Sitting of 11 February 1988

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

  PRIVATE BUSINESS
  LONDON REGIONAL TRANSPORT BILL (By Order)
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on consideration [10 December], That the Bill be now considered.
  Debate further adjourned till Thursday 18 February.
  TEIGNMOUTH QUAY COMPANY BILL (By Order)
  YORK CITY COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  HAMPSHIRE (LYNDHURST BYPASS) BILL [Lords](By Order)
  ASSOCIATED BRITISH PORTS (No. 2) BILL (By Order)
  BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 2) BILL (By Order)
  CARDIFF BAY BARRAGE BILL (By Order)
  CITY OF LONDON (SPITALFIELDS MARKET) BILL (By Order)
  FALMOUTH CONTAINER TERMINAL BILL (By Order)
  NORTH KILLINGHOLME CARGO TERMINAL BILL (By Order)
  ST. GEORGE'S HILL, WEYBRIDGE, ESTATE BILL (By Order)
  SOUTHERN WATER AUTHORITY BILL (By Order)
  Orders for Second Reading read.

Oral Answers to Questions
  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Government Shareholdings
    Mr. Ted Garrett: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his policy on the disposal of Government-held shareholdings in the light of the National Audit Office report on the sale of the Government's shareholding in Rolls-Royce plc.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Norman Lamont): The Government will clearly take NAO's observations into account as they press ahead with the privatisation programme.
    Mr. Garrett: Will the Minister give the House his opinion on the statement of the National Audit Office about the £63 million put into the company prior to privatisation? Does he agree that, in the Government's besotted efforts to achieve privatisation, business ethics are at stake? Normally, when one takes the assets of a company, one takes its liabilities. That no longer seems to be the fashion. Should we not revert to ethics?
    Mr. Lamont: I certainly do not agree with what the hon. Gentleman implies. The capital injection into the company was a decision made as a result of negotiation and on the basis of professional advice. However, we shall he giving evidence to the Public Accounts Committee very shortly and we shall reply to those points in detail.
    Mr. Tim Smith: Is my right hon. Friend aware that last night Rolls-Royce shares closed at 126p, against an issue price of 170p? In the intervening period the price has fluctuated between 96p and 240p. Does my right hon. Friend agree that in those circumstances the conclusion of the National Audit Office, that it is now hard to say whether the share price was set at a level that maximised the proceeds from the sale, is not unreasonable?
    Mr. Lamont: My hon. Friend makes a telling point. I only wish that Opposition Members, who are so quick to say that issues are under-priced, would sometimes notice when shares fall to prices below the issue price.
    As regards the points made by the National Audit Office, I cannot anticipate what will be in the evidence, but we shall be replying to the points in detail.
    Mr. Millan: When may we expect a statement about the Government's intentions on another very important Government shareholding—the golden share in Britoil?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Not on this question.
    Mr. Greg Knight: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many thousands of employees at Rolls-Royce were delighted to buy shares in the company in which they work? In Derby, it is even rumoured that a few Socialists bought shares when the company was sold off. If there is any message to the Government arising from the sale of Rolls-Royce, should it not be, "Carry on the good work."?
    Mr. Lamont: I am sure that my hon. Friend's opinion is shared by workers at Rolls-Royce. I cannot comment on whether Socialists bought shares in Rolls-Royce, although perhaps that is what Paul Foot meant when he said:
    "I hope bloody Bryan Gould bought millions of shares."
    Mr. Nicholas Brown: Given that the Government have decided that there should be no specific requirement to deepen or widen share ownership in the Rolls-Royce privatisation, what considerations of the public interest led the Chancellor to disregard the views of the Government's advisers, Samuel Montagu and Co., and concede the £63 million debt write-off? Is it true that the Government were effectively blackmailed by the Rolls-Royce chairman's threat not to support privatisation if he did not get the extra money?
    Mr. Lamont: As I have already said, in reaching a decision on the capital structure and the capital injection we took into account the views of our advisers and the company, and we shall be detailing why we did that in our reply to the Public Accounts Committee.

    Privatisation
    Mr. Gill: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the extent of the state-owned commercial sector which has been transferred to the private sector since 1979.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Nigel Lawson): Since 1979 we have privatised getting on for 40 per cent. of the state-owned sector of industry.
    Mr. Gill: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the history of the state as an employer in the commercial and industrial sectors of the economy has been wholly unprofitable for the state and for its employees? The long-term prospects and prosperity of those enterprises would be enhanced if they were returned to the private sector as quickly as possible.
    Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend is certainly right in saying that privatisation benefits the company, its employees and the economy as a whole. The employees of the companies concerned see this very clearly, as is evidenced by the fact that they are very anxious to acquire shares in the company for which they work as soon as it is privatised, and the great majority of them hold on to them.
    Mr. Chris Smith: Will the Chancellor confirm, or deny, that on 27 January, at a meeting with merchant bankers from the underwriting houses, Treasury Ministers said that public sector corporations were being sold and must be sold at
    "20 per cent. less than their real worth to attract investors"?
    Did that take place? Was that good husbandry on behalf of taxpayers? Will water, electricity and other forms of public commercial assets be sold in the same way at bargain-basement prices?
    Mr. Lawson: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has asked me that question, because it gives me the opportunity categorically to deny that absurd story. No such statement was made. It is not the Government's policy, and, as usual, The Observer got it wrong. I am surprised that Labour Members believe it.
    Mr. Thurnham: Is not the success of the Government's privatisation policy evident in the way in which productivity has improved? In some cases profits have doubled or trebled, and in the case of the National Freight Corporation they have increased ninefold.
    Mr. Lawson: Almost every company that has been privatised has done signally better since privatisation than it did before. Many chairmen of the companies have made
    488
    that point at their annual meetings. The National Freight Corporation, to which my hon. Friend rightly alluded, has been an outstanding success.

    NHS Expenditure
    Mr. Boyes: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in view of recent representations, he will increase planned public expenditure for 1988–89 on (a) National Health Service provision and (b) education and training.
    Mr. Bernie Grant: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received in relation to his published expenditure plans for (a) the National Health Service and (b) Government expenditure generally.
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Major): The White Paper plans for next year already include increased provision for the Health Service, education and training, as part of the £4·6 billion increase in the total for programmes.
    Mr. Boyes: The Government's attacks on the National Health Service and on the education service are nothing short of political vandalism. Is the Minister aware that in a recent poll 86 per cent. of the people questioned suggested that it would be better to give money to the National Health Service, even if that meant increasing taxation? If cash is available on Budget day, it should be given to improve the National Health Service and the education system, rather than to line the pockets of the Minister's friends in the City.
    Mr. Major: The Government are as concerned as the hon. Gentleman about the National Health Service. The public expenditure plans for next year and for the two subsequent years show an increase of over £1 billion for the Health Service. It is the most substantial cash increase over a period that the Health Service has ever received.
    Mr. Grant: Does the Minister agree that, instead of fiddling around with this large sum of money, it would be better to spend some of it, not only on the Health Service, but on increasing rate support grant for local authorities such as ILEA, which will probably have to make 3,000 teachers redundant? My authority will have to make cuts amounting to £45 million this year. Would it not be better for him to use some of the available money to alleviate the suffering and poverty that the Government have caused?
    Mr. Major: As to the Health Service, I reiterate the point that I made a moment ago: there will be substantial increases in programme expenditure next year amounting to £4½ billion. ILEA, for all the expenditure that it has lavished, has failed to provide a decent education service in London, and I shall be glad to see the end of it.
    Sir William Clark: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the one subject on which Opposition Members are expert is spending other people's money? Does he also agree that throwing public money—taxpayers' money—at, for example, ILEA, with its poor academic record, would be a complete and utter waste of money, just as lavishing taxpayers' money on the National Health Service without cuts — [HON MEMBERS: "Cuts?"] — without improvements in efficiency would be a derogation of the Government's duty?
    Mr. Major: The Government are certainly keen to see increased efficiency in the National Health Service, and

    489
    the cost-improvement programmes have provided that to a certain extent. We hope to see more efficiency in the future.
    ILEA is a uniquely high-spending authority. Moreover, I doubt whether it gives value for money. It employs two and a half times as many administrators per pupil as the average; twice as many non-teaching staff per pupil as the average; and its spending on the youth service is two and a half times that of even the most generous inner-city partnership. Clearly, it spends far more than it ought, and in the wrong way.
    Mr. Andrew MacKay: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us have noted that in real terms the Government have spent a lot more on the National Health Service, but, all the same, many of us believe that the problems of the NHS are much more complex and cannot be solved just by throwing more taxpayers' money at it? A radical review of the whole service 40 years on would be better than spending extra money willy-nilly.
    Mr. Major: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend and hope that we shall have such a radical review. I take my hon. Friend's point about the increase over retail prices. The increase in expenditure is well over 30 per cent. since 1979, which far outstrips that provided by any previous Government.
    Mr. Beith: Does the Chief Secretary not recognise that, in real terms, taking the level of price increases in the economy as a whole, the increase for the Health Service this year is only 1·2 per cent., that it is likely to be less than that when the generally higher costs of the Health Service are taken into account, and that it will be nothing at all if the health authorities are expected to fund any part of the nurses' pay review? Why does he not respond to the massive public concern on that matter?
    Mr. Major: I take the hon. Gentleman's underlying point that "real terms" can be defined in more than one way. We are both aware of that. However, in terms of the normal definition of "real terms", with the income-generation schemes and the cost-improvement schemes, the National Health Service will receive a real terms increase of about 3 per cent. next year.
    On the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question, we will, as usual, consider that matter when we have the report of the Nurses Pay Review Body, and we shall then decide whether we can accept it. Other matters will follow from there.
    Mr. Sayeed: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government's expenditure plans show that spending on social security, health and education alone account for 60 per cent. of total Government expenditure—the highest proportion ever? Does he agree that those areas of massive public expenditure show rises even after the application of the overall GDP deflator?
    Mr. Major: The figures may be even larger than my hon. Friend suggests, but his underlying premise is entirely correct.
    Mr. Gordon Brown: Does the Chief Secretary not find it surprising that no one — the British Medical Association, the National Association of Health Authorities in England and Wales or the Royal College of Nursing — agrees with him that the Health Service is properly funded? Given that he has had to concede that he has a Contingency Fund of £3·5 billion, will he now
    490
    allay the fears of health authorities throughout the country which are faced with having to budget for cuts and closures? Will he state today that he can and will fully fund the nurses' and health workers' pay settlements?
    Mr. Major: We have not — [Interruption] If hon. Gentleman— —[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister has been asked a question.
    Mr. Major: The provision for the National Health Service for next year has been substantially increased. Those who question the size of the increase simply have not taken into account the enormously increased provisions that have been made. It would be more helpful if the hon. Gentleman would concern himself with reality rather than with fiction.

    Cider
    Mr. Colin Shepherd: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what he anticipates will be the yield from taxation on cider in the year 1987–88.
    The Paymaster General (Mr. Peter Brooke): About £55 million excluding VAT.
    Mr. Shepherd: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that since the tax heights of 1984 to 1985 tax revenue has failed to come up to expectation? Since then more than 500 jobs in the cider industry have been lost in Hereford alone and sales are stagnant across the industry despite massively increased promotional efforts. Will my right hon. Friend bear that point in mind in formulating his Budget proposals?
    Mr. Brooke: I cannot anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget, but he is fully aware of the views and the circumstances of the cider makers and will take them into account when he makes his Budget decisions.

    Forestry
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received over the present taxation status of forestry development.
    Mr. Norman Lamont: As is customary at this time of the year, my right hon. Friend has received a number of representations on a wide range of subjects.
    Mr. Bennett: I thank the Minister for such a full and helpful answer. Does he accept that there has been widespread criticism of that relief from the Nature Conservancy Council, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the Council for the Protection of Rural England and many others? It is rumoured that Prince Charles is to make a speech in the other place that will be critical of that relief— —
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not to be called in aid in this place.
    Mr. Bennett: Many others have argued strongly that we should not destroy the natural environment of Britain by the indiscriminate planting of trees. If the Government are not prepared to take away that tax relief and use the money more usefully in the Health Service, will they consider using it for the planting of hedgerows, which would be much more useful environmentally?
    Mr. Lamont: The points that the hon. Gentleman has made have been among the representations that we have

    491
    received. However, the encouragement of forestry is extremely important to the rural economy and it has been Government policy for many years.
    Mr. Chapman: I commend the Government for encouraging tree-planting schemes, not least because I am president of the Arboricultural Association. Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that it is not the tax regime that needs changing to promote forestry development? It is necessary to ensure that trees are planted in the right places, and not in environmentally sensitive areas.
    Mr. Lamont: I have noted my hon. Friend's suggestion. There has been some recent criticism along those lines.
    Mr. Henderson: Does the Minister accept that the tax regime on trees has not led to any significant increase in planting? Instead, it has provided a tax haven for pop stars and film stars. Does the Minister accept that he has allowed the taxpayer to be ripped off?
    Mr. Lamont: I note what the hon. Gentleman has said. I cannot accept that there has been no increase in planting. Indeed, the environmental concern is that there has been too much planting of conifers.

    Manufacturing Investment
    Mr. Burt: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the latest projections for the growth of manufacturing investment in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Major: Manufacturing investment is projected to increase by 11 per cent. in real terms in 1988, according to the Department of Trade and Industry's latest investment intentions survey.
    Mr. Burt: Those figures are just the tonic for those concerned about the growth of manufacturing industry. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the significant increase in industrial productivity since 1981 means that investors should hold their nerve and that their confidence should remain high? Confidence is threatened only by the Jeremiahs on the Opposition Benches.
    Mr. Major: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Since 1979 manufacturing productivity growth has continued at a substantial level, and for the past year at a rate of 6½ per cent.
    Mr. Robert Sheldon: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen today's quarterly survey from the Manchester chamber of commerce and industry, which represents by far the largest part of industry in the Greater Manchester area? Will he note that expected manufacturing investments are less than they were previously? They all seem to want reductions in interest rates to reverse that trend. As the report was published only after the increase in interest rates, what does the Minister intend to do to restore the expectation of manufacturing investment?
    Mr. Major: I cannot agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the survey is as pessimistic as he painted it. It paints an optimistic picture, and rightly so. Manufacturing investment is growing strongly. The right hon. Gentleman will recall that the CBI's January quarterly trend survey showed that investment intentions still remain strong. Manufacturing investment is doing exceedingly well at present, and I share the right hon. Gentleman's wish that it should continue to do so.
    Mr. Budgen: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Ford pay dispute is unfortunate because it inhibits investment and is a clear sign of overheating in the economy?
    Mr. Major: With great respect to my hon. Friend, it would be unwise to read overheating into every indicator. Improvements on the supply side since 1979 mean that firms can operate at a much higher rate of capacity utilisation than before, and my hon. Friend's concern may be a little overdone. In any event, if overheating were to appear, there is no doubt that the Government would not hesitate to take action against inflationary pressures.
    Mr. Holland: When will the Chief Secretary realise that he cannot fool all the people all the time on manufacturing investment? The reality is that, in real terms 1980 prices, manufacturing investment now is 10 per cent. below what it was in 1979. Even if the CBI forecast of an 8 per cent. increase this year were achieved, the 1979 level would still not be reached, and this is at a time when the world economy is slowing down. When will the right hon. Gentleman pursue policies which, in the long term, will ensure that savings go into manufacturing investment so that we can rebuild the competitive economy?
    Mr. Major: The end product of investment is productivity and profitability, and the quality of investment, as well as its quantum, are extremely important, and those have improved. The evidence of higher profitability and better productivity suggests that investment has been running at a high level and that it has been quality investment.

    Business Starts
    Mr. Key: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by how much business starts have exceeded stops between 1979 and 1986.
    Mr. Brooke: Over the seven years from January 1980 to December 1986 the net increase in the number of businesses registered for VAT averaged 500 a week.
    Mr. Key: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on creating the economic framework that has led to the successful figures that he has announced, and will he join me in congratulating those who create the wealth —mostly the self-employed, small business men and the enterprise agencies — on achieving that magnificent figure?
    Mr. Brooke: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's enthusiasm. Since 1979 the number of self-employed is estimated to have increased by more than a third to 2·7 million up to the end of 1986. Of those companies registered for VAT, a majority have a turnover of less than £250,000 and constitute 20 per cent. of the nation's turnover, and enterprise agencies now number 350. I agree with my hon. Friend on the contribution that all three have made to the creation of jobs.
    Mr. Skinner: Does not the right hon. Gentleman's original answer, that 500 extra businesses per week register for VAT, hide the real fact that there were more than 100,000 bankruptcies and insolvencies in the business sector between 1979 and 1986 — the highest record at any time in Britain's history? That is one reason why my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland) was

    493
    able to point out that manufacturing investment is lower now than it was in 1979 when that lot on the Conservative Benches came into power.
    Mr. Brooke: The hon. Gentleman is correct in thinking that I was quoting a net figure. There is always an element of risk in setting up any business, but that is what enterprise is all about. The hon. Gentleman will be encouraged to hear that bankruptcies last year were falling.
    Mr. Devlin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that over 6,000 new firms come on to the market in the north-east of England every year and that about 10,000 people are self-employed on Teesside alone? Is that not convincing proof that the Government's policies in the north-east of England are working just as well as, if not better than, they are in other parts?
    Mr. Brooke: I salute my hon. Friend for his constant championing of firms in the north-east.

    Tax Relief
    Mr. Home Robertson: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what average income tax relief has been received by a taxpayer earning £50,000 each year since 1979 at 1987 prices.
    Mr. Norman Lamont: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) on 14 January 1988 at colunm 390 in the Official Report.
    Mr. Home Robertson: I do not think that I have a direct interest in this question. However, how can the Minister possibly justify the giving of tax handouts of well over £10,000 a year to the richest 1 per cent. of people in the country at a time when the National Health Service, its patients and staff, are suffering the effect of a financial squeeze? Why should hospital patients in my constituency face the closure of their hospitals to subsidise the very rich?
    Mr. Lamont: The hon. Gentleman does not seem to have noticed that cutting rates is quite compatible with increasing revenue. As all my hon. Friends behind me know, the top 5 per cent. of income groups now pay a larger proportion of income tax than they did before the Government's tax cuts. It could be said that as a result of those tax cuts there has been more, not less, money for the National Health Service.
    Sir Ian Lloyd: Does not the deplorable term "tax handout" imply that the whole of an individual's income belongs in the first place to the state, and that it is at the discretion of the state that he is allowed to enjoy some of it?
    Mr. Lamont: My hon. Friend is absolutely right.
    Ms. Armstrong: I wonder whether the Minister will give us an assurance that his priority this year will be to ensure that those who have done well from his economy will be enabled to support the Health Service, and not to profit personally in the way that he has described them as being able to do in the past six years?
    Mr. Lamont: The purpose of my right hon. Friend's Budgets in the past has certainly been to produce policies that benefit all the people in the country, and the result of our tax cutting has been that the take-home pay, or
    494
    disposable income, of a person on average earnings has increased by more than 20 per cent. That is how the policies of this Government have been in the interests of all the people.
    Mr. David Shaw: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, whereas the Labour Government attempted to squeeze until the pips squeaked and collected only about £800 million from the higher rates of tax, this Government, by increasing growth in the economy with the consequent increase in incomes, now collect some £3,800 million from the higher rates of tax? Does that not augur well for a Budget in which tax cuts among the higher rates might be considered?
    Mr. Lamont: As my hon. Friend knows, I cannot anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget. However, I entirely agree with his point about the results of cuts in the top rates hitherto. The top 5 per cent. were previously paying some 24 per cent. of income tax revenues. That has now increased to nearly 30 per cent., amply illustrating my hon. Friend's point.
    Dr. Marek: Does the Financial Secretary deny that those earning £50,000 a year or more have been gaining £10,000 a year under his regime? Does he deny that anyone earning £450 a week or less is now paying more tax—both in real, cash terms and as a proportion of income—than in 1978–79?
    Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that that now produces a disincentive effect, with the top rate at 60 per cent., and that there is therefore a case for cutting it? Or does he believe that the rich are due for yet another handout? If he believes the former, what is his hard evidence, as opposed to hearsay? If he believes the latter, will he simply admit it?
    Mr. Lamont: As I said, I shall not anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget. The only point that I was making about the cuts in higher rates was that, in my opinion, they have been in the overwhelming interest of the country, and the revenue figures show that. The figures also illustrate that those on half average earnings have done a great deal better under this Government than they did under the Labour Government.

    Productivity
    Mr. Patnick: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the growth of productivity in the United Kingdom economy over the period since 1980.
    Mr. Andrew Mitchell: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the growth of productivity in the United Kingdom economy over the period since 1980.
    Mr. Brooke: From 1980 to the third quarter of 1987 output per head in the whole economy has grown at an average rate of 2¾ per cent. per year, similar to that of Japan, and faster than all other major industrialised countries.
    Mr. Patnick: How does the figure that my right hon. Friend has just announced compare with figures in the 1970s?
    Mr. Brooke: Productivity growth in the whole economy has averaged about 2 per cent. per annum since the cyclical peak of 1979. That is nearly twice as fast as the average annual growth between 1973 and 1979, when, as I recollect, another party was in power.
    Mr. Mitchell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the very low productivity which used to characterise our economy and which got to the heart of our national economic ills has now been replaced by increasing and increased productivity, which is why we shall compete so effectively and why we are the envy of our Western industrialised competitors?
    Mr. Brooke: I totally concur with my hon. Friend's question. It is significant that United Kingdom manufacturing output per head has increased since 1979 at six times the rate it increased between 1973 and 1979.
    Mr. McFall: Given the issue of investment, will the Chancellor reflect on exports and imports? Is the Chancellor proud of the fact that since 1979 manufactured imports have risen twice as fast as exports? Why has the Prime Minister broken the pledge she made in 1979 that the Tories would create conditions for our factories and workshops that would produce manufactured goods, so that the customers of the world would be scrambling over each other to buy them? Is it by design, or by sheer incompetence on the part of the Government, that such a disastrous imbalance in manufactured goods has been achieved?
    Mr. Brooke: The question that I was asked related to productivity rather than to investment and exports, but manufacturing output and productivity have been increasing even more rapidly than the rest of the economy.
    Mr. Barry Jones: How can the Minister concur so boastfully when, as recently as 1986, Britain imported cars, textiles and steel to the value of £8 billion? Is that not a ruinous rate of imports? What will he do about that?
    Mr. Brooke: As I remarked a moment ago, the question related to productivity rather to than imports.
    Mr. John Townend: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the increase in productivity has resulted in a significant increase in profitability and that the taxes from profits pouring into the Treasury will give the Chancellor the opportunity in the Budget to do what no Chancellor has been able to do in the past 50 years—to balance the budget, reduce taxation and increase public expenditure by the £4·6 billion laid down in the White Paper on public expenditure?
    Mr. Brooke: I cannot anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget, but the scenario my hon. Friend describes sounds attractive.
    Mr. John Smith: If the Minister is correct in obtaining some satisfaction from productivity figures, why did Britain have a surplus in the balance of trade on manufactured goods of £5 million in 1979 and a deficit last year of £8 billion, which is deteriorating? What is the point of so-called increases in productivity if we cannot compete successfully with our competitors? What will the Government do about the balance of payments?
    Mr. Brooke: The economy is competing successfully and we have maintained our share of manufactured exports in world trade in a manner unknown in recent generations.

    Tax Changes
    Mr. Kirkwood: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the distributional effects of the changes in direct and indirect taxation have been since 1979.
    Mr. Norman Lamont: The effect has been that real take-home pay has increased by at least 18 per cent. at all multiples of average earnings.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Does the Minister accept that most commentators now take the view that the burden of increased taxation since 1979 has fallen more heavily on the lower paid, part-time workers? Is he aware that if he takes the opportunity coming to him in the next few weeks to indulge in across-the-board cuts that will simply mean that the relative advantage will be given to those on higher levels of income? When will he take steps to redress the balance?
    Mr. Lamont: The hon. Gentleman may not have heard my answer, which was that all income groups have enjoyed increases in take-home pay of at least 18½ per cent. When one considers the proportion of tax and national insurance at all levels of income and compares that with the regime that we inherited in 1979, if that had been adjusted only for inflation, it will be seen that everybody is paying substantially less tax and national insurance at all levels of income.
    Mr. Leigh: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the Social and Liberal Democrats are really concerned to help the lower paid they would be better advised to look beyond ideas such as putting VAT on children's clothes, and look instead to the example set by the Labour Government in New Zealand, where they are abolishing all higher rates of income tax, thus giving a real boost to productivity and growth, and to everybody's income?
    Mr. Lamont: I note my hon. Friend's suggestion. I am sure that he will understand if we are extremely careful in responding when we are so near to the Budget.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the Minister rule out now the destruction of jobs that will take place if VAT is put on newspapers?
    Mr. Lamont: The hon. Gentleman knows that I cannot anticipate the Budget.

    Borrowing Requirement
    Mr. Tim Smith: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he now anticipates a public sector surplus rather than a public sector borrowing requirement in 1987–88.
    Mr. Lawson: I shall be publishing a new forecast in the Budget in the usual way.
    Mr. Smith: Is it not clear that there is now every prospect of a balanced Budget, or a public sector lending requirement surplus? Will this not be the best performance since the early 1950s, with the exception of the year 1969–70? As my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townsend) said, does that not offer the prospect of a tax-cutting, expenditure-rising, balanced Budget on 15 March?
    Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend will understand that there is no way in which I can anticipate my Budget today, but I can tell him and the House that public finances at present are fundamentally sounder than they have been at any time since the war, and I intend to keep them that way.
    Mr. Salmond: Does the Chancellor remember that the last Chancellor to anticipate a public sector borrowing

    497
    surplus was Roy Jenkins, now Lord Jenkins? Does the Chancellor expect that his career will follow the same glittering progress?
    Mr. Lawson: I have never before been compared to the noble Lord Jenkins. [Interruption.] I have long since given up drinking claret. He was, of course, Chancellor of the Exchequer for only a relatively short time.
    Mr. Ralph Howell: Will my right hon. Friend give top priority to raising the tax thresholds in his forthcoming Budget, to help restore incentives to work and help the lower paid generally?
    Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend is quite right. He has been waging a campaign for a long time pointing out the importance of reductions in income tax to create incentives and to help the lower paid, and indeed all those in the economy, to make the economy stronger. I think he will agree that the economy is now very much stronger, and one of the reasons for that, although not by any means the only one, is that we have been pursuing a policy of reducing levels of income tax.
    Mr. John Smith: If Britain's public finances are as sound as the Chancellor says, why are the Government not spending the money where it is desperately needed, in the National Health Service? Or does the Chancellor now tell us that enough is being spent on the Health Service? Will he give us a direct answer?
    Mr. Lawson: I shall say two things to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. First, as my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury said in answer to an earlier question, we have provided in this most recent public expenditure White Paper for the biggest ever increases in spending on the National Health Service in the next three years. Secondly, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has already made clear, health provision is currently under review by the Government. Finally, I make it clear to him that anybody who knows anything about provision of health care in the National Health Service in this country knows that the problems—and there are problems—go far beyond the simple question of funding.

    Personal Disposable Income
    Mr. Redwood: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the growth of real personal disposable income since 1983.
    Mr. Lawson: Real personal disposable income has grown by 13 per cent. since 1983.
    Mr. Redwood: Does my right hon. Friend agree that that excellent figure shows that policies that promote enterprise, competition and fiscal prudence certainly deliver the goods?
    Mr. Lawson: They do, and they will continue to do so.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: Is the Chancellor aware that figures put forward by the Family Studies Institute suggest that, under this Chancellor, the rich have become richer and the poor have become poorer? Should we not have a strategy against poverty, beginning with the scrapping of the notorious social fund, which the Government are determined to introduce in April?
    Mr. Lawson: The studies to which the hon. Gentleman referred were based on incorrect data and we are writing
    498
    to the institute to point that out. The truth of the matter is that, at all income levels, the vast majority of the people of this country have seen a substantial increase in their living standards since the Government came to office.

    Overseas Assets
    Mr. Chapman: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give his latest estimate of the United Kingdom's net assets overseas.
    Mr. Major: At the end of 1986 the United Kingdom's net assets overseas were estimated at £114 billion.
    Mr. Chapman: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that that is a huge increase in recent years? Does he agree that the net income from those assets is highly beneficial to our economy? Does not all this underline the success of the previous Chancellor's decision eight years ago to abolish exchange controls?
    Mr. Major: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. He is right in both his propositions. The net income in the first three quarters of the present year amounted to £5·4 billion, and the abolition of exchange controls was wholly welcome and beneficial.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Miss Lestor: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 11 February.
    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): I have been asked to reply.
    My right hon. Friend is in Brussels for a meeting of the European Council.
    Miss Lestor: Will the right hon. Gentleman take time today to put pressure on his colleagues in the Ministry of Defence to answer the criticisms of the Comptroller and Auditor General about the privatisation of the Royal Ordnance factories, one of which is in my constituency? The Minister refused to answer those criticisms, which point out that that privatisation cost this country tens of millions of pounds, that dividends were waived to make the company more attractive and that the delay in the transfer of pension rights and redundancy pay made this whole operation exceedingly expensive. Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that, before further privatisation takes place, some answers should be given to the complaints of the Auditor General?
    Mr. Wakeham: I think that the hon. Lady misses the important point. The important point is that there were difficulties in the armaments procurement industry. That industry will do much better under privatisation than it ever would under state control.
    Mr. Teddy Taylor: Has my right hon. Friend seen the quite astonishing economic progress report, published by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which shows that the average British family is having to spend £11 per week more for food, simply because of the price support for the CAP? Does he agree that in no circumstances should the Government agree to extra resources going to the EEC as long as the Common Market is spending £233 million per week on dumping and destroying food and £50 million per week on financing fraud?
    Mr. Wakeham: As my hon. Friend knows, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is in Brussels at the European Council dealing with some of those very difficult issues. I know that she goes with the best wishes and strong support of the vast majority of the British people.
    Mr. Hattersley: Is the Lord President aware of the growing concern, both in this country and among our allies, over the Government's deplorable decision not to follow the Stalker-Sampson report with appropriate prosecutions? Does he realise that it is now essential that the affair — the shoot-to-kill RUC conspiracy and Special Branch involvement—be cleared up by a judicial inquiry? Are the Government prepared to set up such an inquiry?
    Mr. Wakeham: The Government are not prepared to set up a judicial inquiry. The matter has been the subject of a very thorough and detailed investigation, at the end of which the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland reached his decision. A further inquiry would be unnecessary and inappropriate.
    Mr. Hattersley: Does the Lord President not realise the damage that that answer does both to our reputation abroad and to the prospects of lasting peace in Northern Ireland? How can the Government hope to establish the rule of law in Northern Ireland if they manipulate the law themselves? How can they expect to end the domination, dominance and role of the IRA if they are prepared to allow criminal conspiracy to go ahead without taking appropriate action?
    Mr. Wakeham: Those are disgraceful remarks. Surely if any damage is done, it is by allegations that the Director of Public Prosecutions in Northern Ireland did not act independently and properly in accordance with his duties.
    Mr. Hattersley: The Lord President either deludes himself or seeks to deceive others. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw".]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We do not deceive each other in this Chamber.
    Mr. Hattersley: I withdraw that at once. The Lord President either deceives himself or seeks to delude others. The Attorney-General made it absolutely clear that there was a case to answer but that he chose not to answer it. The Lord President has to defend that, and not some other charge.
    Mr. Wakeham: The Attorney-General made a clear statement in the House and indicated the reasons why, in the national interest, he had made his decision. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will make a statement in the House on the disciplinary matters and matters of control of the RUC that arise from that decision. The right hon. Gentleman will have to wait for that.
    Sir John Biggs-Davison: When the Prime Minister in Brussels talks to the Taoiseach, with whom she got on very well on an earlier occasion, will she tell him that the British people are prepared to accept the interference of the Irish Republic in the internal affairs of the United Kingdom only to the extent that he is prepared to accept British interference in the affairs of the Irish Republic?
    Mr. Wakeham: I am not privy to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will say to the Taoiseach in
    500
    Brussels, but I know that she will seek to deal with the matter in the best way possible, that is, to recognise that the Anglo-Irish accord is something that we believe to be important, and hope to get over some of the difficulties.
    Mr. Mallon: Will the Leader of the House confirm that since 1969 166 people who were not members of paramilitary organisations and were not involved in violence have been killed by the security forces in Northern Ireland? Will he further confirm that in those 166 cases there have been three convictions? What plans have the Government to ensure that the law will apply in Northern Ireland without fear or favour equally to every person?
    Mr. Wakeham: I cannot confirm the figures that the hon. Gentleman gave. He may well be right. I think that in anybody who atempts to deal with the difficult issues in Northern Ireland a recognition of some of the people who are the victims of terrorism would be appropriate.
    Mr. Rowe: Does my right hon. Friend agree that among the many remarkable achievements of Comic Relief was the quality of the films used to educate the British public about events and about the handicapped at home and abroad? Will he therefore consult his right hon. Friends about the possibility of the BBC and ITV making available— —
    Mr. Speaker: Briefly, please.
    Mr. Rowe: —to Departments these remarkable films for the use of voluntary organisations?
    Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend is right. Unfortunately, I was appearing on a rival channel while that was going on. I shall certainly pass the remarks of my hon. Friend to the appropriate quarters.
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 11 February.
    Mr. Wakeham: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Bruce: In the light of the Appeal Court decision yesterday, will the Lord President of the Council acknowledge that the Government have brought confidence in the public security services in this country into disrepute by identifying the Conservative Government and party interest with the national and public interest? In the light of the judges' comments yesterday, would it not now be appropriate to set up a Committee of the House, composed of senior Privy Councillors, to help restore confidence in the objectivity of determining what is the national security interest?
    Mr. Wakeham: I do not believe that by his question the hon. Gentleman meant to impugn the integrity of the judges who dealt with the case. The case remains before the courts, and I have no intention of commenting. The Government remain determined to uphold the principle of confidentiality, without which the security services could not function effectively to protect our freedom.
    Mr. Sayeed: My right hon. Friend will be aware that, for solely demographic reasons, the number of 18-yearolds available to enter the nursing profession is likely to decline dramatically. Is it, therefore, not regrettable that so few health authorities encourage, retrain and consider

    501
    the special needs of young nurses who have young families and who wish to re-enter the profession after having been married?
    Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend makes a valid point, and I am sure that all those who have responsibilies for the matter will take it on board.
    Mr. Pike: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 11 February.
    Mr. Wakeham: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Pike: Is the Lord President of the Council aware of a letter sent to hon. Members representing constituencies in the north-west by Dr. Thistlethwaite and other paediatricians in the north-west region about cutbacks and closures at St. Mary's hospital in Manchester? Does he realise that those paediatricians warn of the dire consequences if those closures and reductions in service take place, and that they may result in the deaths of babies? Will he recognise that there is a crisis in the Health Service and that the solution lies in the Government's hands? When will they adopt it?
    Mr. Wakeham: I do not recognise the analysis that the hon. Gentleman gave. The Health Service is receiving this year the greatest increase in income it has every received. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister left me a note for the hon. Gentleman when she went away. She told me that I was to remind him that capital expenditure in his district increased by £16·5 million—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman did ask for figures.
    Mr. Cash: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 11 February.
    Mr. Wakeham: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Cash: Does my right hon. Friend share my deep concern about the organised violence—not merely the mindless hooliganism — at sporting events recently, including that at Bingley Hall in my constituency at the world title fight, and that reported today as having occurred in the Greater Manchester area? Will the Government consider taking improved powers to apprehend these thugs before they create havoc such as they created at those events?
    Mr. Wakeham: I certainly share my hon. Friend's concern, and I believe that the House would wish to congratulate the police on their excellent work. The measures taken by the Government, the football authorities, the clubs and others have helped to tackle the menace of football hooliganism. There is still some way to go, and the disgraceful scenes on Sunday were deeply disturbing. I can assure my hon. Friend that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will keep his suggestions—and others— in mind as possible ways of tackling the problem.
    Mr. McCartney: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 11 February.
    Mr. Wakeham: I have been asked to reply.
    502
    I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. McCartney: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Rachmanism is flourishing in Lambeth under a company called Toddingtons Ltd., in which the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) is the majority shareholder? This week it is evicting a Mr. Fisher, who has lived there with his sick mother for 14 years and who is unemployed. He is being evicted on the grounds that his mother has had to go into hospital.
    Is it not outrageous that Rachmanism still abounds? Does the Leader of the House agree with the Labour party policy that people in the private sector should have the same right to buy from absentee landlords?
    Mr. Wakeham: I am somewhat sceptical about what the hon. Gentleman said. He knows perfectly well that if he has anything of that sort to say he should deliver it to the police and not try to make party capital out of it. The fact of the matter is that no hon. Member would want anything to do with Rachmanism or anything like it. The Housing Bill brought in by my right hon. Friend and at present before Parliament will do a great deal more to improve the housing conditions of millions of people in this country than anything done by the Opposition.
    Mr. Adley: Returning to things that are the responsibility of the Government, is my right hon. Friend aware that, following the Prime Minister's visit to the Channel tunnel, I have written to her asking whether she could obtain, for the benefit of the House, precise information as to the levels of investment and the criteria for that investment as between the French Government and SNCF on the one hand and the British Government and British Rail on the other? Will my right hon. Friend assist me and the House to obtain that information so that we may assess the relative actions of the two Governments in providing the necessary public infrastructure to maximise the advantage of the tunnel?
    Mr. Wakeham: I will certainly refer that matter to my right hon. Friend. I cannot give my hon. Friend the answer that he wants here and now.
    Mr. Flannery: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 11 February.
    Mr. Wakeham: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Flannery: Will the Lord President turn his mind again to the question of Northern Ireland? Is there not a pervasive and growing stench about the refusal of the Attorney-General to engage in prosecutions in connection with the killing of those people, who were unarmed, especially the young man in the hay shed? Does he not realise that if there is not a judicial inquiry under the 1921 Act this will grow and grow? It will not go away, and it will sour relations with the Republic.
    Mr. Wakeham: The first thing that the hon. Gentleman must get absolutely straight is that it was not the decision of the Attorney-General; it was the decision of the DPP not to prosecute.

Business of the House
3.31 pm
Mr. Frank Dobson: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 15 FEBRUARY—Until seven o'clock private Members' motions.
Debate on agriculture on a motion for the Adjournment of the House. Details of the EC document relevant to the debate will be given in the Official Report.
TUESDAY 16 FEBRUARY — Remaining stages of the Immigration Bill.
Motion on the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984 (Continuance) Order.
WEDNESDAY 17 FEBRUARY—Debate on a Government motion on the abolition of the Inner London education authority.
Supplemental timetable motion on the Education Reform Bill.
Motions on the Rate Support Grant Supplementary Report (England) (No. 3) 1986–87, (No. 4) 1983–84 and (No. 4) 1984–85.
THURSDAY 18 FEBRUARY—Until about seven o'clock motions relating to Social Fund regulations. Details will be given in the Official Report.
Motion on the Rate Limitation (Prescribed Maximum) (Rates) Order.
FRIDAY 19 FEBRUARY—Private Members' motions.
MONDAY 22 FEBRUARY—Second Reading of the British Steel Bill.
[Debate on Monday 15 February
Relevant European Community Document:

4165/88

Agricultural Land: Set aside and extensification

Relevant MAFF Documents:

Unnumbered

Explanatory Memorandum dated 27 January 1988

Agricultural Land: Set aside and extensification

Addendum dated 12 February 1988

Relevant Report of European Legislation Committee: HC 43-xiii (1987–88) para 1.
Debate on Thursday 18 February 1988
Social Fund (Application for Review) Regulations 1988 (S.I. 1988, No. 34).
Social Fund (Recovery by Deductions from Benefits) Regulations 1988 (S.I. 1988, No. 35).
Social Fund Maternity and Funeral Expenses (General) Amendment Regulations 1988 (S.I. 1988, No. 36)].
Mr. Dobson: I thank the Leader of the House for his statement.
In view of his answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), when does the Leader of the House intend to find time to debate the Stalker-Sampson report, which raises fundamental issues affecting the rule of law? Will he give an undertaking that if any prosecutions following that report are to be announced, they will be announced in this House and not in some hole-and-corner manner?
While we welcome the extra time given to debate the Inner London education authority, surely the Leader of
504
the House realises that what is needed is a new and separate Bill—that is, if he cannot persuade his right hon. and hon. Friends to abandon this vandalistic measure altogether.
Will the Leader of the House take steps to ensure that Thursday's debate on the rate-capping orders does not clash with the Committee stage of the poll tax Bill, because even the Secretary of State for the Environment cannot be in two places at once?
When will the House have the opportunity to debate the new packaging around the DTI, particularly as a debate on that is already scheduled for the House of Lords?
Can the Leader of the House tell us when there is likely to be a debate on the public expenditure White Paper, and also when there is likely to be a debate, in Government time, on the arts?
Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman has asked a number of questions. First, on the Stalker-Sampson report, I have already said to the House that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will make a statement to the House shortly. I believe that any other questions of debate and so on can be left until after that statement has been made.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the debate on ILEA next week. He suggested that it would be easier to proceed my means of a new Bill. I do not agree. Indeed, in last week's debate he suggested that the amendments to the current Bill would be out of order. If that is true, the hon. Gentleman will be proved right, but I believe that the amendments will be in order. I shall be arranging for the supplemental timetable motion to be tabled this afternoon. In addition to the day's debate that I have announced for next week, provision will be made for a further day on Report stage of the Education Reform Bill as well as additional time in the Standing Committee.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about the debate on the rate limitation order and wondered whether the Committee should sit while that debate took place on the Floor of the House. That matter can be discussed through the usual channels.
I recognise the need for a debate on DTI matters in view of the number of initiatives that my right hon. Friend has taken. I shall certainly refer the matter to him, but I cannot promise a debate immediately.
There will be a debate fairly soon on public expenditure, but we are awaiting the report of the Select Committee.
I recognise that a debate on the arts is an extremely important matter and it is something I have in mind for the not too distant future.
Sir Bernard Braine: With reference to what is happening in Austria and the responsibility, in one aspect, of the British Government, is my right hon. Friend aware that the six British commandos, captured off Greece in 1944, were done to death under Hitler's infamous commando order? Everyone in the German Army at that time, whether their name was Waldheim or anything else, knew about that commando order. Indeed, two years previously six British Royal Marines—the Cockleshell heroes—were done to death under that order. In that case, however, there was a reckoning after the war and a war crimes trial. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that the action of those who destroyed the evidence

505
in the case of the commandos captured off Greece will be questioned and that there will be a thorough inquiry? Can the appropriate Minister make a statement to the House next week?
Mr. Wakeham: I recognise my right hon. Friend's concern about these matters and I know that it is shared in many parts of the House. The British Government take seriously all allegations, especially when British service men are involved. We shall look at all the new information, but I cannot promise an early statement on the matter.
Mr. David Steel: Has the Leader of the House seen the following early-day motions:
No. 653:
[That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Royal Ulster Constabulary Reserve ( Part-time) (Discipline and Disciplinary Appeals) Regulations 1988 (S.R.(N.I.), 1988, No. 8), dated 15th January 1988, a copy of which was laid before this House on 5th February, be annulled.]
No. 654:
[That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Royal Ulster Constabulary (Complaints etc.) Regulations 1988 (S.R.(N.I.), 1988, No. 9), dated 15th January 1988, a copy of which was laid before this House on 5th February, be annulled.]
No. 655:
[That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Royal Ulster Constabulary (Discipline and Disciplinary Appeals) Regulations 1988 (S.R. (N.I.), 1988, No. 10), dated 15th January 1988, a copy of which was laid before this House on 5th February, be annulled.]
No. 656:
[That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Royal Ulster Constabulary (Complaints) (Informal Resolution) Regulations 1988 (S.R.(N.I.), 1988, No. 11), dated 15th January 1988, a copy of which was laid before this House on 5th February, be annulled.]
The Leader of the House will note that they are in the form of prayers set down by myself and my hon. Friends relating to the Royal Ulster Constabulary. If the right hon. Gentleman provides time for those prayers to be debated, it will enable us to discuss the Stalker-Sampson inquiry in the light of the Attorney-General's statement and the forthcoming statement from the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I hope that he will respond positively to that suggestion.
Mr. Wakeham: I recognise that that might be a way out, but I think that I should best discuss it through the usual channels.
Sir Anthony Grant: Will my right hon. Friend again consider early-day motion 372:
[That this House believes that honourable and Right honourable Members should keep their speeches to 10 minutes or less when requested by Mr. Speaker in order to give more backbench Members of all parties an opportunity to speak, excepting only the four principal speakers in each debate.]
It is in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) and concerns the limitation of speeches in the House. Perhaps my right hon. Friend will restore the experiment that was extremely successful
506
in the previous Parliament. In view of the decision that was made this week about televising our proceedings, is it not even more important that there should be a better chance for hon. Members other than Front Bench spokesmen, Privy Councillors and wind-bags?
Mr. Wakeham: I shall not go down that road, but I recognise that there is a demand for such a change. There are a number of other procedural matters that I would like to bring before the House. I am having discussions through the usual channels and with other interested parties, and I hope to make progress as soon as possible.
Mr. Giles Radice: Further to the answer that the Leader of the House gave his right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) about the Austrian question, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Austria's many friends are deeply disturbed by the reports of the international historians' commission to the effect that, despite President Waldheim's denials, he was well aware of atrocities in the Balkans and in Greece? Will the Leader of the House ensure that we have either an early statement or a debate about this matter — particularly about the report in yesterday's edition of The Daily Telegraph that President Waldheim was aware of the torture and execution of six commandos in Salonica in Greece?
Mr. Wakeham: I know of the hon. Gentleman's interest in this matter and of his concern. As I understand it, the international commission of historians has delivered its report to the Austrian Government and the Austrian Government are now considering its report. The British Government will be prepared to consider any reports arising from that inquiry.
Mr. Robert Rhodes James: My right hon. Friend will be aware of my long-standing interest in this matter. I can only reinforce what my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) and the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) have said. The fate of those commandos is of genuine national interest. What happened so long ago is of interest to us as a nation and as a European power. The full truth must be revealed. May I ask my right hon. Friend to ask his colleagues what happened to those files in 1978 that were deliberately destroyed?
Mr. Wakeham: I shall certainly ensure that the contributions of my hon. Friend and of other right hon. and hon. Members are drawn to the attention of my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Bruce Millan: Will the Leader of the House assure us that there will be a statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer early next week on Britoil and the Government's intentions with regard to the use of the golden share? There have been discussions between the Treasury and BP on the one hand and the Treasury and Britoil on the other, but the House has not been informed of the line that the Government have taken in those discussions. In Scotland there is a keen interest in the question whether the Government are genuinely trying to protect Scottish interests in this very important matter or whether they are simply engaged in a sell-out to BP.
Mr. Wakeham: I do not think that I can add anything to what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said when he answered a private notice question on this subject at the beginning of the month. However, I shall refer the right

507
hon. Gentleman's points to him and, if he feels that it is necessary to make a further statement, I am sure that he will.
Mr. James Hill: As we have witnessed the signing of the INF agreement and passed the Arms Control and Disarmament (Privileges and Immunities) Bill to make arrangements for observers and inspectors, and as there is a need to harmonise all the European forces' weaponry, may we have a debate including a discussion of conventional weapons and chemical weapons reductions and, most important of all, the future of the Western European Union as the European pillar of NATO?
Mr. Dennis Skinner: There is a debate today.
Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has taken the words out of my mouth. I was going to say that, with a little ingenuity—of course, this is a matter not for me, but for you, Mr. Speaker—my hon. Friend might well find that some of his points are relevant to today's debate.
Mr. Harold McCusker: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us the difference between "shortly" and "as soon as possible", which was how he described last week the timescale in which we might expect a statement from the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland? Has he any concept of how the people of Northern Ireland feel after three weeks in which the Secretary of State has warned us of a renewed terrorist assault and told us about the new brigade organisation to defend the border and how they feel about the details of the Stalker affair? Can the Leader of the House imagine how the people of Northern Ireland feel about the fact that foreign politicians have been able informally and formally, at Prime Minister level, to discuss matters affecting their daily lives? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware how they feel about their elected representatives being ignored day after day? Two years ago I asked his predecessor whether the elected representatives of Northern Ireland were redundant. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that we are redundant?
Mr. Wakeham: How many times has the hon. Gentleman asked to see my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State but been refused? The hon. Gentleman asked what was the difference between "shortly" and "as soon as possible". "As soon as possible" cannot be shortened, but "shortly" could be shortened.
As to the substantial and serious matter that the hon. Gentleman raised— I do not treat these matters other than seriously—my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has said that he will make a statement. I recognise the concern that the statement should be made as soon as possible. I am sure that the House will recognise that there are serious and weighty matters to be considered. Hon. Members would not want my right hon. Friend to make a statement without having considered all those matters extremely carefully.
Mr. Michael Latham: As to next week's debate on the revised guillotine motion on the Education Reform Bill, will my right hon. Friend ensure that that revised motion, and any subsequent motions
508
relating to the Report stage, leave plenty of time for proper discussion of the role of universities, given the concern about the present drafting of the Bill?
Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend is right. I said during my speech on the timetable motion that the purpose of introducing it was to ensure that all parts of the Bill were properly discussed. As the part of the Bill dealing with universities comes at the end of it, I had that in mind as much as any other matter.
Mr. Frank Cook: I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 499.
[That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Electricity Generating Stations and Overhead Lines (Inquiries Procedure) Rules 1987 (S.I., 1987, No. 2182), dated 16th December 1987, a copy of which was laid before this House on 18th December, be annulled.]
Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the number of praying days allowed for it will be exhausted by next Friday? Will he confirm that there is no provision for it in next week's business anyway? When does he intend to make provision for it, and will he assure the House that that provision will be made on the Floor of the House rather than in Committee?
Mr. Wakeham: I recognise the concern of a number of hon. Members about this matter. A Labour Member raised this matter with me last week. I said that any debate on the subject would have to be agreed through the usual channels. There is a lot of business that we need to get through, but we shall do our best to find time if that is the general wish.
Mr. Anthony Nelson: Following the clear decision of the House on Tuesday regarding an experiment in the televised broadcasting of our proceedings, will my right hon. Friend say what he thinks the next step in this process will be and reaffirm, as he said with such alacrity after the debate, that the Government intend to introduce measures and proposals as soon as is reasonably possible?
Mr. Wakeham: I cannot add anything to what I said in my speech earlier this week. The first step is to set up a Select Committee to look into the matters required of it by the House. Discussions are taking place to work out the best way forward.
Mrs. Maria Fyfe: Will the Leader of the House find time for us to debate the recent activities of the Economic League, which has been spying on innocent British citizens? Will he note that more than 100 hon. Members have signed my early-day motion on that subject? Will he find time for the Scottish Grand Committee to meet to discuss the needs of the Health Service in Scotland? I am sorry to raise two separate issues, but they are both important, and I hope that that is acceptable.
Mr. Wakeham: I advise the hon. Lady that I regard one of those subjects as especially important. Her earlier point was about the Economic League. I cannot promise the hon. Lady a debate on either subject in the immediate future.
Mr. W. Benyon: In view of the timetable motion that has been announced today for next week's business after the usual statutory virility period in

509
that Committee, would it not be sensible to reopen the report of the previous Procedure Committee and to reconsider this matter because it is becoming a farce?
Mr. Wakeham: I know that my hon. Friend has strong views on that matter. In my speech on the timetable motion, I said that I certainly do not accuse the Opposition of any filibustering on the Bill. I brought in the timetable motion to meet many of my hon. Friend's objectives—to see that there is an orderly discussion of the Bill, right the way through its stages, so that all parts of the Bill can be discussed which, I believe, is what the House would like to see.
Mr. Frank Haynes: Will the Leader of the House arrange a debate on the confectionery industry? I have a special interest because I like the product, but at the same time a massive inflow from abroad is affecting the balance of payments and jobs in the confectionery industry in this country. I should like in a debate to refer to Rowntrees and its Black Magic box. Rowntrees has stopped putting in the liquid cherries. I am not going to buy any more boxes and there will be other people like me. That is bound to affect jobs, so we need a debate to try to overcome the problem.
Mr. Wakeham: One gets all sorts of questions in this House. I am not sure that the confectionery industry would be much improved by a debate, but it seems to me that it would be much improved by taking on board some of the better economic conditions in this country and the opportunities for enterprise that have been created under the Government. Let us hope that there is more competition in the industry.
Mr. Andrew MacKay: Notwithstanding the fact that next week the Prime Minister will presumably be making a statement on the European summit in Brussels, would it not be helpful to have a debate soon so that hon. Members of all parties can say clearly to our European partners that we are not prepared to see any increase in the European budget until or unless expenditure is brought under control, which it manifestly is not at the moment?
Mr. Wakeham: These are important issues on which there will have to be time for debate. Although I cannot promise a special debate next week, I draw my hon. Friend's attention to Monday's debate on agriculture to which some EC documents will be relevant. That seems an opportunity on which, with a little skill, my hon. Friend may be able to make points that he wants to make.
Mr. James Lamond: Is the Leader of the House aware that allegations are circulating in the north-west of England that the recent liberal agreement reached with Turkey to allow tremendous imports of acrylic yarn into this country was a quid pro quo by the Prime Minister so that when she visits Turkey shortly she will be able triumphantly to announce that we have obtained a large civil engineering contract? Should not the right hon. Gentleman leave a note for the Prime Minister asking her to come here next week either to confirm or to deny those rumours?
Mr. Wakeham: I cannot give any credence or substantiation to what the hon. Gentleman has said, but I will refer the matter to the Prime Minister.
Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Will my right hon. Friend concede the demand from hon.
510
Members of all parties for an early debate on Northern Ireland? That would give the Government the opportunity of explaining how it is right to give the Irish Republic the right to interfere in the affairs of Northern Ireland when the Minister of Justice for the Irish Republic appears to think that it would be normal and proper in this country for the Government to interfere in the workings and considerations of the Court of Appeal in respect of the Birmingham six case.
Mr. Wakeham: I recognise that my hon. Friend speaks for a large number of hon. Members. We shall have to see what can be done. I stick to my point that we should first have the statement from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
Mr. Greville Janner: Will the right hon. Gentleman please respond to the point made by the right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine), my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) and the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) calling for a statement on the Waldheim affair? Meanwhile, will he ask the Foreign Secretary whether we have in our control any documents that have been removed from the Public Record Office referring to those commandos and seek an assurance from the Foreign Secretary that until the matter is sorted out no British diplomat will attend any function in Austria that is attended by President Waldheim?
Mr. Wakeham: I recognise the hon. and learned Gentleman's strength of feeling. I take on board his point, but I cannot add to what I said to my right hon. Friend the Father of the House.
Mr. Bowen Wells: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many hon. Members have sympathy with his difficulty in fitting the large amount of legislation into the parliamentary programme? In particular, he will know of my concern about the lack of debate on the proposals of the Select Committee on European Legislation that should be debated in the House before Ministers go to the Council of Ministers and make decisions on our behalf, particularly in regard to steel. He will be aware that the Prime Minister is in Brussels, but the House has not had the opportunity to discuss the European Economic Community budget since 1986.
Is it not time to look again at the way in which we deal with European legislation? Would it not be a good idea to set up the Procedure Committee and ask it to make recommendations to the House on how we should properly consider European legislation?
Mr. Wakeham: The way that my hon. Friend has suggested might be helpful. Certainly I recognise that some consideration of European matters has not been as good as it should have been. I apologise to my hon. Friend and to the House for that, but there were special circumstances. It would be right to set up the Procedure Committee. Discussions are taking place, and if a decision is made to discuss that topic, it will have my blessing.
Mr. Tony Banks: As the Prime Minister is away and we can all talk freely, may I assure the Leader of the House that I believe him to be a good loser and that he will not attempt to frustrate the decision taken by the House about televising our proceedings? I do not have similar faith in the right hon. Lady the Prime Minister. I am convinced, having watched her seethe, that

511
she is probably planning at this very moment some hideous and bloody revenge. Will the Leader of the House give an assurance that the Select Committee will not be so packed as to thwart the decision of the House and that the Government will give a firm pledge that they accept that decision and that we will have a fair chance to consider the report of the Select Committee?
Mr. Wakeham: When the hon. Gentleman talks about good losers and congratulating losers, I bow to his greater knowledge and experience in such matters and take it as a compliment. The Prime Minister has always felt that television in the House would benefit her and the Government, and no doubt she will take advantage of the benefit that the House has bestowed upon her. However, she thought that television was not in the interests of Parliament, and that is why she voted as she did.
The House has made a decision. I accept that decision and feel that we should implement it as best we can. The Select Committee will be charged with that task, and I hope that it will represent all sections of the House. I do not believe that any hon. Member should go on that Select Committee and attempt to frustrate the will of the House. That is how we deal with such matters.
Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: As someone who voted in favour of the principle of televising the House but who does not want to be on the Select Committee, may I urge a cautious timetable on my right hon. Friend? When he spoke on Tuesday, he suggested a possible starting date of October. May I suggest that such a deadline is less important than giving the Select Committee plenty of time to examine the technical options? Perhaps it should not conclude its deliberations until the Government bring forward their proposals on the future of broadcasting which will mean more cable and satellite channels which would allow parliamentary programmes to be more generally spread across the spectrum without being squeezed into the duopoly channels that we presently have.
Mr. Wakeham: I do not think that I should add to what I said in the debate. However, I recognise that I put forward an ambitious timetable. We shall set out to do what we can, but I agree that we must have the right answers for a proper experiment. I am delighted to hear that my hon. Friend does not want to serve on the Select Committee. It might be easier if we were to reverse the normal process so that those who do not want to be on the Select Committee write to me and those who do not write I shall assume do. I shall receive fewer letters that way.
Mr. Max Madden: Did the Prime Minister leave the Leader of the House a note saying that she has had second thoughts about robbing many pensioners and others on low incomes of their full entitlement to compensation for the Government's mistake in calculating the retail prices index? The Prime Minister may be one of Britain's richest pensioners, who does not even need to draw her full parliamentary salary, but will the Leader of the House send her a note, while she is wining and dining her way round Europe, saying that many people, such as my constituent, Mr. Jackson, can ill afford to be robbed of £8? This is a matter of public confidence in good government. There is no excuse for the Government robbing pensioners and others on low incomes of their full entitlement.
Mr. Wakeham: The Prime Minister did leave me a note explaining how, when the Government had dealt with the problem of the computer error, which regrettably resulted in an under-payment in pensions, the matter would be put right in a way which was generally acceptable to most people.
Mr. Julian Brazier: In framing the future business of the House, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that early-day motion 275 on the abolition of the dock labour scheme now has 210 signatures?
[That this House believes that the National Dock Labour Scheme is an anachronism which both endangers the viability of jobs in the scheme areas and acts as a deterrent to job creation by new ventures; and calls on Her Majesty's Government to abolish the scheme, and open negotiations immediately with employers and unions to bring that about.]
Mr. Wakeham: I recognise that, but I cannot add anything to what I said on that question some weeks ago.
Mr. Alex Salmond: Has the Leader of the House had an opportunity to consider further the contents of early-day motion 574?
[That this House notes the assurances given to the House on 31st March 1982 and 1st April 1982, Official Report, columns 333, 334 and 450, by both the present Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer and by Lord Gray of Con tin, the then Minister of State for Energy, that the 'golden share' would offer effective safeguards for Britoil's independence; questions whether this has been shown to be the case; and calls for a full debate on the guidance given to the House by Mr. Chancellor and the noble Lord on the efficacy of the 'golden share' provisions when they were seeking honourable Members' approval for the privatisation of BNOC.]
Given the importance of an independent Britoil to the Scottish economy and the oil industry, and given the importance to the House of Commons of ensuring that promises made in 1982 are fully honoured in 1988, is there not the strongest case for a full debate on the matter, rather than a series thus far of ambiguous statements from the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
Mr. Wakeham: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was in the House when my right hon. Friend made his statement. I suggest that he re-reads it because it was an authoritative statement. As I told the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan), I shall refer the matter to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I am sure that he will make another statement should it be necessary.
Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend arrange for an early statement from the Secretary of State for the Environment on the dissemination of information? [Interruption]. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has made only one correct statement since I became a Member of the House 10 years ago, and that was this afternoon.
May we debate the dissemination of information by local authorities so that I can draw the Secretary of State's attention to a mendacious document, circulated by post at public expense to all council tenants in Ealing, telling them that their council homes could be removed from them under housing legislation currently going through Parliament? That has frightened many pensioners and others, yet the members of Ealing council and many others

513
know, or should know, that under that legislation no secure council tenant will be transferred to any other landlord against his or her wishes.
Mr. Tony Banks: That is not right. The hon. Gentleman should read the Bill. I am a member of the Committee that is considering it.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The question was put to the Leader of the House.
Mr. Wakeham: One of the advantages of living in Ealing is that one is represented by my hon. Friend. He makes his point well, but I cannot arrange a debate on the subject next week.
Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Is the Leader of the House aware that the Prison Officers Association has now started to refuse people on remand entrance to certain London prisons? Indeed, it now appears that the number of prisoners detained in London police stations is once again rising quickly and alarmingly. Bearing in mind the exorbitant cost of housing prisoners in police stations and the damage that that does to police efficiency and manpower resources, will the Leader of the House persuade the Home Secretary either to come to the Dispatch Box in the early part of next week, or arrange a short debate in the week following, so that we can once again try to tackle the problem which is becoming alarming in its frequency?
Mr. Wakeham: I recognise that it is a serious problem and I shall refer the matter to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. He will be answering questions in the House next Thursday and that will provide an opportunity to question him if he does not feel it right to make a statement before that time.
Mr. David Shaw: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the grossly inaccurate reports that have been circulated on the Herald of Free Enterprise disaster fund, that the trustees have been extremely successful in collecting £6 million which will be dispensed to the needy within one year, that the trustees are grateful to the Government for their contribution of £1 million, and that the trustees do not intend to see a large tax payment? In fact, the Government are unlikely to see much tax at all because the children and orphans will be paid their money out of interest and should be able to reclaim tax paid on that. In addition, can my right hon. Friend confirm to the great British public who contributed to the fund, for which the trustees are grateful, that they will not see any of their contributions going back to Exchequer in tax because the only substantive amount of tax that is likely to be paid is on the commercial sale of records, not on the public's contributions?
Mr. Wakeham: Yes, my hon. Friend is right. I have seen the statement issued by the chairman of the disaster fund in which he said that he had chosen to establish the fund as a discretionary trust rather than as a charity, knowing full well the consequences of doing so. The object was to give the trust more freedom to make payments as it saw fit. The trustees are grateful to the Government for their prompt donation of £1 million, as they are for the donations from everybody else.
Mr. David Winnick: In view of remarks that were made earlier, will the Leader of the House be a little more positive and ensure that we have a
514
statement next week on the position of the commandos who, after being captured, were handed over to the Gestapo to be murdered in cold blood by an army unit which had first questioned them in which Waldheim was involved? Can the Austrians be forewarned, in the most diplomatic way possible, that the overwhelming majority of the British people, regardless of their political views or lack of them, find it difficult to understand how someone who, during the war, was an active accomplice of mass murderers can now be President of Austria? That stinks in the nostrils of ordinary people.
Mr. Wakeham: I am not in a position to comment on the substance of the points that the hon. Gentleman has made, but I recognise his strength of feeling and that of the House, and I shall certainly refer the matter to my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Patrick Cormack: Without wishing to associate myself with the rhetoric or the accusations of the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden), may I ask my right hon. Friend to reconsider his reply? Will he acknowledge that there is confusion in the country about the £8? May we have a statement next week, if only in the form of an extended written answer, clarifying the position?
Mr. Wakeham: I shall look into the matter, and see if anything can be done to assist my hon. Friend.
Mr. Speaker: Order. As the House knows, I am always reluctant to curtail business questions, but there is an important debate to follow. I shall call those hon. Members who have been rising.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: The Leader of the House has already heard two different representations on the question of back payments to pensioners and those on invalidity and other benefits. The simple argument is that, if there are two recipients in the house with two order books, they receive two payments of £8; if there is only one with a dependent wife or children, that person will receive only £8, because there is only one book. The matter ought to be sorted out.
When the Leader of the House sends his message to the Prime Minister when she comes back, will he tell her that there is trouble at the mill as well? Some staff in the House—for instance, those working behind the tea bars— are threatening industrial action, for the simple reason that their back pay is being docked. Some people, instead of receiving £2,000 in back pay, have been offered £250, or, in some cases, £400. Will he look into the matter and get it sorted out? Otherwise he will have a strike on his hands.
Mr. Wakeham: I think that I shall also get into a spot of trouble if I do not look into it before I report it to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
Mr. Chris Mullin: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 652?
[That this House, in view of the widespread disquiet at the recent judgement by the Court of Appeal in the case of the six men convicted of the Birmingham pub bombings, calls upon the Home Secretary to establish an independent review tribunal, along the lines recommended by the Home Affairs Select Committee Report on Miscarriages of Justice, in particular to examine the claim by the honourable Member

515
for Sunderland South that he has traced and interviewed the four men responsible for the bombings and that they are all in Ireland.]
The motion has attracted 152 signatures in the space of 48 hours. It is signed by members of all parties and reflects widespread concern, not only in this place but in the country. It has implications not just for the six innocent men who have been in prison for 14 years, but for the judicial system, and the many issues arising from it. May I urge the right hon. Gentleman to find time for an early debate on the subject?
Mr. Wakeham: I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware of the terms of the motion, but I shall undertake to draw it to his attention. This is a matter of constitutional principle, and it should primarily be for the courts and the judical process to review convictions and the alleged miscarriages of justice.
Mr. Doug Hoyle: Has the Leader of the House seen early-day motion 647 about the Blue Circle bid for Birmid Qualcast?
[That this House expresses concern that the future of one of Britain's smallest companies is threatened by a current take-over attempt; notes that Birmid Qualcast is a Midlands based company which also has companies in the North West, that its management and workforce have overcome the severe problems facing the foundry industry and have achieved a very viable castings business and also have become a market leader in consumer durables with household names such as New World, Potterton, Atco and Qualcast; further notes that the company is faced with a take-over bid from Blue Circle Cement, which whilst it has finance available, has no expertise in the field in which Birmid Qualcast operates; and calls upon the Government to look at take-over bids which threaten the independence of companies such as Qualcast, with consequences for the national interest and for employment in the manufacturing sector.]
If not, will he read it?
An efficient small company has reorganised itself, as the Government have asked small companies to do, and is now a leader in consumer durables, with household names such as Potterton, New World, Atco and Qualcast. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is something wrong with the Government's interpretation of "national interest" as being about free competition when a company such as Blue Circle Cement, which has no expertise in the field, can make a bid for Birmid Qualcast, and can threaten employment and a small company that has seen off foreign competitors? Will he arrange for an early debate?
Mr. Wakeham: My right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry announced on 3 February his decision not to refer the proposed merger to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. That decision was in accordance with the advice of the Director General of Fair Trading. I do not therefore consider it necessary to devote further parliamentary time to the issue.
Mr. Brian Wilson: Does the Leader of the House accept that an opportunity to debate the Economic League would give hon. Members on both
516
sides of the House the chance to agree that character assassination by blacklist is as unacceptable in Thatcher's Britain as it should have been in McCarthy's America?
Mr. Speaker: Order. We refer to each other by our constituencies or offices here.
Mr. Wilson: In that case, it is as unacceptable in the Prime Minister's Britain as in the senator from Wisconsin's America.
Does the Leader of the House recognise that it must be, and if it is not it should be, a matter of considerable importance to the House that prima facie evidence is very strong that a private enterprise secret police force is operating in this country, and that one of its leading lights is Lord Cayzer, whose companies are the leading financiers of the Conservative party? Does he agree that the existence of such a police force, apparently in connivance with the official police force, should be a matter of some interest to the House?
Mr. Wakeham: I cannot promise Government time to debate the issue, but I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman might have a word with his hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench to see whether they could find some time for it.
Mr. Alistair Darling: Has the leader of the House had an opportunity to consider early-day motion 677, together with newspaper reports circulating in Scotland today, concerning the effective use of NHS funds to subsidise those working in the private health industry?
[That this House condemns the proposal that some Scottish health boards use public funds to place National Health Service patients in private hospitals; notes the statement made by the Chairman of the Murrayfield plc, operators of the Murrayfield private hospitals in Edinburgh, in his annual report in 1987 that "To date occupancy and profit are below budget" and the most recently published accounts of the Glasgow Independent Hospitals Ltd. Trading as AMI Ross Hall; considers that, far from being a lifeline to the National Health Service, these funds are a subsidy and a much needed boost to the private health industry; and calls upon the Secretary of State and boards, which have been instructed by him that their decision must reflect his policies, to ensure that no public funds be paid directly or indirectly to the private health industry, but are instead devoted to the National Health Service.]
Will the right hon. Gentleman allow a debate to give the House an opportunity to deplore that practice? His brief may tell him that the decision was made by Scottish health boards. Is he aware that the Secretary of State for Scotland has informed all health boards that they are there to act as his agents and to do his bidding, and that the authorisation of the use of NHS funds in private hospitals must therefore have come from the highest level? Is it not time that we debated the issue?
Mr. Wakeham: I cannot promise an early debate on the subject, but the additional resources of £7·6 million for the National Health Service in Scotland announced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland on 16 December were allocated to health boards for a range of patient needs, including the specific policy aim of reducing waiting lists. Some boards considered that, in their circumstances, that would be best achieved by buying services from the private sector.

517
The Government very much welcome the reduction in waiting lists that the boards are achieving, and note that the resources made available are being devoted entirely to the care of National Health patients.
Mr. John Home Robertson: Is the Leader of the House aware that it has not gone unnoticed that the Government have managed to avoid a meeting of the Scottish Grand Committee ever since the general election back in June last year? We recognise that it would be embarrassing for the Government to view the spectacle of a Committee containing only 10 Government supporters and 62 Opposition Members, but can the right hon. Gentleman begin to put that right by arranging for an early meeting of the Committee in Edinburgh to discuss the crisis affecting the National Health Service in Scotland?
Mr. Wakeham: I believe that last time we tried to organise a Committee meeting of the Scottish Grand Committee there were certain difficulties that were not entirely of the Government's making. However, if there are demands for a meeting, I think that they would be best discussed through the usual channels.
Mr. George Foulkes: Is the Leader of the House aware that, since the general election, the Welsh Grand Committee has met on three separate occasions, and yet the Scottish Grand Committee has not met once? As my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) has suggested, we are becoming a wee bit suspicious that the Secretary of State for Scotland is afraid to appear, because he will have only nine supporters — that is, if the Secretary of State for Defence is able to come along, which is very unlikely — whereas there will be 62 Opposition Members ranged against him.
Will the Leader of the House follow the example of his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, go over the head of the Secretary of State for Scotland and arrange a number of meetings of the Committee so that we can discuss urgent
518
matters, such as education, the Health Service, the postponement of the bypasses in south Ayrshire and all the other matters which are causing great concern in Scotland today and which we are not having an opportunity to discuss?
Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman puts his case with such force that I think that he is worried that I may concede it, and he may have to go there. However, I have nothing further to add.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: I rose only recently, and as usual reluctantly, because of a comment that the Leader of the House made a few moments ago. Would he care to rephrase and reconsider his response, in which he appeared to say that on the Select Committee on televising the House he would not want to have anybody who wanted to frustrate the will of the House? Does he not mean that he will keep off everybody who voted against the introduction of television cameras? Does he not think it wiser to have on the Committee knowledgeable, experienced hon. Members who know something about the dangers of the introduction and would want to ensure that very clever and subtle restraints are placed on the misuse and abuse of the televison cameras and to ensure that others external to the House do not choose the pictures, comment or selection? Does he not realise that there must be a large number of safeguards, because we do not want to put out to the public pictures of right hon. or hon. Members scratching their right buttock or picking their left nostril?
Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman has no need to write me a letter; I have got the message. I said that I do not believe that anybody should go on the Select Committee with the purpose of frustrating the will of the House. I certainly recognise the validity of the hon. Gentleman's argument. I think the Select Committee should have representatives of all points of view in the House who are prepared to work to put into practice what the House has resolved, so I accept the substance of what he has said.

Claire Wise
4.20 pm
Ms. Joan Walley: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the urgent need for Claire Wise, from Kidsgrove, to be admitted to the Birmingham children's hospital for open-heart surgery as a matter of urgency."
The matter is urgent because Claire, aged seven, needs open-heart surgery and is one of over 100 children waiting to be admitted to the Birmingham children's hospital heart unit for her operation. At Christmas her parents were advised that she should have this operation within three months, before she has outgrown the shunt operation she had some time ago. Since then I have pressed for Claire to be given an admission date so that she can have her operation before she becomes an emergency.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, I raised the matter in the Adjournment debate on 19 January, and I have written to the Minister since then but he has not yet bothered to reply. Meanwhile, Claire's parents were sent a letter on Tuesday of this week telling them that she was to be admitted on Monday next. Imagine their relief. Imagine their despair when they received a second letter the very next day—yesterday—saying that the operation has had to be cancelled until further notice. I ask the House: what should they do? What would any parent do? What will the Government do?
I know that all scheduled operations for this week and next week are cancelled at the Birmingham children's hospital heart unit, which means that those on the waiting list will have to wait even longer. Time is running out for them and for Claire. It is common sense that intolerable strain is placed on all other vital organs of the body if open-heart surgery which is urgently needed is delayed. I know also that the intensive care unit is full. Those children who become emergencies will have to depend upon the good will of the nurses or being able to survive a journey to London.
I appeal to you, Mr. Speaker, to agree to adjourn the House so that we may debate the matter. How else can Government Ministers tell me what urgent steps they are taking to allocate extra money to designate intensive care unit beds for heart patients in the west midlands, to recruit and train nurses for intensive care beds locally and nationally, and to ensure that Claire gets her operation before it is too late? Without an Adjournment, I appeal to every person in the west midlands health region who cares about Claire and others like her to write to me expressing their concern so that the Government can be made to face up to their failure to provide health care for those who need it. Time is running out for Claire.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Lady asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that she believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the cancellation of the operation on Claire Wise at the Birmingham children's hospital heart unit."
I have listened with concern to what the hon. Lady has said about her constituent. As she knows, the decision I have to take in these difficult matters is whether to give the matter precedence over the business set down for today or
520
Monday. I regret that I cannot find the matter that she has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20 Therefore, I cannot submit her application to the House. I hope that she will find other parliamentary ways of raising the matter in the Chamber.
Later— —
Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley) has raised what you, Mr. Speaker, rightly described as a very serious matter. I understand the difficulties you are placed in when such a matter is raised. I believe I am right in saying that the relevant Departments are notified of the contents of applications under Standing Order No. 20. Is it not astonishing, in view of the seriousness of the application, that not one Minister from the Department of Health was present when the application was made? You have rightly said that my hon. Friend may find other opportunities of raising the matter. Many applications have been made concerning the Birmingham children's hospital, and it must be a matter of widespread public concern in the west midlands and in the country at large.
Would it be possible, Mr. Speaker, for you to make representations following the application from my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North, to the Department asking it to make a statement — possibly tomorrow morning, in view of the urgency of the matter — because that would be a convenient parliamentary opportunity for my hon. Friend to raise the matter?
Mr. Speaker: It is not a matter for me whether a statement is made. This would have been a very good question to put to the Leader of the House. I have heard the hon. Lady's application, but I could not give it precedence because of the criteria laid down in the Standing Orders. The House will appreciate that many operations are cancelled, sadly, for various reasons and it is my difficult duty to make a decision on exactly which should be given precedence and which should not.
Mr. Frank Dobson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Everyone recognises your difficulty and the criteria you apply, but there is growing concern among west midlands Members of Parliament that of necessity they are making representations about indvidual cases, many of which relate to the gross inadequacies of the Birmingham children's hospital and its capacity to provide the operations that children in that area need. I ask you to bear in mind, if there are further applications, that each application is but a single symptom of what is wrong. I ask you to give some consideration to the generality of the problem for people in the west midlands.
Mr. Speaker: I will certainly do that. The hon. Gentleman might also bear in mind that he has the opportunity to raise those matters on Opposition Supply days.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It has become noticeable in the past several weeks that the applications in relation to these children, almost without exception, as far as I am aware —I am here, like you, Mr. Speaker, every day—come from the west midlands. You have said that you find some difficulty with the criteria on single applications, such as those from my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall. North

521
(Mr. Winnick), my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley). You say that you cannot accept an application under Standing Order No. 20 because the criteria do not allow it. When it becomes apparent that there is not one or two but a number of cases, which do not come from other regions, it becomes apparent, and I am not an hon. Member from the west midlands— —
Mr. Tony Marlow: It is an organised campaign.
Mr. Speaker: Order. A point of order is being put to me.
Mr. Skinner: What I am trying to say, despite that altercation, is that many of us, as I am sure you know, Mr. Speaker, would be making representations from our own areas and not just the west midlands if we were faced with this sort of problem. Will you accept an application from, say, one of my hon. Friends for a debate on the Health Service in the west midlands? Would such an application meet with your approval?
Mr. Speaker: I do not think I can do that. I take individual applications, but the Opposition have the opportunity to choose a general subject for debate once a week on average.
Mr. Dobson rose— —
Mr. Speaker: Order. No. The question has been put to me. It is in order for the Opposition to use that procedure if they judge that is right. I have to take a very difficult decision, and I hope that the House realises it is not easy to adjudicate on these matters. I cannot give the House my reasons for refusing an application, but there are clinical and medical judgments as well as other matters to take into account.
Mr. Dobson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. We recognise that there are Opposition daysavailable, but if anyone checks the position he would discover that virtually every debate on the National Health Service that has taken place in the House in recent years has been in Opposition time. My right hon. and hon. Friends from the west midlands took the opportunity to raise the issue during the two most recent debates. The Birmingham issue gets lost in fairly general debates. We are looking for a prompt response to the crisis in the west midlands, or even some time from the Government. After all, they are responsible for resourcing and running the Health Service, although they are most reluctant to have any debates about it.
Mr. David Winnick: On that same point of order, Mr. Speaker— —
Mr. Speaker: Order. It is a bit unfair on other hon. Members who wish to take part in debates to carry on with this matter, which is challenging my judgment. I make a judgment on these matters with extreme care. There may come a time when I feel that the criteria are right, but there are many issues at stake, not least the criterion of urgency, but also clinical judgments to make.
Mr. Winnick: I was in no way challenging your judgment, Mr. Speaker, nor have my hon. Friends done so. You will know that I made an application under Standing Order No. 20, and in relation to that case I think
522
it is right to say that the whole country is hoping and praying that the child will survive after 10 hours of surgery.
Bearing in mind the valid points made from the Opposition Front Bench and my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), would it not help you, Mr. Speaker, to avoid the constant applications that undoubtedly will be made if one of the Health Ministers makes a statement at the earliest opportunity about the crisis facing the Health Service in the west midlands? I hope that the Leader of the House will be notified of what we are saying. We are now facing the most difficult problem since the NHS came into being. Surely part of our job as Members of Parliament who represent the west midlands is to raise the issue on the Floor of the House. If a statement is made early next week on the crisis that I have referred to, there will be less need for these applications.
Mr. Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Several Opposition Members, during the exchanges that have just taken place on the application under Standing Order No. 20, clearly heard the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) accuse my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley) and others of my hon. Friends who have made similar applications recently of participating in an organised campaign.
Bearing in mind the allegations that have been made only today about the hon. Member for Northampton, North evicting his tenants in Lambeth, it ill becomes him to make allegations of that sort on these very serious matters.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Fortunately, I do not hear everything that goes on below the Gangway, but it does not help when allegations of that kind are shouted across the Chamber from a sedentary position.

Northern Ireland (Questions)
Rev. Martin Smyth: I raise a point of order arising out of Prime Minister's Question Time, which was highlighted in the exchange between my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. McCusker) and the Leader of the House, on the problems of representatives from Northern Ireland, particularly those in the larger parties, in dealing with affairs affecting Northern Ireland.
If one examines the pattern of questions on Northern Ireland over the past three weeks, one sees that we have been missed, for whatever reason. Unfortunately, the Leader of the House confirmed today what some of us have feared when he said to my hon. Friend, "How many times have you asked for an interview or a meeting with the Secretary of State?" As we understand it, this is the place to ask questions, the place of scrutiny. We feel frustrated that others can get in on the act but we apparently cannot. I should like some guidance from the Chair.
Mr. Speaker: I can give the hon. Gentleman clear guidance. He had a perfect opportunity this afternoon to put a question to the Leader of the House on that very matter. I did not call him because he did not rise.
Rev. Martin Smyth: I have been standing on every occasion, even in Question Time today.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Unfortunately, not every hon. Member can ask a question at Question Time. I keep a careful list of who is called and when and who rises and does not get called. The hon. Gentleman does very well.

BILL PRESENTED
  BRITISH STEEL
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke, supported by Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Walker, Mr. Secretary Rifkind, Mr. Ian Lang and Mr. Robert Atkins, presented a Bill to provide for the vesting of the property, rights and liabilities of the British Steel Corporation in a company nominated by the Secretary of State and for the subsequent dissolution of the Corporation; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 96.]

The Royal Air Force
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dorrell.]
4.34 pm
The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Ian Stewart): It is five years since I last took part in a single service debate in the House, and although the scene today in the Royal Air Force is clearly recognisable as having developed from that of five years ago, there is also much that has changed. In particular, the reorganisation of the top levels of the three services and the central staff in the Ministry of Defence, which took place in 1985, was not only an attempt to give greater weight to the tri-service approach to defence policy, but a recognition that the three services themselves, both in objectives and in operations, have been becoming increasingly interdependent.
It has been my clear impression, on returning to the Ministry of Defence, that although many anxieties were expressed at the time about the reorganisation, it has now not only been accepted by the individual services, but it has been found to work well in practice and has led to increased co-operation at all levels from the senior staffs to operational units around the world.
I believe that it is still right for Parliament to have the opportunity to look in closer detail at the single services. However, as became evident from the recent Army debate, there is now a substantial overlap of function from one service to another. In many areas of defence policy and activity the interests of one service cannot sensibly be discussed without taking account of the other two, or indeed looking at our defence capabilities as a whole. Although I want to devote most of my time today to discussing matters directly relating to the Royal Air Force, I also want to say something about certain aspects of defence strategy as a whole which, while highly relevant to the activities of the Royal Air Force, are not exclusive to any one service.
Before addressing those wider issues, I want to describe the current state of play in the continuous process of modernisation of the Royal Air Force, to say something of its training and exercise programe, and to deal with a number of matters concerning its personnel. Let me at the outset remind the House of the very wide range of functions which fall to the Royal Air Force to perform. In the first place, it has primary responsibility for the air defence of the United Kingdom, detecting enemy aircraft and countering them with interceptor fighters, with Bloodhound and Rapier missiles, and with Skyguard radar-controlled guns. In the Federal Republic of Germany it maintains a substantial part of the second allied tactical air force contributing both air defence and strike/attack aircraft.
The RAF also provides units for the early reinforcement of the northern region of the NATO area, and its Nimrods and Buccaneers protect shipping used for reinforcement and re-supply against the threat of hostile ships and submarines. In addition, the RAF provides airlift support for all three services and is capable of mounting operations at long distance. Out of area it supports our defence commitments in Belize, Ascension island, the Falklands, Cyprus and Hong Kong.
The major modernisation of the Royal Air Force is also a most striking feature of the last five years. Since 1979,

525
the Government have devoted very considerable extra resources to the RAF, amounting to £8 billion after allowing for inflation. Nine squadrons based in Germany and the United Kingdom have already been equipped in the strike/attack role with the Tornado GR1 which, with its terrain-following radar, provides a capability to penetrate enemy air defences far in advance of that of the Jaguars and Buccaneers that they replace.
Two more squadrons will be formed for the reconnaissance role, one based in RAF Germany, to replace the current Jaguar squadron, and, later, an additional squadron in the United Kingdom. During a recent visit to British Forces Germany, I was told that the Tornado was regarded with enthusiasm by pilots and had more than come up to expectations. Nevertheless, we are already planning a mid-life improvement package for the Tornado GRI for the early 1990s, to improve its ability to penetrate enemy air defences and to provide it with a night and all-weather attack capability, and so enable it to continue to meet the threat into the next century.
Mr. Eric S. Heffer: I ask this question out of real interest because I do not know the answer. Obviously, in the future, our air defences are more likely to be penetrated by nuclear missiles than by aircraft, because we can always intercept aircraft. That has always been the role of the RAF, of which I was proud to be a part in my youth. Which service or services will be responsible for trying to offset any penetration of air space by nuclear missiles?
Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman asks a question about the state of play when a war reaches that level. The resources which I have described are for the protection of the United Kingdom during the conventional stage of a war. All the forces would be involved in detecting and, if necessary, responding to nuclear attack.
Mr. Heffer: With respect, this is an important matter. That was the most bland reply that I have ever heard in the House. When the Minister says "all the services", what exactly does he mean? Will he explain how the services would be combined? Which service would put its finger on the trigger to try to stop the missile coming? The House and the nation have a right to know exactly who would be responsible.
Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman wants to pursue his point. All the forces would be involved. There is the question of detection and then of response, but, even if it were appropriate to go into those details today, it would certainly be wrong, either now or in the future, for this country or any of our NATO allies to spell out exactly the way in which we would respond to such an attack.
Mr. Bill Walker: This is a most fundamental and interesting question. Does my hon. Friend agree that we have had peace in western Europe for 40 years because we have deterred? Deterrence prevents this hypothetical matter becoming a reality. Unless we modernise our equipment, which the Labour party appears to oppose, we shall never be able to intercept missiles of any kind. The Labour party does not support the strategic defence initiative. If our equipment were not modernised, the enemy would not be deterred.
Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend is right. The purpose of our defence policy and of that of our NATO allies is to deter war and to prevent the situation which has been
526
described. The assets of the RAF and of the other services are designed to make it clear that there would be no point in any adversary attacking us in the first place. That is why we have been modernising the aircraft of the RAF and the equipment of the other forces.
Mr. Michael Colvin: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in view of the question put by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), it would be appropriate for the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, when he replies, to answer his hon. Friend? The situation described by the hon. Gentleman could occur only under a Labour Government because the Labour party follows a policy of unilateral disarmament.
Mr. Stewart: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right, but it is difficult to give any credibility to the pronouncements of the Opposition Front Bench about any aspects of defence.
The Harrier has proved itself over a number of years to be one of the mainstays of the RAF's offensive support capability. However, we are now planning over time to replace the GR3 with the new Harrier GR5, which will have substantially improved range, payload and avionics. The House will recall the tragic loss in October of a Harrier GR5 test pilot and the subsequent ditching of his aircraft. That has inevitably meant some delay to the programme. However, it is clearly right, in view of the accident, that the most careful consideration should be given to the factors which caused it, that any recommendations arising from the post-accident studies should be implemented and that all the systems of the aircraft should be thoroughly tested. Test flying is expected to resume shortly and will include testing of the Ferranti inertial navigational system which has not yet been cleared for RAF flying.
Provided that the remaining trials programme does not identify any further problems, conversion training should start later this year. Sixty two GR5s have been ordered so far and their delivery should be completed within the next two to three years. We plan to meet our requirement at that stage for an advanced combat aircraft with a close-in agile fighter capability, to supplement the Tornado, with the European fighter aircraft, in the development of which we are collaborating with Germany, Italy and Spain.
Mr. Robert Hayward: My hon. Friend referred to collaboration with West Germany, Spain and other countries involved in the development of the European fighter aircraft. The Government have always been firm in their commitment to that aircraft and the "engining" through Rolls-Royce in association with other European countries. Will he tell us what negotiations he has had recently, particularly with the West Germans, and whether they have indicated their firm support for the European fighter aircraft and its European engine?
Mr. Stewart: I have no reason to believe that they do not support that aircraft, but procurement is the responsibility of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement and of my noble Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement. I shall draw their attention to the point raised by my hon. Friend.
In addition to these major improvements, we have also made considerable progress in the air defence of the United Kingdom. Thirty four of the air defence variant of the Tornado, our new interceptor aircraft, were delivered during the last year, bringing the total to 73 out of the 162

527
on order. The first Tornado ADV squadron at Coningsby became operational on schedule at the beginning of November and a second squadron which has now been formed will become operational later this year. The Tornado ADV is armed with the highly effective Skyflash medium-range air-to-air missile and the shorter range Sidewinder which proved its worth during the Falklands campaign.
Although there have been difficulties with the aircraft's Foxhunter air-intercept radar, radars to an agreed interim standard have been fitted which already provide the aircraft with a capability superior to that of the Phantoms and Lightnings which they are replacing. To provide an effective airborne early warning system for the 1990s, the Government have ordered seven Boeing E3 aircraft which will provide the capability to mount continuous patrols and identify the approach of enemy aircraft at an early stage. This will become increasingly important as the Warsaw pact develops its capabilities for operations at low level.
While the E3 will extend the range and quality of our coverage, we are also now well advanced with the modernisation of our air defence command and control systems and ground-based radar. The bulk of the equipment involved in these enhancements, which are known as the improved United Kingdom air defence ground environment — or by the dreadful acronym IUKADGE for short — has already been built and installed, and some elements are already in service. Remaining items will be introduced during the next four years. But we are already capable of effective monitoring of the 500,000 square miles comprising the United Kingdom air defence region, and our quick reaction alert aircraft are scrambled on average three or four times each week to intercept and identify Soviet military aircraft which penetrate this area.
Next I want to say a word about helicopters. In last month's Army debate my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement told the House that a trial involving 6 Brigade, and including helicopter squadrons from RAF Germany, had demonstrated the value of an air-mobile force, and that we proposed to convert 24 Brigade to this role. There has been a good deal of debate during the past year about which service should have possession of the support helicopter force. Before shifting responsibility for these assets from the RAF to the Army we would need to have clear evidence of advantages sufficient to outweigh the obvious problems of upheaval and dislocation and transitional costs.
I can tell the House that, following a study, no such advantages have been identified and we do not therefore propose to make any such change. That is, of course, a different question from where the RAF and Army helicopters supporting 24 Brigade should be located, and that is a matter to which we shall be giving consideration in due course. Until the 1990s, Chinook and Puma helicopters, as part of their overall support role for both the Army and the RAF, will provide the necessary heavy-lift capability, but after that we are looking to replace the Puma with the Anglo-Italian EH101 and to order an initial batch of 25 such aircraft for the deployment of men and material.
Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: Can my hon. Friend say what studies are being undertaken to see how effective a helicopter is as a delivery system for anti-tank weapons?
Mr. Stewart: That is a different question from the one that I have been discussing. The best weapons systems for the anti-tank role are kept continuously under review, particularly in the light of advances in the technology of tank defence. That is a matter that the Ministry of Defence is anxious to appraise all the time. Looking a few years ahead, it is clear that helicopter weapons capability against tanks will be an important — perhaps increasingly important—aspect of future warfare.
Mr. Heffer: This is an important matter. Where precisely will the division be between RAF-operated and Army-operated helicopters? What role will each play? Which areas will the different services work in? In the last analysis, who will take the decisions? I ask because I was involved in these matters at one time. The division between the services is important. I should like to know where overlapping takes place.
Mr. Stewart: Responsibility would have to be resolved according to the circumstances of each case. In the case of converting 24 Brigade to an air-mobile force with the need for helicopters, there would be a joint command structure. It is likely that that would rest with the Army, which would be in charge of the brigade. As I said at the beginning of my speech, examples of co-operation between the forces have been increasing greatly. The RAF provides a support helicopter service for all three services. The service is attached to a unit, under Army or Naval command according to the needs. In this case the question at issue was whether the ownership and control of the assets should be transferred permanently to the Army. We came to the conclusion that it would not be a sensible move.
Mr. Neville Trotter: As my hon. Friend is aware, 6 Brigade has been based in Germany and so has the support helicopter force. As I understand it, 24 Brigade is to be based in the north of England, where it is now. Where is the support helicopter force for that brigade likely to be based? Can my hon. Friend hold out any hope of an additional squadron being formed in this country to support 24 Brigade?
Mr. Stewart: It would be wrong for me to chance my arm on that. I addressed the point specifically. It is a question that we have to resolve, but I do not think that we should do so without considering all the factors. We have announced a general decision. Once the decision in principle has been made, we can consider the best ways of implementing it. I take my hon. Friend's point.
There has also been considerable interest expressed in the House about a proposal which was put to the Ministry of Defence by Bristow Helicopters Ltd. to replace the existing service search and rescue function by a civilian contract. We have been considering whether our current arrangements for SAR could be improved, and in our studies we have felt it right to take into account the ideas which Bristow has put forward. Although we have not yet reached a final conclusion about the most effective disposition of our resources for SAR, I can tell the House today that we have made a firm decision that, wherever there is a military requirement for search and rescue, it should continue to be provided by the RAF and the Royal Navy.
Mr. Barry Field: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for his announcement, which affects my constituency. I appreciate that this is an RAF debate, but can my hon. Friend confirm that the decision will also apply to search and rescue which is operated by the Royal Navy?
Mr. Stewart: I did say that, wherever there was a military requirement for search and rescue, it would continue to be provided by the RAF and the Royal Navy.
Dr. Dafydd Elis Thomas: As the Minister appreciates, there has been deep concern in Snowdonia and in other mountain areas because of the essential role played by the RAF in support of mountain rescue services, as we saw only last weekend. Did I understand the Minister to say that that support will remain and that there is no threat of privatisation hanging over that aspect of the helicopter support service?
Mr. Stewart: I have said that where there is a military requirement for SAR, which means the great majority of the area of the United Kingdom, the position will be as the hon. Gentleman understands.
Mr. David Harris: Does my hon. Friend accept that his announcement will be warmly welcomed throughout the land, and particularly in Cornwall where we have the Royal Naval air station at Culdrose, the biggest helicopter base in western Europe? I think he can accept that all Back Benchers will agree that he has made the right decision.
Mr. Stewart: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. This is a complex issue. Although we were under pressure to make an announcement earlier, the question had to be treated carefully and thoroughly. We have come to our conclusion after most careful consideration of all the issues.
Mr. Brian Wilson: I want clarification. I do not understand what the Minister said about a military requirement, or whatever his words were. For instance, Bristow has managed to get its foot in the door in the Western Isles and in Orkney and Shetland. Many people would think that there was a military requirement in areas where there are naval vessels. Did the Minister mean that the RAF search and rescue service will operate only in areas where there is a military base? Indeed, there is an RAF base in Stornoway. What is the distinction? Surely the whole country is liable to the need for military as well as civil call-out. Therefore, would it not be better to say that the search and rescue service over the whole country will be kept in the public sector?
Mr. Stewart: Perhaps I was foolish to give way so much and not continue with what I wanted to say.
The RAF and the Royal Navy have provided a service of proven quality, which often involves a high level of skill and courage, and which we know is greatly valued. Last year, for example, RAF and RN search and rescue helicopters flew almost 1,500 sorties and rescued more than 950 people, both military and civilian. We are satisfied that there is a military requirement for the RAF's and the RN's SAR service to continue, and we also believe that that decision will be welcomed by the wider community. Among the military factors that influenced us were the service's valuable role in the training of aircrew; the need to keep a military search and rescue capability for operational crises in peace time, as well as in transition to war, and war; and the need to avoid risk of discontinuity
530
in this vital service at some time in the future. In our judgment, those and other important military considerations outweigh the possible modest financial gains that a civilian contract might have provided.
The military requirement for a military search and rescue service extends around the vast bulk of our coastline and inland mountainous areas, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport may decide to supplement the military service by letting civilian contracts. If he does, he will no doubt consider any approach made by Bristow, whose operations in the Shetlands and the Hebrides have demonstrated its ability to provide a good service.
Mr. Nicholas Bennett: My hon. Friend will will know of my concern, for as long as I have been a Member of the House, about the issue of privatisation, and I am delighted to hear his response on this matter. I also heard him say that he had not yet made the final decision on the issue of where detachments will be placed, and whether there may be some changes. In my constituency, RAF Brawdy, which covers the whole west Wales coast, provides an excellent service for military and civilian personnel throughout the region and out into the Irish sea.
Can my hon. Friend assure me that when consideration is being given to the future of the Brawdy detachment he will bear in mind the fact that if it were taken away we should be reliant on RAF Valley in Anglesey or Chivenor in Devon which would very much increase the flying times for the area?
Mr. Stewart: I take my hon. Friend's point. One of the reasons why I thought it right to make the announcement in the debate today, before the final dispositions have been established and before my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has completed his analysis of the position, was to enable us to hear the response of hon. Members and to take into account the points that may be raised on both sides of the House. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces, who I hope will be responding to the debate, has been closely involved with these matters and I hope that he will be able to answer the points that will be raised in the debate.
Mr. Allan Rogers: Would the Minister spend a little more time explaining his intentions? I admit that I am confused. He says that the search and rescue facilities will be maintained under the respective services; then he says that the Department of Transport may let contracts. In what areas can it do that? The crunch question is: does the Minister intend to maintain the capability at its present level, or does he intend to let the civilian service run down?
Mr. Stewart: We do not intend to run it down. We intend to maintain a military capability where we have judged that necessary, and where we have judged it necessary is reflected in the existing pattern. It is open to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport to decide to supplement it, but not as a result of its being diminished. As regards my right hon. Friend's responsibilities in these matters, it would be better to allow his study to be completed before making any announcement on the matter.
Mr. Martin O'Neill: Our concern is that the quality of the service provided at the moment is

531
of such a high standard largely because, as the Minister said, there were about 950 operations last year. Civilian operations complement military ones, because they enable the crews to get the necessary training that the former add to the latter. How will the Minister differentiate between the military and civilian operations in this respect?
Mr. Stewart: We are not differentiating between them in this respect. We say that the military coverage should remain, but it is open to the Secretary of State for Transport, if he considers it necessary, to supplement, for purely civilian purposes, the services provided by the Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy. I should have thought that was welcome. I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the value of the services' provision in this area; it was one of the factors that weighed considerably with us when making the decision.
As the Royal Air Force approaches its 70th birthday in a few weeks' time, its reputation stands second to none in the world today. But the high level of performance which it achieves would not be possible if the RAF could not attract and retain men and women of the highest calibre and provide training for them to the highest standards. That involves not only the routine training of aircrew and ground staff, but also exercises in which aircraft and air defences can be co-ordinated. I am glad to be able to tell the House that, last year again, the RAF did particularly well in tactical exercises evaluated by NATO. Cooperation with the air forces of our Western allies is an essential part of the role of the RAF both in its forward deployment on the continent and in the air defence of the United Kingdom.
In April this year our air defences will be rigorously tested in an exercise named Elder Forest, which will be the largest air defence exercise in the United Kingdom in recent years. Aircraft from eight NATO nations will fly more than 1,000 simulated hostile sorties against our air defences over a wide area of land and sea. Our defending forces will include a dozen squadrons of RAF fighters, supported by early warning and air-to-air refuelling aircraft, while on the ground RAF missile systems and command and control facilities will be fully activated. Two type 42 destroyers acting as area defence ships will also be taking part, illustrating not only how complex and interactive air warfare has now become, but the increasing co-operation between the services.
Mr. Harry Cohen: The Minister started by saying that it is important to retain pilots. He then moved on as rapidly as he could to talk about anything but that. Can the Government retain pilots under their present policies, or are more of them leaving the service than are being recruited and trained? What is the cost of training the pilots that we are losing? Is it in the region of hundreds of millions of pounds for each one lost?
Mr. Stewart: I should have resisted the temptation to give way to the hon. Gentleman. I mentioned that I wanted to discuss both attracting men and women to, and retaining them in, the Royal Air Force and the exercises. Before I had finished the exercises half of my comments, the hon. Gentleman asked me about matters of personnel, to which I shall come in a few moments.
The flexibility of air power is also demonstrated by the operations which the RAF undertakes outside the NATO
532
area. Later in the year the RAF plans to participate in a major air defence exercise in Malaysia and Singapore in support of the five power defence arrangements. That exercise, which is scheduled to take place in September, will be the largest of its kind ever held in the region, and United Kingdom participation will include Tornado F3s. Some of the RAF aircraft involved, as well as other aircraft and a parachute display team, will then take part in an air show to be held in October at the Royal Australian air force base at Richmond, near Sydney, to mark the Australian bicentenary.
Last November I visited the Falklands and was greatly impressed by the enhanced defensive capability and the degree of tri-service co-operation resulting from the redeployment of the garrison from Port Stanley to the new site at Mount Pleasant during the course of last year. The new airport at Mount Pleasant means that the islands could be rapidly reinforced if ever the need arose, and this enables us to maintain a smaller garrison there than would otherwise be necessary. Last December the RAF achieved a non-stop flight from the United Kingdom to the Falklands, without a stop at Ascension, involving air-to-air refuelling on both legs of the journey. Next month we intend to hold the first full-scale reinforcement exercise, known as Fire Focus. The exercise will be directed by Headquarters RAF Strike Command at High Wycombe, and will take place between 7 and 31 March. It will involve the reinforcement of the garrison's air defences and an airlift of troops to the Falklands, followed by unit exercises to take advantage of the excellent training facilities in the islands. Further information about this exercise is available in a Ministry of Defence press release today.
Sir Antony Buck: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is a good thing to have maximum publicity for what he has just said to deter any successor to Galtieri who might be foolish enough to chance his arm, and that the fact that we can now reinforce by getting wide-bodied jets there in one hop alters the situation radically?
Mr. Stewart: I believe that such deterrence already exists. I only hope that the reinforcement capability that we can demonstrate in this exercise will strengthen that deterrence, as my hon. and learned Friend has said.
Mr. Trotter: Does my hon. Friend agree that the recent 820-mile flight by a search and rescue helicopter from the Falklands to South Georgia—having to land on a Navy ship halfway to South Georgia—to recover an injured soldier is an example of the skill and ability of the search and rescue force operating in that very hostile environment?
Mr. Stewart: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend and join him in congratulating those concerned on that achievement.
On the recruiting side, the past year has been a successful one. Targets were fully met in the main officer branches with shortfalls confined to the professional entry branches, such as medical officers. Ground airman recruiting has also gone well, with 90 per cent. of vacancies for the current financial year filled by the end of December.
Retention is, of course, another essential element in ensuring that the RAF has adequate trained manpower to

533
fulfil its role into the 1990s and beyond. In this area, too, I am pleased to be able to report that there has recently been improvement. There has in particular been a welcome reduction in applications for premature voluntary retirement in the course of the past year. PVR applications from officers generally fell during 1987 by 19 per cent. Indeed, there has been a reduction of 26 per cent. in PVR applications from pilots, while for fast-jet pilots under the age of 38—our key operational aircrew—there has been a major decrease of 57 per cent. It is, in any case, very important to keep PVR rates in perspective; they are now under 3 per cent. of trained strength for both applications and exits. The total number of pilots leaving the RAF, including those opting for PVR, has over the past three years averaged less than 200 a year, which is more than 20 per cent. lower than the figure averaged a decade ago.
Mr. Keith Mans: Will my hon. Friend comment on the number of fast-jet pilots who take up their option of leaving at the age of 38, because I think that that statistic ought to be read with the one that he has just given for the PVR rates?
Mr. Stewart: I shall leave it to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to give the exact figure, but one of the reasons for the high levels of exit in recent years has been the end of the eight-year short service commission for pilots and others which was introduced in 1978 when the Government of the day were having extreme difficulty in recruiting at all.
Mr. Sayeed: The figures that my hon. Friend has announced for premature release will be very welcome. Will he confirm that between 1978 and 1979, when the Labour Government were in power, 6·8 per cent. was the figure for premature release for men in the armed services?
Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend is right in saying that the figures were much higher at that time, and, of course, morale in the services was very low.
Another matter which I know is of considerable concern to a number of hon. Members is the question of low flying. I would like to take this opportunity to assure the House that the Government are very well aware that many people consider military low-flying training an almost intolerable intrusion into their daily lives. We in no way underestimate the strength of feeling of or the inconvenience borne by some of those who see more of this activity than others. The RAF, too, is fully aware of its responsibilities to the public and has no wish to antagonise the very people its members are training to protect. The RAF does, of course, do some of this training overseas. For instance, regular exercises held in Germany, the United States and Canada provide the opportunity for RAF combat aircraft to train at operational low level and carry out realistic practise using live ammunition. But the fact remains that if they were ever deployed in war it would only be by flying as close to the ground and as fast as possible that our aircrew would have a reasonable chance of avoiding enemy radar and defence systems. The training is, therefore, essential and it is simply not practicable to do it all "somewhere else".
Let us not forget that the need for low-flying training is directly related to the threat which NATO forces face in the central region of Europe. In any hostilities we can assume that a major priority of the Warsaw pact would be the destruction of our air defence capability, including
534
aircraft and airfields, and unless we were able to retaliate in kind our land forces in Europe would he at an impossible disadvantage. The Warsaw pact enjoys enormous superiority in numbers, in tactical aircraft as well as in artillery and tanks. While I welcome the efforts currently being made to draw up a negotiating mandate for conventional arms control, I do not think that we should underestimate the difficulty of achieving a satisfactory agreement to limit conventional arms in Europe.
In the first place, we shall need to know a great deal more in detail about Soviet forces than the Soviet Union has for many years been ready to divulge. There are some grounds for regarding the recent Soviet attitude to the provision of information as more encouraging. But I must say that so far glasnost has been a pretty selective process. Without full and reliable data from the other side, which has been lacking throughout the 14 years of talks in Vienna on mutual and balanced force reductions, it is going to be difficult to establish a workable basis for negotiation. Even if, as I hope, these problems can be resolved, Warsaw pact forces outnumber those of NATO by such a large margin that we must be very careful not to agree to anything that would undermine the minimum capability which we shall need to maintain the security of the West.
Mr. Denzil Davies: Can the hon. Gentleman now assure us, because the Secretary of State was not able to do so at the last Defence Question Time, especially in view of the superiority in tactical aircraft which he says the Warsaw pact has, that Britain's Tornado aircraft will be included in these very important conventional arms reduction talks?
Mr. Stewart: We are not suggesting that any conventional capability should be excluded; and that, of course, includes the conventional capability of dual capable systems, and there are ground-based forces that are dual capable.
Let us remember that arms control is not an end in itself. The objective is to maintain our security, and, if possible, to enhance it, with whatever degree of arms control can be consistent with that. The Labour party wants things the other way round—arms control as the first priority, regardless of what it would mean for the ability of NATO to deter war or to respond effectively in the event of attack.
We can all welcome the fact that, since the RAF debate last year, agreement has been reached that one of the activities in which the service is involved should be brought to an end. I refer, of course, to the historic INF agreement in Washington last December which, if ratified, will lead in due course to the removal of cruise missiles from RAF Greenham Common and RAF Molesworth. A few years ago, we on the Conservative Benches were sick of being lectured by the Labour and Liberal parties about what would happen if such missiles were deployed. They said it would add to the risk of war, it would make the United Kingdom more vulnerable and it would wave goodbye to any prospect of agreement with the Russians to remove their SS20s. How wrong they were. We all know that if the British Government and our Western allies had not remained firm in our resolve, there would never have been an agreement on INF at all, because there would not have been anything for the Russians to negotiate about.

535
Once again it has been proved that, in matters of defence, the wisest course is usually to do the exact opposite of what the Labour party recommends. It is in that light that we must look at the truly astonishing remarks made by the shadow Defence Secretary, the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies), during the Army debate last month. He told the House then that he did not believe that NATO's concept of flexible response and forward defence was realistic any more. Indeed, he went further and told us that he had always believed it was obsolete. He went on to say that NATO should drop the whole idea of follow-on forces attack, which is the essential means of preventing the Warsaw pact from full deployment of the huge reinforcements that it can hold in reserve.
Mr. Denzil Davies: Perhaps the Minister would quote the words that I used in respect of follow-on forces attack. As there is some asymmetry — that is now the fashionable world — in respect of Soviet and Warsaw pact forces, I suggested that one bargaining element to ensure a reduction in the Soviet forces would be for NATO to consider—if there was such a reduction—dropping any plans for follow-on forces attack. I mentioned that in the context of a mutual agreement in respect of a reduction in Soviet forces.
Mr. Stewart: I do not know how the right hon. Gentleman believes that he would be able to cope with the question of Soviet military doctrine — an aggressive doctrine. The right hon. Gentleman's speech is a rich purple passage for those who want enlightenment about the extraordinary defence policies of the Labour party.
Flexible response and forward defence mean that NATO must be seen to be able and ready to mount a robust defence against any attack at whatever level it deems appropriate, and to have some degree of choice in the manner of that response. We have to make it absolutely clear to the Soviet Union and its allies that the risks of aggression far outweigh any possible gains that they could hope to achieve. Conventional weapons alone can never pose an unacceptable risk to a nuclear-armed opponent and the need for a range of both nuclear and conventional weapons in Europe will remain for as far ahead as we can see. It is a melancholy fact, but not a surprising one, that flexible response, which is the foundation of NATO strategy, no longer enjoys the support of the Labour party. There can be little sense in the Labour party's strategy, which makes it clear in advance that, in the event of hostilities, the territory from which any attacks are likely to be launched would be immune from retaliation. The whole concept of so-called defensive defence is based on a fallacy. People do not win many tennis matches by standing on the baseline and blocking the ball back against an opponent who can hit it harder.
Fortunately, the defence of our country is not in the hands of those who advocate such policies. The Government, whom the people have chosen, recognise the high priority of securing the defence of the realm. We are privileged in this country to be supported by armed forces of outstanding skill, courage and dedication. I hope that it will be a long time before the Royal Air Force has to
536
fight again to protect our interests; but it is a very great reassurance to all of us to know that, if ever it had to do so, we could rely upon it. The RAF deserves our thanks.
5.23 pm
Mr. Allan Rogers: I join the Minister in congratulating the RAF on its pending 70th anniversary. I am sure that the House would also wish to congratulate it on its various successes over the past year in the different competitions in which it has participated. The 70 years of the RAF have been years of distinguished service. It was born out of the conflict of the first world war, and, in retrospect, it seems incredible that the RAF was just 21-years-old when it led the fight for the Battle of Britain. I know that the House would wish to salute those who have dedicated their lives to, and especially those who have given their lives in, the defence of our freedoms.
At this time it would also be appropriate to congratulate Air Chief Marshal Sir David Craig on attaining not only that post but that of Chief of the Defence Staff. We are confident that the country will be well-served by this distinguished and able officer.
Today's debate will be much poorer without the special contributions previously made by my friend Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones, the former Member for Eccles. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear. Hear."] As an ex-navigator, he often confessed that he did not always find the target during the war, but I believe that he often found the target on the Conservative Benches, and always with great courtesy. I am sure that both sides of the House join me in wishing him a long, happy and healthy retirement.
I must declare a personal, vested interest in the RAF. I remember, as a young boy, going down to the pit top holding the hand of one of my brothers who, during the war, left the pit when he was 17 to join the RAF. He quickly became my hero by being commissioned and becoming a member of 617—the Dambusters Squadron — and by being awarded the DFC. Obviously in a mining village he was much admired, and he certainly was my hero. He stayed in the RAF as a regular officer and, incidentally, set an example for a whole generation of nephews who are making their careers in the RAF.
I should like to crave the indulgence of the House to take the opportunity to offer my best wishes to Air Commodore Pat King, another family member, who retired yesterday from his post as Director of Flight Safety in the RAF.
I mention such personal matters for a particular reason. In a recent conversation with the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) he mentioned, among other things, the egalitarianism of the RAF. He said that, perhaps more than in any other service, ability counted for more than background. That is still the case. That principle has emphasised to my hon. Friends and myself that the defence of this country and the desire to defend it is not the prerogative of the Tory party. Indeed, the working-class communities have contributed the lives of many of their young men to that task.
Last October I began my speech in the defence debate by stating that, on both sides of the House, there is a strong commitment to the defence of this country. However, I must repeat once more that I strongly resent the implication, voiced by Conservative Members, that that is not the case on the Labour Benches. The Labour party is, and always has been, strongly and firmly committed to national defence. It is not a matter of

537
conjecture. One need only look at the record to see what the Labour party did when in power. To suggest otherwise is a mischievous lie and the meanest of political propaganda. The decisions made by the Labour party in office were made with regard to the national interest, in loyalty to our allies, and in opposition to injustice and tyranny wherever they existed.
Mr. Mans: The hon. Gentleman says that the Labour party is committed to the Royal Air Force and to the defence of the country. Would he like to tell us when a Labour Government last increased defence expenditure?
Mr. Rogers: That question — like most of the statistics that are bandied around — is not only irrelevant, but meaningless. I shall deal with these issues later to illustrate my argument, rather than answer irrelevant questions.
It is not the Tory party, but the Labour party in office, that has made the really tough decisions on Britain's defence. Perhaps not all of us will agree on the merits of those decisions, but the Labour party in power made the decisions that it had to make in the national interest, and it would he wrong to suggest otherwise. I remind Conservative Members that it was the Labour party in power that decided to enter NATO. It was the Labour party in power that gave a commitment to European defence. It was the Labour party in power that decided to re-arm at the time of Korea and to support the United Nations' forces there—something which the Secretary of State knows about. It was the Labour party in power that decided to develop an independent nuclear weapon strategy. Contrary to the propaganda and lies of the Government, the next Labour Government will make the tough decisions necessary for the proper defence of this country.
Mr. Sayeed: I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Labour party was in power in 1967 when both the First and the Second Sea Lord resigned because the Labour party would not provide the Navy with adequate funds.
Mr. Rogers: We do not have to go that far back to find officers who have left the services. Many tens and hundreds of officers are leaving the Air Force at the moment, perhaps because of bad morale. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Bristol, East (Mr. Sayeed) should take the medicine. Indeed, one does not have to go very far back to find examples of Ministers resigning because of Government cuts. That has happened within the lifetime of this Government.
Mr. Robert Sheldon: If the hon. Member for Bristol, East (Mr. Sayeed) wants to go that far back, he should look at the record a little more thoroughly. The reason why Mayhew, the Minister responsible for the Navy, resigned was that he wanted another aircraft carrier to carry on the east of Suez policy. If the Government really want to continue an east of Suez policy, they will need a great many more aircraft carriers than they have now.
Mr. Rogers: Contrary to popular belief and Tory propaganda, the present Government are not very good at defence. If Conservative Members bother to apply their limited mentalities, they will find that it is self-evident that the Government are not very good at the management of defence. This is a subject to which I shall return. Furthermore, it is now becoming pretty obvious to
538
everyone that they are not very good at defence policy, either. That criticism is made, not only by the Labour party, but by someone who knows better than any Conservative Member and who until relatively recently acted as a permanent secretary at the Ministry of Defence. His impartiality and political objectivity are beyond doubt. I would certainly venture to guess that he never voted Labour.
Let us examine what Sir Frank Cooper said—before the Government slap an injunction on him. He said:
"The politics of expediency run the Ministry of Defence —rather than a properly worked out policy."
That is not surprising, but it must have been taken to grotesque extremes for a permanent secretary to have said that. The man is no raving Leftie. He is not even a member of the Labour party. Sir Frank Cooper is chairman of United Scientific Holdings, deputy-chairman of Babcock International and a director of Rothschild, the bankers, besides having been a permanent secretary at the Ministry of Defence during this Government's lifetime. Sir Frank continued:
"ministers made lots of speeches about efficiency and new procurement initiatives and managed to give the impression that things were happening in defence. Instead, Mrs. Margaret Thatcher's successive administrations have failed to tackle issues that will not go away."
What are the issues that will not go away? Sir Frank says that the main issues are Britain's international role in defence and the ability to pay for an over-full defence programme. He said:
"Mr. Michael Heseltine, the former Secretary of State for Defence, adamantly refused to conduct a review of those issues."
Opposition Members have said that on many occasions, especially my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—I am sorry. My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies)— —
Mr. Sayeed: Wishful thinking.
Mr. Rogers: It is not wishful thinking. If we can convince the voters of the desperate state of our defences, we shall be in office sooner rather than later. [Interruption.] I know that this hurts the hon. Member for Bristol, East, but he should be quiet and listen. He might learn something.
Sir Frank went on to say:
"In brief, the politics of expediency have not changed."—
under this Government—
"They continue to override both policy and management."
The Minister talked about the reorganisation in the Ministry of Defence and extolled its virtues. Sir Frank continued:
"The vast amount of reorganisation, running down and changes in staff in the ministry and its research and development establishments meant that they had neither the capability nor the resources to sort out industry development problems in the way that had been possible 10 or 20 years previously. Ministers were deprived of proper advice during discussions over the cancellations of GEC's contract to develop the Nimrod radar surveillance aircraft in 1986."
So much for the Government's policy. Sir Frank Cooper, an ex-permanent secretary at the Ministry of Defence, thus destroys the Government's credibility on defence policies.
Opposition Members note that the Government like to project a certain image of themselves, that of streetwise business men who know their way about the City and are much smarter than the people who work there. They like

539
to give the impression that they really know the score. In answer to a question on defence in 1985 the then Minister of State for the Armed Forces said:
"My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has great commercial experience. He is not a person who is likely to be out manoeuvred". —[Official Report, 21 February 1985; Vol. 73 c. 1246.]
In other words, the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) could handle the French, the Italians and the Germans because he was a better business man than the business man.
John Harvey-Jones knocked that theory on the head and gave a rather apt quotation last Sunday. He said:
"Business men make even lousier politicians than politicians make business men, and that's saying something!"
That statement is true of the Government: they are pretty hopeless at managing defence. We know that Mr. Harvey-Jones is correct. Decisions taken by the Government are not always wise, and their management of programmes has not always been correct.
Mr. Michael Jack: The hon. Gentleman has extolled the virtues of United Scientific Holdings as a source of advice. Will he acknowledge that the Government have responded by appointing a business man with such a background as head of defence procurement to blend politics with business?
Mr. Rogers: Peter Levene has been there for some time, but as yet he has not straightened out the Government. On many issues, policy has not been sorted out. I would rather trust the judgment of an ex-permanent secretary, Sir Frank Cooper, than that of the hon. Gentleman. Britain's defence policy is in a critical state. When Sir Frank Cooper talked about the over-full nature of our defence commitment, he was right. Rather than waving flags or running around shouting gung-ho, it would be better if Conservative Members applied themselves to the problems with Britain's defences that will manifest themselves in the 1990s. Britain's defence policy and defence equipment are in a critical state because of the Government's mismanagement and ineptness. They are a Government of bunglers, quick-money artists and expedience. They have subordinated the national interest to an ill-conceived economic theory, followed by blatant auctioneering. When they make mistakes, they wrap them up in secrecy.
Mr. Bill Walker: As we are debating the RAF, will the hon. Gentleman say what commitments the RAF would no longer have if the Labour party were in government? The hon. Gentleman said that commitments are the problem.
Mr. Rogers: I know that the hon. Gentleman does not like listening to the truth, but he should be more patient. He did not interrupt the Minister when he said that although it was an RAF debate he wanted to make it a little wider. If I make the debate a little wider, it would be courteous of the hon. Gentleman to sit and listen.
Let us consider some of the specific projects that the Government have been responsible for managing. Let us look at some of the Government's incompetence. About £3 billion has been spent on torpedoes, but they still do not work. The Government have managed the Nimrod project
540
for eight years and have spent £1 billion, but it has been cancelled. We shall now have to find £1 billion to replace it.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Robert Atkins): Who originated it?
Mr. Rogers: The Labour Government originated it, but Conservative Governments have been responsible for managing it since 1979. The Government cannot continually duck and say that it is not their responsibility. They must grow up, behave like mature men and accept that they have been in office for nine years—nine years too long. It is about time that they started to accept their responsibility.
Mr. Mans: Given that a Labour Government signed the contract for Nimrod, will the hon. Gentleman say at what stage since 1979 any Labour party spokesman has said that we should cancel it?
Mr. Rogers: Conservative Members continually want to put the responsibility on us. The Conservative party has been in government for nine years. Conservative Members should accept their responsibility, accept that they have made a mess of defence and behave like grown men.
The Government have spent £650 million on the Foxhunter radar, but it still cannot do the job. The battlefield artillery target engagement system—BATES —has doubled in cost, to £200 million, but it still does not work. The command and control system for frigates, CACS 4, has been cancelled, and £30 million has gone down the drain. The SP 70 howitzer cost £88 million, but that has all gone down the drain.
The list is long. The Government put forward the proposition that they are good at managing defence, but those projects show that not only are they bad at policy, but lousy at management as well.
I turn now to some specific RAF projects. With regard to the European fighter aircraft, during a debate the then Minister of State for Defence Procurement the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) described the Turin agreement on EFA as a "major milestone" in the re-equipment programme. He described the efforts of the then Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for Henley, as, "a tremendous political achievement."
They have both gone. Seemingly, so has the political will and desire to reach the next milestone in this marathon venture. Indeed, the project does not seem to have reached the first hurdle. Why is that? Mismanagement? Lack of money? Different requirements? Why has there been a deafening silence from the Government as to the exact status of this project? We can discover information only from the Germans. At least they are not obsessed with secrecy — unlike this Government. The Germans are being honest about the difficulties involved, but this Government are hiding behind them. They are using them as a convenient scapegoat. The well-respected magazine Jane's Defence Weekly of 16 January said:
"The Ministry of Defence is surprisingly philosophical about West Germany's vacillation."
The Ministry of Defence and the Government are surprisingly philosophical about 40,000 jobs and the future of our military aviation industry.
Mr. Jack rose— —
Mr. Rogers: The hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to participate in the debate.

541
The aeroplane should not only be well into its development by now, but its radar suite should have been ordered. I note that the Minister is not prepared to say anything about that matter. It is a serious delay that might do for EFA what Foxhunter is doing for the Tornado.
When tenders are received, will the Minister ensure that EFA has a European radar that is not subject to United States' extra-territorial restrictions? EFA is vital to our air forces on the central front in the 1990s and beyond.
Mr. Jack rose— —
Mr. Atkins: Give way.
Mr. Rogers: If the hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins) wants to participate in the debate he should take his feet off the Bench and sit on the Back Benches, where he can catch Mr. Speaker's eye. Meanwhile, he should be quiet.
A number of experts have told me that no existing aircraft can fulfil our need and requirement to combat the Soviet threat. Indian pilots who have flown the F16 and MiG 29 paint an alarming picture of Russian superiority, which probably accounts for the Indian Government's decision to buy MiGs.
Mr. Jack: If the hon. Gentleman had read the Offical Report over the past few months, he would have seen a series of parliamentary questions from Conservative Members eliciting a stream of information about the EFA. If he were to quote less selectively from the article in Jane's Defence Weekly, he would note that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has written to Members participating in the project urging them to continue their commitment to it.
Mr. O'Neill: Big deal.
Mr. Rogers: As my hon. Friend says, "Big deal."
Last year we heard exactly the same words from the Minister about the EFA. We are still in that position. The project is no further along the road. Regardless of the answers that are elicited, the fact is that the project is not developing as it should do. The radar suite has still not been ordered, which means that when the plane comes into existence it will not have the radar capability to carry out the job. [Interruption.] Do not tell me that the radar suite has been ordered, because I found out this morning that it has not been ordered. [Interruption.] The tenders may well have been closed, but no Government decision has been made.
In talking about the mismanagement of the Government's defence programme, I come to the "jewel in the crown", the pride of the Government's mismanagement and the peak of their incompetence—the Tucano. What a wonderful non-flying plane! It does not give us any pleasure to catalogue the Government's ineptness in this matter. However, one notices how, in previous debates, Ministers and Conservative Members attacked my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) and accused him of scaremongering because he pointed out that plane's obvious deficiencies and queried the reasons for the excessive delays. I am pleased that his perception has been vindicated. My hon. Friend was right—the choice was wrong. There are excessive delays, and there is a cost to the taxpayer.
In both defence debates and questions the Minister has continually reiterated that there is no cost to the taxpayer as a result of the excessive delay over the Tucano. That is
542
simply not true. There is a cost—the cost of keeping in operation the antique Jet Provost, at a cost of about £10 million every six months. There is also the cost to our pilots and service men, who continually have to patch up, make do and train on those 152 antique Jet Provosts. Those planes have given great service to this country, but are 12 years older than the average pilot being trained on them. This is yet another of the Government's disasters in managing our defence programme.
In last year's debate the Minister said that the Tucano would be received by the RAF last May and that it would be up to squadron level by now. However, as we know, the reality is that no Tucanos are in service and training pilots. The plane has not finished its release for service trials. Indeed, it did not commence them until 8 December. There are still substantial problems, such as fitting the engine into an air frame that cannot take it. Although that problem has been pointed out to the Government, it is still nowhere near being properly resolved.
Will the Minister come clean and tell the House the plain truth? What are they going to do about providing a plane on which our pilots can train in future years? It is significant that the PC9, which was turned down by the Government — one of their brilliant commercial judgments — is in service with the Saudi air force. Indeed, 30 have been delivered in the past year alone. The Government have a disaster on their hands and should do something about it fairly quickly before we have to borrow some planes from the Saudis on which to train our pilots.
At the beginning of the debate the Minister spoke about pilot retention and loss. I do not know where he gets his statistics from. He should sack some of his civil servants for coming up with figures that are wrong, as they did last year and this year. The haemorrhaging of pilots from the RAF is a problem of great concern. In last year's debate, referring to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North, the Minister said:
"It might be helpful if I corrected the impression that the hon. Gentleman gave that this problem is getting worse. Far from it. The latest statistics are good news." —[Official Report, 22 January 1987; Vol. 108, c. 1114.]
The Minister then proceeded to give a series of relative figures and percentages which, quite frankly, were as misleading as the figures that he has given today. The truth is that this severe problem is worsening.
Opposition Members have only the most unstinting praise for those who have chosen careers that put them in the front line of defending our freedom. That is why we are concerned that something should be done about our most valuable resources. In 1985, 147 pilots left the Royal Air Force. In 1986 that figure was 175, and in 1987 it was 224. There was a net loss of 49 pilots in the last year alone, with only 175 graduating. I do not know why the Minister gets his figures wrong and gives the House the impression that there is no problem and that things are improving. It is incredible. I do not understand it and I certainly do not believe the Minister's figures. The figures for pilots leaving before they complete their engagements were 58 in 1985, 114 in 1986 and 150 in 1987. This represents a severe problem which the Minister should address and about which he should give some answers to the House.
Mr. Sayeed: I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would answer my question, because I genuinely do not know. Do the figures that he has quoted include those who have qualified as pilots, but who have not qualified in further training?
Mr. Rogers: I have included all the figures. They are available for the hon. Gentleman to inspect. Quite honestly, the easiest way for him to get the figures in all their various categories is to get them from the Library. They may well be complex, which is why the Minister can twist them around so easily. The figures are self-evident. There is severe pilot loss, and the Royal Air Force has a severe problem in pilot retention.
There are many problems. I am not very happy about what the Minister said about conventional talks. I am not quite sure what the Government are going to do about the replacement of ground-launch cruise missiles with air-launch cruise missiles. I am not sure to what extent the Government will include dual capability aircraft in the conventional talks. That problem might well need to be addressed in a further debate.
I realise that time is getting on, but I should like to turn to the issue of air-sea rescue. Obviously we are very pleased with the news of the rejection of the privatisation of the air-sea rescue service. However, we would be much more pleased if the Minister could assure us that the capability of the existing facilities will be maintained. Frankly, I think that the statement contained a little humbug—that is if the whole statement was not humbug.
I should like to know why it took so long to consider the project. The Minister said that it was because he wanted to give the matter careful consideration. However, the facts on which he made his decision were available a year ago. Why did the Government sit on the matter for a year? Obviously, they wanted to privatise the service and were trying to find a way to do so. It was only because of pressure from hon. Members of all parties that the Government have made a humiliating climbdown on the issue. They have turned themselves upside down, but they do not have the guts to say so. The Government wanted to privatise, but, as Sir Frank Cooper said, the politics of expediency have triumphed. Twelve months ago the policies of national interest should have led to an immediate rejection of the absurd proposition that was put forward by Bristow—a proposition which, incidentally, undermined the morale of many of our service men who were involved.
Finally, in view of the Government's statement, will the Minister give a real vote of confidence to the air-sea rescue services by providing them with adequate, modern helicopters to carry out their difficult and demanding task, instead of leaving them with 30-year-old Wessex helicopters and quite ancient Sea King helicopters? The air-sea search and rescue teams need such a vote of confidence, and I hope that the Minister will be able to provide it.
5.59 pm
Mr. Neville Trotter: It is inevitable that when we are debating a service that uses such complex and expensive equipment we should spend most of our time discussing that equipment.
However, I should just like to say a few words about the 93,000 volunteers who give their professional skills to the Royal Air Force. My contacts with other countries have revealed how highly the skill of our Air Force is regarded by our allies.
Earlier in the debate, low flying was mentioned. It is essential to practise the capability of flying low under enemy defences in peace time because it would otherwise be impossible to achieve during war time. The safety
544
record of our aircrew has been most commendable. When they have to fly low they do so over unpopulated areas, and the recent safety level is the best that has been seen in modern times, with the lowest number of accidents. It is interesting that two thirds of the accidents that inevitably occur in high-performance flying take place not at low levels but when aircraft are high in the sky. We must pay tribute to the skill and professionalism of our pilots and those on the ground who maintain their complex aircraft.
There is no shortage of aircrew in the Air Force. That contrasts with the situation in Europe. I spoke to the Chief of Staff of one of our smaller NATO allies 18 months ago, and he told me that two thirds of his fighter pilots were contemplating leaving the air force to join the civil airlines who were recruiting actively at that time. Fortunately, we do not have a shortage of pilots in the front line, and the reason is that morale is high. That is because life in the Air Force is as good today as it has ever been, and because nine consecutive recommendations from the Armed Forces Pay Review Body have been met in full. That contrasts very much with the situation when the Labour Government were in office.
There is, however, a problem on the horizon because demographic trends show that there will be 25 per cent. fewer young people in each annual age group by the end of the century. That means that there will be a smaller pool of young potential recruits who can be attracted to the services. In particular, the airlines will be competing for those who wish to become pilots. In the years ahead there will be an increasing recruitment problem because of the demographic situation in Britain.
I should like to say a few words about the Air Training Corps, which has 45,000 members. I am sure that all hon. Members are in contact with the squadrons in their constituencies. I am always impressed with the smartness of the cadets and staff at the Whitley Bay and Tynemouth squadrons. One third of all those who serve in the corps join the Air Force and provide a substantial number of the recruits—both officers and men—into the services. I am impressed by the number of girls who are now seeking to join the corps. I have been in correspondence with my hon. Friend the Minister about that. There is such a demand among young ladies wishing to join the cadets that a ceiling has had to be applied; otherwise, there would be insufficient room for boys in the squadrons.
I am delighted that the strength of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force is being built up. It has always been by far the smallest of the three reserve forces. Perhaps we should be thinking about forming an auxiliary air force unit equipped with civilian aircraft in a transport role. Again, I have been in correspondence with my hon. Friend about that.
The Select Committee on Transport is surveying the Merchant Navy. As we all know, there has been considerable reduction in the size of all the NATO merchant navies. It seems that, in an emergency, we will have to put greater reliance on the use of air transport to carry cargo. Perhaps we should form auxiliary air force squadrons using those civil aircraft that have considerable cargo capacity.
The air defence of the United Kingdom is of crucial importance to securing our home base in Britain. I shall confine the rest of my remarks to that subject. That absolutely vital task has always been performed so well by the Royal Air Force. The United Kingdom air defence area, as has already been said, covers a vast area, hundreds

545
of miles out into the western Atlantic and north into the Norwegian sea. In war, the main threat to Britain would undoubtedly come from the air. In peace, on average four long-range Soviet aircraft a week enter our air defence region over the sea, and they are intercepted by our on-duty fighter force. In war, we could expect a large number of enemy aircraft to be directed against us, and, with the long range of modern aircraft, they will be able to approach the United Kingdom from all directions.
In 1979, probably the greatest weakness that the Government inherited was the inadequacy of our air defence forces, having regard to the considerable increase in the potential air threat against Britain. One of the greatest achievements of the Government has been the improvement in the air defence of Britain in past years, and the continuing programme for the years ahead.
Our defence depends on a combination of the capability of the fighter forces, the capability of our radar, the effectiveness of our command and control organisation, and, of course, the survivability of the bases and headquarters in the event of an attack on them.
The Government increased the number of fighter aircraft from the inadequate number that they inherited. In the years ahead, we shall need to maintain our present front-line strength, and I am sure that the Government intend to do that. Their next step was to add 72 Hawk fast-jet trainers in an armed configuration to the fighter capability in a crisis. Detachments of those aircraft are regularly moved to Newcastle airport to provide a close defence of the north-east of the country. The introduction into service of the Tornado fighter is a generation away from the aircraft that it is replacing. Indeed, the Lightning that is going out of service represents a 30-year gap in technology. There is an enormous advance in capability.
The creation of a Tornado fighter base at Leeming is particularly welcome. The geographical spread of our fighter bases in the past has not been as it should be. With the creation of the wing at Leeming we are bridging the gap between Scotland and Lincolnshire, and that makes a great deal of sense. The entry into service of the VC10 tankers and the TriStar tankers has greatly increased the capacity of the tanker force and enabled the fighters to provide a far more capable defence. Through air refuelling they can operate further out from the coasts and stay much longer away on station. An additional squadron of tankers is equivalent to a number of additional squadrons of fighter aircraft, and that increase in our strength is greatly to be welcomed.
There have been great improvements in the strength of our ground radar, and many fixed installations have been brought up to date, complemented by the new mobile radars which can be moved as necessary to meet changing circumstances in a crisis. That huge improvement of ground radar has greatly increased our capability. Without doubt the main improvement in radar coverage of the United Kingdom, however, comes from the Boeing E3 and the AWACS systems. No name has yet been chosen for this aircraft. It is known as the E3A Sentry aircraft in the American services. Perhaps we should be thinking of our own name for such a vital piece of equipment in our Air Force. It provides a great mobility of radar cover and can operate far in advance. It is much more survivable against attack than any group of radar stations. In an emergency, it could be used to plug a gap if a ground station is taken out by enemy action.
546
It is appropriate to say a few words in praise of the devoted crews of the ancient Shackleton airborne early-warning aircraft, which continue to drone through the skies of the north of Scotland. These aircraft are at least 30 years old. They were not even the last model of Shackleton, and the last model was in service when I was in the RAF—a long time ago. Indeed, 30 years ago I remember flying similar aircraft, and they were then described as 30,000 rivets pulsating in unison. I doubt whether they are any better now than they were 30 years ago. Their capability is very limited compared with modern equipment, but their crews maintain the skills in being until they can transfer to the new Boeings.
I was pleased to hear the announcement that an order for a further AWAC is to be placed, bringing the total up to seven. If there is one message that I want to leave with my hon. Friend the Minister tonight, it is that we need an additional aircraft to bring the total up to eight. With seven aircraft we can just maintain the necessary 24-hour cover that we need over our air defence area, but we must take into account the possibility of losing an aircraft in an accident. The planes will be in service for a long time. The ancient narrow hull of the Shackleton precluded any major change in its equipment, but the AWAC is basically a Boeing 707 with a great deal of room inside and one can expect that over the years major improvements will be incorporated as technology develops. However great the skills of the crews, it must be a possibility that one of the fleet will be lost over a 20 or 30-year life span. If only six aircraft were left, would we be able to maintain the essential cover? I strongly urge my hon. Friend to see whether an eighth aircraft can be added to the order. The dollar has fallen and that must make such a purchase cheaper and slightly more affordable.
There have been enormous improvements in command and control in the air defence environment in Britain, and the implementation of those improvements is most welcome. They provide a great deal of flexibility in command and control, with numerous control centres around the country. It will now be possible from the south of England for controllers to operate fighters nearly 1,000 miles away over the Norwegian sea as easily as if they were in a control centre in the north of Scotland. There will be a much improved capability for co-ordinating operations with neighbouring NATO air and maritime commanders out at sea. That will enable our air defence commanders to deploy defending fighters in the right place, at the right time, in the right quantity, and, in particular, as far forward as possible over the sea so that there will be the maximum number of enemy interceptions and engagements.
The need to engage our attackers as far out from the United Kingdom as possible is greater than ever in an age of ever-increasing long-range land attack missiles launched from aircraft. It is possible that, with the number of attackers that could be expected, some would get through and our airfields would become prime targets. Therefore, I welcome the progress that has been made in hardening facilities at our bases. That is a most noticeable change when one visits stations or passes them in a car.
Efforts have also been made to set up a capability to repair damage to those airfields in an emergency arid to ensure secure communications under attack. I welcome the increase in the number of Royal Auxiliary Air Force squadrons defending our bases. I hope that we shall

547
continue to add more Royal Auxiliary Air Force defence squadrons in future because they are a cost-effective way of providing an essential element of our defence.
We can expect that as our own attack capability improves, so will that of our potential opponents. We need to maintain a high standard in our air defences for the future in line with new and developing technology for both defence and attack.
In the next year or two, we must consider where we shall go in the next century. It takes five years to decide what to do and 10 years to bring into production equipment that must then last 20 years. There are exciting prospects in over-the-horizon radars, where a beam is bounced off a layer of the upper air, giving a long range. At present, there are problems with weather conditions, but there is scope for these systems in the future. It is something that we should be looking at. I am sure that all Western countries are considering what can be done in that direction. Similarly, surface wave radar are coming into technological development, where the radar beam can follow the earth's curve, and that has the great advantage of detecting low-flying aircraft which at present would be sheltered by the earth's curve as they approach.
There is a highly classified stealth programme in the United States, which officially refuses to admit that it has any stealth aircraft. Indeed, it is only when, from time to time, a sudden hole appears in the ground as one goes astray that one knows that they exist. I am told, however, that they are not so stealthy that they cannot be seen. They are still visible. However, they are so constructed that their radar signature is only a fraction of that of the present generation of aircraft.
However much the United States seeks to keep that technology hidden, it will eventually become available to those on the other side. The plans will either be stolen or developed. We must accept that, looking ahead to the next century, potential attackers will have such technology. We shall have to look ahead to new forms of detection altogether.
Radar, which has been the main defence sensor for 50 years since the Battle of Britain, may well be replaced in the next 20 years by completely new detectors. One wonders whether heat detection may come into its own by that time. High performance aircraft give out a great deal of heat from their skin surface and it must be possible to detect that form of energy release.
The Tornado fighter is designed to detect enemy aircraft at long range and to fire its missiles at them while still miles away. But there is a clear need now for another type of fighter to complement that capability. In the crowded skies over Europe, it is often not possible to engage an enemy at a distance because too many aircraft are about and it is not possible to distinguish friend from foe miles away in such circumstances. Therefore, there is a need for a fighter that is designed more for its agility than for its long-range capabilities—designed for the eyeball-to-eyeball confrontation of a dog fight. The RAF has a clear need for such an aircraft in the 1990s. It is to meet that need that the European fighter aircraft is being brought forward by us and our European allies.
It is not economically practical for the United Kingdom to design and build an aircraft of this nature in the sort of numbers that the RAF will need. The EFA project is an important collaborative programme. It is important
548
economically, militarily and politically. It is the most cost-effective way of meeting the RAF's needs for the next generation of aircraft. I am pleased that we are making significant progress towards the introduction of the manufacturing phase of that plane.
Our total need and that of our allies for that aircraft is over 700, and the United Kingdom industry will perform one third of the work. Such an aircraft should have a good export potential. There is likely to be a big demand overseas for aircraft with such capability and at such a price.
It is important to obtain from the manufacturers the necessary guarantees for the future, in terms not only of performance but of availability once it is in service. It should be possible to enter into an agreement with the consortium to cover both performance and maintainability.
Thirty years ago, in the infamous 1957 White Paper, the end of manned aircraft was forecast. It is difficult to forecast what the exact nature of the environment in the air will be 30 years from now. However, I remind the House that we must start thinking about it because, as I have said, it takes five years to decide what we want and 10 years to build, with 20 or 30 years in service. The aircraft that are now beginning to come forward will be in service well into the next century, perhaps until about 2030 —rather a horrifying thought for some of us.
Whatever the technological environment and the circumstances in which the RAF will be flying when it enters its century —it is an interesting thought that in another 30 years we shall have a century of the RAF to celebrate—it will still be keeping the peace and deterring aggression as successfully as it is today. It will be in as fine a shape then as it is today, which has never been better in its history.
6.19 pm
Mr. Menzies Campbell: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate, because it gives me a chance to refer for the first time since my election to the Royal Air Force base at Leuchars, which lies in my constituency. Leuchars has been an RAF base since 1920. It currently contains some 2,000 service men together with 1,500 dependants. The presence of those service men and dependants contributes richly to the variety of life in the community, and—in another sense of "richly"—to the local economy. The RAF has become well integrated with the community, and relations are generally very cordial. Indeed, so popular is the RAF at Leuchars that last September an air show which was scheduled to attract 10,000 spectators attracted four times that number, with the result that roads were blocked for some 20 miles around.
Like other hon. Members, I was pleased to hear the Minister of State refer to the Government's decision on search and rescue operations. As the Minister will know, a flight of 222 Search and Rescue Squadron is deployed at Leuchars. Like other hon. Members, I was much concerned at the reports that privatisation was being considered. I was not alone in writing to the Minister on the subject. I shall not repeat the arguments that we put to the Government, except to say that a privatised service would be susceptible to industrial action, and possibly to legal action, as a consequence of which equipment might

549
be seized. Anything of that nature which stood in the way of a proper and effective service would obviously be something to be deplored and avoided.
Self-evidently, the search and rescue services are complementary to other training and necessarily involve the use of equipment already in place. Search and rescue services began at Leuchars in 1956, and since then 1,955 rescues have been performed. In 1986, the number of rescues was 121, and in 1987 it was 114. Notably, 104 of those were what might be described as civil rescues, and only 10 were military. Those figures emphasise that the existing armed services' facilities for search and rescue are also a very important part of the civilan services.
The House, I feel, would not be slow to offer its congratulations not simply to those who perform such responsibilities from Leuchars, but to others all round the country, on the skill, expertise and heroism that they are often required to demonstrate, frequently in association with other rescue services. If I may make another local point, one such association is with the lifeboat stationed at Anstruther and others stationed elsewhere around the country.
What I said about Leuchars is not unique. It is, I believe, typical. My hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) today drew my attention to the fact that at RAF Boulmer, which lies in his constituency, the same standards of dedication and heroism are frequently displayed.
Low flying has been mentioned, and I should like to say a word about that, and also about training. It is clear that low flying is necessary for the proper training of our pilots; it must be equally clear that, in certain circumtances, it causes inconvenience. On many occasions, it has caused grave concern, and will doubtless continue to do so. It is also clear that where a training squadron is deployed at a base the pattern of activity may change radically because of training requirements.
On 26 November last year, some of my right hon. and hon. Friends, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel), met the Secretary of State and, I understand, the Minister who is to wind up the debate. They were very well received, and helpful and constructive discussions took place. At that meeting, I understand that the Government agreed first to consider the use of independent radar checks to ensure that the RAF's own rules are being observed by its pilots; and, secondly, to consider the extent to which some present low flying might, at least in part, be transferred to either the Falkland Islands or Canada. I should be grateful if the Minister could tell us the result of that consideration, or at least let us know in some other way after the debate.
The issue of training also embraces that of noise. As must be self-evident, an alteration in the pattern of operations, while it may not increase the intensity of noise, may well increase its frequency. A noise that is tolerable at a certain level when it occurs once, twice or even half a dozen times a day may, at the same intensity, become unacceptable if repeated many more times.
In a written answer to a question that I put down on 12 November 1987, the Minister revealed the amount that had been spent in and around Leuchars on insulation after the arrival of a training squadron. That amount was negligible — £45,000. I urge the Minister to be more flexible. Such payments are essentially discretionary, and thus enable the Minister to take particular account of particular circumstances. Relatively modest sums would
550
create a disproportionate amount of good will, because those affected by noise find it very disturbing, and sometimes distressing. I do not consider it an overstatement to say that some at least find the quality of their lives affected. The solution is not to suggest that necessary training should be curtailed or abandoned. The solution is to ensure that the effects of such training are alleviated by more flexible provision of grants for insulation or double glazing.
Reference has been made to pay and conditions. Obviously they have an effect on recruitment. They may be even more significant in the retention of skilled personnel, but in considering the retention of skilled personnel we should not concentrate entirely on pilots. Very high levels of skill and expertise are demonstrated throughout all the trades practised in the Royal Air Force, and dissipation or dilution of those skills is obviously regrettable and to be avoided. The issue of pay and conditions should he considered in regard to all ranks and occupations in the RAF, rather than in relation only to the more obvious occupations, such as that of pilot.
Hon. Members have mentioned the European fighter aircraft. Clearly such development, if successful, is to be applauded. I hope that the Government will give as much emphasis as possible to a policy of common procurement. We should not, of course, underestimate the difficulties involved in such a policy, but, equally, we should not underestimate the desirability of its achievement, in both the financial consequences and as a strengthening of political links within Europe. That is something that alliance Members, at least, find highly desirable.
The country needs a robust defence and within that defence it is necessary that the Royal Air Force should play a significant part. For my part, that is a primary consideration. The proper defence of the United Kingdom is a fundamental responsibility of Government. I do not place any less importance on the responsibility of Government to be responsive and flexible when the possibility of disarmament without prejudice to robust defence is made available.
Suggestions made recently, that the Government favour a nuclear stand-off missile to be carried by the Royal Air Force, would seem to put in jeopardy some benefits of the INF treaty. The United States deploys the Patriot missile system, which is conventionally armed and replaced the nuclear-armed Nike Hercules system. If that is good enough for the roles that the United States seeks to fulfil, the Government would be well advised to pause before embarking upon a nuclear system. It seems neither necessary nor desirable to increase reliance on nuclear weapons.
There is no substantive motion before the House, but the House will not find it difficult to express its confidence in the professionalism of the Royal Air Force, to recognise its loyalty and bravery and to express the hope that those important and notable qualities will continue to be exhibited by those who serve in the Royal Air Force on behalf of us all and to whom we have very good reason to be grateful.
6.31 pm
Mr. Michael Colvin: I congratulate the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) on his speech. It was unexceptional in that it told us very little about Liberal party policy on defence, but that is nothing new from the

551
Opposition Benches because the shadow defence spokesman, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers), who opened the debate, was equally shadowy. As long as the Opposition go on shadow boxing we are not worried; it is when they go into action on the real things that we will be concerned.
Mr. Rogers: Will the hon. Member accept that it is not my function as shadow spokesman to delineate the policies? His party is in government and he ought to be more constructive and comment on his party's policy and the Government's action. The debate is about the Government's custodianship of the Royal Air Force.
Mr. Colvin: I agree with two things the hon. Gentleman said: he congratulated the Royal Air Force on its 70th anniversary, and he congratulated Air Chief Marshal Sir David Craig on his appointment as Chief of Staff.
Mr. Frank Cook: Let us get to the Tucano.
Mr. Colvin: I accept what the hon. Gentleman said about the PC9 and I am pleased that it is being sold to the Saudi Arabians.
As a humble member the PBI, I hesitate to take part in a debate about the Royal Air Force, but having once represented a constituency which has a considerable interest in the aerospace industry, I will address most of my remarks to that aspect of the debate.
The debate is timely because, following the Reykjavik summit in October 1986, progress is being made on reducing nuclear arms in the new and very welcome atmosphere of perestroika. However, the more flexible and encouraging attitude of the Soviet Union must not lead us to lower our guard. The move towards INF reduction was achieved by negotiating from a position of strength. That must remain our aim, just as our independent nuclear deterrent will stay as the linchpin of our defence. It is because we follow Churchill's dictum not to let go the atomic weapon until we are sure, and more than sure, that the other means of preserving peace are in our hands that we must continue to maintain and strengthen our conventional defences.
NATO is still the foundation of our defence policy, and 95 per cent. of our defence budget is committed to it. The Royal Air Force makes a very important contribution to NATO's air defence and strike capability on the European central front. It is responsible for the United Kingdom's air defence and provides airlift support to all three services.
The Minister of State referred to the cover the RAF gives to our merchant shipping. I echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) said: I hope that there is a Merchant Navy for it to give cover to in the future. That is a matter of considerable concern to all hon. Members.
The effectiveness of the Royal Air Force in fulfilling its role depends in large part on the equipment with which it is supplied. As 18 per cent. of the total defence budget — some £3·3 billion — will be spent on equipping the Royal Air Force this year, I will speak about the aircraft and aerospace industry. It is good to see my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins), the recently appointed Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, attending the debate because he brings to the
552
Department considerable experience and knowledge of the aerospace industry, which I am sure will be extremely useful, and also a considerable constituency interest.
No one can say that the Government, since their election in 1979, have not given the Royal Air Force the tools to do its job. Major items of equipment have been ordered since our election, and I list some of them: the 82 Tornado GR1s, of which 73 have been delivered—they are the strike attackers; 162 Tornado air defence variants, of which 48 have been delivered; and 62 Harrier GR5s — the big wing Harrier, equivalent to the AV8B in America. We should pay tribute to the United States for having joined Britain in developing that aircraft. In fact, if it had not been for the United States Marine Corps there may not have been a Harrier. We should think about what that would have meant for the outcome of the Falklands operation.
Other items of equipment are: seven AWACs, none of which has been delivered—it is a pity it is not a British product, but the less said about that the better; 15 Phantoms, all of which have been delivered; 18 transport-tanker aircraft, which will have tremendous impact as the force multipliers in keeping aircraft in the air—five of those are TriStars converted from British Airways aircraft; eight support helicopters, all of which have been delivered; 130 basic trainers, which are to come soon; and 25 EH101 helicopters, the successor to the Sea King, which will now be manufactured. Let us hope that Rolls-Royce succeeds in getting the RTM322 engine into that aircraft.
The most impressive equipment programme is the Tornado. There are 600 in service in the United Kingdom, West Germany and Italy — the three partners in the project. Some 809 have been ordered from those three countries, and Germany may require a few more. Together with the Saudi Arabian contract, about which we were all pleased, the total output of the Tornados by the time the programme finishes may be well over 1,000. The Tornado, besides being part of the comprehensive modernisation programme, has provided many jobs in a high-tech industry.
I pay tribute to the British aerospace industry for the application of good design. The technological and engineering skills of its men and women have meant that it has been able to add tenfold to the value of the raw material it uses. That is an added value ratio which, for a country such as the United Kingdom, which is not rich in raw materials, is the sort of industry that we ought to encourage. In fact, 55,000 jobs in the United Kingdom aerospace industry are dependent on the Tornado programme.
Sir Antony Buck: My hon. Friend knows much about these matters and, as he has just said, the Tornado is a remarkable example of the success of British technology. Does he agree that the Harrier probably runs it pretty close? Britain has sold 110 of them initially abroad, which is a remarkable achievement, and the Harrier programme has gone on to be another success. The Harrier is a great achievement in British industry and the programme has had much help from the Royal Air Force.
Mr. Colvin: I agree wholly with my hon. and learned Friend, as I usually do. The Harrier and the Tornado are also examples of inter-country collaboration. Bearing in mind the very high cost of aerospace projects today, I believe that such collaboration is the only practical way forward.

553
The 55,000 jobs that I have referred to are not all within British Aerospace but are spread across Roll-Royce which produces the engines and hundreds, perhaps thousands, of other companies that supply the bits and pieces. As the strike attack Tornado force is completed and the air defence variant becomes operational, we may be tempted to relax a bit. As early as the mid-1990s, however, even some of the Tornados that came into service early might need to be replaced. Certainly all of our Phantom F4 force will have had to go by that time. That is what has led to the biggest ever financial collaboration programme undertaken by a group of NATO allies, the European fighter aircraft. It involves four countries—the United Kingdom, West Germany, Italy and Spain. They have agreed a broad specification for the aircraft in terms of weight, engine thrust and payload. They will share the work, depending upon the number of aircraft that each of them requires.
The United Kingdom will have a 33 per cent. stake in manufacture, because we require 250 aircraft, and West Germany will have exactly the same work share and number of aircraft. Italy will have a 21 per cent. stake because it wants only 150 aircraft. Spain will have a 13 per cent. stake because it wants 100, or perhaps as many as 150 aircraft. We are not sure yet of its requirements. A total of 750 to 800 aircraft will be required for the member countries, who may want more aircraft in due course, and this will bring tremendous export potential.
I should like to put on record the arguments for proceeding with the EFA, which has now reached a crucial stage of decision making. The industry is plagued with acronyms. It is often said that, provided one knows the acronyms used in the aerospace industry, one can find a way around and persuade people that one is very knowledgeable.
It is worth my running through the pedigree of the EFA because it is an important project. It goes back to 1980, when the British, Germans and French together produced the ECA, or the European combat aircraft. That collaboration led in the following year to the United Kingdom proceeding alone with the P110. Perhaps hon. Members will remember the campaign that we mounted at that time to persuade the Government that the project should go ahead.
At the same time the Germans decided to do their own thing, and they produced the TKF-90. Both of these designs were still on paper, and were brought together in 1982 when the ACA, or the agile combat aircraft — I hope that hon. Members are following this—went on the drawing board. At that time, we roped in Italy as an additional partner. That led the then Secretary of State for Defence, now Sir John Nott, to announce at the Farnborough international air show that the EAP, or the experimental aircraft programme as it had been renamed, would come into being.
It is worth quoting from a press release issued at that time. Sir John said that this project was to be
"a research experimental aircraft programme which would bring together current component elements of demonstrator work and further advance our knowledge of the demanding technology which will be essential to the high performance requirements now foreseen".
It was not to be a prototype. No one would be designing an aircraft that he thought would be required in 10 years' time, but an aircraft that could give us all the information required to produce, in the light of circumstances and tests,
554
the sort of aircraft that we needed. The designers were going to look at high agility, more efficient use of composite materials, artificial stability or "fly-by-wire", and stealth techniques that have been mentioned today, as well as advanced cockpit and systems design. A demonstrator model would tell us much about these matters, and provide information useful in developing our STOVL aircraft, the Harrier, and to improve the Tornados already in service. There was much more value in producing a demonstrator model than there could ever be in producing a prototype. In the history of the British aerospace industry, far too many prototypes have finished up on the scrap heap. The Government were right to approach the problem in the way that they did.
Sir John Nott also said at that time that the aircraft would be ready to fly in about three years, and that has happened. Those of us who were at Farnborough two years ago were very impressed at the performance that it put up, and so too have been the 11 pilots who have flown it.
When the EFA first comes into service, it will have the RB- 199 engine, built by Rolls-Royce at Patchway. As production proceeds, the aircraft will need a new engine, the EJ200. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward) asked earlier in the debate about the Government's attitude towards that engine. It is probably safe for me to say that the Government, if they go ahead with the EFA, which I am sure they will, will have no alternative but to accept the EJ200 engine as well.
In August 1985 came the real turning point in the EFA programme, with the signing in Turin of the agreement to proceed between the member countries — the United Kingdom, West Germany, Italy and Spain. France had pulled out, although it had been in the programme up to that stage. It was developing its own ideas. It wanted an aircraft that was lighter and more adaptable, and would not have the same capability. Its ACX programme, as it was called at that stage, became the Rafale. The Dassault company proceeded with its manufacture. I believe that that aircraft has now flown.
The EFA is very important for jobs. The employment graph in a British Aerospace or Rolls-Royce factory looks like a cliff edge for 1992, when work on the Tornado programme is due to run down. The EFA could generate as many as 40,000 jobs. That is 15,000 fewer than Tornado because Spain has become an additional partner. But the project will be crucial to our aerospace industry. Employment is a good reason for joining the project, although it is not the only one. It must be the right project for the job, as I am sure it will be. Nevertheless, the project is crucial for our aerospace industry and for maintaining a credible industrial base for our defence systems.
Let us also hope that the radar that will go into the aircraft is British. Some of us have received today a note from the GEC-Marconi Defence Systems company outlining its suggestions for radar in the aircraft. The contract will be worth £1 billion and involve the four-nation consortium. Let us hope that we go ahead with a European radar system rather than an American one. The danger of putting an American radar system into this aircraft is that, when it comes to selling the aircraft to third countries, the Americans can sanitise the radar. In fact, the USA even has the right to veto some of the sales at times. I am not sure that that is good. Let us hope that it is British or European radar in the EFA.

555
Last summer, Eurofighter, the national EFA partners' joint company, which will develop and build the aircraft, and Eurojet, the company which will develop and build the new engine required, submitted a definition phase report on the European fighter aircraft. This report covered the technical definition of the aircraft, the division of work between the member companies and the proposed programme and estimate of costs. It will be an extremely tightly costed project. Last Sunday, the Sunday Times identified the work already being done by the member companies in this £20 billion project and areas in which economies could be made. They have suggested reductions of about 8 per cent. in the cost of production, worth some £400 million. That is the right attitude towards such a project. Just because the Government are the purchasers, companies should not have the impression that there is a blank cheque, because there is not.
In November 1987, the Ministry of Defence was sufficiently satisfied with progress for approval of the equipment policy committee for EFA developments to be given. However, the final step of approaching the overseas and defence policy committee of the Cabinet awaits international agreement in respect of some aspects of the programme. This is a particularly sensitive issue in West Germany. The West German defence budget is very tight for a number of reasons. First, there is a demographic problem which results in a shortage of military personnel. An increase in conscription in West Germany and an improvement in wage rates did nothing to solve that problem and attract more recruits. Secondly, there has been delay in the updating of their Phantom force. Thirdly, there is the problem of the Luftwaffe's need for additional Tornado aircraft. Finally, there is the launch of a new helicopter, the PAH2. All of these run concurrently with EFA activities.
We are now seeing all the strands of the European fighter aircraft being pulled together in Bonn and I hope that we shall soon receive formal Bundestag approval for the project to go ahead. That is all we now need. Everybody else is happy.
Mr. Rogers: Will the hon. Gentleman explain the basis on which he makes that statement? I understand that Herr Wörner is having great difficulty in justifying the expenditure to the West German Cabinet. Will the hon. Gentleman give the source of his information?
Mr. Colvin: The hon. Gentleman must not be such a pessimist. That is the problem with Opposition Members. They run down this country. I am an eternal optimist. I have talked to the representatives of the industry, the West Germans and our other partners and there is every reason for optimism. We are optimistic that, before he leaves to take over Lord Carrington's post at NATO, Herr Wörner will succeed in obtaining approval for the EFA. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that we want to see that.
The time scale for the introduction of the EFA to the RAF to replace existing aircraft which will be obsolescent by the mid-1990s is now becoming extremely tight. That is why this matter is so urgent. The aerospace industry has already embarked on certain aspects of the work at its own risk to maintain the programme time scale. We should pay tribute to both British Aerospace and Rolls-Royce and to their shareholders for putting up the money. I question
556
whether those companies would have been able or willing to do so had they been in the public sector rather than the private sector.
The EFA is vital to NATO and to the RAF if the Warsaw pact air capability is to be contained. It is also essential to maintain close Government and industrial collaboration on air projects in Europe. It is particularly important to the British aircraft industry to get back into the combat aircraft field. We have not developed a high-performance fighter aircraft since the Lightning and, for the past 20 years, this primary field of military export has been left to the Americans and the French. That is not good enough. We need the European fighter aircraft for the RAF and our collaborative partners in NATO. We need the EFA to sustain the technological capability and excellence of our aircraft industry. We need the EFA to be launched soon.
I should like to say a few words about the aerospace industry, which has served the RAF and the nation well over the years. In turnover terms, in the Western world, it is second to only the United States. Its sales exceed those of France and West Germany added together. Its turnover has increased from £2·5 billion in 1977 to almost £9 billion today. Nationalisation took place in 1977. That shotgun marriage may have been necessary. It brought the industry together, but it cost many jobs. The increase between 1977 and 1988 is some 50 per cent. in real terms, allowing for the rate of inflation. About 60 per cent. of the figure relates to military sales and about 40 per cent. to civil sales.
There are problems about the sale of civil aircraft because of the collapse of the dollar. Civil sales are priced in dollars, whereas military sales are quoted in pounds sterling. Sixty per cent. of the output goes for export. By comparison, the United States exports only 20 per cent. of its output. Exports have increased from £1 billion in 1977 to £5·5 billion last year. In real terms, allowing for inflation, that figure has doubled over the past decade and has made a dramatic contribution to our balance of trade. In 1977, we had a £200 million surplus which has increased tenfold to £2,000 million in the past 10 years. That is not bad going.
I wish to speak briefly about the so-called two-way street — the reciprocal sale and purchase of defence hardware—between ourselves and north America. When we came to power, it was about 4:1 in favour of the United States, but it is now only 2:1 in favour of the United States. That shows how we have managed to increase the sales of our hardware in a difficult area. The United States still takes 28 per cent. of our aerospace exports. The Americans have had difficulty with their budget deficit and, during a presidental election year, their Government are unlikely to be making generous decisions in respect of procurement. As a result, some of the contracts that they have signed will be pushed to the Right, but I think they are still safe.
The industry has great productivity achievements. Productivity has more than doubled over the past decade, which has made our aerospace industry competitive. That is why, over the same period, we have managed to increase our share of the world market from only 10 per cent. in the late 1960s to 17 per cent. today. Job prospects are good and will be even better because the industry has good products to sell. When it comes to selling aerospace products, nowhere is more important than the Farnborough international air show. That is the British aerospace industry's major shop window. Britain and her overseas competitors and partners put their aerospace

557
wares on display at that biannual show at Farnborough. In spite of rising costs, it looks like being a sell-out for 1988, with bookings up 20 per cent. on 1986.
The show is organised by the Society of British Aerospace Companies. The Ministry of Defence is their landlord. The £1·75 million which the Ministry of Defence charges, or is instructed by the Treasury to charge, for the services it provides at Farnborough is a bit steep, particularly when we bear in mind that the Paris air show, the French equivalent which takes place in alternate years, gets the services at Le Bourget airport for nothing. Perhaps we could learn from that.
Rising charges have an effect on participation. British Aerospace, which is undertaking a cost-cutting exercise, is tightening its belt. But I would say to British Aerospace and to other participants in the Farnborough air show that to cut their advertising to save money is like stopping one's watch to save time: it is a short-sighted exercise.
I trust that by the first week in September, when the Farnborough international takes place, all the partners will have agreed to proceed with the vital European fighter aircraft project. I hope that we can get the EFA into service with the RAF by 1995 and start winning a share of the enormous market for that type of aircraft which will open up as the Fl6s in particular need replacement by the year 2000. I am mindful of the staggering fact that the final value of the orders for such a project can be over 10 times the initial value of the aircraft. The advanced fighter market is the single biggest market in the business. There will be a dog fight for orders. I want to see Britain and her EFA partners winning it.
7.1 pm
Mr. Brian Wilson: Like other hon. Members, I welcome the announcement today on the rescue service. I hope that there is no get-out clause. The Minister spoke of local aspects of the service possibly being under private control. I regret that the issue arose, but it arose, not because the Ministry of Defence said that it was thinking of privatising the service, but because Bristows came knocking rather impertinently on the door and said, "Would you mind privatising the service?" That is an unsatisfactory way to proceed.
I want to focus attention on the air defence of Britain. I shall not try to emulate the boyish enthusiasm of the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin). I shall take a more critical approach to the subject than some Government Back Benchers have done. A great deal of money has been spent on air defence in recent years. The Financial Times recently estimated the total budget for air defence improvements since 1977 at more than £5 billion. If anything, that is an under-estimate, since the 162 air defence Tornados, the seven E3 AWACS and the money down the drain on Nimrod amount to nearly £5 billion on their own.
At its low point in 1970 the RAF's force of interceptor aircraft numbered not more than 120. Most of them were short-range Lightnings, with limited fire-power and a poor maintenance record. Today there are some 270 air defence aircraft in Britain, of which 50 are the latest Tornado F3s costing £20 million each. When the Government have poured another few hundred million pounds into GEC-Marconi's coffers to make the radar work, each aircraft will be able to do the job of several Lightnings.
No one should over-estimate the Tornado's capability. Certainly the RAF does not. When the Tornado was
558
designed, it was thought that this one aircraft could carry out virtually all combat roles from long-range strike to air defence. But the attempts—comical, if they were not such a waste of public money—to design a plane to satisfy the requirements of all three participating nations soon collapsed, with Britain deciding to go it alone. Shortly afterwards we were told that this wonderful new purpose-built fighter would not be capable of performing the RAF's air defence duties in West Germany.
Then it emerged that the Tornado would not even take over the defence of the United Kingdom for which it was specifically designed. Instead, two of the existing Phantom squadrons had to be retained. Now the original 16 Tornado Mark 2s, most still with concrete where the radar should be, have been withdrawn from service and put into storage at an RAF base in Wales, less than two years after they entered service. When the Minister replies, I hope he can say why more than £300 million worth of weaponry has been languishing in a hangar for the last year. I hope he will tell us what will be done with the aircraft and how much more will be spent on them.
As to the European fighter aircraft, the latest estimate is that they will cost £30 million each. If the history of such projects is anything to go by, it may end up as a jack of all trades and master of none, years late and over budget.
The sorry saga of the airborne early warning system is the second principal area of the Government's enormous spending on United Kingdom air defence. The House knows only too well that £1 billion has been wasted on the Nimrod AEW3, with the subsequent spending of a further £1 billion buying the Boeing AWACS. The main reason for buying these hugely expensive flying radar stations was said to be the need to detect Soviet bombers attacking the United Kingdom at a low level, underneath ground-based radar cover. Yet we now hear that the RAF also intends to buy over-the-horizon radar to be sited around the coastline, also to fill the gaps beneath the ground-based radar coverage. We have heard about over-the-horizon radar for a long time, but there are still many questions to be answered. It is time that the House was given some of the answers. What is the radar for? Where will the stations be built? How much will the programme cost? The antennae are up to 1 mile long and 150 ft high. They will pose environmental problems and electromagnetic radiation will be a potential health hazard. Since Marconi — a name that is always cropping up—will almost certainly be the prime contractor, no doubt another few tens of millions of pounds will be added to our air defence budget.
The third major expansion in our air defences is the revamping of the ground-based radar system, or improved IUKADGE. The history of Britain's radar defences since 1945 has been a sorry tale, with billions of pounds wasted on systems which were obsolete before they were deployed and which would have been virtually useless against air attack.
On current trends IUKADGE looks like repeating the pattern. The first two radars for the new network were due to become operational at Benbecula in the Western Isles and at Buchan in Aberdeenshire in 1983. More than four years later they are still not working fully. The radar station at Buchan, regarded as the most vital one m the country because of its position, continues to rely an a type of radar first introduced more than 30 years ago,

559
supplemented by a more modern United States radar set which was captured from the Argentines during the Falklands war.
The IUKADGE system will involve mobile radar as well as refurbishing the fixed sites such as Buchan and Benbecula. While cruise missile convoys will soon be a thing of the past, radar convoys will take their place. In addition, there are plans to set up decoy radars and passive electronic sensors around the country. I hope the Minister can tell the House what plans there are for additional sites for decoys and passive electronic sensors, and what the arrangements will be for the deployment of mobile radar convoys in peacetime exercises.
All these developments, together with the hardening of air bases against air attack, are costing the British taxpayer, with some assistance from other NATO countries, more than £5 billion. What is it all for? What is the threat of air attack against Britain? If we are to believe the Government's snow on the boot theory, the Soviet air threat to the United Kingdom has expanded greatly in recent years. Suffice it to say that the RAF's own figures demonstrate what a fallacy that is. On 14 December last the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Stewart) said in a written answer that the RAF's interceptions of Soviet military aircraft are now occurring on average only
"three or four times each week." —[Official Report, 14 December 1987; Vol. 124, c. 412.]
That is a reduction of at least 20 per cent. and possibly as much as 40 per cent. in seven years, yet during this period the RAF's protection capability has increased substantially at mind-boggling cost.
Evidence that the RAF has over inflated the capabilities of the Soviet air force comes from many sources. Back in 1977, journalists attending a press briefing at RAF strike command headquarters at High Wycombe were told:
"Royal Air Force crews to date have not intercepted any Tupolev Backfire bombers flying snooper missions, but `expect some soon'."
The Backfire bomber is the great bogey of the 1970s. Its reputed ability to attack Britain from the west was used to justify new radar stations in the Western Isles, Northern Ireland and Cornwall, and a £40 million upgrading of the airfield at Stornoway against the wishes of the local community and the recommendation of a public inquiry. But it went ahead, because the Backfires were about to invade the Western Isles.
Where are they? There is no evidence that they have ever been seen near Britain, more than 10 years after the RAF expected to see them. The furthest south that they have been recorded is off the Lofoten Islands, 1,000 miles away. The number of Soviet aircraft penetrating the United Kingdom air defence region in recent years has been so low that RAF fighter controllers have been having insufficient practice in controlling real interceptions. To compensate for that, the RAF has installed simulators at even the busiest radar stations, Saxa Vord and Buchan, to enable the controllers to keep their hand in when the Russians are not threatening enough.
NATO already has such a superiority in the north-east Atlantic that the Soviets have been increasingly concentrating their resources on defence, not offence. And, as the Americans pursue their highly risky offensive maritime strategy, US naval intelligence officers have been
560
telling Congress that Soviet activity in the north-east Atlantic has been declining, not increasing, as they pull back their forces to defend their own territory.
Why should Britain be spending a fortune on massively upgrading its air defences? The answer is that the Government have once again caved in to the demands of the Pentagon. The Americans want free protection for their hundreds of nuclear strike aircraft in Britain as payment for the dubious privilege of basing them here. By all means let us have defence against air attack, but this country has poured billions of pounds needlessly into successive generations of over-specified, needlessly complex weapons, largely as an act of gratitude to the Americans, whose military forces make Britain such a target in the first place. What tangled logic this is, from which the principal beneficiaries would appear to be the shareholders of GEC-Marconi and the other contractors in this lucrative industry.
7.12 pm
Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: As this is the 70th anniversary year of the Royal Air Force, I offer my gratitude to it for the way in which it has served this country since it was created in 1918.
I want to take a parochial approach to the Royal Air Force this evening. In particular, I want to discuss one air base—Greenham Common—in my constituency. In the course of his opening speech, my hon. Friend the Minister referred to the INF talks. All of us living in and close to Greenham felt that those talks had more importance to our constituency than to any other in the country. They came about as a result of five years of hard negotiation and a great determination by NATO not to be brow-beaten by the Soviets' deployment of SS20 missiles. They came about because NATO stuck to its dual-track approach of bringing cruise and Pershing II missiles to Europe while the USSR persisted in maintaining and building up its SS20 force. The talks came about because NATO was not prepared to allow the Soviets to gain an advantage over it in Western Europe.
In 1983, when the first cruise missiles appeared at RAF Greenham Common, most of us thought that they would remain there for at least a decade, if not longer. So, as we watched RAF Greenham Common being updated from a sleepy standby base for the United States air force to become the active base of the 501st missile wing of the United States air force, we did so in the belief that there was going to be a new generation of nuclear missiles in our part of west Berkshire for as long ahead as any of us could imagine. We watched the old barrack blocks that had fallen into almost complete disuse being refurbished and new facilities being built, including the six huge bombproof shelters in which the missiles were to be stored. We began to accustom ourselves to the antics of the women who had come pledged to prevent cruise's arrival and who succeeded only in creating a false hope in the Soviet mind that Western leaders could be frightened off bringing in Pershing and cruise.
Those same women, who brought with them the promise of preventing the arrival of cruise, succeeded only in bringing a great deal of squalor and hassle for local people, an enormous amount of extra work for local police and huge cost to the local population. They also brought, perhaps most significantly for all our lives, a hideous fence around the base, which was the single ugliest and most ostentatious demonstration that cruise missiles had

561
arrived—and with them, the women and their tinkers' camp of old vehicles, tents and general mess that the women designate their peace camp and which, in miniature, is still disfiguring the Greenham common.
Mr. Cohen: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this country is still supposed to be democratic and that people who want to protest against these missiles, which are deadly and dangerous to them, their families and future generations, should have the right to do so? Is he denying them that right? Is it right that the forces of the British and American Governments at Greenham Common should intimidate and harass those women on every occasion—and zap them, causing them illness?
Mr. McNair-Wilson: The hon. Gentleman talks as if he knew a bit about Greenham common— —
Mr. Cohen: I was there.
Mr. McNair-Wilson: Not the base; the common. If he did, he would know that there are byelaws that control the use of the common. They prevent anyone — not only protesters—from camping on it. The people of Newbury have not objected to CND demonstrations that lasted inside a day. They have objected to having this tinkers' camp imposed on them by people who seem determined to ignore the laws of the common which apply to everyone in the country, local people included — and who seem to believe they have some pre-emptive right to maintain their squalid camp regardless of the aggravation and loss of amenity to local people. I am sure the hon. Gentleman would not want to support people who wish to break the law to make their protest, especially as I agree with him so much that in a democracy, unlike what happens behind the iron curtain, we all have the right to demonstrate as long as we do so within the framework of the law.
Mr. Cohen: I still do not think that the hon. Gentleman has answered the point about these people's right to peaceful protests — and they have all been peaceful. Have not the Government broken many of those byelaws? Are not the Government before the courts charged under a number of them? Is there not a case at the moment about women who were left in a pit with the troops and police surrounding them, denying them the chance to get out? Is there not a case being brought by the NCCL against the Government and the authorities in that instance? How about the hon. Gentleman applying his diktats to their role in those cases, too?
Mr. McNair-Wilson: If the law has been broken, those who broke it will be prosecuted. If the byelaws to which the hon. Gentleman referred do not stand up in court, no doubt the judges will tell us so. As yet they have not said so, but that has not in any sense prevented the women from continuing with a camp which has been illegal from the moment that it was first created. Nor has it prevented them from trying in every way they know how to involve those cruise convoys, which go out to Salisbury plain without any missiles in any of the launcher vehicles, in a serious accident, so that in some way the United States forces shall be held responsible for an accident that will not have been of their making but will have been provoked by the women. I find it difficult to believe that the hon. Gentleman really supports that sort of behaviour, which is against the defence of Western Europe and of our country.
562
Those women and their protest may have deceived the Soviets briefly — perhaps long enough to make them hold off finally signing the INF treaty — but here we are, five years later, and, thanks to the resolution of the Government and of NATO, we have an INF treaty signed by the President of the United States of America and the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist party of the Soviet Union, Mr. Gorbachev. I think that all of us should celebrate that fact as one of the most significant acts in terms of reducing nuclear weapons that the world has seen since the first nuclear weapon was created.
The INF treaty still has to be ratified by the United States Senate and the Supreme Soviet, but if we may assume for a moment that both parties will ratify it, between 30 and 90 days after ratification the first Soviet inspectors will be arriving at Greenham Common to examine the cruise missiles stationed there and to set about their task of verifying that those missiles are being dismantled in line with the agreement under the treaty. That means that the Soviet observers should he arriving at Greenham Common some time between May and August of this year. Because they are arriving at a Royal Air Force base, they will be greeted by the RAF commander.
I understand that the Soviets will be allowed to bring five teams of two inspectors and will be permitted, under the treaty, to visit three areas of the base and to inspect any room on the base which could take an object 11 feet long and 21in in diameter. Of course, they will fly in in a Soviet aircraft, and accommodation is being built for the aircrew. I also understand that that team that inspects Greenham Common will make visits to RAF Molesworth by road from Greenham. The visits will be for short periods only to verify where the cruise missiles are kept and that they are gradually being reduced in line with the treaty arrangement.
A fortnight ago I had the good fortune to be invited to RAF Greenham Common by the base commander. I was enabled to follow the route that the Soviet observers will take when they arrive at the airfield. I was shown the three areas to which I have referred and was told that it is expected that the last cruise missile and its support equipment will be leaving Greenham in or about 1992—perhaps the last cruise missiles to be taken out of Western Europe as a result of the INF treaty.
Mr. Harris: Did I hear my hon. Friend aright when he said that for this brief visit accommodation would be built for the Soviet aircrew? What is the justification for building accommodation for a very brief visit? I am puzzled.
Mr. McNair-Wilson: The brief visit, as I understand it, will probably last 48 hours. The Soviet aircrew have got to live somewhere, and it was felt to be better that they should live in Portakabins, which are going to be put up for them, than in the barrack blocks currently used by the United States air force.
Then what happens? Three years hence the defence postures of NATO and the Warsaw pact may be very different from what they are today. There may have been further reductions in the nuclear armouries of East and West and their conventional forces may have been scaled down, even though progress in the MBFR talks in Vienna, at the moment at least, are disappointingly slow. All this

563
is in the future, but the withdrawal of INF missiles, welcome though it is, does not immediately presage a change in NATO's need for vigilance and effective, flexible response. Nor does it suggest that the United States would necessarily wish to alter its dispositions, whether at Greenham or anywhere else in Europe.
Mr. Rogers: The hon. Gentleman said that on his visit to Greenham he was told that the last of the ground-launched cruise missiles would be removed by 1992. Did he find out on his visit when the warheads were going to be brought back to be fitted on to the air-launched cruise missiles?
Mr. McNair-Wilson: I have here the note that I made at the time of my visit, which may be of some interest to the House. I was told that the missiles will go with their launcher vehicles, and it will probably be a flight of missiles at a time, to the Davies Monthan air force base in Arizona, where they will be met by a Soviet team. Any one missile will be split down the middle and its wings will be taken off—rather like cutting up a bird. Then the bits of the missile will be crushed. The warhead will be immobilised and the guidance system can be removed. What happens after that is not in my remit. The launcher vehicle—not the tractor—will be cut up. So the missile and the launcher vehicle will be destroyed, and the warhead will have its guidance system removed.
I am afraid that I have wandered a bit, but I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and I hope that what I have told him has been of some interest.
As I was saying, there will be a Soviet team in Arizona to meet the missiles when they arrive, and presumably the same situation will exist in the Soviet Union, with American observers waiting for the missiles to arrive there.
NATO has a need to maintain vigilance and effective, flexible response for the foreseeable future. As has been said by so many speakers in the debate already, the air forces of Europe have been and are being updated with new aircraft and, as we know, the air forces of the Eurogroup of NATO intend to bring 200 new combat aircraft into service in 1988. Most of those aircraft will be either the advanced Tornado or F16 types.
The Tornado is proving to be an outstanding European aircraft. It has had its teething troubles, particularly with its Foxhunter radar, and perhaps this is the moment for me to ask my hon. Friend the Minister whether he can say whether the present system is meeting all its specifications and, if not, how soon he thinks it will be able to meet its phase 1 requirements. Perhaps he would also say whether any decision has been made about phase 2.
The European fighter aircraft — due to come into service at the end of this century—is another important addition to NATO's armoury; another generation of aircraft to maintain our defence flexibility. Can my hon. Friend say anything about development expenditure on this aircraft? Has an overall cost been decided with our West German, Italian and Spanish collaborators? Has any fresh approach been made to persuade the French to think again about coming into the project?
I think that all of us have felt for a long time that the more NATO can standardise its equipment the better, although I know that the French prefer to have an observer status in NATO. The recent talks with the French Defence Minister make me hope that perhaps it has been
564
possible for the French to reconsider their decision to stay outside the project. There are decisions to be made about who builds the airframe, the engine and the radar programme. It is a huge programme, 800 aircraft, and obviously of the greatest importance to the defence of Western Europe, to the effectiveness of the RAF and to our aerospace industry.
I have allowed myself to digress from the subject of RAF Greenham Common, to which I shall now return. It is possible that some of the aircraft to which I have referred will be stationed on airfields in Western Europe. If there is a reduction in conventional forces, presumably some of those forward air bases may be decommissioned. Such decommissioning could lead to a reappraisal of the airfields in the United Kingdom.
I believe that it is generally accepted that the idea of stationing noisy, high-performance aircraft, such as the Tornado, the EFA, the F16 or the F111, at RAF Greenham Common is out of the question because of its proximity — as much as anything — to Newbury and Thatcham — both areas of considerable population. When I asked the American commander at Greenham what he thought would happen to the base when the cruise missiles had gone, he replied, rather enigmatically, that it would be used for an "air force purpose." He did not say —indeed, he may have been unaware of it—that even when the cruise missiles go, three years hence, Soviet observers will still be able to go to the base. They will still be able to visit the three designated areas and to travel to RAF Molesworth. They will be able to do so until 2001 according to article XI of the treaty. That is 13 years hence. Although the agreement affects both Soviet and Western European bases, I wish to concentrate my remarks on the effect that the agreement must have on RAF Greenham Common.
I hope that the Minister will be able to answer my questions. What will article XI mean to RAF Greenham Common? If the United States air force decides to give it up as a base, will that mean that, regardless of the use that the RAF might wish to make of that airfield, it could do so only on the basis that Soviet observers could arrive and inspect the three designated areas or any room that could take an object 11 ft long and 21 in in diameter? That right will continue for the next 13 years. Does that mean that, whether the USAF or the RAF are stationed at the base, they must always make allowances for those observers to come, even though the cruise missiles will have been gone for years?
If the RAF wishes to use the base for a different purpose, does it mean that it is still subject to those visits? The Soviet observers have the right to come and look around if they so desire. Therefore, does that not considerably limit the future uses to which the base can be put, bearing in mind that six bomb-proof shelters are in that area for inspection? Does that effectively mean that the base is frozen as regards its future for the next 13 years, or could it be de-activated if it was found to be surplus to requirement? In that case, would the base return to what it once was so many years ago — simply Greenham common? Obviously, those arguments must similarly apply to RAF Molesworth as that base is also included in the INF treaty. I should be grateful if my hon. Friend could answer those questions.
During my visit to Greenham common I was taken to inspect one of the shelters. For the first time in the five

565
years in which cruise missiles have been at Greenham I saw and put my hand on a cannister that contained one. That, in itself, is of no importance to anyone except me.
As I came out of the shelter I spoke to the young airman on guard—he was from the RAF Regiment. In October, I had been to Northern Ireland to see the county regiment into which people from Berkshire and Wiltshire enlist. In the course of talking to those soldiers I was frequently reminded that they were not satisfied with the boots that had been issued to them. They had all sorts of complaints about them, one of which was that they were anything but waterproof. Others said that they did not believe that they were the ideal boot for a soldier. Indeed, one corporal had chosen to go out and buy himself the boots that he was wearing on duty. Hon. Members may ask, "What has this got to do with RAF Greenham Common?" The fact is that when I spoke to that young airman of the RAF Regiment, I asked him about his boots and, to my surprise, he told me that he, too, had bought his own boots. I asked him why, and he told me that general issue boots were too heavy and hurt the Achilles tendons in his heels. In consequence, when on sentry duty, he preferred the boots that he had bought because of their lightness and flexibility, even though they were not very waterproof.
I asked the United States colonel who was accompanying me what he thought about boots and whether his service men were pleased with their boots. He said that the American service men were also rather unhappy about their boots, but that they had got over the problem of waterproofing with over-boots. He showed me a pair of excellent waterproof over-boots. I suggest to my hon. Friend that that is one solution to the problem.
Given my present interest in military boots, and as the RAF Regiment wears the same boots as the Army, I was especially interested in an item that appeared in The Times on Monday. That article had the headline:
"Army to march in style with 'Rolls-Royce' boot."
I do not know how accurate that report is, but I should be grateful if my hon. Friend could say whether the Ministry of Defence is considering introducing a new Army boot, which The Times described as a "super boot". Has that new boot been approved? If so, how soon will it be introduced? This is an RAF debate, but will those who serve in the RAF Regiment, along with those in the Army, be receiving the boot in the near future to give them the comfort and protection that the present general issue boot clearly fails to provide?
7.37 pm
Mr. Alan W. Williams: I wish to address my remarks to the problem of low-flying aircraft.
My constituency is in rural Wales and it is a particular victim of low-flying aircraft. Because of the low population density of Wales, we have far more such flights than most of mainland Britain. Indeed, I grew up with the problem—I remember from early childhood aircraft flying low over the ground. However, over the decades, and especially in the past few years, the problem of low flying has become worse. The aircraft seem to go faster and faster and fly lower and lower; and there are far more frequent sorties by the RAF.
Unfortunately, low flying makes the news only when there are crashes. Last year in Wales we had two crashes, one in Aberystwyth and one in Builth, with the loss of three lives. It is unfortunate that low flying makes the headlines only when there are such incidents because it
566
represents a day-to-day torment especially for children and for people working outdoors in my constituency and in other parts of rural Wales.
People complain and over the years before I became a Member of the House I received many complaints. From the reading that I have done in preparation for this debate, I understand that last year the Ministry of Defence received about 5,000 complaints, with about 480 from Members of Parliament, an increase of 50 per cent. on the previous year.
So that the House may understand the complaints of the individuals who write to me or to the Ministry. I would like to read extracts from three or four which I received last summer. The Rev. Dr. Patrick Thompson, rector of Brechfa in my constituency, wrote:
"I have received a great many complaints from parishioners during the past three days about excessively low-flying aircraft coming over Brechfa… Several of the small children in the village have been terrified, and their mothers have been having to keep them indoors as a result. We would be most grateful if you could raise this matter with the appropriate Minister."
I dare say that during those three days excesses were committed or that Brechfa was a particular victim.
A mother wrote to me:
"We sometimes have as many as 10 or more a day; in fine weather, this can go on for days on end … when we're in the garden my son is too frightened to play outside by himself. Lately this intolerable state of affairs has extended to the evening also, sometimes after 7 o'clock when my son has gone to bed."
Can the House imagine what it feels like to be a small child woken from sleep by these screaming monsters? We are used to so much noise in the House that we get a bit hard of hearing, but young children's eardrums are much more sensitive. When they are playing outdoors in the middle of summer, the sudden searing noise of an aircraft terrifies them.
Last August I had a letter from some grandparents which read:
"We, who are well used to the 'normal' flying, occasionally are subjected to a terrifying attack. Just such a one happened at 10.25 am today. It is not possible to note the direction etc., the shock is too severe, one is still shaking an hour afterwards. Life is precious. I beg you to do all you can to help us. It is so distressing to see our grandchildren terrorised in this way."
That is the experience of thousands of my constituents and millions of people up and down the country.
I had a letter from some people who have just come to live in my constituency. They live in the rural part inside the special tactical training area, where aircraft are allowed to fly as low as 100 ft. They are absolutely amazed and appalled at the low flying activity in their area. They write:
"Flying is continuous on some days and over our property in the valley definitely no more than 100 feet. I am about to have my second child and have been too afraid to go outside the house on a couple of occasions as we have had some aircraft over so low I felt that I would go into labour if outside at the time."
That young mother is so frightened by the aircraft noise that she is afraid she might go into labour if subjected to it.
I hope that those personal examples have brought home to the House the searing and sudden nature of the noise. The aircraft come over suddenly on a quiet summer's day when people are out sunbathing, working or playing. The tranquillity of rural life is shattered within a few seconds and, for young children especially, it is terrifying.
Over the years, I have had the impression that the problem is getting worse, although when one lives with a

567
problem changes can be almost imperceptible. It was because of complaints such as those that I read to the House that I went with the hon. Members for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells) and for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) to meet the Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces, who is here tonight, on 27 October. We put our constituents' complaints to him. He gave us a courteous hearing and was very frank with us. However, he immediately conceded that the problem is getting worse and that the number of sorties has dramatically increased in the past 10 years. He said that in 1979 there had been 85,000 sorties, whereas in 1986 there were 151,000. That represents an 80 per cent. increase in seven years. The number has virtually doubled. The Under-Secretary readily conceded, too, that the aircraft involved are noisier today. The F111, the Jaguar and especially the Tornado are noisier. I contend that, with double the flights and double the noise from each individual aircraft, the nuisance today is three or four times as great as it was 10 years ago.
I have a number of peripheral points to make. Some aircraft are allowed to fly as low as 100 ft. It used to be 250 ft. Apparently, only about 0·5 per cent. of all flights are allowed to fly that low and I accept that figure, but may I ask the Minister for an assurance that it will stay that low? We do not want the figure to creep up imperceptibly.
Flying takes place in the late evening and even at night. In a civilised country that should never be allowed to happen. Apparently, about 5 per cent. of sorties occur in the late evening or during the night. That is absurd. There should be a ban on all night flying.
Pilots must have targets set for them. They need landmarks so that they know which flight path to follow. We have been assured that individual farmhouses are never selected as targets, and that is some relief. However, the landmarks selected tend to be road and rail bridges. There tend to be clusters of houses by such bridges at the bottom of valleys because that is where people choose to build, so targeting brings the aircraft nearer to where people live.
As I said earlier, the nuisance is much greater these days than it was 10 years ago. Since last summer, as part of the public relations exercise of the Ministry of Defence, Members of Parliament have been circulated in advance about low-flying exercises. I last received a circular at the end of January which told me that for four to five hours a day during the periods 8 February to 12 February, 15 February to 19 February and 22 February to 26 February and on 29 February there would be low flying. In other words, as from 8 February there was to be low flying from Monday to Friday every week. That advance warning was addressed to me alone. As it happens, I intended to be in London every week during February.
It would be more useful if the Ministry of Defence extended that exercise to allow local newspapers to carry information in the same way as they carry chemists' rotas, hospital visiting hours and other public information so that the general public can be warned in advance of low-flying exercises. It is no good expecting hon. Members to distribute the Government's information or literature.
How should we counter this increasing nuisance? I concede that we need to train our pilots in low flying, but I wish that the nuisance could be less. As I said, the
568
nuisance is three or four times greater today than it was 10 years ago. We want to reduce the number of low-flying exercises.
I am told that with the new technology it is possible to simulate flight conditions almost as realistically as those in flight. Surely more exercises could be carried out on simulators.
Reference was made earlier to flights overseas. I understand that exercises take place from bases in Newfoundland and Turkey and that the Ministry of Defence is considering increasing flights from those bases. I can appreciate the cost of those exercises, particularly in Newfoundland, and the climatic problems, but surely Turkey is an attractive option; it is nearer and the weather is no problem. It is a mountainous country and it is far more sparsely populated than any part of Britain. The nuisance would be much less. The Turkish Government would be willing to co-operate in carrying out those exercises because they would attract foreign exchange. I appreciate that they would be more costly, but I understand that the main cost of training is fuel. However, the cost of fuel is the same whether flights take place over Turkey, Wales or mainland Britain.
Turkey has one clear advantage: it is more mountainous than Britain. Therefore, the quality of training would be far better; it would be a more realistic exercise. I should have thought that, in terms of training quality, one hour's flying in Turkey would be worth two hours' flying in Britain. I hope that the Ministry of Defence will consider seriously those alternatives to low flying in Britain.
It is certain that the number of low flights has increased. Why has it doubled in the past 10 years? Earlier the Under-Secretary said that the need for low flying is dependent on the perceived threat in central Europe. Does that mean that the perceived threat in 1988 is double what it was in 1978? Since Mr. Gorbachev came to power, there has been talk of detente, the INF treaty and an improvement in relations with the Soviet Union. Therefore, I cannot understand why we need twice as many flights today.
People's attitudes to low flying are changing. In my constituency, demographic change has contributed to that change in attitude as more retired people have moved in. Generally, people today are much more aware of environmental issues and are much more willing to complain. They appreciate the quality of life much more. Today we have a much more discriminating public than we had in the 1950s, 1960s — when the problem first started — and the 1970s. The Ministry of Defence is running out of time and the nuisance is increasing. The public is much more critical. We will have to find a solution to the problem of low flying.
7.54 pm
Mr. Keith Mans: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for having this opportunity to speak in the debate. As hon. Members will know, my background means that I have a special interest in aviation and, more specifically, in aviation connected with the RAF.
For as long as I can remember, the procurement of military aircraft has been a subject of lively political debate. As long as 30 years ago the debate was raging whether the Lightning would be the last manned fighter aircraft in service. Some 30 years later those Lightings are about to leave active service and are being steadily replaced by the Tornado F3.

569
I was pleased to hear the remarks of my hon. Friend the Minister concerning the Foxhunter radar. I sincerely hope, now that we have negotiated a new contract for the updating of that radar, that we have finally got rid of the time and cost over-runs of the past.
There is now a new debate about the replacement for the Jaguar and Phantom aircraft, the European fighter aircraft, which has been mentioned at some length. I shall keep my remarks about that aircraft brief, but it is of particular significance to me and my constituency, which is situated close to where the aircraft will be built.
The EFA is important to NATO and to the RAF. It is important to the north-west of Britain, which I think has the largest concentration of aerospace factories this side of the Atlantic. This concentration is having a tremendously beneficial effect on the north through the spin-off of technology into other more traditional industries, to say nothing of the employment prospects and other wealth-creating prospects that will exist if it goes ahead.
Despite the remarks of the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers), it is not this Government who are holding up the development of the EFA; it is those committees in the Bundestag that have yet to be convinced of its suitability for the roles that have been assigned to it in NATO.
It is true that the Germans are keen to cut the cost, but in cutting the cost we must be careful not to cut the performance envelope of that aircraft, making it little better than an F16 or an F18. We should ensure that the EFA is of the same category and quality as the advanced tactical aircraft, which is currently on the drawing board. We should take advantage of the latest technology—fly by wire, composite materials and stealth technology, which has been so successfully developed in America.
I should like to turn to another major procurement programme that has not been mentioned at length —AWACS. Part of the deal that we signed to procure AWACS was that there would be 130 per cent. worth of offsets—130 per cent. of the value of that aircraft would be in offset purchases in this country. I hope that when my hon. Friend replies to the debate he will be able to give some assurances about how those offset purchases are going. Information that I have been given leads me to believe that there are problems. It may be that Boeing does not always act in the best interests of British subcontractors. That is particularly the case with regard to the procurement of ground equipment, which amounts to £100 million. I ask my hon. Friend to say whether those offsets are coming through, when we can expect a certain percentage of them and when we can expect the full 130 per cent. to be reached.
Apart from new aircraft, another area of importance is the mid-life update of existing aircraft. Undoubtedly, that applies to Tornado. It is increasingly clear that in the years ahead the survivability of manned aircraft over the target will become less and less, until it gets to the point where it is not worth risking one's expensive and slender air assets over an attacked target. Therefore, I was pleased that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had meetings in France with his opposite number about the development and then procurement of a stand-off weapon for Tornado.
I am not over-bothered about whether we develop it with the French or the Americans. Ideally, in the years ahead, we should look towards a development including both the French and the Americans, because we are rapidly coming to the point in NATO where having two
570
separate areas of technological excellence on either side of the Atlantic is no longer affordable. Therefore, 1 should like to see that stand-off weapon developed by the Americans, ourselves and the French.
On other procurement programmes, I was also pleased to hear about the Harrier GR5, but I should like my hon. Friend to say whether the problems associated with the nav/attack system of that aircraft have been finally solved. We do not want a repeat of earlier circumstances, where aircraft came into service without properly developed avionics.
Before I leave the topic of procurement, I should like to mention a slightly less fashionable subject. It is all very well to spend many billions of pounds on aircraft hardware, but one essential criterion is that one must know which are one's own and which are the enemy's. In that respect, secondary radar and its development are of primary importance. At the moment NATO has a programme to update its IFF capability, but it is a long way behind what it should be in terms of when the programme should have been initiated. Again, I sincerely hope that that is now under way and that it will provide a better air environment for the Tornados and the EFAs of the future, simply because without it it is much harder to see how those aircraft could be used effectively.
Before I turn to personnel, I should like to speak about management, a subject much mentioned in the speech of the hon. Member for Rhondda — or what he terms "mismanagement". I was fortunate to be able to do a few calculations since the hon. Gentleman's speech. It is noteworthy that he quoted a number of programmes which during this Government's period of office have been cancelled at various stages of their development. If we consider the period 1964 to 1970—I stress that that is a shorter period than the period 1979 to 1987 — we see that the number of cancellations, in financial terms and brought up to today's prices, is more than double the number that has occurred since 1979. Indeed, the TSR2 alone accounts for over £1·5 billion in today's money. Therefore, if there is any mismanagement, it has been in the past. Certainly the record of the present Government in managing our air assets is better than that of their predecessors.
Mr. Rogers: The hon. Gentleman has been extremely selective in the dates that he has chosen. Perhaps what he should do is to go back to the record of promotions and cancellations of projects since the war. If he does, he will find a long list of cancellations by successive Tory Governments, through the whole range from the Hawker P1083 thin-wing Hunter, to the Hawker P1121 fighter. Previous Conservative Governments have cancelled an alarming number of programmes.
Mr. Mans: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but I was trying to compare one period of office under a Labour Government with a similar period under a Conservative Government to make my point.
I turn now to personnel in the Royal Air Force. There has been a lot of talk, both in the Chamber earlier today and in the newspapers, about the shortage of aircrew. Such shortages, if they have occurred, are liable to get worse, not only because of the demographic changes that were mentioned earlier, but because the market outside the Air Force for pilots is steadily growing and does not look as if it will reduce in the near future.

571
We must look a little more closely at the statistics, and more specifically at the fast jet pilot statistics. We must also look at the way in which we retain people. At the moment, if someone leaves at the age of 38, which is the option date for most pilots, he receives a gratuity. It is no secret that quite often six months after a pilot has left the Royal Air Force he will be written to by the personnel department of the Ministry of Defence and invited to come back. There is a significance in that six-month gap. After it the pilot keeps his gratuity. At the moment there is no possibility of a pilot who reaches the end of his engagement and who wants to stay on keeping his gratuity. He must leave and then reapply. It does not take a genius to see the administrative inconvenience of that system, and how much better it would be to acknowledge the fact that if we need to retain someone it is much easier to pay the gratuity at the time when the engagement ends and ask him straight away to reapply to rejoin the Air Force. I am convinced that if we adopted that policy our training costs would fall. As has been mentioned, the training costs for a Tornado pilot amount to £3 million. We train just over 200 pilots every year. If we could cut that training cost by just a small percentage, by retaining people at the other end, it would be a lot cheaper for the defence budget.
When one runs short of pilots, one does not tend to see that straight away in the front-line aircraft or on the new aircraft. I have little doubt that the Tornado in Germany and, increasingly, in the United Kingdom will be up to strength with experienced pilots who are fully capable of using its potential. However, in the process I have little doubt that the Phantom force is being denuded of experience. There are many young pilots on the Phantom force, but not many who are experienced. That is just one example of the problems ahead unless we take some drastic action over retention rates.
Finally, I should like to say a brief word about organisation and keeping costs down. We hear about this all the time in the Royal Air Force, but normally it amounts to cutting a particular aircraft procurement programme. I should like to suggest a slightly different approach. We should look closely at the supporting arms in the Royal Air Force to see whether we can continue to justify their cost. Those supporting arms, such as the education branch, or even the medical branch, are expensive in terms of pension arrangements and in terms of the people who actually work in them. I am not suggesting that we get rid of such branches completely, but I do suggest that we look closely at them for savings that will be needed in the future, rather than at our equipment programme and front-line strength.
A small example is the Royal Air Force hospitals. At any time, roughly one third of the hospitals are filled with service patients or their dependants. Another third are filled with National Health Service patients from the locality using the particular specialties of that Royal Air Force hospital. When that happens, there is a transfer of funds from the NHS to the defence budget to cope with it. The other third of bed spaces are taken up on a much more ad hoc basis and there is no transfer of funds so, in a small way, the defence budget is subsidising the National Health Service. All I am saying is that if we are to understand the true cost of our defence, we must come up with arrangements that acknowledge such facts.
572
Another fact that is very much in the news these days is contracting out. Contracting out, or privatisation as Opposition Members would like to describe it, is a perfectly legitimate way of keeping costs down. It has been highly successful, especially in support command at the flying training stations. However, I should like to add a word of warning, because with contracting out go problems of over-stretch.
At times of tension, during exercises and when there are security alerts, service personnel are required to carry out several functions — guard duties, operation duties and their own jobs. That particular burden is falling on fewer service men as a result of contracting out. That should be recognised. It also has to be recognised that a new method will have to be found to deal with that problem. An obvious method is a partnership between civilian manpower and service manpower in a station. That would provide a much better chance of cutting costs without running into problems of over-stretch.
Finally, I should like to add my congratulations to those offered by the hon. Member for Rhondda and say how nice it is to have for the first time in more than seven years an airman holding the post of Chief of the Defence Staff. I congratulate Sir David Craig on his appointment earlier this week.
8.10 pm
Dr. Dafydd Ellis Thomas: The debate has been wide-ranging over such issues as procurement, personnel and policy. I shall not deal with all the issues that the hon. Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) raised. I shall deal with one aspect that he mentioned—the importance of the aerospace industry and its impact, economically and regionally, on the United Kingdom. I have stressed the importance of that industry for employment in the south-west of England, to the detriment of some other regions. The economy in northeast Wales is dependent on the aerospace industry. Its collaboration on a European level in civil and military aircraft development is crucial to that aspect of our aerospace industry.
I welcome the Minister's statement about search and rescue. That is an important issue to my hon. Friends and I, as we represent mountainous and seaboard constituencies. The hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) would wish to be associated with my welcome. Hon. Members will have read her recent article in The House Magazine describing in graphic detail the role of the mountain rescue services. The hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones), who has RAF Valley in his constituency, will also welcome the Minister's statement. In my constituency there are mountain rescue services in Snowdonia and tremendous voluntary effort goes into the provision of those services. I mention the events of last weekend in my constituency when, tragically, a number of climbers were killed because of a sudden change of weather. I am sure that the House will want to join me in expressing gratitude to the rescue services and to RAF Brawdy, which plays a similar role in the southern part of Snowdonia.
That is the acceptable face of the RAF and the Royal Navy in my constituency. I now turn to the less acceptable face of the services—the environmental impact of low-flying training in that part of Wales. The Minister would be disappointed if he did not hear me speak on that subject because we have corresponded and held regular meetings on it.

573
I am concerned that the environmental impact of low-flying training is not taken sufficiently seriously by the people who do not have to put up with it. I am pleased that in tonight's debate a number of hon. Members representing Wales and other areas have made that point.
The Minister said at the beginning of the debate that the Ministry of Defence takes all possible steps to limit the disturbance to the public from low flying. The reality is that the current policy of
"spreading the disturbance as evenly as possible"
is designed to maximise the amount of low flying that can be done, not to reduce the environmental impact. That is publicly intolerable.
That is illustrated by the policy on "avoidance areas". Those are areas around major airports and cities, where military pilots are not allowed to fly below 2,000 ft. Last year, the Minister for the Armed Forces said:
"As part of the continuous monitoring of the UKLFS, a programme of reviews of avoidance areas is carried out and changes made when necessary … aimed at spreading low flying more evenly and enhancing flight safety, while at the same time reducing, where possible, the disturbance to those on the ground."
No one could quarrel with that quotation.
Group Captain Alan Bowman, the RAF officer responsible for the operation of the United Kingdom low-flying system, was more frank when speaking to a NATO conference in West Germany in 1986. He said that the Ministry of Defence
"strive constantly to reduce the number of avoidance areas to the minimum".
In recent years, several areas which were previously considered too noise sensitive or not suitable for low flying for other reasons have been opened up to low flying. They include substantial areas of Kent and Sussex and the Isles of Wight, Scilly, Orkney and Shetland. Even Northern Ireland is now officially available for low-flying training by helicopters.
The Minister confirmed last November that no consultation took place with local authorities, farming interests or environmental bodies in those areas prior to their designation as low-flying areas, when the MOD decided to increase the maximum speed for low-flying aircraft from 420 to 450 knots. The Minister said:
"Nor was such consultation necessary." —[Official Report, 16 November 1987; Vol. 122, c. 453–54.]
I must contrast that with the situation in the Federal Republic of Germany, which has attempted to increase the areas available for low flying, but its federal structure allows the individual "lander" to block attempts to impose new low-flying areas. No such control is available in Great Britain. More importantly, the Federal Government actually respond to public pressure to reduce the disturbance from low-flying training. The result is that West Germany has already reached the point where it is unsafe and environmentally impractical to increase the amount of low flying within the present constraints. So it has to export it to places where the regulations are not so tight. That means Britain.
Britain particularly attracts aircraft wanting to fly as low as 100 ft, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) has said, aircraft which are involved in night low-level training. In Germany, night flying as low as 100 ft is banned and the night low-level training can take place only down to 1,000 ft above the ground. Last September, the RAF held its Salmond trophy competition—it has nothing to do with my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) —
574
which is a low-level bombing and navigation competition for German-based Tornado squadrons, in eastern England and Scotland. It had been shifted from Germany for environmental reasons, and caused an understandable public outcry, particularly in the north of Scotland.
Officially, the Ministry of Defence's policy is that the United Kingdom low-flying system can be used only by forces based in the United Kingdom, although in addition, according to Group Captain Bowman,
"We have agreed that our European allies can carry out limited low flying in the United Kingdom on an exchange basis normally during exercises … we do not accept low flying from other countries as a matter of routine."
The reality is rather different. Britain imports routine low-level training, including types of flying that would not be permitted in Germany. For example, in late 1986, the United States army sent eight UH60 helicopters from a base in West Germany to Salisbury plain. The pilots were in Britain to train for their night low-level qualification which included flying 50 ft above the ground, in darkness, with no navigation or collision warning lights on, and over populated rural areas.
Not surprisingly, the extent of low-level training results in a substantial number of complaints to the Ministry of Defence. I am grateful for the way in which the Department has investigated each complaint with which I have presented it over the years.
According to a parliamentary answer that I received, last year the Ministry of Defence received an all-time record number of 5,695 complaints about low flying. An analysis of the figures shows that there was a higher ratio of complaints per low-flying sortie last year than at any previous time. In the mid-1970s, before the free-for-all system was introduced in 1979, following the last review of low-flying areas, the MOD was receiving about one complaint for every 40 to 50 low-level flights over Britain. As soon as the new system was introduced which permitted low flying all over the mainland of Britain, complaints rose to one for every 27 sorties. Last year it reached the record level of one complaint for every 23 low-flying sorties, during a year when the total number of low-level flights went down slightly.
In Germany, there have been 3,000 or 4,000 complaints about low-level flying each year in recent times—rather less than in Britain. Yet the German Government have been more responsive to public criticism and have scaled back low flying considerably.
It is important to take a considerate approach on low flying within European and NATO countries. I am sure that the people of Turkey would have strong views on the suggestion that we should export low-flying training there. I am not arguing for that. I am arguing that all NATO countries in which low-flying training takes place should take a similar sensitive attitude towards the public who have to suffer low-flying training.
The German Government have been much more sensitive than the United Kingdom Government, perhaps because its environmental movement is stronger because of its system of proportional representation. Whatever the reason, the German Government have shown greater sensitivity to public criticism of low-flying training.
We have had much discussion in recent weeks about civil aircraft safety as a result of near misses, problems with air traffic control, and so on. When Britain was

575
opened up for low-level flying in 1979, the number of low-level flights almost doubled. The purpose of that change was to allow for the introduction of the Tornado.
Once again, the low-flying system seems to be coming up against its limits. Last year, there were six crashes involving RAF fast jets at low level over Britain. Clearly, as I have told the Minister on several occasions when we have discussed this, our first concern is with the aircrew who are so tragically killed, their families and friends. But our other concern is public safety.
The Ministry of Defence has refused to release official figures on the accident rate of aircraft at low level, but independent analysis shows that the low-level accident rate for fast jets was higher last year than at any time since 1979. Two of those were mid-air collisions, one of them involving two separate aircraft running into each other while flying independently through the Lake District.
Not only do the Government refuse to release accident rate figures which could easily be obtained from its own flight safety computers, but they have been issuing incorrect figures on the safety record of low-level flying.
In 1974 there was the tragic death of a crop-spraying pilot in collision with an RAF Phantom over Norfolk. That provoked a major row at the time and led to changes in safety procedures. More recently, Ministers, in response to questions, have repeated the statement that no civilians have been killed in accidents involving low-flying military aircraft this decade. That is not accurate. In February 1984, a civilian trainee pilot was killed when his Cessna 150 was in collision with a United States Air Force A10 over Norfolk. According to the official accident report, the collision occurred at about 1,000 feet. Low flying is defined by the Ministry of Defence as anything under 2,000 feet. It is important that we should be clear and honest with the public about such tragic instances.
I am concerned about the free-for-all approach in which individual pilots plan the routes that they fly at low levels without reference to any authority. The system is becoming inherently unsafe. Last year's tragic accident rate may well be repeated in future years. Unlike civil airlines, which are constantly under radar control from the ground, military aircraft at low level are not under any form of air traffic control. When a pilot enters a low-flying area, he is not told anything about other aircraft which may be in the area, possibly flying straight towards him at the same height. It is entirely up to his own eyesight and quick navigation to spot other aircraft in time and to take avoiding action.
The situation is now so bad that the director of flight operations at the Royal Aircraft Establishment at Farnborough has written to the Ministry of Defence expressing his fears about the total absence of air traffic control in the United Kingdom's low-flying system. The director's responsibilities include a great deal of night low-level flying, which is bound to increase over the next few years as the new Harrier GR5 is introduced and as Tornados are given a greater night capability. The idea that pilots, flying in total darkness on instruments, should operate in total ignorance of who else is in the air around them is intolerable for public safety.
The Royal Aircraft Establishment's flight operations chief has suggested the installation of a computerised automatic flight planning system. That would collate the planned routes of all aircraft preparing for low-level
576
sorties, work out possible conflicts, and tell aircrews to change their routes where necessary. The technology already exists in the Tornado and Jaguar, and will be installed in the Harrier GR5 and Buccaneer. Therefore, it will be possible for such an automatic system to be introduced.
An automatic flight planning system is now being introduced in Germany. Either when the Minister replies or later, in response to what I have said, I should like him to make a commitment that, in the interests of safety, a similar system will be introduced in the United Kingdom as soon as possible.
8.25 pm
Mr. Bill Walker: I welcome the opportunity to speak in this important RAF debate. I must, first, declare an interest. I am a serving officer in the RAF Volunteer Reserve. I also want to mention the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro). He is an honorary air commodore of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force. He wanted to speak in the debate, but only one of us could be excused from the Committee upstairs and I was the fortunate one.
I join others in congratulating Sir David Craig on his appointment as Chief of the Defence Staff. We are delighted that a light-blue uniform is once again in charge and we are equally delighted that a man who is so capable and highly regarded has been selected for the job.
Earlier in the debate we listened to the Labour party's views on the RAF and defence. In columns 194–95 of the Official Report of 26 January we were led to believe that the official Opposition's position, as articulated by the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies), is that they do not believe in flexible response because it is not realistic.
The truth of the matter is that the Opposition do not believe in many things. Earlier this evening we heard the real voice of the Labour party on defence—the voice of the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson). What he said showed that the Opposition do not believe in upgrading or replacing weapons systems. They do not think that it is important that the RAF should survive over the battlefield. More importantly, they do not believe that the RAF should have a stand-off capability.
Mr. Denzil Davies: Let me make it clear that the Opposition have supported the European fighter aircraft. The cost is considerable and we have supported it from the beginning. Before and during the general election we made it clear that we would continue with that project. We have continued to support the modernisation of sensible RAF systems. What we object to is the notion that somehow replacing a hydrogen bomb on a Tornado aircraft with an air-launched nuclear cruise missile is modernisation.
Mr. Walker: Of course it is modernisation. As long as the enemy has the capability—and it has—and if the RAF is to deter, it must be suitably equipped. Again, the Opposition choose to ignore the deterrent role of the RAF. If one goes back to the days of the cancellation of the TSR2, which was mentioned earlier, it is clear that the Labour party's view boils down to opposition, except where a manufacturer in a Labour constituency will get an order. That effectively sums up the Labour party's views on defence. Indeed, it would be true to say that the RAF would still be flying Spitfires and Lancasters if the choice were left to the Labour party.

577
We are all in agreement on the search and rescue services— the helicopters. We all accept that the RAF and the Royal Navy must retain that capability. Our reasons for that are that the service must have pilots and aircraft that are capable of meeting the needs of tomorrow, which may be a war-time situation.
It is interesting that the Labour party supports search and rescue. That service obviously does a lot of good, which the Labour party recognises, and there is a lot of feeling for that in the constituencies. But why is it not equally supportive of the necessary—indeed, essential—low-flying role? The point that I was trying to make when the right hon. Member for Llanelli intervened was that RAF pilots have to be capable of surviving, not just defending. If they are to attack enemy bases, they must be able to penetrate below the radar screens and survive. They will require a stand-off capability to do that effectively.
Mr. Denzil Davies rose— —
Mr. Walker: I shall give way in a moment.
They will also require the capability to fly low and fast. Therefore, it is essential that pilots are trained to the necessary standard. They cannot acquire that skill on the day that war begins.
Mr. Davies: My hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) has pointed out from the Back Benches—and we have agreed from the Front Bench—that the training is needed. The point that we are trying to make is that, in the areas that have to bear the noise, it has increased considerably over the past few years. As my hon. Friends have said, attempts should be made to find other areas to alleviate the burden on rural areas which are suffering, especially in Wales. However, we accept that training is necessary for the safety of pilots and for the defence of the country.
Mr. Frank Cook: Of course.
Mr. Walker: I find this narrow parochialism fascinating. I represent a 2,000-square-mile highlands constituency, where the RAF regularly flies planes low and fast. Anyone who cares to check will see that that is the case. Indeed, we probably have more intensive low-level flying operations than the part of Wales mentioned by the right hon. Member for Llanelli.
I am not being narrow and parochial. I am not suggesting that the low flying should go elsewhere. Of course it should not; it should take place in areas of sparse population, and I represent a constituency that is sparsely populated. I fully expect and endorse— —
Mr. Denzil Davies: The hon Gentleman has said that low flying should go to areas of sparse population. That may he, but west Wales is not sparsely populated; it is quite heavily populated, as are the areas over which the planes fly. We do not object in principle, but we feel that efforts should be made to alleviate the burden.
Mr. Walker: That sums up the attitude beautifully, "Let them fly anywhere, but not in my back yard." It is important that the House and the public should understand that.
I hope that we are looking carefully at the need for proper identification of friend and foe, and for secondary radar capabilities. It is important that we can tell friend from foe. I was pleased to hear that the Foxhunter radar has improved, and delighted that it is moving forward.
578
Sometimes, people are critical of certain programmes, and I have been critical along with others. However, we should remember that in developing technology —particularly in avionics, electronics and radar—we are always entering new areas. It can be frightfully costly and difficult. The cost difference between 80 and 100 per cent. work-out of a programme can be horrendous. It is also important to recognise that we are always attempting to stretch technology to the point at which we will get the maximum from it.
I welcome the news that we are to have an additional AWACS. However, I endorse the view that we should try to find a way of purchasing a further AWACS, so that we have the correct balance.
The Opposition Front Bench made some play of the Tucano question, suggesting that the only voices of doubt and uncertainty about the purchase were those of Opposition Members. That is not true, as anyone who has studied the matter will realise. I was very hostile to the purchase of the Tucano, and left no one in any doubt about that. However, I have since visited the Tucano factory in Brazil. When I went to see for myself what had happened to the aircraft, I found that it has been substantially redesigned. We are not talking about the Tucano that used to exist. The best example that I can give to hon. Members with a long and lasting interest in aircraft is this: the difference between the Tucano that is going to come into service and the earlier model is like the difference between the Mustang with an Alison engine—which was a very poor aircraft—and the Mustang with a Rolls-Royce-Packard-Merlin engine, which became the most successful long-range fighter aircraft of world war 2. I am very optimistic about the Tucano, and I only hope that the Ministry of Defence will not have to pick up the cost. I feel that Short Brothers and Embrair between them should bear the true costs.
On my recent trip to the Falklands, the service on board the TriStar was unique. The only other time when I have enjoyed service of such a standard was when I was fortunate enough to fly in the presidential service jet in the United States, where I was served in a manner that I had never before experienced. I compliment the crew of the TriStar.
I was pleasantly surprised—that word is important, because the name of the base that I am going to talk about is Mount Pleasant—at the high quality and standard of the buildings, and of the runway and taxiways. I had thought that an airfield built in such a short time would be reminiscent of the airfields built in a comparably short time in the war. However, it is a very fine and well-built base, and I congratulate the RAF and those responsible for its construction.
The ability to use tankers and air-to-air refuelling has enhanced the operations of the RAF in a remarkable and wonderful way, which means that fewer aircraft can carry out many more sorties much more effectively.
I also had the good fortune to visit the Harriers in Belize. I was very impressed by the morale of the forces, the use of the Harriers and the way in which local people never complained about the noise that the Harriers made. No matter how low the planes flew, the people welcomed them. That is because they see a real threat, not an imagined one. No one is saying, "It is 40 years since anything troubled us in Western Europe; perhaps we can do away with this". In Belize, they know that the enemy is just over the border, and they have never doubted the

579
enemy's views. The enemy wants to take over Belize, and the presence of the Harriers is very welcome. I met that feeling at every level.
I have a special affection for the reserve and auxiliary forces, and I should like my hon. Friends on the Front Bench to give sensible and serious consideration to how we can enlarge our capability in that regard. It is interesting to reflect that we have been saving money by converging support roles on bases, and we have been using what the Opposition would call a privatised structure to achieve that. I remind my hon. Friends on the Front Bench that immediately after the war we had volunteer reserve bases. Those units were manned by people who worked for organisations such as Airwork, but all the instructors were members of the reserve forces. They were all there to be used at any time when the RAF required them. We should look at that much more carefully.
We should also look carefully at the circumstances in which individuals leave the service at any of the break points up to the age of 38, and find a proper, fulfilling function for them, with a proper reserve commitment. I know that we use a number of them in air experience flights with the Chipmunks, and they do a splendid job. I hope that the Chipmunk operations will continue for as long as Chipmunks can fly — and, given the way that they are flying, it looks as though they will fly for a long time.
The cadet forces are often forgotten, but they are the natural source of the best material for the RAF. There are 35,000, or perhaps 45,000, cadets, the squadrons, the 27 volunteer gliding schools and the central gliding schools. I ask one question about the central gliding schools: when can we expect to see replacement winches?
I wish to say thank you to Wing Commander Paddy Gilmer, a gentleman who has given many years of service and who is to retire this year. He is retiring for a second time, because he retired from the regular Air Force to take up his appointment at Headquarters Air Cadets to look after the interests of the gliding schools and air experience flights. He took over at a time when morale was low and things were very bad. Largely due to Paddy Gilmer's inspired leadership, the position has changed dramatically and today morale is very high. I hope that he has a long, healthy and wealthy retirement.
I draw the attention of my hon. Friends on the Front Bench to the concern felt about the dog-training unit at Newton. Two attempts have been made to work out a system of marrying the Army and RAF dog-training capabilities and on both occasions it was decided that RAF Newton would be the best venue. A third review is going on. I hope that something will be done about this soon because it creates a lot of uncertainty. It would be sensible to amalgamate the unit at Newton, as has been twice recommended.
One aspect for which the Royal Air Force often gets very little credit, although it has done a splendid job, is YTS. The Royal Air Force has always been open to people from all walks of life. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers), who opened the debate for the Opposition, referred to the conversations he has had with me. My fondness for the Royal Air Force is partly because one is judged by one's ability to do the job, not by the way one
580
speaks or where one has come from. It is important that one is capable of doing the job professionally and effectively.
One of the interesting by-products of YTS is the substantial number of youngsters who would not have been accepted for training by the Royal Air Force because they were considered to be below the standard required, yet, after 12 months in YTS, about one third of them have been accepted for full-time service in the RAF. This is marvellous and I hope that the House will compliment the Royal Air Force on achieving this breakthrough for those young men who may not have been considered up to the standard required by the RAF. Anyone who knows anything of the RAF knows that, whatever job one does, it must be done to a very high standard.
Reference has been made to the problem of retention when a break point in the engagement is reached. The problem is not new; it has always been there when civil airlines are short of people. The civil airlines, which do not train people and often make no investment in training, want Royal Air Force people, particularly aircrew. They try to entice them away from the Royal Air Force or the Royal Navy.
I believe that there are ways of finding answers to problems. One way of retaining the young men on whom we have spent a lot of money to train in various jobs, whether pilots or ground crew, and of encouraging them to remain in the service after they have reached the break point at eight, 12 or 22 years, is by giving them a lump sum greater than the lump sum they would get if they were to leave. They would have a substantial sum to invest, which would encourage them to stay, because people who join the Air Force to fly do so because they love flying. They love the service and the flying and they do not want to go outside because they want a stable home for their family. We should give them a lump sum. I am not talking of £1,000; I am talking of tens of thousands of pounds, because it costs millions of pounds to train chaps up to standard. That money should be invested to keep the chaps in the service. More importantly, they would be able to provide a stable home for their families. They would not have to commute their pensions, as many of them do, to provide a family home. Serious consideration should be given to that.
I hope that my hon. Friends on the Front Bench will bear in mind that, in order to keep families happy, married quarters should be kept in good condition. If families are happy, the chaps are happy. If the chaps are unhappy, it is because their families are unhappy, and they are more likely to leave and to give trouble.
8.45 pm
Mr. Frank Cook: The hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) began his 20-minute dissertation with a most unworthy attempt to vilify the Labour party's attitude to defence. There is no way that the hon. Member can question my commitment or the commitment of the Labour party to the defence of the country. I counsel him in future not to be quite so gratuitously offensive. The role of Her Majesty's loyal Opposition is to question the Government on the basis of facts, and that is precisely what we have been trying to do, as opposed to the blather that has been emanating from the Government Benches.
Before the ink was dry on the INF treaty the Prime Minister had declared her intention to Mr. Dimbleby on

581
television in December to proceed with a fresh escalation of the arms race with a brand new air-launched missile for the RAF. The missiles will have a range of about 400 km, giving the Tornado a similar range to the ground-launched missiles at Greenham.
If those weapons are fitted to the 200 Tornado fighter bombers, which carry an average of two missiles each, we would end up with 400 long-range air-launched nuclear missiles, compared with the 160 ground-launched missiles that will leave Greenham and Molesworth under the INF treaty, not counting the United States missiles at RAF bases in Britain. This would represent a major escalation of capability. That is an undeniable fact. Those weapons are not a modernisation of old weapons; they represent a new type of weapon which NATO has not deployed before.
If we are to maintain a balance, the Minister should tell the House which types of weapons the Soviets are developing, as neither the International Institute for Strategic Studies' "Military Balance" nor the Pentagon's "Soviet Military Power" makes any mention of such weapons being designed to equip Soviet tactical aircraft or even being in development. The argument for those weapons is that we must be able to penetrate Soviet air defences, but after Mathias Rust's flight the RAF would be better advised to buy the much cheaper high-winged, low-flying Cessna than the cruise missile.
The USSR and the United States have had large, heavy and often inaccurate air-launched cruise missiles on long-range bombers for many years, but the proliferation of small, highly accurate nuclear missiles for fighters is a unilateral escalation and should be acknowledged as such without any equivocation or ambiguity.
On 26 January the Secretary of State told my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) that he was not aware of any United States plans to base air-launched cruise missiles in Europe in the future. That was a very misleading statement. Was he deceiving himself in misleading the House, or did he mislead the House honestly? The United States, according to testimony to Congress from Secretary of Defence Carlucci, is making development of a nuclear tactical air-to-surface missile an "urgent priority" within the framework agreed four years ago at the Montebello nuclear planning group meeting. He says that the missile
"is a development programme to provide both US and Allied dual capable aircraft … with the capability to attack high value heavily defended targets throughout the theatre."
There can be no doubt that these missiles will employ cruise technology. There are two candidates already for the system. The first is the United States joint tactical missile system, which, according to United States sources, is already flying. This is a cruise missile with stealth technology. The second missile is the modular stand-off weapon, the MSOW. It is likely that both will be deployed eventually and use cruise technology. Thus, it is clear that the United States is developing nuclear air-launched cruise missiles for deployment in Europe according to NATO decisions, to which the Government were party.
For the Secretary of State for Defence to say that he is unaware of such plans means that he is not doing his job. He is not reading the papers in his ministerial box. Equally, if he knew about this, he has misled the House. If he did not know, he is guilty of neglect. There is another explanation, though, which is that his officials are using a false and legalistic definition of air-launched cruise
582
missiles which deliberately refers to the present existing US air-launched cruise missiles that are carried by B-52 bombers as ALCMs.
The reason for the right hon. Gentleman's fear of using the phrase "cruise missile" is that it is well known to the public. The right hon. Gentleman would prefer to call them "stand-off" weapons. We have heard that phrase used tonight. Indeed, he would prefer to call them anything other than what they really are. The public think accurately that these are cruise missiles and are an escalation. That view has been confirmed by the Secretary of State in his desire to misinform the House.
I ask the Minister to confirm whether these weapons are indeed part of the NATO programme, Will he say whether they will be fitted to United States F111 and F15 aircraft at RAF bases in the United Kingdom, or is there some hidden opposition to the Prime Minister's nuclear addiction? On the other hand, can the Secretary of State categorically deny that these nuclear air-launched missiles will be in this country? Will he explain precisely his intention and whether he will allow the United States to base more F111s in the United Kingdom and to deploy the new F15E Strike Eagle here? According to Mr. Carlucci, the F15 Strike Eagle can deliver the full range of nuclear and conventional bombs and missiles, and it will be deployed throughout Europe by the early 1990s.
In the recent United States report on nuclear strategy, entitled "Discriminate deterrence" by Kissinger, Brzezinski, ex-Under Secretary of Defence 1kle, and many other military figures, it is made clear that the weapons that the United Kingdom Government want for RAF bombers, which the United States will put on United States planes based in the United Kingdom, are crucial to their plans. The report says:
"The Alliance will still need an ability to use nuclear weapons effectively and discriminately."
It continues:
"The Alliance should threaten to use nuclear weapons not as a link to a wider and more devastating war—although the risk of escalation would still be there—but mainly as an instrument for denying success to the invading Soviet forces."
Central to these new strategies are the highly accurate cruise missiles that are now in development. According to former Under Secretary Iklé, they add up to
"The most important military development since world war 2 … the thirty-year revolution in accuracies has more cumulative impact than the initial leap from conventional explosives to the A-bomb."
The new weapons have revived the ludicrous idea that it is possible to fight a limited nuclear war in Europe; naturally, where else? The idea is still being pursued at the highest level in the United States. Before Conservative Members protest that that is all right because we will act in this insane way only when the Soviets have already gone mad and attacked us, they should ponder the problem of war by accident escalating from a regional crisis or from technical and human error: from cock-up rather than from a conspiracy.
The Royal Air Force is already part of the nonsense of flexible response, which could only promise to add a nuclear defeat to a conventional one. These new weapons will reinforce those obsolete ideas. According to the NATO allied tactical paper 33A, dealing with the deployment of nuclear weapons in tactical air operations
"nuclear weapons must be used with discrimination and precision."
The RAF is unfortunately still forced to train according to this nonsense. Ask the inhabitants of Nagasaki and

583
Hiroshima how much discrimination and precision they recall. Ask the people who were close to Chernobyl and the nuclear fallout how precise that was.
These ideas may constitute a dangerous political strategy of bluff, but they are not a military strategy, for to justify the term "strategy" a military plan must have at least some chance of securing victory, whereas these ideas owe more to the traditions of the charge of the Light Brigade and the mentality of The Sun than to the Battle of Britain.
What is worse about the Government's position is that they have not the remotest real interest in pursuing a policy of arms control and disarmament. The Prime Minister's scuttling style and bullying tactics since the INF deal are manifest testimony to that.
I could continue, as I have many more remarks to make, but I am conscious of the fact that two more hon. Members have been waiting to catch your eye all evening, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wish to give them the opportunity to speak in the debate.
I plead with the Minister to answer the questions that I have asked tonight. Those that he cannot answer tonight will he answer later in some form of letter to me?
8.57 pm
Mr. Michael Jack: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) for curtailing his remarks so that I may speak in the debate. I pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin), for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) and for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker). They laid the ground very well for this most important debate.
My own interest is in future RAF procurement needs. The reason for that is simple. In the middle of my constituency of Fylde is the British Aerospace military aircraft division at Warton. Along with other military aircraft establishments in Lancashire, and the Preston area, Warton accounts for about 16,500 jobs. In addition, we must take into account the contribution by companies such as Lucas Industries at Burnley and Rolls-Royce in Barnoldswick.
I pay tribute to the work force in the aerospace industry, both management and trades unions. Their contribution is noted and it does much for the quality of the aerospace industry.
I hope that I can follow in the footsteps of my good friend the hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins). He has made many pertinent interventions in debates on aerospace. In last year's debate on this subject he raised 25 per cent. of the questions on the RAF. For his trouble, he is now the Minister with responsibility for aerospace, so I suppose that that says something about parliamentary promotion.
The background to the debate was laid by other hon. Members, but there are three key points underlining the role of the RAF and therefore its future procurement needs.
First, the enhanced role of conventional aircraft has been brought into sharp focus by the INF treaty. Secondly, there is the still real threat of the conventional bomber and, thirdly, the improvement—this is a most important point—in Soviet fighter cover. Today, Soviet fighter cover, such as that accompanying a bomber force,
584
can reach the west coast of the kingdom for the first time. That raises important questions about future procurement to counter that new threat.
For me, there are three key issues — first, the Tornado mid-life update; secondly, the development of the small, agile, mobile battlefield aircraft, known as SAMBA; and, thirdly, the European fighter aircraft. I should like to add my thanks to Ministers for their efforts in their dealings with the other three partner countries in this project. There may be problems, but it is not for the want of trying that we are now teetering on the brink of getting the project under way.
I should like to ask the Minister when we can expect to see the placing of contracts in respect of the Tornado mid-life update. That is vital to British Aerospace in maintaining continuity of employment in my constituency and my constituents would greatly appreciate some more positive news. SAMBA is a private venture concept which British Aerospace is currently evaluating. Its principal role is the destruction of helicopters, for example, heavily armed helicopters in a German battle situation. It could also be adapted to take on tank formations. That is an interesting concept. It poses some powerful questions about the future role of the helicopter on the battlefield. I should be grateful if the Minister would comment on that.
On the European fighter aircraft, we are so near and yet so far. I raise this point, not by way of criticism, but to try to stem the uncertainty which has been circulating in Lancashire, particularly in the local newspapers. Many of the workers are influenced by rumour and I hope that this evening we can quell some of those rumours about the future of the project. I was reminded of the EFA in church on Sunday because, when the vicar was reading the marriage banns, he paid attention to the number of partners he wanted to join together. In the case of the European fighter aircraft, we want to join together four partners. If anybody in the Chamber knows of any good reason why those four partners should not be finally joined together, I challenge him to declare it now. We want to see the marriage fully consummated by the final signing of the full development project.
It is important to restate the operational requirements that the European fighter aircraft will fulfil. We must review the alternatives if something went wrong. We should also consider the implications if the project was stopped. Many people would lose their jobs. We should also consider the role of and justification for the EFA. This can be summed up in a quotation from the November 1987 edition of a magazine called "NATO's Sixteen Nations", which states:
"In its current postulated form, EFA should be one of the most effective European combat aircraft ever introduced into service."
There can be no finer plaudit for that project than that simple assessment. The project incorporates new technology in materials, radar and avionics. Its principal role will be to back up the Tornado F3. It will also be able to take on potential enemy bomber forces. It would help to replace the Phantom aircraft in West Germany and to cope with the need for an agile dog fighter. It also has the capability of a ground attack role. That would be of particular value to NATO, particularly in respect of the northern Norway commitment.
The European fighter aircraft project is a great ambassador for the British and European aerospace

585
industries. Its principal role is to counter the growing threat from the MiG29 — known by its NATO nomenclature of Fulcrum, a fighter not dissimilar to the F18 and the Sukou Flanker, the bomber escort. It can help to counter the renewed threat from the bomber in close-in fighting only by using its agility, speed, weapons system and radar. The EFA is a unique solution to this air defence problem.
It also has a tremendous export potential. I ask one question of Opposition Members: has the Labour party altered the policy published in 1986 dismantling the export machinery for selling British armaments abroad? If that is still its policy—I have not seen anything to counter it—it would be profoundly worrying to aerospace workers, particularly in my constituency, who look to Saudi Arabia, for example, to update its air force by the purchase of the European fighter aircraft.
Without doubt the EFA can meet the challenges of the RAF's specification — agility, a single-seat fighter cheaper than the Tornado which uses state of the art avionics. It has a stealth capability, but it is not so stealthy as to sacrifice performance as a fighter aircraft. Most important, it has the ability for STOL—short take off and landing. In other words, it will not be restricted if runways are damaged. It has the technical capability to do the job.
I should like a clear statement from the Government Front Bench tonight that the F18 fighter is not a realistic alternative for the Germans or for the United Kingdom to consider. The Ministry's own assessment of the capability of the EFA and the F18 show that, while the EFA has an 80 per cent. chance of survival in a dog fight, the F18 or the F18 Hornet 2000—an idea existing only on paper—would stand only a 20 per cent. chance of survival. If that is not a clear reason why all the European partners should proceed at all speed to have the European fighter aircraft, I cannot find another argument. The advanced tactical fighter, a large aeroplane, is not an option for us to consider.
We should ask the Secretary of State for Defence to do all he can in conversation with his West German counterpart to influence the Germans strongly to make an early decision on the project and to make certain that the European fighter aircraft enters service at the earliest opportunity.
9.7 pm
Mr. Harry Cohen: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me at this stage. I shall try to curtail my remarks.
It is a shame that I have so little time because I would have liked to say a lot about the waste of money, particularly in relation to RAF procurement, but many of my hon. Friends have already spoken on that. I shall refer simply to the Foxhunter radar system which is to operate in the Tornado aircraft, which is vital to the Government's military strategy. That aircraft is now known as the Blue Circle jet because it flies not with a Foxhunter radar but with slabs of concrete where the radar should be. That project must be approaching the £1 billion mark; it is almost 100 per cent. over budget. Many of my hon. Friends have already referred to that and to other examples of waste.
I want to concentrate on modernisation, the public relations term used by the Government which the press dutifully repeats. Initially the Secretary of State talked
586
about compensatory measures in the wake of INF. It might be more appropriate to call it circumvention or, if we wanted to be nasty, even cheating on INF. The Russians call it rearmament. "The Soviet News" of 27 January had the headline, "NATO plans of rearmament". The description by the CND was probably the most appropriate. It referred to renuclearisation — a difficult word to pronounce but a much more valid description than "modernisation".
What is this all about? It is a new technology covering the speed and accuracy of nuclear weapons. The Pentagon's discriminate deterrence report referred to the possibility of a surgical nuclear strike and making the weapons politically usable. In those circumstances, the target would be not only the Soviet Union, although it is the main one, but the Third world. That is a dangerous development and it will make the world a much more dangerous place.
After the INF agreement the Prime Minister said that, in her view, arms control had gone far enough. She wants the opposite of arms control: a new arms build up, potentially leading to a new arms race. We have clearly seen that in the form of the short-range and battlefield nuclear missiles. The Prime Minister sets her face against the third zero in the triple zero option to such an extent that even the West German authorities are now strongly in dispute with her. They do not want such weapons because they know that they will fall on their territory if they are ever used. That is why the Government put great emphasis on the Tornado with new nuclear bombs and missiles, so that it can replace the WE177 free-fall thermonuclear bombs.
There was a possibility of a deal with the French on the ASMP. One could call that, in the words of the light hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), the Euro bomb. The Government rubbished it before the election, but are now considering it. One can spot the Tory in the case of the hon. Member for Devonport, or the Owenites in the Tory party — or a bit of both. However, the Government are unlikely to do that deal with the French. They prefer being in bed with the United States, to which they are almost completely subservient in these matters. Also, they want a longer range than the French ASMP has, as a compensatory measure for the scrapping of missiles in the INF agreement.
How much will the replacement of the WE177 cost? The Guardian of 9 February quotes a figure of £2·3 billion. Is that true? If that is included in the Defence Estimates, what will have to go from the Defence Estimates to pay For it? What jobs will have to go? Is this sort of expenditure the real reason why the Government will not — properly—invest a similar amount in the National Health Service, as the Opposition have been demanding for months on end that they should? That article in The Guardian also says that the Government have been working on a replacement for the WE177 at Aldermaston. I have been asking questions about that and receiving evasive answers. Has this work on a new nuclear weapon been going on without parliamentary approval? When did the Government authorise it? We deserve an answer to that.
Then there is the matter of the 1,300 air-launched cruise missiles that, it has been suggested, are likely to arrive by the 1990s. They represent a massive increase in NATO's ability to hit the USSR and the Third world. They would be capable of hitting the same range of targets as their ground-launched counterparts, which went out under the

587
INF—but with a shorter flight time. Politically, they would be highly provocative, and they come on top of all the other non-RAF nuclear weapons such as Trident, the enhanced radiation neutron bomb, and the MLRS nuclear-capable systems.
It has been suggested that more nuclear bombers will be based in Britain, perhaps at Lakenheath and Upper Heyford. Has the Secretary of State offered RAF Greenham Common and RAF Alconbury as bases for the F111 or its replacement, the F15E Strike Eagle? We are to have all those and the Tornados at RAF Waddington and RAF Marham all over the place, too. Britain will become, and is increasingly becoming, a nuclear battle station. That can only be described as renuclearisation. It is certainly a replacement of those that were scrapped under the INF treaty.
I come back to the points made by Soviet youths because they pose the choice between arms control and arms build up. It is said:
"They want to act contrary to the wise English saying that one cannot 'have one's cake and eat it'. The replacement of the systems of nuclear armaments with other ones, more numerous and no less dangerous, is not disarmament. It is a mockery of nuclear arms reduction.
Unless NATO nuclear arming in answer to the elimination of intermediate-range and shorter-range missiles is prevented, this can lead to a new spiral in the arms race, and undermine the nascent positive process in Soviet-American relations."
I think that that is the case and certainly this new arms build up was never put before the electorate at the last election. The points about politically usable weapons were never put to the British public before the last election and the British people do not want them. If the British people perceived the truth of the matter in this respect, they would see the Prime Minister and the Government for what they really are—nuclear maniacs.
9.16 pm
Mr. Rogers: When the Minister was winding-up the defence debate in October he threw across the Table at me one of my election leaflets, on which was written, "This is the only election address Conservative Central Office could find." It was one of the election addresses that I put out dealing with social services. The Minister challenged me—and, of course, it is on record—saying that I had not said anything about defence during my election campaign. I said then, and I reassert now, that I did, particularly in my main election address. Anyway, I thought that I would bring a souvenir for the Minister tonight—the declaration of the result in the Rhondda constituency, which is in the Guinness Book of Records as the largest majority in this Parliament. I think that will demonstrate to him that, defence or no defence, the people of the Rhondda know how to vote.
Each year the debate seems to follow a pattern dictated, it would seem, by the Ministry of Defence's word processor. We have a tour of the world, some fine words about morale, some blood-curdling rhetoric about the Soviet threat and some inaccurate information about equipment—a part of the speech that gets thinner and thinner every year, particularly as Trident takes an ever-increasing share of a decreasing budget. Because of this, of course, we are unable to perform our vital NATO role.
588
The Opposition contend — as I think we have demonstrated in the debate—that it is not just Trident that is distorting our defence problems, but general mismanagement by the Government.
One of the issues that has not come out in this debate, but to which the Minister could perhaps address himself in his winding-up speech, is the change in Government policy of not publishing project unit costs. I put down a written question to the Minister asking when it became his practice not to publish project unit costs, and the answer that I had from him was that it could be inimical to the commercial interests of manufacturers.
Why is that? The price of a Tornado has no commercial secrecy value. The aircraft is made up of many individually priced parts and there is no commercial value in simply knowing the price of the whole.
Is it true that the policy is brought about by the Government's increasing embarrassment in their procurement role—that it is not secrecy to cover security that we are seeing, but secrecy to hide incompetence? It is not secrecy in the interests of the nation; it is secrecy in the self-interest of the Government and the Tory party.
My hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) brought up the acute problem of low flying. He demonstrated to the House the enormous physical impact that a low-flying aircraft has on anyone who happens to be under the flight path. It is an extreme and shattering experience. Although the Minister has addressed himself to this problem on many occasions and answered us with the greatest of courtesy, I hope that he will continue to consider it.
I accept the strictures about the need for training. I have an Army — I had a humble role—rather than an Air Force background, but I cannot accept that there is any skill acquisition from flying at 500 miles an hour at 100 ft. All that happens are knee-jerk reactions. As I have said before, one cannot improve one's reflexes simply by practising in that way. There are other ways to test and improve such reflexes. To repeat what I have said before —indeed, it illustrates the point well—one does not get better at Russian roulette by practising.
Mr. Bill Walker: Pilots do not fly low and fast simply for fun, nor do they do it, the older they get, simply to get a kick. They do it because it is the only way that they will survive in a battlefield environment, and, sadly, there is no substitute for it.
Mr. Rogers: The sad truth of the matter is that many pilots do not even survive peace-time practice and the accident rate is now reaching alarming proportions. I still contend — I will leave it at this— that there is no real skill acquisition in flying at a height of 100 ft at 500 miles an hour. All one can do is practise knee-jerk reactions.
Mr. Mans: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Rogers: No. The hon. Gentleman has just entered the Chamber. We are tight on time and I gave way a considerable number of times during my opening speech.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) mentioned many interesting matters in his speech. He talked about his relief that the search and rescue service had been redeemed. However, both my hon. Friend and I are still disturbed about the "get out" clause that was included in the Minister's statement. I hope that

589
that matter will be clarified when the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State replies to the debate. My hon. Friend is also concerned about the present problems with the Tornado and IUKADGE. There are grave difficulties with our Air Force defence and I hope that the Minister will address himself to them in the relatively short time that he has.
The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) mentioned his visit to Greenham Common and informed us of his discussions with the United States commander. Apart from giving us a nice dissertation about boots, he did say that the commander had said that the base would be used as an aerodrome. Perhaps the Minister could tell us— —
Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: I said
"for an air force purpose."
That is in the Official Report.
Mr. Rogers: I am sorry. However, my question is still pertinent: whose air force and for what purpose?
My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) made an extremely good contribution to the debate. In common with me, my hon. Friend gets extremely offended at the gratuitous insults that are sometimes thrown from the Conservative Benches.
Mr. Frank Cook: It is not all of them; just one of them.
Mr. Rogers: From one or two Conservative Members. However, I am sure that my hon. Friend would agree that the pattern appears to be that Conservative Members believe that they are the sole custodians of the defence of this country. I have addressed this problem before and would simply ask them to consider the problem themselves. They should remember the record of some members of their party during the 1930s.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, North made some extremely pertinent points about nuclear deterrence and strategy. I hope that he will not consider me in any way condescending if I say that he has acquired a formidable reputation on nuclear matters, both civil and military, and that his remarks are heeded.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) referred to a surgical nuclear strike and demonstrated the absurdity of some of the contemporary discussion of political and military strategy.
The hon. Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) made an extremely critical and balanced speech. He addressed the problems as they should be addressed in a debate such as this. He referred to one concern of Opposition Members —the identification of friend and foe system and the incompatibility that is developing within the NATO forces. He also referred to an issue that I mentioned in my opening remarks — the problem of pilot retention, or perhaps I should say pilot loss. He told the Minister that drastic action was needed. The hon. Gentleman preferred to refer to privatisation as contracting out, but properly pointed out the dangers that can arise when there are more civilians than service men in a military unit. The service men then cannot carry out their operating role because they are administering the civilian sector.
The hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) was concerned about the future of the European fighter aircraft, in which he has a large constituency interest. I am glad that he is joining us in putting pressure on the Government. We are not being negative. We are saying deliberately and clearly that it will not be possible for the Government to fulfil
590
their nuclear role with Trident and their conventional role within NATO. We may find a severe defence gap developing in the 1990s because of that. Will the Minister tell us whether the EFA is to maintain its dual role as an air interceptor and ground attack plane, or whether the Department has given in to the Treasury and downgraded the specification for the EFA to make it a single role interceptor?
It is well over a year since the Government decided to purchase AWACS, and the matter has been raised yet again today. What is to happen to the Nimrod airframes, of which there are 11? Are they still rotting away at Waddington and Abingdon? Will they be sold or converted to perform a maritime reconnaissance role? Surely the 11 airframes will not be needed for that. Their maintenance is an enormous drain on our defence budget, and, furthermore, they have the capacity to be sold off. The Government are keen on selling off surplus assets in health and so on. How about selling off some surplus assets in the RAF, which could probably realise about £100 million to contribute to the ever-decreasing budget available for defence?
This is my second bite of the cherry this evening. The Minister has been posed an awful lot of questions and I should like to leave him as long as possible to answer the genuine questions and grievances that we have put to him. Opposition Members say that the Government are in severe difficulties and that they will experience even greater difficulties in safeguarding the defence of this country as we move into the 1990s. As Sir Frank Cooper — a former permanent secretary at the Ministry of Defence—has said, the main issues have not been and are not being addressed by the Government. He also mentioned Britain's national role and the problem of an over-full defence programme. Until the Government address those issues they will not fulfil their obligations to this country.
We are anxious to co-operate to obtain maximum security for Britain. We want to safeguard our freedoms and traditions as much as anyone else. I hope that the Minister and other Conservative Members will accept that our commitment to the defence of Britain is at least as strong, if not stronger, than theirs.
9.30 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Roger Freeman): I thank the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) for giving me a copy of his parliamentary election return, which I read with great interest. I congratulate him on the size of his majority, and I draw attention to the fact that, judging by the return at the bottom, he holds the record in this country for those voting for more than one candidate in a constituency.
Mr. Rogers: People in the Rhondda are extremely generous. Having given me 35,000 votes, they had to give some to the Communists, the SDP, the Tories and Plaid Cymru.
Mr. Freeman: The debate has been good natured, interesting and informative. Many questions have been asked — I counted over 100 — so I am sure that hon. Members will forgive me if I do not answer them all in the time available. I give an undertaking, as I did last year,

591
that I or one of my colleagues in the Department will write to hon. Members who have raised points that I cannot answer tonight.
We take these single-service debates very seriously, as do the services. The thin attendance for the debate would give a misleading impression to those who look only at the numbers who attend. It is an important debate, many important issues have been raised and the Ministry of Defence very much welcomes it.
I offer the House, through you, Mr. Speaker, the apologies of my hon. Friend the Minister of State, who is hosting an official dinner for a German defence delegation, for not being present.
According to today's Daily Telegraph, Lloyd George told the young Harold Macmillan:
"You've no idea how to make a speech. Twenty points make a good speech to which nobody listens … As a junior Minister, you can allow yourself two."
I am afraid that I am about to cover 15 or 20 points, which raises the question, if our proceedings are to be televised, of how television will cover the winding-up speeches.
The hon. Member for Rhondda and my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) mentioned exit rates of pilots, particularly fast-jet pilots. There are three categories of pilot exits. The first category is premature voluntary retirement. I hope that the hon. Member for Rhondda understands that the application rates from all pilots — fast-jet pilots, and younger fast-jet pilots specifically — for premature voluntary retirement is down, which is good news. The second category of exit is those who leave at the end of their career. We cannot be blamed for that. The third category is those who reach recognised option points during their career. The hon. Gentleman rightly drew attention to the fact that those who signed on for a 12-year commission in the late 1970s and early 1980s, but who had an option to leave after eight years, are now leaving in slightly higher numbers. We regret that, but it is not terribly surprising, because there are great attractions in the civil airlines. However, I advise my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Rhondda that the total exit rate for PVR — those who are leaving either at the end or during their engagements—is not excessive. There is no shortage of fast-jet pilots now, nor is one foreseen in the Royal Air Force.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) raised the question of gratuities—I apologise to him for not being in the Chamber when he spoke—as did my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre. In the light of recent social security legislation, which requires occupational pension schemes to preserve benefits after two years' service, we are considering whether gratuity earning engagements should continue to be offered in the future, or whether to allow short-service officers and airmen to become members of the armed forces pension scheme from the outset. My hon. Friends will appreciate the significance of that. If those service men become members at the outset, there is no question of paying a cash gratuity at the eight-year point. If they leave at that stage they will have a preserved pension right, but there will not be a cash incentive for pilots to leave. I take that point seriously.
Mr. Bill Walker: I believe that we should consider a positive approach to this problem and pay those officers to stay in the Royal Air Force. It would save the Air Force millions of pounds in training costs if we gave service men
592
a handsome gratuity to stay in with which they could then buy the houses and all the other things for which they are now using their terminal gratuities.
Mr. Freeman: I appreciate my hon. Friend's point. However, the right way to proceed would be to make sure that the pay and allowances for those who continue to serve are continuously looked at and improved where possible. I do not think that a cash gratuity to those who stay in and are retained would be the right way to proceed. However, I take my hon. Friend's point.
Mr. Frank Cook: Will the Minister consider establishing some form of transfer fee? If the pilot or flying technician — call him or her what one will — took up another flying post on leaving the RAF, with another military air force or civil airline, could we not charge something for the training that that pilot had received?
Mr. Freeman: That is an interesting idea, but I do not hold out much hope of making it effective. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have a minimum return of service for pilots and, indeed, a quota system for those who, sadly, decide to apply for PVR. We seek to amortise the expensive cost of training pilots. It costs £3 million to train a pilot, and £1 million to train a navigator.
The hon. Member for Rhondda raised the question of Foxhunter, the radar for Tornado. Even in its present form this radar is performing much better than on its first introduction to service. We are confident that its capability will continue to improve as the development progresses. It does not yet meet in full the requirements of the RAF, but radars to an agreed interim standard are now in service and the system is already providing an operational capability that is superior to that of the aircraft that it is replacing. Already two units of Tornado F3, one squadron and the operational conversion unit, have been declared to NATO and a third will be declared shortly.
The hon. Member for Rhondda and my hon. Friends the Members for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin), for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson), and for Fylde (Mr. Jack) mentioned EFA and EFA radar. I welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde to these debates. I feel sure that he will be a great successor, not only to the previous hon. Member for that constituency, but to my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins), who used to carry the flag for EFA and the aerospace industry. We look forward to his contributions in these debates. My hon. Friends asked about the decision on the radar for the European fighter aircraft. Bids for the radar were received last week and are being assessed, but no decision on the radar will be taken before Easter.
The hon. Member for Rhondda also raised the question of the Tucano programme. The first two production Tucano aircraft are currently undergoing flight clearance trials at Boscombe Down. Once those trials have progressed far enough, deliveries to the Royal Air Force will start, although it will be later than was originally planned. Shorts expects to recover any delays later in the delivery programme.
Mr. Rogers: Are the Minister and his Department absolutely satisfied now that the technical problems of shoehorning the engine into the Tucano airframe have been overcome?
Mr. Freeman: With any complicated aircraft — the Tucano is less complicated than the Tornado and the

593
European fighter aircraft—one can never be 100 per cent. sure. I have made a statement which I believe to be clear and comprehensive, and I am sure that we shall return to the subject at a later date.
The hon. Gentleman asked me whether any decision had been made on the future of the 11 airframes. We have recently decided that three of the Nimrod airborne early-warning airframes should be utilised to provide spares for Nimrod maritime patrol aircraft. The future of the remaining eight airframes is still under active review.
The hon. Member for Rhondda and the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) asked some important questions about search and rescue. I am happy briefly to expand on what my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces said earlier. He explained that where there is a military requirement for search and rescue the service will continue to be provided by the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force, whose services will, of course, continue to be made available to the wider civilian community.
Several hon. Members asked me to explain what is meant by a military requirement. I should explain that military search and rescue are the responsibility of Defence Ministers, while my right hon. Friend the Secretay of State for Transport is responsible for civil, marine and aviation search and rescue policy. The military requirement is to rescue military personnel of all three services, in peacetime, transition to war and war itself, on land or sea. To meet that requirement, Royal Navy and Royal Air Force helicopters cover most of the United Kingdom coastline and inland mountainous areas, providing a search and rescue service in all those areas where military personnel are likely to be in difficulties throughout the year.
That does not apply in the north of Scotland, where Bristow provides a service at Sumburgh and Stornoway. Military personnel benefit greatly from the dedicated and courageous services of other organisations, such as HM Coastguard, the RNLI, the civil police and civilian mountain rescue organisations.
At the same time, the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force search and rescue helicopter squadrons gladly make their services available to civilians in trouble. More than 90 per cent. of their call outs are to help civilians. That will continue.
Civilian search and rescue requirements are defined by the helicopter coverage group reporting to the Department of Transport. In some areas the helicopter coverage group would wish to see some improvements. As a result of the deployment studies which were mentioned by my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces, and which are continuing, Royal Navy and Royal Air Force helicopters, together with civilian helicopters established in the Shetlands and Hebrides, will provide coverage in future, meeting virtually all the requirements of the helicopter coverage group. I can assure the House that overall coverage will not be diminished. On the contrary it will be enhanced considerably by the military search and rescue helicopters.
Mr. Wilson: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Freeman: I shall finish my point. These helicopters are subject to study for redeployment and we expect to make an announcement shortly. Coverage is also provided by civilian helicopters, of which there is only Bristow in the north of Scotland.
594
I recognise that hon. Members would like details of our deployment plans, but I cannot provide those today because our studies are not yet complete. However, we thought it right to put an end to uncertainty and speculation about contractorisation and to set at rest some fears that are understandable but groundless. Where we do not find it necessary to provide military helicopters to meet military search and rescue requirements, but where my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport judges that civilian activities require unusually high search and rescue needs, my right hon. Friend may decide to supplement the military service by letting civilian contracts. I must ask the House to accept that that will be so.
Mr. Wilson: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Freeman: In a moment. The vast bulk of the search and rescue helicopter service will continue to be provided by the much-admired yellow and dark blue helicopters and by their dedicated and courageous crews.
Mr. Wilson: The more the Minister speaks, the more he reintroduces doubts that we thought had been erased. It might be purely a semantic confusion between the military service and the service provided by the military mainly for civilian use. Will the hon. Gentleman assure us that no base from which the Ministry of Defence provides a search and rescue service will be privatised? Will he also assure us that there is no area covered by the military service, beyond the areas covered by the two bases which already exist, where the privatised area will encroach, either from those bases, or from other bases which are to be established? In other words, although the principle of privatising the whole service has been rejected—we are pleased about that—we do not want to see a gradual erosion of the Ministry of Defence service, with Bristow's finger going a little deeper into the pie every time it obtains another base, as it has in Stornoway and Shetland.
Mr. Freeman: The answers to the hon. Gentleman's two questions are yes, and yes.
Mr. Denzil Davies: The Minister mentioned military redeployment and said that he may be able to tell us something in the future. Is he in a difficulty because that redeployment might mean a reduction in military needs and demands and he is hoping that that reduction can be made up by civilian operations conducted through the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry?
Mr. Freeman: The answer is no. The studies are taking some time. We hope to announce the result shortly, because they involve consultation with different Government Departments. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that there is no intention to diminish or contract the military cover that is provided. As he knows, some 90 per cent. of those rescued by military helicopters are civilians.
The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) and the hon. Members for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy and for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) asked about low flying. The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East talked about radar. He was referring to Skyguard. That is a fire control radar system, normally used in association with Oerlikon guns. The possibility of using a Skyguard system to monitor the heights of low-flying aircraft was the subject of a recent trial. The equipment's potential in that role will not be clear until the

595
results of the trial have been fully assessed. However, I can assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that I and the Ministry of Defence take seriously the evaluation of the trial. If the trial proves that the equipment can be used to monitor the height of low-flying aircraft, it will be so used.
The hon. and learned Gentleman also asked about the extent to which we can transfer. He mentioned low-flying training in the Falklands and Canada. Yes, we would like to transfer to many different countries, but it is costly to transport the aircraft and crew, and it clearly reduces our defence capability while the aircraft are away. One must also bear in mind that those countries might also have views on the number of aircraft that they are prepared to take. The answer to the hon. and learned Gentleman's question is yes. Where possible, we are seeking to increase the amount of low flying done abroad.
The hon. and learned Gentleman also asked about the noise compensation scheme at Leuchars. I worked closely with his predecessor and I pay tribute to him for his defence of his constituents' interests. I understood that the noise insulation grant scheme was welcome. If there are problems and the hon. and learned Gentleman cares to write to me, I shall be pleased to pursue them. I believe that the grant rate scheme per house is adequate and that it is a widely popular scheme.
The hon. Member for Carmarthen made a thoughtful speech and raised five points. First, he mentioned children being terrified. I take his point, and I give him an undertaking that I shall reflect further on how we can alert and inform children, either through school or through parents, about the effect of low-flying aircraft and the suddenness of the sound. While I regret to say that low-flying training must continue—and the Tornado and the F111 are noisy aircraft—the hon. Gentleman has made a valid point.
The hon. Gentleman was probably mistaken in believing that the problem is not only becoming worse, but will continue to get worse. He was right, however, to draw attention to the fact that, over the past five or 10 years, the number of missions flown at low level has increased. That is historically true. The reasons are simply that our pilots must perfect the technique of flying low. That is a relatively new development, because the introduction of the Soviet radar system is itself relatively new, and that is the reason for pilots having to practise low flying. The Tornado aircraft is now fully in service, and, with the introduction of a new aircraft, such techniques must be practised.
Where the hon. Gentleman is wrong, and where I hope I can help him, is in his view that a plateau has been reached in the number of missions flown. I believe that the hon. Member for Rhondda said that 1987 had seen a small diminution, and the situation will not get worse.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the proportion of flights undertaken at ultra-low level. I cannot give him an assurance that we will stick to the percentage of 0·5 per cent. However, I can say that flights in the centre of Wales, the borders and the north of Scotland are necessary and will always remain a very low proportion of total missions flown. It involves great skill to fly down to 100 ft., and it is done in preparation for training abroad.
The hon. Gentleman asked about a ban on night flying. Night flying forms a very small proportion of the total. Although I cannot offer the hon. Gentleman a ban, I can
596
say that, where possible, crews cease flying at 7 pm. Night flying has to be practised in the summer months, because many missions flown in war would be in the middle of the night, but they try to keep the disturbance to a minimum.
The hon. Gentleman raised an interesting point about notification of low-flying exercises, and whether we could do more about notifying the local media. I try to write to hon. Members notifying them not only of general exercises, but specifically when there is going to be activity in ultra-low-flying areas. However, I shall see what else we can do.
The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy raised a number of points. Let me comment on three or four of them. He talked about our policy on avoidance areas. Since 1979, when the Labour Government changed the low-flying system into one unlike the German system, in which pilots could fly anywhere in Great Britain, apart from the great conurbations and airfields, our policy has been constantly to try to reduce the number of avoidance areas. Sometimes we introduce new avoidance areas—I announced one recently at Quedgeley, a suburb of Gloucester—but our general approach is to reduce the number of such areas. This, I believe, is consistent with the comments by the RAF officer. Our purpose is constantly to spread the burden as widely as possible. I accept that it is an interference.
The hon. Gentleman asked about low flying being exported from Germany back to this country. I am not sure which aircraft he is thinking of. Our own aircraft, belonging to RAF Germany, are part of the Royal Air Force. Sometimes they train in Germany, but they also return to this country: that is legitimate. Only 1 per cent. of all missions are flown by non-RAF and non-United States air force jets, and they are mainly from the European NATO air forces. I consider that a modest proportion, and I do not accept the implication that other European nations are sending all their fast jets here and over-burdening us.
The hon. Gentleman's most important point was about the safety rate. There is no time to go into the subject in depth, but I will say that we take it extremely seriously. The accident rate in 1987 was the lowest for the last decade. Accident rates are expressed in terms of accidents per 10,000 hours of flying. The rate in 1987 was one accident per 30,000 hours flown in military jets. Each mission flown normally lasts for between an hour and an hour and a half. That was a good safety record, despite the sad bunching of accidents in the middle of the year, and the inevitable media interest that has followed.
The hon. Gentleman drew to the attention of the House the fact that only one third of low-flying accidents —sadly, there were 14 or 15 accidents last year—can be attributed to low flying, when technical malfunction or pilot error resulted in a crash. Two thirds of such accidents occur at high level and may involve technical malfunction or other reasons. I am proud of our safety record and hope that it will be maintained.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the civilian pilot who was lost in 1984. I am sorry if I misled him in any way. The statistics prepared are for civilian casualties on the ground, not in the air. There was no intention to mislead him.
My hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside referred to the RTM322 engine, the Rolls-Royce turbo mecca engine. We have decided that a competition will be held for the supply of production engines for the Anglo-Italian EH101 helicopter. A

597
specification is being prepared and we aim to issue tenders and complete the competition as soon as possible. We expect the RTM322 to be a strong contender and we are looking forward to receiving a keenly competitive bid.
My hon. Friend referred to the Farnborough air show and asked whether something could be done about the charges. I should like to think about that and write to him. We would like to be helpful, but we are restrained by Treasury requirements and good housekeeping to ensure that we recover our costs.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury referred to Greenham Common. Under the terms of the INF agreement Soviet inspection teams will be entitled to visit Greenham Common on a limited number of occasions over 13 years after the entry into force of the treaty, which will be shortly after ratification by the two countries. All treaty-related items will have been removed from the base during the three-year draw-down period.
As for the United Kingdom being a base country, the treaty applies only to cruise missiles and their support facilities at RAF Greenham Common and RAF Molesworth, so it places no formal limitations on other forms of activity or use of the base. However, in practice we would have to take into account in our forward planning the fact that for the foreseeable future Soviet inspection teams will be arriving to make inspections at very short notice. I do not expect that a decision on the future use of RAF Greenham Common will be made for some time, but I notice my hon. Friend's comment about the sensitive question of future use, and about aircraft being based at Greenham Common.
My hon. Friend also referred to the boot. Being an Army boot, I am afraid I am unsighted on that and I shall have to write to him. I appreciate the problems. I am afraid that we will never satisfly the Army or the RAF on a new boot, but we will try.
598
My hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North referred to dog training. This review is the eleventh in the Ministry of Defence under various Governments, as far as I can gather. A decision is expected once our consultants have reported.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wyre referred to the Boeing offset agreement. We are currently evaluating Boeing's first six-monthly report detailing contracts for which it wishes to claim offset credit. There is no reason to believe that Boeing will not meet its obligations under the AWACS offset programme, which will also cover the seventh aircraft. Its only other offset commitment in the United Kingdom, against the purchase of Chinook helicopters, has recently been fulfilled.
The hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) asked about air-launched cruise missiles. No decisions have been made on modernisation or changes to the United Kingdom's tactical nuclear capability. As my right hon. Friend has told the House, we are studying the possibilities, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that no decision has been taken.
My hon. Friend the Member for Fylde asked about Tornado mid-life updates. This is planned for the early 1990s.
Finally, the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) asked about several issues. I assure him, as I assure the hon. Member for Stockton, North on the free-fall bomb. This is the tactical nuclear weapon for the Royal Air Force. It is most important in bringing our systems up to date. No decisions have been made, but I can assure the House that the RAF will be given the capability to defend the country.
It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Berkshire Draft Structure Plan
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —[Mr. Ryder.]
10 pm
Mr. John Redwood: I am grateful, Mr. Speaker, for your selecting as a subject for debate the Berkshire revised structure plan. It is a matter of importance to my constituents in Wokingham and to the constituents of those of my hon. Friends who represent Berkshire constituencies and who are here tonight to take part in the debate, with your permission. I shall be speaking for all of them in relation to the revised structure plan and the Government's suggestions on it.
The message from Berkshire is clear. Over the six weeks of the consultation period, the county has been making the Government well aware, by many means, of its strong opposition to the proposed 7,000 houses that the inspector has recommended should be added to the substantial growth total already in the draft structure plan proposed by the county council.
Opposition has been expressed to the Government over the vagueness of the new use classes order and how that might apply to the guidance in the structure plan on the amount of development to be permitted for industrial and commercial purposes. We welcome some of the features of the structure plan as it stands.
We are grateful that the rapid rate of housing growth, which has been higher than 5,000 a year, should fall to 3,900 on the Government's suggestion, but we still feel that that is too high, as I shall explain. We welcome the Government's firmness of purpose, as stated in that document, to preserve the strategic gap between settlements, although some of us wonder how much meaning we can place on this when we see the decisions in some recent planning appeal cases, such as the Keep Hatch case, which seem to erode those vital green gaps between settlements.
We obviously welcome the affirmation by the Government that there will be strong support for those areas of Berkshire that are demarked as green belt or areas of outstanding natural beauty. But we are concerned about the pressures that will result on other parts of the county including, especially in my case, the Wokingham district where there is not the same protection because much of the land is not demarked as green belt or as areas of outstanding natural beauty.
We also welcome the Government's genuflection in favour of local discretion in many features of the plan. But we fear that we might yet again reach the position where the Government overrule many of these decisions, which are taken locally and exercise discretion in the best interests of the local community, by making a series of appeal decisions against the wishes of the people of Berkshire and their duly elected representatives. I should be grateful to hear some assurances from the Minister that where the local duly elected representatives exercise their discretion under the plan the Government will give them some backing.
We are considering here local authorities which have done more than their bit to accommodate the very rapid growth in the south-east in general, and Berkshire in particular, in recent years and which have never pursued a Luddite approach. They have accepted much of the growth, perhaps too willingly, and attempted to
600
accommodate it. But there comes a point at which we must say that enough is enough and that we need a reduction in the growth rate.
I put the case to the Minister on two main grounds. I wish to deal with matters that relate to Berkshire. There are times when one must be selfish because all Berkshire Members are here to represent the interests of our county, to defend what is best about it and to ensure that its future growth and prosperity are based on sound planning. We wish to see the public consultation reflected in the Minister's decisions. The views of the public were canvassed extensively over two long consultation periods by the county council before the decisions were made about the revisions to the draft structure plan. The views of the local communities were entirely clear. They felt that they had had too much growth and they wanted to see a substantial reduction in it.
Many of our councillors have valiantly tried to make good-quality decisions to accommodate some growth and, at the same time, to preserve what is best in the countryside and in our local amenities and facilities. We need some assurances that loyal and hard-working councillors will not always be overridden to the point where they ask themselves why they bother to be councillors at all, if their decisions will always be overridden.
We need to know what Government thinking is on our public services. If we have rapid population growth of the kind that we have had, largely from inward migration, we must accept that there will be tremendous pressure on all kinds of public facilities. The Government have not been too ready to come forward with plans for major increases in public spending. When it comes to the schools budget, or the hospitals budget, we are told that things are difficult.
Why are we faced with growth that we do not want, without the resources to accommodate it properly, when other constituencies would desperately like some of that population growth or even some of those people to stay with them in urban areas which are properly serviced, but which are now contemplating school and hospital closures because there is insufficient demand for those services?
We also wish the Minister to take full account of the importance of the local environment. Berkshire has much beautiful scenery and the characteristic of the county rests upon the clear segregation of village and market town settlements one from another. We are in grave danger not just of the important green gaps between the major settlements being eroded, but of the gaps between the lesser settlements being eroded. The village and market town style will go for ever, to be replaced by one large urban sprawl. For that reason, we oppose it. Much as I like my hon. Friend the Member for Berkshire, East (Mr. MacKay), we do not wish to see our two major settlements amalgamated by a continuous urban sprawl.
Last but not least, we are extremely worried about the traffic pressures on the county's roads. The roads were designed for a much smaller resident population than we currently enjoy. If we wish to seek proof of what can happen, in the past 10 years traffic accidents in Berkshire have risen by 13 per cent., whereas elsewhere in the country they have been static or falling. That is evidence enough of the enormous pressures that we now see if we are foolish enough to try to drive to the House from our constituencies at peak time in the morning. It is impossible to make reasonable progress on the M4.

601
I wish to deal now with the broader national interests. I and many of my hon. Friends greatly welcome the Government's strong initiatives to redevelop the inner cities and to ensure that the prosperity of the country pulsates through the veins up and down the land. That requires that more of the growth, economic prosperity and new investment should take place in the great conurbations of the country, not continuously in the south-east— more especially, in a very narrow part of the south-east.
We wish to help this policy. Sometimes people are unaware of just how great migration has been in this country. Over the past 10 years, the leading conurbations have lost 100,000 people each or, in the case of Glasgow, 135,000. Even London, in the heart of the prosperous south-east, has experienced a net outward migration of 250,000 people. Over that same 10-year period, the south-east has had to absorb 500,000 new people, when it already had relatively full employment and a great deal of prosperity. Accommodating further moves on that scale will make nonsense of the Government's inner-city strategy and will do nothing to spread prosperity across the nation.
A similar imbalance in new housing goes with the migrating patterns. Is the Minister aware that new house building in London has slumped from over 30,000 10 years ago to well under 10,000 in recent years, despite the rebuilding of substantial chunks of docklands? There is evidence that in cities there is plenty of land available if it can be prised out of the public sector which keeps it, magpielike, and will not allow it to be developed.
We do not wish to see Hyde park or St. James's park built on. We would all like to see more parks in the inner cities. But the message is simple: the land is there for parks and for houses. We wish to see the Government's resolve strengthened to make sure that more of the vacant land is used and more pressures are taken off other parts of the country.
Sometimes people say to me, "Yes, but you are trying to rig the market. The market demands more houses in your area." The only reason why the market demands more houses in our area is that the market is completely rigged elsewhere. The planning system clogs development in inner cities, in the north and in many parts of the country. Because the public sector owns so much land and often does not wish to develop it, we have an entirely false market in land which makes it difficult for sites to become available.
Those matters are entirely within the Government's power. We all support a Government who believe in the planning system and that it has to be exercised with discretion and skill so that enterprise and market forces are not totally impeded. The burden of my argument is that the planning system is skewed and is putting far too much pressure on the south-east and not enough on the areas that most need development.
I should like to make many other points, but the Minister said that she would like almost 15 minutes to reply, and I would like, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, to allow two of my hon. Friends to intervene in this important debate.
10.11 pm
Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) for allowing me a few moments to put the case
602
for my constituency. We in Newbury are affected by the Secretary of State's proposals to the extent of having another 950 houses imposed on us in the Newbury and Thatcham area over and above the houses already agreed by the county council in its review of the structure plan.
The Minister will know that the county council put forward proposals for a further 36,000 houses in Berkshire for the period between now and 1996. In simple terms that means an increase in the county's population of about 100,000. That is an enormous number. Clearly, with those people will have to come the infrastructure of hospitals, roads and all the necessities that human beings need.
I am sad that the Secretary of State did not accept the figures put forward by the county council as probably the most accurate estimate that anyone could make of what is likely to be required for the county. I am even more sad that the Department of the Environment seems to be incapable of accepting that the local authority, representing the people of the county of Berkshire, might not conceivably be able to estimate more effectively and with more sensitivity the requirements of the county than can either the Department itself or the independent panel to which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred the review of the structure plan.
I support everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham has said. He has raised questions which require deep answers. I hope the proposals will be reconsidered and that the Secretary of State will recognise that Berkshire has had as much development as any county over the past 25 years and that to allow still more development is to destroy one of the most beautiful of the home counties.
10.14 pm
Mr. Andrew MacKay: I want to endorse the powerful case put by my hon. Friends the Members for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) and for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson). We in Berkshire feel very let down and sore. We think that the democratic process has been trampled on by the Secretary of State. All the hon. Members who represent constituencies in Berkshire, all the local authorities—parish, district and county—and all the people of Berkshire have recommended one course of action, and it has been completely ignored.
In my constituency, an additional 2,500 houses have been foisted upon us by the Secretary of State, on top of the large increase that we have already reluctantly accepted. That will affect not only the environment—our countryside will be ruined—but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham said, our infrastructure, as there has been no financial provision for roads, schools, hospitals and social services. That will put an unreasonable strain upon us.
There is a wider aspect, too. I have said in previous debates that we are not Luddites. We have accepted more than our share of development, but if we now proceed to allow developers the soft option of building on greenfield sites in the shire county of Berkshire we shall do irreparable damage to our excellent inner-city initiatives and increase the north-south divide.
For those reasons, I hope that the Secretary of State will reconsider what I believe are his unsound views on the modifications to the structure plan.
10.16 pm
Dr. Alan Glyn: I endorse every word said by my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), although I am not so much affected. We do not have the infrastructure or the facilities for roads—particularly roads—and schools, and we shall doubtless feel the effects of the construction in other constituencies.
On several previous occasions major decisions have been overturned by the Secretary of State. I hope that in future the Government will not attempt to overturn local decisions.
10.17 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mrs. Marion Roe): I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), for Berkshire, East (Mr. MacKay), for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson), and for Windsor and Maidenhead (Dr. Glyn) for putting forward so clearly the deeply held concerns of many people about development in Berkshire generally and, more specifically, about the modifications that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State proposed to make to the replacement structure plan for Berkshire. I also note that my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr. Watts) is in the Chamber listening to the debate.
Hon. Friends representing Berkshire have spoken in this House previously on the subject of development in Berkshire, and some attended and spoke at the examination in public held in July 1986 into the replacement plan. The views that they have expressed have been very helpful in articulating the strong local support for the county council's proposals to secure a sharp reduction in house building in Berkshire, at preventing urban sprawl and the coalescence of settlements, and at conserving and safeguarding the countryside.
I know that it is not just concern about safeguarding the landscape and environment that causes anxiety to my hon. Friends in Berkshire. There is also genuine concern about the consequences of increasing volumes of traffic and about the demands on, for example, social services, on health provision and education, caused by the pressures of an expanding population.
We recognise and appreciate these concerns. At the same time, however, the Government have the responsibility to consider and take into account the overall levels of population growth and housing demand in the south-east and in the country as a whole, as well as the importance of sustaining and encouraging national economic recovery. To say that is to imply not that Berkshire should be sacrificed to economic expediency but that, in deciding the levels of development appropriate in Berkshire, all these factors have to be weighed.
Therefore, the argument is not all one way. It is not only the county council's views or the views of those at present living in the county that have to be considered, however important these are. My right hon. Friend must take into account all the material factors. My hon. Friends will know that, because of its attractive environment and its economic vitality, there is considerable demand for more housing in Berkshire, and there is a need to consider what the social and economic consequences might be of denying such demand.
These are very difficult issues, but at the end of the day my right hon. Friend has to exercise his judgment in
604
reaching his decision on structure plan proposals. As part of this process the opportunity is given for representations to be made both in favour of and against the county council's proposals, for selected issues arising from those proposals to be debated at an examination in public and for the panel to make its recommendations. My right hon. Friend is not obliged to accept these recommendations, but it must be recognised that the panel, having heard all the arguments and having studied the county at first hand, is well placed to reach a balanced view. It would be unusual for my right hon. Friend to disregard a panel's main recommendations unless there were reason to believe it had misinterpreted Government policy or had seriously misjudged some relevant consideration.
My right hon. Friend gave careful consideration both to the written representations and to the panel's report, but found no reason to disagree with the broad recommendations in the panel's report in respect of Berkshire's replacement structure plan, or with its particular concern that insufficient housing would be provided in the later part of the plan period.
My hon. Friend has made it clear that my right hon. Friend's proposed modifications to the replacement plan are not welcome to himself or his colleagues in Berkshire, or to many of their constituents, including the county council and most of the district councils. The reasons for their concern have again been put forward forcefully in this debate, but my hon. Friend will know that under the statutory process for dealing with structure plan proposals my right hon. Friend's proposed modifications will be advertised by Berkshire county council and a period of six weeks will be given in which objections and representations can be made to my right hon. Friend. This debate cannot be a substitute for that process, and I shall look forward to receiving detailed written comments from all those who have relevant points to make.
A number of points about the proposed modifications have been made by my hon. Friends. I cannot at this stage deal specifically with the comments made tonight since before my decision is taken it will be necessary to consider all the representations made during the objection period. These may include, of course, some which may suggest that the proposed modifications to increase the housing provision do not go far enough. My hon. Friend will understand that I have to show a proper reticence and will, I hope, forgive me if I do not appear to respond to his points. I can, however, assure him that very careful consideration will be given to all the objections and representations received before my right hon. Friend makes his final decision.
My hon. Friends will have seen the panel's report and the statement of reasons explaining the proposed modifications. It may be helpful if I make a few comments. A number of key points were made by the panel which are central to the panel's recommendations, and which my right hon. Friend has agreed and accepted.
First, the panel concluded that past high rates of house building should not continue.
Secondly, because of the high level of existing commitments to development, the major part of the housing proposed by the county council will be built before 1990. The county council saw this as leading to a very low rate of house building of only about 1,600 dwellings a year in the 1990s. However, the panel considered this level of housing to be too low to meet the needs of the naturally increasing population in Berkshire

605
in the later part of the plan period even if the county were to cease to cater for in-migration of population from other areas. It pointed to problems that this might give rise to, such as increased pressures on existing housing, with high occupancy rates, suppression of household formation and more difficulty in securing housing for those at the bottom of the market.
Thirdly, the panel did not see the extra provision it recommended as requiring any breach of fundamental planning or other constraints. Fourthly, the panel did not consider the implications of the extra housing for traffic and other infrastructure and service provision were such as to rule out the increase. As I have already said, my right hon. Friend found no reason to disregard the panel's conclusions on those key points.
Notwithstanding the disappointment that my hon. Friends in Berkshire feel, they will recognise that my right hon. Friend's proposed modifications will result in a substantial reduction in house building rates, by about 2,000 dwellings a year from present levels in the county. Past and current high rates of house building in Berkshire are a result of the major growth area status given to central Berkshire in 1970, the strategic plan for the south-east, and reflected in the central Berkshire structure plan. Indeed, much of the housing proposed in the replacement plan is as a result of commitments to development under past policies.
Following my right hon. Friend's statement in June 1986, setting his new regional strategic guidance for the south-east, there is now no policy requirement to encourage major growth in Berkshire. For that reason, and having regard to the arguments put forward by the county council and by my hon. Friends, he has not proposed to accept the argument put forward by developers at the examination in public that a high rate of growth should continue. But nor does the regional guidance suggest that Berkshire should become an area of restraint of growth. In fact, growth is already severely restrained in much of Berkshire because of the extent of the area of outstanding natural beauty and the green belt.
On the matter of planning appeals, may I assure my hon. Friends that all appeals will be considered on their merits in the light of the structure plan and local plan policies. Once the replacement plan is approved, there will be a firm policy base for planning decisions.
It is frequently argued that development should be directed instead to the inner cities and less advantaged areas. I appreciate my hon. Friends' concern. I do not agree that allowing development in Berkshire is depriving those areas. We take the view that it is not the ready availability of sites in the south-east that keeps development out of the inner cities and other less-advantaged areas. Developers would no doubt tell us that the planning policies generally applied over the south-east make it difficult rather than easy to locate or expand there. No, the challenge is to make the inner cities and other areas places where people and industry want to live and work. The Government's promotion of their inner-cities policies is seen not as an alternative to growth in the southeast, but as an objective that needs to be pursued on its own merits. In our view, investment in places such as Berkshire is a separate strand of economic activity and provides a stimulus to the national economy that benefits the whole country, including the inner cities.
606
There can be no doubting the Government's determination to revitalise the inner cities. Since 1979 more than £3·7 billion has been committed to that work through my Department's urban group programmes alone. A comprehensive range of initiatives has been developed. We shall continue to build and improve upon those. In particular, we are making sure that the work of different Government Departments is co-ordinated and targeted effectively both at national level and, through the city action team, at local level. The Prime Minister has recently appointed my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to advise her on the co-ordination of action and its presentation.
However, the potential for development in the inner cities, as well as through the creation of simplified planning zones and through the use of urban land and the re-use of derelict land, will not meet all the housing and other development needs of the existing population of counties in the south-east. My hon. Friends and hon. Members will know that new, 1985-based sub-national population projections, published in an Office of Population Censuses and Surveys monitor on 19 January this year, show that there is continuing growth of population in the south-east. On the basis of those projections, the population in the south-east is now expected to be nearly 500,000 more than the 1983-based projections suggested. It is important to note that the major component of that continuing population increase comes from natural change rather than migration into the region. That reinforces the concern felt by the panel about the adequacy of the county council's proposed housing provision in the 1990s.
When we last debated the issue of development in Berkshire, in July 1987, I said that the way to resolve the planning problems in Berkshire was to complete the revision of the structure plan. The proposed modifications are a major step in that process. They reflect the panel's careful assessment that, while building rates should come down, more housing is needed than the county council was prepared to allow, and that the extra development can be accommodated in the county without serious problems. I reject entirely the view that the Government have abandoned their concern for the countryside. It has to be remembered that in Berkshire areas of outstanding natural beauty or of green belt account for almost 60 per cent. of the land area of the county, and I stress again that those areas are not at risk from the proposed modifications.
The planning geography of Berkshire, therefore, will lead future growth to be concentrated in those areas that are not specially protected, provided those areas can accommodate development without, as the panel put it, breaching fundamental planning constraints. I stress that the proposed modifications do not remove any of the county council's policies for the protection of the environment. Landscape and amenity considerations will remain an important factor in determining planning applications.
Now we must wait to receive the comments on the proposed modifications. I have noted all the points made tonight by my hon. Friends, and all those points and all representations we receive will be very carefully considered.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at half-past Ten o'clock.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Maintenance Payments
  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will bring forward proposals to abolish the right of an ex-spouse to no-fault maintenance; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  No. Over the past 14 years the practice has been developed by the courts that conduct is relevant to only a limited number of applications for financial relief. That practice was approved by the Law Commission in 1981 and has statutory authority in section 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, as amended by section 3 of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984.

  Pin-ups
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Attorney-General whether he will issue instructions for the removal of all offensive pin-ups in all departmental premises of his office and the Lord Chancellor's Office.

  The Attorney-General
  There is no need for the Lord Chancellor to issue such an instruction as there is no evidence that this is a problem in his Department. The Department's equal opportunity policy statement makes it clear that displays of pin-ups causing offence may amount to sexual harassment which will not be tolerated and may be the subject of disciplinary proceedings.

  There is no offensive pin-up in my own Department.

  "Stalker"
  Mr. Gerald Bowden
  To ask the Attorney-General if he has completed consideration of whether to prosecute Mr. John Stalker under the Official Secrets Acts in relation to information in his book "Stalker".

  The Attorney-General
  I have concluded that a prosecution would not be in conformity with the code for Crown prosecutors issued pursuant to the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Confidential Discussions
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to the reply by the hon. and learned Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor), Minister of State in his Department, on 18 January Official Report, column 495, what criteria are used to decide whether discussions with foreign affairs departments or Ministers in other states are to be considered as confidential; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  We consider all exchanges with foreign Governments to be confidential unless their details are publicised by mutual agreement.

  Chile
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) on 18 November 1987,Official Report, column 592, what assessment he has made of the extent to which the judicial system in Chile conforms with international accords on human rights; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  The answer given to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) on 18 November did not imply that in our opinion the Chilean judicial system conforms with international accords on human rights. We take every opportunity to make clear to the Chilean Government our view that their judicial system reflects serious shortcomings. We have also made clear our view that they should publish in their official Gazette their ratification of the international covenant on civil and political rights, so as to give full effect to that covenant in domestic courts.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his reply of 18 November 1987,Official Report, column 593, what assessment he has made of the extent to which the forthcoming plebiscite in Chile represents a transition to democracy.

  Mr. Mellor
  We remain concerned to see an early return to democracy in Chile. The Chilean people themselves will have the chance to decide who will be their future president when they go to the polls in the forthcoming plebiscite. We hope that the campaign and poll will be freely and fairly conducted, with full opposition access to the media.

  Disarmament and Development
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action Her Majesty's Government have taken following the adoption at the recent United Nations conference on the relationship between disarmament and development of a final document calling for studies and planning related to a conversion of military industry to civilian production, and consequent action.

  Mr. Mellor
  We are committed to the search for balanced, equitable and verifiable measures of arms control that maintain the United Kingdom's security. Given the small size of the Government defence industry and in the absence of relevant arms control agreements, we do not believe that a case has been made for consideration of such studies or planning by the Government.

  Hong Kong (Animal Welfare)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will seek to prevent the sale by auction by the Hong Kong authorities of illegally imported animal tusks, skins and antlers which have been confiscated.

  Mr. Mellor
  No. The confiscated animal tusks, skins and antlers being offered for sale by auction by the Hong Kong Government, are listed under appendix II of the convention on international trade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora (CITES), for which trade for commercial purposes is allowed under strict licensing
  293
  control. These goods were seized by the Hong Kong Government over the last three years from illegal importers as a result of stringent enforcement action.

  The sale is being conducted in accordance with CITES guidelines and with the endorsement of Hong Kong's endangered species advisory committee, a statutory body which advises the Hong Kong Government on all endangered species protection matters. Successful tenderers must obtain appropriate possession licences, or registration in the case of ivory tusks, before they may take possession of the goods.

  All species listed in CITES appendix II are not immediately threatened with extinction, but may become so unless trade in such species is strictly regulated through licensing control in order to prevent overexploitation.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will provide details by animal species of the tusks, skins and antlers seized by the Hong Kong authorities and due for auction on 26 February.

  Mr. Mellor
  The items due for auction on 26 February consist of:

  638 pieces of elephant ivory tusk,

  Nine pieces of lynx skin,

  Six pieces of wild cat skin,

  96 pieces of otter skin,

  18 pieces of red deer antler,

  250 pieces of alligator-crocodile,

  1,708 pieces of monitor lizard skin,

  246 pieces of python skin,

  239·2 kgs of elephant ivory cut pieces,

  81·2 kgs of elephant ivory scraps,

  2·9 kgs of wild American ginseng.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  USA (Veto Powers)
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is Her Majesty's Government's policy towards the attempts by the United States Administration to gain veto powers in international organisations, in particular the Food and Agriculture Organisation, and the Inter-American Development Bank; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  [holding answer 9 February 1988]: According to our understanding, the United States Government are not seeking to gain veto powers in either of these organisations.

  The agreement establishing the Inter-American Development Bank, however, contains a requirement for a two-thirds majority for all decisions concerning the operations of the concessional fund for special operations. This effectively requires United States consent to such decisions, unless its voting power were to fall below one third. The United Kingdom accepted this, with other provisions of the agreement, when it joined the bank.

PRIME MINISTER

  Basingstoke
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Prime Minister whether she plans to visit Basingstoke in the current year.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I have been asked to reply.

  My right hon. Friend has at present no plans to do so.

  East Stow
  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has any plans to make an official visit to East Stow.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I have been asked to reply.

  My right hon. Friend has at present no plans to do so.

  Thurrock
  Mr. Janman
  to ask the Prime Minister if she has any plans to visit Thurrock in the near future.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I have been asked to reply.

  My right hon. Friend has at present no plans to do so.

  EC (Finance)
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister what proposals have been submitted by the Commission to the February meeting of the European Council in relation to the financial problems facing the community; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I have been asked to reply.

  During 1987 the Commission published a number of proposals which were considered at the European Council in Copenhagen. It has submitted no new proposals since.

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 11 February.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I have been asked to reply.

  My right hon. Friend is in Brussels for a meeting of the European Council.

  Trade Unions (Leaders)
  Mr. Eadie
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to her reply of 8 February, if she regards leaders of trade, unions who meet her in their representative capacity as private individuals.

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to my reply of 8 February, at column 46. I have also made clear that my normal practice is not to provide details of the many engagements and meetings I undertake in the course of each day.

  Civil Service
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) if she will list the studies into the future of the Civil Service currently being undertaken;

  (2) if she will list studies into the future of the Civil Service completed in the last 12 months; and if she will place copies of the reports in the Library.

  The Prime Minister
  The only study into the future of the Civil Service which has been conducted during the last 12 months is the efficiency unit's current study on the next steps in improving management in government, which is still under consideration.

  "The Next Steps"
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will place in the Library a copy of Sir Robin Ibbs report "The Next Steps".
  295
  The Prime Minister
  The Government are considering Sir Robin Ibbs' report, together with the question of its publication.

  Efficiency Unit
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) if she will list all the studies undertaken by her efficiency unit in the past;

  (2) if she will list studies currently being undertaken by her efficiency unit.

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) on 19 January, at column 598.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will make it her policy that on occasions when it is only possible to answer parliamenatry questions at disproportionate cost with full replies, a reply is provided containing such information as is compatible with an acceptable cost; and if she will make it the policy of Her Majesty's Government that all Government Departments adopt a similar policy on the provision of information.

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) on 29 October 1987, at column 358, and to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council to the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) on 3 February, at column 618.

  The decision on whether to give a partial reply to questions involving disproportionate cost is also a matter for the judgment of individual departmental Ministers. I shall continue to deal with such questions in the light of the particular circumstances of each case.

  Advertising
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Prime Minister how much the Government have spent on advertising during the last 12 months.

  The Prime Minister
  Information on publicity costs, including advertising is held centrally only where the expenditure is incurred through the Central Office of Information. All other publicity and information expenditure is a matter for each Department.

  Expenditure on advertising by the Central Office of Information on behalf of all Government Departments for the financial year 1986–87 was £104 million inclusive of COI overheads and value added tax.

ENVIRONMENT

  Footpaths and Bridleways
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what positive moves he is taking to promote public awareness of their ancient rights of travel on public footpaths and bridleways.

  Mrs. Roe
  The Countryside Commission has recently published proposals for improving and extending public enjoyment of the countryside, including measures for raising awareness of a variety of recreational activities. My right hon. Friend welcomes this initiative.

  Water Authorities
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last met the chairman of the water authorities; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Ridley
  I last met the chairman of the water authorities on 19 January. We discussed many things, including the way ahead to the earliest practicable establishment of the National Rivers Authority, and privatisation.

  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he next plans to meet the Nature Conservancy Council to discuss any threat to sites of special scientific interest arising from commercial interests in England and Wales.

  Mrs. Roe
  As is well known, Ministers and officials in my Department work closely with the council and my right hon. Friend will be meeting the council on 25 February to discuss a wide range of issues of mutual interest.

  Council House Sales
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a further statement on the progress in the sales of council houses under the right-to-buy legislation.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Up to the end of September 1987, some 654,100 council tenants in England had bought their homes under the right-to-buy legislation. Sales last year were running a little higher than in 1985 and 1986, arid are expected to rise further following the substantial increase in applications received.

  West Yorkshire Waste Management Joint Committee
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take urgent steps to announce the capital allocation to the West Yorkshire waste management joint committee for 1988–89; if he will publish details of the reasons for the delay in this announcement; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Roe
  The capital allocations for waste regulation and disposal will, as in previous years, be announced before the end of February.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his latest estimate of the public sector revenue costs of housing homeless families in each of the London boroughs(a) by providing them with newly built council dwellings, (b) by providing them with council dwellings acquired from the private sector and newly improved for letting and (c) by providing them with bed-and-breakfast accommodation; and if he will publish these figures on a comparable basis with those published in his replies to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey of Thursday 21 January, Official Report, column 826.

  Mrs. Roe
  The information on which my hon. Friend's estimates of the new build and acquisition and renovation costs were based was Londonwide and cannot reliably be
  297
  broken down by individual authority area. The information on bed and breakfast costs was derived from CIPFA's publication "Homelessness Statistics, 1986–87 Actuals", copies of which are in the Library. This gives figures of gross expenditure and household days for those authorities which responded to CIPFA's questionnaire.

  Fur Farms
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will list those bodies which he will usually consult when considering planning applications for new fur farms over any likely detrimental impact upon the local environment.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Decisions on most planning applications are taken by local authorities who will consider each case on its individual merits. Article 15 of the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1977 lists the bodies which authorities are statutorily required to consult before granting planning permission for any particular development. There are no specific consultation requirements for applications for new fur farms. Apart from the statutory requirements, generally it is for local authorities to decide the extent of consultation in particular cases.

  Toxic Waste
  Mr. Heddle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the amount and extent of the tipping of toxic waste in the west midlands.

  Mrs. Roe
  I am advised by the waste disposal authorities that 324,049 tonnes of special waste were disposed of in the West Midlands county area in 1986–87.

  Empty Council Houses
  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many local authority dwellings were vacant at the most recent date for which figures are available in(a) Vale Royal and (b) Chester; how many had been vacant for over six months; and what where the figures represented as a percentage of stock.

  Mrs. Roe
  The information derived from the authorities' 1987 housing investment programme returns is as follows:

  Vacant local authority dwellings at April 1987

  Total vacant

  Percentage of stock

  Number vacant for more than six months

  Percentage of stock

  Chester

  106

  1·3

  2

  1—

  Vale Royal

  136

  1·4

  1

  1—

  1 Less than 0·05 per cent.

  Economic League
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if his Department has made use of the services provided by the Economic League since 1979.

  Mr. Ridley
  No.

  Chelsea Football Club
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 20 November 1987,Official Report, column 684, why he has now decided to instigate an independent public inquiry into the proposed development by Chelsea football club at Stamford Bridge; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  The planning application for this site was notified to my right hon. Friend on 8 January as a departure from the Greater London Development Plan. My right hon. Friend accordingly considered the proposals afresh, in the light of the papers sent by Hammersmith and Fulham council and the further representations he had received. He concluded that the application should be called in for his decision. Arrangements are being made for a public local inquiry to be held as soon as possible.

  Housing Corporation
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will now give details of the Housing Corporation's approved development programme for 1988–89.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment announced on 3 November that the gross provision for the Housing Corporation in 1988–89 would increase by nearly £50 million to £735 million and that we hoped that the extra public resources would increasingly be augmented by private finance under mixed funding arrangements.

  The £737 million programme we have now approved (which takes account of an additional £2 million in forecast capital receipts) includes provision for the first year's expenditure on a £58 million grant programme for new mixed funding schemes. This should allow the corporation to approve schemes providing some 3,300 homes at a total cost of £126 million—over 25 per cent. more than planned for the current year's experimental programme. This new programme will include at least £20 million worth of schemes to help homeless families and especially those in bed and breakfast accommodation.

  Provision for the homeless will also be among the priorities for the conventionally funded programme for housing for rent which will be maintained at the same level as 1987–88. And within this programme priority will also be given to reimprovement schemes which, together with increased spending on major repairs, will help bring empty properties back into full use. Another significant area for expansion is the low-cost home ownership programmes under which the corporation should be able to approve nearly one third more new homes than in the current year and which we hope to see expanded further by the introduction of mixed funding wherever possible. In allocating the resources for new rented projects, the percentage of investment in the 81 designated urban stress areas will be maintained, but the guidelines for allocations to rural areas will be revised. Priority will no longer be confined to the designated rural stress areas and schemes will be targeted on smaller and more isolated agricultural settlements with a view to doubling the present level of provision by housing associations in these areas.

  The breakdown of the approved development programmes for 1988–89 is as follows:

  299

  Housing corporation—approved development programme 1988–89

  £ million

  Net allocation (cash limit)

  655

  Receipts

  82

  Gross allocation

  737

  HOUSING FOR RENT

  Conventionally funded projects

  1. Contracted expenditure

  371

  2. New tenders approved

  145

  3. New projects approved

  63

  Mixed funding projects

  4. Committed expenditure

  14

  5. New projects approved

  25

  Major repairs

  6. Committed expenditure

  28

  7. New projects approved

  10

  Mini HAG

  8. Committed and new projects

  3

  HOUSING FOR SALE

  Improvement for sale, Leasehold for the elderly, shared ownership and home ownership for tenants of charitable associations

  9. Comitted expenditure

  50

  10. New projects approved

  26

  RTB

  11. Mortgages and other expenditure

  2

  Notes:

  1. £7·7 million has been included in Housing for Rent and for Sale to cover the costs of certain projects in Merseyside.

  2. The allocation of funds for new conventionally funded rented projects (Block 3) will initiate projects to a total cost of some £510 million to be completed over the next three to four years.

  3. The allocation of funds for new mixed funding rented schemes (Block 5) will allow the Corporation to approve schemes requiring a total of £58 million grant.

  Property Services Agency and Crown Suppliers
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what studies and reports have been, and are being undertaken on the operation of the Property Services Agency and the Crown Suppliers from 1979 up to the latest date available.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 29 January 1988]: The table sets out, on the information available, studies and reports which were made on the operation of the Property Services Agency in each of the years 1979–80 to 1987–88, and the studies still in progress at present. It excludes internal studies and reports (but includes those led by other, central Departments). The first part of the list relates to the Property Services Agency, except for the Crown Suppliers. The second part relates to the Crown Suppliers alone.

  Part 1: Property Services Agency (except the Crown Suppliers)

  1979–80
  Estate Management Case Study (Efficiency Scrutiny)1
  Energy Conservation on the Government Estate (Efficiency Scrutiny)1
  Works Transport (Efficiency Scrutiny)1
  Administration Costs (Efficiency Scrutiny)1

  1980–81
  Repayment System for PSA Services3
  Custody Guard Service (Efficiency Scrutiny)1
  Economy in New Building Works for the Armed Services (Efficiency Scrutiny) 1 4
  300
  1981–82
  Report on Fees Paid to Works Consultants (Public Accounts Committee)
  Report on Frauds and Irregularities in the PSA (Public Accounts Committee)
  Report on Investment Appraisal in Government generally (Public Accounts Committee)3

  1982–83
  Resource Control Reviews—Study of District Works Offices in the Property Services Agency (Efficiency Scrutiny)1
  Report of the Working Group on Design Costs (Messrs Davis-Sweet and others) 5
  Report on Contracts Functions (Deloitte Haskins and Sells)
  Interim Report to the Secretary of State for the Environment on Cases of Fraud and Corruption in the PSA (WardaleTouche Ross) 6
  Multi Departmental Review of Personnel Work (Efficiency Unit)2

  1983–84
  Final report to the Secretary of State for the Environment on Cases of Fraud and Corruption in the PSA (Wardale/ Touche Ross)5
  Report on Economy Measures in Civil, Defence and Overseas estates (Public Accounts Committee)6
  Report on Building Maintenance Expenditure in the United Kingdom (Public Accounts Committee)
  Report on Systems Control in District Works Offices [in the light of the Wardale Report] (Public Accounts Committee)

  1984–85
  Report on Main Estimates 1984–85 (Environment Committee)
  Report on Building Maintenance (Comptroller ad Auditor-General)
  Report on Action Plans in the PSA on the Wardale Report and on Building Maintenance Expenditure (Public Accounts Committee)
  Report on Economy Measures in Civil, Defence and Overseas estates (Public Accounts Committee)
  Report on Defence Works in the Falkland Islands (Public Accounts Committee)
  Multi-Departmental Review of Consultancy, Inspection and Review (CIR) capability in Government Departments (Efficiency Unit, Cabinet Office)2
  Multi-Departmental Review of the Identification of Internal Talent (Efficiency Unit)2

  1985–86
  Identification and Disposal of Surplus Property (Efficiency Scrutiny)1
  Report on Main Estimates 1985–86 (Environment Committee)
  Multi-Departmental Review of Budgetary Control (HM Treasury)2
  Report on the Programme for the Provision of Prison Places (Comptroller and Auditor General)
  Report on Court Building Programmes (Public Accounts Committee)
  Report on Prison Building Programmes (Public Accounts Committee)
  Multi-Departmental Review of Office Accommodation (former Management and Personnel Office)2
  Report on Capital Expenditure Projects (Efficiency Unit, Cabinet Office)3
  Report on follow up to the Multi-Departmental Review of CIR services (HM Treasury and former Management and Personnel Office)2

  1986–87
  Specialist Professional Advice within PSA (Efficiency Scrutiny)1
  Report on Commercial Accounts (Deloitte, Haskins and Sells)

  301
  Report on Main Estimates 1986–87 (Environment Committee)
  Report on Management of the Defence Estate (National Audit Office)
  Report on Management of the Civil Estate (National Audit Office)
  Report into the Property Services Agency (Environment Committee)
  Multi-Departmental Review of Use of Private Enterprise in Government Departments (Efficiency Unit, Cabinet Office)
  Report on Internal Audit in Central Government (National Audit Office)2
  Report of Working Group of Capital Expenditure Projects (HM Treasury) 2
  Report of Working Group on Major Capital Projects (HM Treasury) 2
  Report on further follow up to the Multi-Department Review of CIR services (HM Treasury and former Management and Personnel Office) 2

  1987–88
  Report on Control and Management of the Trident Programme (National Audit Office)7
  Project Management in the PSA (Efficiency Scrutiny)1 8
  Study on Management of the Civil Estate (National Audit Office)9
  Study on Management Controls in District Works Offices (National Audit Office)9
  Study of Commercial Management of HM Dockyards (National Audit Office)7 9
  Study on the Employment of Works Consultants by Government Departments and Health Authorities (National Audit Office)9
  Study on National Energy Efficiency (National Audit Office)9

  Part 2: The Crown Suppliers

  1983–84
  Report on Supplies Transport Branch (Cranfield Institute of Technology)
  PSA Supplies Market Research Consultancy (Farnfield Marketing Consultancy)
  Multi Departmental Review of Government Purchasing: Contract and Procurement Procedures (former Management and Personnel Office)2

  1984–85
  Government Car Service and Inter-departmental Despatch Service (Efficiency Scrutiny)1

  1985–86
  Report on the Future of the Crown Suppliers (former Management and Personnel Office)6

  1986–87
  Report on the Future of the Crown Suppliers (Central Unit on Purchasing)2
  Study into the Feasibility of Privatisation of the Crown Suppliers (Coopers and Lybrand)
  Review of the Crown Suppliers (Mr. D. W. Jones)11

  Notes

  1. Efficiency Scrutinies are carried out under the aegis of the Cabinet Office's Efficiency Unit. They include in this list studies formerly known as Rayner Scrutinies.

  2. These studies applied to certain other Government Departments as well as to PSA, and were led by the central Department(s) indicated;

  3. The Working Group which carried out this study was led by Sir Derek Rayner, then adviser to the Prime Minister on Efficiency.

  4. This Scrutiny was undertaken jointly with the Ministry of Defence.

  5. This Working Group included Mr. R. O'B Davis, a partner in Coopers and Lybrand, and Mr. C. Sweet a consultant quantity surveyor as well as representatives from HM Treasury and the PSA.

  6. The interim and the final reports of the Wardale Enquiry were written by Sir Geoffrey Wardale, formerly
  302
  Second Permanent Secretary to the Department of the Environment, and Mr. A. G. Herron a partner in Touche Ross.

  7. These studies apply also to the Ministry of Defence.

  8. This Scrutiny was undertaken jointly with the Central Unit on Purchasing.

  9. These studies are currently in progress.

  10. These studies apply also to other Departments.

  11. Mr. D. W. Jones is a procurement consultant, formerly an executive in Esso Petroleum.

  Rateable Antiquities
  Mr. Cormack
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he proposes to publish his consultative document on portable antiquities.

  Mr. Moynihan
  [pursuant to his reply, Friday 29 January, c. 398]: My Department and the Welsh Office are today issuing a consultation paper seeking comments on the present arrangements for reporting funds and inviting suggestions for possible changes in the present law or administrative procedures. The paper explains how archaeological knowledge can be lost if finds are not reported. It asks for views on alternative arrangements, including how they might be implemented and enforced.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Pin-ups
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will issue instructions for the removal of all offensive pin-ups in all his departmental premises.

  Mr. Hurd
  All managers have been advised to ensure that no material which is likely to be found sexually offensive is displayed in the workplace; and to deal promptly with any complaints.

  Firearms (Amendment) Bill
  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received about the level of consultation on his Firearms (Amendment) Bill.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Several hon. Members raised this matter during the Second Reading debate in the House on 21 January. Representations have also been received from shooting organisations and members of the public.

  Wormwood Scrubs (Annex)
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement as the future of the annex in Wormwood Scrubs.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I assume my hon. Friend is referring to the psychotherapeutic annex, which is often called the hospital annex.

  The annex is to continue operating, and there are no plans to change its role or methods of working. During the present preliminary redevelopment phase the annex will be moved from the north end of B hall to the south end above the temporary hospital. We intend that, following other redevelopment work, the annex will be permanently located at the north end of one of the halls, where 36 cells with integral sanitation will be provided with office, meeting room and ancillary facilities for the exclusive use of the annex.

  Police (Complaints)
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps police forces take to monitor and analyse the ethnic origin of complaints regarding police behaviour; what is the practice of the Police Complaints Authority in this respect and whether the results of these excercises are made public.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Information about the practices of individual police forces in this regard is not held centrally. The Police Complaints Authority does not itself routinely receive complainants or interview complaints and does not therefore collect statistics of this kind.

  Telephone Tapping
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he next expects to receive the judicial review on telephone tapping.

  Mr. Douglas Hurd
  I expect my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to present Lord Justice Lloyd's next annual report to the House in March 1988.

  Television Licences
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received concerning the abolition of television licences for pensioners: and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  Since 1 January this year one petition forwarded by an hon. Member has been received, and four members of the public have written seeking free television licences for pensioners.

  Staff Dispersal
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many divisions within his Department have been relocated out of London since 1979; what plans he has for further relocation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hurd
  Since 1979 two main units of the Home Office have been moved from London. The computing and pay services division (301 posts) was relocated to Bootle in 1982–83, and the Prison Service south-east regional office (74 posts) to Woking in 1987. The transfer of at least 50 posts from the London Passport Office to Glasgow is planned to start later in the year. For future policy I refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General's answer of 18 January to a question from the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram), at columns 475–76.

  Game Licences
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has for modifying the system of game licences.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  None at present.

  Mr. Ronald J. Garcia (Visa)
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department why the consular section of the British embassy in Manila had not received instructions to 304
  issue a visa to Mr. Ronald J. Garcia as of 27 January, despite his having had his appeal against refusal of a visa allowed by the tribunal at Southampton on 6 September 1987; and when such instructions will be issued to the British embassy in Manila.

  Mr. Renton
  On 30 November a copy of the adjudicator's determination was sent to the British embassy in Manila. In accordance with normal practice where a visit visa is refused and the applicant's appeal is subsequently upheld, but no direction is given by the adjudicator, I would expect Mr. Garcia to be invited for interview to have his case reconsidered in the light of current circumstances. We have been in touch with Manila in the light of the hon. Member's representations and the entry clearance officer will certainly bear in mind the adjudicator's careful determination.

  War Crimes (Inquiry)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will specify the powers available to Sir Thomas Hetherington and Mr. William Chalmers to require witnesses to testify in the inquiry on war crimes; and which authority they have to compel the giving of evidence.

  Mr. Hurd
  They will have no powers to compel witnesses to give evidence. In this respect they will be in the same position as the police and the prosecuting authorities generally are when dealing with alleged offences under the existing criminal law.

  Machine Gambling (Counselling)
  Mr. Andrew Hargreaves
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish a list of organisations with which his Department has contacts which offer a counselling service to people addicted to machine gambling.

  Mr. John Patten
  In the course of our review of the law on amusement arcades we have had information from the organisations Parents of Young Gamblers and the Gordon House Association, both of which, I understand, offer such a service. We have also been in touch with the probation service: the work of the service can include counselling offenders with problems of addiction. Other organisations in contact with us in the review may offer services of which we are not aware.

  Michael Ryan (Guns)
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list all the automatic and fully automatic guns owned by the late Michael Ryan; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand from the chief constable that extensive investigations carried out by the Thames Valley police since the Hungerford shootings into the weapons held by Michael Ryan have not disclosed any substantive evidence that Ryan was ever in possession of automatic or fully automatic weapons. He was lawfully entitled to possess the following self-loading weapons:

  Beretta 9 mm pistol

  Bernadelli 22 pistol

  CZ OR50 32 pistol

  Kalashnikov 7·62 mm rifle

  Underwood Carbine 30 rifle

  Data Protection
  Mr. Robert Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether codes of practice for police computer systems relating to the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1984 have yet been published; and whether he will place copies in the Library.

  Mr. Hurd
  The Association of Chief Police Officers and the Association of Chief Police Officers (Scotland) have now published codes of practice and copies have been placed in the Library.

  Organisations (Infiltration)
  Ms. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation to make it a criminal offence for any person to infiltrate or join under false pretences a trade union or other organisation for the purpose of supplying confidential information about that organisation to other persons or bodies not authorised to receive such information; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  [holding answer 5 February 1988]: No.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  COCOM
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the value of exports of COCOM licensed aircraft to the eastern bloc countries for each year from 1980 to 1985.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Export licence records are not classified by special goods or by value. It would thus be possible to supply the information only at disproportionate cost.

  Racal (Equipment Sales)
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he expects to complete his investigations into alleged sales of military or sensitive equipment by Racal to the Palestine Liberation Organisation in 1981: and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  An investigation by the Departments concerned into the allegations made just over a week ago is under way. My Department has invited the newspaper concerned and anyone else who may have documents or other relevant information which might help the investigation to make these available. The investigation will be completed as soon as possible.

  Rover Group (Positive Vetting)
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he will issue a direction to the Rover Group to cease the political vetting of job applicants; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  Questions relating to recruitment and personnel are matters for the company.

  Crown Copyright
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he has any proposals for changing Crown copyright.
  306
  Mr. Butcher
  The Copyright, Designs and Patents Bill currently in another place will repeal the Copyright Act 1956 and replace it with a fresh statement of the law of copyright. Clause 151 sets out the provisions relating to Crown copyright. The most significant changes to the existing law are that the Crown's entitlement to copyright in works first published by the Crown will be repealed and the indefinite duration of copyright in unpublished Crown copyright works will be limited to 125 years.

  Communications Equipment (Licences)
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he will now review requirements for the provision of licences for the supply of communications equipment.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  No.

  PLO (Export Licences)
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what export licences he has issued for the supply of goods to the Palestine Liberation Organisation, for each of the past 10 years.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Records of export licences are classified, where applicable, by applicant or country of destination rather than by end-user or consignee. The Palestine Liberation Organisation has not been so listed.

  Regional Aid
  Mr. Eastham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many jobs he expects to be sustained by regional selective assistance in 1988–89; and how many jobs have been sustained by all regional assistance in 1987–88.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The number of jobs created and safeguarded by regional selective assistance in 1988–89 will depend on the number, size and nature of applications which attract assistance.

  Sub-Post Offices
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will seek a meeting with the chairman of the Post Office to discuss the proposed reduction in hours and salaries of sub-offices and their staff.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  When I met the chairman of the Post Office in January we discussed the agreement concluded between the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters and the Post Office for the introduction of part-time sub-post offices, if that is the proposal to which the hon. Member's question refers. No one is proposing to reduce the salaries of sub-post office staff.

  Policy
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) what progress has been made in implementing the Consumer Affairs Council resolution of 1986 on the integration of consumer policies on food;

  (2) what progress has been made towards implementing the Consumer Affairs Council resolution of 1986 on the integration of consumer policies on competition.
  307
  Mr. Butcher
  The European Commission has recently submitted its first report to the Council on the progress made towards better integtration of consumer policy into other common policies including agriculture, competition, and transport, as requested by the Council resolution of 15 December 1986. A copy of the report is available in the Library (document 10541/87 of 14 December 1987). It is a disappointing report recording little progress.

  Estate Agents
  Mr. Heddle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire of 16 December 1987,Official Report, column 539, if he will indicate what reviews he has carried out either generally or specifically since the implementation of the Estate Agents Act 1979; if he will publish in the Official Report the results of these reviews; whether any review in any form is currently being carried out in respect of sections 5, 18 or 21; whether he has any plans to amend regulation 5 of the Estate Agents (Accounts) Regulations 1981; and whether he has any plans to introduce regulations to give effect to section 22 of the 1975 Act.

  Mr. Butcher
  [holding answer 10 February 1988]: This Department has not carried out any overall review of the Act since its implementation. My predecessors have, however, considered whether regulations should be made under sections 16 and 17, section 19 and section 22 of the Act, but have concluded that there was no strong case for doing so. I have no plans to introduce regulations to give effect to section 22 of the Act and no immediate plans to amend regulation 5 of the Estate Agents (Accounts) Regulations 1981. The Director General of Fair Trading has a statutory duty under section 25 of the Act to superintend its working and enforcement, and I have received advice from him on aspects of the working of the Act, including sections 5, 18 and 21. I am awaiting with interest the outcome of proceedings between the Office of Fair Trading and the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors with regard to section 18.

  Rural Transport Innovation Grant
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he will give details of the number, type, and levels of grant paid under the rural transport innovation grant (Transport Act 1985) in(a) England and (b) Wales.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  I have been asked to reply.

  The administration of the rural transport innovation grant in Wales is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  The English equivalent of the grant is the rural transport development fund, which is administered by the Development Commission on behalf of the Department of Transport. The commission has paid 100 grants and has approved a further 14. Seventy grants, averaging about £8,500, have been paid for scheduled services, mainly by minibuses and taxibuses. Additionally, 18 grants have been paid to assist the appointment of county transport advisers, at an annual average of about £6,250 for up to three years, and 12 grants, averaging about £4,000, have been paid towards other miscellaneous projects.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Education Reform
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what statement of policy he has made concerning reductions in educational provision in respect of schools, colleges of further and higher education, careers advice and adult education institutes, respectively, which are currently the responsibility of the Inner London education authority.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend announced on 4 February, at columns 1178–79, the Government's proposals for education in inner London. Under those proposals each inner London council will become the local education authority for its area, responsible as such—subject to any co-operative arrangements between councils— for the provision of the services to which the hon. Member refers.

  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has made any calculations on the effect on the rate support grant of the proposed abolition of the Inner London education authority; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The Government propose that the Inner London education authority should be wound up and education responsibilities transferred to local borough councils from 1 April 1990. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment proposes to introduce from the same date new arrangements for the finance of local government. Under the provisions of the Local Government Finance Bill, rate support grant will be replaced by a new grant to local authorities, to be known as revenue support grant; rate support grant will not be payable after the financial year 1989–90. The distribution of revenue support grant will take account of the responsibilities of the inner London boroughs for education after 1 April 1990.

  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has made any calculations on the effect on the rate support grant of the proposed abolition of the Inner London education authority in relation to the hand over of such functions as may be given to Hackney borough council.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The Government propose that from I April 1990 rate support grant should be replaced by revenue support grant, as part of the reform of local government finance. Authorities' entitlement to revenue support grant will depend on their assessed needs, which will take account of their responsibilities. Following the transfer of education functions from the Inner London education authority, the needs assessment for Hackney borough council will include an assessment of its need to spend on education. Revenue support grant to the borough will take account of that need.

  Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council
  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he and his officials first made contact with Mr. William Stubbs, education officer of Inner London education authority, as regards the possibilities of his running the funding council for the polytechnics.
  309
  Mr. Jackson
  Discussions between the Department and persons considered for the post of chief executive to the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council were held in confidence. It would breach that confidence to disclose the dates of such contacts.

  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if Mr. William Stubbs, education officer of Inner London education authority, has accepted his offer to head the funding council for the polytechnics.

  Mr. Jackson
  Mr. Stubbs has agreed to become chief executive designate to the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council.

  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects the head of the funding council for the polytechnics to take up his post.

  Mr. Jackson
  I expect the chairman and chief executive designate to begin the work of preparing for the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council in May.

  Pupil Records
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list those organisations which have responded to the consultation paper on the keeping and disclosure of pupil records.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The information requested is as follows:

  Avon LEA

  Barnet LEA

  Bedfordshire LEA

  Berkshire LEA

  Bradford LEA

  Brent LEA

  Bromley LEA

  Bury LEA

  Cheshire LEA

  Cornwall LEA

  Croyden LEA

  Derbyshire LEA

  Devon LEA

  Dorset LEA

  Dudley LEA

  Durham LEA Essex LEA

  Gateshead LEA

  Haringey LEA

  Harrow LEA

  Havering LEA

  Hounslow LEA

  Inner London Education Authority

  Isle of Wight LEA

  Kent LEA

  Kingston-upon-Thames LEA

  Kirklees LEA

  Knowsley LEA

  Lancashire LEA

  Leicestershire LEA

  Lincolnshire LEA

  Merton LEA

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne LEA

  Norfolk LEA

  Northamptonshire LEA

  North Tyneside LEA

  Northumberland LEA

  North Yorkshire LEA

  Redbridge LEA

  Shropshire LEA

  Solihull LEA

  Somerset LEA

  South Tyneside LEA

  Staffordshire LEA

  Suffolk LEA

  Sunderland LEA

  Surrey LEA

  Sutton LEA

  Tameside LEA

  Trafford LEA

  Wakefield LEA

  Warwickshire LEA

  Wiltshire LEA

  West Sussex LEA

  Universities Central Council on Admissions

  Association of Workers for Maladjusted Children

  ILEA Divisional Parents Committee

  British Chamber of Commerce

  College of Preceptors

  Girls' Schools' Association

  Professional Association of Teachers

  Oxford Certificate of Educational Achievement

  Independent Schools Joint Council

  National Confederation of Parent-Teacher Associations

  Community Rights Project

  Polytechnic Central Admissions System

  Inner London Education Authority

  National Union of Teachers

  National Association of Head Teachers

  Association of County Councils

  310

  Special Educational Needs—National Advisory Service

  Department of Health and Social Security

  Trade Union Congress

  Commission for Racial Equality

  Children's Legal Centre

  Advisory Centre for Education

  Assistant Masters and Mistresses Association

  Education Otherwise

  National Union of Students

  Secondary Heads Association

  Methodist Church Division of Education and Youth

  Voluntary Council for Handicapped Children

  National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers

  Association of Metropolitan Authorities

  Dr Barnardo's

  Free Church Federal Council

  Her Majesty's Inspectorate

  National Association of Social Workers in Education

  In addition, responses have been received from school staff and governors, local councillors and other interested individuals.

  Pilgrim Upper School, Bedford
  Sir Trevor Skeet
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will give his reasons for approving the closure of Pilgrim upper school, Bedford; what criteria he used in reaching his decision; how many representations he has received from parents opposing the closure; if he will reconsider his decision; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dunn
  My right hon. Friend's decision to approve the proposal by the Bedfordshire LEA to cease to maintain the Pilgrim and John Howard upper schools and to establish a new upper school on the John Howard site was taken after careful consideration and on the balance of all the relevant facts and arguments, including the views of objectors. The criteria underlying my right hon. Friend's decisions on proposals of this kind are set out in detail in the Department's circular 3/87.

  A total of 2,066 statutory objections to the proposals were submitted to the authority, together with 527 non-statutory objections and a petition signed by 300. The authority also received a number of representations in support of the proposals, together with a petition signed by 3,286. My right hon. Friend has no power to change his decision.

  Teachers
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many teachers left the profession in each of the last five years on health grounds; and if any figures are available for those suffering mental stress.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The table gives the number of teachers in England and Wales granted retirement benefits under the Teachers' Supperannuation Regulations on the grounds of ill-health in each financial year since 1982.

  Financial year

  Number of retirements

  1982–83

  1,910

  1983–84

  2,172

  1984–85

  2,449

  1985–86

  2,698

  1986–87

  2,707

  Information is not available to show the number of retirements due to stress or stress-related illnesses.

  University Grants
  Mr. Ken Hargreaves
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will announce the recurrent grants allocated to universities for the academic year 1988–89 by the University Grants Committee, along with the provisional allocations for 1989–90.

  Mr. Jackson
  The University Grants Committee's initial allocation of recurrent grant to universities in the academic year 1988–89, along with a provisional indication of the basic distribution for 1989–90 is shown in the table. Copies of the general letter of guidance that the chairman of the UGC has sent to all universities have been placed in the Library of the House. The general letter will be followed in about a week's time by an institutional annex about student numbers and funding for individual universities. The annexes will also be placed in the Library.

  The total grant distributed by the UGC as announced in the table does not include items which it is the UGC's practice to allocate separately, such as local authority rates, the overseas research student awards scheme, and the committee's small central reserve. These items amount to £147 million. Nor does the distribution include provision which is to be allocated separately for a targeted programme of restructuring for which my right hon. Friend announced an additional £155 million over three years on 3 November 1987 in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) at columns 645–48.

  Also to be distributed separately is the £56 million which the Government have made available in the financial year 1988–89 towards the cost of the 1987 academic pay restructuring settlement. The release of a further instalment of £71 million in the financial year 1989–90 will be subject to continued satisfactory progress on staff appraisal, probation and promotion arrangements.

  £ million

  University or college

  Basic distribution 1988–89

  Recurrent grant 1988–89

  Provisional basic distribution 1989–90

  Aston

  15·362

  15·91

  15·457

  Bath

  16·209

  16·48

  17·198

  Birmingham

  39·878

  41·06

  40·754

  Bradford

  15·691

  16·17

  16·063

  Bristol

  33·258

  33·86

  34·889

  Brunel

  13·807

  14·00

  14·166

  Cambridge

  47·806

  48·85

  49·336

  City

  12·150

  12·29

  12·377

  Durham

  17·728

  18·16

  17·751

  East Anglia

  14·666

  15·22

  14·296

  Essex

  9·274

  9·49

  9·529

  Exeter

  17·245

  17·55

  17·970

  Hull

  15·056

  15·70

  15·384

  Keele

  8·490

  8·67

  8·426

  Kent

  12·049

  12·63

  12·602

  Lancaster

  14·584

  14·85

  15·009

  Leeds

  44·973

  45·85

  45·884

  Leicester

  19·542

  19·98

  20·223

  Liverpool

  39·508

  40·34

  40·374

  London Business School

  1·803

  1·82

  1·709

  London University

  258·219

  265·87

  267·915

  (of which Imperial College)

  (32·466)

  (33·70)

  (33·281)

  Loughborough

  21·184

  21·72

  22·108

  Manchester Business School

  0·988

  1·00

  0·857

  312

  University or college

  Basic distribution 1988–89

  Recurrent grant 1988–89

  Provisional basic distribution 1989–90

  Manchester

  52·033

  53·95

  54·085

  UMIST

  17·857

  18·50

  18·532

  Newcastle

  33·238

  34·21

  33·732

  Nottingham

  30·009

  30·79

  30·923

  Oxford

  48·592

  49·84

  50·272

  Reading

  19·982

  20·27

  20·478

  Salford

  13·965

  14·93

  14·407

  Sheffield

  33·274

  34·47

  33·958

  Southampton

  28·841

  30·34

  30·542

  Surrey

  13·902

  14·47

  14·387

  Sussex

  16·000

  16·29

  16·774

  Warwick

  21·274

  22·39

  22·681

  York

  13·269

  14·33

  14·108

  Total England

  1,031·706

  1,062·25

  1,065·166

  Aberystwyth UC

  10·470

  10·60

  10·617

  Bangor UC

  10·926

  11·46

  10·822

  St. David's Lampeter

  2·109

  2·15

  2·175

  Swansea UC

  13·745

  14·31

  13·730

  UWCM

  7·398

  7·72

  7·717

  UCC/UWIST

  27·061

  28·50

  27·867

  Welsh Registry

  2·391

  2·39

  2·461

  Total Wales

  74·100

  77·13

  75·389

  Aberdeen

  22·016

  22·40

  21·677

  Dundee

  14·651

  14·99

  14·265

  Edinburgh

  46·593

  48·08

  47·582

  Glasgow

  47·584

  49·67

  48·844

  Heriot-Watt

  11·641

  12·69

  12·060

  St. Andrews

  11·783

  11·93

  12·006

  Stirling

  8·288

  8·73

  8·306

  Strathclyde

  25·638

  26·93

  26·704

  Total Scotland

  188·194

  195·42

  191·444

  Total Great Britain

  1,294·000

  1,334·80

  1,332·000

  Queen's Belfast

  31·087

  31·21

  30·630

  Ulster

  32·478

  32·58

  34·723

EMPLOYMENT

  Job Broking
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what job-broking facilities his Department has(a) at Sizewell B power station, (b) at Ashford for the Channel Tunnel and (c) in London docklands.

  Mr. Lee
  The employment service is providing special help for people to get jobs on the Sizewell B power station and Channel tunnel projects through on-site jobcentres. We are considering what more can be done in London docklands to help local unemployed people take advantage of the increasing number of jobs which are available there.

  Labour Costs
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the increase in unit labour costs in Britain in each of the last nine years, and also in the original EEC six.

  Mr. Lee
  International comparisons of unit labour costs for the whole economy are not available. However, figures for manufacturing are provided in the table:
  313

  Unit Labour Costs in Manufacturing—Percentage Change on Previous Year

  Great Britain

  Belgium

  France

  Germany

  Italy

  Netherlands

  1978

  15

  1

  7

  5

  11

  2

  1979

  18

  3

  9

  3

  10

  3

  1980

  22

  4

  12

  8

  12

  4

  1981

  9

  4

  12

  5

  19

  1

  1982

  3

  -1

  11

  3

  17

  4

  1983

  -1

  -1

  8

  0

  14

  -2

  1984

  2

  5

  5

  1

  5

  -7

  1985

  3

  4

  3

  0

  9

  1

  1986

  4

  4

  3

  3

  3

  -1

  Notes:

  1. The percentages are calculated from index series produced by the International Monetary Fund except for Great Britain, figures for which are published in the Employment Gazette.

  2. Unit labour costs for Luxembourg are not available.

  3. The source index series are in local currency and are not adjusted for exchange rate changes.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people are engaged in(a) service and (b) manufacturing industries in (i) the Northwich travel-to-work area, (ii) the Chester travel-to-work area

  Employees in employment1

  (Thousand)

  Travel to work area2

  Divisions SIC 1980

  Northwich

  Wirral and Chester

  Widnes and Runcorn

  1981

  1984

  1981

  1984

  1981

  1984

  6–9 Service industries

  22·4

  24·4

  110·7

  108·5

  26·8

  25·2

  2–4 Manufacturing industries

  14·6

  13·6

  46·6

  39·0

  21·3

  19·6

  1 The figures exclude the self-employed and members of Her Majesty's forces.

  2 Defined in terms of ward boundaries as at 1981.

  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the number of advertised job vacancies in(a) the Northwich travel-to-work area, (b) the Chester travel-to-work area and (c) the Runcorn travel-to-work area; what were the numbers at the same date in each of the last five years; and what each figure represents as a percentage of those unemployed but available for work.

  Mr. Lee
  The following tables show the number of unfilled vacancies (excluding community programme vacancies) at jobcentres covering areas closely corresponding to the Northwich, Wirral and Chester and Widnes and Runcorn travel-to-work areas in December of each of the last five years, along with the total number of unemployed claimants in each travel-to-work area. Total numbers of advertised job vacancies are not available but it is estimated that nationally about a third of vacancies are notified to jobcentres. Comparisons of the unemployment figures over the period are slightly affected by the change in the method of compiling the figures in March 1986.

  Northwich travel-to-work area

  Unfilled vacancies

  Unemployed claimants

  December 1983

  178

  6,449

  December 1984

  186

  6,441

  314
  and (iii) the Runcorn travel-to-work area; and what were the figures at the same time of year in each of the past five years.

  Mr. Lee
  The available employee estimates for travel-to-work areas are from censuses of employment taken in September 1981 and September 1984 and are as follows:

  Unfilled vacancies

  Unemployed claimants

  December 1985

  209

  6,465

  December 1986

  301

  6,039

  December 1987

  209

  4,908

  Wirral and Chester travel-to-work area

  Unfilled vacancies

  Unemployed claimants

  December 1983

  1,197

  37,315

  December 1984

  1,019

  38,848

  December 1985

  1,139

  39,317

  December 1986

  1,511

  37,824

  December 1987

  1,773

  32,633

  Widnes and Runcorn travel-to-work area

  Unfilled vacancies

  Unemployed claimants

  December 1983

  198

  11,403

  December 1984

  249

  11,549

  December 1985

  272

  11,536

  December 1986

  278

  11,074

  December 1987

  292

  9,535

  Business in the Community
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will hold early discussions with interested parties involved in the business in the
  315
  community liaison framework with private industry, on further measures to promote employment among young adults from disadvantaged areas.

  Mr. Cope
  All of this Department's employment and training measures are available to young adults from disadvantaged areas, including the enterprise allowance scheme. Further details of the new training scheme for unemployed adults will be given in a White Paper shortly. While I am always willing to consider new proposals to promote employment, the Government's main contribution to rising employment will continue to come from pursuing sound economic policies as a foundation for sustained growth. I am in frequent contact with business in the community.

  Ethnic Minorities (Training Grants)
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when his Department will reach a decision on the application made by Reading borough council in June 1987 for approved training status under section 37 of the Race Relations Act 1976; and if he will explain the reasons for the delay in dealing with the application.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Reading borough council submitted an application for designation as a training body under

  Average gross weekly earnings

  Full-time sales whose pay was not affected by absence1

  £ per week

  April

  Manual

  Non Manual

  2Group 2

  3Group 3

  4Group 5

  5Group 6

  Current prices

  1979

  93·0

  113·0

  129·0

  113·1

  119·2

  114·4

  1980

  111·7

  141·3

  167·7

  139·6

  147·5

  145·6

  1981

  121·9

  163·1

  189·3

  179·6

  168·9

  162·9

  1982

  133·8

  178·9

  211·0

  185·8

  184·9

  176·9

  1983

  143·6

  194·9

  230·9

  197·6

  200·9

  195·3

  1984

  152·7

  209·0

  251·6

  208·1

  216·2

  212·0

  1985

  163·6

  225·0

  270·3

  223·1

  229·5

  229·1

  1986

  174·4

  244·9

  298·2

  242·2

  248·6

  246·8

  1987

  185·5

  265·9

  328·2

  261·2

  267·0

  265·5

  Percentage Increase6

  1979–80

  20·1

  25·0

  30·0

  23·4

  23·7

  27·3

  1980–81

  9·1

  15·4

  12·9

  28·7

  14·5

  11·9

  1981–82

  9·8

  9·7

  11·5

  3·5

  9·5

  8·6

  1982–83

  7·3

  8·9

  9·4

  6·4

  8·7

  10·4

  1983–84

  7·8

  9·0

  9·2

  5·8

  8·5

  9·1

  1984–85

  7·1

  7·7

  7·4

  7·2

  6·2

  8·1

  1985–86

  6·6

  8·8

  10·3

  8·6

  8·3

  7·7

  1986–87

  6·4

  8·6

  10·1

  7·8

  7·4

  7·6

  Constant 1987 prices7

  1979

  174·4

  211·9

  241·9

  212·0

  223·5

  214·5

  1980

  172·0

  217·6

  258·2

  215·0

  227·1

  224·2

  1981

  167·5

  224·2

  260·2

  246·8

  232·1

  223·9

  1982

  168·1

  224·7

  265·1

  233·4

  232·3

  222·2

  1983

  173·4

  235·4

  278·9

  238·7

  242·7

  235·9

  1984

  175·4

  240·0

  288·9

  239·0

  248·3

  243·5

  1985

  175·7

  241·7

  290·3

  239·6

  246·5

  246·1

  1986

  181·8

  255·3

  310·8

  252·4

  259·1

  257·2

  1987

  185·5

  265·9

  328·2

  261·2

  267·0

  265·5

  Percentage increase6 7

  1979–80

  -1·4

  2·7

  6·8

  1·4

  1·6

  4·5

  1980–81

  -2·6

  3·0

  0·7

  14·8

  2·2

  -0·1

  1981–82

  0·3

  0·3

  1·9

  -5·4

  0·1

  -0·7

  1982–83

  3·2

  4·7

  5·2

  2·3

  4·5

  6·2

  1983–84

  2·5

  3·6

  3·8

  0·6

  3·2

  3·7

  316
  section 37(3)(b) of the Race Relations Act 1976 on 1 June 1987. Officials from my Department contacted the council on 11 June to seek additional information, and on 28 July met officials from the council. In the light of that meeting, and further contacts, the council submitted revised proposals on 5 January 1988. These proposals, along with additional supporting material dated 29 January, but received by my Department on 5 February, are now under consideration.

  A decision on the application will be reached shortly.

  Average Earnings
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of Slate for Employment what has been the level of average earnings of(a) male manual workers, (b) male non-manual workers and (c) managers, senior managers, directors, and professionals, in whatever categories the information is available, for each year since 1979, both current and constant (1987–88) prices; and what has been the percentage increase each year in the earnings of each group in both money and real terms since 1979.

  Mr. Lee
  The information requested is provided in the table. Data for senior managers and directors are not available.
  317

  April

  Manual

  Non Manual

  2Group 2

  3Group 3

  4Group 5

  5Group 6

  1984–85

  0·2

  0·7

  0·5

  0·3

  -0·7

  1·1

  1985–86

  3·4

  5·6

  7·1

  5·3

  5·1

  4·5

  1986–87

  2·0

  4·2

  5·6

  3·5

  3·0

  3·2

  Source: New Earnings Survey

  1 Data up to 1983 on the basis of males 21 and over. Data from 1984 on adult rates.

  2 Professional and related occupations supporting management and administration.

  3 Professional and related occupations in education, welfare and health.

  4 Professional and related occupations in science, engineering and technology.

  5 Managerial occupations other than general management.

  6 Increases for 1983–84 based on adult rates of pay.

  7 Constant prices at April 1987 RPI (All items).

  YTS
  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any plans to expand the YTS scheme in his Department during the current year.

  Mr. Fowler
  YTS has established itself as a high-quality training programme for young people with a nationally recognised record leading to jobs and vocational qualifications.

  YTS has had tremendous support from employers, the training profession and most particularly from young people themselves. YTS leads to jobs. It is the best start in working life young people can have. During the last six months the Department of Employment group has provided 120 training places. It is my intention that this number should be increased. The DE group will be making a further 80 placements available in 1988–89 bringing the total to 200.

DEFENCE

  Pin-ups
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will issue instructions for the removal of all offensive pin-ups in all his departmental premises.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  As part of the Department's equal opportunities plan, on which the trade unions were consulted, an instruction will be issued to all civilian staff in the near future defining the Department's policy on sexual harassment. The instruction states that the display of material which is of a sexual nature and offensive to women and-or men generally may constitute sexual harassment and will not be tolerated. Specific instructions requiring the removal of any such material which may be on display in Civil Service premises will also be issued.

  Turkey (Arms Sales)
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Shorland S550 armoured personnel carriers have been supplied to Turkey by Shorts; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  It has been the practice of successive Administrations not to announce details of specific defence sales business with other countries as the information is commercially confidential. In this case Shorts themselves announced on 27 January that they had received an order for 40 Shorland S550 APCs for Turkey.

  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the types and quantities of arms sold to Turkey.
  318
  Mr. Sainsbury
  It has been the practice of successive Administrations not to give details of defence sales business with other countries.

  Irish Air Space (Breach)
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information is available on a Royal Air Force aeroplane that breached Irish air space on 30 December 1987; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  On the morning of 30 December 1987 an Army Air Corps Beaver aircraft penetrated Irish air space. The incident has been fully investigated by my Department and it is clear that it occurred as a result of a misunderstanding by the pilot of the exact terms of the flight clearance given to him, and this has been explained to the Irish Government. Appropriate disciplinary action has been taken and the relevant instructions to air crew in Northern Ireland have been clarified in order to avoid the recurrence of such a misunderstanding.

  HMS Conqueror (Logbook)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish the outcome of the inquiry into the disappearance of the navigator's logbook of HMS Conqueror.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  I have nothing to add to the statements made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) on 30 November 1984, at columns 593–94, and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Mr. Stanley) on 25 October 1985, at column 277.

  Economic League
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if his Department has made use of the services of the Economic League since 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  No.

WALES

  Private Health Insurance
  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has of the proportion of the population of Wales which is not covered, in whole or in part, by private health insurance.

  Mr. Grist
  The 1983 general household survey indicated that 95 per cent. of the population aged 16 and over living
  319
  in private households in Wales did not have private medical insurance cover. Equivalent results from the 1986 general household survey are not yet available.

  Infant Cardiology Services
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what progress has been made concerning infant cardiology services in south and west Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  South Glamorgan health authority is readvertising the post of consultant paediatric cardiologist. Approval has been given to the development of a paediatric cardiac unit at the University hospital of Wales and work on site is planned to commence this year. On the recommendation of the Welsh medical committee, the cardiology committee of the Royal College of Physicians has been invited and has agreed to undertake, early this year, a review of the planning policies and service provision of cardiac services in south Wales for children and adults.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which of his spending programmes will show a reduction in real terms in any of the next three years as compared with 1987–88 expenditure; and what is the figure of each reduction in each year.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer which I gave on 25 January,Official Report columns 121–24 in reply to an earlier question from him, from which the information now requested can easily be derived.

  I have already explained that it is misleading to make comparisons between public expenditure plans for one year and outturn (or estimated outturn) for other years.

  It will be readily seen that for 1988–89, planned provision in Cmnd. 288 for programmes within my other services block increases substantially over the comparable levels of planned expenditure provision in Cmnd. 56 for 1987–88. Reductions in planned provision for roads and transport (£10 million) housing (£6 million) other environmental services (£5 million) and arts and libraries (£1 million) are more than offset by increases in education (£34 million) and health and personal social services (£51 million). These are in addition to the increase in planned provision of £46 million for my industry, trade and employment programme. It means therefore that, within the programme as a whole, for each £1 of reductions there are more than £5 of increases.

  For 1989–90 and 1990–91 the distribution between programmes within my other services block is illustrative only. Decisions on the public expenditure totals and within that the allocation to individual block programmes will be taken in future public expenditure surveys.

SCOTLAND

  Hydro-electricity
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make funds available to the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board, for the implementation of the smaller run-of-the-river hydro project.
  320
  Mr. Lang
  My right hon. and learned Friend sets a limit on the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board's overall capital expenditure in any year and it is for the board to establish priorities between projects within the limits set taking account of system requirements and the expected return on the investments. The board has in recent years taken the view that other projects have had a higher priority against these criteria than run-of-the-river schemes.

  Pin-ups
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will issue instructions for the removal of all offensive pin-ups in all his departmental premises.

  Mr. Rifkind
  In a general notice prohibiting sexual harassment, managers in my Department have been asked to ensure that potentially offensive material is not displayed in the workplace.

  Erskine Bridge (Tolls)
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his policy with regard to tolls on the Erskine bridge.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The policy of successive Governments since 1973 has been to fix tolls at levels which, while having full regard to the economic needs of the areas served by the bridge, are likely to yield the best result in terms of revenue.

  Planning Appeals
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of Slate for Scotland if for 1986 he will give the number of planning appeals against local authorities and the number that were successful.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  In 1986 decisions were issued on 542 planning permission appeals under section 33 of the Town and Country (Planning) Scotland Act 1972. Of these 193 appeals (36 per cent.) were sustained.

  Hospital Beds
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give both the total number of National Health Service beds and the number of acute beds per head of population.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  This information is published annually in "Scottish Health Statistics" (table 6.3), copies of which are held in the Library.

  Shaw Medical Centre Ltd.
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what is the structure proposed by the Scottish Development Agency that will allow the repayment of its investment in Shaw Medical Centre Ltd. made necessary by the cash risk after the first year;

  (2) what financial support is being given by the Scottish Development Agency to the Shaw Medical Centre Ltd.; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  The Scottish Development Agency's dealings with companies are conducted in confidence and are not disclosed except in cases where the agency holds
  321
  more than 20 per cent. of the voting rights, and where the total investment is in excess of £100,000. In these cases a report is made in the agency's annual report. Any investment made by the agency will be in accord with the investment guidelines laid down by my right hon. and learned Friend and will take into account the needs of the company.

  Procurators Fiscal (Written Warnings)
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland in how many cases procurators fiscal in Tayside

  Total number of warnings issued

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  Total

  Dundee

  927

  971

  832

  756

  819

  —

  Perth

  174

  331

  135

  162

  245

  —

  Forfar

  139

  211

  182

  215

  177

  —

  Arbroath

  54

  89

  92

  102

  98

  —

  Tayside

  1,294

  1,602

  1,241

  1,235

  1,339

  6,711

  Warnings in cases involving indecency

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  Dundee

  2

  6

  8

  17

  35

  Perth1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Forfar

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Arbroath

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1 Figures for Perth are not available.

  Scottish Special Housing Association
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if there have been any changes in the senior management of the Scottish Special Housing Association in the last four weeks.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Staffing questions of this kind are a matter for the Scottish Special Housing Association itself. I understand, however, that a member of staff at director level left the association's employment recently under early retirement arrangements.

  Fire Safety
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to issue guidance on means of escape from fire in house in multiple occupation in Scotland.

  £ Thousands

  Health boards

  1978–79

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88 (estimated)

  Argyll and Clyde

  43,038

  53,348

  67,961

  77,063

  83,425

  86,906

  91,463

  96,811

  105,779

  114,482

  Aryshire and Arran

  26,313

  32,475

  43,166

  49,467

  55,328

  60,852

  65,902

  70,447

  77,304

  85,129

  Borders

  8,368

  10,095

  13,239

  14,920

  16,498

  17,904

  19,088

  20,163

  21,815

  24,415

  Dumfries & Galloway

  15,037

  18,556

  24,982

  27,243

  29,713

  31,120

  33,734

  35,642

  37,925

  41,171

  Fife

  27,003

  33,061

  43,249

  49,323

  53,743

  57,640

  62,329

  67,720

  72,509

  78,808

  Forth Valley

  27,134

  33,113

  44,377

  49,002

  52,659

  56,522

  59,960

  63,634

  69,112

  75,115

  Grampian

  51,646

  62,738

  82,953

  92,119

  101,559

  106,293

  113,677

  120,189

  130,395

  143,452

  Greater Glasgow

  164,369

  203,355

  262,095

  291,087

  310,181

  327,945

  346,301

  360,693

  384,189

  414,636

  Highland

  22,198

  27,280

  35,842

  39,342

  41,614

  44,475

  47,849

  51,552

  56,033

  60,106

  322
  have issued written warnings following the introduction of the legislation which awarded them the powers to do so; and how many individuals have been charged by Tayside police with offences of indecent acts and have received such written warnings.

  Mr. Rifkind
  Figures showing the number of warnings issued in recent years are contained in the first of the tables.

  "Offences of indecent acts" is not a precise category, but the numbers of offences involving such conduct as can be identified from available statistics are given in the second of the tables.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The guide setting out an advisory standard for means of escape from fire in certain houses in multiple occupation in Scotland will be issued by the Scottish Home and Health Department today. The guide also covers related fire safety measures and will assist the process of consultation between housing and fire authorities which is required under housing legislation. Copies of the guide are being placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Health Boards (Finance)
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will give the total cash allocation to each Scottish health board for each year from 1978–79, including projected allocations for the years 1988–89 and 1989–90;

  (2) if he will give the total cash allocation to Scottish health boards for each year from 1978–79, including projected allocations for the years 1988–89 and 1989–90.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer, 26 January 1988]: Health boards' final allocations for recurrent expenditure on hospital and community health services, for the years 1978–79 to 1987–88 inclusive, are shown in the table. The allocations for 1989–90 will not be determined until the early part of 1989 once the relevant population and other data are available.
  323

  Health boards

  1978–79

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88 (estimated)

  Lanarkshire

  47,379

  58,114

  77,605

  85,072

  92,542

  97,956

  104,996

  111,060

  119,060

  129,381

  Lothian

  98,543

  119,359

  154,874

  172,268

  186,705

  195,184

  207,852

  218,430

  235,556

  253,551

  Orkney

  1,438

  1,718

  2,342

  2,752

  2,985

  3,248

  3,475

  3,674

  3,961

  4,419

  Shetland

  1,701

  2,203

  2,987

  3,389

  3,849

  3,990

  4,341

  4,523

  4,807

  5,237

  Tayside

  61,323

  73,926

  96,896

  105,553

  111,711

  116,468

  122,978

  128,462

  136,722

  146,558

  Western Isles

  2,600

  3,277

  4,280

  5,047

  5,832

  5,754

  6,508

  6,998

  7,476

  8,050

  598,090

  732,618

  956,848

  1,063,647

  1,148,344

  1,212,257

  1,290,453

  1,359,998

  1,462,643

  1,584,510

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Teacher Training
  Mr. McCusker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many teacher-training places have been available in Northern Ireland during the past five years; and what is the estimated number of places needed during the next five years in each of the institutions offering teacher training in the Province.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information is as follows:

  Academic years

  Number

  1983–84

  630

  1984–85

  640

  1985–86

  640

  1986–87

  640

  1987–88

  735

  For 1988–89, a total of 735 places have been allocated — 110 to Queen's University of Belfast, 145 to the University of Ulster and 240 each to St. Mary's and Stranmillis colleges. Intake places beyond 1988–89 have not yet been determined and estimates would be unreliable.

  Eastern

  Northern

  Southern

  Western

  Mid-1986 estimate of population

  642,100

  379,000

  288,900

  256,800

  Hospital and Community Health Services and Family Practitioner Services

  525

  285

  355

  390

  Personal Social Services

  85

  61

  63

  63

  Total

  610

  346

  418

  453

  Hospital and Community Health Services and Family Practitioner Services

  545

  294

  366

  404

  Personal Social Services

  88

  63

  65

  66

  Total

  633

  357

  431

  470

  1 These figures include expenditure which is incurred centrally by the Department and which is not possible to attribute to individual Boards.

  2 Comparisons of per capita spending by Boards are not meaningful as administrative populations do not coincide with actual catchment populations for man services including regional medical services, acute hospital services, psychiatric and mental handicap hospital services.

  Pin-ups
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will issue instructions for the removal of all offensive pin-ups in all his departmental premises.

  Mr. Stanley
  The Civil Service policy on sexual harassment is set out in the programme of action to achieve equal opportunities for women in the Civil Service, which was published by the Cabinet Office (MPO) in 1984. Sexual harassment, including the display of sexually offensive material, at work is not tolerated and is dealt with as a disciplinary matter through the usual Civil

  Health and Personal Social Services
  Sir Brandon Rhys Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish a table setting out for 1987–88 and 1988–89 the estimated number of(a) families and (b) persons in each health board or equivalent, and in Northern Ireland as a whole, showing net average expenditure on health and personal social services per family and per person in each year, and distinguishing between expenditure on the National Health Service and on the personal social services.

  Mr. Needham
  Estimates of population at board level are not held for 1987–88 or 1988–89; the following figures are based on the estimate for mid-1986 which gave the population of Northern Ireland as 1,566,800. There is no generally accepted definition of the family, so per capita expenditure figures only are given. The total per capita expenditure on health and personal social services is expected to be:

  £

  1987–88

  511

  11988–89

  530

  Per capita spending by boards is expected to be2

  Service complaints procedures. To reaffirm this position, action is in hand to issue guidance to all members of staff in the Northern Ireland Office and the Northern Ireland Departments in the near future.

  Travelling People
  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what provisions exist for the education of the children of travelling people in Northern Ireland.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  These children may attend any grant-aided school or further education establishment in Northern Ireland.
  325
  However in the Belfast area specific provision is made at St. Paul's primary school, Cavendish square where some 140 such pupils are enrolled and the teaching staff complement is six.

  Board and Lodging
  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what figures are available to indicate the numbers

  Table A

  Health and Social Services Board

  Year ended 31 December

  Eastern

  Northern

  Southern

  Western

  Total

  1981

  19

  12

  11

  8

  50

  1982

  30

  12

  5

  5

  52

  1983

  50

  11

  12

  16

  89

  1984

  76

  20

  7

  12

  115

  1985

  48

  12

  3

  21

  84

  Table B below contains, for each Health and Social Services Board, the numbers of homeless families (including children) occupying temporary accommodation reserved for homeless persons, during the years 1981 to 1985.

  Table B

  Health and Social Services Board

  Year ended 31 December

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  Eastern

  Families

  134

  208

  251

  164

  164

  Children

  274

  430

  476

  346

  331

  Northern

  Families

  144

  121

  35

  59

  67

  Children

  204

  161

  75

  136

  165

  Southern

  Families

  29

  16

  39

  35

  30

  Children

  68

  36

  89

  78

  44

  Western

  Families

  55

  61

  60

  61

  60

  Children

  117

  125

  124

  155

  145

  Total

  Families

  362

  406

  385

  319

  321

  Children

  663

  752

  764

  715

  685

  Attorney-General (Statement)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he informed the Government of the Irish Republic of the Attorney-General's intention to make a statement to the House on 25 January.

  Mr. Tom King
  [holding answer 10 February 1988]: The Irish Government were informed on the morning of 25 January that my right hon. and learned Friend would be making a statement. A text was passed to them after the statement had been made.

  Salmon
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he intends to take to maintain a boat on the north coast of Northern Ireland for the protection of salmon during the current year.

  Mr. Viggers
  [holding answer 9 February 1988]: Responsibility for the protection of salmon stocks rests with the Fisheries Conservancy Board for Northern
  326
  of people aged under 25 years residing in board-and-lodging accommodation in each health and social board area in Northern Ireland in each of the past five years.

  Mr. Needham
  Information is not available in the precise form requested. Table A below shows, for each health and social services board, the numbers of single persons aged under 25 years occupying temporary accommodation reserved for homeless persons, during the years 1981 to 1985.

  Ireland. It is for the board to determine the most cost-effective manner of properly discharging its responsibility. The fishery patrols of the Department of Agriculture supplement the measures underaken by the Board.

  Mobility Allowance
  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many mobility allowance appeals were heard by medical appeal tribunals at each venue in Northern Ireland in the past three years.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 9 February 1988]: The information is as follows:

  Year

  Belfast

  Londonderry

  1985

  226

  58

  1986

  262

  62

  1987

  295

  43

  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are the waiting times for appeals regarding mobility allowance, indicating any local differences in those waiting times.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 9 February 1988]: Medical questions arising on mobility allowance appeals are decided in the first instance by medical boards and thereafter, if necessary, by medical appeal tribunals. Boards are held in Belfast and Londonderry although most appellants are examined at home. It takes just under five weeks on average from the time an appeal is received until the board makes its decision. There are no local differences. Non-medical questions are decided, on appeal, by social security appeal tribunals. The administration of both medical and social security appeal tribunals is the responsibility of the president of social security and medical appeal tribunals, Mr. C. G. MacLynn, LL.B and the hon. Gentleman should write to him as regards waiting times for appeals to those tribunals.

  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the length of time taken to process claims for mobility allowance.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 9 February 1988]: Eight weeks.
  327
  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many claims and appeals regarding mobility allowance are pending at present.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 9 February 1988]: At 1 January 1988 there were 1,529 claims and 342 appeals pending.

  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people are in receipt of mobility allowance in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 9 February 1988]: Some 11,600 at 31 December 1987.

  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many staff there are by grade in the mobility allowance branch of the Department of Health and Social Security in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 9 February 1988]: The information is as follows:

  Grade

  Number of staff

  Deputy principal1

  1

  Staff officer1

  1

  Executive officer I

  1

  Executive officer II

  1

  Administrative officer

  4

  Administrative assistant

  2

  10

  1 These grades have additional staff responsibilities.

  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many renewed mobility allowance claims, from those who had been in receipt of the allowance, have been disallowed in each of the past three years, indicating how many were subsequently awarded on appeal.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 9 February 1988]: The information is as follows:

  Year

  Renewed claims disallowed

  Subsequently award on appeal

  1985

  148

  30

  1986

  224

  48

  1987

  209

  52

  Appeal figures related to appeals decided in the relevant years and do not necessarily reflect claims disallowed in those years.

  AIDS
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what information he has about the decision of the United States national institutes of health to instruct all biological laboratories to review their safety guidelines following the reported infection of two laboratory workers with the AIDS virus after working with concentrated samples; and whether he will carry out such a review of procedures in medical and biological laboratories in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 8 February 1988]: I am aware of the decision referred to. Current guidance on safety procedures, prepared by the advisory committee on dangerous pathogens and the expert advisory group on AIDS, continues to be appropriate and therefore I have no plans to review those procedures.

  Maryfield (Costs)
  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what yearly contributions the Irish Republic has made towards(a) the maintenance, (b) the operating costs and (c) the staffing costs at Maryfield; and what proportion these contributions are of the total costs within each of these areas.

  Mr. Tom King
  [holding answer 27 January 1988]: The Irish Government do not pay maintenance costs directly, but rather a share of rent for the secretariat building. In the last financial year, their contribution was £32,000. They also contribute to operating expenses in varying proportions, reflecting the use they make of each facility. The cost to the Irish Government of their staff is a matter for them.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Chemical Trials
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what chemical trials are being conducted on farms within the Easington area; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) on 10 February 1988.

  Dairy Inspections
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) how many inspectors are currently employed to carry out dairy inspections;

  (2) what system there is of monitoring dairy inspections.

  (3) whether he will review the workings of the dairy inspections procedure.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The complement of the dairy husbandry discipline of ADAS is currently 103 and there are 91 officers actually in post. Of these, 72 dairy husbandary advisers undertake visits to dairy farms to check compliance with the milk and dairies regulations, but other duties (such as advisory work) account for about half of their time. The work of these advisers is monitored by their line managers and is also subject to regular staff inspection. In addition, as I told my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) on 26 January at column 175, there is to be a formal efficiency scrutiny of this work.

  Wool
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will consider increasing the guaranteed price for wool by 10 per cent. per kilogramme to cover production and other costs in the current year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  My right hon. Friend met the farmers' unions and the British Wool Marketing Board last week to review the prospects for the 1988 clip year and the level of the guarantee which for the 1987 clip was set at 129p/kg. An announcement on the level of the guarantee for the 1988 clip will be made as soon as possible.

  Cereals
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what was the shortfall in the amount to the co-responsibility levy in respect of the 1986 cereal harvest, as between that paid by farmers and that collected by the Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) on how many tonnes of cereal following the harvest of 1986 co-responsibiltiy levy was paid to the Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce;

  (3) what was the cereal harvest for 1986; and on how many tonnes co-responsibility levy was paid.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The cereals harvest for 1986 was 24·5 million tonnes. Co-responsibility levy has now been collected on 13·4 million tonnes, including 2 million tonnes of grain imported from other member states. About 13 million tonnes of cereals was not liable to levy in the United Kingdom during the 1986–87 marketing year; this comprised grain exported to other member states; grain used for seed; grain used on farms and grain processed by farmers and fed to their own livestock; grain stocks carried over into the current marketing year.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many tonnes of the British cereal harvest in 1986–87 he estimates were liable to co-responsibility levy; and how much of the levy has been collected to date.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The cereals harvest for 1986 was 24·5 million tonnes. Co-responsibility levy has now been collected on 13·4 million tonnes, including 2 million tonnes of grain imported from other member states. About 13 million tonnes of cereals was not liable to levy in the United Kingdom during the 1986–87 marketing year; this comprised grain exported to other member states; grain used for seed; grain used on farms and grain processed by farmers and fed to their own livestock; grain stocks carried over into the current marketing year.

  Organic Products
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give import figures for each of the following organic produce for each year in the last 10 years: carrots, parsnips, potatoes, cabbages, turnips, swedes, courgettes, lettuces, tomatoes, cucumbers, apples, pears and strawberries.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  No records are maintained in overseas trade statistics of fruit and vegetables classified according to production systems. Moreover, there would be little point in keeping such statistics for organic produce until importing and exporting countries had agreed the necessary organic production standards and the inspection and certification arrangements.

  Pesticides
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress is being made in achieving common standards of safety assessment and certification for agriculture pesticides within the European Community.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The European Community has been operating a prohibition directive since 1979 which 330
  requires member states to withdraw certain substances from circulation. The EC Commission is advised by a committee of scientific experts in making its recommendations under this directive, and unanimous agreement of member states is required in the Council before substances can be added to the existing list of prohibitions. Outside the scope of this directive member states operate national controls on the supply and use of pesticides. A draft directive proposing an EC regime for approving or accepting pesticides was tabled by the EC Commission in 1976, but no progress has been made in discussing it in recent years.

  Ewe Premium
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he proposes to take to repay to British producers and trade interests the sums recoverable from the European Community as a result of recent favourable judgments on ewe premium and clawback, respectively.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The European Court's judgment of 2 February in cases 305/85 and 142/86 declares void the rates of ewe premium which were set by EC Commission regulation for Great Britain for the 1984–85 and 1985 marketing years. This welcome judgment fully vindicates the Government's case that the rates had been wrongly calculated. It means that supplementary premium payments will be payable to GB producers from FEOGA funds. Some £l1 million is involved, and we shall make payment arrangements as soon as the EC Commission has made new regulations setting properly calculated rates. And we are pressing the Commission to make the necessary regulations as soon as possible.

  The judgment in EC case 61/86—the Government's other sheepmeat case against the EC Commission —declares the relevant EC regulations void in so far as they apply clawback to exports of ewes, ewemeat and other categories of sheep and sheepmeat which cannot receive variable premium. As an immediate result, exporters of the affected categories are no longer obliged to pay clawback. In our view, the judgment also means that the Commission should return to us the clawback collected under the invalid regulations. We are also pressing the Commission on this as a matter of urgency. My officials will be maintaining close contact with the farmers' unions and the export trade who together have a related case before the High Court concerning one particular export consignment.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Company Profits
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the level of profitability in British companies.

  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the level of profitability in British companies.

  Mr. Brooke
  The profitability of non-oil industrial and commercial companies has increased in each of the past six years: the best performance for a generation.

  Interest Rates
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the level of interest rates in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about the current level of interest rates.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Bank base rates are 9 per cent.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about his policy on interest rates.

  Mr. Lilley
  Short-term interest rates are the essential instrument of monetary policy and are held at whatever level is necessary to maintain downward pressure on inflation.

  Tax and Prices Index
  Mrs. Widdecombe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the rise in the tax and prices index in the 12 months to December 1987.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the rise in the tax and prices index in the 12 months to December 1987.

  Mr. Brooke
  In the 12 months to December 1987 the tax and prices index rose by 1·9 per cent.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the rise in the tax and prices index in the 12 months to December 1987.

  Mr. Lilley
  In the 12 months to December 1987 the tax and prices index rose by 1·9 per cent.

  Inflation
  Mr. Ward
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the rate of inflation.

  Mr. Brooke
  The increase in retail prices over the 12 months ending December 1987 was 3·7 per cent.

  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the rate of inflation.

  Mr. Lilley
  The increase in retail prices over the 12 months ending December 1987 was 3·7 per cent.

  Mr. Andy Stewart
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the rate of inflation.

  Mr. Andrew MacKay
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the current level of inflation.

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the rate of inflation.

  Mr. Lilley
  The increase in retail prices over the 12 months ending December 1987 was 3·7 per cent.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what rate of inflation he has assumed in relation to his expenditure plans for(a) National Health Service and (b) Government expenditure generally for each of the next three years.
  332
  Mr. Major
  The economic assumptions underpinning the Government's plans set out in the 1988 public expenditure White Paper (Cm. 288), including the assumptions for general inflation as measured by the GDP deflator and the RPI, are set out in volume I, chapter 2, paragraph 4.

  The Government do not publish assumptions about the future movements in particular prices affecting individual expenditure programmes though, in planning and managing their programmes, Departments take account of the prices of the goods and services they purchase.

  Third World Debts
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent discussions he has had with the Finance Ministers of creditor countries concerning the rescheduling of debt in Third world countries.

  Mr. Brooke
  Last September my right hon. Friend attended the Commonwealth Finance Ministers' meeting and the annual meetings of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank where the problems of developing countries' debt, especially that of sub-Saharan Africa, were discussed.

  Take-home Pay
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the growth of real take-home pay for a married man with two children who is on half male average earnings since 1978–79.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the growth of real take-home pay for a married man with two children who is on half male average earnings since 1978–79.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Real take-home pay for a married man on half average male earnings with two children has risen by 18½ per cent. since 1978–79.

  Mr. Wood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the growth of real take-home pay for a married man with two children who is on half male average earnings since 1978–79.

  Mrs. Maureen Hicks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the growth of real take-home pay for a married man with two children who is on half male average earnings since 1978–79.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Real take-home pay has risen by 18·5 per cent. for a married man on half average earnings since 1978–79. Average earnings are those for men in all occupations paid at adult rates who work a full week.

  Public Investment
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the level of public investment as a proportion of gross domestic product.

  Mr. Major
  In 1987–88 public sector capital spending, as defined in table 2.10 of volume I of the 1988 public expenditure White Paper, is estimated to be about 5½ per cent. of gross domestic product.

  VAT (Zero-rating)
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has received notice of the date on which
  333
  the European Court of Justice will declare its decision on the proceedings initiated by the Commission on the legality of the United Kingdom's zero-rating of supplies of electricity, gas, water and sewerage to industry and commerce and on the construction of commercial and industrial buildings; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brooke
  No.

  Tax Relief
  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what average income tax relief has been received by a taxpayer earning £50,000 each year since 1979 at 1987 prices.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson).

  Manufacturing Output
  Mr. Curry
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the underlying rate of growth of manufacturing output.

  Mr. Brandon-Bravo
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the underlying rate of growth of manufacturing output.

  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the underlying rate of growth of manufacturing output.

  Mr. Major
  In the three months ending last November output was 6 per cent. higher than a year earlier.

  Tax (Higher Rates)
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the revenue raised from higher rates of tax in 1987–88.

  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the revenue raised from higher rates of tax in 1987–88.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The total tax liability resulting from the difference between the higher rates of income tax and the basic rate is estimated to be £3·1 billion in 1987–88.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the effect on the income, per week, of a single person and a married couple on average national earnings as a result of cuts in the standard rate of income tax and the raising of personal allowances since 1979.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The effect of reductions in income tax since 1978–79 has been to increase income after tax by £10·69 per week for a married man and £10·88 per week for a single person on average earnings in 1987–88. The calculation is made by comparing the tax liabilities of the single person or married man under the 1987–88 income tax regime with those under the 1978–79 regime indexed to 1987–88 levels according to the statutory formula. Average earnings estimated at £229·80 per week are those for full-time men in all occupations, paid at adult rates, whose pay is unaffected by absence.
  334
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much a taxpayer earning £50,000 a year would gain per year if the top rate of tax were reduced to 40 per cent.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  A married man with gross income of £50,000 per year and no allowances or reliefs other than the married man's allowance would gain £2,961 if the top rate of income tax were reduced to 40 per cent. for 1988–89. The estimate assumes indexation of allowances and rate bands from their 1987–88 levels in accordance with the statutory formula.

  Government Shareholdings
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his policy on the disposal of Government-held shareholdings, in the light of the National Audit Office report on the sale of the Government shareholding in Rolls-Royce plc.

  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his policy on the disposal of Government-held shareholdings, in the light of the National Audit Office report on the sale of the Government shareholding in Rolls-Royce plc.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his policy on the disposal of Government held shareholdings, in the light of the National Audit Office report on the sale of the Government shareholding in Rolls-Royce plc.

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his policy on the disposal of Government-held shareholdings, in the light of the National Audit Office report on the sale of the Government shareholdings in Rolls-Royce plc.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  I refer the hon. Members to the answer I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Garrett).

  Mortgages (Tax Relief)
  Mr. Sumberg
  To as the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received seeking an amendment of the law relating to tax relief on mortgage interest; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  As usual, my right hon. Friend has received a number of representations about the tax relief on mortgage interest. The level of mortgage interest relief has to be fixed each year and will be considered in framing the Budget proposals.

  Jobs
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many new jobs have been created by growth in the economy since 1983.

  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many new jobs have been created by growth in the economy since 1983.

  Mr. French
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many new jobs have been created by growth in the economy since 1983.

  Mr. Major
  The combination of steady, sustained growth and supply side improvements has contributed significantly to the creation of nearly 1½ million new jobs since 1983.

  Borrowing Requirement
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate for the public sector borrowing requirement for 1987–88.

  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate for the public sector borrowing requirement for 1987–88.

  Mr. Major
  The Autumn Statement forecast was for a PSBR in 1987–88 of £1 billion. A revised estimate will be published next month in the "Financial Statement and Budget Report".

  Income Tax (Reduced Rate Band)
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received seeking the introduction of a reduced rate band of income tax.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  My right hon. Friend has received a small number of representations.

  Productivity
  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the growth of productivity in the United Kingdom economy over the period since 1980.

  Mr. Major
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick).

  International Debt
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he next proposes to meet other Finance Ministers to discuss the problems of international debt; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lilley
  My right hon. Friend frequently meets other Finance Ministers; he is likely to do so at the spring meetings of the IMF/IBRD in April when international debt will be discussed.

  Balance of Payments
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what measures he is taking to improve the balance of payments.

  Mr. Major
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given earlier today by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace).

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the Government's policy towards the balance of payments.

  Mr. Lawson
  The current account deficit last year was precisely in line with the forecast I made at the time of the Budget. The Government's policies are directed towards improving the performance of the economy overall. This is fully consistent with normal fluctuations in the composition of the balance of payments.

  Personal Disposable Income
  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the growth of real personal disposable income since 1983.
  336
  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the growth of real personal disposable income since 1983.

  Mr. Major
  I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer my right hon. Friend the Chancellor gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood).

  Growth
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how the current British rate of growth compares with that of the other major industrialised countries.

  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how the current British rate of growth compares with that of the other major industrialised countries.

  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how the current British rate of growth compares with that of the other major industrialised countries.

  Mr. Lilley
  Total output in the United Kingdom grew by more than 4 per cent. over the year to the first three quarters of 1987. This is faster than any other major industrialised country.

  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent growth in the economy has been reflected in falling unemployment over the past year.

  Mr. David Martin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent growth in the economy has been reflected in falling unemployment over the past year.

  Mr. Holt
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent growth in the economy has been reflected in falling unemployment over the past year.

  Mr. John Major
  I refer my hon. Friends to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. McLoughlin) on 5 February at columns 783–84.

  Overseas Assets
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will provide the latest figures for net United Kingdom assets overseas.

  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will provide the latest figures for net United Kingdom assets overseas.

  Mr. Major
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman).

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will provide the latest figures for net United Kingdom assets overseas.

  Mr. Major
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman).

  Business Starts
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by how much business starts have exceeded stops between 1979 and 1986.
  337
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by how much business starts have exceeded stops between 1979 and 1986.

  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by how much business starts have exceeded stops between 1979 and 1986.

  Mr. Brooke
  I refer my hon. Friends to the answer I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key).

  Manufacturing Investment
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the latest projections for the growth of manufacturing investment in the United Kingdom.

  Dr. Twinn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the latest projections for the growth of manufacturing investment in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Janman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the latest projections for the growth of manufacturing investment in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Major
  I refer my hon. Friends to the answer I gave to an earlier question from my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt).

  Privatisation
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the extent of the state-owned commercial sector which has been transferred to the private sector since 1979.

  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the extent of the state-owned commercial sector which has been transferred to the private sector since 1979.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  I refer my hon. Friends to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill).

  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the proposed privatisation of nationalised companies in the financial year 1988–89.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The Government have announced their intention to privatise the water and electricity industries and British Steel. There may also be other privatisation sales in this Parliament. No decision has been taken yet on the timing of sales.

  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the extent of the state-owned commercial sector which has been transferred to the private sector since 1979.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer my right hon. Friend the Chancellor gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill).

  CBI
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he last met the director-general of the Confederation of British Industry to discuss economic prospects.
  338
  Mr. Major
  My right hon. Friend last met the director-general of the CBI at the meeting of the National Economic Development Council on 13 January 1988.

  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he last met the director-general of the Confederation of British Industry to discuss economic prospects.

  Mr. Major
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor last met the director-general of the CBI at the meeting of the National Economic Development Council on 13 January 1988.

  British Banks (Developing Countries)
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his policy on tax relief for British banks on their operations in developing countries.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his policy on tax relief for British banks on their operations in developing countries.

  Mr. Holland
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his policy on tax relief for British banks on their operations in developing countries.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  British banks operating in developing countries qualify for tax relief under general tax law under the same criteria as other traders.

  Electricity Prices
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate of the(a) deflationary impact on economic activity and (b) the inflationary impact on prices of the proposed increases in electricity prices.

  Mr. Major
  Subject to the decisions of the area boards, the likely increases in electricity prices will add directly about ¼ per cent. to the level of the RPI. Calculating the net impact on activity and inflation would require the simulation of an economic model, and it has not been the practice to publish such estimates.

  New Zealand Finance Minister
  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he next expects to meet the Finance Minister of New Zealand.

  Mr. Lilley
  The Chancellor meets the Finance Minister of New Zealand from time to time.

  Gross Domestic Product
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give the latest figures for the growth of gross domestic product over the past year.

  Mr. Irvine
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give the latest figures for the growth of gross domestic product over the past year.

  Mr. Major
  I refer my hon. Friends to the answer I gave on 5 February at column 785 to my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett).

  Dr. Reid
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the level of public investment as a proportion of gross domestic product.
  339
  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the level of public investment as a proportion of gross domestic product.

  Mr. Major
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson).

  Government Departments (Relocation)
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any costings have been undertaken by his Department of the likely saving from the relocation out of London of public bodies, including divisions of Government Departments; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brooke
  The responsibility for undertaking costings for relocation of activities out of London lies with the Department or public body concerned. With regard to a statement, I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I provided to the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram) on 18 January 1988 at columns 475–76.

  Government Expenditure
  Dr. Michael Clark
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will indicate Government expenditure per head of the electorate in(a) Scotland and (b) England and Wales in 1979 and the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Major
  The table shows identifiable public expenditure per head of the electorate:

  £ per head of the electorate

  1979–80

  1986–87

  Scotland

  1,804

  3,235

  England and Wales

  1,421

  2,591

  The figures for the two years are not directly comparable because of changes in definition which have taken place between different public expenditure White Papers.

  Forestry
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the annual cost of tax reliefs on forestry.

  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the annual cost of tax reliefs on forestry.

  Mr. Galloway
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the annual cost of tax reliefs on forestry.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The income tax forgone is currently estimated at some £10 million. No information on which to base an estimate of the cost of capital tax reliefs is available.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received seeking a change in the taxation rules relating to forestry development.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) on 18 January at column 470.

  Relative Prices
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has any plans to change the extent to which the impact of relative prices is assessed in the public expenditure White Paper.

  Mr. Major
  I have no such plans at present. However, the possibility of including information on relative prices in the White Paper has been discussed in the Treasury and Civil Service Committee and the Government will consider carefully any recommendations the Committee may make on the subject.

  Inheritance Tax
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the revenue to be raised from inheritance tax in 1987–88.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the revenue to be raised from inheritance tax in 1987–88.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  £1,050 million.

  Merchant Shipping
  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what fiscal measures he intends to take to prevent the further decline of the merchant shipping fleet.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  My hon. Friend will understand that I cannot anticipate the Chancellor's Budget statement.

  Council of Ministers
  Mr. David Knox
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he next proposes to have discussions with the European Community Council of Ministers about European monetary matters.

  Mr. Lilley
  The next meeting of the European Community's Council of Economic and Finance Ministers is expected to be on 7 March. The agenda for that meeting has not yet been decided.

  Personal Equity Plans
  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the number of personal equity plans entered into since the commencement of the scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  About 250,000 plans were started during 1987.

  Nurses (Pay)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what additions to the Government's expenditure plans for(a) the National Health Service and (b) other central Government services for 1988–89 and 1989–90 would require to be made if (i) nursing staff and (ii) other employees were to receive a pay increase of 20 per cent.

  Mr. Major
  Departments are generally expected to contain the costs of any pay increases within the published plans. The Government will consider the financing of pay increases for nurses when the report of the nurses pay review body has been received.

  Public Expenditure
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assumptions about pay levels for(a) nursing and (b) Civil Service staff are made in the Government's expenditure plans for 1988–89.

  Mr. Allan Roberts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what account he has taken, in drawing up his expenditure plans for(a) the National Health Service and (b) central Government expenditure for 1988–89 of the provision of funds for (i) the pay award for nurses and (ii) public sector pay generally.

  Mr. Major
  The Government do not make a central pay assumption.

  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy to increase the planned expenditure on(a) hospital and (b) all Government services for 1988–89 and 1989–90.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in the light of representations received, he intends to increase the resources in his published expenditure plans for 1988–89(a) for the National Health Service and (b) for Government expenditure generally.

  Mr. Major
  I refer the hon. Members to the answer I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley).

  Expenditure
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the current estimate of underspend for 1987–88.

  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the expected outturn for 1987–88.

  Mr. Major
  The latest estimated outturn for the planning total in 1987–88 is £147·3 billion as set out in the 1988 public expenditure White Paper.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what will be the percentage increase in spending on(a) hospital and (b) all central Government services between 1988–89 and 1989–90.

  Mr. Major
  Health figures for the United Kingdom are shown in table 2.7 of volume I of the 1988 public expenditure White Paper. The table shows increases between 1988–89 and 1989–90 of about 4½ per cent. for hospital and community health services and about 5 per cent. for the National Health Service as a whole. The overall increase in central Government spending between 1988–89 and 1989–90 is planned to be about 5¼ per cent.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy to increase planned expenditure on(a) the National Health Service and (b) all Government expenditure in the years 1988–89 to 1990–91.

  Mr. Major
  The Government have announced increases in public spending in total and on the National Health Service. The latest plans are set out in "The Government's Expenditure Plans 1988–89 to 1990–91" (Cm. 288). These plans will be reviewed in the normal way in the annual public expenditure survey.
  342
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received in relation to his recently published expenditure plans for(a) education spending and (b) Government expenditure generally.

  Mr. Major
  The White Paper plans, and the increased provision they include for education, have been widely welcomed.

  Hospital Radio Broadcasting Equipment (VAT)
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what further representations he has received seeking zero rating of value added tax for hospital radio broadcasting equipment.

  Mr. Lilley
  My right hon. Friend has received no further representations since the reply I gave to my hon. Friend on 27 November at column 129.

  Job Creation
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received seeking the inclusion in his Budget of measures designed to reduce unemployment.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  My right hon. Friend has received a number of representations covering a variety of proposals, but relatively few have mentioned unemployment.

  Taxation
  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by how much in real terms the average annual tax payment of someone earning £50,000 has reduced in the past eight years.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The tax liability of a married man earning £50,000 per year with no allowances or reliefs other than the married man's allowance is £4,880 less in 1987–88 than it would be if the 1978–79 tax regime had been retained and indexed by the statutory formula to 1987–88. This is a reduction of one-fifth.

  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many representations he has received during the past 12 months urging him to increase the level of taxation.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Of the large number of representations my right hon. Friend has received, only a small number support an increase in the level of taxation.

  Companies (Profitability)
  Mr. Roger King
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the level of profitability in British companies.

  Mr. Major
  The profitability of non-oil industrial and commercial companies has increased in each of the past six years: the best performance for a generation.

  Income Tax Returns
  Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has any plans to revise the format of an income tax return.
  343
  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Following its computerisation programmes for both self-employed taxpayers and employees, the Inland Revenue has over several years altered the layout of its tax returns for individuals so that they may be addressed and issued by machine. The last returns affected were those for issue on or after 6 April 1987. No further amendments are planned but the returns are reviewed annually as a matter of course following the passage of the Finance Bill.

  Public Investment
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the level of public investment as a proportion of gross domestic product.

  Mr. Major
  In 1987–88 public sector capital spending, as defined in table 2.10 of volume I of the 1988 public expenditure White Paper, is estimated to be about 5½ per cent. of gross domestic product.

  Taxation Revenue
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the revenue raised from higher rates of tax in 1987–88.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The total tax liability resulting from the difference between the higher rates of income tax and the basic rate is estimated to be £3·1 billion in 1987–88.

  Wages and Salaries
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of the expenditure proposed for(a) hospital services and (b) other central Government services in the plans for 1988–89 to 1990–91 is calculated to account for wages and salaries.

  Mr. Major
  The Government do not have a central pay assumption.

  Confectionery
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if Her Majesty's Customs and Excise have completed their review of the current borderline between standard rated and zero rated confectionery.

  Mr. Lilley
  No.

  Harvest Chewy Bars
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the cost to Her Majesty's Customs and Excise of seeking to levy value added tax on Harvest Chewy Bars.

  Mr. Lilley
  I regret that this information is not yet available.

  Special Car Tax
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the implications of EEC fiscal harmonisation for the United Kingdom special car tax; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 10 February 1988]: The European Commission's package of proposals as currently
  344
  drafted make no provision for the continuation of car tax in its current form. The proposals have been submitted by ECOFIN to the Economic Policy Committee for consideration of their implications. They cannot be adopted without the unanimous agreement of the Governments of member states.

ENERGY

  NUM (Meeting)
  Mr. Eadie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will publish in the Offical Report the text of his reply to the request from the general secretary of the National Union of Mineworkers for a meeting with him.

  Mr. Parkinson
  I understand that the general secretary of the National Union of Mineworkers has said that he and the president asked for a meeting when I took office. Neither I nor my Department have any record of such a request and I have written to the general secretary asking for further details.

  UDM (Meetings)
  Mr. Eadie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy on what dates he or his representatives have met the leaders of the Union of Democratic Mineworkers.

  Mr. Parkinson
  Energy Ministers meet leaders of the Union of Democratic Mineworkers from time to time to discuss matters of mutual interest.

  Deep-mined Coal (Subsidies)
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will publish the average level of Government subsidy per tonne of deep-mined coal in each year since 1973(a) for each of the United Kingdom coal fields, (b) for England, (c) for Wales, (d) for Scotland and (e) for the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Government grants accrued in British Coal's accounts in each year since 1978-/79 are set out in the table:

  Year

  Government Grants

  Deep-mined Production

  Grant per tonne

  £ million

  million tonnes

  £/tonne

  1978–79

  172

  107·8

  1·60

  1979–80

  251

  109·3

  2·30

  1980–81

  254

  110·3

  2·30

  1981–82

  575

  108·9

  5·28

  1982–83

  520

  104·9

  4·96

  1983–84

  1,145

  90·1

  12·71

  1984–85

  2,414

  27·7

  87·15

  1985–86

  563

  88·4

  6·37

  1986–87

  882

  88·0

  10·02

  Grants are not given to specific areas or coalfields, so it is not possible to provide the other information requested.

  Power Stations (Environmental Import)
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what are the implications for(a) the Sizewell B pressurised water reactor project, (b) the proposed Hinkley C pressurised water reactor project, (c) the proposed European demonstration reprocessing plant at

  345
  Dounreay, (d) the thermal oxide reprocessing plant at Sellafield, (e) the planned coal-fired power station at Fawley, (f) the proposed Severn barrage tidal energy project and (g) any plans for a nuclear waste repository chosen by Nirex, of the new EEC regulation for environmental impact assessments, due to come into force on 3 July.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The sole purpose of the EC directive is to ensure that as from 3 July 1988 the environmental implications of major new developments are carefully examined in a fashion consistent throughout the Community, before consent is given to their construction. Such assessments have been undertaken for major energy developments, including those referred to by the hon. Member, in the United Kingdom for many years within the framework of planning law. Existing procedures will be brought into line with the directive's requirements. These will apply to developments for which planning or other consent is sought after 3 July. The directive does not apply to planning or consent applications submitted before that date.

  Nuclear Power Stations
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his policy towards the provision of funds to objectors and section 34 parties at the forthcoming public inquiry into Central Electricity Generating Board plans to build a pressurised water nuclear reactor at Hinkley Point C.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The Select Committee on Energy's recent report on the Electricity Generating Stations and Overhead Lines (Inquiries Procedure) Rules 1987 raised the issue of funding for objectors at public inquiries. The Government will respond to this report as soon as possible. The hon. Member will know that the Government have hitherto taken the view that the funding of the objectors would not improve the efficiency of public inquiries.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he has any plans to commission a public opinion survey of national and regional acceptance of nuclear station siting in the United Kingdom, in the light of the recently published study by the Health and Safety Executive on the tolerability of risks from nuclear power stations.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  No. The Health and Safety Executive have produced a careful study, on which the Health and Safety Commission have invited considered comments.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make it his policy to invite the International Atomic Energy Agency operational review safety team to(a) review the technical necessity and (b) be present at any future experimental test at a Magnox reactor of the type presently postponed at Trawsfynydd.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  We fully support the development of the International Atomic Energy Agency's OSART missions. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has invited the agency to send such a mission to visit a United Kingdom nuclear plant. Details will be announced in due course. However, the objectives of OSART missions do not include the examination of specific porposals for tests, which are a matter between the plant operators and the regulatory authority.
  346
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make it his policy to be present at any future experimental test at a Magnox plant of the type presently postponed at Trawsfynydd.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I would consider at the time if there was any advantage to my being present at such a test.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will seek to obtain for his departmental library transcripts of the three BBC2 "Brass Tacks" programmes on nuclear power, broadcast in October 1987.

  Mr. Parkinson
  No.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what information he possesses on the resolution and vote in the European Parliament on 21 January on the proposed Central Electricity Generating Board experimental test at the Trawsfynydd Magnox reactor.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I am arranging for a copy of the text of the resolution to be placed in the Library of the House. It was carried by a majority of 24.

  Pit Closures
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many pits have closed in each year since 1979; what was the location and name of each pit; how many jobs were lost as a result of each closure; and what was the profit of loss of each pit closed in the year prior to closure.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  This is a matter for British Coal and I have asked the chairman to write to the hon. Member.

  Combined Heat and Power Scheme (Edinburgh)
  Mr. Madel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the development of combined heat and power/district heating in Edinburgh.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  My Department has carefully considered the report prepared by the Edinburgh CHP consortium. I accept the consortium's judgment that the options they studied are insufficiently attractive economically to proceed without further substantial support from public funds.

  It is the Government's long-standing policy that combined heat and power-district heating schemes should be taken forward by the private sector. The consortium has been informed that under these circumstances, I am not prepared to meet their requests for further financial support.

SOCIAL SERVICES

  Child Benefit
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what would be the cost of increasing child benefit in line with the projected rate of inflation.

  Mr. Scott
  Increases in the rate of child benefit are not statutorily linked to movements in the retail prices index, but even for those benefits which are, the calculations are made on a "historical" and not a "projected" basis. If the current rate of child benefit were to be increased from April 1988 in line with the prices movement—over the
  347
  12 months to September 1987—used for uprating other benefits, the net additional cost for a full year would be £120 million.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what provision he has made in his public expenditure plans for additional funding to meet increased housing benefit costs arising from the proposed deregulation of the privately rented sector.

  Mr. Portillo
  The public expenditure plans published in Cm. 288 include provision for increased expenditure on housing benefit as a consequence of the Government's proposals to remove controls on new private lettings of some £10 million in 1988–89 rising to some £80 million at the end of the survey period. As explained in Cm. 288, the plans also allow for rents in the private sector to increase in real terms by 3 per cent. per year over the survey period.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will take urgent steps to pay housing benefit due to residents for part III accommodation in Wakefield metropolitan district council for 1985–86 and 1986–87; what has been the cause of the delay; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  The administration of the housing benefit scheme, including the payments of awards of benefit, is the responsibility of local authorities. The Department has, however, withheld subsidy payments to a number of local authorities, including Wakefield, in respect of awards of housing benefit made to residents of part III accommodation. This is because we need to be satisfied that local authorities dealt with such claims in accordance with the regulations and detailed information from each of the authorities concerned is now being considered. I regret the delay, but final decisions on settlement will be taken once this process has been completed, which will be done as quickly as possible.

  Social Work Training
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what assessment he has made of the progress being made towards the introduction of the new mode of social work training; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  Officials of this Department, in conjunction with those of the other Government Departments involved, are currently considering the proposals submitted by the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work in its publication "Care for Tomorrow". We expect to be in a position to respond to the proposals by the spring of this year.

  Special Payments
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what steps have been taken to ensure that disabled persons who are in receipt of two allowances through a combined order book will receive the £8 special payment on each allowance.

  Mr. Scott
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) on 2 February, at column 591.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether leaflet N 1262 issued to indicate the 348
  benefits which attract the £8 special payment took account of those people who receive more than one benefit through a combined order book.

  Mr. Scott
  The leaflet was designed to provide basic information to everyone qualifying for a special payment. There is a limit to the amount of detailed information that can be included in a leaflet of this kind, and a balance had to be struck. The leaflet did, however, make it clear that anyone needing further information should contact the Department.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many severely disabled people in the United Kingdom currently receive more than one benefit through the use of a combined order book.

  Mr. Nicholas Scott
  I regret that the information requested is not available.

  Ambulance Services
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list by categories the amounts raised by the ambulance services collectively from third parties in the last financial year.

  Mrs. Currie
  The summarised accounts of health authorities in England for 1986–87 record income in total only from charges to third parties for the non-national Health Service use of ambulance services as £340,263.

  This does not, however, include a small element in respect of ambulance services within the income arising from the provision of services to private health care establishments and private patients (totalling £1,490,424 in 1986–87) which health authorities are required to account for as income under section 58 of the National Health Service Act 1977.

  Supplementary Benefit (Caseload)
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list the supplementary benefit caseloads in terms of (i) pensioners, (ii) unemployed claimants paid through unemployment benefit offices and (iii) other supplementary allowance cases(a) for each local office and (b) nationally, for the 32-week period ended on 7 April 1987.

  Mr. Portillo
  Information is not available in the precise form requested.

  A breakdown by claimant category and local office of the number of people receiving supplementary benefit on 10 February 1987 is available in the "Analysis of Supplementary Benefit Claimants as at 10 February and 28 July 1987", a copy of which is in the Library.

  The national totals for each category of claimant is as follows for 10 February:

  Numbers

  Pensioners

  1,683,580

  Unemployed claimants paid through unemployment benefit offices

  2,069,962

  Other supplementary allowance cases

  1,465,560

  Source: 100 per cent. count of cases in action at 10 February 1987.

  Dental and Sight Test Charges
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what information he has as to which countries in the EEC charge for(a) dental check-ups and (b) sight tests.

  Mr. Newton
  I regret that the information available to the Department on optical and dental charges in European Community Countries is insufficient to provide the details requested.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what statement or other evidence he has that charges will not deter people from having sight tests.

  Mr. Newton
  The effect of the Government's proposals is necessarily a matter of judgment, especially since it would be for opticians themselves to determine the level of any charges for those ceasing to be entitled to a free NHS sight test. But it is relevant to note that approximately a third of the population would continue to be so entitled, including the least well-off, and that most people who have a test need spectacles and there is no evidence that they have been deterred from attending the optician by the price of private spectacles.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what statistical evidence he has on the relationship between charges and the take-up of dental treatment.

  Mrs. Currie
  After an increase in dental charges there is evidence of a short-term drop in demand, followed by a recovery and a continuation of the long-term rise in the number of courses of dental treatment.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) how many representations he has now received on his proposal to introduce a charge for eye examinations; what proportion were in favour of charges; and what proportion were against charges;

  (2) how many representations he has now received on ending free dental checks; and what proportion were in favour of introducing a charge.

  Mr. Newton
  We have now received about 1,500 representations on the proposals to restrict the NHS sight test to certain groups and to introduce a charge for the NHS dental examinations subject to the same exemptions as for other dental charges. Concerning the balance of these representations, I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) on 11 January, at column 181.

  Hospital and Community Health Service
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what was the share of gross national product represented by the hospital and community health service budget, adjusted by the hospital and community health service pay and price index, in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Newton
  The table shows the available figures. Deflators of whatever kind are not appropriate to this calculation since each figure represents one cash sum expressed as a percentage of another in the same year.
  350

  Gross expenditure on the NHS and HCHS as a percentage of GDP

  Year

  NHS

  1 2HCHS

  1979

  4·8

  3—

  1980

  5·3

  44·2

  1981

  5·5

  4·3

  1982

  5·4

  4·2

  1983

  5·7

  4·5

  1984

  5·5

  4·2

  1985

  5·4

  4·2

  1986

  5·5

  4·3

  1 Including expenditure on central health and miscellaneous services (separate figures for United Kingdom not readily available).

  2 The adjustment from financial year data to calendar year has been estimated using Departmental records.

  3 Comparable data for 1979 are not readily available.

  4 Estimated.

  Health Service Funding
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will publish the findings of the review of Health Service funding conducted by his Department between 1981 and 1982.

  Mr. Moore
  The preliminary survey carried out during 1981–82 into methods of health financing was confidential advice to Ministers. In consequence, as reported to the Select Committee on Social Services ("Reply by the Government to the Second Report from the Select Committee on Social Services", Session 1981–82 Cmnd. 8775 page 8), it will not be made available outside Government.

  Research
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) what proposals he has to change the contractual agreements between his Department and scientists and social scientists relating to the publication of results obtained in the course of research undertaken on behalf of his Department;

  (2) what restrictions are presently imposed upon the publication of results by persons contracted to undertake research on behalf of his Department.

  Mrs. Currie
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price) on 1 December 1987, at column 562.

  Earnings (Jury Service)
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what consideration he is giving to changing the regulations concerning the non-recognition of jury service payments for average pay calculations in order to permit jury allowance to be taken into account for average earnings purposes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  None. I assume the hon. Member is referring to the calculations used in establishing entitlement to statutory sick pay (SSP). Payments for jury service are not part of an employee's normal weekly earnings, nor do they attract liability for national insurance contributions. Such payments do not count, therefore, in the calculation of average weekly earnings for SSP.

  Abortion
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services why the information on the identity of doctors carrying out abortions in private sector places approved under the Abortion Act is confidential.

  Mr. Newton
  The detail of a person's employment in this field is information which some individuals may not wish to be made publicly available. The Department respects this and treats all such information as confidential. I see no reason to change our practice in this respect.

  Airline Passengers (Smoking)
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what information he has about the effects on the health of those non-smoking airline passengers obliged to occupy smoking seats.

  Mrs. Currie
  It is not possible to quantify separately the risk arising from particular episodes. However, the Independent Scientific Committee on Smoking and Health has concluded that there is evidence to link passive smoking with exacerbation of respiratory and cardiovascular symptoms in non-smokers, and that over an extended period exposure to passive smoking is consistent with an increase of between 10 and 30 per cent. in the risk of lung cancer. Non-smokers who are dissatisfied with facilities provided for their comfort when travelling should complain to the company concerned.

  Departmental Offices (Staffing)
  Ms. Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give the staffing allocations for 1988–89 as determined by the agreed complementing system, for his Department's offices in Hackney, Stoke Newington, Shoreditch, Hoxton and Finsbury Park; and what were the comparable staffing levels in 1986–87 and 1987–88.

  Mr. Portillo
  Staffing allocations for the year 1988–89 have yet to be finally determined. It is expected that details will be available in March 1988.

  The information requested for the previous two years is as follows:

  1986–87

  1987–88

  Hackney ILO

  195

  210·5

  Stoke Newington ILO

  135

  141·5

  Shoreditch AO

  88

  95·5

  Hoxton ILO

  149

  163·0

  Finsbury Park ILO

  210

  224·0

  Abbreviations:

  ILO = Integrated Local Office.

  AO = Area Office.

  Income Support
  Ms. Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will report progress on the conversion of supplementary benefit cases to income support at his Department's offices in Hackney, Stoke Newington, Shoreditch, Hoxton and Finsbury; what percentage of cases have to date been converted; what is his Department's estimate of the percentage of cases at each office that will be converted by 11 April; and when his Department's staff in each office expect to have finished the conversion exercise.
  352
  Mr. Portillo
  We plan to complete the conversion of supplementary benefit cases to income support by 11 April in all the offices mentioned although we recognise that there is stil a great deal to be clone. The percentage of cases converted by 26 January (the latest information available) in each of these offices was:

  Office

  Percentage

  Hackney ILO

  26

  Stoke Newington ILO

  38

  Shoreditch AO

  18

  Hoxton ILO

  39

  Finsbury Park ILO

  16

  Additional staff are working at Shoreditch AO and Finsbury Park ILO to assist them with conversion of cases.

  Prescriptions (Drugs)
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what he estimates would be the cost to the National Health Service if hospital doctors prescribed brand name drugs, after the patent period had expired, rather than generic drugs.

  Mr. Newton
  Substitution of generic equivalents for brand name drugs is common practice in National Health Service hospitals. Where a generic equivalent is available hospital pharmacists and doctors carefully evaluate its suitability for use instead of the brand name product.

  Figures for the increased costs which health authorities would incur if brand name drugs were used exclusively are not held centrally.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what he estimates would be the saving to the National Health Service if all general practitioners prescribed generic drugs rather than brand name drugs, after the patent period.

  Mr. Newton
  It is estimated that if all general practitioners were to prescribe drugs generically the savings, assuming no change to prescribing patterns or mix or cost of drugs, would be in the region of £35 million in England.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what evidence he has that general practitioners are increasingly prescribing generic drugs rather than brand name drugs, after the patent period.

  Mr. Newton
  Statistics derived from prescriptions for drugs dispensed by community pharmacists show that the percentage of prescriptions written and dispensed generically in England has risen from 15 per cent. in 1976 to 28 per cent. in 1986.

  Management Consultants
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what was the total expenditure by his Department on management consultants on health matters each year since the introduction of general management in 1984.

  Mr. Newton
  The expenditure by the Department in 1984–85, 1985–86, 1986–87 and the estimated expenditure for 1987–88 on fees and expenses for outside consultants on health matters are as follows:
  353

  £ million

  1984–85

  0·911

  1985–86

  1·700

  1986–87

  4·525

  1987–88

  14·845

  1 Estimated.

  The figures are approximate. In some cases expenditure has been apportioned where consultants have been employed on both health and social security matters. The figures include social services consultancy.

  NHS (Performance Indicators)
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services upon what date a copy of the new National Health Service performance indicators for 1986–87 will be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Newton
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply to him on 17 December 1987, at column 709. The national set of performance indicators for 1986–87 will now be completed by the end of February 1988 ready for issue to all health authorities in England in March 1988; they will be placed in the Library at the same time.

  GPs (Postgraduate Educational Allowance)
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if the programme of regular education and training which general practitioners must undertake to qualify for the new postgraduate educational allowance is relevant to general practice; and if the programme's content will be approved by the Royal College of General Practitioners.

  Mr. Newton
  Relevance to general practice will be a key feature of courses qualifying for the new postgraduate educational allowance announced in the White Paper "Promoting Better Health". No decisions have been made about this new allowance. The detail will be discussed with the family doctors' representatives, the General Medical Services Committee during the coming year. The views of the Royal College of General Practitioners will be an essential part of our consideration of this issue.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many companies or individuals were prosecuted during 1985 and 1986 by his Department for non-payment of national insurance contributions on behalf of their employees.

  NHS staff in post: Liverpool district health authority at 30 September

  Whole-time equivalent1

  Staff group

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Medical2

  560

  580

  550

  560

  540

  Nursing3

  5,160

  4,960

  4,780

  4,780

  4,920

  Midwifery3

  230

  260

  270

  290

  290

  Administrative and Clerical

  1,360

  1,330

  1,350

  1,290

  1,310

  Ancillary4

  2,630

  2,490

  2,320

  2,190

  1,860

  Source: DHSS annual census of NHS medical and non-medical manpower.

  1 Figures are independently rounded to the nearest ten (10) whole-time equivalents.

  354
  Mr. Portillo
  Both criminal and civil proceedings are used to recover class 1 national insurance contributions which have not been paid by employers. The numbers of court proceedings involving individuals and companies were as follows:

  1985

  1986

  Criminal Proceedings

  17

  14

  Civil Proceedings

  1,196

  1,482

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how much has been expended by his Department since 1979 on national insurance credits in cases where deductions had been made by employers but then not passed on.

  Mr. Portillo
  I regret that the information requested is not available.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the national insurance contribution per year of a person on average earnings.

  Mr. Portillo
  In 1988–89 a person on average earnings is expected to earn £175 per week and will therefore contribute £15·75 per week if not contracted out of the state earnings related pension scheme (SERPS) and £13·07 per week if contracted out of SERPS. A person receiving £175 during each week in 1988–89, will pay £819 in contributions if not contracted out, and £679·64 if contracted out, on the basis of 52 weekly payments.

  Medical Personnel (Liverpool)
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many(a) nurses, (b) midwives, (c) doctors (d) professional medical staff, (e) administrative officers and (f) ancillary workers were employed by the Liverpool health authority in each of the last six years; and what was the average yearly pay for each group in each year.

  Mr. Newton
  [holding answer 11 January 1988]: Because of the 1982 National Health Service reorganisation, figures on a consistent basis are not held for the years prior to 1982. The figures for medical staff excludes senior registrars whose contracts are held by the regional health authority. The district health authority where those staff actually work cannot be identified separately. There will therefore be more doctors working in the Liverpool health authority than are accounted for in the table.

  Information on the pay of NHS staff in individual health authorities is not collected centrally and the hon. Member may care to contact the chairman of the Liverpool health authority for this information.
  355

  2 Includes permanent paid, honorary and locum staff. Excludes senior registrars—these staff have their contracts with the regional health authority.

  3 Includes agency staff.

  4 On 1 April 1984 operating department assistants transferred from ancillary to professionsl and technical staff group. Figures have not been adjusted to take account of this change.

TRANSPORT

  Rail Services (South-east)
  Mr. Bright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what has been the response from the British Railways Board to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on rail passenger services supplied by the board in the south-east of England; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Channon
  The British Railways Board has responded to the report and I have placed copies of its reply in the Library of the House. It shows that it has accepted all the Commission's recommendations, and sets out the action it intends to take. I have discussed the commission's report with Sir Robert Reid, and I welcome the board's positive response. I shall be monitoring BR's progress in following up the commission's recommendations and I shall make a further statement on this in the autumn.

  Our policy is that by improving its efficiency BR should provide its customers with an attractive and reliable service and at the same time reduce its call on the taxpayer. I believe the commission's findings show that we have got this right, but there is still room for improvement and I agree with the commission's view that investment will be needed on some routes to relieve overcrowding and cater for traffic growth. I have already approved some investment in new rolling stock on this basis and I am pleased to see that BR is investigating options to identify what further investment is required to meet the quality standards I have agreed with it. In deciding BR's future investment ceilings, the Government will take account of any additional requirements that are shown to be justified. The expenditure figures incorporated in the public expenditure White Paper already contain provision for much of the investment mentioned by the commission, including improvements to the south-eastern approaches to London. I am always happy to receive sensible proposals from BR for cost effective new projects.

  The report suggests that we clarify the purpose of the public service obligation grant (PSO) for Network SouthEast and whether it is directed at certain groups of passenger rather than others. The grant is not intended to distinguish between different groups of passenger. Its main purpose is to enable BR to provide essential services and to subsidise fares where that is the most cost-effective way of contributing to the relief of road congestion in the south-east. I shall be discussing with the board in the light of the MMC's report whether its current fares structure reflects both the purpose of subsidy and the proper allocation of costs.

  The commission has taken a close look at BR's employment practices and the report contains a number of recommendations. This is an important area for BR to tackle and one where I hope that swift and substantial progress can be made.

  Finally, I must comment on the commission's statement that the board has failed to meet its statutory requirement to break even on revenue account, taking one year with another. The Government do not accept this
  356
  conclusion. The statutory requirement allows for fluctuation between profit and loss in individual years. The period covered by this report includes the ASLEF strikes in 1982 and the miners' strike—both of which had serious "one-off" effects on the board's revenue—and the taking of substantial provisions for the restructuring of British Rail Engineering Ltd. The board has also now changed its accounting policies so that the contribution made by the substantial proceeds from property sales is, for the first time in the 1986–87 annual report and accounts, reflected in the profit and loss account. Over the longer term, the fluctuation between profit and loss has been in balance. I do not, therefore, accept that the board can be said to have failed to meet its statutory duty.

  We are grateful to the commission for this comprehensive and detailed report, which follows up its 1980 investigation into BR's London commuter services. I am sure that it will prove to be an equally effective stimulus for further improvements in the way BR runs its services in the south-east.

  M3-M27 Road Link
  Mr. Ward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give the dated of the public inquiries which have been held over the past 20 years into the route of the M3/M27 road link.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The following inquiries have been held into proposals for the sections of the M3 stated:

  March-April 1971

  Popham to Compton

  June-July 1972

  Compton to M27

  June 1976-June 1977

  Popham to Compton

  June-August 1985

  Bar End to M27

  June 1987-to date (re-opened inquiry)

  Bar End to Compton

  Winchester Bypass
  Mr. Ward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many accidents there have been on the Winchester bypass in each of the last 10 years, and what percentage of these involved heavy goods vehicles.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The number of recorded personal injury accidents on the A33 between Compton and Bar End in the last 10 years is as follows:

  Number of accidents

  Percentage involving HGVs over 3 tons

  1978

  15

  33

  1979

  22

  22

  1980

  23

  17

  1981

  20

  10

  1982

  19

  16

  1983

  12

  none

  1984

  26

  19

  1985

  25

  24

  1986

  27

  37

  1987 Jan-Nov

  28

  32

  Our proposals for improving this road are currently being considered at a public inquiry.

  Railway Property (Trespass)
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many legal actions for trespass on railway property were initiated by British Rail against fox hunts during 1986 and 1987.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  My Department has no figures readily available. These are detailed matters for the British Railways Board and the British Transport police.

  Car Ownership
  Mr Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what has been the growth in the last year in car ownership as expressed as a percentage of the adult population; what is the projected annual growth(a) nationally and (b) in Surrey; what recent census there has been of traffic on major roads and motorways in Surrey; and what is the density of major road traffic (i) nationally and (ii) in Surrey.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  In the year to December 1986 the number of cars per head of adult population increased by 3 per cent. both in Surrey and in Great Britain. At national level growth of between 18 and 27 per cent. is forecast between 1986 and 2000. Similar growth is expected for Surrey.

  In 1986 the estimated traffic flow on major roads was 25,500 vehicles per day in Surrey, compared with 11,000 in Great Britain as a whole. These estimates are based on the continuing national traffic census.

  Figures for the number of cars per adult in 1985 and 1986 are derived from Driver and Vehicle Licensing Centre records and from population estimates produced by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys. Figures for the number of cars at the end of 1987 will be available by end February.

  Forecasts of car ownership, expressed per head of total population are from the national road traffic forecasts for five-year periods to the year 2015 published by the Department.

  The Department's rotating census covers the whole major road network over a six-year period. Average daily flow on a link in the latest year is derived by scaling counts in earlier years using a factor derived at national level from repeated counts at a small number of sites.

  The average flow is obtained by weighting together flows on all links by their length.

  Air Misses
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many people in each of the last 10 years, passengers plus aircrew, have been at risk in serious air misses where, in the opinion of the Civil Aviation Authority, a collision would have resulted had one or both pilots not taken avoiding action without prior instructions to do so from air traffic control.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The information is not available.

  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether the inquiry which he has ordered in connection with his statement to the House on air misses on Monday 8 February,Official Report, column 21–24, has power to require the pilot of the Maley aircraft concerned to give evidence; and if he will make a statement.
  358
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The investigation into the air miss on 6 February involving a British Airways Tristar and a Bulgarian Balkan Airways TU154B was ordered by the Department's chief inspector of accidents, following a request from the chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority. The investigation is being carried out under the Civil Aviation (Investigation of Accidents) Regulations 1983, which give the inspector powers to examine all such persons as he thinks fit. Where witnesses are resident overseas reliance is placed on annex 13 to the Chicago convention on international civil aviation, which covers the investigation of accidents and incidents. The Bulgarian authorities have accepted an invitation to participate in this investigation in accordance with the provisions of annex 13.

  Economic League
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if his Department has made use of the services provided by the Economic League since 1979.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  No.

  Road Costs
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he is considering further action which will ensure that local authority expenditure allocations for road construction and repair will be used to their fullest extent.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Provision for new construction has not been underspent since transport supplementary grant was limited to roads capital expenditure in 1985–86. We shall be keeping the position under review.

  The recent substantial underspend on road maintenance is regrettable. We are looking to highway authorities to set budgets for 1988–89 which more closely reflect provision in the public expenditure survey. In the light of those budgets we shall consider whether further action is necessary and might be effective.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the amount of money made available for roads to(a) the Department of Transport and (b) local authorities in England and Wales for (i) capital expenditure and (ii) repairs; and what was the amount spent in each year from 1978 to 1987.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  [holding answer 10 February 1988]: The tables show provision and outturn for national roads (motorways and other trunk roads) and local roads in England. The Secretary of State for Wales is responsible for roads in Wales.

  (a) National Roads (Department of Transport)

  £ million cash

  Provision

  Outturn

  1978–79

  Capital

  377

  327

  Current

  —

  40

  1979–80

  Capital

  443

  402

  Current

  —

  45

  1980–81

  Capital

  536

  472

  359

  Provision

  Outturn

  Current

  —

  50

  1981–82

  Capital

  685

  557

  Current

  —

  69

  1982–83

  Capital

  739

  672

  Current

  —

  60

  1983–84

  Capital

  652

  641

  Current

  71

  64

  1984–85

  Capital

  724

  718

  Current

  7l

  78

  1985–86

  Capital

  741

  734

  Current

  75

  77

  1986–87

  Capital

  812

  766

  Current

  81

  93

  1987–88

  Capital

  893

  ֵ

  Current

  83

  ֵ

  ֵ Not available.

  Notes:

  1. Capital expenditure covers new construction and improvement schemes and structural maintenance. Current expenditure covers routine maintenance of the network. (A different capital/current distinction applies to local roads expenditure.)

  2. Because of changes in the structure of the vote, for the years 1978–79 to 1982–83, an accurate allocation of the provision totals between capital and current cannot be made. Separate outturn figures are available.

  (b) Local Roads (Local Authorities)

  £ million cash

  Provision

  Outturn

  1978–79

  Capital

  n/a

  221

  Current

  477

  505

  1979–80

  Capital

  295

  293

  Current

  591

  575

  1980–81

  Capital

  318

  354

  Current

  708

  667

  360

  Provision

  Outturn

  1981–82

  Capital

  344

  308

  Current

  710

  793

  1982–83

  Capital

  410

  385

  Current

  799

  844

  1983–84

  Capital

  469

  437

  Current

  844

  877

  1984–85

  Capital

  482

  451

  Current

  902

  907

  1985–86

  Capital

  492

  522

  Current

  972

  963

  1986–87

  Capital

  523

  538

  Current

  1,115

  1,072

  1987–88

  Capital

  617

  n/a

  Current

  1,264

  1,117

  Notes:

  1. Capital expenditure covers new construction and improvement schemes only. Current expenditure covers all renewal (including structural) and routine maintenance plus road safety. (A different capital/maintenance distinction applies to national roads expenditure).

  2. Figures exclude urban programme and car parks.

  3. Outturns for 1986–87 remain provisional.

  4. Current outturn for 1987–88 is the total of local authority budgets.

  Consumer Policies
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made in implementing the Consumer Affairs Council resolution of 1986 on the integration of consumer policies on transport.

  Mr. Butcher
  I have been asked to reply.

  The European Commission has recently submitted its first report to the Council on the progress made towards better integration of consumer policy into other common policies including agriculture, competition, and transport, as requested by the Council resolution of 15 December 1986. A copy of the report is available in the Library (document 10541/87 of 14 December 1987). It is a disappointing report, recording little progress.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Carlisle): The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
Earl Granville Earl Granville—made the solemn Affirmation.

Appointments to the Table
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to make a statement about appointments to the Table of the House following the retirement of the Clerk Assistant, Mr. John Grey, next Easter. In accordance with the recent practice, the preliminary consultations have been carried out by the noble Lord the Leader of the House. I should emphasise to the House that these have been thorough and wide-ranging, as was recommended by the Lader's group, whose report in 1973 was endorsed by your Lordships' House. I am glad to say that the consultations have resulted in the clear recommendations that Mr. Michael Wheeler-Booth, the present Reading Clerk, should succeed Mr. Grey as Clerk Assistant and that Mr. Michael Davies should succeed Mr. Wheeler-Booth as Reading Clerk. It is proposed that these appointments should take effect at Easter and I shall be inviting the House to approve the necessary Motions at the appropriate time.

Health Education
3.2 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington: 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 further proposals they have to improve health education.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Skelmersdale): My Lords, in creating the Health Education Authority last April the Government have shown the high priority they place on developing health education further. The authority is undertaking a number of important education campaigns, including the national public awareness education campaign on AIDS. In addition we have taken steps to ensure that all regional health authorities incorporate a health education strategy into their service planning. We have made and will continue to make health education a standard item in ministerial reviews of regions' performance.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, will the Minister accept that there is a long-term net gain to the National Health Service from money spent on health education? I appreciate that in recent months
310
a certain amount of progress has been made in this matter, but does the Minister not agree that a great deal more needs to be done? In particular, can he encourage greater health education in schools and, equally important, in the workplace?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I entirely endorse the noble Lord's sentiments. We are particularly encouraged by the substantial increase in the number of health education officers employed by health authorities. It has risen from 250 in 1979 to more than 600 today.
As regards health education in schools, the consultation document on the national curriculum specifically refers to health education as one of the cross-curricular themes which can be taught through other subjects, and schools will be able to deliver a comprehensive programme of health education for their pupils. I take note of the noble Lord's point about health education in the workplace.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, bearing in mind the continuing drain on the resources of the National Health Service resulting from cigarette smoking, particulary among women and children, will the Government promise maximum support for National No Smoking Day on 9th March and for the first ever World Health Organisation World Non-Smoking Day on 7th April?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, yes, most certainly the Government will support to their utmost National No Smoking Day. We are disappointed that the level of cigarette smoking among adults has not declined as fast as it might, although I note that there has been a 1 per cent. drop in the last year. Clearly we should like it to be more than that.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it would be a good idea to ask the many voluntary organisations such as the Women's Institute and the Townswomen's Guild to help with this mammoth task, particularly in the light of the rising problems of addictions of all kinds, and to encourage healthy eating?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, yes, most certainly. The Health Education Authority is in control of this matter. It produces publications which are issued to the health education officers to whom I referred earlier, plus the health education officials within district health authorities.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, can the Minister inform me whether there still exists provision for recruitment in health education, because surely there is a great need for further recruitment within the nursing and medical professions? In the past films were used. Can the Minister say whether that facility can still be funded through the Health Education Council?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, as regards direct funding, I am not sure of the answer to my noble friend's question. However, all but two district health authorities now have health education officers whose job it is to disseminate health education information

311
into clinics, general practitioner surgeries and hospitals. It would be for them to carry out the necessary training of the medical and paramedical personnel therein.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, would not the most effective way to stop people smoking be to put £2 on a packet of cigarettes? Is my noble friend aware that if that were done people would live much longer and there would be an even bigger drain on the National Health Service?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I must confess that I speak with personal experience of this matter. Unfortunately, the addition of extra tax on cigarettes has not so far been found to be effective in stopping people smoking.
Lord Broxbourne: My Lords, by way of reinforcing exhortation with example, will my noble friend kindly urge the authorities which direct the administration of this House to reduce the number of ashtrays which are so liberally displayed?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, certainly a reduction in the number of ashtrays would help, but the trouble is that in many cases the carpets might suffer.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, would not a reduction in the number of ashtrays lead to another fire such as that which occured in 1834?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I think that we are entering the realms of hypothesis.
Baroness Lane-Fox: My Lords, is the Minister aware that we need to enrol the help of pupils in order to further the prevention of illness and disease? Does he agree that they are now so full of sophisticated knowledge about the physique which has been gained from various television programmes that in short, sharp lessons they could be taught a great deal that would greatly reduce the burden on the National Health Service in later years?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, yes, I certainly agree, but I am not sure about the short, sharp bursts. If that were so I should be recommending my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science to make it a core curriculum subject. I should have thought that short but wider-spread bursts would be more effective.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that when the Government abolished the Health Education Council, which had carried out splendid work, and constituted the Health Education Authority in its place, it became known as the "Minister's poodle"? How does he refute that accusation?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the Health Education Authority is an organisation at arm's length from government. It is able and powerful
312
enough to act in a way which any government would not particularly like.

Middle East: Peace Efforts
3.10 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 what steps they are taking to support international efforts to secure peace in the Middle East.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, we shall continue to support all efforts aimed at achieving a settlement of the Arab-Israeli dispute.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. I believe that we all ought to acknowledge the endeavours made by the Foreign Secretary and other Ministers. Does he not agree that there are in fact two flashpoints? One is the Iraq-Iran war. Iraq has signed and adhered to the United Nations resolution. However, the Gaza Strip in Israel is another serious area of trouble in the Middle East. Neither Iran nor Israel seem to be prepared to substitute the international conference table and stop the maiming and the slaying. Do the Government have any ideas on more strenuous efforts to bring all parties to the conference table?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the noble Lord is certainly right that an international conference would be a suitable framework for the necessary negotiations between the parties directly concerned. As an idea that enjoys wide support. We are in close touch with the parties and our partners in the Twelve, the United States and the Soviet Union. Indeed, we greatly welcome the renewed United States' engagement in this matter which is of course a vital ingredient. As for the Gulf, we continue to support the implementation of Security Council Resolution 598.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is it not the case that at the present time the European Community and the United States are pursuing separate and slightly different initiatives? Is it not desirable to co-ordinate the activities of the European Community and the United States? What steps are the Government taking to achieve that?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I have just referred to the renewed United States' engagement in this matter. We are keeping in close touch. Assistant Under-Secretary Murphy met my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on 5th February. We look forward to hearing the outcome of Mr. Murphy's current contacts in that region. That is a positive step forward.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, it is probably my fault that the noble Lord has not answered my

313
question. Is he not aware that the European Community is working for an international conference to discuss these matters, which would include the United States and the Soviet Union; whereas the United States, in the person of Mr. Murphy, is working towards a different aim; namely, the Camp David agreement? Which of these policies are Her Majesty's Government supporting at present? Is it not important that these activities should be co-ordinated'?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, yes, it is important that where possible co-ordination should be achieved. However, there is no question of supporting or rejecting any proposals at this stage. There are many details still to be worked out so far as the proposed international conference is concerned and it is for the parties themselves to reach agreement on whether the initiative represents a sound basis for progress.
The United States' proposals provide for a conference to launch the negotiations by way of possible transitional arrangements. As I have said, when we hear more of the visit of Mr. Murphy to the region we may be able to consult further.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, have the Government urged upon the United States that they should now work for an international conference at which both superpowers should be present? Have they also urged upon the United States that they should now reduce their ultra-lavish support of the state and armed forces of Israel in line with their recent condemnation of Israeli actions?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, as I said, we keep in close contact on this matter. In the light of the visit which is taking place at the moment, it is important that we should consult and hear the views of Mr. Murphy when he comes back. However, I take note of the noble Lord's point.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, having been thrown out of the Middle East, first by the Israelis and then by the Egyptians, should it not be our preferred policy to stay at home and mind our own business?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, it is certainly important. However, it is for the parties themselves to reach agreement on whether the various initiatives which have been suggested represent a sound basis for progress.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I welcome unreservedly the pledge of the Minister that the Government are supporting the concept of an international conference. Is the Minister aware that at the moment there are people who support the concept of a conference in Israel with the supporters of Mr. Peres in Jordan, Syria, Iraq and Egypt? Can the Government use their diplomatic ability to encourage this widespread move towards the achievement of a conference which could lead to a totally new era in the Middle East?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, we shall play our full role in support of any arrangements upon which the parties themselves can agree.
Lord Thomas of Gwydir: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, accepting the importance of an international conference, the most effective contribution that could be made in that sensitive part of the Middle East towards peace would be for those who purport to speak for the Palestinians to make it absolutely unequivocal that they recognise the State of Israel?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend has put his finger on a very good point. The issues which are involved are very complex and touch on the substance of the dispute itself. However, the important matter is for the parties concerned to work out mutually acceptable arrangements for any conference. It would be wrong to seek to dictate terms from the outside.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, is it not equally true that the Palestinian question will never be solved until the sense of grievous injustice which has been done to the Palestinian people over the past 40 years is rectified? Is not my noble friend aware that they have been driven out of their homes, driven off their land, bombed and shot? Fifty of them have been killed by Israeli soldiers using live ammunition in a riot condition which, if we had done that in Ireland, we would have the whole world down our necks. That is the state of behaviour in Israel that is not acceptable to civilised countries.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, we certainly deplore violence from whatever quarter. I think that it illustrates the dangers inherent in unresolved conflict and the urgency of searching for a peaceful settlement.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does not the Minister agree that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gwydir, has made a very vital point with which most people would agree and that the comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Paget of Northampton, ought to be supplanted by the poet's words that:
"Every man's death diminishes me"?
We are always conscious of everyone who is dying in the Gaza Strip, Israeli or Arab, and the same applies in Iran or Iraq. Our efforts must be to stop the war and press for further endeavours to arrange a conference to supplant what is happening and the tragedies that are occurring in the Middle East.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, as I have said, we shall continue to play our full part in support of any arrangements upon which the parties themselves can agree.

Anglo-French Defence Collaboration
3.19 p.m.
Lord Rodney: 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 is the current state of Anglo-French talks on defence procurement co-operation.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence has recently agreed with France to develop opportunities for industries in both countries to supply equipment competitively to both our Ministries of Defence, thus effectively building upon current collaboration.
Lord Rodney: My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister for that reassuring Answer. Can he reassure the House that no possible pressure from the United States might embarrass and possibly curtail this very welcome agreement between this country and France?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, this has nothing to do with the United States. It is an informal arrangement and the British and French Governments have agreed to establish a committee to consider a number of aspects of their defence relationship. There has already been one successful example as a result of that initiative.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether the Government have made any progress with the French Government concerning closer co-operation over nuclear defence?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, this particular arrangement is nothing to do with nuclear cooperation. The Anglo-French discussions covered a range of issues concerning this particular matter. There have also been talks covering nuclear technology and nuclear weaponry. The substance of what was discussed is confidential.
Lord Irving of Dartford: My Lords, in view of the Prime Minister's disapproval of the recent bilateral agreement between France and Germany, will the noble Lord say how the Government justify prospective defence collaboration with a non-NATO country and whether our NATO allies have been consulted in this matter?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the advantage of this sort of agreement is that money can be saved by preventing wasteful parallel developments taking place. As for consultation within NATO, I cannot give an answer to the noble Lord at the moment but I shall find out and advise him.

Public Transport Ticket Sales: Outlets
3.21 p.m.
Lord Gainford: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will encourage the wider availability of tickets for public transport through retail outlets such as newsagents and tobacconists.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, it is for the operators of public passenger transport services to decide what arrangements to make for the sale of their tickets, but the Government are pleased to note that such sensible arrangements are already widespread.
Lord Gainford: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. In view of the fact that we share so many ideas with the Continent of Europe, can my noble friend see any way of encouraging those in charge of transport services to make tickets available, as they are on the Continent, in places other than bus and railway stations? That would save a considerable amount of patience-straining and queuing at ticket offices.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, there are, of course, already extensive arrangements in London and elsewhere for the sale of travel cards through newsagents and so on. In addition, British Rail sell tickets in some local shops for local journeys in the provincial sector. Tickets are also available from travel agents.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, does not the Minister agree that the deregulation of buses makes this more difficult than it would otherwise have been?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: No, my Lords. One of the measures in the Transport Act 1985 was an amendment to the Post Offices Act which allowed the sale of tickets at post offices.
Lord Parry: My Lords, does not the Minister accept that there is evidence of an increasing use of local railway stations? People still use, and are increasingly using, trains. Those of us who use those services would be extremely reluctant to see any change in service brought about by the removal of the sale of tickets to private sources scattered around the area. Does not the Minister accept that the low level of staffing of railways stations may cause queues and that those jobs in the railway stations are vital to small communities?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I do not think that there is any question of tickets not being available for sale at stations; it is a question of where else tickets might be offered for sale if' that is convenient for passengers. I should point out that the objective set to British Rail last summer by my honourable friend the Minister of State for Transport was that there should be maximum queueing time at ticket offices of three minutes during off-peak periods and five minutes during peak periods.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, does the Minister recall that on 29th April we had a considerable exchange of supplementary questions arising from a main Question tabled by my noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton regarding the reduction of commission to travel agents? It would be interesting to hear from the Minister what has been the result because most people found that the supply of tickets from travel agencies was extremely useful.

317
Does not the Minister also agree that, if there is any arrangement for British Rail tickets to be obtained from, say, tobacconists, that would be useless unless those outlets also had time-tables to advise people accordingly. As regards London Regional Transport——
Noble Lords: Speech!
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I am not making a speech. As regards London Regional Transport, to which the Minister referred, has he considered the supply of a wodge of tickets for occasional users in order to save difficulties for drivers of one-person operated buses?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the noble Lord asked a number of questions. As far as I know, the matter relating to commission paid by BR to the travel agents was settled between the travel agents and British Rail. However, whether it was settled to the satisfaction of the travel agents I do not know. In any case, tickets are still available for sale at selected travel agents.
As regards the sale of passes by London Regional Transport and the one-person operated buses, tickets are extensively sold at newsagents and elsewhere in London. Taken with pensioners' passes and other concessionary tickets, nearly 70 per cent. of bus passengers now use passes as opposed to cash.

Business
3.26 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Committee stage of the Social Security Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7 p.m. for approximately one hour and that during this adjournment the Report stage of the Land Registration Bill will be taken.

Matrimonial Proceedings (Transfers) Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to empower the High Court to transfer to county courts certain matrimonial proceedings and to validate certain High Court orders purporting to transfer such proceedings to county courts 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. —[The Lord Chancellor.]
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Employment Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.
Harwich Harbour Bill [H.L.]
Read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee.
Imperial College Bill [H.L.]
Read a second time, and referred to the Examiners.

Business of the House: Debate, 24th February
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos set down for 24th February shall be limited to 5 hours and that Standing Order 35 and paragraphs 10 to 13 of the Rules for the Conduct of Short Debates shall apply to the debate with the substitution of "5 hours" for "2½ hours" and "25 minutes" for "20 minutes". —(Lord Belstead.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Local Government Bill
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Caithness, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:

Clauses 1 and 2,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 3 to 16,

Clause 32,

Schedule 6,

Clause 17,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 18 to 29,

Schedule 3,

Clause 30,

Schedule 4,

Clause 31,

Schedule 5,

Clauses 33 to 39,

Schedule 7.

—(Lord Hesketh.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Social Security Bill
3.28 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Skelmersdale.)
On Question, motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clause 4 [Income support and child benefit]:
On Question, Whether Clause 4, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Banks: I oppose the Question, That this clause stand part of the Bill and I do so for several reasons. I do so, first, because it turns the YTS into a compulsory scheme and the voluntary nature of the scheme was one of its basic principles. That principle was restated at a meeting of the Youth Training Board as recently as 9th July 1987. Moreover, Sir Bryan Nicholson, the former chairman of the Manpower Services Commission, wrote to Mr. Norman Fowler on behalf of the MSC on 23rd July 1987 in these terms:
"The Commission's position on this matter is clear. It has been repeated many times, most notably as one of the five principles of the design of the YTS, in our 1985 Report, The Development of the Youth Training Scheme. We have always recommended that this scheme should be one in which participation is voluntary, whether by the employer or the young person. That remains our view".
A similar view has been taken by the Institute of Careers Officers. The Confederation of British Industry has repeatedly expressed the view that YTS should be voluntary. The National Union of Students, the British Youth Council and Youth Aid have all taken a similar view that the scheme should be voluntary.
Secondly, the Bill goes much further than the expressed aim of the Government in their manifesto, which was to remove eligibility to benefit from those under 18 who deliberately choose to remain unemployed, in particular those who do not enter YTS. There is no evidence that this is a sizeable number. In recent times government research has shown that 91.1 per cent. of school-leavers would prefer to work than to be on benefit. In addition, regulations already exist to reduce the benefit of young people who unreasonably refuse the offer of a place with YTS or who leave early for no good reason.
On 4th March 1986 Mr. Tony Newton, speaking for the Government in another place, said about those who unreasonably refuse an offer to go on YTS or who leave early for no good reason, that the reduction of benefit was not lightly to be dismissed. At the time he was arguing against the sort of proposal which the Government are now making in the Bill.
At Second Reading I pointed out that between December 1983 and May 1987, 25,697 persons suffered a benefit deduction for voluntary unemployment. Of that number 23,453 were early leavers and only 2,244 had refused the offer of a place on YTS. During that period 1 million young people had entered YTS. In the age group which we are considering there are 1.4 million people.
It was those figures which led me to suggest that the Government were using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, argued that if there were so few, what harm could come from proceeding with the clause. It seems to me that he overlooked the fact that the clause is not only unnecessary but it also made YTS compulsory against the wishes of all the bodies to which I have referred. My case is that the present arrangements are adequate and do not have this undesirable effect. The Youth Task Group Report which set out the framework for YTS in 1982 stressed the importance of the safety net of supplementary benefit for its success.
320
Thirdly, I am concerned about the position of the 30,00 young people under the age of 18 who are currently studying for O and A-levels or vocational qualifications under the 21-hour and 12-hour rules. Those rules allow them to study for a limited period each week in return for an undertaking to abandon their course immediately and to take up a job if one is offered. It would appear that those arrangements will come to an end.
Fourthly, I am concerned about the complexity which will be a feature of the regulations prescribing the circumstances in which some young people can claim income support. Fifthly, I am unhappy about the definition of severe hardship, which is to be a reason why some young people will receive income support even though not originally entitled to it. I believe that there are bound to be many hard cases, many very difficult decisions and much less satisfaction as a consequence. I regret the absence of any appeal to a social security tribunal against decisions made in this connection.
The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, did not entirely convince me that the arrangements for dealing with the question of severe hardship at the DHSS will not lead to a certain consideration of degree. I feel that his estimate of the time that will be taken was very optimistic.
Sixthly, I regret the effective demotion of young unemployed people aged 16 and 17 to the status of dependants with their income coming entirely through their parents. For all these reasons I oppose the Question that Clause 4 stand part of the Bill.
Baroness Jeger: We support the amendment moved in the name of our noble friend—I hope I can say that—Lord Banks. We are all anxious to save the time of the Committee, so if I appear to be a little cursory it is not because of a lack of concern about this clause but because I believe it is very important, after all the discussion that has taken place, that we should move on and make a quick decision.
Ministers in both places have emphasised that this issue was in the Conservative Party manifesto and that that gives it some righteousness. Masochistic as ever, I have read the manifesto again. I find at page 32:
"We will take steps to ensure that those under 18 who deliberately choose to remain unemployed are not eligible for benefit. We will of course continue to protect other young peope such as those who suffer from disabilities".
Clause 4 goes far beyond that, because it concerns young people who may not have deliberately refused employment. They may be living in a remote area where there is no YTS available; they may have had a job after they left school at 16, worked until they were about 17 or 17½ and subsequently lost their job. There are all kinds of reasons why people under 18 are unemployed. It seems to me totally wrong that the Government should be, as it were, making a segregated section of our population.
Under Section 20 of the 1975 Social Security Act we have a provision whereby people who do not accept jobs can lose benefit. Surely that is the way to go about it. It seems to me that the Government are turning natural justice on its head. Instead of saying that these young people are innocent until they are

321
proved guilty of not taking jobs, they are saying that they are guilty until, because of various factors, they are proved innocent. That is the wrong way to go about it.
The other night a Minister said that he was going to make a list of people who would be excused from this rule. How will he check it? There was a long list of excuses including fear of being abused, fear of homelessness or family problems. But I ask the Minister, who is to police this? If a young person comes to the DHSS, asks for exemption under the rule which applies to the 16 to 18 year-olds and says "My father has remarried and I hate my stepmother who is abusing my little sister", who is going to follow that up? Is there to be a report to the police? Is there to be a reference to the overworked social welfare people in the town hall? How will he work out that long list?
The manifesto referred to disabled people. What degree of disablement is involved? The word "severe" is not used in the manifesto, but it is used in the Bill. Surely we want disabled people to work. We want them to feel able to work. It is not a very positive attitude for the Government to be suggesting that people who suffer through disability should be made to feel different from those without disability. During the International Year of Disabled Persons I was in America where a special stamp was issued which said "Disabled but not unabled". That is a much more positive attitude for the Government to take. We should not make young people feel different because of the circumstances of their families or of their health.
In the High Court last week there was a case about the long delays faced by people applying to the DHSS for supplementary benefit. I am appalled by the thought of the delays there will be if that overworked staff has to sort out all these young people between the ages of 16 and 18 who are on the various grants that the Minister has set out. Will there be the right of appeal? Willl young people be able to say that they ought to be given this special consideration because of their housing position or because of a marital break-up?
It would have been so much better to have done it the other way round by saying that, as has happened since 1946, after the age of 16 people are able to get unemployment benefit, and then invoke Section 20 of the 1975 Act and say, "You will not get it if you keep refusing a job". I have not had an answer from the Government as to why we are not keeping to that arrangement. We are turning the whole thing upside down. It is a departure from the tradition of British justice. These young people are to be told that they are guilty until they prove their innocence. Their innocence has to be proved within a set of regulations which the Government refuse to put into the Bill.
I said to the Minister the other night that if he was so anxious to make things easier, he should put these matters into the Bill so that young people have statutory rights to unemployment benefit. I gather that that has been refused by the Government. We are left with a clause which does not reflect the Conservative manifesto in detail, and does not provide for the difficult circumstances of many young
322
people between the ages of 16 and 18 who may have very many reasons for being out of work, for being homeless or for being in trouble. Therefore, because no amendment has been accepted by the Government, my noble friends and I must oppose the whole of the clause.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: The noble Lord, Lord Banks, was right when he said that the great majority of young people will not be affected by this clause because they will have the good sense to accept the possibilities and opportunities offered to them by the YTS, and will not choose voluntary unemployment. However, he went on to argue that because it would only be a minority of young people who if left to themselves would choose voluntary unemployment and financial support at the public expense, we should not legislate. I do not follow that argument.
The noble Lord will be aware that most legislation is designed to deal with the problems or the misdoings of quite small minorities. The whole of our criminal law deals with a limited number of people who seek to commit crimes. The vast majority of law abiding people are not affected by the criminal law. If one looks through the statute book, one sees that a great deal of our modern legislation is designed to deal with relatively small minorities. Therefore the fact that the numbers are fairly small—so we hope and believe—is no argument against the clause. Indeed, it seems to me to be an argument for it.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, referred to all the young people who would have to have their cases sorted out. She was plainly suggesting that there would be a great many of them. I hope therefore that the sponsors of the Motion that the clause should not stand part of the Bill will try to come to some reconciliation with each other. Are we talking, as the noble Lord, Lord Banks, suggests, of so small a number that it is not worth legislating for? Or are we, as the noble Baroness seems to suggest, dealing with very large numbers in respect of which the administration of the clause will give rise to great problems? The sponsors of the amendment cannot have it both ways. Either we are talking about a great many people, or we are talking of very few.
Surely the principle of the clause—this is the main issue when we are discussing whether the clause should stand part of the Bill—is a simple one. Does one believe that in the case of young people it should be open to them deliberately to choose to remain unemployed and draw benefit at the public expense?
Noble Lords: No!
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: That is what the clause is designed to deal with. I am glad to hear noble Lords opposite saying no. Very few of us would feel that it was right to leave that so, both on the general principle and also because when one is young few things can be more demoralising than unemployment; and voluntary unemployment is perhaps one degree worse. Indeed, noble Lords opposite, when they thought they were on to a good thing on the issue of unemployment, were often full of the most

323
eloquent speeches about the damaging effect, particularly on young people, of unemployment. Here is a measure designed to prevent voluntary unemployment among young people.
I should have thought that public opinion generally and the opinion of the party opposite should surely be that this is the right thing to do. When your Lordships remember that the allowances paid under the YTS are higher than the benefit which would be obtained were young people to remain unemployed, it is quite wrong to suggest that these young people are being treated badly. They are being offered not only training for a career, which must be important to them, but a higher rate of allowance than they would get if they stayed unemployed and relied on benefit. That is an important aspect of the matter.
I very much hope that the Committee will feel that Clause 4 should stand part of the Bill. I am bound to say that the words "Clause 4" must have a somewhat nostalgic ring to noble Lords opposite, particularly to the more senior of them, recalling the days when the late Mr. Gaitskell made his gallant if unsuccessful attempt to drag the Labour Party into the 20th century.
Baroness Jeger: Before the noble Lord sits down, as both sides of the Committee agree that we do not want to encourage young people to lay about, can he, with his long experience, which we all respect, say why that section of the 1975 Act is not adequate to deal with those who insist on being voluntarily unemployed?
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I can answer that question easily. If one uses the 1975 Act, one has to show that the person concerned has refused several offers of employment. Therefore, the matter will drag on for a long time. The person concerned will say, "Oh, I did not like that job, but hope another one will turn up" and so on, and will shilly-shally in that way. Furthermore, while the matter is dragging on, he will be drawing benefit. It is to prevent such a situation that the clause is necessary; in other words, the 1975 Act is no answer, quite apart from the administrative complications of which the noble Baroness spoke, that would be involved in following up case after case of refusals of employment with all the arguments that can be adduced as to why any particular employment was not attractive to the person concerned.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: I am afraid that the clause does a lot more than that. If the clause merely prevented people from choosing voluntarily to be unemployed, I should not oppose it; but the clause has failed to take two important matters into account: the degree to which 16 year-olds and 17 year-olds are estranged from their parents and the homelessness that results therefrom. It is because the Bill has failed to take those factors into account that we must ask the Government to look again at Clause 4 and to close that particular loophole. I support the noble Lord, Lord Banks, because, if the Government are not prepared to look again at the clause, then we must force them to do so.
324
I shall not take up too much of the Committee's time, but I feel that I ought to read a few paragraphs from a letter which I have received from a woman working in one of the hostels that look after such youngsters in Livingston. I shall read the parts that I consider relevant to this matter. She says:
"For homeless kids the employment requirement is the stumbling block. Can you imagine attending an interview for work, when you can give no permanent address?—when your bed may the floor in the house of a series of friends whose hospitality is overcrowded, uncomfortable and a little whimsical—where you may be 'chucked-out' at any moment because of an argument or because they're fed up of you and have no real responsibility for your welfare. Children make and break friendships more easily and quickly, more passionately than grown-ups. It may be that you don't even have that precarious comfort. Your bed may be a collection of cardboard boxes in a culvert".
Referring to the training, she says:
"Even if the authorities 'guarantee' a job or training-scheme to all these children—and such a 'guarantee' defies definition—there will always be some who, because of their emotionally-straitened circumstances, will be unable to sustain those jobs, or training places. How can they, when they are homeless, and are they to be further punished'?"
She then writes about what the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, described when he mentioned young people so gallantly giving up jobs and training places. She describes the children in her hostel and continues:
"I can honestly think of none who has left home lightly or cavalierly and they have all desperately wanted a job or training scheme. There is absolutely no sense in which our project"—
she is talking about her project—
"has 'encouraged' these children to leave home. Indeed, the two years in which I have worked there have humbled me, in the face of their courage, perseverence and fragile resilience. Their circumstances immediately before being referred, or referring themselves to the hostel, as revealed in their interviews with staff, during their stay, would strike terror into your hearts. Some have suffered mental and physical cruelty, and a number sexual abuse. Most have experienced massive neglect and have certainly received none of the parental care and support which you or I would demand and take for granted. Many have been thrown-out by step parents. I am perplexed at the growing number of these seriously disadvantaged youngsters and can only explain it by my own personal observations of the increased incidence of divorce and second-marriage, combined with widespread poverty and unemployment and overcrowding, owing to the housing shortage. All of those factors experienced in a society where one of the few legitimate aspirations now appears to be material wealth and conspicuous consumption, must I suppose make for an explosive cocktail—especially in a household where a teenager is naturally flexing his or her adult muscles … If this Bill is not amended, we may have to turn away these children, because they have been deprived of the state income to pay for their hostel place. Where will they go? How many of them will be forced into prostitution to pay for a roof over their heads? How many rent-boys will be created? Many are 'qualified' for nothing else and there are many people in Edinburgh and Glasgow, not to mention London, who are ready to exploit them financially or sexually. The really perplexing aspect of this moral conundrum is that our emergency accommodation project was set up in response to local public demand. The property is provided by Livingston Development Corporation, and we are funded through the local District and Regional Councils by taxpayers and ratepayers, precisely to protect these vulnerable young citizens. They themselves are not told enough to vote and are therefore captives of our sense of responsibility".
It is because the clause has not taken such matters into account that I ask the Committee to reject it. I believe the Government can easily sit down and produce a better clause which will not have those loopholes.
Baroness Lane-Fox: I support Clause 4 for the reasons given by my noble friend Lord Boyd-

325
Carpenter. However, there are a few people about whom I should like to speak. That is largely due to a letter which I have received from the Director of the National Bureau for Handicapped Students. I think that we have had enough reading of letters this afternoon, so I shall not read it out. However, the director is worried that a number of his students are not ready for youth training at school-leaving age. They have usually managed to stay until they are 20 or 21, when they can be absorbed into a new life. Now however, they will often have to be described as "extremely mentally handicapped" in order to obtain the funds that will be needed. This will shake their confidence quite unduly. For that reason I felt I must bring it to the attention of the Minister.
4 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Perhaps I may go back to what the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, was saying when he read that moving and I am sure absolutely truthful letter from the lady in Livingston. That referred to the problems there and in Edinburgh and Glasgow, not to mention London. In looking at this clause it is extremely important to realise that as my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter said, it is likely to affect only a limited number of the young people who might claim benefit but who would not be able to do so.
However, it is very much more important than that. This clause is now moving towards saying to young people in the country "Until you are 18 we're going to help you to be positive and realistic about life in this world. After you are 18 you are adult and you have another option of unemployment benefit. But you are not going to have it until you are 18". That will have a very considerable effect on the way young people look at life.
Many young people who have no intention of becoming unemployed will see life differently because of this. Those who are more disadvantaged, who come from homes where they do not get a lot of support, who come from broken homes and who are perhaps living in the kind of hostel in Livingston which the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, was describing will find it a very important message indeed.
The message will be, "When you get to 16, boys and girls, you have a decision to make. You can decide to stay on in full-time education, to stay at school, to go to a full-time course in college, to go on to university, if you are that kind of person. You can decide that you will try and get a job. But for goodness' sake, if you do that, find one which gives you a training at the beginning, because it may be a dead-end job. If you cannot find a job with training at the beginning of it, perhaps you want to get into a job in the hope that you will get something better from there. Or you can decide—" and this is not the third best at all nowadays—"to go on the YTS for two years. Every young person in this country has the right to a place on the YTS now. You can do that, and if you stick at it you will come out at the end with a broad-based training which will enable you to enter skills training, if you have the ability for it, in a variety of jobs. Or at any rate it will give you a track record and a reference".
The positive answer to that lady in Livingston is that the real trouble for the people about whom she
326
cares so much is that they have not begun to get a track record. She virtually said that in her letter. They have not begun to get a track record which they can hand to employers when they apply for a job, however humble a job at the beginning. They have nothing which will convince employers at the beginning that they will be good and enthusiastic and keen.
What this clause is now doing is flying a new flag to young people. I said when we were discussing one of the amendments on the Bill that the Manpower Services Commission considered this at the beginning. They always thought—and the noble Lord, Lord Banks, is quite right—that they have always said from the beginning that they wanted the YTS to be voluntary. There was a fear at the beginning when the YTS was not understood and had not been properly developed that people would feel that they were being compelled to do something which was not of any use. They need not feel that any more. The YTS is voluntary in that you do not have to go on it. But what you cannot get is public money to do nothing until you are 18. That is the flag we are flying.
I think that it is right for every young person in this country now; it is the best thing of all for the least privileged young people because, despite the rottenness of the way in which they have been brought up, despite their parents misleading them or ignoring them or being thoroughly unhelpful to them, they can begin life with a track record with somebody for whom they are working, with friends with whom they are working. That will help to get them going. I hope this clause will stay in the Bill because I think it is very important indeed.
Lord Parry: As the noble Baroness sits down, perhaps I may draw the attention of the Committee very quickly to the fact that all the relevant research over the past 20 years into our educational system has proved that something like 34 per cent. of the children coming out of our schools are not in a position to take advantage of the very schemes which are put forward. They are already disadvantaged, many of them are alienated from society, and the words which my noble friend Lord Pitt read out to the Committee are therefore extremely relevant. There is a very large section of society which will fall below the provision anyway.
Whilst that was a caring speech and a caring response by the noble Baroness, it fails to understand the magnitude of the problem facing us. Therefore this is a penal clause as it affects those young people.
Baroness Phillips: I felt very sad when I listened to this debate, particularly after the comments of my noble friend—if I may so address her—as we are part of a minority group in this House, being female. When I was very young I used to act—rather badly, I think. I appeared in a play called Love on the Dole which was a story of an ordinary family. One of the situations which was the most poignant and telling was that the young people left home so that they could collect separate benefit and not be a burden on their parents. There is a subsection in this Bill which will definitely lead to that,

327
"If it appears to the Secretary of State that severe hardship will result to that person unless income support is paid to him".
That is a direct invitation to the young person to leave home in order to benefit from this.
We have heard so much of the YTS, I wonder whether those who are advocating it have seen it in operation. Like most of my noble friends on this side, I have met these young people who very often feel they are being used as cheap labour. This is the first thing they feel. But when they leave the scheme, precious few of them can be certain of a job. If you are training, you want to be sure that at the end of it you are training for something.
If this is such a small number, why legislate for it? As the noble Lord suggested, we often legislate on criminal cases which are a minority; that is quite right. I prefer to think that laws should be for one of two reasons: first, to make life better for people; secondly, to protect them. I do not think that this clause qualifies under either heading. It will take us back to the 'thirties. It is not the only thing taking us back; more and more we shall be paying for our hospitals; we shall have to pay for our education, and all kinds of things and it is very, very sad. The right reverend Prelate said yesterday that we are living in a very materialist and unpleasant society. I am afraid that the Government must accept part of the blame for that. For heaven's sake! If it is a small number, why legislate?
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: I do not want to make a long speech, but I want to ask a question. I am not in any way opposed to the principles of the Bill and the clause. However, I was visited this morning by the general secretary of the National Association of Youth Clubs, the biggest of the youth organisations in this country. It is supported, so she tells me, by many other voluntary organisations. Their query is this. They agree that training is excellent; that people should be given every opportunity. But there are those for whom this cannot be done. The noble Lord, Lord Pitt, has instanced one or two cases and so has the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox.
Would it not be possible, in the course of the progress of this Bill, to put in some provision which would be perfectly legitimate for people who are unable—not because they do not want to but because they cannot—to avail themselves of the training opportunites which will arise? We should not condemn them to having grants stopped but simply say that because they have those conditions (which of course they must prove), those conditions make it impossible to take up all the opportunities. They would then be given other chances and also money to be able to live, very often in extremely difficult conditions.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: It is with pleasure that I follow the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot; we all know about the extremely good work she does in many social fields. I know particularly of the projects for the disabled that she has in the Birmingham area.
In our debate this afternoon it has been implied that there are jobs lined up for people to take; that for everybody who wants a job there is one available.
328
That may be so in the areas about which the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, knows, but in many others there are young people unemployed through no fault of their own because there are no jobs available. However good may be the careers' masters or mistresses, if there are no jobs for young people, what are they to do at the age of 16?
The remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, were interesting. She spoke about making a choice at 16 to go to a polytechnic or to a university. We are not all cast in that same mould; we cannot all be university graduates. There are some people who, unfortunately, were not at the front of the queue when the good Lord passed out the brains. We call them educationally low attainers, but that is not to say they are mentally handicapped; it does not mean to say that at all. Indeed, in terms of mass production they were the people who kept the factories, the forges and the mines going—not the people with academic records. They did that at 14 in those days, but now they must stay at school until they are 16.
If one observes a YTS interview, the first question that a boss or personnel officer may ask is, "How many certificates do you have?" If the applicant answers that he did not get any but that he was very good at a particular subject, he will receive the reply, "But I have 20 other applicants who do have certificates". So although a person may be intelligent and capable of doing a particular job of work, because he does not have a certificate then his chances of joining the YTS are more limited.
I know from experience that most low attainers have to join community programmes instead, and a certain number of them are from our ethnic minorities. So we are penalising those young people in the 16 to 18 age group who, although they are intelligent enough to do certain jobs, find that no such jobs are available for them. I plead with noble Lords opposite to visit those areas of the country where there is high unemployment and to talk to the jobless there. They should ask those people for how many jobs they have applied and how many times they have walked the streets trying to find work—often while their parents also remain unemployed. Let us think of those people and not concentrate on the others.
Mention has also been made of people who, it is claimed, deliberately remain unemployed. I suggest noble Lords make that accusation to the young people I know—
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Before the noble Baroness sits down, she seems to have missed the point that the YTS for those aged between 16 and 18 is to be universal.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: That does not apply in all parts of the country, and people who cannot join a YTS must go on a community programme instead, which offers a different form of training altogether.
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: The noble Baroness is always very well-informed, but she presumes that those of us on this side of the Committee do not know

329
what we are talking about. In fact, some of us are involved in these matters. The noble Baroness will know that the community programme is for people over the age of 18 and we are here concerned with those under 18.
The noble Baroness says that there are no jobs. We know the situation is still difficult but unemployment has fallen by 500,000 over the past 12 months. The number of 16 year-old school-leavers is falling very fast because of demographic change, which means that things are getting easier for them. The noble Baroness also knows that a place is guaranteed on the YTS for every young person in this country who wants one and that it is no longer correct to make the comments she has. I beg the noble Baroness to take account of what has happened. It probably would not have been right to enact a clause such as this two or three years ago, but this is the time when we can do so. We should talk to the people of this country, particularly the young, in an up-to-date way and give them the real facts as I have just given them.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: The facts I gave are as up-to-date as I know them to be.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: The noble Baroness opposite made mention of my earlier comments, when quoting from a lady's letter. My question to the noble Baroness is this: what answer must that lady give when homeless young people go to her in September?
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I know that my noble friend has the answer to that question and so perhaps I should let her give it first.
Baroness Faithfull: I must give my own Front Bench a fearful shock and say that I do not support the Motion against this clause. Indeed, I was so worried about this part of the Bill that I spent a whole day at a Jobcentre, watching as young people entered and left it. Of those young people who came in and studied the jobs on the boards, a proportion of them said, "Not for us". I asked them how they felt about the YTS. They said that they knew all about it but would much rather draw their benefits.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, that I have been responsible for boys' hostels of the poorest kind, for boys from the poorest kind of backgrounds. They were unemployed but the answer was counselling. Not one of the boys in our hostels was out of work. They may not have had the jobs they really wanted, and at first they may not even have had the jobs that completely suited them. But as a result of social workers helping and counselling those boys, they were always in work. I add that they were all boys in care, so they did not even have a home behind them.
We must set standards for our young people. If the Bill did not have exceptions, then I would be voting with the other side of the Committee. But it does have exceptions and it is right that it should. I believe that a balance has been struck, and therefore I must say to noble Lords opposite—and to the noble Lord, Lord Banks, who always makes such a very good case— that I cannot support their Motion.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, I must ask my question again as it still has not been answered. The noble Baroness has been in the kind of situation I am talking about. What will she say to a 16 or 17 year-old kid who comes to her in those circumstances next September? We must remember that there is in fact no guarantee of income supplement. The only way that such a person can get that benefit is for the Secretary of State to declare that he is in hardship. What does one say to such a person when he approaches one for assistance?
Lord Parry: My Lords, before the noble Baroness rises to answer that question, will she please accept that the lads who can read the notice board and the notice of jobs available are themselves higher up the echelon than the people I am talking about?
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I shall answer that question for my noble friend. As I understand it, there will be a YTS place guaranteed for everyone between the ages of 16 and 18. I have taken on board all the points about those who are slow developers or who have not attained a certain standard of academic education but, if there is a place guaranteed for everyone, that must mean that the Youth Training Scheme will cover people of all abilities. In what other way could it guarantee a place to everyone? There must be an encouragement for every young person to develop his maximum potential. We all appreciate the difference in potential that different young people have. I pay great tribute to the speech made by my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour. She was flying the flag for the highest standards and the best possible achievement. That is what we should like to see of our young people in this country. But we all know, too, the young people, desperately underprivileged, who have lived under appalling conditions or under neglected conditions. If we can get those young people also to develop their best potential through a Youth Training Scheme suited to their abilities and their background, so much the better.
The noble Lord, Lord Pitt of Hampstead, read out a very emotive and emotional letter. The sad thing about that letter was that the boys he mentioned had nothing to look forward to, nothing to hope for and no background even to fall back on. Surely all those boys would be better off with some degree of youth training rather than just sitting there in that hostel? Many of the Members of the Committee were not present the other night when I talked about the overemployment in London, the great number of jobs that were available and the impossibility of getting young people to fill them. My noble friend Lady Faithfull mentioned many young people popping in and out of Jobcentres looking at notices and saying that they were not going to bother with the jobs. She did not make the point that a teacher working in a poor part of London made to me. The teacher made the point that the dole card is extremely valuable to somebody as a free entry to everything. It is so valuable that people do not want to give it up. It is a tragic situation when people look on a dole card as a desirable thing. The phrase that the teacher used was a "passport to everything". That is not a good thing.

331
Another point which has not come out so far in the debate, although it was just touched upon by my noble friend Lady Carnegy, is the future situation in this country. We have an ageing population. It will only be a very small number of years before there will only be seven school-leavers for every 10 school-leavers we have today. That means that it is most essential that our young people should return to the work ethic which has been the backbone of Britain throughout the centuries.
I received a visit from an Australian Minister who told me that the situation in Australia had been assessed and it had been found that if people remained unemployed and received unemployment benefit for more than three months immediately after leaving school they lost interest in doing anything else. They discovered an easy option and they did not bother to do anything else. I consider it very unfair to the young people who are working and working hard for five days a week or taking a training scheme if they live in an area where there is no work—I accept that there is a very big difference between regions—to know that their friends are lying at home in bed every day and going out dancing every night. I am not talking about an unreal situation. I have many patients who have been out of work for three years. When I tell them that there are notices about jobs even in the waiting room they say, "Oh, I don't want those jobs. I like my life the way it is".
That is not good enough. It is terribly important for the future of this country that people should be interested in employment and should go on to train or to work. Under this clause the Youth Training Scheme is guaranteed to all.
Like my noble friend Lady Faithfull, I consider it essential that part of this clause should enable discretion and flexibility to be exercised, because one cannot legislate on paper for every mental or physical state of people's health. But I believe that subsection (4)(A) covers those points. That kind of consideration and the fact that each case has to be considered carefully is an essential protection to all the young people who do want to work.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, said, there are very good reasons for many people being out of work. That is true and those people will have the opportunity to prove that there are good reasons and to justify why they are out of work. In that case they will be supported. If people are really incapable of pursuing a YTS course on obtaining employment, there is cover for them in this clause.
The tragedy of the loss of family support and the estrangement of children from parents as referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, is a very sad matter with disastrous consequences socially. Let us hope that we may see something which will help to change that family structure and bring back a more unified family. Nevertheless, as my noble friend Lady Carnegy said, the wide range of opportunities that are available is encouraging. Another encouraging fact is that the YTS is not limited. It is guaranteed to all. The protections which are built into the clause for the exceptional cases lead me strongly to support it.
Lord Skelmersdale: This clause implements our manifesto commitment, which was that those under 18 who choose to remain unemployed should not be eligible for benefit. It links up with our guarantee of a place on the Youth Training Scheme to every school-leaver under 18 who does not go into a job.
This has been a very spirited debate and I must say that I am not surprised that we are refighting part of the election campaign across the Chamber today. I wish straight away to make the point that this guarantee extends to young people wherever they may live and applies to any and every young person, whatever his educational ability.
I myself have seen the teaching of simple mathematics and reading and writing being conducted in connection with a YTS course. I am sure that my noble friend Lady Carnegy will confirm that that is by no means unusual.
As I think every one of my noble friends has said in this debate, we are quite determined that the youth of this country do not as a rule see dependence on state benefits as being the natural next step after school. Those points were made particularly by my noble friends Lady Carnegy and Lady Gardner of Parkes on Tuesday. I certainly agree with the very strong speech that my noble friend Lady Carnegy has made today on the subject of getting the message across to young people. She is absolutely right in that. The YTS is a real opportunity for making a sound start in adult life for those who leave school without having found a job and who have decided not to continue with education. I take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Parry, that some of those young people may not be mentally equipped to carry on with education.
The rate of training allowance, £28.50 a week in the first year and £35 a week in the second year, is considerably higher than the benefit rate for that age group. The current rate of supplementary benefit for a person aged 16 to 17 is £18.75. The income support rate will be £19.40.
The great majority of young people will not be affected by this clause. That point has been widely agreed upon. But as my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter said, that is absolutely no reason not to legislate. However, like the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, and my noble friend Lady Elliot of Harwood, we are only too well aware that some 16 and 17 year-olds, mainly due to unfortunate circumstances, require benefit protection. The clause therefore also enables regulations to be made which will specify circumstances in which young persons of or over the age of 16 will still be entitled to benefit. Young people will therefore not be written off the legal framework of social security in Britain, as the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, suggested during our debates on Tuesday. We shall consider the regulations most carefully. In reply to my noble friend Lord Selkirk on Tuesday I leaked, as it were, some of the matters which will be in the regulations. I am happy to give in advance as full an account of those regulations as I possibly can. I give that commitment today. The Committee will see the final regulations when the necessary order is laid.

333
On Tuesday, in answer to an amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, we discussed the likelihood of homelessness and its effect on the provisions for severe hardship. In terms of protection we have in mind the severely disabled, the registered blind, the 16 or 17 year-old with a child and those who are necessarily living independently—the orphan, the youngster who has recently been in care and those young people who cannot live at home because of the risk of physical or sexual abuse. There will be others and we shall ensure that in framing the regulations the claims of all disadvantaged groups to a continuing entitlement to benefit will be closely examined. The Committee was particularly interested in that aspect of our intentions and I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Selkirk for giving me the opportunity to spell out what those intentions are.
The amendment to the Act will be effective from September—a point made in a telling intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Pitt. Summer school-leavers aged 16 and 17 will, unless they are in one of the specified groups, not be entitled to benefit. Instead, if they are registering at a careers office or a Jobcentre for work or a YTS course, their parents will be able to claim an extension of child benefit in respect of them, together with dependency additions, as appropriate, for a limited period. Of course severe hardship provisions will apply to those who are not in that position.
The power to extend the child benefit period is given in the Bill, which by amending Section 2 of the Child Benefit Act 1975 enables young people under the age of 18 who are not receiving full-time education to continue to be treated as children for child benefit purposes. That is a new clause.
We intend to extend the child benefit period in respect of summer school-leavers to the end of the calendar year. Thereafter the child benefit period in respect of Christmas and Easter leavers will be extended by three months. The effect will be to treat a person as dependant on his parents in the period before the YTS guarantee can be implemented unless the income support regulations enable him to receive benefit in his own right.
We intend extension periods to be the opportunity for the young person to give consideration to his future and to explore the opportunities open to him. If this period of at least three months is added to the period since the child left school, he has what we consider to be an ample opportunity to make firm plans for the future. However, if a child chooses not to get a job or take advantage of the YTS guarantee, then no child benefit or dependency addition will be payable in respect of him once the extension period has ended.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, asked: "Why not bring Section 20 of the 1975 Act into play?". My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter answered that point very powerfully. I only add that the Government consider that it is far better to introduce young people to the work ethic at a very early age rather than allowing them to draw income support and become dependent on state support even for a limited period. It is our intention that Section 20 will be needed only in the circumstances in which a person
334
who is one of a young couple with a child or children refuses to take a suitable job or voluntarily gives up such a job.
I am sure that parents will ensure that the YTS guarantee opportunity is not rejected by their offspring. They will recognise the logic of our intentions and the financial advantage to a family if a YTS place is taken up.
As I have already said, we intend to protect the benefit entitlement of certain groups of 16 and 17 year-olds. We intend that those who have no real prospect of employment in the foreseeable future—the severely disabled, the registered blind or the young person with a child, for instance—will be entitled to benefit for as long as their circumstances remain unaltered. Other young people will, however, be entitled to benefit only during the child benefit extension period.
My noble friend Lady Lane-Fox mentioned a particular problem: what happens if the disabled young person is not fit for YTS? As I said on Tuesday, YTS is open to all young people who are judged to be capable eventually of employment. Moderate and severe learning difficulties are included in the YTS definition of disability, and special funding and aids are available for young people with such difficulties. For example, they can enter YTS up to the end of the academic year in which they reach the age of 21. Up to six months can be added to their course to improve their training or employment prospects.
As my noble friend will be well aware, many disabled young people stay on at school beyond the minimum school-leaving age and, in many instances, up to the age of 19. That facility will remain; there will be no change under the new arrangements.
The Bill enables the Secretary of State to specify in regulations not only the circumstances in which persons aged 16 and 17 may be entitled to benefit but also the periods for which entitlement may last. That is because persons such as orphans or those not living at home because of risk of physical or sexual abuse should be entitled to benefit only up to the end of the extension period or until they obtain a job or start YTS, if that is earlier.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, asked about the possibility of severe hardship and how local offices will cope with that. I agree that that is a very important point. I had a shot at considering it in our debates on Tuesday. In passing, perhaps I may say that I have no doubt that our discussions will continue through further stages of the Bill. The fact that some of the detailed points are unresolved is no reason to disapprove of the clause which we are considering.
In answer to the particular question asked by the noble Baroness, the local officer will examine all the details of a particular case. If there appears to be even a possibility of severe hardship if benefit is not to be paid, details will be passed immediately to headquarters by telephone for the direction of the Secretary of State, as appropriate. In the majority of cases it will be obvious to the local office either that the young person has no entitlement—for instance, because he is living with his parents—or that he has

335
entitlement because he falls into one of the specified groups as contained in the regulations. If there is a possibility of severe hardship, then a very speedy direction will be relayed to the adjudication officer at the local office and he in the final analysis will decide whether benefit is payable. As I said on Tuesday, I would normally expect that that would be done within 24 hours, and I stick to that statement.
The noble Lord, Lord Banks, who started our very spirited debate, was worried in particular about the lack of right of appeal to the Secretary of State. The position is that an officer of the department, acting for the Secretary of State in the normal way, will establish the circumstances of the claim. If it appears to him that the claimant does not fall into one of the prescribed categories, he will consider whether non-payment of income support will result in severe hardship and, as I have just said, will refer the matter to the Secretary of State for a direction if that is the appropriate course. The whole package will then go to the adjudication officer for a decision, with or without a direction of the Secretary of State, whichever is appropriate. The adjudication officer will then exercise his usual responsibilities in determining the case.
Another point raised was the matter of young people who lose a job and register for a YTS place or who have to move from one scheme to another because the first scheme did not prove suitable for them. In such a case they will receive a bridging allowance until placed on a course. It is expected that a place will be offered fairly quickly, within a few weeks; if not, the bridging allowance will have to continue. They will then receive the YTS allowance of £28.50 a week. I shall not deal with the suggestion of the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, now.
The noble Lord, Lord Pitt, raised the question of young people who are estranged from their parents. Of course there are young people who are estranged and who are at risk of physical or sexual abuse, but they will be entitled to income support during the child benefit extension period. All young people will be guaranteed a place on the scheme.
I understand the worries of the party opposite. No opposition party likes major changes and this measure is a radical departure from current legislation. That is why it was spelled out in our election manifesto. In fulfilling that commitment we decided that the best way to avoid the possibility of youngsters becoming accustomed to state benefit and reliant upon it when there is no need was to remove general entitlement from school-leavers at the outset. That will encourage a sense of responsibility from an early age and I am sure that it will be generally welcomed by the public at large. It is modern nonsense that the mass of young people in the 16-to-18-years age bracket, however small a number it may be, should be able to go straight from school into the benefit culture, with all that is implied. Those young people will have three options: to take a job, to go on to further education or to take up a guaranteed YTS place.
I agree that safety nets are necessary in the particular circumstances which I have outlined at length today. Our aim is to stop youngsters from
336
entering the benefit culture. Instead they should enter jobs or training, which give them a far better opportunity for the future. Moreover, YTS training carries a training allowance which is considerably higher than the benefit rate for this group. We consider that this is a far more efficient and meaningful use of public money than is the case at present.
I believe that on this side of the Committee we stand four-square behind this clause, the underlying tenets of which have been well understood by the electorate.
Lord Banks: The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, observed that I had said that we should not legislate. But I say that we have legislated and imposed a severe penalty on people who deliberately choose to remain unemployed. That penalty has been described by a government Minister as not lightly to be dismissed. I am convinced that the number of 16 to 17 year-olds who remain deliberately unemployed is small. All the statistics bear that out, although there has been some anecdotal evidence to the contrary this afternoon.
We are concerned about all the other young people who will be affected by this legislation, many of whom have been referred to during the course of our debate. The noble Lord, Lord Pitt, mentioned some of them. There are the 30,000 youngsters of 16 or 17 who are studying part-time, under the 21-hour and 12-hour rules and to whom I referred in my opening remarks. There are also 3,000 disabled students in part-time education. That aspect was discussed on Tuesday and referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, this afternoon.
There are all the other reasons to which I referred in my opening remarks. First, the clause makes YTS compulsory although as recently as July 1987 the Youth Training Board and the Manpower Services Commission, as well as the Confederation of British Industry and the Institute of Careers Officers said that it should be voluntary. Then there is the complexity of the arrangements for making exceptions for some people, either through prescription or because of severe hardship. There is great difficulty in determining what represents severe hardship, and difficulties are likely to ensue when people who consider that they are suffering severe hardship— and who are considered by others to be suffering hardship—are nevertheless turned down. Then there is the absence of an appeal procedure, which was explained to us a moment or two ago by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale. Running through the whole clause is the demotion of young people to the status of dependants. Those objections all remain and I remain opposed to the clause.
4.45 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 4, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided; Contents, 135; Not-Contents, 88.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Aldington, L.

Ampthill, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Arran, E.

337

Auckland, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Barber, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Beaverbrook, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Layton, L.

Beloff, L.

Long, V.

Belstead, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Bessborough, E.

Lyell, L.

Birdwood, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Blatch, B.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Margadale, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Marley, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Merrivale, L.

Broxbourne, L.

Mersey, V.

Butterworth, L.

Middleton, L.

Caithness, E.

Monk Bretton, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Morris, L.

Carnock, L.

Mottistone, L.

Coleraine, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Munster, E.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Nairne, Ly.

Cowley, E.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Cox, B.

Nelson, E.

Craigavon, V.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Newall, L.

Croham, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Onslow, E.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Orkney, E.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Orr-Ewing, L.

De Freyne, L.

Pender, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Plummer of St Marylebone, L.

Derwent, L.

Porritt, L.

Dickinson, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Dundee, E.

Renton, L.

Eccles, V.

Richardson, L.

Effingham, E.

Rodney, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Romney, E.

Elton, L.

Rugby, L.

Erne, E.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Faithfull, B.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Ferrers, E.

Sandford, L.

Forbes, L.

Sandys, L.

Fortescue, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Southborough, L.

Gainford, L.

Stockton, E.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Strange, B.

Glenarthur, L.

Sudeley, L.

Greenway, L.

Swansea, L.

Hailsham of Saint

Swinfen, L.

Marylebone, L.

Terrington, L.

Halsbury, E.

Teviot, L.

Havers, L.

Teynham, L.

Hayter, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Hesketh, L.

Thurlow, L.

Hives, L.

Ullswater, V.

Hooper, B.

Ward of Witley, V.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Westbury, L.

Ilchester, E.

Whitelaw, V.

Inglewood, L.

Windlesham, L.

Ingrow, L.

Wise, L.

Ironside, L.

Wolfson, L.

Joseph, L.

Young, B.

Killearn, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Carter, L.

Alport, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Amherst, E.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Ardwick, L.

David, B.

Attlee, E.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Aylestone, L.

Diamond, L.

Banks, L. [Teller.]

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Blackstone, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Ennals, L.

Bottomley, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Ezra, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Falkender, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Falkland, V.

338

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Northfield, L.

Gallacher, L.

Oram, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Parry, L.

[Teller.]

Perry of Walton, L.

Grimond, L.

Peston, L.

Hampton, L.

Phillips, B.

Hanworth, V.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Rea, L.

Hunt, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Jacques, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Jay, L.

Serota, B.

Jeger, B.

Shackleton, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Simon, V.

John-Mackie, L.

Stedman, B.

Kagan, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Listowel, E.

Turner of Camden, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Underhill, L.

Lockwood, B.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Longford, E.

Wells-Pestell, L

Lovell-Davis, L.

White, B.

McNair, L.

Wigoder, L.

Mais, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Meston, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Molloy, L.

Mulley, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and clause agreed to accordingly.
4.54 p.m.
Baroness Jeger Baroness Jeger moved Amendment No. 40:
After Clause 4, insert the following new clause:
("Housing benefit.
The following shall be substituted for subsection 29(3) of the Social Security Act 1986—
"(3) Regulations shall make provision for reviews of determinations relating to housing benefit and shall specify and make provision for a right of appeal against reviews and determinations to a Social Security Appeal Tribunal in accordance with the procedure laid down in sections 100,101 and 104 of the Social Security Act 1975 and section 15 of the Social Security Act 1980. Any reference to adjudication officer in those sections shall be construed as including reference to the appropriate authority responsible for administering housing benefit under section 28 of this Act."").
The noble Baroness said: I am sure that Members of the Committee on all sides will join with me in expressing great regret that my noble friend Lord Stallard cannot be with us this afternoon. He is undergoing surgery in Westminster Hospital—which I hope is an added reason why the Government should not close that hospital.
Lord Skelmersdale: I shall not get involved in that debate. But I interrupt the noble Baroness to say that we on this side of the Chamber certainly share the sentiments expressed by her with regard to the noble Lord.
Baroness Jeger: I thank the Minister. The concern of my noble friend is about the need for a right of appeal from adjudications on housing benefit. We are all agreed that housing benefit has got into an uncontrollable muddle over the last few years and the provisions in the Bill certainly do not help to clear matters up. That is another reason why there should be some provision for appeal.

339
I do not know why the Government are so adverse to independent appeals on matters that are so important to individual citizens. However, the position seems to be—I am sure that the Minister will put me right—that under the present provisions there is no independent appeal. That is the point that my noble friend asked me to put to the Minister. I beg to move.
Lord Skelmersdale: We have a considerable amount of sympathy with the argument that adjudication arrangements for housing benefit should be brought into line with those for other social security benefits. But this is not only a very important issue; it is a very complicated one too, involving difficult questions concerning the relationship between local authorities, their staff acting as adjudication officers, appeal tribunals and so on. Major administrative changes may also be involved—and all this, it has to be said again, as it has been several times over the last few years, against the background that we have no clear evidence that the present review arrangements, whatever their deficiencies in principle, are not generally working in practice.
It would be ill-judged in those circumstances to make a commitment now to change housing benefit adjudication arrangements from April 1988 in the way suggested by the new clause. We would need detailed discussions with all the interested parties and cannot foresee at this stage what changes would be involved, or even feasible, and over what sort of timescale they could be introduced. Commitment to a specific timetable without that basic information would be reckless indeed, especially as authorities are already likely to be fully stretched implementing the structural reforms.
Due to the pressure of work on producing the housing benefit regulations in time for local authorities implementation planning, we have not been able to concentrate on this particular issue until now. However, we are now looking at the possibility of carrying out some research into this matter. It is hoped that that will enable us to see just exactly what, if anything, needs to be done to improve the existing housing benefit review procedures. I should point out to the Committee that the new housing benefit information system which is to be introduced along with the reformed scheme in April will provide much more helpful information on various aspects of the running of the scheme, including review boards. Having heard that, perhaps the noble Baroness will consider withdrawing the amendment.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I am amazed at the defence that the Government have put forward for their unwillingness and inability to accept this amendment. It boils down to this. By virtue of a timescale that they set themselves they have been unable to deal with the objectives of the new clause, with which I believe the Minister expressed sympathy. We are not talking about people with a lot of money. We are not talking about people who have alternative sources of housing, of benefits or of largesse. We are talking about people at the desperate end of the scale who feel that they have been badly done by.
340
I sensed that the Minister felt the provision for a right of appeal was a fair point. But he stated that one of the reasons the Government have been unable to follow it through has been that they are very sensitive to the burdens they are placing on local authorities. He could have fooled me, and the local authorities! It is nonsense for him to say at this late stage of the game that this Government are concerned at the burdens that they are placing on local authorities.
The Minister is saying this to the Committee. We have our mandate. We have our imperatives. We have decided to put them into effect. There will be enormous burdens on council offices, council officers and councillors. With regard to the people who could be affected—there may not be many of them and we sympathise with them—we are in the process of trying to sort out a fair means of handling this.
We are talking about tiny people, people the Minister may say do not amount to very much. These are people who feel they have a grievance and they want to pursue to the maximum extent their right to get an extra pound or two. They want to have the law understood and applied to their circumstances as generously and fairly as possible.
I think that the Minister has given a very poor response. I wait with interest to see what my noble friend intends to do with the amendment.
5 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: As I repeated earlier, we have said all along that we intend to review housing benefit adjudication. The noble Lord, Lord Graham, referred to these people as tiny people, which I accept, although I should put them up a grade and describe them as little people. They are the people who need the benefits that they are receiving and all the support that we can give them. I certainly agree with that.
I have given a clear commitment today. I know that the noble Lord thought it was a little late for me to consider local authorities, but we do consider local authorities, and in this case we should have to consult local authorities. There is no time for that consultation between now and April. That is an inescapable fact.
Baroness Jeger: Whether these people are tiny or little, they are real people. I appreciate that the Minister has undertaken to look further into the complicated question of housing benefit, which involves local authorities. Some of us who have been on local authorities know what a conflicting factor that is. In view of what the Minister has said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 [Contribution conditions for short-term benefits]:
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 40A:
Page 6, line 29, at end insert—
("( )Schedule 3 of the 1975 Act shall not be amended as in subsection (3) below in respect of any categories of persons prescribed by the Secretary of State.").
The noble Baroness said: Clause 5, as I understand it, intends to provide much stricter conditions for

341
building up entitlement to national insurance benefits. As regards employment benefit, it will rule out entitlement for those who have not paid sufficient contributions in the two most recent contribution years; for example, through sickness, maternity, being out of the labour force for caring reasons or on any other basis irrespective— I emphasise this—of the claimant's previous contribution record.
There is also a tightening up in regard to other national insurance benefit claims. I understand that if this goes through the DHSS will require a full contribution record to have been paid or credited in each of the two contribution years preceding the claim instead of just the preceding year, as under the current laws. In other words, it will be twice as difficult to build up an adequate contribution record.
I understand that there are expected to be savings of around £70 million if this goes through. It has been estimated that approximately 350,000 will lose unemployment benefit if the clause stands unamended. Not all claimants will be able to fall back on means-tested income support. In any event, as I said on Second Reading, it does not seem a very suitable policy to have people forced on to means-tested income support rather than benefiting under insurance schemes for which they have paid contributions.
The amendment does not seek to alter the clause drastically but rather to provide an arrangement under which it will be possible for certain categories of people to be prescribed by the Secretary of State as falling outside these provisions.
I am particularly concerned with the situation of women who have been acting as carers. I have received a letter from the Spastics Society, which has a great deal of experience in these matters. The society points out that, if the clause stands unamended, no one who has been a carer for more than two years would be able to qualify for benefit in future. Carers already face great difficulties in obtaining jobs when they have been out of the labour market. This measure would discriminate against those who give up a great portion of their working lives to look after a relative or a friend. If the amendment is accepted, the Secretary of State will be able to prescribe certain categories of persons such as carers who could be exempt from these provisions.
There is some concern also on the part of the Equal Opportunities Commission, because it is women who in general have somewhat interrupted work patterns. Women are far more likely than males to be disadvantaged under the clause if it is not amended. For those reasons, I commend the amendment to the Committee. I hope that it finds favour and that the Minister will be able to say that the Government are prepared to consider it with some concern. I beg to move.
Baroness Lane-Fox: I should like to speak also to my Amendment No. 41. I hope that my noble friend the Minister can reassure me that my interpretation of the Bill is wrong. I fear that the Bill threatens invalid carers with loss of benefit much as the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, has said. When the subject of the caring dies or moves away, the carer returns to the labour market. These people deserve all
342
the back-up that they can get. It would be very wrong if after that onerous job they were not to be given full benefit. Those of us who know how difficult it is to get people to fill the job of carer believe that they should be rewarded properly and that their work should be highly prized.
I have just heard the splendid news about the DHSS liaison with DIG for administering the £5 million for the severely disabled who claim after next April and need extra help over and above what is provided through social security. I am greatly encouraged by that and I hope that the Minister will be able to help me on this amendment.
Lord Skelmersdale: I am grateful that the two amendments are grouped.
Perhaps I may speak to the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, first. This amendment would give Secretary of State power to exempt unnamed groups of people from the abolition of the aggregation rule for unemployment benefit and sickness benefit. This rule allows contributions paid in more than one tax year to be aggregated for the satisfaction of the first contribution condition in the early years of contribution. It is contained in paragraph 5(3) of Schedule 3 to the 1975 Social Security Act.
The first contribution condition will require a record of contributions paid on earnings of 25 times lower earnings limit in one of the two recent tax years on which the claim is based. This change reflects and reinforces the original purpose of unemployment benefit. Ever since Beveridge—indeed, ever since the days of friendly societies paying benefit—the benefit has always been intended to provide a measure of compensation for people who normally work for an employer and then experience short periods of unemployment. No government have ever sought to change this. After careful consideration, we have concluded that the position of former carers is not analogous to that of a person who has recently been in employment and dependent upon the income from that employment for maintenance.
We do not believe that it would be right on grounds of equity to treat those who have been in receipt of invalid care allowance differently from others who have for some reason not been in the employment field in recent years. To make exceptions for one group would be unfair to others who could advance substantially the same arguments. For these reasons we do not believe that a special concession for former carers is appropriate.
My noble friend Lady Lane-Fox suggested that under the new contribution conditions many former carers will fail to qualify for unemployment benefit. However, it will still be possible for people to qualify for unemployment benefit up to three-and-a-half years after they last paid contributions. The average length of award of invalid care allowance is between 18 and 24 months and therefore it seems likely that many former carers will continue to qualify for unemployment benefit when payment of invalid care allowance ceases. I realise that this point concerns both noble Baronesses and I shall look at the matter again.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I should like to thank the Minister for that reply and in those circumstances I shall not press the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Lane-Fox had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 41:
Page 6, line 36, after ("years") insert (", or one of the last two years in which he did not receive an invalid care allowance,").
The noble Baroness said: I too am grateful to the Minister for his undertaking to look at the matter again. In those circumstances I do not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 41 not moved.]
Clause 5 agreed to.
Baroness Faithfull Baroness Faithfull moved Amendment No. 42:
After Clause 5, insert the following new clause:
("Repeal of s. 18(4) of 1975 Act.
From the date of passing of this Act section 18(4) of the Social Security Act 1975 shall cease to have effect.").
The noble Baroness said: I tabled this amendment in order to gain information because I am not sure that I understand the position with regard to Section 18(4) of the Social Security Act 1975. It has been suggested to me that in some cases men hear of a better job than the one that they already have and wish to leave in order to move to the better job, which may be in another town. Section 18(4) was inserted into the Social Security Act in 1975 but has not yet been implemented. Do I understand that if it is implemented in its present form the voluntary employment period will be lessened, giving men a much shorter time in which to draw their full benefit?
I apologise for not having given notice of the question but I shall be pleased if the Minister can answer it. Quite a number of men wish to change their jobs voluntarily. In that circumstance, will the time during which they can draw full benefit be cut? I beg to move.
Lord Skelmersdale: Having been present in your Lordships' Chamber during recent weeks and months I thought that a probing amendment had gone out of fashion. It is nice to meet one again and I am grateful to my noble friend for giving me the opportunity to respond. I am advised that the voluntary employment period will not be lessened; the provision will make no difference.
The purpose of the Section 18(4) of the Social Security Act 1975 is to prevent abuse of the unemployment benefit system. Without these powers it would be possible for a person to manipulate the system in order to obtain more than the maximum entitlement of 312 days' unemployment benefit. It would be possible for people to break their unemployment benefit claims when close to exhausting benefit. By reclaiming after more than eight weeks have elapsed, they could establish a fresh claim and with that a fresh entitlement to 312 days' benefit. Clearly that would be wrong and Section 18(4) exists to prevent exploitation of that loophole. I hope that that reply is of assistance to my noble friend.
Baroness Faithfull: I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 [Unemployment benefit and occupational pension]:
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 7, line 8, at end insert ("provided the person has indicated that he is not seeking other employment and regards himself as having permanently retired from work").
The noble Baroness said: The Bill seeks to extend to those aged 55 or over the provisions first introduced in 1981 under which an unemployed person with an occupational pension suffers a reduction in his unemployment benefit. The reduction is 10p for every 10p of his pension over £35 per week. At current rates it means that unemployment benefit is completely lost if a single person has a pension of more than £66·50 per week and if a couple have pension of more than £86 per week.
I believe that to be an unfair extension. It was bad enough when the provision at 60 was introduced, because the occupational pension is a private arrangement to which the employee and employer have contributed. Normally when people leave work before the usual retirement age they cannot expect and do not receive a full occupational pension. It is reduced because the person concerned has not worked for the full period.
There exists the situation where people are often forced to leave work early at the age of 55 or a little older as a result of redundancy. At that age they do not normally regard themselves as being retired. Perhaps as a result of a redundancy agreement they may have reached an arrangement under which they receive an early pension because they are regarded as being early retired.
However, if possible they would wish to be employed and it is unfortunate that, if the Bill becomes an Act, they will be given the impression that after the age of 55 they will no longer be on the employment scene. Many of those people would wish to work if work were available. They have paid for their occupational pension and they have also made a contribution through their national insurance payments to their unemployment pay. It seems inequitable that individuals who would wish to work if work were available and who could comply with the availability for work requirements of Section 20 of the 1975 Act should have their entitlement to unemployment benefit reduced in this way. Further, if they are in receipt of the amounts that I have specified, the benefit will be extinguished.
I move this amendment, which I consider to be reasonable, because the provision will take effect only if the person has indicated that he is not seeking other employment and regards himself as having permanently retired from work. However, if he is still on the employment scene and available for work, and therefore able to comply with the availability requirements, I believe that he should be entitled to

345
his unemployment pay because he has made a contribution towards it just as he has contributed towards his occupational pension. I beg to move.
Lord Banks: I should like to support this amendment, which has the same effect as my Amendment No. 44. However, I support this in preference to my own. When the abatement was first imposed at the age of 60, it was argued that those over 60 years with an occupational scheme had retired and were not genuinely seeking work. As I said at Second Reading, bank managers were much cited in that connection.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, pointed out, many people who are made redundant at the age of 55 have not retired and hope to take up new employment if they can find it. They take an early retirement pension because in the current situation they cannot be certain of finding that employment and they must have something to live on. They have paid their national insurance contributions and while they look for work they are entitled to receive 12 months' unemployment benefit.
Unemployment benefit is a payment as of right provided that they are available for work. The lower the point at which abatement operates the more genuine employment seekers one will catch in the net. I am against turning national insurance benefits into means-tested benefits. The amendment will ensure that only those who have retired from regular employment will be affected. I support Amendment No. 43.
Lord Skelmersdale: In answer to these amendments I should like to repeat that it is government policy to concentrate available resources on the areas of greatest need. We do not believe that it would be right to increase expenditure on that group of people who already enjoy the support which a substantial occupational pension provides. With the limit at its present level, unemployment benefit is not finally extinguished until substantial amounts of occupational pension are in payment.
Currently benefit remains payable up to the point where an occupational pension exceeds £85.90 per week for a person with a dependent adult and £66.50 per week for a single person. We believe that an occupational pension of £85.90 is still a substantial figure. We do not believe that to pay unemployment benefit when occupational pensions at even higher levels are being paid would be a wise use of resources. I believe that that comes under the heading of a remark made by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter at Second Reading when he said that there was a philosophical divide across the table on this matter.
On Amendment No. 43, as we know, this clause refers to unemployment benefit and its partial or total abatement when the person concerned is in receipt of an occupational pension. Section 17 of the Social Security Act 1975 provides that unemployment benefit is payable only for days when a person is capable of and available for work. It is therefore not an appropriate benefit for someone who has retired from regular employment. Unemployment benefit was designed to help people who, during the course of their normal working lives, find themselves
346
involuntarily—and generally unpredictably—without work, and often suddenly much worse off than when working. Retirement at the end of a pensionable career has never constituted "unemployment" in the sense in which that term is used in the national insurance scheme. If we accept that these people have retired because they have expected and planned to retire early, they are no longer genuinely available for or actively seeking further work. On this definition, they are clearly not entitled to unemployment benefit.
Amendment No. 44A to which we are also speaking would actually exempt from the abatement provision those people who had been compulsorily retired regardless of the level of their occupational pension, which in many cases could be substantial, and regardless of whether they were genuinely available for and seeking further employment.
There can be no doubt that some of these people who have retired have no real intention of seeking further work and are no longer genuinely available. Clearly they are not entitled to unemployment benefit. However, we can accept that others, particularly those who have been compulsorily retired, may be seeking further employment. But we cannot ignore the fact that many of them would be receiving substantial amounts by way of occupational pensions and we believe it would not be a wise use of resources to pay unemployment benefit in full to such people. It is on this that we rest our belief that the time is now right to extend the abatement provision to those aged 55 and over.
Lord Banks: Can the noble Lord say, in view of his remarks about the wise use of resources, why he distinguishes between an occupational pension exceeding £35 per week and an investment income exceeding £35 per week?
Lord Skelmersdale: The noble Lord has much wider experience of these matters than I. However, I suspect that people with an investment income of over £35 a week seldom fall into the benefit categories in any case.
Lord Banks: It seems to me that under the noble Lord's proposals somebody could be entitled to unemployment benefit even if he had an investment income exceeding £35 per week, even though he is over 55. Is that not so?
Lord Skelmersdale: The noble Lord is absolutely right.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I am disappointed by the Minister's response because I do not think that he has dealt with the point that I made, that the individual concerned will have made a contribution through his national insurance contributions and will have made a contribution to his pension. Therefore, this is in no way any form of charity or means-tested benefit but is a benefit for which contributions have been paid, and it is an entitlement.
As I said at Second Reading, I believe that if an insurance company offering cover reneged on contribution conditions in this way, there would be a lot of fuss made about that. I am not at all happy with

347
the response. I believe that there is an entitlement here and that people who have made a contribution should be entitled to receive the benefit when they need it. Individuals at the age of 55 very rarely regard themselves as having left the labour market and the availability for work conditions are already sufficient to deal with applications for unemployment benefit if people are not genuinely available for work, particularly since those availability rules, as I understand it, have recently been tightened up and instructions issued to the relevant officers accordingly. Therefore I intend to press the amendment.
5.25 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 43) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 72; Not-Contents, 108.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Ardwick, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Attlee, E.

Kilmarnock, L.

Aylestone, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Banks, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Blackstone, B.

Lockwood, B.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Longford, E.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Carter, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Molloy, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Mulley, L.

David, B.

Nicol, B.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Phillips, B.

Diamond, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

[Teller.]

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Ennals, L.

Richardson, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Ezra, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Falkland, V.

Serota, B.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Shackleton, L.

Gallacher, L.

Simon, V.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

[Teller.]

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Grimond, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hanworth, V.

Swann, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hayter, L.

Underhill, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

White, B.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Jacques, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Jay, L.

Jeger, B.

Winterbottom, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Ampthill, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Arran, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Barber, L.

Butterworth, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Caithness, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Beloff, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Belstead, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Birdwood, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Blatch, B.

Carnock, L.

Blyth, L.

Coleraine, L.

348

Colnbrook, L.

Marley, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Merrivale, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Mersey, V.

Cowley, E.

Milverton, L.

Cox, B.

Monk Bretton, L.

Craigavon, V.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Morris, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Mottistone, L.

Denham, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Derwent, L.

Munster, E.

Dundee, E.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Effingham, E.

Nelson, E.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Elton, L.

Newall, L.

Erne, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Faithfull, B.

Orkney, E.

Ferrers, E.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Forbes, L.

Pender, L.

Fortescue, E.

Plummer of St Marylebone, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Rees, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Renton, L.

Greenway, L.

Rodney, L.

Hailsham of Saint

Rugby, L.

Marylebone, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Halsbury, E.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Havers, L.

Sandford, L.

Hesketh, L.

Selborne, E.

Hives, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hooper, B.

Southborough, L.

Inglewood, L.

Sudeley, L.

Ingrow, L.

Swinfen, L.

Ironside, L.

Terrington, L.

Killearn, L.

Teviot, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Teynham, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Layton, L.

Ullswater, V.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Westbury, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Windlesham, L.

Lyell, L.

Wise, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Wolfson, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Young, B.

Margadale, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.33 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 44 and 44A not moved.]
Lord Swann Lord Swann moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 7, line 12, at end insert ("; and
(c) the following words shall be added at the end of subsection (1)—
"in each tax year up to and including 1988–89 and in each subsequent tax year it shall mean an amount equal to the lower earnings lime.").
The noble Lord said: This little amendment is intended to clear up an injustice—not a serious injustice but an injustice nonetheless—on people at a time when they are transferring from employment to retirement.
It has been explained already—and I need not repeat it—that a considerable time ago it was agreed that in the first year of retirement under the age of 65 a person was eligible for, but did not necessarily get, income benefit. In the Social Security (No. 2) Act 1980 the age limit of 60 was brought in and a figure of £35 (said by the government of the day to be a substantial figure) above which, if one's pension income exceeded it, one's unemployment benefit was reduced pound for pound. From 1980 until now the figure has remained at £35. I doubt whether it was substantial then, and it certainly is not substantial now.
There are a variety of ways in which this little injustice can be put right, and some of the subsequent amendments deal with just that. I support them, though they adopt a different rationale and a slightly more expensive way of achieving that than the way I have suggested. I suggest that the £35 should be brought into line with what is known as the lower earnings limit; that is, the level of income below which employees are not expected to make any contribution towards national insurance benefits. At the moment the figure is £39 for the lower earnings limit, and next year it will be £41 a week.
As the Government said in 1980 that they wanted to withhold unemployment benefit from those with a substantial occupational pension, surely it is reasonable that a substantial pension cannot be smaller than the level at which people are deemed to have too small an income to pay national insurance contributions. That is the genesis and the rationale of this little amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Banks: I should like to support this amendment. Amendments Nos. 45, 46 and 47A all seek, on an ascending scale, to index link the amount of occupational pension which may be enjoyed by someone over the age of 55 without suffering abatement.
Amendment No. 45 is the most modest. As the noble Lord, Lord Swann, explained, it would raise the £35 limit to the lower earnings limit of £39 and as the lower earnings limit is raised to take account of inflation the figure of £39 would rise with it. Amendment No. 46 would increase the limit to £50 to take into account inflation since the figure of £35 was first fixed. From then on the figure of £50 would be linked to increases in prices.
Amendment No. 46A would increase the limit to £50 in exactly the same way as Amendment No. 46 but it would then tie it to average earnings. In present circumstances that would be the most generous since earnings are increasing faster than prices, but I think it would be the most logical. Amendment No. 46 is the minimum which I think the Government ought to accept because they would then be taking account of inflation since the figure of £35 was first fixed; but even Amendment No. 45 would be welcomed and would be a considerable improvement on the present situation. I should be happy to see any one of the three amendments adopted by the Government and I await eagerly to learn which one they have chosen.
Lord Skelmersdale: Hope springs eternal! These amendments would reduce the impact of the abatement provisions for all occupational pensioners aged 55 and over by two means: first, by increasing the threshold at which it takes effect; and, secondly, by committing the Government to an annual adjustment of the threshold in line either with the lower earnings limit, as the noble Lord, Lord Swann, explained, the RPI or average earnings.
I do not want to repeat what I said on the previous amendment, but I emphasise that we do not believe that to pay unemployment benefit when occupational pensions at even higher levels are in payment would be a wise use of resources. These amendments would also commit the Government to an annual uprating
350
of the threshhold. The Government are committed to an annual uprating for certain benefits so that they maintain their purchasing power, but to commit ourselves to the uprating principle here would tie the Government's hands in an important area in an undesirable way.
It would be difficult in advance to estimate the cost. It is much more sensible for the Government to be able to judge the cost year by year. I accept that we have not uprated the figure since the principle was introduced—a point made by both noble Lords— but it must be weighed each year against other competing demands on the social security budget.
In the context of these abatement provisions, we have been looking at the position of personal pensions which, at present, are not included in the definition of,
"payments by way of occupational pension"
to quote Section 5 of the Social Security (No. 2) Act 1980.
We intend that personal pensions should have the same effect on benefits as do occupational pensions. For most people the new arrangements to facilitate their taking up personal pensions or to enable them to transfer from occupational pensions to personal pensions will not come into effect until July this year and it will be some time thereafter before any significant effects are felt. This is because it will not be possible to transfer where the occupational pension has been put into payment.
Secondly, a person has no right to transfer his occupational pension entitlement to a personal pension where he leaves his employment or drops out of his occupational pension scheme within 12 months of that scheme's pensionable age. Thirdly, a person who remains with his employer but opts out of the occupational pension scheme cannot require the scheme's trustees to transfer benefits which accrued before April 1988, until he leaves that employment.
Finally, the administrative costs of transferring limited benefit rights accruing from April 1988 will be disproportionate to the benefit transferred. We do not think therefore that there will be many people rushing to transfer to personal pension schemes to avoid the abatement provision, but we shall be introducing the necessary amendments to legislation in due course.
The basic problem is not so much that they reduce the savings achievable by the abatement provision by between £6 and £12 but that they commit the Government to annual adjustments. The national insurance scheme is a statutory scheme and not a contractual one on commercial insurance lines. It is because it is a public scheme and because we feel that we are moving with the times as regards people's expectations—a point I made on the last amendment—that I cannot advise the Committee to accept any of these amendments.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Can my noble friend go a little further than this? He accepts that the £35 has been steadily eroded. Thanks to the good economic policy of the Government it has not been eroded recently very fast, but all the same it has been eroded. As my noble friend said that there will be future

351
legislation to bring in personal pensions, that would be an opportunity for legislation to adjust the £35 figure one way or another.
It seems a little unfortunate if the figure is steadily to go down without any compensating action. I should be very grateful if my noble friend would tell the Committee that when the legislation he has forecast comes forward the Government will be considering some adjustment of this figure. If he can give some such indication it would make it a little easier for some of us to support him.
Lord Skelmersdale: In the future legislation to which I have referred the Government will take account of the current £35 limit. I believe that what I said as regards the last amendment stands for the moment: that with the current very low level of inflation, for which my noble friend has very generously given credit to the Government, the fact that the benefit remains payable up to the point where an occupational pension exceeds £85.90 a week for a person with a dependent adult, and so on, means that it is a substantial figure and one that should not be lightly disregarded.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: Is it not a fact that the £35 is now worth about £48 and therefore the difference is quite substantial at the present time?
Lord Skelmersdale: I am afraid I have not with me my ready reckoner of inflation proofing or real money. I am afraid that I cannot answer that question.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Nonetheless, can my noble friend answer my question? I am not quite sure what he said in reply to my question as to whether in bringing forward the legislation he has forecast, serious consideration will be given to adjusting the £35 figure.
Lord Skelmersdale: I had intended to give that very commitment. We will seriously consider this matter when we consider the whole realm of future legislation.
Lord Swann: The Minister said that hope springs eternal. It did, and thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, it still does. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 46 not moved.]
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 46A:
Page 7 line 12, at end insert
("( ) In section 5(1) of the Social Security (No. 2) Act 1980 for "such sum not less than £35 as is prescribed" there shall be substituted "for 1988–89 the sum of £50 and for succeeding years such amount exceeding £50 as may be prescribed to take account of the increase in average earnings since 1988–89."").
The noble Baroness said: I do not intend to press this amendment in the light of the statement made by the Minister this afternoon. If he can, I should like
352
the Minister to give some indication when we may expect legislation on both the private personal pensions concept which is contained in Amendment No. 47 and also on the possible uprating of the £35.
Lord Skelmersdale: It seems a little strange at this time of year to be saying to the Committee that I cannot prejudge or leak the contents of the Queen's Speech, but I am afraid that is very much the position.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 47 not moved.]
Clause 6 agreed to.
Lord Henderson of Brompton Lord Henderson of Brompton moved Amendment No. 48:
After Clause 6, insert the following new clause:
("Income support.
In regulation 22 of the Income Support (General) Regulations 1987—

(a) in paragraph (1), the words 'or (5)' shall cease to have effect;

(b) paragraphs (5) and (6)(d) shall cease to have effect.").

The noble Lord said: This amendment is about an anomaly, or perhaps a mistake, in the income support regulations. Regulation 22 is concerned with voluntary unemployment deductions and so far as I can see the rule is the same as it was before. Paragraph 5 of the regulations is new and is the subject of this amendment and also of some concern. It is paragraph 5 that applies the 40 per cent. deduction to,
"a claimant who is not required to be available for employment".
I can categorise that as a person who, first, has appealed against a decision based upon the opinion of a medical officer of the DHSS that he is capable of work; secondly, is still considered incapable of work by his own doctor; and, thirdly, is not available for work. The effect of this—suffering a reduction of income support by 40 per cent.—is that a claimant who appeals has his benefit cut by 40 per cent. while a claimant who does not appeal and who makes himself available for work contrary to the advice of a general practitioner will get the full rate of income support.
There is a possibility that he may lose disability premium if he is eligible for that. There will be a strong incentive to sign on as unemployed against the advice of the doctor, whether it be a DHSS doctor or his own doctor. I do not think that it can be right to do that rather than appeal and have his benefit reduced for several weeks, or something of that order, pending the hearing of the appeal.
I ask whether this is deliberate or a mistake. If it is deliberate, surely it should be rectified. Draft regulations were published on 1st July 1987 and Regulation 22(5) is the same as the draft. That regulation refers to two other regulations and they differ from the draft in that the draft said that the availability requirement "may" be waived, while the final version says "shall" be waived. According to the final version, the 40 per cent. deduction applies automatically even if the person makes himself available for work pending the appeal. That is not right. It would have been right if the draft regulation had been followed. If it is not right, can it be put right

353
in the way I suggest? Perhaps it is a mistake. It is for that reason that I move the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Skelmersdale: I ought to confirm straight away to the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, that in the paragraphs of the Bill which he asks shall cease to have effect we are maintaining the status quo. We are not introducing something new. It already exists under the supplementary benefit regulations.
The noble Lord argued that it would be a strong incentive to sign on possibly against the advice of a sick person's doctor. I accept that there is a reduced level of benefit while the appeal is being heard, but I should point out that if the appeal confirms the original decision, supplementary benefit, or under the new scheme income support, is lost altogether. However, the reduced level is not reclaimed from the beneficiary as a result. If the appeal turns down the original decision, the reduced supplementary benefit which he has received during the appeal period will be made up to the full amount. I hope that that will help the noble Lord.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: It certainly does. I should like to consider what the noble Lord has said. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Ennals Lord Ennals moved Amendment No. 49:
After Clause 6, insert the following new clause:
("Rehabilitation for employment.
In the Income Support (General) Regulations 1987—

(a) the provisions of regulations 35 and 36 shall apply to a payment made by a charitable or voluntary organization to a person under a contract of participation in a training programme provided by that organization for the purpose of rehabilitating him for remunerative employment, in the same way as to remuneration derived from employment as an employed earner, and any such payment shall be treated as earnings for the purposes of those regulations and Schedule 8;

(b) the provisions of paragraphs 7 and 8 of Schedule 8 shall apply to such a payment in the same way as to earnings from the employments mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) of that paragraph 7.").

The noble Lord said: Perhaps I may explain the problem that the proposal is designed to meet. If this should be the wrong way of seeking to meet it, it may be that the Minister will have a proposal that will help the Committee.
For nearly 20 years I have been involved in the Peter Bedford Project which helps to rehabilitate single homeless people. Some are victims of alcoholism who live in shelters of one kind or another. Some have had psychiatric problems. They are all homeless and rootless. The problem is becoming much more widely known throughout our society. These are people who in a sense have slipped out of the network of our society and are homeless and rootless. It must be the objective of society to try to help these people to live a reasonable and settled life again.
The task of getting them back into employment is not an inconsiderable one and very often if these people are prepared to take a job, they cannot take one initially for more than one or two days a week. It is a gradual process and requires a good deal of
354
support and the building-up of the confidence of the individuals concerned. In the project in which I have been involved it has been encouraging to see how many people have decided virtually to pick themselves up off the streets, having been given some help, and have been able to survive both in work—in this case mainly in office cleaning—and in accommodation. Many are now settled people.
Perhaps I may give another example. It is because of this that I feel impelled to bring this amendment before the Committee. St. Mungo Housing owns and manages hotels for single homeless people across London. Its aim, and the aim of the Peter Bedford Project to which I have referred, is to rehabilitate residents not just by assisting them to find independent housing but also by helping them find employment. St. Mungo's has established an employment training programme supported by central and local government to develop a new initiative for the long-term unemployed who are homeless. As I said, that number is steadily increasing. An increasing number of people who use the services of St. Mungo also suffer from psychological problems and mental illness. Some may be able to progress towards a more independent lifestyle, provided that they are able to develop sufficient self-confidence.
As the Committee will know, there is a system of disregards, whereby DHSS claimants who earn more than £4 a week see a corresponding reduction in benefit £1 for £1. Unfortunately, the current disregard, despite the proposed increase to £5 a week, constitutes an actual disincentive. The Social Security Bill contains provisions for certain groups to have the disregard increased to £15 a week. I want to see this higher disregard extended to those who are attempting to gain employable skills by participating in one or other of these two programmes. It applies to a number of other organisations as well. I am referring to St. Mungo and to the Peter Bedford Project as examples.
I am aware the rehabilitative nature of such participation requires some definition. In practice, training programmes run by voluntary or charitable organisations are time-limited for each participant, and as long as entitlement to the higher disregard is linked to participation we do not see the Government being required to extend an open-ended commitment. That would be too much to expect.
I believe that extending the higher disregard in the way outlined will be of real assistance not only to the organisation but to the people themselves and will eventually help some of them to lead lives independent of the need for state benefits. That is a worthy objective. This proposal is consistent with the declared objective of the Government's policies on care in the community and with their desire to promote personal independence among the long-term unemployed. This is a good example of the Government's policy, which I support, of wanting to help people to stand on their own two feet. If this problem can be dealt with in a way other than by increasing the level of the disregard, I hope that the noble Lord will say so. If there is some other way, I shall be only too pleased to come forward with an amendment at the Report stage.
It would be wrong to reject such an amendment without finding some way to end a problem affecting thousands of people—I am not pretending that it is hundreds of thousands. The projects involved in this work are worthy of our support and the support of Her Majesty's Government.
Lord Skelmersdale: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, for tabling the amendment because we all agree that it is necessary to help people pick themselves up, as the noble Lord put it. The income support general regulations do just this in providing for the first £5 of any income from a charitable or voluntary organisation to be disregarded. This is an improvement on the £4 currently disregarded in the supplementary benefit scheme. By treating charitable and voluntary payments separately for disregard purposes, trainees who also take up part-time employment can receive the £5 or £15 disregard on their earnings depending on their circumstances. This would not be possible if the charity or the voluntary payments were treated as earnings. Here lies the problem.
It has been the practice of consecutive governments that trainees who are not engaged under a contract of employment should not be treated as receiving earnings. To do otherwise now would make it necessary to consider whether trainees were in remunerative work and therefore disqualified from receiving income support, which I am sure the noble Lord will agree would not be a good thing.
People who are in remunerative work for 24 hours or more a week are not entitled to income support. Moreover, I am afraid that paragraph 7 of Schedule 8 would be inappropriate because that paragraph refers to people such as part-time firemen and coastguards and the disregard recognises the special nature of their work, which of course would be different from that which the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, has in mind.
Training programmes may be run by charitable or voluntary organisations which will also pay training earnings on behalf of the MSC. MSC training allowances do not constitute earnings and therefore trainees are not excluded from receiving income support because of the renumerative-work provisions. Training allowances are taken fully into account, although any reimbursed travelling expenses and certain away-from-home expenses are disregarded. If the MSC training allowances were topped-up by the charitable or voluntary organisations and those additional payments were treated as earnings, we would be back in the same trap.
Furthermore, the current Employment Bill, which received its First Reading in this House it seems just a few minutes ago, provides a power for the treatment of topping-up payments. It would be wrong for such payments to be regarded as earnings. I am sure that the noble Lord would agree with that. I am afraid that, with the best will in the world, I cannot see any way out of the noble Lord's conundrum.
6 p.m.
Lord Ennals: If the Minister cannot see any way out of the problem, then we shall have to have another try. I understand the problem. I do not agree with him that to call a disregard earnings would be wrong. I think that the Minister also recognises the nature of the group of damaged people about whom I am concerned, for whom work has not been a pattern of life often for 10, 15, or 20 years. Those people, as I said before (the Minister repeated me) are being picked up by their own efforts, with the help of society. It is impossible to think that they could qualify for training allowances. They can start by doing the most simple work. Some of the work we have organised has been gardening, cleaning up gardens or cleaning the roads. It is simple work. Office cleaning is perhaps the most sophisticated work that we have arranged. We have cleaned DHSS offices up to a reasonable standard. I shall not press the amendment to a Division. I would not succeed. In his response the Minister seemed to be sympathetic to the problem that I raised but not to have an answer. I have presented the problem but I too have no satisfactory answer. I wonder whether he will say that he is happy that there should be discussions between his department, perhaps the Department of Employment, representatives of the organisations to which I have referred and maybe a number of others to see whether there is a better solution than the one that I have tried to foist upon the Bill.
Lord Skelmersdale: Wearing my mental-illness and mental-handicap hat, I of course see the problem. That is why I have been sympathetic to what the noble Lord said and to the essence (the nut in the middle) of the amendment that he has moved. But, as I say, this is a major problem; it is one thing to recognise a problem but quite another to find a solution—bearing in mind the likely timescale of the Bill—within the context of the Bill. However, I shall certainly be delighted to talk with the officials and the noble Lord's advisers to see whether some solution can eventually be found.
Lord Ennals: I am grateful to the Minister for being so sympathetic. It may be that we shall not find anything that can come into the Bill, although it may go into another Bill. If we find a way of resolving this problem, it will not have been a waste of time to bring the amendment before the Committee. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Ennals Lord Ennals moved Amendment No. 49A:
After Clause 6, insert the following new clause:
Disability premium.
("Recurrent spells of incapacity
In paragraph 12(1) of Schedule 2 to the Income Support (General) Regulations 1987, after sub-paragraph (1)(b), there shall be inserted the following sub-paragraph—
"(bb) the claimant is treated as being incapable of work for the purposes of one or more of the provisions mentioned in subparagraph (b) and, in the opinion of an adjudication officer, because of the nature of his illness, is likely to be so treated for, on average, at least one week out of four in each year until he dies or reaches pensionable age; or".").
The noble Lord said: Here I am having another try at moving the amendment standing in my name on the Marshalled List. The amendment deals with a different group of people. It is not a group with which our society is accustomed to dealing. It is a new group. There are many Members of the Committee who are deeply concerned not only about the spread of AIDS (as was shown by the debate in this place some eight days ago) but by the sad problems that arise for those who contract the disease. It has of course been brought before us in a very poignant way through the haemophiliacs whose infection could in no way be ascribed to themselves. Haemophiliacs are twice hurt—by the condition itself (haemophilia) and by AIDS resulting from infected blood.
I hope that Britain will become independent with regard to blood supplies and have pure blood, so that there will be no new cases of haemophiliacs attracting HIV infection. The Government have, of course, sought to deal with existing cases with a grant of £10 million to the Haemophilia Society. That grant recognises the special problem of haemophiliacs. But, in no way is the grant a substitute for a benefit which will help all AIDS victims to have some regular income during a time which for them may be a short lifespan. Clearly, the disability premium is the most suitable available benefit.
At present we are not talking about many people. Sadly for them, we are not talking about people who are likely to be disabled for a long time. Sadly, their lifespan is likely to be short. I hope that the Committee will not be satisfied with a ministerial negative based on the argument that the benefit should be based on a particular medical condition. That is of course how one would normally have responded, but the disability premium is not designed for a particular medical condition.
AIDS is a new and terrible affliction. We must find ways to assist those who have the disease and who are unable, as the law stands at present, to obtain an income which would assist them during the rest of their short lives. The problem was raised by Mrs. Beckett in another place in Standing Committee on 17th December. At that time there was a useful exchange, which in a sense gave the Government a warning that this was a problem with which we would need to deal.
I shall quote from representations that I have received from the Haemophilia Society. It has said:
"Our primary concern is eligibility for Disability Premium. At present to qualify for the premium an individual has either to be in receipt of one or more non-means tested benefit, such as Attendance or Mobility Allowance, or be incapacitated through illness for six months.
The prognosis for acute HIV infection and AIDS is bouts of recurring opportunistic infections which can, more often than not, be controlled. It is unlikely therefore that people are ill for six months at any one stretch. However, the cost of living with AIDS remains consistent or increases. A recent analysis by the Haemophilia Society estimated the weeekly cost of living with AIDS at between £65 and £75 a week. People with AIDS tend to be unable to work. There is therefore a possibility that someone with AIDS will have to survive on Personal Allowance only".
I am sure the Committee will agree that that situation is not satisfactory.
"In order to prevent that situation arising, it is suggested that individuals, on diagnosis of Persistent Generalised
358
Lymphaclenopathy (PGL) or similar symptoms of developing infection, be automatically awarded Disability Premium"—
That is without waiting for the normal six months' qualification, which might be too late.
I should be most grateful if the Minister would look sympathetically at this problem, which will be a growing problem. However, we all hope that it will not be massive in so far as the lifespan of those who have contracted the disease will almost inevitably be a short one. I beg to move.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the Government sympathise with everyone infected with the AIDS virus, especially those who are terminally ill, and with their families. As far as haemophiliacs are concerned, I am grateful for the appreciation of the noble Lord of the £10 million trust fund. However, he will agree with me that those haemophiliacs infected by contaminated blood products are in a unique position.
Having said that, this amendment goes very much further than AIDS sufferers. It is very widely drawn indeed and would cover any intermittent illness, if that makes sense. The amendment would extend the disability premium to anyone suffering from an incurable condition which is likely to incapacitate him or her for on average at least one week in four for the foreseeable future. The premium would be payable for any period of incapacity from the date of onset of the condition. Again, we have genuine difficulties here. The principal one is a practical one. Entitlement to income support and to the premium structure is based on clear and objective criteria. The disability premium is thus based on receipt of a long-term incapacity benefit, a disability benefit, blindness or proven long-term incapacity for work. These criteria are clear and easily understood and they rest on the facts at the time of the claim.
Before a disability premium could be awarded in accordance with the proposed clause, the adjudication officer would have to make a medical decision as to the likely prognosis for the claimant's condition. Clearly, as the Committee will recognise, this is not an area in which a layman could properly make a decision, so inevitably medical opinion would have to be sought. It seems to me unlikely that it would be possible to judge, in advance and with any certainty, the extent to which a condition, which falls short of being totally incapacitating in effect, would restrict a patient's future ability to work. I am sure that doctors would not wish to risk their patient's morale by making a decision as to the incurable, or terminal nature of a condition in the early stages. Without such advice however it would be impossible to determine entitlement under the proposed clause.
Even if it were possible to obtain the necessary medical advice in every individual case affected, that would not be the end of our difficulties. To claim the extra premium, the claimant would have to know the rule and recognise that his condition fell within the scope of the premium. This very uncertainty about entitlement is one of the major factors which has contributed to the need to reform the present supplementary benefit scheme. The noble Lord might well say "Let the Secretary of State himself identify

359
the appropriate cases". But this would mean a return to intrusive questioning and would affect not just the sick, but the unemployed as well.
The new income support scheme will provide over £60 million extra to sick and disabled people through the disability premium, and a further £8 million will be spent on the severe disability premium. In response to the very real concerns shown by noble Lords, and in another place, we are setting up a trust fund for the very severely disabled who need considerable help to live independently in the community. The Disablement Income Group are helping us with this special task; they have expertise in and knowledge of the cost of disablement. The fund will provide up to £5 million in 1988/89 in a flexible response to the special needs of these people, a fact mentioned and just acclaimed by my noble friend Lady Lane-Fox.
I think that noble Lords will agree that this is a considerable achievement. In the long-term we shall be looking at all the benefits for the disabled, including the income support premium structure, in the light of the OPCS survey. In the meantime I am afraid that we cannot make piecemeal amendments to the income support premiums. That would jeopardise the reform and the position of the vast majority of the sick and disabled under pension age who will benefit from it. These are very real difficulties and I am afraid that I cannot advise the Committee to accept this amendment.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Ennals: I did not expect the Minister to accept the amendment just as it was proposed because I recognise that it is a very difficult one. I have to say to him that many of the people who are in the sort of condition (whether or not it is due to AIDS) where they are faced with the problem of a choice between intrusive questioning and being very broke indeed, would accept intrusive questioning. Of course, they and we would all accept that any such decision would have to be based on a medical assessment. It could not possibly be done by a layman.
We are facing a difficult problem and the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, expressed great satisfaction that agreement had been reached with the Disablement Income Group on the trust fund, or however it is described. But they will recognise that this only happened after representations from a number of other organisations which one might have thought would have had the experience or in this case would be more valuable than the Disablement Income Group. I think this covers MENCAP, the Spastics Society, RADAR, who were very unhappy about the proposals which have been made by the department. The disablement group were the only ones prepared to enter into a deal with the Government. They were worried about some of the principles concerned.
However, that is aside from the issue, although it shows the great difficulties with which we are faced both on this side in putting forward a proposal and by the Minister in deciding whether to accept it. I am of course not going to seek to press this amendment
360
because it is another try-out, hoping that the Minister will say that there is a germ of something here, as he did on the first amendment. However, he has not done so on this one. I think it is a matter on which the various organisations concerned with disabled people and people like the Haemophilia Society may have to come together to decide whether there are other proposals which they can put forward. Those proposals may enable a particular problem which I have tried to outline to be dealt with in a way which relieves hardship.
I am a little disappointed that the Minister, in saying "no", had no helpful way of saying, "Well, maybe, but we shall do it in another way". I shall not press him on this occasion however, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
Clauses 7 and 8 agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Part I Earnings Factors. Part II, Transfer Values]:
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 16, line 32, before ("in"') insert ("in sub-paragraph (2),")
The noble Lord said: This is a purely technical amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 9 and 10 agreed to.
Schedule 3 [The Social Fund]:
Lord Banks Lord Banks moved Amendment No. 51:
Page 17, line 17, at end insert ("and to meet such other expenses as appear to the Secretary of State should be paid as of right to all persons of the prescribed descriptions in such circumstances.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 51. Paragraph 2 of Schedule 3 of the Bill makes provision for the Secretary of State to make payments, in prescribed circumstances, to prescribed descriptions of persons to meet expenses for heating incurred in cold weather. This will enable the Secretary of State in future years to make payments from the social fund, although they are not being cash-limited for a scheme similar to that operating last year and this year. The amendment would broaden the scope of this provision. If, for example, the Secretary of State felt that all those qualifying for the heating payments should also receive a further payment from the social fund to meet other expenses caused by the cold weather, then he could arrange that such payments were made.
Cold weather requires extra clothing, extra blankets, perhaps additional food and certainly additional maintenance and weatherproofing of homes in addition to extra heating expense. The Secretary of State could make a payment towards these or other expenses, if he chose, out of the social fund, if this amendment were carried. I beg to move.
Lord Skelmersdale: As the noble Lord, Lord Banks, has explained, the intention of this amendment is to extend the scope of the social fund's provision for cold weather payments beyond

361
anything yet envisaged. Let us be clear in what we are intending to do by way of extra payments to help vulnerable people in cold weather. We want to be able to provide quick help to make sure that they feel able to keep their homes adequately heated. That is extra help, in addition to the provision already made in the income support rates.
The new income support scheme will continue to give people money to pay for heating, and further help will be directed more effectively through the premiums of those in greatest need: pensioners, the sick, the disabled and families. The money that is spent at present on heating additions under the supplementary benefit scheme has been included in the resources available to the new scheme.
Other practical help is available from other quarters. Under a scheme operated by the Department of the Environment, 90 per cent. of the costs of the loft insulation will be available as a grant to people in receipt of income support, housing benefits, and family credit. Similar criteria will guarantee eligibility for grants covering 90 per cent. of the cost of materials for draught-proofing carried out by the Manpower Services Commission's community programme. I am not sure that I am allowed to advertise but the department has recently produced a pamphlet entitled Keep Warm, Keep Well, which describes how people can help themselves in winter. We do not want to burden the cold weather scheme with all kinds of single payment-type regulations, or to duplicate help available from other sources. I therefore ask the noble Lord not to press his amendment.
Lord Banks: The noble Lord might be slightly more friendly towards this amendment, as it is only enabling and does not compel the Secretary of State to make any payment if he feels, along with the Minister, that to do so would add complications and that there is no need to do so because of the existence of other provisions. However, single payments for items other than insulating or draught-proofing would presumably be cash-limited. This amendment would have been a way of ensuring that anything extra required as a result of severe weather would not be cash-limited. It is clear, however, that the noble Lord is not attracted to the amendment and I do not intend to press it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Banks Lord Banks moved Amendment No. 52:
Page 17, line 17, at end insert—
("2B) The following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (7)—
"(7A) The Secretary of State shall lay an annual report before Parliament listing the number of applications refused for grants and loans under the social fund and summarising the reasons for refusal.'')
The noble Lord said: There is a great deal of apprehension about how the social fund will work in practice. The noble Lord would have to admit that that is so, even if he does not share any of that apprehension. There is concern about the fact that the fund is cash-limited; there is concern that the fund will operate on a discretionary basis; and there is
362
regret that there will be no right of appeal to an independent tribunal.
It has been noted that the Social Security Advisory Committee has said that the arrangements for the social fund are unfair and unenforceable. In all those circumstances it is important that the operation of the fund should be carefully monitored and the results of that monitoring made public. The report required by the amendment would reveal how many applications for grants and loans had been refused during the year under review and would give a summary of the reasons. It would indicate what were the principal reasons and how many refusals were attributable to each. That would help both Parliament and the public judge how far the fund was meeting the need and how restrictive its discretionary policy and cash limits had turned out to he. I beg to move.
Lord Skelmersdale: The noble Lord is proposing that we specify in statute the information that Parliament should receive about the operation of the social fund. It is the Government's clear intention to monitor very closely the operation of the social fund and to collect a good deal of information about it.
In the first year in particular—and I understand the noble Lord's worries about that first year—we shall expect to follow our practice hitherto with the social fund and make information widely available both to your Lordships and to interested observers at intervals. But that information is likely to range much wider than that sought by the amendment, covering payments made and reviewed as well as payments refused, amounts spent on loans and grants, and amounts recovered.
I hope the noble Lord accepts that that will give far more information to the public at large and to Parliament assembled than would the proposals in his amendment.
Baroness Jeger: We support the noble Lord, Lord Banks, because there is widespread anxiety (and it is not limited just to this side of the Committee) about how the social fund will work in practice and what effect it will have on the people who need to use it. It seems to me very modest to ask for an annual report.
I should like to put this question to the Minister: what will be the role of the Social Security Advisory Committee? Will the reports covering the granting of social fund payments and refusals be referred to that committee? I understand that it is not at all happy about the arrangements being made for the operation of the social fund. Although this amendment will not be pressed to a Division, the noble Lord opposite will appreciate that there is widespread concern about how the scheme will work in practice.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: The noble Lord, Lord Banks, has very clearly articulated the main reasons that there is great concern about the operation of the social fund. If the Minister will not accept this amendment, I ask him to say in what form he proposes to make available to the public the rather wider information and statistics that he said the Government will produce.

363
I should have thought that here was a case for an annual statutory report. The noble Lord, Lord Banks, has made out that case and has been supported from the Opposition Front Bench. If it is not to be statutory, how is Parliament to know the information in question? Will the Government give an undertaking that they will present an annual Cmnd. Paper? I shall be very interested to know the answer.
Baroness Faithfull: I am deeply concerned about the social fund and support the noble Lord, Lord Banks, in that we must know who has been turned down and to whom grants are being given. It also requires a little further research as to what happens to those people who have been refused a grant—otherwise the scheme will not be cost-effective.
I give just one example. One might have the case of a single-parent family living at subsistence level in bed and breakfast accommodation, on supplementary benefit. If that family joyfully received the information that it was to be given a council house or flat, it must be provided with the bare essentials. If it did not have the money to buy a cooker and a few utensils and had to borrow that money, either from the DHSS or from somebody else, then it just could not manage. I speak for the sake of the children, because they would be bound to suffer in that situation.
I was very worried when I was working. I must say that those who administer supplementary benefits have the worst possible time of anybody. I regret to have to say that some of them took the easy way out. If someone asked for a grant, they gave him a grant, and I felt that they very often gave people too much. I know of one family who were given a cooker, a fridge, a television set, a carpet and a suite. I went to the supplementary benefit office and told the staff that I thought that it was quite wrong for people to be given that amount of goods.
Not unnaturally, and understandably, the Government were very worried about the money being spent on grants. I think that they were right to be worried but they have come down on the wrong people. It was the staff in the supplementary benefit offices who were so overgenerous. If they had not been, the grants that were given would not have been so high and the Government would then not feel that they had to set up a fund and ensure that only a certain amount of money was available.
In my authority we were so worried about the situation that the social services department gave me the money to employ a van driver, to advertise weekly in the paper for secondhand furniture and to get a store for it. That meant that anyone moving out of bed-and-breakfast accommodation or who needed something could come to our second-hand store and pay perhaps 50p to £1 for goods.
I understand the Government's point that we were spending the most enormous amount of money, but I believe that we were spending it in the wrong way and now we are taxing the wrong people. If people on supplementary benefit have to pay back what they have received and they are on subsistence level
364
anyway they will be in an impossible situation. I support the idea of the noble Lord, Lord Banks, that we must know who has been turned down and what the effect has been on them in the long-term so that we have an absolutely clear picture of how the social fund is working. I support the amendment.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Lane-Fox: I am always a little confused when we start to suggest that the income support scheme has a gloomy outlook. I quite understand that parts of a new scheme of this kind will need to be worked out. After all, the income support will replace the supplementary benefit scheme. It is simpler and it includes a disability premium. What is more, it will lead to increased spending of over £60 million for people who are sick and disabled. That fact is very often overlooked.
Lord Ennals: I wish to make a very brief comment so that it is not necessarily assumed that we on this side of the Committee accept part of what the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, has said. I absolutely agree with her conclusion and I totally support the proposal made by the noble Lord, Lord Banks. However, certainly my experience of social security offices is not that the staff are likely to be overgenerous. My experience was often that they were not adequate in the payments that they made. Sometimes they were prepared to look at cases again if the person concerned was intelligent enough to see their Member of Parliament. But it should not have been that way.
I am merely saying that there is a great variation in the way in which special payments are administered. Sometimes some benefit office staff may be overgenerous but more often it is the case that they are not as generous as they might be. I greatly regret that the system is being changed, but that is another matter.
Lord Swinfen: I support to a certain extent what the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, has said with regard to the size of grants particularly in regard to disabled people who are leaving some form of institution to live independently. Very often those people are on supplementary benefit and they have absolutely nothing with which to set up home. Physically disabled people particularly could be in danger unless they receive a grant that is sufficiently large to obtain satisfactory equipment. To a certain extent that also applies to mentally disabled people. It is no good giving them equipment which is going to break down because it is not robust enough to do the job.
On the summary of the reasons for refusal of grants and loans, I understand that the applicant must show that he has looked elsewhere for funding. One of the problems that is worrying the voluntary bodies at the moment is the fact that the number of applications which are already being made to them is increasing very rapidly because people are beginning to think that the social fund is already working. I know that my organisation, John Grooms Association for the Disabled, which is not a grant-making body, has for years had the occasional appeal for funds. Those appeals are now coming in regularly and we are not able to help the people concerned.

365
Can the Minister give some kind of indication as to where the applicants are going to be directed when they have to seek alternative funds? At the moment the voluntary bodies, with the income that they are getting, are already fully loaded with work and they will not be able to take on an additional burden.
Lord Skelmersdale: Before the noble Lord, Lord Banks, responds I shall reply to various points that have been made. My noble friend Lady Faithfull said that it was necessary for Parliament and all the various charitable workers in this field to know who has been given grants and loans and who has been turned down. That is a very balanced view, if I may say so, but the amendment is unbalanced. It just looks at the negative side.
I suggest to the Committee that if the information laid down in the report is as restrictive as the amendment would suggest, it would be to the point of being useless on its own. Although we are still refining and finalising the content of an information package, I give a firm commitment in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, that we shall make it widely available in due course. We shall put it in the Library of both Houses and there will be absolutely no secretiveness about it at all. It is not in anybody's interest to have secretiveness.
Furthermore, I can give another commitment on behalf of the Government, which is that we shall be commissioning independent research on the social fund from an outside body when it is up and running. We expect that to be in the year 1988–89.
My noble friend Lord Swinfen asked how the social fund would affect voluntary bodies. I answered a parliamentary Question on this subject on 26th January. I can do no better than to repeat what I said (at col. 493 of the Official Report):
"The advice to people is to go to the social fund officer in the local social security office. He will make a crisis loan payment if appropriate. Only if a suitable charity exists which, as I have said, has the money or service available would he advise the applicant to seek help there; for no other reason".
I hope that that helps my noble friend. In due course he will be able to read the rest of the Official Report concerning that Question.
As regards loans being a bad idea, we are an awful way down this route to have second thoughts now. But we believe it is right in principle to make loans from the social fund for three main reasons. The first is that one of the main objectives of the reforms is to give people a sum of money to manage for themselves so that they do not have to keep going to the Government for extras. That will be achieved through income support, which will be simpler than supplementary benefit and will provide additional help to certain groups, especially families, through premiums. The points that my noble friend Lady Lane-Fox made about the progress that the Government have made in this whole area of social security are absolutely right.
Secondly, it is only fair that people on income support should budget for items of expenditure just as others who are living at or not far above the income support level must do. Thirdly, the same amount of money can be used to help more people.
366
Those were the criteria on which the 1986 Act was passed and they remain firm now.
Baroness Jeger: Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may ask one question. I understand that last year single payments accounted for £350 million. I also understand that the social fund budget for 1988–89 contained loans of £140 million and grants of £60 million. I make that sum to be £200 million. That seems to leave a shortfall of £150 million in expenditure for people in need. How are such people to find £150 million?
Lord Skelmersdale: I do not believe that the noble Baroness has included the money for the community care element in the social fund. I also suspect that there is something else which is missing. However, I shall not swear to that at the moment.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: Perhaps I may thank the Minister for his undertaking as regards publication. Can he confirm that he meant annual publication rather than publication from time to time? Also, will he give consideration to the laying of that information before Parliament and its being properly numbered in the Command series so that it can be laid before Parliament annually rather than simply put in the Libraries of both Houses?
Lord Skelmersdale: I shall certainly consider both those points.
Lord Banks: I greatly welcome the Minister's statement that it is the intention of the Government to make a wide range of information widely available. I also welcome support from all parts of the Committee for the idea that that information should be available. I believe that there is considerable support for the idea of putting a provision in the Bill which will ensure that that is done not only this year and perhaps next year but regularly every year. Perhaps the Minister will undertake to submit for our consideration at the next stage of the Bill an amendment along those lines which is more balanced than he believes this one to be.
Lord Skelmersdale: I shall obviously have to make that decision when I have completed the consideration which I offered to the Committee in response to the intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson.
Lord Banks: I thank the Minister for that reply. I hope that he will see fit to submit an amendment which will cover what he has said the Government intend to do and what so many Members of the Committee hope will be done. I shall also perhaps attempt to put down a more balanced amendment. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 53:
Page 18, line 2, at end insert—
("6A. At the end of subsection (1) there shall be added the words "in such form and manner as may be prescribed".").
The noble Lord said: There are a number of amendments to Schedule 3 which have been put forward by the Government for consideration today. Amendment No. 53 comes before us as a result of the same process which identified those which we shall consider later. Perhaps it will be helpful to the Committee if I say a few words on how they came about.
In the Committee stage of the Bill in another place, my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary stated that in the preparations for the social fund:
"we normally expose the directions that we draft to independent counsel for scrutiny".
This amendment and the later government amendments are a direct result of that process.
We are advised that it would help clarify the requirements of applications for payments from the discretionary part of the social fund if they were to be laid down in regulations rather than in the social fund manual or elsewhere. This simple amendment provides for such regulations to be laid, and so mirrors the arrangement whereby the requirements for applications for the review of social fund officers' decisions are laid down in regulations. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 54:
Page 18, line 8, at end insert—
("7A. The following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (4)—
"(4A). An award that is to be repayable shall be repayable upon such terms and conditions as before the award is paid the Secretary of State notifies to the person by or on behalf of whom the application for it was made.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment, which also follows advice from counsel, makes statutory our intention that applicants for payments from the discretionary part of the social fund know in advance of receipt of payment the conditions of acceptance. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Henderson of Brompton Lord Henderson of Brompton moved Amendment No. 55:
Page 18, line 8, at end insert—
("7A. In subsection (5), for the words "Secretary of State" there shall be substituted the words "Adjudication Officer".
7B. In subsection (6), for the words "Secretary of State" there shall be substituted the words "Adjudication Officer".
7C. In subsection (7), for the words "Secretary of State" there shall be substituted the words "Adjudication Officer".").
The noble Lord said: This is an important amendment because it concerns the right of appeal from decisions made by social security officers. If the amendment is accepted, there may be a right of appeal from all decisions made by social fund officers to a social security appeal tribunal. There is also the possibility of a limited further appeal to social security commissioners and ultimately to the courts.
A measure of the importance of this matter is the report, Cmnd. 9722, of the Council on Tribunals, which says that the abolition of the right of appeal
368
would be a highly retrograde step. I agree; and that is the case for the amendment. The amendment concerns what the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, described, in speaking to Amendment No. 52, as the bare essentials—a grant for a cooker in a flat, a grant for a bed for a person being rehoused or a loan for basic essentials of that sort. People may be coming out of care, out of hostels or out of publicly provided accommodation and moving into a flat. They may need those basic provisions.
At present, one out of every four appeals to such tribunals concerning single payments is successful. Surely that shows that the quality of decision-making in the department requires an appeal procedure. An appeal system is just as necessary, if not more so, when local decisions are being made on a discretionary basis. It is necessary to have a proper appeal tribunal rather than an administrative review.
I think I have made the case for the amendment very shortly and plainly. I could elaborate at remarkable length. I do not propose to do so because I believe that I have made the case for the retention—if that is the word of a proper appeal. If "retention" is not the proper—word, perhaps I should use the word "institution". I beg to move.
Lord Skelmersdale: Before responding to the amendment of the noble Lord, perhaps I may correct a reply that I gave to the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger. The sum of £203 million proposed for the social fund for the next financial year includes community care. I apologise for misleading her. However, the noble Baroness is only right as far as she goes. In 1986–87, single payments totalled £350 million. The latest evidence suggests that for 1987–88 the figure will be about £200 million for single payments. There is not much to argue about between £200 million and £203 million. However, the first evidence may lead us to change our minds concerning the future.
Lord Ennals: Will the Minister agree that the great reduction was a result of decisions taken by the department to discourage the same size of payment? Single payments were much less and therefore were grossly inadequate.
Lord Skelmersdale: I agree that the rules certainly were tightened up, as the noble Lord will remember far better than I since he was concerned with this matter at that time and I was not.
Lord Ennals: It came up last year.
Lord Skelmersdale: Indeed. The noble Lord was concerned with this subject and I was not.
I was rather surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, should bring evidence from the Council on Tribunals into play on this amendment. I shall have to study this matter with great care. Suffice it for now to say that I regret that the noble Lord's purpose is not achieved by this amendment. The amendment suggests that the adjudication officer should be responsible for a type of activity which would be quite new to such officers. The present function of the adjudication officer is to take independent decisions about regulated payments.

369
These decisions are of course appealable to the local Social Security Appeals Tribunal, and ultimately to the social security commissioner. However, this amendment is not suggesting that the adjudication officer take any decision. Rather it is suggesting that the adjudication officer implement a previous decision. This is unusual not least because the adjudication officer is not at present responsible for the implementation even of those decisions which he takes himself.
Moreover, I am afraid that I cannot agree that the Secretary of State should divest himself of the powers or process of recovery of social fund loans. Principally, as the Secretary of State is responsible for paying sums into the social fund, it is logical that he should be responsible for its control and management, as Section 32(5) puts it, including the renewal of the fund from repayments. In more general terms, it is only fair to other applicants for loans from the social fund that we have an effective process of recovery.
I hope that the noble Lord will read what I have said as carefully as I shall read his remarks.
Baroness Faithfull: Before the noble Lord sits down, as a matter of information, if the adjudication officer turns down a claim what right of appeal has the claimant against him?
Lord Skelmersdale: If the adjudication officer turns it down there is a person—I cannot for the moment find the information.
Baroness Faithfull: Perhaps the Minister will write to me.
Lord Skelmersdale: The answer to my noble friend is the Social Security Appeals Tribunal.
Baroness Faithfull: Where does the Social Security Appeals Tribunal sit?
Lord Skelmersdale: I shall have to write to my noble friend.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: I shall read very carefully what the noble Lord has said, and I accept that the purpose of this amendment is not achieved by its wording. For that reason alone I shall withdraw it, but I hope he will understand that there will need to be a monitoring system which is operated by a court of appeal. Otherwise there is no proper check on the discretionary awards by the social security people—the social fund officers.
I acknowledge that the Secretary of State has to have an effective process of recovery, and what I am proposing is in no way meant to run counter to that. I think that the noble Lord should bear in mind that if no appeal is instituted there will be much greater use of judicial review. I am not at all sure that that is satisfactory to the Secretary of State. Having said that, I hope that the noble Lord will take note of what I have said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Ennals Lord Ennals moved Amendment No. 55A:
Page 18, line 8, at end insert—
("7A In subsection 9(c) after "it" there shall be inserted the words "except in the case of community care grants and budgeting loans, where that person or body is a voluntary organisation, friend, relative or other non-statutory body".").
The noble Lord said: I am moving this amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lady Jeger and the very broad spectrum of voluntary organisations and charities. This issue was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, in an intervention on a previous amendment.
Many Members of the Committee will have seen the letter in The Times of 11th January from a group of organisations: the Family Welfare Association, Age Concern, Dr. Barnardo's, the Spastics Society, the British Epilepsy Association and the Motor and Cycle Trades Benevolent Fund. The group could have included another 15 or 20 organisations. Certainly I associate myself with that letter, and also, as its chairman, I associate MIND with it. Those organisations expressed their concern in this way:
"From April people in need will be told to apply first to charities before the State will consider providing financial assistance. That is the date when the system of legal entitlement to supplementary benefit single payments for items like essential household furniture will be replaced by discretionary loans and grants from a cash-limited social fund.
In deciding whether to make a loan or grant, the DHSS will take into account whether the need could be met from another source—e.g., a charity or relative. If this scheme goes ahead, hard-pressed charities expect a storm of new applications for help which they will simply be unable to meet".
As the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, said, some of them are already getting applications in this sense. The letter continues:
"All were concerned, and many outraged, at the consequence this would have on people in need, batted from pillar to post without certainty of ever being helped. Some felt strongly"—
that is, the voluntary organisations—
"that charities were being morally blackmailed into making up the shortfall of at least £150 million a year"—
I am grateful that the noble Lord made his correction, because it is such a shortfall —
"the difference between current expenditure on single payments of £350 million and the social fund budget of £200 million for 1988 –89".
I share the view expressed only the day before yesterday by the Spastics Society when it said that disabled people (and I add poor people) need to have as of right an adequate level of financial support if they are to live independently in the community. These measures take away their rights and make them dependent upon discretionary decisions and charities.
The concerns of the voluntary organisations relate to subsection 9(c) of Section 33 of the Social Security Act and the detailed guidance relating to the subsection in the social fund manual which, in case the Committee has not seen it, is an enormous and very heavy document—the result of the simplification of our social security system. The subsection to which I have referred covers the requirement that social fund officers shall consider the
"possibility that some other person or body may wholly or partly meet an applicant's need when applying for financial support".

371
The answer given by the noble Lord to a question a few days ago—and he has just repeated that answer—was in no way satisfactory.
The wording of the law, "some other person or body", and the manual, "some other person", is so broad that it might include any voluntary, statutory or informal source, whether it is a charity, a local authority, or indeed a friend. I know that the Government have amended the manual to read that this consideration is intended to apply primarily to crisis loan applications. However, social fund officers remain bound by the law also to have regard to that possibility when deciding applications for community care grants and budgeting loans.
I am particularly concerned about the impact which this subsection may have on people with disabilities and on the voluntary sector. I make three points in pressing the case. First, this provision may have the effect of distorting the role of the voluntary sector and the way in which it provides care and support for people with disabilities. I do not consider it to be the role of charities to finance public policies relating to who needs help and how that need should be met. Moreover, the referral of applicants to charity is unlikely to be understood by a public who pay tax and national insurance contributions on the understanding that statutory help will be available when people are in need. I find this shuffling off of responsibility unpleasant and grossly unsatisfactory.
Secondly, this provision may put at risk the welfare of some of society's most vulnerable members. They may be sent from one source of help to another without any certainty of having their needs met while the consequent delay may also exacerbate their situation. Some may be discouraged from applying for essential help in the first place, fearing the complexity and the possible disappointment and humiliation of rejection.
Lastly, I anticipate serious practical difficulties if charities are faced with an increasing number of applications for help from next April or in fact from now. Charities have experienced a dramatic rise in applications for financial assistance over the last few years due to increased unemployment, poverty, cutbacks in statutory service, and benefits. This is especially so in the last 12 months.
The £200 million budget allocated for the social fund in its first year, as has been said by my noble friend, is an estimated £150 million less than the total amount which could currently have been spent on supplementary benefit single payments had they not been changed. There is no possibility of the voluntary sector raising over three times the amount that Bob Geldof found for his Band Aid appeal. We can only allocate more of our limited funds to grant-giving at the expense of other more vital services. We are caught therefore in a deadly bind, the only consequence of which will be to reduce the help available to disabled people. I do not think that the voluntary sector is prepared to do this. It is quite wrong that they should be put in a situation of having in a sense to bail out the state from fulfilling its proper responsibilities.
It is for this reason— at the request of a number of voluntary agencies which do not wish to find themselves in this position—that I beg to move this amendment.
7 p.m.
Lord Swinfen: I rise simply to endorse every single word that the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, has said and to add one small point. A number of the voluntary organisations, because they are generous, will use some of their existing funds to help some of these people. There is no doubt about that. That will reduce their funds available to continue their existing work.
In addition, I suspect that a sizeable number of the public will feel that the money that they give to various charitable organisations is being misused and will therefore reduce the charitable income of a large number of charities and further reduce the work that they do, which in turn could throw far more people back on to the state.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: I should like to endorse every word that the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, has put before the Committee and to support the amendment as the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, has done.
I ask the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, only this. Does he wish this amendment to be taken in conjunction with the next amendment, or does he wish to have separate debate on the next amendment? Amendment No. 56 suggests a remedy. However, basically our complaint is the sames: that this sum of £150 million will somehow have to be met, if it is to be met at all, by the voluntary agencies and they do not have the resources. I am in the hands of the Committee. I am not sure whether we should amalgamate the two or have separate debates. The only difference between what the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, has put before the Committee and what he and I shall put forward on the next amendment is that we are suggesting a temporary arrangement whereby the deficit of £150 million will be postponed.
Lord Ennals: There is no doubt that the two issues raised in the two amendments are absolutely right. If Amendment No. 56 were to be either accepted or carried, then the need for Amendment No. 55A would disappear, at least for the time being—for one year or two as the case may be. I believe that some agreement has been reached as to what time we should adjourn. I need some advice as to whether we should take the two amendments together because that would require a further debate and possibly a Division, unless the Government seek to change their position. I do not know whether anyone can advise me on whether it is wise at this stage to take the two amendments together. Has anyone any advice?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: The problem is that the next business needs to be dealt with very soon because the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is here and has another engagement. Perhaps we could dispose of this amendment first, and come back to the other after the adjournment.
Lord Ennals: In that case I should like to hear the response from the Minister. However, this may well be an issue on which the Committee should divide.
Lord Skelmersdale: Certainly the temper of the debate has changed in the last few minutes. However, earlier I made reference to a Starred Question that I answered from my noble friend Lord Moyne, and I repeated the guts of that. The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, for some reason took exception to the guts that I quoted just now. Whether the charities to which he also referred had read and taken on board that Starred Question I do not know. However, I know that his noble friend Lady Jeger received the encyclical that I promised after Second Reading. I specifically stated in that encyclical that social fund applicants will not routinely be referred to charities. Where help is needed in an emergency, or as a result of a disaster, the procedure for consideration of other sources of help is similar to that operated under the current scheme for supplementary benefit single payments.
The only other instance where an applicant will be referred to another body is when the item or service for which a loan is being requested is excluded by direction from eligibility—and I went on to say—because other bodies have a statutory duty to provide it. It has nothing to do with charities at all. I think that the worries of my noble friend Lord Swinfen on behalf of charities are indeed unfounded in this matter.
However, I cannot accept the amendment on the following grounds. These relate to the exercise of the discretion of an individual social fund officer. There are a number of instances in which this amendment would fetter the social fund officer's discretion to ill effect. For example, consider the case of an application for a community care grant for redecoration expenses. This is mentioned in the Social Fund Manual, paragraph 6505. We believe it is right and proper that the social fund should pay for the labour costs as well as the costs of materials if no one is available to do the work. This goes further than the current single payment regulations which do not allow payment for labour costs. The noble Baroness might say that that is a red herring but nonetheless that is a fact. Equally, it would be to the disadvantage of other applicants to the social fund if moneys were paid out unnecessarily when friends or relatives were available to do the work. You have only to look at the large number of do-it-yourself shops to realise that there are large numbers of people who do not always employ professional decorators. There is no reason why the social fund should pretend that this situation does not exist.
The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, referred to Section 33(9)(c) of the 1986 Act. It is only right to remind him that this Chamber voted in favour of that precise issue on 15th July 1986.
Lord Ennals: I am afraid the fact that this Chamber took a decision, on which I may have disagreed, will not convince me of the satisfactory nature of the Minister's reply. He suddenly stopped giving the reply when I thought he was halfway through it. The assurance he gave that applicants will not themselves
374
be referred to charities is certainly reassuring. It remains the case that the social fund officers will have to satisfy themselves that grant cannot be provided by a voluntary organisation or by a friend. If that is so, the social fund officer will have to go to Grooms, to MIND or to Barnado's, and the charitable organisations will face the same problems that I explained in moving the amendment.
If the Minister can assure me that social fund officers will not have to go through this process before determination and will not feel that the responsibility should first be picked up by a voluntary organisation, I shall be prepared to accept his assurance and ask that he put it in clear words to be conveyed to the charitable organisations, which, as the noble Lord realises, are very concerned at present.
Lord Skelmersdale: The social fund officer would have to satisfy himself whether a suitable local charity exists with the money or service available.
Let us say that this was happening at the time of the Aberfan disaster. Many of us well remember that tragedy. In such a case an immediate fund would be set up and in those circumstances it would be suitable for the disaster fund to be used for crisis loans. I have said already that in regard to normal non-crisis loans we are talking of local authorities, not of charitable bodies. To reply to the noble Lord's direct question, the answer is, no. The social fund officer will make his own decision.
Baroness Faithfull: Surely this could be resolved by guidelines. If a fund has been set up like the Aberfan fund or, say, a lifeboat fund I can quite see that one would go to that fund before going to social security. I think that that is what people would prefer. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, that there should be guidelines for social fund adjudication officers.
Lord Ennals: The example of Aberfan is not on all fours with the normal considerations that a social fund officer would have to take into account. If there were an Aberfan circumstance, of course, the Aberfan fund would respond. Normally, however, it is a matter of providing some essential furniture, a cooker or suchlike to meet the needs of a particularly disadvantaged family.
I did not find the Minister's reply on that issue at all reassuring. If there were to be guidelines, they would have to amend the instructions already given to social fund officers. I do not suppose that the Minister can give me that assurance. I believe that it should be clear in the legislation. If he can say something more to me, I shall withdraw the amendment. Nothing that he has said leads me to believe that the Committee should not be divided to face up to the issue.
7.13 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 55A) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 34; Not-Contents, 66.

DIVISION NO. 3

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Lawrence, L.

Attlee, E.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Banks, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Blackstone, B.

Mishcon, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Molloy, L.

David, B.

Nicol, B. [Teller.]

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Donoughue, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

[Teller.]

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Ennals, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Gallacher, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hayter, L.

Swinfen, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Jeger, B.

Underhill, L.

Kenilworth, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Kilbracken, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ampthill, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Arran, E.

Inglewood, L.

Auckland, L.

Ingrow, L.

Barber, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Joseph, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Killearn, L.

Belstead, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Blatch, B.

Lane-Fox, B.

Blyth, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Layton, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Long, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Broxbourne, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Caithness, E.

Marley, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V,

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Merrivale, L.

Carnock, L.

Mersey, V.

Coleraine, L.

Morris, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Munster, E.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Nelson, E.

Davidson, V. [Teller]

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Orkney, E.

Dilhorne, V.

Rankeillour, L.

Effingham, E.

Renton, L.

Elton, L.

Rodney, L.

Fortescue, E.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Glenarthur, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Greenway, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hailsham of Saint

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Marylebone, L.

Ullswater, V.

Halsbury, E.

Ward of Witley, V.

Hives, L.

Westbury, L.

Hooper, B.

Windlesham, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
The Earl of Arran: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, perhaps the Chief Whip will assure the House that we shall not return to the previous business before 7.50 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, after whatever adjournment there may be, we shall not return to the Social Security Bill until 7.50 p.m.

Land Registration Bill [H.L.]
7.23 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Open register]:
Lord Coleraine Lord Coleraine moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 12, leave out first ("leases or").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in tabling this amendment I seek to persuade your Lordships to reverse in part an amendment agreed in Committee on 16th December and tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Templeman. The amendment which the Committee accepted provided that the public should not be able to obtain from the Land Registry Office copies of documents including leases and charges. I have no wish to suggest that there should be public access to charges, which are basically personal matters and do not affect the land. However, in my view there are cogent reasons why the public should have access to leases.
When I originally read Law Commission Paper No. 148 containing the Bill moved by the noble and learned Lord, I understood that the commission was broadly agreed that both leases and charges should be available to everyone. In concluding its report it wrote:
"we recommend that the register of title to freehold land and leasehold land kept at Her Majesty's Land Registry should become public. In substance this means that statutory provision should be made so that the right to inspect and make copies of the whole or any part of any register or of any document in the custody of the registrar and referred to in the register at present enjoyed by registered proprietors and persons authorised by them would be extended to any person".
That was the sense of the Bill which was originally before the House.
I believe that there should be public access to copies of leases for two reasons. The first is as between tenants and landlords and other tenants. It is desirable that any tenant should be able to obtain a copy of the lease (for example, of any other flat in his building) for a number of reasons but I shall instance only two. The first is in order that the tenant can find out from inspection of other leases whether the management and repair structure which the lessor had imposed are satisfactory. The second is more directly as between one tenant and another. It is in order that a tenant can be satisfied as to the ceiling, floor and party wall boundaries between his and adjoining flats. That is one of the points made by the Law Commission in its report. It stated that one of the reasons for throwing open the register in all respects as regards freehold titles is in order that boundaries can be seen to be where they are.
The second and more important reason is to enable a prospective purchaser of a leasehold flat to obtain a copy of the lease of the flat which he wishes to buy at an early stage in the negotiations. That would be desirable and would probably have the effect of speeding up conveyancing and avoiding wasted conveyancing. I understand it often happens that someone sees a flat that he likes and makes an offer based on the information gleaned from the agent's particulars. It is probable that the flat is let for 99 years at a ground rent of £100 a year. It is at that

377
point that the tenant should be looking at the lease, where he may well find that the flat is not what it seems. The lease may be defective and he may be well advised to keep away from the property or reduce his offer appropriately.
It happens so often in practice that the purchaser probably does not think of seeing the lease at an early stage. When his solicitor eventually asks for the lease he discovers that the vendor must obtain the deeds and the lease from the building society. Therefore it may be two or three weeks before it is eventually discovered that it is defective and that the prospective purchaser should never have entered into the preliminary stages of the purchase. At that stage he may wish to withdraw from the purchase, having expended a fair sum of money in legal fees, surveyor's fees, building society mortgage application fees and so forth.
The alternative way of looking at the matter is from the point of view of the solicitor, who will find that it is as well for his client to see the lease at an early stage in the proceedings so that he knows exactly what is wrong. The general experience of those in the profession is that if it is left until much later it is then difficult to persuade one's client that what appeared to be an attractive flat three weeks before is riddled with what the purchaser will see as pettifogging legal complications.
For both those reasons I think that it will help conveyancing if copies of leases can be seen by purchasers at an early stage in their purchase and that the Bill should be re-amended in accordance with the amendment tabled in my name. I beg to move.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, everyone respects an amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine; but I hope that on this occasion the House will not accept it. He gave two reasons—and I shall deal with them briefly—as to why copy leases should be supplied to the public. The first is the case of a flat in a building where one wants to know where the boundaries are. I have not in practice encountered a difficulty that is in any way a substantial one with regard to such a problem.
The noble Lord's second reason was in regard to the purchase of a house or flat where there is leasehold interest and where the lease comes late in the life of the purchase. From a practical point of view, the usual procedure is that there is a copy of the lease—-even if the deeds are elsewhere—lurking in a file which is immediately supplied with a draft contract. The noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, is very optimistic with regard to the officials of the Land Registry if he feels that a copy lease will arrive to a member of the public any quicker than it would arise in the normal course of events. It is hardly likely that a member of the public will apply to the Land Registry; it will be the solicitor for the purchaser and he will obtain that quickly in any event.
Having dealt with the arguments for, let me deal with the argument against, commenting that the Law Society is not in favour of this amendment. The reason against is that although 90 per cent. of the contents of a lease are of a general nature, in many cases—and certainly in commercial leases—some 10
378
per cent. is of an entirely confidential nature. I shall give one quick example to the House and then sit down.
The example is where you have a commercial lease when, for example, there is a clause that if at any time that planning permission for the carrying on of a certain trade ceases to be effective, then other trades can be carried on but not the original trade. That can give some very vital information to a competitor. It could persuade the competitor, having obtained a copy of this private document, to make life extremely difficult for that lessee by talking to the planning authority about the cancellation of the permission. Indeed, quite apart from planning permission, there is a normal case where use is obviously of a very private nature where permitted by a lessor to a lessee. For those reasons, I hope that the House will not accept this amendment.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I regret that I too must take the same attitude. To include leases within the general right to inspect and make copies would be to impose a very considerable burden on the registry's manpower resources, without in my view giving any significant benefit. The benefits suggested by my noble friend are, I would suggest, more apparent than real. It would not, for example, be realistic to expect a solicitor advising a client about a lease in a block of flats to read through 20 or 40 other leases of flats in the same block. It certainly would not be conducive to speedy and efficient conveyancing. Leases often run to 50 or 60 pages, and can be as long as 100 pages and I am sure that is not an absolute maximum. To allow general inspection and copying of copy leases held at the registry would be immensely time-consuming and would seriously hamper the registry's work.
The registrar already has a discretion to allow inspection of such copy leases as the registry holds, and he does indeed allow inspection in cases of real need, as where the original lease has gone astray. The Bill as at present drafted would preserve the registrar's discretion. It should not be forgotten that the register of title is not a deeds register, and it is inappropriate to treat it as if it were. As the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, pointed out, difficult questions of confidentiality might arise if leases were generally made available for public inspection. My noble friend's amendments certainly go beyond what was originally proposed by the Law Commission.
I consider that my noble friend's amendments create more problems than they solve. They would involve substantial resources and will not make transactions quicker or more efficient. For those reasons, I resist these amendments and advise your Lordships to do so.
Lord Templeman: My Lords, this Bill as it emerged from Committee represented the combined wisdom of the Law Commission, the Chief Registrar, the Lord Chancellor, parliamentary counsel and the Law Society. Having heard the objections raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, with his vast experience, and the objections raised by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Coleraine; My Lords, I was very sorry to hear my noble and learned friend refer to the stretching of resources of the Land Registry. My heart bleeds for the Chief Land Registrar in that respect. It is plain that anything that this Bill provides for—if it is enacted—will have to be paid for by those who wish to take advantage of the facilities it offers. Therefore, it is not a question of financial resources but manpower resources. I understand that the Bill will take a couple of years before the necessary arrangements can be brought into effect to bring it into operation. I should have hoped that in that time arrangements of a financial nature might have been made for the Land Registry to enable it in any instance such as this to produce the necessary manpower resources, if the public are prepared to pay for the services.
My noble and learned friend also referred to the unlikeliness of any solicitor wanting to wade through 40 or 50 pages. I agree with him. However, it would be a very rare occasion when this would arise and I believe that in reserve, it would be desirable for the possibility to be available to solicitors and purchasers, and possibly the Chief Land Registrar would consider exercising his discretion in those circumstances to make the documentation available.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, dealt very fairly with my arguments but I think that the occasions when the solicitor of a vendor of a flat has a copy which he can hand over before he receives the deeds from the Land Registry are not as frequent as one would wish. My experience is that those occasions would be where the title is in perfect shipshape order and the lease is an admirable document. The occasions when it takes some time for a vendor's solicitor to produce the documentation are generally those occasions, by coincidence, when there is a problem.
The noble Lord has carefully balanced the instance which I was giving and the instance of confidentiality in a commercial lease. I agree that there are considerations to be taken into account on both sides. It is a matter of balance and I believe that perhaps the best thing I can do is to ask your Lordships' leave to withdraw this amendment in the knowledge that these matters will be looked at again in another place.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 7.50 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.40 to 7.50 p.m.]

Social Security Bill
House again in Committee on Schedule 3.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Hayter): Before calling the next amendment I should inform the Committee that the figures given for those voting on the first Division should have been Contents, 136 (instead of 135) and Not-Contents, 88.
Lord Henderson of Brompton Lord Henderson of Brompton had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 56:
Page 18, line 9, at end insert ("and after "above" there shall be inserted the words "except in the financial year 1988–9 and such other financial years as the Secretary of State may direct."").
The noble Lord said: In view of the considerable discussion on the previous amendment, Amendment No. 55A, I do not propose to move Amendment No. 56 at this stage.
[Amendment No. 56 not moved.]
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 57:
Page 18, line 40, at end insert —
("9A. The Social Security Act 1986 shall also be amended as follows.
9B. The words "to him" shall be omitted from section 34(1)(a).").
The noble Lord said: With permission, I shall also speak to Amendment No. 62. These amendments follow consultation with independent counsel. They are tabled for exactly the same reasons as I gave on the previous counsel-originated amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 58:
Page 18, line 40, at end insert—
("Amendment of section 34
9A. Section 34 of the Social Security Act 1986 shall be amended as follows.
9B. The following subsections shall be inserted afer subsection (8)—
"(9) A claimant may appeal against any determination made by a social fund officer under this part of this Act.
(10) Any appeal under subsection (9) above shall be to a Social Security Appeal Tribunal under the procedure laid down in sections 100, 101, and 104 of the Social Security Act 1975 and section 15 of the Social Security Act 1980, and any reference to 'adjudication officer' in these sections shall be construed as including reference to a social fund officer."
Amendment of section 52
9C. Section 52 of the Social Security Act 1986 shall be amended as follows.
9D. In subsection (6) the words from "such" to the end shall cease to have effect.
Amendment of section 53
9E. Section 53 of the Social Security Act 1986 shall be amended as follows.
9F. In subsection (10) the words from "such" to the end shall cease to have effect.").
The noble Baroness said: This again concerns the issue of appeal in connection with the social fund, which we have already dealt with slightly this afternoon. However, I should like to put on record my concern that the Government appear to believe that in providing for a review mechanism they are answering the need and desire for some method of appeal. A review mechanism is not an appeal. I am indebted to the Minister for a copy of the letter that he sent to my noble friend Lady Jeger on 4th February in which he explains that an individual who is dissatisfied with the social fund officer's decision and has applied for a review is entitled to have an interview, at which he can be accompanied, before the review is determined. The letter sets out arrangements for review and so on.
I speak as someone who has had some experience of appeals procedures under the social insurance

381
arrangements. I was for many years a member of the social insurance tribunal. A review mechanism is by no means the same as an appeal. When I sat as a member of the insurance tribunal we often saw applicants and we did not always decide in favour of the insurance officer. There were many occasions when the applicant perhaps had not been able to explain his or her case sufficiently, when there were various problems or fresh evidence, and the tribunal found for the applicant and against the determination of the insurance officer.
It was an entirely independent body and what we suggest in this amendment is that an independent body should be established to hear appeals concerning the social fund. I believe that a very strong case has been made for this not only now but on Second Reading and on other occasions. I should like the Minister to give further consideration to the matter, despite the fact that he has given a very full explanation of what is intended by the review procedure in his letter of 4th February. I beg to move.
Lord Banks: I should like briefly to support this amendment. My noble friend Lord Wigoder secured the approval of this Chamber on 30th June 1986 when the Social Security Bill of that year was being discussed for an amendment which set up an appeal procedure of the nature that the noble Baroness wants to see. That was passed by this Chamber by 131 votes to 115. I very much hope that this place has not changed its view, though there are not that number of noble Lords in the Committee to indicate that. However, I hope the Committee will remain in favour of instituting an appeal from the social fund. I think that on the last occasion the appeal procedure was actually rejected in another place.
Between 1981 and 1984 one-quarter of the appeals made within that time to an independent tribunal under supplementary benefit for single payments were successful. We should bear that in mind when thinking about the desirability of having an appeals system from the social fund. I support the amendment.
Lord Skelmersdale: The first part of this amendment relates to a section of the Act which has benefited greatly from the deliberations of this Chamber. As the noble Lord, Lord Banks, said, during the passage of the Social Security Bill, as it then was, in 1986, on 30th June this Chamber voted for an appeal system for the social fund—the Official Report reference is col. 606. As a result of that vote, amendments were made in another place which increased the independence of the social fund review procedure and the social fund inspectors and introduced the social fund commissioner.
These amendments (which the noble Lord, Lord Banks, almost said) were accepted by this Chamber on 24th July—the Official Report reference is col. 436. For that reason the Committee will be well aware why the traditional formal adjudication system we have elsewhere in social security is not appropriate to the handling of special needs under the social fund. Discretionary payments under the social fund require a more flexible approach and the issues for decision imply local and less formalised decision-making.
382
That is why the reviews will be handled in the first instance by the local office and applicants will be given the opportunity to put their case personally to the social fund officer.
Applicants who remain dissatisfied will then have the right to apply for a further review by the independent social fund inspector who will be based away from the local office. The inspector will have access to all the relevant documentation and will be able to call for additional evidence. He will have the power to confirm the social fund officer's decision, to refer it back to the social fund officer to be decided again or to substitute a decision of his own. The existence of this second tier of review will ensure that decisions are properly taken and are reasonable in the particular circumstances.
We believe that that is the best way of ensuring high standards of decision-making, fairness and impartiality in the social fund. As I said, we do not believe that the standard social security adjudication system is appropriate to the social fund, yet this amendment would give applicants the choice of appealing to a social security appeal tribunal or applying for a review by the social fund inspector. I have to say that we could not accept such an arrangement. Such a mixed system would self-evidently be the worst of all worlds and a recipe for considerable confusion for applicants and social fund officers alike.
With regard to the second and third parts of the amendment, I should point out to the Committee that the two sections to which these amendments refer would be amended by Schedule 5 of the Bill, currently under discussion, as indeed would Section 51(2) by lines 27 to 32 of page 24. The reason for the provisions in Schedule 5 is the same as that for paragraph 3 of Schedule 3; namely, to make it clear that fixed amounts allocated for the social fund are required only to cover payments from the discretionary part of the social fund—in other words, those covered by Section 32(2)(b)—and not maternity, funeral and cold weather payments. The intention underlying the latter parts of the amendments now under consideration seems to diminish the distinction between regulated and discretionary payments from the social fund.
As regards Section 52, I have already explained why we have not thought conventional adjudication procedures appropriate to the discretionary parts of the social fund. It would be difficult to apply the provisions of Section 53, which deals with overpayments, to a discretionary scheme, nor is Section 53 necessary for the enforcement of a discretionary scheme. For those reasons I regret that I am unable to accept this amendment.
Baroness Jeger: Before the noble Lord sits down perhaps he can tell us how many social fund officers and inspectors have been appointed to date. They seem to be having a lot of work to do.
Lord Skelmersdale: Social fund officers are part of the normal local office network and they are in the process of being trained. Social fund inspectors will not be needed until the officers make the first decisions. That is why, in answer to a recent Question

383
for Written Answer from the noble Baroness, I had no embarrassment in saying that no such appointments had yet been made.
8 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I do not intend to press this to a Division tonight because of the lateness of the hour. I am not very satisfied with the reply from the Minister. Again I emphasise that a review mechanism is not the same as the ability to apply to an independent tribunal.
When I was a member of a tribunal we were very careful to say to the appellants who appeared before us that we were entirely independent. We said that we were members of the public, members of a tripartite body with a legally-qualified chairman and that we had no connection whatever with the department. They therefore had a great deal more confidence in having an independent assessment of their case. If you simply refer higher up within the same apparatus, as is the proposition here, I do not believe that appellants will have the same feeling that they are getting an independent review of their case.
As I said earlier, I do not intend to press this amendment tonight but I shall look very carefully at Hansard to see whether I might perhaps bring back a similar amendment at Report stage but phrased differently. I do not believe that the Minister has answered the concerns which have been voiced on a number of occasions from this side of the Committee.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clause 12 [Schemes for distribution etc. of welfare foods]:
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 59:
Page 8, line 36, at end insert—
("(3A) If the Secretary of State makes a scheme or schemes under subsection (3) above, it or they shall include the provision of welfare food or the making of payments to expectant mothers in families whose income is below a prescribed level or a member of which is entitled to family credit under Part II of the Social Security Act 1986.").
The noble Baroness said: As I understand Clause 12 it provides the Secretary of State with enabling powers on welfare foods. Pregnant women and families on low incomes are currently entitled to free milk for themselves throughout pregnancy and for their children up to the age of five. Women on supplementary benefit or family income supplement qualify automatically. Women in low-income households can also claim. The benefit is given as milk tokens which can be exchanged for one pint of milk per day or, where appropriate, for infant formula dried milk.
Free welfare milk is worth £1.82 per week for each person in the family who is eligible. Although this may seem a small sum, it makes a vital contribution to the budgets of low-income families. It looks to me as though Clause 12 will enable the Government to carry out the plan set out in the White Paper to abolish free milk for all women and children not on
384
supplementary benefit or not on income support as we shall now have to call it. Thousands of needy women and children could lose the right to free milk if these changes go ahead. Some will lose more than others, but certainly there will be distinct problems for low-income families.
Free milk is the only pregnancy-related benefit available to support low-income women throughout their pregnancy. Few of them are entitled to work-related maternity benefits and a maternity payment from the social fund at £85 from April is intended to help to buy things for the new baby. Many of the women will lose the right to free milk as a result of this clause and will also have lost the right to maternity grant and to the maternity allowance as a result of the changes in the Social Security Act 1986.
Among the extra costs of pregnancy the cost of an adequate and healthy diet is one of the most important. To cover part of their ante-natal care most hospitals and clinics give women a diet sheet and leaflets; but a woman who is trying to stretch a tight budget to cover all her family needs may sometimes cut back on food for herself even during pregnancy rather than see her children go without.
I understand that the Royal College of Nursing is extremely concerned in this area because it believes that poor diet in pregnancy is linked with a low birth-weight, which is a persistent problem in Britain. The number of low birth-weight births has hovered around 7 per cent. of all births for the past 10 years. There is no room for complacency about the kind of diet which the poorest families in Britain are eating. Welfare milk provides valuable nutrients directly to the people who need them most; and despite increasing affluence, the need is just as real today as it was when the scheme was first introduced. For those reasons, I hope my amendment will commend itself to the Committee. I beg to move.
Baroness Faithfull: The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, has put the case so well, and I should like to support her in this amendment.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: The Minister will recall that I have raised questions before on what I call the good sense in not arguing with the general case that the Government and the Minister support, but only when we are able to draw to his attention what we believe is the serious impact upon groups of people who are less able to look after themselves than others.
What my noble friend has tried to do is to beg of the Minister to take into account that in what he and his colleagues consider to be a good scheme there are one or two flaws. What this amendment is seeking to do is to try—it might not be the right way of doing it—to make sure that some people will not suffer. Perhaps I may tell the Minister what I have been told by the Maternity Alliance (which is an organisation well known to the Minister and his officials). Their views are supported by, among others, the Association of Breast-Feeding Mothers, the Association for Spina Bifida and Hydrocephalus, the Child Poverty Action Group, community health councils, and a whole range of what I would consider to be eminently respectable bodies. What they are

385
saying to us—and I am grateful to them for their brief—is that there are people who are vulnerable if this clause is not amended.
I should like to give this example to illustrate their concern. A pregnant woman with a child of three, whose husband is a mature student with a grant of £84 per week, cannot claim family credit because neither is in full-time work. Until April the mother and child are both eligible for free milk on the grounds of low income. After April neither of them will qualify. If that is true—and it is the conclusion reached by the good people of the Maternity Alliance—can the Minister explain to the Committee that he understands that is the situation, but he is unable to do anything about it? If that were to be the case, I should certainly he distressed.
Perhaps I may give another illustration. A women's husband is a trainee surveyor earning £60 per week. She is expecting her first baby and although the pregnancy was unplanned they both want the child. She has been signing on as unemployed, but her credited contributions do not help her to qualify for maternity benefits. Until April she can claim free milk on the grounds of low income. After April she will receive nothing until after the birth when they will qualify for family credit. The Minister understands that we are concerned that even though there are changes which might appear to be equitable, we wish to maintain the easier supply of milk for its nutritional aspect.
The Minister will be well aware that there are many illustrations of those who believe that milk is good: For example, Sir Winston Churchill said that there is no finer investment for any community than putting milk into babies. It may have been a sop.
When the National Welfare Milk Scheme was first introduced in 1940 consumption of milk among poor families increased dramatically. In some areas it trebled. I understand that fashion changes, but I am concerned that the new system may mean that less milk will be drunk. Even if the Minister says that that is at the choice of the parents or the recipients of the aid, he should be concerned to ensure that the nutritional value of milk is maintained. I should be grateful if the Minister will take head-on what I understand (from people who know more about it than I do) will be the effect of deleterious legislation.
Lord Skelmersdale: One point is unarguable. Medical science has moved on since the time of my late right honourable friend Sir Winston Churchill. I do not want to go too far into that argument, but it is undeniably the case.
I start by agreeing with the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, that the Government announced their proposals to abolish the low income scheme for welfare foods in June 1985 in the Green Paper on the reform of social security, and that this was reaffirmed in the White Paper. The change complements the move being made in family credit away from providing benefits in kind—free school meals as well as free welfare milk and vitamins—to providing the benefit in cash instead. The Committee will be aware that the child credits in family credit will include a cash increase of £2·55 a week for each child, in place of the free school meals, and free welfare foods
386
available under the family income supplement scheme. This amount is based on the average cost of a fixed price school meal, but it will be the same for all children and will therefore go to children under five as a replacement for free milk and vitamins.
A pint of milk a day costs £1·82 a week, and is widely obtainable for even less, so the switch to cash represents a very good deal for family credit families. Family credit will reach more than twice as many families as family income supplement. Some of them are outside family income supplement at present and are getting free welfare foods under the low income scheme. I recognise that not all of those in the low income scheme will get family credit; but the more generous family credit rates—made even higher by the cash in lieu of free milk—will benefit a lot of the current low income scheme families.
In fact we estimate that the cash provision will go to many more children than receive free welfare foods at present. About 124,000 children get welfare foods through family income supplement and a further 77,000 through the low income scheme, but we estimate that there will be around 300,000 children under five in family credit families. So the new arrangements will help about 100,000 more children. Take-up of the low income scheme has always been very poor—under 10 per cent.; and I heard a figure this morning of 7 per cent.—and the numbers helped are very small. Given that many of them will be picked up through family credit, the Government decided that the low income scheme should not be continued when the new benefit structure comes into effect in April 1988.
I acknowledge that the family credit cash provision in lieu of welfare foods does not help expectant mothers, who can get free welfare foods under family income supplement and the present low income scheme—a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Graham. However, only a very few expectant mothers—about 6,800—take up entitlement to free welfare milk under the low income scheme. They would mainly be women pregnant for the first time and most of them will recently have been in work and are therefore likely now to be eligible for the new statutory maternity pay and outside the scope of a scheme based on low income.
Furthermore, the discontinuance of the low income scheme from April will not mean that all young mothers, or expectant mothers under 16, will cease to receive free welfare foods, or will not get the more generous family credit cash provision. We shall still be providing such help to those girls who are living with parents or guardians who are themselves on income support or family credit. In those cases, the income support or the family credit payable to the parents will be based on the needs of the whole family unit, including the young mother and her child.
This means that where income support is concerned, free welfare foods will be available to the girl while she is pregnant and for her child when it is born. Where family credit is in payment, the credit for the girl will include the £2·25 additional cash in place of free milk, and a further child credit—including a further £2.25—will in due course be payable for her child. We shall therefore be protecting the most vulnerable young

387
mothers—those living in households where the circumstances are such as to give rise to an entitlement to an income-related benefit for the family as a whole. For family credit families we shall be providing cash compensation at a much higher level than the value of the free welfare foods.
I should confirm that income support families will continue to receive free welfare foods for children under five and for expectant mothers. We are therefore preserving the present entitlement for those in the greatest need, a point which concerned the noble Lord, Lord Graham.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: I apologise for not being in my place when the amendment was called I am afraid that I was having dinner. I have listened to the Minister and I am still not satisfied about the position of pregnant mothers. The issue is of the utmost importance because of the findings of low weights among babies of women who have not been well fed during their pregnancy. The provision of milk during that period has been a useful addition to the diet of those women. I should like some assurance form the Minister. It appears that pregnant mothers, especially those having their first babies, will not get that milk. Will the Minister say whether I am right or wrong?
Lord Skelmersdale: Perhaps it will help if I abbrieviate what I have just said. Expectant mothers, including girls under 16 in income support families, will still get the milk. Those in family credit families will not get the cash replacement, but most will have just left work and will have access to the new maternity payment. Girls under 16 in family credit families will attract the £2·55 cash increase and so will their babies. I hope that that helps the noble Lord. Lord Pitt.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I know that the Minister is trying to be helpful but he uses phrases such as,
"most will have just left work".
I should dearly like to test the assumption that those who are in such wretched circumstances in the family and are pregnant with their first child will have just left work. That is a bland if not a glib assumption; but clearly the noble Lord has been advised of that. The second assumption is that, even if they are deprived of the opportunity, they will have other sources. The Minister gave a figure of 6,800 for those who now take the opportunity. If hundreds of babies out of hundreds of thousands start off less well equipped, there is still a danger. I understand that the Minister may not be able to answer directly the two illustrations that I gave, but I should be grateful if he will deal with those illustrations in writing at some time in the future.
We are concerned to ensure that milk continues to be drunk rather than that money is made available to buy the milk. We are concerned that milk consumption in this country should be maintained. We are concerned that young mothers in the circumstances we have described do not have the option to spend it on something else. We want to ensure, without being too draconian, that they obtain milk for their babies to drink.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: I thank my noble friend for making that point. The Minister has not convinced us that the milk will be available to them, and it is the milk that I want them to have.
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, we are all driving at milk, as it were. I shall certainly look at the details of the two cases that the noble Lord, Lord Graham, has mentioned. However, I think the Committee will accept that the poorest families in our land—it is probably the poorest families that we are most concerned about—are those on supplementary benefit. For those people on supplementary benefit, there is no change in the provision.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I thank the noble Lord for his explanation; but the concerns that have been expressed on this side of the Committee remain. We are concerned that there should be consumption of milk rather than the payment of money. That is the difference between us. When the national welfare milk scheme was first introduced in 1940, consumption of milk among poor families increased dramatically. I believe that a number of diseases which until then had been endemic among our poorer citizens practically disappeared. For example, I think rickets ceased to exist some time after the introduction of the national welfare milk scheme. Its disappearance was directly attributable to that scheme.
The risk is that if we whittle away at the scheme it will reduce consumption among those who need milk the most. A recent survey carried out by the National Dairy Council found that families in social classes D and E were far less likely to know that milk was a source of calcium, for instance, than families in social classes A, B or C. Families who do not realise the nutritional value of milk may view the withdrawal of government-backed milk schemes as an indication that milk is not an important food for pregnant women and children. That is the important point that we are seeking to make on this side of the Chamber. Obviously, we are not going to press this amendment to a Division at this time of night, but nevertheless we are still concerned and we shall give the matter further consideration on Report.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 60 not moved.]
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 [National Health Service—remission of charges and payment of travelling expenses]:
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 60A:
Page 11, line 1, leave out from ("method") to ("or") in line 2 and insert ("described by reference to a method of calculating or estimating income or capital specified in an enactment other than this section".
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 60A, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 60B, 60C, 60G, 60H and 60J. These are all technical amendments. I do not know whether the Committee wishes me to expand further on these amendments, but I am perfectly prepared to do so. However, in the circumstances, I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendments Nos. 60B and 60C:
Page 11, line 4, after ("Parliament") insert ("or by reference to such a method but subject to prescribed modifications").
Page 11, line 4, after ("Parliament") insert—
("(bb) by reference to an amount applicable for the purposes of a payment under an Act of Parliament or an instrument made under an Act of Parliament.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 60D:
Page 11, line 25, leave out ("and").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move this amendment, and I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 60E and 60F. The original amendment is designed simply to enable present arrangements for the repayment of overnight expenses in certain circumstances in Scotland to continue. It relates only to Scotland and reflects the particular travel difficulties of those living in the remoter parts of that country. Many of those who live in the islands off the west coast of Scotland, and in the remoter parts of the Highlands, must undertake long journeys for outpatient hospital consultation or in-patient treatment. They have no alternative, and many of the journeys take so long that an overnight stay away from home is unavoidable. That applies to those attending outpatient clinics and to those who may have to accompany someone who is going into hospital for treatment or is being discharged.
Because of the number of people in certain areas of Scotland who must make such journeys in order to avail themselves of the appropriate National Health Service facilities, the Secretary of State for Scotland has, for many years, met the cost of unavoidable overnight expenses where these are incurred by those eligible for help with their travel expenses. It seems appropriate to continue these arrangements. The amendment provides the necessary basis for regulations which will do this. The other amendments are consequential. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendments Nos. 60E and 60F:
Page 11, line 31, at end insert ("; and—
(c) where they are persons whose travelling expenses are payable by virtue of paragraph (b) above, for the payment by the Secretary of State in such cases as may be prescribed of expenses necessarily incurred by them (and by any companion whose travelling expenses are so payable) in obtaining overnight accommodation for the purpose mentioned in that paragraph.").
Page 11, line 33, leave out ("or (b)") and insert (", (b) or (c)")..")
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendments Nos. 60G, 60H and 60J:
Page 12, line 14, leave out from ("method") to ("or") in line 15 and insert ("described by reference to a method of calculating or estimating income or capital specified in an enactment other than this section").
Page 12, line 17, after ("Parliament") insert ("or by reference to such a method but subject to prescribed modifications").
Page 12, line 17, after ("Parliament") insert—
("bb) by reference to an amount applicable for the purposes of a payment under an Act of Parliament or an instrument made under an Act of Parliament;").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move these amendments en bloc. I spoke to them with Amendment No. 60A.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 14 and 15 agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Minor and Consequential Amendments]:
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 60K:
Page 19, line 28, at end insert—
("3A. The following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (2) of section 17 (determination of days for which benefit is payable,—
"(2A) Regulations may provide that—

(a) the question of a person's availability for employment may be determined in respect of any day notwithstanding that he is deemed in accordance with regulations to be available for employment in employed earner's employment in respect of that day; and

(b) unemployment benefit paid to a person in respect of a day which is determined not to be a day in respect of which he is available for employment in employed earner's employment shall be recoverable from him.

(2B) Subsections (5), (7) and (9) of section 53 of the Social Security Act 1986 shall have effect in relation to amounts recoverable by virtue of subsection (2A) above as they have effect in relation to amounts recoverable under subsection (1) of that section".").
The noble Lord said: The amendment arises out of our concern to safeguard the position of those claimants who might otherwise face a suden loss of unemployment benefit when a doubt arises about their availability for work. At present, benefit is not paid until the adjudication officer has decided the question. As my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Employment recently announced in Committee on the Employment Bill in another place, it is our intention that in future where a doubt about a person's availability for work arises at a restart interview, or otherwise during the course of an ongoing benefit claim, there should not normally be an immediate withdrawal of benefit while the question of the person's entitlement is being decided by the adjudication officer.
The amendment we now propose empowers us to make regulations to enable the adjudication officer to determine the question of availability in respect of a period for which the claimant's availability has already been deemed and where the claimant was delaying or failing to reply to inquiries intended to establish the position to enable the Secretary of State to recover benefit paid to a person in respect of days for which the adjudication officer decides that he was not available. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 60L:
Page 21, line 42, at end insert—
("19A.—(1) The following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (5) of section 23 (trade disputes)—
"(5A) For the purposes of subsection (5) above, regulations may provide that the weekly rate of payment of income support and the relevant sum shall be apportioned on a daily basis in respect of any period less than a week.".
(2) In subsection (6) of that section, for the words "subsection (5) above" there shall be substituted the words "this section".").
The noble Lord said: The principle that has applied since supplementary benefit became a regulated scheme in 1980 is that while a claimant or partner is a striker disqualified for unemployment benefit, under the provisions of Section 19 of the Social Security Act 1975, supplementary benefit is not payable to the striker himself but is payable for other members of his family. The amount that will be payable under normal rules is then reduced by £17, known as the specified sum. Under income support, the above approach will continue but modifications will be necessary in order to cater for couples and the various premiums which do not exist in the current scheme.
The specified sum of £17 becomes the relevant sum and is increased to £17.70. The pattern is that this relevant sum is described in Section 23(5)(b) of the Social Security Act 1986 as a weekly rate. There is no power to apportion such a sum for part-week payments which will be needed at the beginning and end of a trade dispute and in some cases because of a change of circumstances; for example, a striker falling sick and therefore not subject to the trade dispute assessment rules during a dispute. I think that what I have said is probably sufficient to enable the Committee properly to consider the amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Airedale Lord Airedale moved Amendment No. 61:
Page 21, line 42, at end insert—
(" 19A. In subsection (3) of section 17 (general power to modify statutory provisions) the following paragraph shall be inserted after paragraph (d)—
'(dd) the Water Act 1973;".").
The noble Lord said: I beg leave to move the amendment on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Elliott. This is one of those amendments which does not, on the face of it, give very much away about what it seeks to achieve. This amendment seeks to fill a lacuna in the 1986 Act. When personal pensions were introduced, it became necessary to remove the element of compulsion in the compulsory occupational pension schemes. But by an oversight the 1986 Act omitted the water company employees when the element of compulsion was being removed. This amendment fills that lacuna so that now the water company employees, like the others, will be able to choose between personal pensions and occupational pensions. I beg to move.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: In responding to this amendment, it occurs to me to wonder whether you fill "lacunas" with water! Having said that, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, for moving the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Elliott of Morpeth, who unfortunately is unable to be here this evening. The Government entirely accept the purpose of my noble friend's amendment. The new right of an employee to decide for himself what sort of pension provision he wants is a key feature of the Government's pension reforms introduced by the Social Security Act 1986. Clearly we cannot be content that a specific group of employees should be
392
denied that right because of a legislative technicality. It is of course regrettable that this problem was not identified when the 1986 Act was being drafted.
However, a word of caution. I am reluctant to invite Members of the Committee to accept this amendment at once. It would be prudent (would it not?) for the Government to consider whether there are any other statutes which should at this stage also be made subject to the modification power in the 1986 Act. Clearly we should prefer not to have to ask the House to take more than one bite at this particular cherry. Moreover, I am advised that the amendment might be better placed elsewhere in this part of Schedule 4.
Accordingly, I undertake on behalf of the Government to table an amendment on report which will as a minimum ensure that the objective of my noble friend's amendment, so ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, is achieved. With that assurance, I hope that the noble Lord will be able to withdraw this amendment.
Lord Airedale: I am very grateful to the noble Lord, I would only say that I think that you fill "lacunae"! Subject, to that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 61A:
Page 22, line 15, leave out from ("days") to end of line 16 and insert ("to him or, where he is a member of a married or unmarried couple, to the other member of that couple, shall be recoverable in the prescribed manner from the person to whom it was paid or from any prescribed person or, where the person to whom it was paid is a member of a married or unmarried couple from the other member of the couple" ").
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment with Amendment No. 60L. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Repeals]:
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 62:
Page 24, line 18, after ("words") insert (" "to him" and the words").
The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 57. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 16 agreed to.
Clause 17 [Northern Ireland]:
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 63:
Page 13, line 27, after ("sections") insert ("17,").
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 18 agreed to.
Clause 19 [Citation]:
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 64:
Page 14, line 41, after ("1986") insert ("and the Social Fund (Maternity and Funeral Expenses) Act 1987").
The noble Lord said: This is a technical amendment bringing the Social Fund (Maternity and Funeral Expenses) Act 1987 within the collective citation of the Social Security Acts 1975 to 1988. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.
In the Title:
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 65:
Line 5, after ("travelling") insert ("and overnight").
The noble Lord said: This gives me an opportunity to thank the Committee for the comity which has been achieved on all sides through two very long and hard-fought days. I am grateful to Members opposite for this.
This amendment is consequential upon the amendment in Clause 13 to the new Section 75A of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act, 1978, giving the Secretary of State powers to provide in regulations for the reimbursement of overnight expenses in certain circumstances—clearly a good thing. I beg to move.
Baroness Jeger: On this side of the Committee we appreciate the hard work of the noble Lord opposite. After all, we are three to his one, and we understand how hard he has had to work. We thank him for the sympathetic and conscientious understanding which he has given. We only hope that he can transfer some of that sympathy to Ministers in another place so that this Bill might be improved in some ways at least before it gets onto the Statute book.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Title, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I beg to move that the House be now adjourned.
House adjourned at twenty-three minutes before nine o'clock.

  RPI UNDERSPEND
  RPI UNDERSPEND
  RENTED PROPERTY TAXATION
  RENTED PROPERTY TAXATION
  GINI COEFFICIENTS
  GINI COEFFICIENTS
  RECYCLED FIBRE
  RECYCLED FIBRE
  TRENT POLYTECHNIC: HOME ECONOMICS TEACHING
  TRENT POLYTECHNIC: HOME ECONOMICS TEACHING
  EUROPEAN FOUNDATION TREATY
  EUROPEAN FOUNDATION TREATY
  INF TREATY: COMPLIANCE
  INF TREATY: COMPLIANCE
  DEFENCE AND SPACE TREATY PROPOSAL
  DEFENCE AND SPACE TREATY PROPOSAL
  TEST BAN TREATIES
  TEST BAN TREATIES
  ZEEBRUGGE FERRY DISASTER: COMPENSATION CONVENTIONS
  ZEEBRUGGE FERRY DISASTER: COMPENSATION CONVENTIONS
  LOCAL AUTHORITY COMPANIES: PROPOSAL
  LOCAL AUTHORITY COMPANIES: PROPOSAL
  STORM DAMAGE: TASK FORCE TREES SCHEME
  STORM DAMAGE: TASK FORCE TREES SCHEME
  ARCHAEOLOGICAL FINDS: CONSULTATION PAPER
  ARCHAEOLOGICAL FINDS: CONSULTATION PAPER