton Down told me that the vaccine had been ready for two years. That is water under the bridge and I make no complaint about that but it is a fact that that acellular vaccine has been in use in Japan, in Sweden and in the United States for some time. It is high time it was in use here.
I hope that when the noble Lord replies he can tell us about those clinical trials and when, if at all, we
552
shall have the advantage of that new, safer and effective vaccine because that will do much to ensure that the immunisation programmes throughout the country is adhered to. This is an important debate and I hope that Ministers are listening to what is said.
4.7 P.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Lovell-Davis, for giving us the opportunity of discussing this report today. I bring to your Lordships a few relevant matters concerning sick children which are of the greatest concern to many at this moment.
Chapter 4 of the report Developments in medical knowledge and technology states that:
"medical advances have occurred in the management of most chronic disorders".
I wish to tell noble Lords about the problems of children with two of the conditions mentioned in the report: cystic fibrosis and leukaemia.
In one of the biggest hospitals in Europe, if not the biggest, St. James University Hospital in Leeds, is a paediatric ward which is the most crowded and active ward that I have ever seen. I visited that ward some weeks ago. In it are children from all over the Yorkshire region and beyond who have cystic fibrosis and leukaemia as well as the general sick children from the local health district of Leeds East.
In the last few years there have been encouraging advances in the treatments of these specialised conditions. The ward was packed with the most appealing children, some of whom were walking round with their transfusions attached. At either end of the ward there are playrooms which are so small that much movement is difficult. The doctors and nurses had to write up their notes squeezed into the ward and had no privacy.
One of the greatest concerns is the low staffing levels and the changing nurses, which is due to the stress under which they are working and the difficulty of recruiting nurses at this time. It is well known that children prefer to have continuity of care, especially those who have a condition which means frequent return visits to hospital.
After my visit I wrote to our regional chairman telling him of these circumstances and stressing the need for further facilities so that all children who need treatment can be treated without the stress of waiting, which could mean life or death.
The specialised regional units such as the Leeds Oncology Unit need the security of specialised funding. Yorkshire has pockets of high leukaemia numbers. The parents are grateful for the treatment that their children receive. They have raised about £250,000 over the last few years for research and equipment but some of that has had to be spent on staff wages.
It seems to me vital that all children who need specialised treatment should have it in a centre of excellence where the expertise and equipment are concentrated. It also seems unfair that the districts where the units are situated should have to find most of the funds. I wonder, should these units either be funded with money coming from the patient's home district or be funded by the regions themselves? All

553
specialised units perhaps have this problem across the country.
With the medical advances in treatment and the greater demands on the National Health Service, somehow more money must be forthcoming from whatever source it can be retrieved. There is nothing so important as good health and the correct treatment when a child is ill. Should districts have to pay the bills to the specialised units outside their own district there would have to be a safeguard that they would do this: otherwise, should they refuse to do it, the child might die. One must never let an argument between districts cause an unnecessary death.
Some weeks after I had visited the children's ward at St. James's, Yorkshire Television showed some programmes including this ward, and there has been much public support for it. However, for long-term funding we must find a satisfactory way of ensuring on-going support for all such units, which give such excellent and life-giving treatment.
Another problem which has recently arisen in the other Leeds Western district—I received communication about this—is that a paediatrician who was treating various handicapped children has been taken off to work on child abuse. Children's appointments have been cancelled and there are some very worried parents. The concern about child abuse must of course be tackled with the utmost care and good practice, but growing handicapped children who need expert over-seeing should not be left out in the cold or neglected because of this.
One of the greatest modern tragedies must be the infection of haemophiliac children with the HIV virus from infected Factor VIII serum and from their mothers who have been infected. On page 40 of the report it says that it is uncertain whether these challenges can be met effectively. I have visited the haemophiliac unit at Newcastle-upon-Tyne. I have read in the press that the Government are to give extra money to the London health districts most affected by AIDS, and I should like to ask whether the haemophiliac unit in Newcastle will be helped too.
The staff at that unit are excellent; but one can see the emotional stress and the cramped facilities which the staff have to suffer. I hope that the Government will not forget the North, which seems to have been badly hit by infected Factor VIII. Will there be any compensation for these families which are now having to cope with HIV?
I end by quoting from page 73 of the report:
"More and more children are known to drink alcohol and there is evidence that alcohol-related health and social problems in young people are rising".
Having chaired a committee on young people and alcohol for the past few months, I can wholeheartedly agree with that. Realistic health education should be given to all young children and their parents on the dangers of alcohol, drugs and cigarettes.
Also, concerted efforts to crack down on the problem of under-age drinking should take place in every local community, such as has been done in Driffield. A youth worker who runs a popular club is quoted in the Yorkshire Post of 22nd October as having said:
554
"We had very young children arriving at the club drunk. One girl was in such a bad state that she had to be taken to hospital. I felt something had to be done urgently".
Children are now searched for drink when entering the premises and warned that anyone found either drunk or in possession of alcohol can expect to have their parents informed. There is also co-operation from the town council and the police. The results sound encouraging. There is a great deal to be done to stop children ruining their own lives and to make them realise how important a healthy lifestyle is for a successful future.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I am limited by time and therefore I shall concentrate on the particular aspect which I see from the point of view of a general practitioner with an interest in child health, working at clinical level in a National Health Service group practice in a health centre, with very much a team approach to the problem. I am not talking about the administrative teams who talk about things; I am talking about the teams who actually do things on the ground.
I am fully aware that many general practitioners in this country do not have any training in paediatrics and do not have a particular interest in providing preventive services and surveillance for the child population on their list. But it is also true that the number of general practitioners who have had some experience in curative paediatrics and who are holding a child health clinic in their practice setting is increasing.
However, it is perfectly clear that another group of medical practitioners—the clinical medical officers—will need to exist for some time to fill in the gaps which are not provided for by the general practitioners, however much one might favour an eventual solution in which general practitioners will be the sole providers of the primary care branch of an integrated child health service.
Court recognised that the clinical medical officers would be needed for some time and suggested that they should become child health practitioners. It was suggested that their more senior colleagues, the senior clinical medical officers, should in many cases be upgraded to become consultant paediatricians with a special interest in community child health care, alongside a new generation of specially trained consultants in that field. I was delighted to hear the noble Lord, Lord Trafford, come out so strongly in favour of the further strengthening of this group of professionals.
This consultant community paediatrician should take overall charge of the community aspects of child health care in the district, particularly the preventive aspects, and would supervise the arrangements for the care of children with special needs. There are now some 80 of these specialists appointed around the country, but it must be remembered that there are some 190 districts and it is thought that in some cases two or even more specialist community paediatricians will be needed for each district; so there is still a long way to go.
Since the first reorganisation of the National Health Service in 1974 the clinical medical officers,

555
who were formerly led by the often much-lamented medical officers of health, have not been a happy group. I think it is reasonable to say that one of the main obstacles to implementation of the Court recommendations has come from that body, sometimes known as the third force. But general practitioners themselves could not accept the concept of the general practitioner paediatrician which was put forward by Court and which created a general practitioner who was a different kind of animal from other general practitioners who were providing a comprehensive service, so they said.
It has been said that the Court recommendations, admirable though they were, represented an ideal solution and were ahead of their time. It has also been said that they were possibly out of touch with the reality on the ground and the feeling of "the troops". But in fact the basic soundness of the proposals has been borne out by a number of joint committees and fora—numerous, as the noble Lord said—which have subsequently considered where to go from here.
The general practitioner paediatrician was not acceptable as such, but there is general awareness that all general practitioners should be better trained in paediatrics, and this is now being steadily accomplished by the vocational training programme for new principals in general practice which has become mandatory since 1981. Ideally, all vocationally trained general practitioners should have spent six months in a hospital paediatric post, since children's health forms a very large and absolutely vital part of the work of all general practitioners. Sadly, there are not enough senior house officer posts to go round, so that of the 1,200 or so GP trainees in any one year, rather less than 80 per cent. manage to find junior paediatric hospital jobs.
I believe that the Government should address that problem and I suggest that additional senior house officer posts in paediatrics should be created. Those need not necessarily be in hospital paediatrics, although I think that sound training in clinical paediatrics is an essential part of the training of all doctors who are going to provide family care in the community. I suggest that the problem might be accommodated by the creation of an additional 100 or so posts in community aspects of child care throughout the country. I should like to see all paediatric senior house officers spend part of their time in such jobs so that they have the equivalent of perhaps four to five months in hospital paediatrics and one or two months in community paediatrics.
In the long term, that course need not result in any extra expenditure because the rundown of numbers of clinical medical officers, coupled with the increase in GPs competent to undertake child health care in the full sense in their own practice, will result in savings which will more than offset the additional cost. But as with any new development, to start with additional moneys may have to be found. However, in the long term a financial saving might well result.
Perhaps I may remark in passing that in their anxiety to cut expenditure in all fields, this Government do not necessarily take sufficiently into
556
account the fact that sometimes a little extra expenditure now may result in not only a better service in the future but also in less expenditure and possibly considerable profit, particularly in other fields. That is certainly true with regard to the Government's attitude towards scientific and medical research. Too often one hears remarks, not only about selling the family silver (even though that looks a bit more like pewter just now), but also about eating the seed corn. With the forthcoming White Paper concerning primary care, the Government have a good opportunity to put forward proposals which will encourage GPs to provide the sort of comprehensive primary care for children which is suggested in the excellent paper which we are discussing.
There is little doubt that where curative and preventive services are integrated, better coverage of the child population is achieved both in screening and in immunisation. Many group practices have achieved a far better immunisation rate than that achieved by child health clinics held apart from the familiar GP who provides curative services for the child and its family. In actual practice the major part of screening, health education and preventive services, including immunisation and the collection of statistics, is carried out by health visitors. It is valuable for health visitors to work with the doctor with whom the family is familiar.
I agree with other speakers that the intraprofessional and interprofessional disagreements are beginning to be cleared up. I suggest that it is up to the Department of Health and Social Security to take a lead both centrally and by encouraging districts to come up with working plans for the implentation of a comprehensive health service within a set period.
I strongly support all the main recommendations made in Investing in the Future. I particularly like the suggestion that parents should hold their children's health record. Fewer such records are lost with that system than if they are filed and brought out at each attendance. For instance, practically no records were lost, even in a primitive and illiterate Nigerian community, when such a system was first begun on an experimental basis by Professor David Morley in the early 1960s. On the other hand, in hospital outpatient clinics it is true that regularly 5 per cent. to 10 per cent. of hospital records cannot be found when they are needed.
Another point which I strongly support is the need for continuing research on methods of surveillance of young children. Many of the procedures now in use have never been fully evaluated. I endorse the suggestion which has been made about school health services. There should be one doctor and one nurse per school.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Trafford, I am convinced that the future lies in a service which is consultant-led in each district and in which the actual care of children is carried out by suitably trained general practitioners in conjuction with health visitors. I hope that the Government will take action along the lines which are suggested in this excellent report.
4.25 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I should like to take the opportunity of congratulating the Policy and Practice Review Group for the production of this report under its distinguished chairman. Professor Graham, the Dean of the Institute of Child Health at Great Ormond Street Hospital, and the 17 members of that committee, drawn from the statutory and voluntary sectors of health, education and social services. The noble Lord, Lord Lovell-Davis, introduced a debate in this House on 17th February 1977 following the production of the Court Report in December 1976. I am not going to list what has been done—and well done—since then, and much that needs to be done. Other noble Lords have referred to those matters.
However, I should like to cite four points on which there is overlapping between different ministries and different local authority departments and health services. I shall also touch upon what I think should be done about those matters.
First, I cite the position of families who are living in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. That means that the family lives, sleeps and eats in one room. The effect upon children, who have no place to play, is absolutely appalling. In 1972, as director of social services in Oxford, I called a meeting in the town hall to bring to the notice of Members at Westminster, civil servants and local government officers the position with regard to homeless families and the effect that it had on children. I regret to say that the position now is worse than it was, rather than better.
Secondly, school dinners are no longer served except to those on supplementary benefit and family income support. I am told that in some areas—particularly the inner city areas—children do not have a nourishing midday meal. That is very understandable. Furthermore the positive social help which a school dinner provides is not given to children. No allowance is made for supervision of such meals. That is an example of the difficulties we find between education and the Department of Health and Social Security.
Thirdly, I am concerned with the matter of disturbed children. I am the governor of two schools for maladjusted children and I visit a third school. The staff of all three schools say that children show signs of deeper emotional disturbance than ever before. In addition, the policy of the education department is to deal with those children so late in their lives that in adolescence they have real problems. Had they been given specialised help at an earlier stage, perhaps such difficulties would not occur.
My fourth point concerns the uneasy relationship between education, social services and health services. That uneasy relationship exists not only at a local level but also at government level. In Chapter 16, paragraph 9 of the Court Report, it is recommended that:
"The Secretary of State for Social Services in England and Wales should have a statutory duty to lay before Parliament from 1979 a triennial report on all aspects of their responsibilities for children together with relevant reports from the Department of Education and the Home Office".
558
My noble friend Lord Trafford has already referred to that matter.
What is most worrying is the fragmented, uncoordinated and overlapping services given by the Department of Health and Social Security, the Department of Education and the Home Office. May I suggest, first, that the Policy and Practice Review Group of the National Children's Bureau, who produced this excellent report, should remain in being and it should be resourced at any rate in part by the Government.
Secondly, at local government level there should be produced every three years—I think my noble friend Lord Trafford said one year, and perhaps he is right—a joint report from Health—that is, the general manager, the district medical officer, the consultant community physician, the social services, the education department—and this report should be produced and referred to the local authority, the government departments and the regional health authority.
Thirdly, at central government level there should be produced, possibly based on local reports, by the Department of Education and Science, the Department of Health and Social Security, the Home Office and the Department of the Environment, which covers housing, a joint report covering the services for children. This joint report should be presented to Parliament. Thus the services for children could be monitored and recommendations made, and perhaps the present fragmented services could take a unified look. Perhaps such an exercise would bring together those working for children in the different areas.
Until people at local and central government level come together we shall be unable to get satisfactory service for children. The social services departments in local authorities, the health departments and the education departments are coming closer together but I contend that if they had to report together and produce a report together this might bring them together.
The noble Lord, Lord Lovell-Davis, said that investment in children is a positive investment, and it is one which the nation cannot afford not to make.
4.33 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I should also like to thank my noble friend for introducing this debate, the more so because I do not think that children's issues are debated often enough in the House. For that reason we are doubly grateful to him.
The Policy and Practice Review Group, which in my view is a body nearest to having an Ombudsman for children and a Minister for children, and about which I have spoken in this House, is of enormous importance in integrating all the interests of children from one central position. The report shows the importance of greater integration of all services concerned with children's health. The noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, made this point very strongly, saying that there should he an effective working relationship between the health service, the education and social services and all voluntary organisations concerned with children's health.

559
The report makes some very important recommendations which have already been commented upon. I should like to mention briefly three of them. First, I should like to comment upon the recommendation about the psycho-social aspects of child health. The report says that family doctors, community-based nurses working with children, paediatricians and clinical medical officers need more in their training about the psychological and social problems they meet and the impact that these have on the health of children. Surely, this must be of enormous importance. We really do not know the effect on the health of a child of having an unemployed father although we have quite a good idea now what homelessness means to a child's health. As the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, said, we shall soon know what effect the loss of nutritional value in school meals is going to have on the health of a child. All these aspects really must be considered by family doctors and by all other groups mentioned in the recommendation.
Secondly, I comment briefly on immunisation. I am interested in this subject through my work with UNICEF, especially the idea that parents should provide evidence that a child entering school has been immunised. The report says this should enable us to reach the immunisation level of 90 per cent. by 1990. I hope very much that this will be so because China, which is a poor country where a quarter of the world's children live, has the objective of 85 per cent. nationwide immunisation for the same year. This objective has the support of both UNICEF and the TUC.
The recommendation regarding greater care for adolescents is, I feel, very important. From my knowledge of adolescents and my own children in particular, it is a very difficult time for parents to involve themselves in the health care of their child. Adolescents are becoming more and more independent. Parents are not allowed to involve themselves although adolescents are not really adult enough to care for their own health.
Many health risks confront adolescents. These have been mentioned today—abuses of drink and drugs, the abuse of glue and the danger of anorexia which seems to be a growing illness among girls. There are other health risks which seem to affect young people. I do not believe that we are taking enough precautions to help adolescents through that very difficult time.
I give a personal example. It concerns my daughter who is a serious asthmatic. She has just gone to university leaving her parent in a great state of anxiety. On arriving at university she found that there was a clinic specially designed to look after young people with chronic illnesses such as asthma. The young people were made to feel that they were not making a fuss. A young person is very worried about seeming to make a fuss about an illness. The clinic made her feel that she was responsible for her health and her asthmatic state and that it wished to support her and to do everything possible to help her.
This is a real example of how adolescents need extra support. They are out of the reach of their
560
parents for all sorts of different reasons even in families where everything goes very well.
A very important area of child health is what happens in hospital. I was going to refer to another important report. It is called Where are the Children? It is a joint report from Caring for Children in the Health Services of which the National Association for the Welfare of Children in Hospital is one representative. They base their report upon four standards. The first standard is that children should be admitted to hospital only if the care they require cannot equally well be provided at home or on a day basis. This seems a very important standard. The most common stay for a child in hospital is two days. This means that an enormous amount of extra responsibility will be put onto the parents. They will need greater support in looking after a child returned home earlier than would previously have been the case. There must also be greater support in the community, with a greater number of registered sick children's nurses to help parents whose child is returned to them still ill and who will be looked after at home instead of in hospital.
The next standard is that children should be cared for in hospital with other children of the same age group. This again seems very important. Yet this report comes out with a figure which is worrying—namely, that in 1984 as many as a quarter of the children discharged from hospital had been in adult or mixed wards. It is important from every point of view, including the psychological one, to keep children together in a ward. It is worrying for them to see grown-ups who are ill. I am again thinking of an asthma case. It is worrying for a child to see a grown-up asthmatic. If children are kept together in a ward, their play, education and special visiting can continue.
A further standard is:
"Children in hospital shall have the right to have their parents with them at all times provided this is in the best interest of the child."
Accommodation should therefore be offered to parents if they wish to stay the night. Visits by relations or parents to a child should not be seen just as a social visit but as a truly therapeutic and preventive occasion. Although some hospitals allow parents at any time, they do not welcome them and include them as part of the child's treatment, which would seem to be the best way in which to involve parents in the care of the child when the child is released from hospital after a short stay.
The fourth standard is:
"Children shall enjoy the care of appropriately trained staff, fully aware of the physical and emotional needs of each age group".
A child will go to an X-ray department, which for a child is again a frightening experience. The radiologist will not be trained in the care of children, and the child will therefore be upset at being X-rayed. All staff involved with the care of children in hospital should have special training in the care of children.
I was pleased to be able to point out this important report on the worrying time in a child's life, which is when they spend a little time in hospital. It suggests how they could leave without any trauma, and how at the same time their parents could he involved in their care. Parents could be initiated into how best to

561
look after their children. I should like to congratulate the authors of this important report. I hope that the Government will view its recommendations favourably.
4.43 p.m.
Lord Hunter of Newington: My Lords, I also add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Lovell-Davis, for initiating this interesting debate. The 19th century public health movement in this country depended for its success in coping with infectious and deficiency diseases upon a range of local government activities beyond medical ones. Some were legislative and some were regulatory; for example, with regard to housing and the workplace. Many of their activities were involved with the care of children in school.
In these respects we led the world. An important central figure of great influence was the medical officer of health. He co-ordinated all efforts. In the 1974 reorganisation of the National Health Service, as has been mentioned, local authorities handed over to the health service a number of important functions. The medical officer of health disappeared, leaving a number of his staff in limbo between local government and the National Health Service.
Child welfare and school health services were brought within the NHS, so general practitioners were responsible for the children. However, the primary care service did not statutorily include developmental assessment, previously the responsibility of the local authorities. After 1974, the child services continued to be the responsibility of the community health doctors employed by local authorities.
Clearly, as has been said, the 1974 reorganisation gave rise to much overlap, confusion and inefficiency in the child health services, and the children suffered. Child patients had to attend too many clinics and there was a great deal of friction and confusion in the running of the service.
Conscious of the unsatisfactory fragmentation of child health services, the Government set up the Court Committee in England and the Brotherston Committee in Scotland. They both came to the same conclusion; namely, that the National Health Service should provide an integrated child health service. Both reports envisaged the phasing out of local authority based staff, and that the basis of an integrated service should be the traditional primary care services provided by general practitioners and secondary care by consultants and supporting staff.
Local authority staff were substantial at this time. They consisted of 650 senior clinical medical officers and 1,100 part-time clinical medical officers in England and Wales. General practitioners were not happy with the Court Report because the proposal for a general practitioner paediatrician—a principal recommendation—seemed to them to undermine the general nature of general practice. And many of the original functions of local government medical officers were to become the responsibility of the emerging specialty of community medicine.
The community medicine committee of the British Medical Association proposed an arrangement called a third force which was unacceptable to the royal
562
colleges and to the Central Committee on Hospital Medical Services. The Government have consistently said that they cannot proceed with reorganisation until there is agreement within the profession. I understand that the point has now been reached that there is agreement within the profession.
A substantial debt is due to the British Medical Association, which set up a forum of all those involved to discuss these matters. The idea of a third force has been abandoned, and the general principles of the Court Report have been accepted.
Two of the important agreements are that clinical medical officers will work with general practitioners and provide the child surveillance service within general practice. Local government senior clinical medical officers have accepted that they will either be promoted to consultant rank, if they meet the required criteria, or while enjoying a good deal of autonomy will he under the general supervision of consultant paediatricians, with special interests and training in community child health.
Thus at last the prospect of an integrated child health service, so widely recognised as necessary, seems hopeful of achievement. It is now agreed that curative and preventive children's services should be part of the one service.
Because there are so many special problems involved with schooling—psychological, dyslexia, dysgraphia, specific learning difficulties, the education of the physically and mentally handicapped and others—the school health service requires to remain a separate service. The consultant staff should be provided by clinical paediatricians, but each school should have an indentifiable medical officer to whom the teachers at that school can relate. That point has been stressed by a number of speakers. The payment of general practitioners for undertaking assessment duties will have to be resolved. They will also require special training.
Unfortunately, the Cumberlege Report on nursing in 1986 runs contrary to the Court Report. It envisages general duty neighbourhood nurses working only in the community and divorced from the hospital. If children are to be allowed out of hospital as soon as possible, it is essential that specialised nursing should be available at home. This should be in two forms: children's nurses working in the community, and nurses from specialised paediatric departments going to the homes of children who have been discharged from hospital. Many speakers have stressed the importance of this aspect of the care of children.
It has taken 10 years to get agreement within the profession, but integration of all children's services, curative and preventive, is necessary and it is to be hoped that the Government will pursue with vigour this policy agreed by the profession.
However, as the noble Lord, Lord Trafford, has said, our central problem remains. Until it is resolved chaos will continue in spite of many of the committees that the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, has mentioned. Who is to be the person who conducts the orchestra in a district? Who is going to be the co-ordinator of the service? If the medical officer of health had continued, he would have done it

563
beautifully. Should it be the community paediatrician? Is this the job for a good, experienced, senior clinical medical officer versed in the ways of local government and the National Health Service? Should the responsibility be discharged by the community medical officer or by an administrator? I suspect that the solution could vary according to the circumstances, but I make a plea for no more national inquiries.
4.52 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, perhaps I too may say how indebted we are to my noble friend Lord Lovell-Davis for introducing this excellent debate. I also say in particular to the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, how much I agree with everything she had to say.
One central theme of the debate goes back a great many years to the early 1960s when the pressure group, Mothercare for Children in Hospital, was founded. Several of our wives were involved in the foundation of that pressure group. In those days most medical staff were antipathetic to parents, telling them little, keeping visiting hours to a minimum, and assuming that parental presence was inimical to the child's recovery. Since those days great victories have been won, especially with regard to visiting and patient information, in both cases adding to the effectiveness of treatment and reducing the trauma of hospitalisation.
However, it is apparent from the NAWCH Report Where are the Children?, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, has referred, and the National Children's Bureau Report that there is still a vast amount to be done. There are still far too many examples of young people, even the very young, not being in separate wards. It is a theme of the moment. With the number of beds being so drastically reduced, for example, in London hospitals, the position is likely to deteriorate. We cannot expect that children's beds will be exempt from the cuts being forced by government on the health authorities, who must keep within their budgets however inadequate those budgets are. We also say that there is a danger, I understand, that the specialist teams of nurses that have been built up to care for children will be split up, again as a result of these cuts.
The main point is that it is necessary continuously to involve the parent much more in all this. Let me say how much I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rea, in underlining that particularly useful recommendation in the National Children's Bureau Report that there should be a standardised health record kept by the parent. In quoting that report, I support the suggestion that the record card should include space specifically to record the parent's own observations about the child. It is important that the parent should be correctly informed about the child's medical problem and the course of treatment to be employed.
Let me say in agreeing again with the noble Lord, Lord Rea, on training in paediatrics that I hope that some aspect of that training would be to advise doctors that they ought to treat parents as adults and
564
that where there are risks in the treatment these should be made clear; and that should be especially true of the risks with the use of drugs. Regarding drugs, an important technical point is that there should always be paediatric doses of the relevant drugs available. I understand that the way in which small doses for children are dispensed is currently under review. I am not sure whether the Minister can add anything to that.
I am bound to say, because of my interest in pharmacy, the community pharmacist has an important role to play here. It should never be forgotten that he or she is much more likely to be the first contact that the parent and child have with the medical team than anybody else and his or her counter prescribing is immensely important, as is his advice and counselling. We hope that one consequence of the Nuffield reforms, when they are implemented, is that the pharmacist will be able to perform this role so much more effectively.
Reference has been made to social and material deprivation and the health problems from which children suffer as a result of that. With regret, that is unavoidable. The National Children's Bureau Report states::
"We do wish to point out that there is a clear-cut link between … deprivation and many of the health problems from which children suffer. Rates of perinatal and infant mortality, child abuse, cigarette smoking and drug addiction all go up in direct proportion to rates of unemployment, homelessness and poverty. Poor perinatal care and immunisation failure are also more common among the most socially disadvantaged groups"
as the noble Lord, Lord Trafford, pointed out. The report continues:
"We would be failing in our duty if we did not point out that improvement in social conditions would make a greater impact on child health than is likely to occur as the result of any reorganisation of professional work".
There is little doubt, for example, about the correlation between unemployment and ill-health, including especially mental health. Where the doubts arise are about what causes what. One view is that unemployment causes ill-health and therefore affects the health of the children of the unemployed; of course unemployment could be regarded as directly damaging in this as in so many other ways. But the alternative view of this correlation is that the causation runs the other way; that those who are more prone to ill-health are more likely to be made unemployed. However, if anybody tries to find comfort from that it merely serves to underline even further how unfair unemployment is, especially for the children of those who are affected.
It is sometimes said that everybody is sympathetic. No doubt the Minister in his reply will say that. But the words are always added, "This is all a matter of resources". That is somehow supposed to provide an excuse for doing nothing, given the sympathy. Resources are scarce; Lecture 1 in every economics course starts that way. But we are told—in particular from the Front Bench opposite yesterday—that this country is now doing extremely well economically. If that is true, surely we can afford a much enhanced health service especially for the children of this country.
4.59 p.m.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, I am also very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lovell-Davis, for initiating this useful debate. I should like to say that I entirely agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Peston, has said about the relationship of parents and children. I entirely agree, as always, with everything that my noble friend Lady Faithfull has said.
Before I speak perhaps I should declare an interest. Like many of your Lordships I am a parent; and like all your Lordships, I have been a child. It never occurred to my parents (nor indeed to my husband and myself) that, having brought children into this world, we were not the people responsible for giving those children as healthy and happy a childhood as we could, which for anyone is the most secure basis for a happy and healthy future. Neither I nor my children were particularly grateful for all the immunisation injections we had nor the visits to the dentist. But they obviously prevented what was called in the 18th century "kink-cough and total toothlessness".
During the past 30 years there has arisen a feeling that "they" should do something. "They" should pay. "They" should look after our children. "They" should absolve us from all responsibilities. Everybody has a "they" in his life, sometimes not altogether desirable. My grandmother had a "they" who stole her sugar and butter so that she kept it locked in her wardrobe. But in reality there is no "they". "They" is us. It is we, the parents, who are responsible for our own children.
One of the main points made by Professor Graham of the National Children's Bureau in his report is that parents are the most important primary healthcare givers. The report suggests that children's health records should be kept by the parents because they are less likely to lose them than the public authorities. There should be much closer co-operation with parents who can sometimes observe when something is going wrong with a child. Parents should also see about immunisation. In France, East Germany, Saudi Arabia and the United States non-immunised children are not allowed to attend state schools. Something on these lines on a voluntary basis might encourage British parents to see about the immunisation of their own children.
Of course, sadly, there are families without love; there are families in very poor circumstances; there are one-parent families and there are orphans. In all of these cases the children are at risk and need the help and support that can be given to them by doctors and by professionals. Not only do some children require professional help but sometimes in the case of a severely disabled or disturbed child it is the parents who do. Parents, being closer to their children, can always detect something that is not quite right and which, being caught in time, may be cured that much more easily. The policy review group of the National Children's Bureau has laid much stress on the involvement and responsibility of parents in the health of their own children. It is particularly keen for parents to keep the health records of their own children.
566
Inside each of us is the child we once were and the loving care which we received from our own parents. How important it is that that same love and care should now surround each and every child in Britain today.
5.4 p.m.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I, too, should like to congratulate and thank my noble friend Lord Lovell-Davis for initiating this important debate on a vital report. A number of Members have naturally mentioned the fact that it was very sad to see free milk go from our schools. It is a remarkable coincidence. Winston Churchill said that to give British children free milk was a noble idea. Mrs. Thatcher thought so much of that statement that she abolished free milk.
Here we are today discussing the problems of children and only this week Mr. Moore, masquerading as a minister for health, said that he would not increase child allowances. I find that rather distressing. What is this peculiar Conservative quirk to have these orgiastic attacks now and then on British children? We have witnessed it on milk; we have this vital debate today and this is the day that the Minister tells us "No more money for children's allowances".
The report by the National Children's Bureau, a private organisation on child health service, is long overdue. But why did not the DHSS undertake the review? Perhaps when he replies the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, will tell us why. The review has found a lack of commitment by Government, by health authorities and by local authorities to be concerned for the care of children. I find that to be a devastating comment in this day and age.
In 1982 the area medical and area nursing officers for child health were abolished by this Government. That is care for children for you! Just abolish that important group of specialists. At the same time there was a reduction in the child health budgets which caused professional disenchantment among child health specialists. These are all very serious charges which cannot be denied or explained. All the Government have to do is to reinstate the situation that pertained before they inflicted these appalling cuts and attacks on British children.
The Government give the impression that they have no role to play in improving social conditions. Bad social conditions are a danger to anyone's health; bad social conditions are especially a danger to children's health.
I agree that parents throughout the country should, as is recommended in the report, possess standardised records of each child's health. There is also a very important submission in the report from the Health Visitors' Association. Health visitors play a vital role in all facets of health, particularly in children's health. Their record before the First World War was admirable. I have to declare an interest. I am very proud to be a vice-president of the Health Visitors' Association. Its report stressed the importance of the school nurse and the need for a policy statement on her role and function. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, will also comment on that.

567
I turn briefly to the remarks of the report on adolescents who, it says, are in need of improved services. I do not have time to go into what all those improved services may be, but I am sure that most Members of the House understand what they are. The report underlines that there are not enough hospitals with special units and special wards for adolescents. How do the Government intend to tackle that? They have a smashing idea—they want to abolish all the wards, or as many as they can. That is the way in which they tackle these problems. The cuts are bound to worsen the situation that this vital report says exists and is dangerous. The Government's policy is simply to make matters worse.
Pregnant mothers and their children, wherever they live and whatever their economic circumstances, are entitled to the best facilities and treatment within the National Health Service. Here again the report points out that there are ways in which we could improve on the situation for mothers having their children and bringing them up for the first few months, but nothing is being done about it. That is not true. Something is being done about it: the situation is being made worse again. The Government are doing so much in this field, but it is always the wrong thing and above all it is a bad thing.
Preventive and curative medicine are in need of improvement. It is, despite all we have to draw on, important that a register of immunisation should be provided at school entry to ensure protection. I repeat, a register of immunisation should be provided at school entry to ensure protection. We do not do it. In the United States it is the law. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Skelmerdale, will comment on that as well.
We should make much more use of computers, particularly as regards surveillance and preventive procedures carried out on children. By all these endeavours we contribute to a good caring society and hence the cultivation and enlargement of individual life. If a child is neglected in its early years it sometimes carries that neglect throughout the rest of its life. We should take much more advantage of preventive and curative medicine, for that is the base for all other health endeavours. Preventive medicine is health by collective action.
Long before I was born—indeed in the latter part of the last century—a massive contribution was made to the health of this nation, and especially to the health of children, by sanitary inspectors and by medical officers of health. For a century they have played a vital role. Their work meant the creation of social codes that have collective well being as their aim. The sanitary inspector and the medical officer of health recognised the magnificent contributions of people such as Pasteur, Simpson, Jenner, Lister, Semelweis, Fleming, Domagd and RÖntgen. We have a wealth of knowledge, ability and endeavour to draw on to protect our children in matters so vital to the future of our nation.
I should like to make an appeal before I sit down. Let us join with the report and reaffirm that henceforth our purpose will be to promote optimal
568
health for all children living in the United Kingdom for their future as well as for their children's future.
5.12 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I too should like to start by echoing the gratitude which other noble Lords have expressed to my noble friend Lord Lovell-Davis for giving us this opportunity to debate this challenging report by the National Children's Bureau. The bureau, its policy and practice review group, Professor Philip Graham and Dr. Kurtz are to be thanked for their valuable contributions. We have heard that this report is the first review of health services for children since the Court Committee reported in 1976. It has been produced by professionals involved with children's health and their voice is therefore authoritative. Thanks to the report we now know that it was high time that the whole field of child health was reviewed.
The broad picture which emerges is that, nowithstanding the progress made in some sectors of child health care—and ante-natal and perinatal care were mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Trafford—health care for the children of the poor and the needy has not improved during the past 10 years and indeed has declined for many such children. That I believe is the report's main conclusion. It is a matter of considerable sadness that the authors of the report were driven by the evidence of their own eyes and ears to draw this appalling conclusion. We are entitled to ask the Government where they stand in relation to this finding.
The review group makes a large number of recommendations, but their significance has to be adjudged against its central message (which emerges on page 10 of the report) and which has been referred to more than once this afternoon. That central message is that improvements in social conditions would make a greater impact on child health than is likely to occur as the result of any reorganisation of professional work. In our submission that message overshadows all the other recommendations although they are excellent recommendations. Again we are entitled to ask: when will the Government listen to this message? When will they do those things that need to be done and can only be done by government. Surely there must be some limit to the Government's inactivity in this field.
It is in a sense a matter of commitment. This key word is used by the authors of the report. On page 9 the authors identify the existence of a lack of commitment to the health needs of children at central government level, local authority level and health authority level. If the Government have created the impression that they have no real commitment to improving health services for children, it is not surprising that there should also be a lack of commitment lower down the line and that children are to be found at the tail end of planning. This in turn produces the disenchantment which the review group found to have grown among many of the professionals involved with children's health.
Limited by time and resources the review concentrated on the three main areas outlined by my noble friend Lord Lovell-Davis but even so it

569
produced about 40 detailed recommendations. The press has already highlighted the recommendation that a personal medical record card should be maintained by parents in respect of every child. This recommendation has been supported by many speakers in your Lordships' House this afternoon and we fully support it for two reasons. It involves the parent with the health of the child. Parent involvement is right and we are glad that it is slowly happening. We agree with the review group and with the Health Visitors Association that this recommendation would give further encouragement to parent involvement. My noble friend Lord Peston is right to emphasise that professionals too must change their attitudes towards parent involvement. This would help them to do just that.
We support it for another reason. As health authorities are finding it difficult to keep track of the medical records when parents move from one health district to another and change doctors and clinics, the personal medical record card held by the parent would be an invaluable aid. I have been sent the child record book produced by the community unit of the Nottingham health authority. It has a column for vaccination records, a column for details of hospital treatment; and a page for recording illnesses. It seems to me that this is just what the review group had in mind. This recommendation could be adopted quickly and cheaply by all health authorities. Does the department propose to ask the authorities to implement this simple recommendation.
The report urges a strong push on vaccination and this has also been well supported by the press and in the House this afternoon. Far too many children are still unprotected from measles and whooping cough. Avoidable deaths are still occurring. A Welsh Office health Minister addressing a health conference in Cardiff in September told his audience that this was the time for action. Do the Government have any action in mind apart from exhortation? I have read that the Health Visitors Association has suggested that it would be helpful if the Government could introduce a no fault compensation scheme for vaccine damage. Is this matter receiving Government consideration? I will be interested in the Minister's answer to the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, as to when a safe vaccine will become available.
We have heard that the report contains a number of important recommendations on surveillance and prevention. A great deal has been said about the recommendations and I want to touch on two of the detailed recommendations under this heading. It is recommended that the primary health care team should take over complete responsibility for the delivery of surveillance and preventive procedures. Professor Philip Graham has subsequently explained that he has in mind that it may take about five years before this recommendation can be fully implemented.
We clearly recognise that the GPs have an important part to play in child health. I am sure that the department will pay careful consideration to what has been said by my noble friend Lord Rea and by the noble Lord, Lord Hunter, in relation to this
570
recommendation. Nevertheless there could be difficulties with this recommendation at least in the short term.
I make no apology for referring once again to the Health Visitors Association. My noble friend Lord Molloy is right to point out that they are very much in the front line. I understand that the association is somewhat concerned about this recommendation in the short term, fearing that some of the GPs may not be competent to provide a service comparable in quality to that provided by the health authority, child health doctors in partnership with health visitors, and health workers.
I believe that the Health Visitors Association is here saying something important. I have just been looking at a profile of 214 GPs working in an area covered by one of the inner London health authorities. Of the 214 GPs so employed, 29 are over the age of 70, 54 are over the age of 65, while only 21, who have recently been in the medical schools, are under the age of 34. Moreover, 91 of those GPs are in single-handed practices. That being the position, I would gravely doubt whether many of the doctors in this particular profile would be in a position to undertake training to enable them to carry out the new responsibilities assuming that they wish to be so involved, and that may be an important assumption.
I would not generalise on the basis of this particular profile. We appreciate that the DHSS has commissioned a national project to consider all aspects of the organisation of community child health services, and they will no doubt deal fully with the GP perspective on child health. I should mention that I have read with considerable interest and sympathy a summary of the Secretary of State's statement to the Society of Family Practitioners Committee on 16th October. We just wonder how he proposes to encourage greater GP involvement in child health.
I welcome wholeheartedly the emphasis placed by the review group on the role of the consultant community paediatrician. This consultant was recommended by the Court Report. It has been recommended in your Lordships' House this afternoon. He has a valuable role to play. Without having a committee at his command he would be a link between the hospital and the community. He would go out to the community, attract other professionals concerned with child health services, and together they could generate the necessary driving force and get things off the ground. This has not happened to the extent hoped for.
We understand from the report that there are about 75 such consultants in post whereas ideally we would require about 350 in post. In Wales we have merely one such consultant in post who provides merely half his sessions to community paediatrics. Can the Minister tell the House why so few appointments have been made? Is it the case that the department is at the mercy of the district authorities and that it cannot insist that these appointments should be made?
We support another major recommendation that the school health service should be revitalised. The review has produced at least nine recommendations

571
under this heading. Travelling around the country we hear of dissatisfaction among teachers with the school health service. We hear that there is inadequate communication between teachers and doctors, and vice versa. If the Government cannot today accept the majority of these recommendations then, on the evidence of this report and on the evidence of the report on inequality in health published earlier this year, and notwithstanding what the noble Lord, Lord Hunter, has said, we would urge the Government to investigate the school health service in depth.
The other major recommendation relates to the inadequate health services for adolescents, and here we speak of the young people who, through some misfortune or some difficulty in development, cannot fit themselves into the world we live in, and who need treatment and guidance to help them on the road to maturity. There has been virtually no movement to improve health services for adolescents during the past 10 years. My noble friend Lord Lovell-Davis has gone into the details of this recommendation and I do not propose to add anything to what he has said so eloquently. I am glad that my noble friend Lady Ewart-Biggs referred to the report, Where are the Children? That is a report that is worthy of the department's consideration. I am grateful that the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, has referred to nutrition. This is not referred to in the report. We should be interested to know what role school meals will henceforth play in a nutrition policy.
The noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, who is so clearly associated with the National Children's Bureau, and whose commitment to the welfare of children and young people is deeply and widely respected throughout the country, has come up in the course of the debate with another major recommendation. She recommended that periodically the three major departments of state involved with child health should produce a joint report on the impact of their policies and present it to Parliament. We wholeheartedly support that recommendation.
It seems to me that the report would do at least three things. It would identify the problems which are the cause of concern; it should help to ensure that the three departments are not pursuing conflicting aims; and it would help also to ensure the convergence of policies and the co-ordination of policies. We hope this recommendation from the other side of the House emanating from the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Trafford, and supported by ourselves should be acceptable to the Government, whether or not it is acceptable to the three departments.
The report presents a considerable challenge to the Government and to the professionals concerned. In ending my speech I am left wondering whether there can be any significant advance in the short term unless children's needs are bracketed together with those of the other three priority groups: the old, the mentally ill, and the mentally handicapped. However, this is a point that has already been made by my noble friend Lord Lovell-Davis.
5.28 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Skelmersdale): My Lords, at 5.38 p.m. on 16th February 1977 the noble Lord, Lord Lovell-Davies, rose to call attention to the Court Report on child health services. Today, 10½ years later, it falls to me to congratulate the noble Lord on providing the House with a valuable opportunity for a much overdue discussion on child health—I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart Biggs—and to do so in the context of the timely report from the National Children's Bureau on this subject. I should like to congratulate the bureau for what, by any standards, is a comprehensive look at a number of aspects of children's health services.
Let me say at the outset that the Government remain fully committed to the principles of the Court Committee's findings. As everyone agreed then, full implementation of the proposals would be achieved in the longer rather than the shorter term. But it would be wrong to say that nothing has happened. The Court Committee reported at the end of 1976. There was consultation; then a departmental circular was issued in 1978. Credit is certainly due to the last Labour Government—when it is due, I think it oughtto be respected—and to this Government, too. We have not been idle, as I shall seek to show. In the following year district handicap teams were set up and there were other developments to which I shall come later.
The central recommendation mentioned this afternoon by virtually every noble Lord has been consistently rejected not only by this Government but by that of the party opposite. Nothing in that respect had changed. But this afternoon something did change. We heard a most interesting and thoughtful speech from my noble friend Lord Trafford, who asked, why bother with a joint report? Why not have a report from my noble friend the Secretary of State for Social Services, contributed to by whoever my noble friend thinks appropriate? I shall examine that proposal most carefully.
In the last Parliament we gave additional impetus to progressing the report's philisophy by the funding of a number of projects about which I shall speak later. A great deal has been achieved since the committee reported. Today's debate gives the Government the opportunity to put on record what these achievements are. Prevention has always been an essential part of this Government's policy. I certainly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rea, that—and I précis—prevention is cheaper than cure.
The Court Report was particularly significant in that it sought for the first time to change people's attitudes and to emphasise the importance of prevention rather than later treatment. Early detection of treatable conditions is vital if the full benefits of services available are to be used to the best effect. 1980 saw the DHSS paper Prevention in the Child Health Services which outlined the Government's policy in this area and suggested a basic programme of child health surveillance for health authorities from birth to school leaving age. The importance that the Government attaches to

573
these services was further re-affirmed in 1981 when Care in Action was published. I do not agree with the condemnation by the noble Lord, Lord Lovell-Davis, of Care in Action which sets out in detail the Government's policies and priorities for health and personal social services in England.
The functions ascribed to the various posts which were described in Care in Action are still excellent. Each district health authority assigns the functions to a senior doctor and nurse according to its own individual needs. The report of the National Children's Bureau recommends the appointment of consultant community paediatricians. My noble friend Lady Faithfull is right in saying that the primary front line in child health care, as in adult health care, is the general practitioner. I am sure that I have indicated the wrong noble Baroness, but never mind.
Many health authorities have made such appointments in recent years and there are now at least 100 in post. I am able to inform the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, that there were none in 1979. The job descriptions vary from authority to authority reflecting differing local situations. The appointment of consultant community paediatricians can considerably help in co-ordinating health authority services for children with those provided by social service authorities and education departments. The report states that what is needed is a doctor who is in charge in a district, whatever one calls him; someone to whom the social services and education authority could turn in the first instance to ask for health support.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Trafford and I was delighted to be reminded by the noble Lord, Lord Hunter of the refreshing attitude of the BMA to the whole problem. It is necessary to have someone but I am not still convinced that it should necessarily be a doctor.
The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, called for the re-introduction of free school milk. I have not time to develop the arguments fully but there is a contrary medical opinion, as he will know only too well that it is pre-school and not free school milk that is needed. The Government are studying this opinion. Already, supplementary benefit claimants, families receiving family income supplement who have children under five or handicapped children up to the age of 16 and expectant mothers in receipt of supplementary benefit, receive milk tokens which can be exchanged for milk or powdered baby milk. I think it would be right on another occasion to discuss the changes made by the 1986 Social Security Act.
It gives me great although, as noble Lords will perhaps agree, slightly unusual pleasure to agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, on the subject of immunisation. It is obviously an important aspect. In this country there is a comprehensive and, it should not be forgotten, free childhood immunisation programme. We have targets of 90 per cent. immunisation uptake by 1990 for immunisable diseases. While we have already achieved 85 per cent. for diphtheria, tetanus and polio, the level of whooping cough immunisation was only 71 per cent. in 1986. We cannot therefore afford to be
574
complacent, and renewed effort is needed to reach the targets set. I hope that that will be helped by the proposed introduction of a combined vaccine against measles, mumps and rubella in the near future. It will be given to children in the second year of life as the measles vaccine is now. The Government have set their target high and I shall be addressing a meeting of National Health Service staff responsible for immunisation uptake on 10th November to discuss this subject.
In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, immunisation has never been compulsory in this country except, I am reminded, in the case of smallpox just after the war. There is no present intention to change that situation. A requirement for children to have been immunised, or to be exempted, before school entry, would not therefore be an appropriate step for a district health authority to take on its own. However, responsible officers in health authorities have been asked to assess the immunisation state of all children about to enter primary school and to offer immunisation to unprotected children.
Although the training of staff is primarily under the responsibility of the professional bodies the Government have funded a number of projects aimed at providing training and training materials on the delivery of child health services. Since 1983, approximately £400,000 has been spent on a variety of such training projects. The Government attach great importance to an effective school health service. Since 1978 we have actively encouraged major improvements in the training of school health nurses. I am aware that there is concern that the full potential of this service is not being realised in all health authorities. The department is keeping the situation under active review and will take any further action that seems appropriate.
Adolescents are recognised as a separate group and since the Court Report teenage wards exist as a feature of children's hospitals and some district general hospitals. However, many others use partitioned areas to meet the needs of that group. Recognition of that recommendation is steadily growing, but I admit that progress in some respects falls short of what we would wish. I believe that the right way ahead is a renewed effort by health authorities to identify areas where improvements are necessary.
Part of this subject is parental involvement. I do not know whether one can be described as a professional parent but, if so, then my noble friend Lady Strange could be so described. She put forward the position of parents very strongly and the House will be grateful to her.
We are aware of initiatives which are being taken at this time, for example research on parental child health records which was a point made by one noble Lord. While I initially thought that that proposal was unlikely to work, it appears, on first analysis, that parents take care of their child's health records. It is early days but we shall be watching closely the outcome of that work.
We are all aware that community child health services are complicated and difficult to organise.

575
They are provided by a larger than usual number of professional staff through home visiting, health clinics, health centres and general practitioner surgeries. Effective delivery is far from easy and requires co-operation between health and local education authorities, family practitioner committees, general practitioners, social services and voluntary organisations. Health authorities in particular provide an important input to social services on matters concerning child abuse, adoption, foster services and the health of children in care.
Obviously, circumstances will vary and the means of collaboration for each locality needs to be worked out locally, not by central government—here I certainly agree with my noble friend Lord Trafford—so that services are both responsive to the needs of the local population and as cost effective as possible. Inevitably, there will be problems of communication and varying degrees of co-operation between the groups. As a result the Government have recently funded a two-year project to seek ways of resolving problems which have been identified in various work by the department on the organisation and delivery of those services. The project is currently under way in four health districts and associated FPCs. The results of the project will be available in about 18 months' time and it is hoped that this will enable us to make available additional guidance and advice on the organisation, management and planning of child health services to the relevant authorities.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, mentioned the form and content of child health surveillance. This is under active consideration by a number of professional groups at present, and I welcome the debate. The process of child health surveillance must be set in the context of services to the family, and if I am to look to the future I would see, as did the consultation document on primary health care, an increasing role over time for general practitioners in dealing with the medical component of this activity for the under-fives. We have no reason to doubt that that is the right course.
I do not want to pre-empt anything which our White Paper on primary health care may want to say about this subject, but I hope that we shall hear from the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, in the light of his remarks today.
I am pleased to be able to say that in the past year the professional bodies most concerned with child health have made considerable progress. We have heard today about the BMA forum which earlier this year reached agreement on consultant-led community service. We have not heard about the Faculty of Community Medicine, which has a working party on the integration of child health services. Its report is expected soon.
Again, the British Paediatric Association has called together a working party involving a number of medical and nursing professional bodies, and is looking at child health surveillance for the under-fives. Our own child health service project in four districts will also look at the problems of integration. We shall draw all those threads together Integration
576
of services is important and the Government will play their full part in helping to achieve it. I agree most certainly with the noble Lord who said, "For goodness sake, we do not want any more working parties and reports".
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, does the noble Lord intend to answer my specific question about the statement made by the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, with regard to the new acellular pertussis vaccine developed at Porton Down which he told the House was ready for clinical trials? Have the clinical trials taken place, and when will that vaccine be available for general use?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am sorry, but I must have skipped that part of my notes. I shall make an opportunity to write to the noble Lord on that subject.
We have covered a lot of ground this afternoon, during which time I have tried to explain as comprehensively as I can in the very short time available how seriously the Government takes the issues raised by the House this afternoon and the action that we are taking to make progress on them. I appreciate that there are many points, not only that of the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, which I have not been able to address. Therefore, with the leave of the House, I shall take the opportunity to write on those points which I have not been able to answer.
I hope I have been able to show that the action that we are taking and have taken is coherent and logical, although I am the first to admit that we still have a long way to go. Finally, let me once again express my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Lovell-Davis, for providing the opportunity for this important debate, which I hope your Lordships will agree has been constructive.
Lord Lovell-Davis: My Lords, I believe that this has been a very valuable debate and I should like to thank all noble Lords who have taken part and made such important contributions to it. I should like to apologise for exceeding my allotted time by about two minutes, but I mistakenly understood that I was permitted to speak for 20 minutes.
As was pointed out during the debate, child health services are not reported on and are seldom debated either in your Lordships' House or in another place. I hope and feel sure that what has been said this afternoon on all sides of the House will be heard not only in your Lordships' House and within government circles but also by a wider audience of professionals, parents and others of our people.
I should like to thank the Minister for replying to the debate and for the courtesy of his reply. We must all welcome what he said about the more encouraging aspects of the Government's view of child health services, limited though they may be. It is good to know that the Government are looking at matters raised in this debate, such as the reporting proposal made by the noble Lord, Lord Trafford, and that they are looking into pre-school milk and immunisation. I was particularly interested to hear what the Minister said about the school health

577
service, and also that the Government will be looking closely at the recommendation for child health records for parents.
I wish to thank the noble Lord, though I could wish he had gone somewhat further in assuring us that amore positive lead in child health services will be taken by the Government. I am grateful to him for what he said. This has been a timely opportunity to raise a vitally important subject. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Disabled People
5.48 p.m.
Lord Carter Lord Carter rose to call attention to the needs and problems of people with disabilities; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like to begin by thanking the considerable number of noble Lords who put their names down to speak in this debate and who have demonstrated the very considerable interest that this House has always taken in problems of disability.
When we debated the gracious Speech at the beginning of the Session I spoke on the topic of the needs and problems of people with disabilities. In my speech, coining a phrase, in which I take no particular pride, I referred to the "disabled divide", which I defined as the gulf in the quality of life, income and expectations of people with disabilities compared with the rest of society. That is what today's debate is about: the disabled divide. Because of the number of Peers who put down their names to speak—and I know that they will all be covering different aspects of disability—I should like to concentrate on the needs of the disabled, particularly in the light of the announcement only yesterday in connection with the Social Security Act, which we have been told is the biggest review and reform of social security since Beveridge. I should like to examine that Act to see whether the needs of the disabled will be met.
To begin with, we should remember the central and shameful fact that of the 3 million disabled in this country, 2 million are living in poverty or on the edge of poverty, and that 60 per cent. of disabled people are living in poverty compared with 28 per cent. of the non-disabled population. I was looking for a statement of the kind of aims for which we should be striving and I saw one which seemed to be an admirable statement:
"Our aim is to provide a coherent system of cash benefits to meet the costs of disability so that more disabled people can support themselves and lead normal lives"
That was in the 1979 manifesto of the Conservative Party. This Government introduced the 1981 Act, on which they should be congratulated. They introduced the concept of allowances to cover the cost of disability, assistance to enable the disabled to live at home and help towards the cost of coping with incontinence, a special diet, heating, laundry and baths. In the new Act, all this is swept away and replaced by a flat rate premium and the social fund.
The effect is that for those who are in receipt of cash benefits now, the level of the benefits will be
578
frozen in April 1988 until the level of income support catches up with those benefits. In some cases disabled people will have to wait for 10 to 15 years for this to happen. After April 1988 newly disabled people will be much worse off as a result of the operation of the Act. It has been estimated that up to 45 per cent. of newly disabled pensioners, and up to 18 per cent. of the newly disabled under 65s, will be worse off.
In fact, all disabled people who are now in receipt of supplementary benefits and allowances will be worse off, because the new rates which will come into effect in April 1988 will not take account of inflation of 3 to 4 per cent. up to that time. Also, for the first time ever, the disabled will be required to bear 20 per cent. of their rates on the less than £1 per week allowance that the Government have made. If the rates of the disabled are more than £52 a year they will be worse off.
This is a complex subject, and I thought that the easiest way to explain it would be to take three examples of people who are in receipt of allowances today and see what would happen if they were newly disabled after April 1988. The first example is that of a man who is totally paralysed, whose benefits and allowances are today of the order of £130 per week. After April 1988, if he were newly disabled in the same condition, his income would be reduced to £71 per week—a reduction of £59 or 45 per cent.
The second example is that of a married couple, with a wife who is disabled and a husband who is the claimant for the two of them. If the husband leaves her or dies before April 1988, her income will drop to £65 per week. After April 1988, it will drop to £46 a week—a reduction of £19 or 20 per cent. The third example is that of a woman living alone, who is in receipt of a severe disability allowance. At the moment her income with benefits and allowances is £109 per week. Like so many severely disabled people, she may have go to hospital. If she is there for more than 15 weeks, under the new scheme her protected income, as it is now described, of £109 will drop to £71 per week—a reduction of £38 or 35 per cent.
We have been told by the Government, correctly, that they have introduced a scheme of transitional protection to protect the level of cash benefits. The regulations in themselves are enormously complex. The intention is to freeze the existing level of benefits until the levels of income support catch up. That just proves that income support is worth less than the income which the disabled are receiving now. In the Statement which the noble Earl made yesterday, he referred to £200 million that has been injected in order to secure this result. Presumably that is the measure by which income support is less than the level of the supplementary benefits and allowances today. The noble Earl looks puzzled, but that is the case.
In some cases, severely disabled people will have to wait 10 to 15 years, depending on the rate of inflation in the future, for an increase in their income, and the Government refuse to uprate the levels of transitional protection in line with inflation. The reality of the new system is that after April next year the newly disabled will not only lose; they will lose the most.
The more severely disabled they are, the more they need, but the less they will receive.
Early this year there was a late night television programme called "United In Fury" which examined the anomalies and the injustices of the new scheme. I am told that after that programme the producers received no fewer than 7,000 letters from people who were severely concerned about the effect on their income after next April. Only last evening, on the "In Touch" programme for the blind on the BBC, there were harrowing stories of the elderly blind who have to manage now on what is literally a pittance and about the effect on them after next April.
There are some gainers and I am sure that when the noble Earl winds-up he will be briefed to tell us about them. When he is quoting the number of gainers under the new scheme who are in receipt of the disability premium, will he say how many people who are off work through sickness for more than 26 weeks will be in receipt of the premium under the new scheme? These are people who are not disabled in the normal sense of the word. They do not have to cope with any of the extra costs of disability. I feel that there is some degree of creative accounting in the figures of the department.
I think that we are entitled to ask the Government to explain the rationale for these anomalies and injustices. We are entitled to know why this has to be. Mr. Nicholas Scott, the Minister for the Disabled, admitted at a fringe meeting in Blackpool that some severely disabled people will be worse off. Mr. John Moore admitted as much yesterday in his Statement in the other place. The Ministers have not tried to deny that, in effect, these benefits are being redistributed from the most severely disabled to the less severely disabled. In fact, from next April we shall see a redistribution of disabled poverty.
What is the reason? Is it a lack of resources? This spring in the Budget the Chancellor had a total of £6 billion to use for tax cuts and for a reduction of public borrowing. We are told that the forecast for next spring is £7 billion. We are talking about comparatively few people, probably fewer than 5,000, who are severely disabled and who will be most affected.
The all-party disablement group met the Minister and we presented him with what seemed to me to be a sensible proposal for a dual system to ensure that these people are looked after. The Minister said that the dual system was out of the question, though I believe we are to have one for the poll tax, which will cost millions to operate, and which is intended to ensure that the electorate do not feel the full effects of the poll tax before the next election.
The noble Earl who is to reply may well say that the severely disabled can rely on the social fund to look after them. I saw a story in the Guardian just after the appointment of Mr. John Moore, when it was reported that he wished to do away with the concept of the social fund completely. He has been overruled on higher authority, which I suppose means the Prime Minister.
I think that the best comment on the operation of the social fund has come from the Government's own Social Security Advisory Committee, which stated:
"We cannot support the social fund as it appears in the draft manual. It is dominated by a need to keep within the budget. It strikes what we regard as the wrong balance between loans and grants and between discretion and entitlement. We remain unconvinced that it will meet many of the genuine needs of some of the poorest members of society or command the confidence of agencies whose co-operation the manual itself sees as necessary. It sets awesome tasks for social fund officers. We urge the Government to reconsider their approach to the social fund in the light of the comments which that committee has made; and there are others from many other organisations which have made representations about the draft manual."
When the severely disabled are to be left to the mercy of an arbitrary system and at the discretion of the social fund officers, this has to be compared with the allowances that they receive today as of right under the law. We are told that the system has been simplified. In fact, I can only say that, if you look at the guidance manual on the social fund regulations and the transitional protection, had Franz Kafka and Mr. Gradgrind sat down to devise a social security system they could not have done a much better job than the DHSS.
To repeat my earlier question: what is the rationale behind what can only be described as this calculated meanness? I think that the answer may lie in two interviews that the Prime Minister gave on television during the election. In the first she was asked to describe her philosophy. She said that she wanted a family man to be able to buy his own home, to pay for his children's education if he so wished, to buy health care for his family if he so wished, and to own a few shares. Then, almost as an afterthought, she said that, if he had a surplus, he could give it to charity to help others.
As to the other interview, for once, the mask of the image-makers dropped for a second when we heard about the people who drool and drivel about caring. I fear that that attitude has bitten deep into the making of government social policy and has resulted in a system of social security that will attack the standard of life of some of the most vulnerable members of society. The Government seem to have embarked on an ideological crusade in favour of simplicity and against scroungers, and have discovered, we hope not too late, that the disabled are likely to be crunched between the millstones of simplicity of administration and cost-saving.
I should like to ask the noble Lord who will wind up the debate for an explanation. Why will the Government not agree now to uprate the present levels of benefit—the transitional protected figures—in line with inflation after April next year? How will the severely disabled who are living alone obtain the money they need to keep them out of institutional care? How do the Government propose to deal with the problem—which they admit and recognise—of the newly disabled who will be much worse off after April 1988 in comparison with the present level of benefits? What is the Government's response to the criticisms of the social fund by their own Advisory Committee on Social Security?
At the beginning of my speech I referred to the "disabled divide". I think that future Conservative Governments may look back with great sadness to what this Government have done to the disabled. It is a great sadness to realise that the Government's long-awaited reform of social security may make the disabled divide even wider.
6.3 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for introducing this subject, which is of great importance. When the noble Lord refers to the needs and problems of disabilities, most of us know what he has in mind.
Most people suffer from disabilities of some kind. Some people suffer from the disability of being stupid, some from the disability of intelligence or lack of it. But usually one considers disabilities to refer to mental disabilities and physical disabilities. We are all affected in certain ways as we go through life. Many Members in your Lordships' House know of the constraints of physical disabilities and the difficulties they can produce.
My experience has tended more towards mental disabilities. I have a child with some handicap, and when one meets that kind of problem, one does not know quite where to turn. The extraordinary thing is that not many families in the country are unaffected by disability in some form or shape. One great advantage to have come about in the past 20 years is that people are prepared to talk about it and discuss it and, in doing so, oddly enough, one finds that one is not quite as lonely as one was before.
In that respect some organizations—and I am bound here to declare an interest as I happen to be president of the eastern region of MENCAP—have done a great deal to make people feel that there is a commonality of problems. That does not alter the fact that, when individuals suddenly realise they have a child with a disability, they ask where to go and to whom they can turn. Automatically one tends to turn to local authorities because one thinks that they know best; and, indeed, they have certain expertise. One tends also to turn to governments and suggest that they should do more because everybody turns to governments when looking for a way out of a problem. The important thing is that people should somehow find the avenue down which to go.
The danger is that children who may be disabled in some form or shape are given tests and, when found not to achieve the right IQ, they are described under the all-embracing bracket of "educationally subnormal" and are shot down a sideline that may be quite inappropriate for them. People who have been described as educationally subnormal may eventually be found to be suffering merely from some kind of understanding disability: they cannot tell the time so they are always late, and so forth.
It is a problem. Most parents, if only they could find the appropriate key of the appropriate door to unlock, would have the answer to their problems. Instead they spend their lives searching for what it is they ought to be doing and they have not done which, if only they could do it, would enable the child to be in a better position.
582
Professionalism is of course important. There has been a great increase in professionalism. However, understanding is important, too. Understanding often comes from people who are not professionals. There are professionals who are understanding—that is expected. There are people who are not professionals who are understanding—that is excellent. But once one has the professional who is not understanding, that is disastrous because that person can carry all the panoply of the authority of his professionalism without in fact being understanding either to the child or to the parents. There must obviously be a mixture of the professional and the non-professional.
People ask the Government to do more. I believe that one thing they could do is to give their support substantially—obviously not wholly—to the voluntary organisations, who do a great deal. Consitutional care is important, but so too is voluntary care. I spoke only this week to someone who is described as a co-worker. She had been working with handicapped people in the Camphill Trust, I understand, for some 40 years. The trust helps handicapped people and says that it is helped by handicapped people. I asked what she did if she wanted to go on holiday and whether she was paid a salary. She said she was not and that she went and asked the community whether there were sufficient funds. She then said, "But, of course, when I go, everyone else wants to come too". Such people spend their lives helping others in this way. It is a life of dedication. They are as dedicated as are nuns and other such people in their way. It is astonishing to realise what some people are prepared to do.
The National Health Service too does a great deal. I was surprised to learn only this week from a person whom I had not met before of his son who is unable to speak. The son is now in a home with about five other severely disabled people. There are 13 people looking after them—presumably not all at once. That home is run by the National Health Service. Hitherto the son was in a hospital ward from the age of six for about 30 years. He has now been transferred to a home. The Government are therefore doing a great deal; but there is a great deal that the voluntary services could and should do also. They need all the support that they can get.
6.10 p.m.
Lord Banks: My Lords, I too should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for initiating the debate today. This is a subject where we must continually be taking stock and continually measuring such progress as is achieved. I wish to ask the Government four questions this evening.
First, what assistance will the Government provide to extend the Dial-a-Ride system in London? I understand that at present there are 50,000 members of that scheme and that they are provided on average with one return trip in 11 weeks. The cost of that operation is £6 million. However, the assessed potential is that there are 250,000 potential users and that to provide one trip a week, which seems a very reasonable ration, would cost £50 million. How far will it be possible to close that gap?
Secondly, will the Government think again about

583
their exclusion from assistance through housing benefit of emergency alarm systems for elderly people who are not living in sheltered, specially adapted or purpose-built houses? Why should these people who through no fault of their own live in other types of accommodation not receive the same assistance?
My third question concerns the introduction of the new social security regime to which the noble Lord, Lord Carter, referred. The organisations which speak for the disabled—the British Council for Rehabilitation of the Disabled, the Disablement Income Group, the Disability Alliance, the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation, the Royal National Institute for the Blind and the Spastics Society—acknowledge that there will be some gainers under the new arrangements. But they have reckoned that 345,000 disabled people will lose, including 315,000 disabled pensioners.
That was based on the illustrative figures. It may be that there should be some adjustment to take account of the actual figures which were published yesterday. However, it remains true, as the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said, that there will be many losers. He pointed out that those who are at present claimants will not suffer any reduction because they will receive transitional protection. But that transitional protection, as the noble Lord, Lord Carter, again said, is not index linked.
The organisations which I have just mentioned have made two requests to the Government. The first is that transitional protection should be index linked so that those who are at present on a particular level of benefit which is higher than the one in the future will not eventually be reduced to that level through the erosion of their transitional protection by inflation. Secondly, they asked that for new claimants there should be a dual assessment; that people should be assessed both under the present supplementary benefit rules and the new income support rules. That would mean retaining the supplementary benefit additional requirements paid on grounds of ill-health or disability. That would not be too difficult to do because many are flat rate, they do not require individual assessment and they are based on easily understandable criteria.
I understand that the Government have turned down those two requests and I should be grateful if the noble Lord who is to reply could explain the reasons the Government have taken that position.
The fourth and last question concerns the longterm future. My party is committed to the concept of a disability income for people with disabilities. That is something which would fit into our plan for a tax credit system. The disability income would replace earnings lost through disability and it would also have a second portion which would be an expense allowance to make a contribution towards the additional expenses of being disabled. Are the Government committed to that as their ultimate aim? What is their current thinking on that question? I should be most grateful if the noble Lord who is to reply could answer those four questions.
6.15 p.m.
Lady Kinloss: My Lords, the debate this evening is being listened to by some of the blind in our midst.
584
This evening I intend to concentrate wholly on the deaf-blind and not discuss the numerous other forms of disability.
The problems of the deaf-blind are truly great. Their paths are fraught with difficulties. The first real problem to be realised by others is that they suffer from deafness as well as blindness and are not necessarily at all mentally disabled, although they may give that impression. It can take a long time to diagnose them as children. I understand that the DES is trying to find out the numbers of children who are so handicapped. Will the Minister say what progress is being made?
The problems of education for these children has always been patchy. In some parts of the country it is good; in others it is not so good. SENSE, The National Deaf, Blind and Rubella Association is very concerned about adequate training for teachers of these children. The blind must be taught by a teacher who is qualified to teach the blind and the deaf likewise, but not so the deaf-blind. They are unable to copy others and learn as children without these disabilities do. Although they are now able to stay at school until they are 19, by which time many of them are able to communicate by the deaf-blind manual alphabet and can make their wants known, they can only do so to others who can understand them. Thus they really do need continuing care. They quickly lose that ability if not encouraged continually.
SENSE has set up centres for further training but there is a desperate need for adequate hostel care or homes where these unfortunate people can go. What future provision are the Government making for the training of teachers of deaf-blind children? Do they consider it satisfactory that there is no training course at the moment for teachers of deaf-blind children in this country whereas other countries recognise this need?
There is wide concern among the blind that with more handicapped children being successfully integrated into ordinary schools there will be a reduction in numbers needing special schools. That will no doubt mean the closure of those special schools. Will the Minister say what future provision is envisaged for the multi handicapped?
The blind find that there is a lack of formal training for disablement resettlement officers. A social worker for the blind also finds that there is a lack of trained officers, particularly in jobcentres.
Perhaps the worst aspect of deaf-blindness is the isolation it imposes upon people. In both Scandinavia and the USA broadcasting time overnight is used to send out abridged versions of newspapers which are read onto tapes. These are scrambled to protect copyright and the recipient has a decoder. This form is only of use to blind people.
In response to the Home Office Green Paper Radio Choices and Opportunities the RNIB and the Talking Newspaper Association of the United Kingdom have suggested the allocation of a frequency specifically for disabled people. In Sweden a smaller scheme is in operation to transmit newspapers in digital form overnight to recipients in their own homes and have them stored on a computer disc. Next morning the recipients can hear the newspapers using a synthetic speech facility on the computer or they can have the

585
information translated into Braille. Those are very interesting developments and I trust that the Government will keep their eyes upon them.
I wonder whether the Minister heard the BBC's programme "PM" on Radio 4 after the "5 o'clock news" on Tuesday 20th October last when Mr. Jan Ingvar Lindstrom was talking on the topic of talking newspapers. Perhaps it would be helpful to the Minister to get a transcript from the BBC on that.
When I last spoke on this subject in 1986 I said how concerned I was about the discriminatory result of the way in which the mobility allowance is administered. As things are the test of being virtually unable to walk looks only at a claimant's ability to use his or her legs and feet in order to walk. Many deaf-blind claimants fail under current regulations to qualify for mobility allowance because there is nothing wrong with their legs or feet. In harsh fact many if not all of the deaf-blind and multi handicapped blind are incapable of independent mobility. They require a skilled guide at all times when walking out of doors. They cannot hear vehicles or other persons approaching. They cannot orientate themselves.
If the deaf-blind are in difficulties they cannot ask those passing by for assistance. They are entirely dependent upon other persons who can use the deaf-blind manual alphabet. Thus even for the simplest journey they need to be put into taxis or be able to meet the travelling expenses of a travelling companion. It is demonstrably absurd to limit the mobility allowance simply to persons with defective legs or feet. The absence of sight and hearing is just as much a disability that limits mobility. I would ask the Minister most urgently to consider what is an anomaly.
At the Wilberforce Home for multi-handicapped blind in York, the superintendent tells me that he has blind and deaf-blind people there, some of whom have a mobility allowance while others do not. All these people have more than a single disability. The test given is such that any person who can take two or three steps forward is disqualified for mobility allowance; whereas, in brute fact, neither the deaf-blind nor the blind who suffer from some other disability are able to go out by themselves. The difference between those who receive a mobility allowance and those who do not is in the order of £20 a week. That means that those who do not receive the mobility allowance often find that they cannot afford to go on outings in the coach that the home provides. I may say that the home makes sure that they do not miss these outings, and pays any shortfall.
Out of 24 residents, we are considering just six who do not receive the mobility allowance. In a small community, differences of this kind are a cause of unhappiness. I have visited this home in order to see the problems. I am sure the superintendent would be delighted if the Minister would come and see for himself what I can assure him, for all its inevitable problems, is a very happy and indeed model home. I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for initiating this debate.
6.21 p.m.
Lord Basnett: My Lords, a short acquaintance quickly establishes the basic need which people with
586
disabilities wish to see fulfilled. It is to control their own lives and to live them as independently and ordinarily as possible. A longer acquaintance shows the problems which they have in achieving that. They have problems, many of which arise from what can almost be described as a lottery, for those with the same needs due to different circumstances can have widely different entitlements and opportunities. The entitlement to benefit can vary by as much as £140 per week. The ability to live independently is affected by the widely different levels of local authority provision.
However, the point on which I want to concentrate is that job opportunities are determined by the proximity of sympathetic or discriminating employers or by the availability of sheltered employment.
The Snowdon Report 10 years ago stated:
"The integration of those with disabilities must include the right to work".
However, the size of the problem is still not sufficiently appreciated. People with disabilities suffer a higher unemployment rate for a longer term. Over a quarter of job seekers with disabilities have been out of work for two years; and while nine out of 10 of those with severe spinal injuries work before their injury, after injury only every other one of them works. The causes are many: employment discrimination, the decline in quota compliance, a sheltered placement scheme which needs expanding, and the failure of some government programmes to accommodate people with disabilities.
The discrimination by employers was shown in the Report of the Spastics Society on Discrimination in Employment in 1986—a discrimination which argues that people with disabilities should be given, through suitable anti-discrimination legislation, the same protection as women and ethnic minorities. However, legislation in itself does not change attitudes. This must come from both sides of industry, for there have been examples of discrimination by trade unionists. While this is changing, it would be a useful first step in the right direction if the TUC and the CBI could join together, perhaps through a permanent committee, to encourage more positive attitudes and to stimulate both sides of industry so that there is co-operation in the workplace. They could bring the subject on to the agenda of negotiating bodies; they could promote the argument that a workshop unsafe for the disabled is unsafe for all; and they could spread the message that employment of people with disabilities is in every sense rewarding.
In the meantime compliance with the quota under the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944 has, because of the easy availability of exemptions steadily declined since 1979. In the absence of other legislation the quota must be maintained and supported by ensuring more difficulty in obtaining exemption.
A new dimension for the 6,000 severely disabled unemployed has been introduced by the Sheltered Placement Scheme. But demand for places still outstrips supply and there is still confusion as to its exact purpose. The Government must expand the scheme more rapidly and the whole field should be

587
reviewed so as to develop a clear consensus on the function, scope and activities to be undertaken in the sheltered employment sector.
The Government must also cease to introduce schemes which fail to meet the needs of disabled people. The youth training scheme was initially totally unsuitable. The community programme excludes people with disabilities who need to make a phased return to work. To ensure that that does not happen in the future the Department of Employment needs to establish a specialist team which ensures that all new schemes are accessible to those with disabilities. There is also a need to establish essential interdepartmental co-operation—a need important enough to suggest that (as existed before 1979) a Cabinet subcommittee, with its interdepartmental Civil Service committee, should be created. For those with severe disabilities in particular, support services are essential if they are to work. To ensure uniform local authority support, consideration should be given to creating a system of statutory standards to ensure that the needs of disabled people covered by the 1970 Act are met.
I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Carter for initiating this debate. I await with interest the reply on the Government's intentions, for most of us are puzzled as to why the circumstances I have described continue to exist.
6.28 p.m.
The Earl of Radnor: My Lords, I, too, would like to add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for raising this matter. It is important that every now and again we should talk about disability. The noble Lord has chosen to look into the future with a rather jaundiced glance which I do not have sufficient knowledge to follow. But I think it is also important to look back and to see how the laws that have been made in the past are working today.
There are areas in which your Lordships have special knowledge. If I have any special knowledge, it is in the area of dyslexia, the unseen disability, where there is a language difficulty, a writing difficulty and a reading difficulty, all combined often with a perfectly adequate—sometimes more than adequate—IQ. I should like to stress that this concerns about 4 per cent. of the population going through our schools. They then go out into the world—I make this point now—to cost the nation money for the rest of their lives and to cause trouble, either through delinquency or perhaps through causing accidents because they do not know their right from their left, and that sort of thing.
It was quite a long time ago—about 1970—that this particular disability started to be acknowledged. Probably it was properly acknowledged in the Warnock Report and then dealt with in the 1981 Education Act. Six years have passed since that Act. I should like to consider how it has been working.
The linchpin of the 1981 Act, as I remember it, was that parents who felt that there was something wrong with their child could demand a multidisciplinary assessment of the child. When the child had been assessed and something was found to be wrong, it then became the obligation of the local education
588
authority to deal with the situation and to teach the child in the way in which it should be taught having regard to the particular disability.
The problem now is that the delays over assessments are quite unreasonable. I have heard of delays of 18 months and even longer. In some areas, therefore, the system is not working well. I believe that if the delays go on long enough, the child must go back to the beginning of the whole exercise. We should enquire into why those delays happen.
There seem to be two reasons. One has to do with funding and the other with the fact that because dyslexia has only recently been recognised, there are few facilities within local education areas to teach such children. I believe that in 1981 we made a law which it was impossible to bring to any sort of sensible fruition. That must mean that funds will have to be put towards such facilities at some point. I believe that it would be cost-effective to spend money now rather than spend a great deal more money later in dealing with all the difficulties and ills that an increasingly illiterate population, such as we have, brings with it.
I do not wish to be completely negative and I want to ask one particular question. A number of voluntary societies teach dyslexic children in the way in which they should be taught. Such societies are spread fairly evenly over the country. The difficulty is that local education authorities frequently will not release children from schools so that they can be taught in special institutes and places of learning. At times, when the children are released, the local authority will not pay for the lessons. That is a bit hard on voluntary societies who are raising money in a charitable way to deal with the situation.
My question to my noble friend is this. If a local authority with one or a number of children with specific learning disabilities does not have facilities within the authority to deal with such needs, would it break the law by refusing to send those children to institutes such as those I have mentioned where facilities are available? Would it break the law if, having sent children to those places, it refused to pay the costs? It is a slightly hypothetical question. However, I think it is important.
A large number of local education authorities are doing their very best and doing a very good job indeed, as is the Department of Education. But the point which I have raised should be considered.
6.34 p.m.
Viscount Ingleby: My Lords, I too should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for introducing the debate. He speaks with particular personal experience of the problems we are discussing. There is a young lady in the gallery who is totally deaf and for whom our debate is being interpreted in sign language by a qualified interpreter. There are only 62 such interpreters in the whole of the United Kingdom, apart from Scotland. That is obviously far short of the number who are needed. I should like to ask the Government what they are doing to encourage a better supply and training of qualified interpreters for the deaf.
I shall concentrate this evening on access and mobility. First, I should like to say how grateful we

589
are for the improvements which have taken place in recent years; for the new building regulations which recently came into force and which will improve access to new buildings; for the greater number of dropped kerbs, although we should be even more grateful if they came at a faster rate and came as twins rather than as singles; and particularly for the mobility roadshow at Crowthorne which was put on by the Department of Transport and by Miss Ann Frye. The roadshow was a marvellous opportunity for disabled people to try out vehicles with hand controls and to find out which was the most suitable for them. Finally, I and the noble Baroness who sits next to me are very grateful for the way we are looked after by British Rail.
I have four practical suggestions to make. Would it not be a great help if, at each district council, there was someone to whom disabled people could turn for advice and pressure as regards particular access problems? I know that some councils have already designated somebody with such responsibilities. However, a great many have not done so. I ask the Government to encourage those councils who have not done so, to do so. The post does not need to be full time, but there should be somebody to whom disabled people can turn when they have an access problem with a particular building.
Secondly, would it not be helpful if local authorities were given the power by an amendment to the local government legislation to contribute to the cost of adapting buildings to which the public have access but which are not owned by the local authority? I am thinking particularly of theatres, cinemas, sports grounds and places of that kind.
I am very much in favour of pedestrianisation schemes. However, unless adequate parking is reserved for the disabled within a reasonable distance, they may become no-go areas for the disabled. I ask the Government to give disabled people's organisations a right of appeal to the Secretary of State in such cases.
Finally, perhaps I may suggest an annual award for the council which has done most to improve access.
6.39 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby. He and the noble Baroness who sits beside him, together with other noble Lords who are disabled, set us a shining example. We feel better when we have listened to them; whether we are better is another matter. However, we learn much from them and from many people outside the House, such as Peter Large and others.
We have listened to a series of notable speeches, beginning with that of the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and I shall be brief. In 1970 I had the honour of carrying through the Alf Morris Act and in 1983 I took up a Bill which had been stymied in another place by procedural tactics. That Bill sought to make it illegal to discriminate against the disabled. The Bill got a long way forward and it was then defeated at the last minute. I therefore wish to take the opportunity of saying that I believe more strongly
590
than ever that discrimination against the disabled, like discrimination on the grounds of race or colour, should be outlawed.
I wish to deal with one objection which was made during past debates by some other people who have more right to speak on disablement that I have. I am not talking about money—that never seems to have arisen to block the Bill—nor the technical problem of defining discrimination. So far as concerns public opinion it seems that now, according to recent polls, 69 per cent. of the public would like to see discrimination against disabled people rendered illegal.
The objection that I wish to raise certainly exists in the minds of one or two disabled people themselves and certainly in the minds of some people who have done a lot to help them. To put it in my words, although it was not expressed this way in the House—and perhaps it never would be—there is the feeling that any measure of this kind to outlaw discrimination by law would be to render a disservice to the disabled. It would make them seem like second-class citizens. To me that is absolute nonsense. It would bring home a new outlook to anybody who is so concerned. I am talking about high-minded people and possibly the disabled and friends of the disabled.
I want to tell one anecdote which I must wrap up a little I am afraid. It may lose half its point. As it stands I think it has enough point to make it worth telling. A clergyman said not long ago to a distinguished person: "What about saying something about compassion?" After a pause, the distinguished person said: "I always think that is so patronising." The clergyman said "Well, that is to misunderstand the nature of compassion. It is not a kind of pity from above. It is compassion—suffering with, suffering alongside. If those who work with the disabled or who are possibly disabled have any lingering doubts about whether some sort of patronising element is present in what I am proposing I hope that will help them to see the light.
Personally, I think that at this stage the great thing is to set up a Select Committee; but the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, is far better qualified than I am, and I am sure that he will deal with that later on. Something must be done because discrimination against the disabled is wicked. It is only just short of that to do nothing about it.
6.43 p.m.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, the House is very much indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for initiating this very timely debate. To cover a subject like this in the compass of six minutes is indeed an exercise in self-discipline.
I urge two topics: one is speech and the other is blindness. For at least 25 years of my life I had an uncontrollable stammer. Your Lordships will have noticed that I still have at least a trace of it. In particular stress and exhaustion bring the stammer on very noticeably. As a child I had speech therapy treatment but it was my commanding officer in the Army during my national service in Austria, who had a son who stammered, who did far more for me than anybody else. He ordered me to say my words twice as slowly and to sing them. For some reason or other

591
it was very largely through him and also due to the encouragement of my dear wife that my stammer has at least partly disappeared.
I should like to ask my noble friend the Minister what is being done to combat this very distressing condition among children. It is something which hopefully can be dealt with at an early age, if the facilities are available. Are there sufficient speech therapists within the National Health Service? I believe that much can be done now to combat this very distressing condition.
Children who stammer have a particularly difficult problem because other children are unkindness itself. I remember being teased as a stammerer. It did not worry me unduly at the time, but looking back it was not an easy thing to face.
The other matter I wish to deal with is that of eye complaints. Last June I attended a luncheon of the organisation Fight for Sight, of which His Royal Highness the Duke of York is the patron. His Royal Highness attended this luncheon. He takes an enormous interest in this particular organisation, which operates from the Institute of Ophthalmology and which has some very distinguished people as members.
Many of the eye complaints originate in the third world—particularly glaucoma and trachoma and diseases of the retina. This organisation does a marvellous job—Moorfields Hospital and Clatterbridge Hospital in particular have done an enormous amount of work in this area.
All families have members with sight problems. Two of our children have to wear glasses all the time. They are, of course, far less disabled than many people who are totally blind or who face blindness. I urge the Government to give all the support they can to enable more research to to be carried into sight problems.
The noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, mentioned those who have both sight and hearing problems. Deafness is a terrible complaint but although loss of sight is not quite as awful as deafness, it is still a very distressing complaint.
I urge my noble friend to urge the Department of Health and Social Security to look into these twin problems—namely, stammering and other speech defects and problems of sight. These are not the kind of physical disabilities from which a large number of Members of your Lordships' House and others suffer. They are undoubtedly far worse, but these are two areas which I believe need attention.
6.48 p.m.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for having given me a timely opportunity today to draw your Lordships' attention to something which is causing concern to various people and organisations involved in the care of the elderly and the disabled. The draft Housing Benefit Regulations destined to come into force in April 1988 will change the rules applying to the provision of emergency dispersed alarms for frail, elderly and disabled people.
592
At present those requiring alarms who are on low income can get help through housing benefit with the service charges levied to cover the cost of providing an alarm and warden support, whether they live in sheltered housing or in their own homes in the community.
The noble Lord, Lord Banks, touched briefly upon this but I should like to elaborate. Under paragraph 1(c) of Schedule 1 of the draft regulations, help through housing benefit will be confined to those living in purpose-built sheltered housing or disabled persons' housing, and will no longer be available to those who live in ordinary flats and houses—that is to say, in their own homes.
Emergency alarms linked to peripatetic wardens or to a computer are an effective way of enabling the frail and disabled to call for help when living alone in their own homes. But many have low incomes and cannot afford the cost of these alarms.
It is perfectly true that under Section 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 local social service departments have a duty to provide disabled persons with various forms of asssistance in the home where need has been determined. But some local authorities have already said that after the new regulations come into force next April, they will be unable to provide alarms for those who cannot afford to pay for them because the local authorities are short of money. St. Helens, Durham, North Devon, Basildon and Ryedale are among them, and some London authorities will have to cut back on alarms because they have to spend so much on child abuse.
Those who cannot afford to pay for their own alarms will therefore have three choices: first, to stay in their own homes without alarms which they need to enable them to do so in reasonable safety; secondly, to go into sheltered accommodation, if it is available, which often it is not; or, thirdly, to go into residential or nursing home accommodation.
An alarm costs up to £5 a week for its rental and service charge. Sheltered accommodation is much more expensive, although I do not have the figures, and nursing home accommodation costs up to £175 a week.
I wrote to The Times the week before last about this, and today there is a letter in The Times from the chairman of the Care Trust pointing out that there are many cases where hospitals are willing to discharge patients for convalescence provided that they have alarms in their own homes. If patients do not have alarms in their own homes, they have to stay in hospital which, again, is unpleasant for them and much more expensive.
The Government say that they are committed to care in the community—quite rightly, for expert opinion and common sense show that as long as it is possible, this is in the best interests of the recipients who are happier and live longer. So why take a step which is in danger of driving them instead into institutional care and which will cost far more? I do not care how the Government pay for these alarms—whether through housing benefit (which apparently they no longer wish to do), by providing local authorities with funds earmarked for the

593
purpose, through income support, or by any other means—as long as they do it. I hope that they will look at this question again because I believe it is important.
6.53 p.m.
Lord Blease: My Lords, it is obvious from the remarks made by noble Lords that the needs of disabled people are many and complex and that existing problems are severe and difficult to solve. Having listened to the debate, I am aware that the future for many people will be bleak.
I fully agree with the reasoned points put forward by my noble friend Lord Carter, and I support the employment issues outlined by my noble friend Lord Basnett. Disabled people are doubly disadvantaged. First, they are disadvantaged as individuals by the loss of normal functions that the nature of their personal handicap may bring about. Secondly, they are disadvantaged by the neglectful and often unwittingly insensitive society in which we live. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Carter referred to the "disabled divide", which is very real.
The time constraints on this debate prevent our putting forward the relevant arguments for the adoption of basic rights and reasoned, active administrative remedies to meet proven needs and known problems. Today, we are obliged to make pronouncements only on the specific issues involved. We are prevented from dealing in a practical way with the details of areas of concern such as discrimination, the gaps and anomalies in the existing legislation on disabilities, and the lack of information and research into the number of, and the extent of, the disabilities suffered by disabled people in the United Kingdom.
There is a dearth of relevant information on how to deal with such people in a practical way. However, there is sufficient evidence to enable us formally to declare that there is widespread discrimination against our disabled fellow citizens throughout the United Kingdom—in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
The needs of disabled people are related directly to the special problems they have as individuals. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, has already mentioned some aspects of different individual needs and problems. The issues which give rise to special problems, have been dealt with to some extent by noble Lords. I shall summarise what I consider to be some of the special problems. There is a need for health care and social security, adequate housing accommodation, education and training, and access to many private and public buildings, shops and amenities. The noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby, said that there had been progress in this direction, but there are still huge gaps in meeting what is required. There is a need for suitable public transport and recreational facilities. I am glad to say that in Northern Ireland our Sports Council tends to help in that respect.
The crucial need is for equality of employment opportunities. Employment could give many disabled people a great sense of dignity and the ability to live independently without direct support from their families or social services.
594
Although my remarks about equality of employment opportunity are directed to the whole of the United Kingdom, I hope to pinpoint the situation in Northern Ireland as I know it. The Northern Ireland Council on Disability is a voluntary organisation which represents some 70 bodies in Northern Ireland concerned with every aspect of human disability—physical, mental, sensory, and hidden (the unseen) which has been mentioned in this debate.
As part of its normal work for the disabled, the council responded in March this year to a Government consultative paper entitled Equality of Opportunity of Employment—Future Strategy Options. The interest shown in that document can be well understood. In Northern Ireland, the unemployment rate for disabled people is over twice the rate of that for the able-bodied, and the rate for the able-bodied is chronically high.
The Government's paper raised expectations among the organisations concerned with disabled people. It suggested separate legislative measures for Northern Ireland to provide equal employment opportunities. Since early this year there have been a number of exchanges of papers and meetings with the Northern Ireland Department of Economic Devlopment, the Minister, Mr. Peter Viggers, and the Northern Ireland Council on Disability. The council is anxious to set up an equal opportunity unit within the functional structures of the organisation which should be resourced by the department.
The council considers that this type of unit would be a positive, constructive and helpful innovation in the interests of the disabled, of the Government and of the well-being of the general community in the Province. The proposal has been well supported throughout the Province.
On Wednesday last, when the Minister, Mr. Viggers, launched two new publications aimed at helping disabled people into employment, he expressed concern about employment opportunities. He said:
"These brochures will help to ensure that we get across the message that disabled people have a lot to contribute to society."
This debate shows that they have a great deal to contribute to society. I ask the noble Earl on the Government Benches, Lord Arran, whether he will kindly use his good offices to invite the Minister, Mr. Viggers, sympathetically to review this request of the Northern Ireland Council on Disability for the establishment of an equal opportunities unit—a very modest request, I believe, in financial and administrative terms.
I end with the remark I heard from a disabled youth when he was politely turned away from a job. He declared, "I do not want pity; I want opportunity". I hope that this debate tonight will open up many opportunities for the disabled.
7.2 p.m.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Banks, mentioned that disabled people want to be as independent as able-bodied people. It is not easy for disabled people who rely upon the public purse for their income to obtain full independence. I shall

595
illustrate that point with the story of a young married couple, both with cerebral palsy and with severe spasticity as a result, and the way in which the problem will be overcome within the next few weeks by getting round the system. However, I hope that the Government will take note of my story and will bring greater flexibility into the funding of disabled people.
At the present time this young couple are in a home run by John Groom's Association for the Disabled. I should declare an interest because, as many noble Lords know, I work for that organisation. The couple are about to move out of the home into a house provided and adapted by Surrey County Council. However, because of the degree of disability they need between them something in the region of eight hours' assistance a day, Theoretically this could be topped up by the county council, but in practice such topping up would mean an increase in their own personal income which would wipe out supplementary benefit which they need to live. They therefore cannot have the topping up.
The problem is being surmounted not by giving them the topping up but by giving it to the voluntary body currently looking after them, who will then help them by paying the 12 part-time staff that they will employ to help them during the week. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, earlier gave the impression that he was surprised at the number of people needed to look after some disabled people. The load on those who help to look after disabled people is very heavy and a lot of it can be done by part-time people.
Despite the fact that it will cost some £200 a week in topping up, the saving to both central and local government is of the order of 25 per cent. of the cost being paid from the public purse today. The Government should look into this matter to see whether they can learn from what the association and this young couple are doing and apply it to other people.
On topping up, there are a number of voluntary bodies who need to be topped up by local authorities on the costs of the residential homes that they are running for severely physically disabled people. It is the experience of a number of these bodies that local authorities are topping up with the greatest of reluctance at figures well below those required, and there is a danger that some of the smaller voluntary organisations will have to stop providing the residential care that is absolutely essential for some severely physically disabled people. I hope that my noble friend will bring this to the attention of the Minister and that it will be looked into.
Finally, perhaps I may follow the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby, on the point about signing for severely deaf people. Can we have greater provision of teaching in schools for profoundly deaf children? To try to teach them through the medium of spoken English is to my way of thinking like trying to teach a totally blind person by giving him only ordinary printed books from which to study. To a profoundly deaf person who learns sign language, English is a second language, it is not a primary language. The primary language of such people is sign language and it is essential that teaching takes place in the language that they will use for the most of their lives.
7.8 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, it is most encouraging to see a debate concerning the problems of disability engendering so much support and it is excellent that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, as a relatively new Peer, has joined the ranks of those of your Lordships who understand the wide problems that disability brings to families and individuals throughout the country. I thank him for introducing this debate.
On returning to Westminster this Autumn my noble kinsman and I were very pleased to find the pavements around the area where we live had had dropped kerbs inserted. To your Lordships this may seem a small point. To one who uses a wheel chair it is of immense importance. As my noble friend Lord Ingleby understands, I can tell him that there are some twins.
As a founder member and now President of the Spinal Injuries Association—an organisation which helps and advises the families and the people who have broken their backs and necks—we are concerned at the escalating costs of care in the community. A tetraplegic, someone with four limbs paralysed, needs a great deal of help. The noble Lord, Lord Basnett, will understand this as his son is a young doctor who broke his neck.
One of our many activities is to run an emergency care service so that a member may employ a trained care attendant for a period of up to two weeks. As well as other help, spinally injured people need assistance with their paralysed bladders and bowels. This specialised service is most valuable. What happens if their normal carer becomes ill or goes away? They will have to go into hospital (an expensive exercise) and there may not be a bed readily available. We have heard that we may be losing the grant we have had to help run this service which is subsidised to our members. Much fund raising goes on throughout the year but this does not cover the whole cost. Some members can pay, and do. Others cannot. There is a dilemma.
With so much emphasis having been put on the elderly and the long-stay mentally handicapped and ill patients coming out of hospital, the physically disabled have come a long way down the list of priorities. One day, while watching television, some patients and nurses heard that their young disabled unit was to close. What can they have thought, my Lords? These are the very severely disabled who may have multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis, motor neuron disease or brain injury. And where will they go? If it is to a geriatric ward that is against any principle of the 1970 Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act. I hope that the Government will look very closely at the needs of the severely physically disabled patients as well as the other groups.
At the London Hospital the occupational therapy department was told to give up their daily activities room—where they taught stroke patients and others such skills as getting in and out of a bath—so that it could be used for counselling for HIV (AIDS). This has been bad for morale and frustrating for the staff as the room has remained empty. One should not rob Peter to pay Paul as both are equally important.

597
I end by saying that there is extreme concern about the difficulties disabled, people are having with parking their cars. Can the government take this seriously? They are lagging behind. If all the present badges were scrapped and new ones of a different colour allocated and disabled people carried an identity card with a photograph—as is now done in the City of York—this might halve the badges and solve the problem. Also much credit must be given to Dial-A-Ride schemes, a most admirable service which needs expanding so that severely disabled people can have a better quality of life.
7.11 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, before turning to the remarks which I have prepared, I feel obliged to refer to the powerful and, in my opinion, important speech of my noble friend Lord Carter. It is not too much to say that I was deeply shocked by what he had to say about what is happening to the real income of the severely disabled. One may argue backwards and forwards about possible social security reforms but it seems to me that as a minimum condition of a civilised society one would certainly insist that the real income of the severely disabled should never fall and at the very least should rise in line with the prosperity of the rest of the society in which we live. I do not expect the noble Earl, Lord Arran, to give us any assurances on that at this moment, but I hope he will tell his right honourable friend the Secretary of State that some of us are more than unhappy to be told that this is the state of affairs that will rule in our country. Since occasionally we understand that Ministers are willing to think about matters, I feel he really ought to consider this again.
I should like to say a little about speech therapy and to declare an interest in that my wife was trained as a speech therapist. There are a wide variety of problems and defects concerned here: cleft palate, dyslexia, stammering, language difficulties of all sorts, strokes and cerebral palsy and a multiplicity of physical handicaps, as noble Lords are aware, with which are associated speech and language difficulties. One thing I should like to say in general about this whole area is that I do not regard these disabilities as a subject for amusement or derision. I strongly deplore comedians who do not have that much talent, who think that making fun of the deaf or those who stammer is somehow a suitable subject. I also deplore the media who are quite happy to show that kind of material. I say that en passant, but it is a serious matter.
In this general area treatment is more effective than it used to be. We know that a lot of good can be done for stroke patients, although in that case the earlier and more intensive the treatment the better the prognosis. There have been many other considerable advances in therapeutic methods: the use of artificial larynxes, for example. There are many computer aids which enable people with multiple difficulties now to communicate. But many of the computerised audiovisual techniques make increasing demands on the speech therapists' time. This is not true only of stroke patients but at the other end of the age spectrum there is now a great deal that can be done to help all sorts
598
of young people who have language and related difficulties.
The problem is that there is a general shortage of therapists. I ask the Minister to tell us whether he is satisfied that enough speech therapists are being trained. Does he feel that their pay is adequate? What about their career prospects? Or do we have here, as we have in many other areas, yet another case of a devoted body of people being appreciated by the public but exploited by the authorities?
Having said that, I hope we all agree that more funds must be found for the NHS and one must keep up continuous pressure to find those funds. I also add that within the given budget, whatever its size, it is always necessary to emphasise the needs of the handicapped and also to argue that at the present time they certainly deserve a higher priority than they are getting, even if this might have to be to a limited extent at the expense of what at the moment is more fashionable in other parts of medicine.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I should not like to be the only person to speak who does not congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Carter. I do so wholeheartedly and thank him for introducing this debate. The noble Earl, Lord Longford, and the noble Lords, Lord Basnett and Lord Blease, have all spoken about the need for anti-discriminatory legislation. This is a subject that is absolutely germane to this debate. Disabled people need, so far as possible, to be treated on terms of equality with other people. Disabled people need, so far as possible, to be integrated into society. They also have most frustrating problems which are often partly or wholly soluble, in a wide range of activities—I quote the Bob Wareing Bill—including
"employment, education, recreation, the provision of goods, facilities and services, insurance, transport. property rights housing and accommodation, occupational pension schemes, membership of associations and clubs and civic rights and duties"
—across the board.
This great question was raised in the Bob Wareing Bill in 1983. The Bill failed in the House of Commons, and as the noble Earl, Lord Longford, has reminded us, he took the Bill up in this House. After a good deal of argument it was defeated in its last stage on the Motion, That this Bill do now pass. The Bob Wareing Bill went for a full-blooded disablement commission, comparable to the Race Relations Commission and the Equal Opportunities Commission with wide powers of investigation and enforcement. This was not acceptable to the Government.
A much more modest Bill was introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, who has an abiding interest in the subject of disablement. His Bill sought to establish a commission with much more modest powers, merely to consider matters concerning the treatment of disabled people and to make reports and recommendations from time to time. This Bill passed this House after the failure of the Bill of the noble Earl, Lord Longford, but the Government gave no hope of finding any time in another place and so it never came into force and effect.

599
So we reached a parliamentary impasse in 1983–84. I recall that there was a most unpleasant and rancorous atmosphere between the parties on those occasions. I know it is not possible to keep party politics out of any subject and disability is no exception; but I feel that every effort should be made to find a consensus view on a subject so important as discrimination especially in the field of employment, as particularly mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Basnett.
Where there is a parliamentary impasse it is fruitless in my view to introduce again and again a Bill which one knows will not be received favourably by the Government. We have now a five-year Parliament ahead. I feel it cannot be a good thing for disabled people. I know that Mr. Wareing disagrees with me and I know that Mr. Jack Ashley disagrees with me. They would like to continue to reintroduce the same Bill over and over again. I beg to differ from them. My advice in this case—as in all such cases—is to resort to the well-tried procedure of a parliamentary Select Committee empowered to hear all the evidence as to discrimination and, in the light of that evidence, to make recommendations for statutory or perhaps non-statutory remedies, or a combination of both.
The disabled organisations have come together and feel very strongly about this. They operate under an acronym, VOADL. Please do not ask me what those initials stand for. VOADL is an active body and presses for legislation of one kind or another. It favours a Select Committee and has asked me to do what I can to secure a Select Committee. I put this notion to the All-Party Disablement Group and secured its agreement to pressing for a Select Committee, although Mr. Jack Ashley said that this should be without prejudice to any attempt to bring in Bob Wareing's Bill again. So there is a considerable degree of support for the notion.
As a matter of fact I made approaches to the Leader of the House and he was very receptive to the idea of having such a committee. I made those approaches in the last Session of the last Parliament and he quite rightly pointed out to me that that was a most inappropriate time to have a Select Committee on the subject; and of course I agreed. This Session the Infant Life (Preservation) Bill Select Committee has been re-appointed. I cannot fault that as an appointment; but there is simply not the capacity in the House to have more than one such special Select Committee running at the same time—in addition, that is, to the EC Select Committee and the Science and Technology Select Committee. However, I am assured by the Leader of the House that my proposal for a Select Committee will receive every consideration when the Infant Life (Preservation) Bill, Select Committee has finished its deliberations. I hope that support for such a Select Committee will come from all quarters of the House.
My Lords, I see that my time is up. I would only ask that when the time comes my attempts to get a Select Committee on this subject will meet with success and that we might thereby get a consensus view on the way forward in cases of discrimination against disabled people.
7.23 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, it will not surprise the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, to know that I am in broad agreement with him in that I favour the idea of a Select Committee. Early in this debate my noble friend Lord Ferrers referred to the fact that there is now a better understanding of mentally handicapped people in this country. He was good enough to say that MENCAP as a voluntary organisation had something to do with it. I hope that it is in order and proper for me to point out that for the past nearly seven years Sir Brian Rix has been secretary general of MENCAP and this is his last week in that post. He as much as any other individual has done such a lot to help towards that better understanding mentioned by my noble friend.
The next speaker in the debate is the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, chairman of MENCAP, of which I am president. I shall shorten my speech so as to leave him more time. There are a few minutes spare, thanks to the brievity of some of the earlier speeches. I hope that he may use some of them.
I want to mention one important MENCAP matter. It is our policy at MENCAP, as well as the Government's, to get mentally handicapped people, especially the younger ones, out of those enormous long-stay hospitals and into the community. But it is vital that they should not leave hospital until suitable arrangements have been made for them to live in the community in one way or another. I would be grateful if my noble friend Lord Arran could give us a progress report as to how many have been discharged from these long-stay hospitals and what proportion of them have not been settled in the community. There has been a certain amount of wild talk about people being sent out into the world without proper arrangements. I think that those reports have been exaggerated, but perhaps my noble friend can enlighten us.
Another matter I wish to mention is the difficulty many disabled people have in using public transport. It was touched on by my noble friend Lord Ingleby and by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham. I wish to follow that up. The Greater London Association for the Disabled has made a most interesting and valuable survey called "All Change". It is a survey of the difficulties disabled people have in using public transport. The survey points out that one Londoner in 14 is "transport handicapped"—that is to say, unable to use buses, tubes or trains.
It may not surprise the noble Lord, Lord Carter, to whom we owe so much for having initiated this debate, to know that a very high proportion of those who are transport handicapped are people on low incomes. They cannot afford taxis or cars. Therefore there is, as the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, said, a great need to expand the Dial-a-Ride scheme. I would mention also the taxi-card scheme. Both of them are already overworked. The invalid car scheme which started many years ago, mainly after the war to help disabled ex-servicemen, although expensive would be worth developing as funds become available. Perhaps I may ask my noble friend on the Front Bench whether the Government have received the GLAD Report on transport and the use of public

601
services by the disabled and whether he can yet say what the Government will do about it.
It is extraordinary that in days gone by access to buildings was made so difficult. I refer to access to great churches and even to getting up to the Central Lobby of the House of Commons. If one reads back in history one realises that there was a custom of having strong men carrying what they called "litters". They were simple sedan chairs. This was before the days of stretchers. A couple of strong men would be needed to take a disabled person up the steps of St. John's, Smith Square. I do not know whether it is wildly impracticable for those who wish their churches and other public buildings to be filled to arrange to have two strong men with litters.
7.28 p.m.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I have indeed been chairman of MENCAP for some years, in succession to my illustrious predecessor who has just spoken. I propose in my few minutes' contribution to this timely debate, for which we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, to concentrate on the mentally handicapped.
There are in Britain something like 1¼ million people with mental handicap and, although many of them are not significantly afflicted, some need support and guidance throughout their lives. For them the watchwords of independence and self-help are not all that meaningful. I take it that the Government accept the desirability of seeing that as far as possible people with mental handicap are able to develop their full potential to live in the community.
I go along with the noble Lord, Lord Renton, in the hope that when he replies the noble Earl will be able to give us a progress report on what has been happening about closing down the long-stay mental handicap hospitals. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, would be the first to agree that that is not the end of the story by any means. For a start, the vast majority of people with mental handicap have always lived in the community, but at the cost of hardship and sacrifice on the part of thousands of carers and their families.
Then again living in the community does not of itself ensure taking part in the life of the community. For too many it has so far meant isolation, public prejudice, poor living conditions and inadequate income, and for parents there is the constant anxiety of what will happen when they are no longer able to care and when they are no longer here.
I have long been uneasy about the way in which public resources are used to support community care, and I very much welcome the setting up of the Griffiths Review, following the strictures of the National Audit Commission. I hope that that review, to which MENCAP was able to give evidence quite recently, will go some way towards solving some of the problems such as the gaps which exist between the services. I am afraid that co-operation is not really as good as it might be.
Behind the Griffiths Review there are, I fear, some grounds for anxiety about the Government's own attitude to community care. Of these I shall briefly
602
mention four. First, there are the issues already touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, about the prospect of certain disabled families being considerably wose off under the new social security provisions next April than they are at present. There is the decision of the Government's own advisory body on social security to go on record as saying that it cannot go along with the decision to continue with the social fund. All this is causing grave concern.
Secondly, there are looming up problems about education, additional to those which are being rather more widely canvassed. The effect of the Education Act 1981—albeit, as the noble Earl pointed out earlier, it can hardly be claimed to be functioning perfectly—is to require local education authorities so far as possible to make special provision in the ordinary schools for children with special educational needs.
These children, as I understand it, will be exempt from the core curriculum, but what I do not know—and I suspect that I am not alone in this—is what is to happen if a school exercises its right (which is forecast) to declare itself independent from the local education authority. Will there be any obligation on that school to provide for the special needs of children with learning difficulties, and to furnish any necessary equipment? Or are these children always to be dependent on the local education authority? If so, where is the freedom of choice, for them and their parents?
Thirdly there is the poll tax. In the Scottish legislation, in response to representations in this House, a provision was inserted exempting the severely mentally handicapped, but we still do not know how it is proposed to define what constitutes severe mental handicap. Anyway it does nothing for the parents with say, two mentally handicapped sons or daughters who are over 18 and living at home, who do not qualify under whatever criteria are in the end laid down to define severe mental handicap. I am far from happy about the forthcoming Bill as a whole, but I wonder with particular apprehension what will be in the Bill about the mentally handicapped and still more, my Lords, what will not be in the Bill.
Lastly there is the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986. This Act received Royal Assent 16 months ago, but so far absolutely nothing has been done to implement the provisions which will make a real difference. In one respect there is indeed something of an absurdity. Section 8 has been brought into effect. That section requires a local authority, when deciding whether to provide welfare services for a disabled person living at home, to take into account the abilities of the carer. But Section 3, which provides for an assessment of the needs of the person being cared for, has not been brought into effect. It simply does not make sense. The failure to take action on this Act, on which such high hopes were placed, is really rather a disgrace and accords ill with the Government's professed support for the policy of care in the community.
We have heard many fine words from the Government about choice and their desire to see that resources are devoted to those in greatest need. The areas I have touched on present splendid

603
opportunities for them to demonstrate that they have in mind more than words.
7.36 p.m.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I want first warmly to congratulate my noble friend Lord Carter on introducing this debate, not only for the manner in which he did so but also because his Motion has attracted so many noble Lords. I never cease to be inspired and moved by the degree of experience which exists in your Lordships' House. I doubt whether there is a Chamber in the world which could bring together a group of people with such experience, all addressing themselves to the Minister who is to reply.
We have heard of experience with the deaf-blind—one of my sons works for SENSE—with sufferers from dyslexia, those who have housing problems and those who are in institutional care. We have heard about mental handicap and mental illness—I speak as chairman of MIND—and about employment, speech therapy and occupational therapy. I am president of the College of Occupational Therapy. There is an enormous breadth of experience. Not only was it started so well by my noble friend Lord Carter but it was brilliantly followed by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, who brought in his experience. Again, we are co-vice-presidents in the same organisation.
Secondly, I want to say how much I agree with the proposal made by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson. I would have wished, as he would, that the Bill against discrimination had been carried through this House and another place. But the issues raised today are not ones that can be dealt with in a two-and-a-half-hour debate with so many speakers and a reply from the Minister. I agree that we need a Select Committee so that we can bring in all our experience. I hope that the Minister will respond to that practical proposal.
The only other general remark I want to make is to say how much we should pay tribute to the voluntary organisations. So many noble Lords and noble Baronesses who have spoken have done so because of their connection with voluntary organisations. If you took away those voluntary organisations and relied only on the statutory bodies with the financial restraints that they are facing, I am afraid the situation which today is distressing would be desperately more distressing.
Of course I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby, that there have been improvements. Of course there is better access, and of course there is greater understanding. That is clear from our debate. We have the common objective to see that disabled people, whatever the nature of their disability, can play as full a part in life as possible. That may mean a great deal of sacrifice not only by families but by taxpayers in providing the funds to enable the Government to carry out their responsibility.
We want to see the maximum number of disabled people able to live at home and not in institutions. We recognise that some must live in institutions but our objective is to have people at home. At a time when
604
Ministers are proclaiming the strength of our economy, it is an extraordinary indication of the priorities of the Government that they are involved in a number of initiatives which in some cases—I do not say in all cases—make the plight of disabled people more difficult to bear while the young and upwardly mobile are pushed ahead.
I have time to give only three or four examples. First, the results of the Government's 1986 Social Security Act are beginning to be understood. In many debates in your Lordships' House, I and my noble friends, and noble Lords on all sides of the House including the Cross-Benches, have expressed concern, as was expressed so movingly a moment ago by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale. We have argued that there would be a damaging effect on disabled people. The Government promised transitional protection for existing disabled claimants whose level of income would be lower under the new income support scheme than under the supplementary benefit scheme. In cash terms their level of income will be frozen at the supplementary benefit level until the incomes support level catches up. That point was well made by the noble Lord, Lord Banks. As a result, over a period of time, income will be eroded by inflation and the standard of living of those disabled people will fall. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, stated that overall 340,000 disabled people will lose from the transition from supplementary benefit to income support. I find that fact appalling and I believe that the Minister must justify how it is that this proposal can be carried through.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, also raised the point that disabled people who will be claiming for the first time after April 1988 will not receive any transitional protection. Many of them will immediately be worse off than people with similar disabilities who claimed before 1988. The Government have said that provision can be made for severely disabled people from payments through the social fund. Disability organisations are opposed to that. As a point of principle they are concerned that claimants who previously received benefit payments as of right may now have to rely on discretionary payments from a limited cash fund with that money available only as loans. How will they repay those loans in view of the problems of unemployment so well brought out by the noble Lord, Lord Basnett? The voluntary organisations have also pointed out that it is not practical for disabled people to try to lead lives in the community without a secure, regular income. None of us here, from whatever side of the House, can doubt the truth of that statement. In spite of pleas from so many responsible voluntary organisations we are left to conclude that the Government know that disabled people will suffer severe financial loss and yet they are not prepared to do anything to protect them.
The second point I should like to make is that one of the most important measures passed into law during the past 20 years—as referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale—was the 1986 Disabled Persons Act. It is better known as the Tom Clarke Act or, in this House, the Sue Masham Act

605
because it was the noble Baroness who carried it through your Lordships' House.
The staggered introduction of the Disabled Persons Act is proving extremely difficult for many local authorities because no extra resources have been made available for its implementation. The Act seeks eventually to improve the lot of mentally or physically handicapped people and their community carers by ensuring that their needs are thoroughly assessed and that necessary services are provided for them by their local authorities. The failure of the Government to provide any additional resources for the practical enforcement of the Act is clearly against the intention of Parliament. In the passing of that Act, with all its implications, Parliament could not have intended that somehow or other it should be implemented for nothing or only at the expense of rate-capped local authorities. The Association of County Councils suggested that the cost of putting the Act to work, and therefore ensuring a far better deal for disabled people, would be approximately £25 million a year for assessments and up to £100 million for extra services. The Government say no.
Dealing with another part of the Act, the Association of Municipal Authorities estimates that only one-third of disabled school leavers claim the services to which they are entitled and that ordinary schools do not always correctly identify the needs of young disabled people. That point was well made by the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, in relation to the deaf-blind. In an effort to establish the possible cost of these proposals, negotiations are now under way with a view to the commencement of the identification of children who are in their final two years at school at the earliest possible date.
I understand from the AMA that it has agreed with government officials a figure of £5 million for identification and assessment of disabled school-leavers in 1988–89 and a further £20 million per year for services to those children. Therefore, the full year cost of each cohort of leavers will be £20 million starting in 1989–90. As a part year, the cost will be £14 million. I should be grateful if in replying the Minister will confirm that that agreement has been reached, because it will be some way forward and I should like to have something to welcome at the end of this debate.
Thirdly, we are faced with another cost-saving social security Bill. We hear that we are to have another Bill which will be the greatest review since Beveridge. That is exactly what was said by Mr. Norman Fowler when he was appointed Secretary of State for Social Services after the previous election. He said that his review was the greatest since Beveridge and he introduced what he considered to be the requirements of the nation.
Now a new Secretary of State is appointed under the same Government by the same Prime Minister, and he says, "We are going to do it all over again". Can the Minister confirm that part of the Bill will overturn the Court of Appeal ruling that could lead to thousands of the 348,000 epilectics, diabetics and mentally and physically disabled people in receipt of the lower rate of attendance allowance receiving the higher rate through needing care at night as well as
606
during the day? If the Bill is to block that gap to the disadvantage of 348,000 severely handicapped people we are beginning to see the large number who will suffer if the Government's intentions are carried through.
The final point I should like to make, because I want to leave the Minister the maximum time to reply to the many points that have been raised, concerns community care on which so much voluntary effort is being concentrated by so many different organisations. Of course, I am acutely aware of what MIND is doing in this particular field for those with mental illness or recovering from mental illness.
Although, largely thanks to disabled people themselves, there has been an improvement in attitudes toward disability and the responsibility of society for its disabled citizens. Far too often people are forced to choose between institutional care or a degrading life in their own homes because the service they need is either not available at all or not available at the time they require it. We have been reminded that the Audit Commission in its report, Making a Reality of Community Care, described the "perverse incentives" which so often mean that, despite the community care policy, it is easier to obtain cash for admission to residential care than for remaining in one's own home. To give one example, the DHSS is empowered to pay up to £230 per week for nursing home care for disabled people with few obstacles or checks, but only up to £48 to £70 a week for personal care at home, and that is paid only in the most exceptional circumtances. In my view there is now a ridiculous situation in which, because of the need to draw up some sort of priority system, services are actually being targeted to those who need them least. I believe that any expenditure is likely to miss out completely the most disabled and the most dependent.
Changes which are to take place next April under the Social Security Act will make it even more difficult for newly disabled people to remain at home. Already acknowledged to be among the very poorest in society, many disabled people will find themselves worse off by up to £60 per week as a result of the loss of additional payments for heating, laundry, diets and domestic assistance. Once again, practice is in direct conflict with policy.
I hope that, in view of all the points that have been made with great sincerity from all sides of the House by people with great experience, the Minister has not only been listening to what has been said but will convey to his right honourable friend who takes these decisions, and indeed to the Cabinet, the depth of the concern and anxiety that have been expressed in your Lordships' House today.
7.53 p.m.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I should like first of all to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Carter, on his choice of subject for today's debate; namely the needs and problems of people with disabilities. It is of course far from being a subject new to your Lordships' House. There have been a number of excellent debates on various aspects of disability over recent years. Today's debate has at least matched the quality of its predecessors and, as usual, noble Lords

607
have spoken with immense knowledge and sympathy about the wide range of problems which disabled people face and the best ways in which their needs can be met.
In these circumstances, I am the first to realise that many noble Lords who have spoken this afternoon possess very much greater knowledge and experience, much of it personal, than I do. However, I like to think that my sympathy is just as great. Although we may differ about means, I am sure that we can all agree about the ends we want to achieve, that is, to give disabled people the maximum possible access to the opportunities which able-bodied people have, so that they can develop their potential to the full and thereby make the maximum contribution to society.
Before I try to deal briefly with particular points made by noble Lords, I hope the House will allow me to say a few words about the measures which this Government have taken to help disabled people. As your Lordships are quite rightly swift to point out, many tasks remain to be done, but it would be wrong to lose sight of the things which have already been accomplished.
One important initiative which this Government have taken is one that has not yet borne fruit. We commissioned from the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys the first major survey on disability in the population since 1968. The first results of this will be published next year and will provide up-to-date information about the numbers, circumstances and needs of disabled people. Unlike earlier studies, it will include children and people in non-private households, and sensorily impaired and mentally handicapped people will also be covered.
As the results of the survey become available, we shall of course be examining very carefully the implications for our policies. At the same time, we shall be taking account of any other developments affecting people with disabilities. One such development is the inquiry into community care which Sir Roy Griffiths is currently undertaking. In view of the importance of community care for the Government's strategy for the health services, personal social services and social security, it is crucial that help and assistance is delivered effectively and economically. Sir Roy will be making his recommendations to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State at the end of this year, and I look forward to his report with considerable interest and keen anticipation.
Another extremely important milestone in the field of health and personal social services has been the passing last year of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act, to which a number of noble Lords have made reference today. This measure originated in another place as a Private Member's Bill introduced by Mr. Tom Clarke. As the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, has mentioned it was skilfully piloted through your Lordships' House by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, and noble Lords played a notable part in ensuring that it reached the statute book in a sensible and workable form. The passage of the Bill through Parliament was a tribute to the co-operation achieved between
608
voluntary organisations, the local authorities and the Government.
As was mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Allen of Abbeydale and Lord Ennals, there is much concern about the pace of implementation of the Act. I sympathise wholly with that concern. Ever since the Act received Royal Assent, the Government have consistently made it clear that in their view it is a worthwhile piece of legislation which they would like to see in operation, and working for the benefit of disabled people, at the earliest possible date. Commitment to the principles of the Act has been demonstrated by the fact that four sections—4, 8, 9 and 10—were already implemented in April this year.
The Government have also consistently made it clear that those sections of the Act which have significant resource implications can only be implemented when the necessary resources can be made available. I am sure that they have been right to do so. Making a commencement order is in itself a simple enough operation. It is much more difficult to ensure that local authorities have sufficient resources to enable them to meet the additional demands which the requirements of the Act place upon them. We are talking here largely about additional trained staff and the costs of providing them. Those resources cannot be conjured up overnight.
Some noble Lords reminded the House that the Government originally expressed the hope that Sections 5 and 6 of the Act, which are very important sections dealing with the assessment of the needs of disabled school-leavers, would be in operation by now. That was on the basis of the original estimates by the local authority associations during the passage of the Bill—necessarily hasty ones, given the pressures of the parliamentary timetable—that those sections would not have a significant extra cost for them. But when the associations subsequently revised their estimates and said that Sections 5 and 6 would indeed have significant resource implications, the Government had no choice but to decide to postpone implementation until issues surrounding the resources could be sorted out.
There have been two meetings with the local authority associations at ministerial level to discuss further progress in implementing the Act, the last of which was on 16th September. There have also been a number of meetings between the DHSS and local authority association officials, the last of which was held some 10 days ago. Latterly we have concentrated on the issues on Sections 5 and 6, although we have not lost sight of the need to make progress on other sections as well. As the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, has indicated those discussions have been going well. At its meeting last Friday the Association of Metropolitan Authorities social services committee agreed the figures on the costs of Sections 5 and 6 which emerged from officials' most recent discussions, and indicated that on that basis they wanted the implementation of Sections 5 and 6 to go ahead as quickly as possible. I understand that the Association of County Councils is also considering the matter urgently. When he has heard from them, my honourable friend the Minister for the Disabled should be in a position shortly thereafter to make an

609
announcement on the implementation of Sections 5 and 6.
I now turn to social security matters. We have heard in the debate about some aspects of the benefits which are provided to meet both the day-to-day needs of disabled people and the additional costs arising from their disabilities. Some noble Lords have argued in support of further extension of these benefits. I would remind them that this Government have in fact found the resources to increase expenditure in this area very significantly.
In 1986–87, we spent some £6 billion on disability benefits. an increase of about 70 per cent. in real terms since we took office in 1979. Far more people are getting disability benefits now, and there has also been a considerable increase in the amount being paid. Overall, expenditure reflects a considerable amount of new money which we have been able to find for this purpose. There have been important changes affecting individual benefits. We have extended the availability of invalidity care allowance; introduced the new severe disablement allowance; and increased the rate of mobility allowance in real terms, as well as taking it out of taxation. The development of our policies on disability benefits has been hindered by a lack of reliable and up-to-date information about the numbers, needs and circumstances of people with disabilities. That is why we commissioned the OPCS survey of disability to which I have already referred. We shall be considering what conclusions can be drawn from the results of the survey in relation to the provisions we currently make for disabled people.
I now turn to supplementary benefit and its successor, as from next April, income support. We have, since we took office, been able to improve the help that goes to disabled people receiving supplementary benefit. There has been an improvement in the value of the scale rates compared with inflation. In 1980, we reduced the qualifying period for the long-term rate for disabled claimants under pension age from two years to one year. As a result, the latest data shows that nearly 34,000 living in the community either in their own or other people's homes are receiving extra help a year earlier. We also tackled the invalidity trap so that periods in receipt of long-term incapacity benefits now count towards the qualifying period for the long-term scale rate. Some 55,000 sick and disabled people benefited from this change.
In approaching next April's reforms, we therefore start from a higher base of support than that when this Government came to office. A number of noble Lords have raised questions about the effect of the new arrangements on severely disabled people living in their own homes. Let me put the issue into perspective. An increase in financial help is planned for those who will receive the disability premium. This increase will more than match the £50 million illustrated in the technical annex to the Government's original White Paper published in 1985. And, on top of that increase, it is estimated that a further £8 million will go to people who qualify for the severe disability premium.
The great majority—85 per cent.—of sick and disabled people under pension age will gain or be
610
unaffected by the changes. The illustration of the effect of the reforms shows people receiving the disability premium gaining £4.80 on average in real terms. And no disabled people at present receiving supplementary benefit will be worse off. Transitional protection will help existing claimants who would otherwise lose at the point of change. This is not just protection in cash terms. We have provided real terms protection for those with very high domestic assistance additions—an important safeguard.
Because in assessing income support we will continue to ignore mobility allowance and attendance allowance for most purposes, we will have a more varied system of state financial help than is visible in the disability premium itself. It will also enable significant entitlements to be built up by way of the personal allowance, disability premium, mobility allowance and attendance allowance where relevant, with in certain cases either the severe disability premium being paid direct to the person or invalid care allowance paid to someone else providing care and support. To give an example, a single disabled person aged more than 25 getting higher rate attendance allowance, the disability premium and the severe disability premium will receive £104.15 in benefits. In addition, he or she would get maximum housing benefit. Given the obvious constraints there always are, I really do not think that this could be labelled either mean or uncaring. In addition, the benefit system will continue to give help with rent and rates. There will therefore continue to be significant support through the benefit system for severely disabled people living in the community.
We have carefully considered the alternative proposals produced by the voluntary organisations for extra help for very severely disabled people. But these would either have produced very substantial extra costs—up to £300 million— or have implied a system so complicated that local offices would not have been able to operate it without an unacceptable degree of confusion and uncertainty. We are, however, conscious of the needs of a very small number of severely disabled people whom we would wish to help to stay in their own homes. My honourable friend the Minister for Social Security and the Disabled is trying hard to find a way to assist this small group.
I now turn to particular points which noble Lords have raised in this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked about the social fund. Supplementary benefit is too complex, so weekly benefit will be provided by a new, simpler income support scheme, but exceptional one-off needs will be handled separately by the social fund. This help will provide more flexibility than now. Vulnerable groups, such as the disabled, will be able to get community care grants to enable them to rejoin or stay in the community. We believe that it is better for special help to be provided in this flexible way rather than under the existing regulated scheme.
I agree very much with what my noble friend Lord Ferrers said about the importance of co-operation between professional and non-professional sectors. I am sure that everybody in your Lordships' House joins him in his tribute to the important role of the

611
Voluntary sector. The noble Lord, Lord Banks, reminded us of his party's interesting proposals in this area. These seem similar to those put forward by the Disability Alliance and Disablement Income Group. The costs of the latter proposals—£2 billion to £3 billion—must constitute a serious obstacle.
The noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, raised questions on deaf/blind people. The noble Lady is right to highlight the special problems of this group. She referred particularly to the question of mobility allowance. Many people who are handicapped in this way already qualify for the allowance and there are legal and financial problems in amending the regulations to make specific provision for them. We are therefore looking at the way in which the current regulations work to ensure that as many as possible get their proper entitlement.
The noble Lord, Lord Basnett, raised a wide range of issues on the vital question of employment of disabled people, on which he speaks with much expertise. Perhaps I may respond briefly by pointing out that we have achieved a good deal in the area of employment and training. In 1986–87, over 80,000 people with disabilities were placed into jobs or into community programme projects. In the same period, the number of people with severe disabilities in sheltered employment increased by 1,033 to 17,400. The number of people with disabilities entering training schemes also increased to nearly 13,000, of whom nearly 9,000 were young people entering the Youth Training Scheme.
The noble Earl, Lord Radnor, raised the issue of resources for the 1981 Education Act. The Government are already providing substantial resources. The average expenditure bill in special schools has risen by 14 per cent. in real terms between 1982–83 and 1985–86, compared to a 5 per cent. increase in primary and secondary schools. In the current year, the Government's plans for total local authority expenditure on education represent a cash increase of 18·8 per cent. over 1986–87 plans. Other funds are being provided for teacher training, educational psychologists and electronic aids.
The noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby, raised a number of interesting issues about access and mobility. Perhaps I may comment on what he said about pedestrianisation. The Government believe that pedestrianisation schemes can bring significant benefits to the community as a whole and that it would not be right to circumscribe local authorities' freedom to provide them. Local highway authorities have general duties to secure and maintain reasonable access to premises and are in the best position to take account of local needs and conditions, including the interests of disabled people in their areas.
My noble friend Lord Auckland raised the question of speech therapy and eye clinics. Speech therapy services have increased at a rate faster than the general increase on national health expenditure. The number of speech therapists has doubled since they have all been employed by the NHS. The noble Lord was right to draw attention to the importance of proper provision for blind people.
612
The noble Earl, Lord Longford, raised a question concerning discrimination against disabled people. We are completely opposed to discrimination against disabled people. That said, we are not convinced that widespread discrimination exists; nor, indeed, that generalised legislation will be the best way of tackling it.
The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, mentioned alarm systems for elderly and disabled people. All that the Government are doing is to clarify the present position on the availability of housing benefit to help people with the costs of alarm systems. No one should be affected provided that local authorities have advice from the department.
The noble Lord, Lord Blease, raised a question about general funding and the Equal Opportunities Commission in Northern Ireland. The Government are still consulting on the subject of the Equal Opportunities Commission in Northern Ireland and will study with great interest a report of the Northern Ireland Council on Disability.
My noble friend Lord Swinfen raised the issue of flexibility in financing residential care for disabled people. The Government will need to consider this issue carefully when we have received Sir Roy Griffiths' report on community care.
The noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, was concerned about people with spinal injuries and other physically disabled people somehow slipping down the list of priorities. I assure the noble Baroness that the Government continue to treat physically disabled people as a priority group. We do our best to ensure that their position is protected, given the other demands which are properly made in other areas. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, raised the question of what the Government are doing to support speech therapy. There is no evidence of widespread vacancies in this expanding profession although the position will vary from place to place.
The noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, spoke about a Select Committee on discrimination against disabled people. My noble friend the Leader of the House will no doubt carefully note the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson.
To attempt to cover the needs and problems of the disabled in a debate lasting two and a half hours is of course an impossibility. Because such constraints limit us to merely scratching the surface of a few of the problems, we must inevitably rely upon good faith and a generous attitude in terms of the general spirit of the debate. This has been a good debate in which the Government for their part, I trust, have clearly shown that they are not an administration who, in the face of the infirm, cast down their eyes and pass by on the other side. The Government wholeheartedly accept the problems of the disabled.
However, while accepting that there is much yet to be done, as indeed will always be the case, the Government are never less than realists when it comes to the resources that can be directed to the needs of those who suffer from disability. Those resources, as we all know, can be determined only by the economic development of the nation, for the greater the wealth the greater the amount of that

613
wealth that can be directed towards the problems and needs of those who are disabled.
8.16 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I thank all those who have taken part in what has been a wide-ranging and excellent debate. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Arran, for his courteous response on behalf of the Government. I must say that I was disappointed. I took the trouble to tell the noble Earl before the debate that I would be concentrating on the 1986 Act. I asked the noble Earl a number of specific questions on the operation of the Act. The House will have to draw its own conclusions from the fact that he declined to answer any of them. It remains only for me to beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Air Defence in the United Kingdom
8.17 p.m.
Lord Orr-Ewing Lord Orr-Ewing rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied with the current and planned improvements to United Kingdom air defence.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I tabled the Question because in recent months there has been a certain amount of ill-informed criticism on the United Kingdom's air defence. This culminated in Granada television's programme "World in Action" on 5th October. The programme is seen by some 6.5 million people. I wanted to give the Minister an early opportunity to set the matter right. As a keen follower of the televising of the House, I am surprised to observe that the "robes" are being put on the cameras in the Chamber at this moment so that not much of this debate will be seen on television, which is the subject of the Question!
The clear object of the programme was to undermine confidence in the air defence abilities of the UK and NATO. Some points can be dealt with by the Minister; some fall within the areas of responsibility of the regulatory authority, the IBA, and behind that of course stands the Home Office. Granada's "World in Action" series provides the flagship of the ITV companies current affairs programmes. "Panorama" is the equivalent programme of the BBC. We have had reason in recent years to complain of imbalance in this field. We touched on this very much in the debate of 21st July initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont.
Since seeing the programme on 5th October—at the time I made some notes—I have borrowed a video from the IBA, which I have been through in detail with a number of my noble friends. Thus I was able to see yet again the intention of the producers. It was the clear intention to set up a hatchet job. In fact, the introduction to the programme said:
" 'World in Action' looks at the scandal whereby hundreds of millions of pounds have been wasted on radar which did not work".
Then, as happens in such programmes, the so-called experts are called in for interview. It seems that sometimes they are most desirable experts if they live in sunny climates far away from this country, which
614
gives excuses to travel and interview them. To underline the programme's intention and the theme, one brings in so-called experts. In this case a Dr. Tom Amlie was called in. By hostile and loaded questions the interviewer seeks to produce from the expert the result he wants. The broadcasting company goes as far as to describe Dr. Amlie as one of,
"the world's greatest experts on missiles".
Perhaps they should have said the greatest expert of the free world. That is quite an achievement but I cannot find any reference to him in any UK or US reference book. However he did his best to destroy all faith in the Boeing E3 AWACS aircraft on which NATO relies currently and which we now have on order.
Another witness who is much quoted is Dina Rasor. Clever stuff is used to describe her. She is shown coming down a hill with the Congress building and Capitol Hill pictured behind her. She is described as working on Capitol Hill. That is meant to give weight to her form. We are told that she is monitoring a project concerned with military procurement and expenditure. She duly sings the right tune and seeks to rubbish AWACS too.
Many parliamentarians in both Houses have been at the receiving end of such treatment. If they do not sing the producer's tune either their contribution is cut or totally eliminated and generally they are not asked to appear again.
After seeing the programme I wrote to the chairman of the IBA. With his usual courtesy Lord Thomson replied. It is important that his reply is put on record. He writes:
"It is normal practice for current affairs programmes to edit interviews. But in so doing the IBA's guidelines lay down that the objective is to express clearly and fairly the views of the interviewee and not to suit the views of the producer".
If that is the aim the actual result is very different.
I turn to another witness who was interviewed, Sir Keith Williamson. He was Commander in Chief of the UK air forces from 1980 to 1982 and he was Chief of Air Staff from 1982 to 1985. He is also a Marshal of the Royal Air Force. Sir Keith told me that he was interviewed for no fewer than 2.5 hours and that on many points the interviewers insisted not just on the take but on the retake and on the re-retake and so on ad infinitum. That was done presumably in an effort to get Sir Keith to make the points which the producer desired.
I can only say that in the end, after 150 minutes of interview, Sir Keith's contribution was cut to 1.5 minutes, which is 1.5 per cent of it. The other 98.5 per cent. was presumably discarded. As a senior officer of Her Majesty's forces who has had great responsibility he must have been extremely astute in his replies.
How do the rules which I have read out and which are laid down by the regulatory authority come to be carried out? What are the sanctions of the IBA? If a sportsman transgresses whether he be a jockey, a cricketer or a footballer he is stood down and temporarily banned. I asked the IBA what happened if a broadcaster transgressed. The IBA replied that if the case was proven it was in a position to censor the programme company. I may not have been reading my papers as assiduously as I should have been but

615
I do not recall any person being censored in public or in print in recent years. Perhaps I have overlooked such a case.
Of course, the extreme sanction is to deprive a programme company which continues to disobey the rules of its licence. But it is no good cutting off a chap's head if one wants to cure the ill. I think that the IBA should examine whether the regulatory authority has enough teeth. I understand that that is a matter for the Home Office but as we shall be considering the whole future of broadcasting in due course perhaps that matter should be looked at. If regulatory authorities are to be effective they must have usable sanctions.
I now come to the question to which I seek a reply. Are our air defences as vulnerable as the 6.5 million viewers are led to believe? If they are so vulnerable is it true that several times in every week our fighters intercept Russian long-range bombers which are probing our air space? Did my honourable friend offer to help with this programme in any way so that Granada more closely carried out the terms of its licence and those of the IBA directive concerning impartiality and balance in programmes?
Today I came across a most apt quote by happy coincidence. It comes from Alan Whicker's book which was published in 1983. It is the paperback version. The autobiography is called Within Whicker's World. All noble Lords will know that Whicker is one of the doyens of television commentators and journalists. He said of the series:
"These topical programmes, which presume to give objective truth unalloyed by the personal idiosyncracies of a reporter, are in fact the most opinionated and politically slanted of all television series. 'World in Action' is clearly a sort of Marxist party-political".
Those are not my views but those of one of the doyens of commentators.
I hope that when my noble friend comes to reply he can do something to restore the faith in Britain's ability to design, manufacture and operate the air defences of this country.
8.27 p.m.
Lord Fanshawe of Richmond: My Lords, I would first like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing on raising this subject tonight, and on his comments on the TV programme which took place recently. I wish to intervene briefly for several reasons. In the early 1960s I spent some time as Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Secretary of State for Air and therefore I worked for two years very closely with the Royal Air Force at that period. Subsequently, I spent two years as Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Minister of Aviation. At that time we were playing a part in the build up of the procurement operation which we see today and which is handled by the Ministry of Defence.
That was the beginning of sophisticated weapons systems coming into our defence procedures. It was interesting to see at that moment of time the development of many of the problems which we faced then which have got more difficult and sensitive as time has gone past. We may say that that was a long time ago and ask why on earth I am talking about it today. However I must now declare my interest as a
616
member of the board of the Westland Group plc. I have been on that board for two years and therefore in more modern terms I have seen something of the procurement difficulties which are faced by the Ministry of Defence and by industrial companies at today's date. That is 20 to 30 years later than the time when I was first involved in the early 1960s. I have nothing to add to the comment made by my noble friend this evening. That needed to be made and I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply.
I have some sympathy with the difficulties which have been faced with the Fox Hunter radar which is carried by the Tornado Aircraft. I understand that as a result of the actions which have been taken, of which I hope we shall hear more tonight from the Minister, the Royal Air Force is well pleased with that aircraft which provides a major increase in the capability of the defences of the United Kingdom and those of the NATO northern sector since the early difficulties over this radar have been overcome. I look forward however to an update on that from my noble friend this evening.
Moreover, I hope also that my noble friend will be able to say a word about the timescale and what is happening on the major modernisation of our ground-based radar system or UKADGE, because this is obviously extremely important to the defence of the United Kingdom. I think that an authoritative statement by my noble friend would be very helpful at this time.
The main point I wish to make tonight, in my very brief intervention, I must confess is to the credit of my noble friend the Minister. It is the fact that he and his team have created a gradual change in the MoD/industrial contractual system. This has been stimulated and encouraged by my noble friend. It was much needed as many of our foreign competitors, that is competitors of British defence contractors, enjoy domestic government support. This often gives them an unfair advantage and is something that worries us.
In the past the procurement system has been rather like a disconnected body—an arm here, a leg there and the head elsewhere—with the result that the body is thrown together at the end of the day out of phase and probably out of the timescale. This may be followed by a major political row because the weapons system does not appear on time or has something wrong with it.
My noble friend and his team in the MoD have now put together a new approach, which really hands over total responsibility to a prime contractor in the defence field instead of having disparate elements all doing their own thing and being out of touch with each other. This new approach, with a controlling contractor handling a programme at a desired price and within a desired timescale, is beginning to work quite well. I should like to express appreciation regarding this welcome development, which I think is important.
Of course it will only continue to work if the goalposts are not moved half-way through the game. I am sure that my noble friend will make certain that does not happen, though it has happened in the past. I remember 25 years ago seeing the goalposts moved

617
around by the then Ministry of Aviation. In those early days it caused great difficulty to defence contractors who were trying to carry out instructions and deal with proposals put forward by the Air Ministry of the day.
The other point I should like to make—I do not think it came over clearly enough, though perhaps it was not the fault of the producers of the programme—is that we are dealing here in electronic areas at the very frontiers of knowledge and scientific endeavour. I personally regret, for instance, the decision by Her Majesty's Government—though this has nothing to do with my noble friend because it concerns another department—to pull out of the European space programme. I believe that there are areas there which are of great importance to us and that there is great scientific benefit to be gained from being part of that programme, even though 1 recognise that it is expensive. Nevertheless I think it is a great pity that we opted out.
However, we are not alone in dealing in areas at the frontiers of knowledge and science. Other countries are doing it: the Americans are doing it. I have been round some American electronic factories quite recently and they are facing problems very similar to those which our electronic developers are encountering here. So we are not alone; other nations and not just Britain, sometimes get it wrong. I think that we in the West are continually breaking new ground in an attempt to give our weapons a competitive edge on the battlefield. That is what we are all trying to do to help our respective ministries of defence. Here in this country it is the MoD; in the United States it is the Department of Defense; and I have no doubt (although I have no direct knowledge) that our allies in Europe are also facing the same problems.
I believe that my noble friend the Minister of State and his department are getting it right for industry and the nation. There will be more problems in the future, but I believe they are trying to get it right and I think that the Government should be congratulated and not derided. For that reason, I welcome the fact that my noble friend has brought forward this question tonight, which has enabled us to talk about the matter in public. I look forward to hearing my noble friend's reply.
8.35 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I want to thank most sincerely the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, for giving us an opportunity to have what I believed was going to be a debate on the United Kingdom's air defence. Yet I am bound to say I was most surprised that the overwhelming proportion of the time taken by the noble Lord did not deal so much with air defence as, perhaps fairly, with the criticism of a certain programme. I hope very much that the Minister has come along to deal with the Question that appears on the Order Paper and not the question which has actually been posed; because if one wanted to pursue the content of the opening speech, the Question really should have been: "To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied with the current and planned improvements and the standards of fairness and lack of bias in
618
certain television programmes". That is not even dealing with television in general.
It was a fair peg and I cannot dispute anything that was said on the programme. We on these Benches start from the premise that of course we are fully committed to having the best possible air force that money and national security imperatives can buy. What we want to hear from the Minister tonight are not only the assurances which, quite fairly, the noble Lord asked should be given as a rebuttal to what he alleges was the bias and the slant in that programme. We also feel that from time to time—not too frequently—the nation is entitled to hear from the Minister an update on various things. Certain announcements are made and various programmes are entered into which are accepted. Then one hears about slippage and other problems. We do not want the House to be informed every time there is a slight change; but we think that from time to time we ought to be told frankly whether we are on course for producing that which the nation believes is in the programme.
I do not think you can look at the present and future state of the air defences of this country without looking at the overall defences of the country. I am not for a moment going to enter into the arguments for or against nuclear weapons or unilateral renunciation of them. However, in my view we have to look at what the Tories said in 1979 when they came into government. They said that defence was going to be the first charge on our national resources. I make the charge that in 1987 Britain's conventional forces are in a worse state now then they were before the Second World War.
The Government of course have adopted a defence posture that has tried to maintain neither strategic credibility or economic sustainability. They are hoist between those two points. We know the Government are committed to £9·3 billion for the Trident project and we assert that the conventional response this nation can make, as a consequence of that, suffers. We say that the armed forces are denied the resources and equipment that they need to maintain a credible conventional defence. In other words, bluntly, the weapons of first resort are being sacrificed to pay for the weapon of last resort.
We are entitled to be corrected and entitled to be accused of either not being in possession of the full facts or of misusing them, but that is the lot of any Opposition in any Chamber of this kind. The Government must be in possession of them and all we can do is to ask certain questions. I want the Minister to deal, among other things, with what I have been told is, if not the crisis, the position of the loss to our air force of trained pilots and trained navigators. I am told that it cost about £3 million to train a jet pilot in 1987 and almost £1 million to train a navigator. We are talking about large sums. We are told that those people are leaving to work, for instance, in Saudi Arabia or for commercial airlines.
I know that the answer to my question will probably be that they are not leaving and that the Government are satisfied with the progress of recruitment or that we have the position all wrong. However, my information is that we are losing pilots and navigators at an unacceptable level. We know

619
about wastage and about better offers. However, if what we are doing as a nation is to use taxpayers' money to train people and then lose them, then we need an answer.
Perhaps the Minister can tell the House whether such wastage is anything to do with the overseas allowance for servicemen living in Germany which was cut to save £17 million. Will the Minister comment on the fact that up to 70 per cent. of RAF married quarters are substandard? Will he tell the House whether the effect on morale, which must lead to a reduction in pilots, has anything to do with the late receipt of new equipment upon which air force morale must undoubtedly depend?
Perhaps the Minister can also tell the House about recent press reports from defence correspondents. I am looking in particular at the Independent of 5th October. That newspaper contains an article by Mr. Mark Urban which says:
"But cuts amounting to several hundred million pounds are still likely to be imposed over the next three years.
Defence Ministry sources"—
we all know that that is a euphemism for some sort of briefing.
"said cuts would be spread through the department rather than falling heavily on one service".
In other words, there would be a policy of equal misery.
"The Royal Air Force's request for two more Boeing E3 AWACS early warning planes is likely to be affected. Senior RAF officers have suggested, as a compromise, that only one be bought to supplement six already ordered".
I should be grateful if the Minister, who is always well briefed in these matters, can give us an indication of the situation in that regard.
Perhaps the Minister can also tell us, as we are looking at the state of our air defences tonight, about the state of the United Kingdom air defence and ground environment, known as UKADGE, and how it is progressing. I am told that original estimates were that that environment would cost £400 million but that the cost now exceeds £1 billion. When the air defence studies of the 1970s took place, they did not consider the threat posed by Soviet cruise missiles. As a result, the UKADGE project was not designed to cope with the new generation of small, low-flying Soviet cruise missiles which are now being developed. Will the Minister say whether those problems, which could not have been foreseen, can be dealt with satisfactorily from our state of preparedness as far as the Government are concerned?
Will the Minister comment on moves which have been taking place to integrate communications and data transmission? I am thinking particularly of the airborne early warning aircraft, the interceptor aircraft, ground radars and operational centres. I know that we in this country have been developing our own co-ordination system for those very essential strategic elements in our air defence. But from what 1 have read, I understand that there may be conflicts between our preparations and those of NATO, not least because in some areas there is a lack of comparability and of interoperability.
620
Perhaps the Minister can also deal with the issue of identification of friend and foe. I understand that concerning IFF there are still difficulties in getting agreement. As the Minister well knows, that might lead to shooting down a friend if the method of identification is not absolutely clear.
Will the Minister say something about the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Fanshawe, in respect of the European fighter aircraft? That aircraft is absolutely crucial to the ability of this country to give adequate air cover, particularly on the central front. We are promised that it will be with us and in service by 1995, which is the date fixed for complete delivery of the system. Is everything going to plan or is there slippage in respect of that date?
Finally, I hope that the Minister will be able to deal with the problem of low-flying aircraft. The issue of low flying has been raised, often in a local context. Tragically it is often discussed when, as a result of low flying, terrible accidents occur. I subscribe to the view that we need an air force which is well practised in the stratagems of low flying. However, concern has been particularly evident in areas such as Cumbria where there have been one or two nasty accidents. Can the Minister say whether anything is being done to minimise risk to pilots and the general public?
We are far from satisfied in this House that the state of our air defences is commensurate with our needs or the amount of money spent. I shall be grateful to hear what the Minister has to say to reassure us on those points.
8.45 p.m.
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, I should like to add my words of thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, for raising this matter and for giving me the opportunity to set the record straight with regard to the state of the United Kingdom's air defences, not least because media coverage in recent months has presented a very distorted and misleading picture of our capabilities in this extremely important area.
With your Lordship's permission, I should like to remind the House of a number of developments in the United Kingdom's air defences since the Second World War. In the late summer of 1940, the air defence of the United Kingdom assumed vital importance in the Battle of Britain. Your Lordships will not need reminding that the victory then gained by the Royal Air Force played a major part in saving our country from invasion, enabling the war to be carried back to the enemy.
While much in the world has changed since those days, the vital task of the defence of our air space and its crucial importance to the defence of our country has remained unaltered. Throughout the past 40 years, the Royal Air Force has striven to maintain the highest possible standard at all times. That this has been achieved is, in my view, itself a tribute to its skill and professionalism.
It is, however, true to say that there have been times since the Second World War when the priority accorded to our air defences has been lower than it is today. In the aftermath of the defence White Paper of 1957 and the then prevailing NATO trip-wire

621
strategy, with is heavy reliance on nuclear weapons, the forces dedicated to air defence had been run down by the decision not to proceed with the development of manned interceptor aircraft. The only project to survive this decision was the Lightning, which was originally intended as a research vehicle and went on to serve with distinction for some 30 years, and is only now being retired.
For many years the Lightning, together with the surface-to-air missile force and of course radar, were the mainstay of the defence of the United Kingdom. While missiles have a key part to play in the defence of specific areas, they cannot offer comprehensive cover for the range of potential targets likely to be threatened. Subsequently, the Phantom aircraft, purchased from the United States, replaced most of the Lightnings and, in turn, some of these Phantoms will be replaced in the near future by the air defence variant of the Tornado, about which I shall have more to say in a moment. The Phantom will continue to serve into the 1990s, when it is planned that the remaining aircraft will be replaced by the European fighter aircraft.
It is not, I believe, properly understood that this Government are in the process of driving through one of the most significant upgradings of the United Kingdom's air defences ever undertaken. Press and media commentary tends to focus on the fact that this is not yet complete and on the difficulties which any programme with this degree of sophistication and complexity is bound to encounter. There is a failure to acknowledge either the magnitude of the resources allocated to the programme or, more importantly, the quantum improvement in capability which will be achieved as a result of this Government's commitment to the success of the programme. I should like to underline that message tonight.
Only yesterday (as your Lordships will have seen in this morning's papers) the press were able to inspect the latest step forward, the formation of the first Tornado air defence squadron at RAF Coningsby. As the reports correctly state, the Royal Air Force is delighted with the performance and reliability of this aircraft, which gives it significantly better performance and range than the older Phantom interceptors. Seven operational Tornado air defence squadrons will form as a result of this programme.
The defence of the United Kingdom air defence region—which comprises not only the sovereign airspace of the UK but also large areas of international airspace over the Atlantic and North Sea—is essential not only to this country but to NATO's ability to withstand any Warsaw Pact attack on Western Europe. The United Kingdom is not only our own homeland but also provides a forward base for maritime operations in the north-east Atlantic and north Norwegian Sea, a rear base for operations on and over the Continent, and a main operating base for maritime operations in the Channel and eastern Atlantic. Furthermore, the United Kingdom would play a crucial role in war as a staging post for reinforcements from North America.
In the United Kingdom, RAF Strike Command has the main responsibility for air defence both of our islands and of the surrounding sea areas. The importance of this role to common defence has been
622
recognised in NATO by the creation of a special NATO Command, the United Kingdom air defence region, held by the commander-in-chief of RAF Strike Command; and by the investment of substantial funds from the NATO infrastructure budget both in a new automated regional air operations headquarters at the commander-in-chief's headquarters at High Wycombe and in an extensive programme to provide hardened operating shelters and facilities for the command's most important assets, its aircraft, their crews and support staff.
In peacetime, the Royal Air Force is tested regularly, not only in national and NATO exercises but also by those aircraft of the Soviet Union which fly into the UK air defence region. My noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing referred to this fact. We should perhaps pause to contemplate just why those aircraft fly so often so far from home. Incoming Soviet aircraft are regularly detected by UK or allied radars and, when they reach the UK air defence region, our quick reaction alert fighters—Phantoms or Tornadoes, supported as necessary by air-to-air refuelling aircraft—are there to meet them. On average, three or four times a week it is necessary to intercept, identify and shadow these visitors until they leave our air defence region. This is all done in a disciplined and professional way, maintaining contact with our NATO partners as necessary.
Whenever the RAF is judged formally in NATO exercises and tactical evaluations, the very high standards attained confirm its readiness and ability to "do it for real".
In war, the task of the Royal Air Force is to restrict an enemy's ability to mount a successful air attack by inflicting significant losses on an attacking force before they can release their weapons. To achieve this objective we maintain a layered air defence system. Longer-range defence is provided by fighter aircraft on combat air patrol or ground alert, supported by tankers and directed by airborne and ground-based radars. Medium-range defence is provided by other fighters on shorter-range combat air patrol or scrambled from ground alert, supplemented by Bloodhound surface-to-air missiles, while close-in defence is provided by Rapier surface-to-air missiles and Skyguard radar-controlled guns.
However, the threat facing us has steadily increased with the continued update of the Warsaw Pact's air forces, with the introduction of new fighter, bomber and support aircraft. There is a need therefore to develop our own modern conventional weaponry to enable us to stop and, if possible, repulse an attack.
We are now engaged on a major modernisation programme which is well advanced. The Royal Air Force's air defence capability will greatly increase in three key areas over the next few years.
First, airborne early warning is a key component of our air defence system, providing timely information to ensure that our fighters would be directed to where they were most needed. As the Warsaw Pact develops its capability for operations at low level, so the ability of the AEW aircraft to look down on potential targets becomes more and more important. The Government's decision last December to purchase the Boeing E3 will ensure that the Royal Air Force

623
has a modern and effective airborne early warning system for the 1990s to replace the ageing Shackletons whose continued operation in service owes much to the devotion and dedication of their crews.
In view of recent misleading media speculation about the vulnerability of the E3, which was indeed referred to in the programme to which my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing drew attention, it is worth while commenting briefly on that. While, like any aircraft, the E3 is not invulnerable to attack, it is assessed to be highly survivable in performing its operational tasks. Before an attack can be mounted, an attacker must get close enough to deliver a weapon. The E3's radar currently outranges, by a large margin, all other airborne radar. I can, moreover, personally attest to your Lordships the powerful range of the radar which I experienced at first hand when I flew in an E3 last year. Once potential enemy aircraft are seen taking off or entering the E3's radar cover, the E3 has the option to move, at speed, to a safer area while continuing to monitor all air movements or to direct friendly fighters to deal with any potential threat. There are thus a wide range of tactical options.
Considerable work has been done on developing appropriate tactics and in refining likely E3 orbit locations to reduce the aircraft's vulnerability. Its radar range is such that it can be positioned in protected airspace and still carry out its airborne early warning tasks. This capability to carry out its primary functions from within defended airspace is one of the aircraft's main assets. It is thus possible to retain both the early warning and battle management functions of the E3 while minimising vulnerability to current and postulated future threats.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, is the noble Lord in a position to respond to my query as to the delivery of the two which are either outstanding or programmed? Can the Minister comment on the report I read in the press, which I accept could be wholly inaccurate, that there is some dispute as to the date or whether in fact they will be delivered at all?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am not sure what dispute the noble Lord is referring to because I know of none. The fact of the matter is that we have ordered six of these aircraft. We have currently an option for a further two and we shall be making up our minds very shortly how we shall proceed in accordance with that option.
The second key element of our major modernisation programme is the introduction of the Tornado ADV, a superb aircraft whose excellent range and loiter capability make it ideally suited for the longer-range air defence role. Of the air defence variant of the Tornado 165 have been ordered to date.
The build-up of the new ADV force is proceeding according to schedule in both the formation of units and of the numbers of aircraft on those units. The operational conversion unit which trains pilots on the new aircraft, formed in 1985, was declared to NATO last year as an operational unit. As I have already
624
mentioned, 29 Squadron RAF, the first ADV squadron, has now also formed at RAF Coningsby and will be formally declared to NATO as operational—on schedule—on 1st November, just four days from now.
The Tornado ADV is armed with the highly effective Skyflash medium-range air-to-air missile and the shorter range AIM9L Sidewinder system.
Although, as we have made clear on a number of occasions to Parliament, the aircraft's sophisticated Foxhunter air-intercept radar does not yet meet all the requirements of the Royal Air Force, action is in hand to deal with this problem. Radars to an agreed interim standard have been delivered and are already providing an operational capability superior to that of the aircraft they are replacing. We are currently negotiating with the company new, firm price contractual arrangements for a programme of modifications to bring the radar up to the standard required to meet the threat of the 1990s.
The third key improvement is the comprehensive modernisation of our command and control system and ground-based radars now being implemented, which represents the most radical improvement to the United Kingdom Air Defence Ground Environment since the early 1960s. The core of these improvements, which are known as the Improved UKADGE, as the noble Lord, Lord Graham, said, comprises a network of operations and reporting centres covering the United Kingdom air defence region from the Faroes to the South of England, backed up by a chain of advanced technology transportable radars which will provide the primary source of information collection. This Improved UKADGE will be fully integrated with the NATO air defence system from which it will receive early warning data. It will also make full use of data provided by AEW aircraft and ships at sea. It will provide essential and continuous air defence information to such command and control centres as the new UK AIR Regional Air Operations Centre.
As part of this latter development at Strike Command, your Lordships may be aware that we have also recently awarded—after an international competition—a £37 million contract to a British consortium led by International Computers Limited to provide a Command and Control and Information System. This will provide the NATO Commander in Chief, UK Air Forces, with a substantially improved capability for the control of UK and other air forces.
The Improved UKADGE is being developed under fixed or firm price contracts let after very rigorous competition. Since the system will make a major contribution to NATO's overall defence capability, there has been considerable financial support from the NATO infrastructure budget. The gross cost of the core system and the transportable radars, together with associated communications and works services, is estimated to be about £500 million, of which about half will be recovered from NATO, thus representing extremely good value for the British taxpayer. The bulk of the equipment has already been built and installed and some elements are already in service use. The remaining elements will be introduced into service during the next few years. I am convinced that this improved system,

625
when fully operational, will be one of the best of its kind in existence anywhere.
In addition to these three major programmes, our air defences will also be strengthened by the running on of two squadrons of Phantoms and improvements to the Rapier surface-to-air missile system; 72 Hawk trainer aircraft are also being equipped with Sidewinder air-to-air missiles which will provide a valuable enhancement to our air defence capability at relatively low cost.
With such a major modernisation programme at the very forefront of technology, it is hardly surprising that there have been a few technical difficulties. We have not tried to conceal them. We have all learned lessons from the Nimrod saga. But these difficulties need to be kept in perspective against the major improvement programme we are undertaking. When this is complete, we will have achieved a radical transformation of our air defence capabilities, well equipped and—thanks to the high professionalism and dedication of our personnel—well able to cope with the challenge of the next decades.
I believe that we can now look forward with confidence to the successful completion of the current modernisation programme to reshape the UK's air defences and to restore them to their prime position in our overall defence posture.
It must not be thought that our efforts stop there, for we must continue to assess the threat and look to ways of meeting it in the future.
We are therefore participating in the collaborative advanced medium and short range air-to-air missile projects to provide our air defence forces with the enhanced weaponry they will need to meet the growing Soviet threat. And finally, we are, of course, participating in the collaborative EFA project to provide the Royal Air Force with an advanced combat aircraft for the 1990s and beyond, with a close-in agile fighter capability that will supplement the longer range air defence capability of the Tornado.
The Government are making substantial investments in our air defence systems. Major improvements are well advanced in the three key areas of airborne early warning; the build-up of the Tornado ADV force; and the modernisation of our ground-based radars and command and control systems. At the same time we are of course pursuing improvements both in efficiency and in procurement policies and I thank my noble friend Lord Fanshawe for his kind remarks on this, in order to achieve the best value for money spent on air defence. Throughout this period of change, I am confident that the highest operational standards are being and will be maintained and I am sure that your Lordships will support the Government's view of the importance which we have attached, and will continue to attach to the air defences of the United Kingdom.
Several noble Lords raised a number of points. The time is now late but I am happy to undertake to write to my noble friend and to the noble Lord, Lord Graham, with answers to the points they raised.
House adjourned at six minutes past nine o'clock.

  INTERNATIONAL ENERGY AGENCY
  INTERNATIONAL ENERGY AGENCY
  ENERGY POLICY: AIMS AND PRIORITIES
  ENERGY POLICY: AIMS AND PRIORITIES
  CEGB COAL PURCHASE AGREEMENT
  CEGB COAL PURCHASE AGREEMENT
  HEAVY FUEL OIL IMPORT PRICES
  HEAVY FUEL OIL IMPORT PRICES
  NATURAL GAS IMPORT PROPOSALS
  NATURAL GAS IMPORT PROPOSALS
  GAS AND ELECTRICITY INDUSTRIES: PURCHASING AND PRICING POLICIES
  GAS AND ELECTRICITY INDUSTRIES: PURCHASING AND PRICING POLICIES
  GAS PRICES
  GAS PRICES
  GAS: UK TRADING POLICY
  GAS: UK TRADING POLICY
  ENERGY: COMPETITIVE PRICING POLICY
  ENERGY: COMPETITIVE PRICING POLICY
  FCO PAPERS: PUBLICATION
  FCO PAPERS: PUBLICATION
  PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY: INQUIRY
  PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY: INQUIRY
  NI TRANSPORTATION STRATEGY REVIEW: FACILITIES FOR ELDERLY AND DISABLED PERSONS
  NI TRANSPORTATION STRATEGY REVIEW: FACILITIES FOR ELDERLY AND DISABLED PERSONS