Sitting of 26 January 1988

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

    Cruise Missiles
    Ms. Primarolo: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his latest estimate of the number of United States nuclear air-launched cruise missiles (a) currently based in Europe and (b) to be based there by 1995.
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Younger): There are currently no United States air-launched cruise missiles based in Europe, nor, as far as I am aware, are there any plans to base such weapons in Europe in the future.
    Ms. Primarolo: Was not a clear decision made four years ago at Montebello to increase the number of air-launched cruise missiles in Europe? Is not the decision continuing despite the changed circumstances of the INF agreement? Are not the Government guilty of deceiving the electorate at the last election by not making clear their intention to install 1,300 air-launched cruise missiles in Europe, with some being based at Boscombe Down?
    Mr. Younger: I am sorry to say that the hon. Lady has been grievously misinformed. The Montebello decision took place years before the INF agreement, which we welcome and very much hope will be ratified shortly. Therefore, it had no relevance to that agreement. It related to updating and modernising the existing nuclear weapons. The INF treaty, to which we fully subscribe, abolishes a whole range of nuclear weapons, and it will be scrupulously adhered to by this country.
    Mr. Patrick Thompson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the important point to make about this is the success of the INF negotiations, leading to a reduction in these weapons in Europe? Is not this success due to NATO's dual-track policy, which is supported by the Government, and about which the Opposition have been in a total muddle?
    Mr. Younger: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. I remind the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo), as has my hon. Friend, that if the dual-track decision had not been the policy of this Government there would have been no INF treaty and no reduction of nuclear weapons of this sort, for which the Opposition would have been responsible.
    Mr. Cohen: Has not a Dutch Minister told the Dutch Parliament that the Montebello requirement
    "applies in principle in all countries which have particular weapon systems"?
    154
    Britain had cruise, and therefore Montebello applies to cruise. The Secretary of State and the Government knew that there was going to be a big increase in air-launched cruise missiles, but they pushed ahead and deceived the electorate at the last election, despite the INF agreement.
    Mr. Younger: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. The INF treaty deals with land-based cruise missiles, and we warmly support that. It is our achievement to have got it, not that of the Opposition. We are proud of having achieved it.
    The modernisation of the other ranges of nuclear weapons that we have must take place from time to time, and will continue in the future until such time as there is another treaty reducing still more weapons. Our aim is to achieve that.
    Mr. Heseltine: As I was at Montebello when we took the decision, I can say that everything that my right hon. Friend has said today is wholly correct. It was a determination to modernise our weapons systems while significantly reducing the number of individual weapons systems. Does my right hon. Friend accept that it is fundamental to the concept of nuclear deterrence that we modernise our capabilities?
    Mr. Younger: I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend and welcome his comments in the light of his having been present at the Montebello decision. He is perfectly right to say that the one thing that is of absolutely no use to anyone is a whole lot of weapons that are out of date. We shall not allow that to happen.
    Mr. Denzil Davies: Do not air-launched cruise missiles need aircraft to launch them? Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that, whatever was decided at Montebello, all Britain's Tornado aircraft and all American F1–11 aircraft stationed in Britain will be included in the conventional arms reductions talks that will start in a few months' time?
    Mr. Younger: The precise details of what will and will not he included in those talks is still to be established. The right hon. Member knows that no decision has been taken for the adoption of air-launched cruise missiles. Our existing Tornado aircraft, with their free-fall bombs, will continue in being in the meantime.

    Petty Officer John Black
    Mr. Latham: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the latest position regarding the inquiry into the unlawful killing in Spain over Christmas 1983 of Petty Officer John Black, Royal Navy; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Roger Freeman): I am still awaiting receipt of the report from the Metropolitan police on the outcome of their investigations.
    Mr. Latham: Is my hon. Friend aware that it is now nearly three years since a British inquest jury said that Petty Officer Black was unlawfully killed? Nobody has ever been charged with any offence. Will he please assure the grieving parents that everything possible is being done by his Department to get this dark affair sorted out as quickly as possible?
    Mr. Freeman: I give my hon. Friend that assurance. I am sure he will agree that the Ministry of Defence has been

    155
    helpful to the Metropolitan police in the progress of their investigations, and the outcome of those investigations is expected shortly. I assure my hon. Friend that when a copy of the report is received by the Ministry I shall brief him on its contents.

    Challenger Tanks
    Mr. Fatchett: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on progress in ordering Challenger tanks.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Tim Sainsbury): The order for the 5th Challenger regiment will be completed shortly. Current orders will also provide Challenger tanks for the 6th and 7th Challenger regiments. Further possible tank requirements are under review.
    Mr. Fatchett: Will the Minister confirm that the Army has expressed a preference for the Challenger tank? If so, when will the Ministry give the go-ahead for that order? If such a go-ahead is given, will the Ministry of Defence give a commitment that the work will be carried out by Vickers in Leeds?
    Mr. Sainsbury: As I have just said, we are currently considering the need for further orders. We have under review a variety of options as to which tank would be a suitable replacement and when further tank orders should be placed.
    Mr. Brandon-Bravo: I hope that my hon. Friend will recognise the importance of this programme to the city of Nottingham, because Royal Ordnance plc has a major unit in my constituency employing 1,100 people. That factory is in an area that still, sadly, has a high level of unemployment. Will he bear that in mind when considering procurement plans now and in the future?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I assure my hon. Friend that we shall certainly bear in mind the matter that he has raised.
    Mr. Marlow: As studies have shown that we can stop many more tanks for our bucks with helicopters than we can with tanks, is it not time that my hon. Friend discovered for himself a new Liddell Hart, so that somebody can do for the antediluvian and outdated tank what he did for the horse?
    Mr. Sainsbury: My hon. Friend will recall that last July I answered a question from him on this subject. I confirm that our latest examination of the issue shows that a variety of anti-armour weapon systems are cost effective.

    Northern Region (Departmental Jobs)
    Mr. Fallon: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of his Department's jobs are currently located in the northern region.
    Mr. Sainsbury: As at 1 October 1987, 2·2 per cent. of the Department's civilian employees were located in the northern region.
    Mr. Fallon: Did my hon. Friend see a recent episode of "Yes, Prime Minister" which emphasised the over-concentration of defence jobs in the south and the west, together with the advantages of moving such jobs to areas of high unemployment in the north and the east? What progress is being made on this issue; and is Hacker triumphing over Sir Humphrey?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I did not see that particular episode, but perhaps I shall have the opportunity to do so on repeat. We are conscious of the point that my hon. Friend has made. It is perhaps worth noting that about 10 per cent. of recruits to the armed forces are drawn from the northern region.
    Mr. Sean Hughes: Will the Minister tell us how many of the jobs now located in the northern region were previously located in London?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I cannot give an exact answer, but the proportion of jobs in the northern region has not changed significantly for some time.
    Mr. Holt: Given that rather appalling answer by my hon. Friend, does he accept that a radical Government, such as we have at the moment, should consider what their predecessors did when they moved the Royal Military Academy from High Wycombe to Aldershot? Perhaps we should consider relocating that academy in the north of England, thus stimulating that part of the country.
    Mr. Sainsbury: My hon. Friend makes a radical suggestion. He also draws attention to the fact that the location of many of the Department's civilian employees is determined by the location of the major defence establishments, many of which have been in their present locations since the last century.

    RAF Air/Sea Rescue Service
    Mr. Nellist: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement concerning the future of the RAF air/sea rescue service.
    Mr. Freeman: As I told the House on 28 October last year, my Department has been studying proposals from Bristow Helicopters Ltd., under which the military search and rescue service in the United Kingdom would be put out to civilian contract. We have also been reviewing the deployment of Royal Navy and Royal Air Force helicopters, to ensure that we are deploying these assets as efficiently as possible and providing satisfactory levels of search and rescue coverage around our coastline —[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot have exchanges of this kind across the Chamber.
    Mr. Freeman: These are very detailed and complex studies and I am not yet able to tell the House the outcome. I hope to be able to do so shortly.
    Mr. Nellist: Is the Minister aware of the widespread opposition that there would be around the coast of this country if this stupid proposal to privatise air and sea rescue services were more widely known? An injured climber or seafarer in distress knows that an RAF pilot will continue to search until he is found and will not have one eye on the fuel gauge to count the cost. Ought not the issue of saving lives to be excluded from consideration of whether there is a profit in it for the potential private concern, such as Bristow?
    Mr. Freeman: The proposal was put to us by Bristow; it was not sought by the Ministry of Defence. We have an obligation to the taxpayer to examine the proposal seriously. As the hon. Gentleman will know, Bristow runs two search and rescue facilities in the north of Scotland, and they operate safely, effectively and efficiently.
    Mr. Harris: While rejecting completely the tone and attitude taken by the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist), may I nevertheless express my scepticism about any privatisation of the air and sea rescue service for the south-west? In my constituency we have RNAS Culdrose, the biggest helicopter base in western Europe. It seems nonsense to privatise the service in that area while that facility remains there.
    Mr. Freeman: Perhaps I could remind my hon. Friend that while military search and rescue helicopters are primarily to serve military need, they also provide about 90 per cent. of the call-outs for civilian rescue. However, my responsibility, and that of my right hon. Friend and other Ministers, is to ensure first and foremost that our military assets are deployed correctly, and we shall judge Bristow's proposal against that background.
    Mr. Heffer: Is it not clear that taxpayers are not arguing for any change? This is merely an ideological aberration on the part of the Conservative Front Bench. Is it not time that the Government put the interests of the mass of the people before the profits of a few who are their friends?
    Mr. Freeman: No, this is not an ideological aberration on the Front Bench. We are carrying out our duty to the House and to taxpayers in examining an unsolicited proposal from Bristow Helicopters in order to establish whether civilian and military search and rescue can be conducted more cheaply.
    We are well aware of the great value of the military search and rescue helicopters in terms of training, and of the excellent service that they perform indirectly for the civilian community. We shall not lose sight of those valuable contributions.
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the grave concern in Pembrokeshire that RAF Brawdy may lose its search and rescue detachment, which would leave a large part of the coast denuded of instant cover? Will he also bear in mind that any private operator might be subjected to strike action, which service discipline, of course, precludes?
    Mr. Freeman: My hon. Friend's last point is certainly right— that is a risk with any private contractor—but as I said last October in the defence debate, besides the Bristow proposal, we are also studying the redeployment of our military search and rescue facilities to ensure that we have the best possible cover around our coastline. I can assure my hon. Friend that any changes in our military deployment — if, indeed, they take place — will ensure that the interests of his constituents, like those of all other hon. Members, will be properly looked after.
    Mr. Rogers: Does the Minister accept that cost and competence cannot be the only factors to be taken into account when arriving at a decision? Is it not a fact that air-sea rescue is a military service, that it has a war role, that it is important in service training, and that rescuing civilians is simply a bonus that the services provide for the taxpayer? Does he further accept that if the Government decide to privatise air-sea rescue they will be sacrificing the long-term interests of the services for short-term expediency?
    Mr. Freeman: I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman has said. The military search and rescue service provided around this country, in conjunction with Bristow
    158
    in two places in the north of Scotland, is a partnership between the Ministry of Defence and the Department of Transport. In any changes we make, whether in the contractorisation route or the deployment route, we shall work closely with the Department of Transport.
    Mr. Churchill: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the excellent search and rescue service provided by Royal Air Force helicopters to civilians represents excellent and important training for the services? Will he also confirm that he will not accept any unnecessary duplication that may arise if we were to go ahead with a scheme for privatisation while it is still incumbent on the RAF to maintain a capability of its own?
    Mr. Freeman: I agree with my hon. Friend. At base, Royal Navy and Royal Air Force helicopters, in the search and rescue capacity, have to provide a military service. The training that the pilots and aircrew receive was valuable in the Falklands conflict.

    Nuclear Convoys
    Mr. Janner: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has any plans to review the present safety precautions taken by the armed forces in connection with the transportation of military nuclear convoys; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr, Ian Stewart): Safety arrangements associated with the movement of nuclear weapons are kept under constant review.
    Mr. Janner: Is the Minister aware that that assurance carries little weight in the county of Leicestershire after a convoy carrying nuclear weapons passed through the centre of Leicester in the rush hour, after the serious accident at Salisbury, and after the Government's refusal even to give an assurance to the county council that chief fire officers will be informed when such convoys are coming? Surely it cannot conceivably be a breach of security to assure the House that, when a convoy carrying nuclear weapons or nuclear waste is to pass through towns, the local chief constables and chief fire officers will be informed on all occasions.
    Mr. Stewart: I know that the hon. and learned Gentleman has communicated with my Department over a number of years on this subject and, therefore, he will not be surprised at the answer that I give him. Guidance is issued to some chief constables and fire officers on the basis of the need to know. However, I should like to emphasise to the hon. and learned Gentleman that we are following the practice of all previous Governments in not commenting on the details of individual transport movements. We have an exceptional safety record. No accident resulting in the release of radioactivity from nuclear weapons has taken place during all the time that they have been deployed in this country.
    Mr. Key: Does my hon. Friend agree that at no time during the accident at West Dean in my constituency was there a threat to the public when a transporter slipped off the road in icy conditions? Does he also agree that the exhaustive and detailed correspondence that we have had on behalf of the district and county councils and the fire and health authorities has been extremely helpful? Does he further agree that the passage of the Military Defence

    159
    Police Act 1987 has sorted out a great deal of doubt that surrounded the question of who was responsible for what in those circumstances?
    Mr. Stewart: I am glad to have my hon. Friend's contribution, which sets the whole question in context. Although I am not prepared to discuss the contents of the cargo in a particular accident, I can say that there was never any hazard to the public from the accident to which my hon. Friend referred.

    Low-flying Aircraft
    Dr. Thomas: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent representations he has received concerning low flying over Wales.
    Mr. Freeman: Between 1 December 1987 and 18 January 1988 the Ministry of Defence received 37 inquiries or complaints from Wales about low-flying military aircraft.
    Dr. Thomas: Does the Minister accept that low-flying training in Wales gives rise to the greatest number of complaints that land on my desk or are telephoned into my office from people not only in the constituency but outside it? Will he undertake a review of low-flying training throughout Britain? It is now 10 years since the last review took place.
    Mr. Freeman: No, I cannot give the hon. Gentleman such an undertaking, and I would quarrel with the assumption behind his question. The issue may preoccupy him, and perhaps some of his constituents, but that is not borne out by the majority of hon. Members.
    Sir Antony Buck: Will my hon. Friend confirm that it is important that our services maintain their capability and capcity to fly at low levels? Their expertise in this sphere has stood our country well in many regards, including the Falklands campaign, when they proved to be expert at this sort of manoeuvre?
    Mr. Freeman: I agree with my hon. and learned Friend. The low-flying regulations permit aircraft to fly down to 250 ft at up to 450 knots. Most of that flying is done during the daytime. During wartime—I am sure that the House will want to pay tribute to wartime pilots—pilots had to fly very much faster, at perhaps 50 ft, and at night.
    Mr. Livsey: What representations has the Minister received about low-flying aircraft at night over Wales? Recently, one flew over Brecon at 9 pm and woke most of the population under the age of five years, causing great disturbance.
    Mr. Freeman: Unfortunately, in wartime our pilots would have to fly at night. Most low flying ends at 11 pm; only 5 per cent. of low flying takes place after sunset. I regret the disturbance that was caused to the children of the hon. Gentleman's constituents, but I can assure him that it was necessary.
    Sir Anthony Meyer: Is my hon. Friend aware that most people in Wales are reassured to see RAF markings on planes as they fly over so low, but will he ensure that instructions are given to pilots not to use prominent buildings, such as district general hospitals, as landmarks on which to draw beam?
    Mr. Freeman: I can assure my hon. Friend that hospitals and all residential locations are not used as targets. That may appear to be the case, but all the targets that pilots use for low-level missions are non-residential.

    Army Ammunition Accidents
    Mr. McAllion: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the current level of Army ammunition accidents.
    Mr. Freeman: According to Army records, the number of accidents in 1987 involving Army ammunition was 260. Those resulted in 112 injuries and six deaths; four civilians were injured and there were no civilian deaths. The accident rate in 1987 was not significantly different from that of the past 10 years.
    Mr. McAllion: I hope that the Minister is sufficiently concerned by those figures, and by recent Army reports showing an increase in the number of accidents caused by lack of supervision and a general increase in the number of accidents among soldiers, to do something about it. Will he tell the House what steps he is prepared to take to ensure that training in the handling of ammunition and supervision of that handling is of the highest possible quality? What steps will he take to ensure that the appropriate authorities — district councils, community councils and environmental groups — are properly and fully consulted before Army exercises in order to minimise the risk of such exercises to the civilian population?
    Mr. Freeman: The risk to civilians, as I hope I have shown, in 1987 and for the past 10 years was minimal. The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the matter, and I share his concern. Some 98 per cent. of ammunition accidents are caused by errors in drill by soldiers; only 2 per cent. are attributable to faulty ammunition. Although the statistics show that there has been no great change over the past 10 to 15 years, I can assure him that the Army and the Ministry of Defence take all possible steps to reduce these figures, which, I agree, are too high.
    Mr. Stern: Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating British Rail on conducting a thorough inquiry into the recent incident involving a munitions train at Stoke Gifford in my constituency, which concluded that the standards of handling of munitions in transit to avoid accidents involving civilians were of the highest and should remain so?
    Mr. Freeman: I agree with my hon. Friend. We have always enjoyed close co-operation with British Rail. New regulations are to be introduced shortly, covering not rail but road transport, and I hope that that will improve our accident record still further.

    Defence Programmes (Employment Implications)
    Mr. Meale: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he makes of the employment implications in the defence industries when considering reductions in defence expenditure programmes.
    Mr. Sainsbury: Defence expenditure this year is over 20 per cent. higher in real terms than in 1978–79. In formulating our expenditure plans within the available resources we consider the employment implications for

    161
    industry. But our main criteria are the military requirement and the need to obtain the best value for money.
    Mr. Meale: Is the Minister aware that the United Kingdom brokers, Scrimgeour Vickers, forecast that 100,000 jobs would be lost in conventional defence expenditure over the next three years? Has the reality of that been borne out by the expenditure White Paper published last week?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I remind the hon. Gentleman that on 27 October last year he put his signature to an amendment proposing a non-aligned foreign and defence policy for this country and a massive reallocation of resources from weapons. I am glad to know that he is now concerned with the employment implications of our defence procurement programmes.
    Mr. Mates: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is the height of hypocrisy for Opposition Members to call for less and less expenditure on defence unless and until it affects a job in their constituency?
    Mr. Sainsbury: My hon. Friend is entirely right. It is worth remembering that both defence and procurement expenditure are substantially higher than they would have been had we continued at the rate that we inherited from the last Labour Government.
    Mr. Ernie Ross: Regardless of whether we support defence spending on a particular range of weapons, it is the Minister's responsibility to tell us what effect he thinks the cuts in defence expenditure will have on jobs. The House has a right to know.
    Mr. Sainsbury: The hon. Gentleman is looking at nonexistent cuts. As I said, defence and procurement expenditure is substantially higher than the level that we inherited and is continuing at a more or less stable level.
    Mr. Latham: Is my hon. Friend aware that one of the most depressing jobs of the Public Accounts Committee is to see the tremendous waste of money that there has been on procurement programmes? That money could have been spent properly, on decent weapons systems. Will my hon. Friend assure the House that the Department is putting its full weight behind Mr. Levene to get this matter sorted out?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I agree that there have been mistakes in the past. I am happy to assure my hon. Friend that we are determined to secure the best possible value for money in our procurement expenditure.
    Mr. O'Neil: Will the Minister tell us the position on staff shortages, which appear to be due to the funding difficulties referred to in today's edition of The Independent. Are they the reason for the delay in the production of nuclear warheads for the Trident programme? Will we have to borrow the warheads from the United States, or are we to have an independent deterrent?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the headline to that article bore about as much relation to its content as its content bore to reality. I am happy to assure him that Aldermaston is nearly up to full establishment and that there are no problems due to funding difficulties.

    Nuclear Tests (Radiation Victims)
    Mr. George Howarth: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to receive the report of the National Radiological Protection Board on nuclear test veterans; when he will respond; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Sainsbury: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given in the House on Monday 18 January. I am pleased to be able to tell the House that on 28 January 1988 the NRPB intends to publish the final report into the mortality and cancer incidence in United Kingdom participants in the United Kingdom atmospheric nuclear weapon tests and experimental programmes.
    Mr. Howarth: In the light of the recently released Cabinet papers, does the Minister accept that it is now clear that in 1950s British service men were exposed to the effects of nuclear tests and that undoubtedly some have suffered and are suffering? Is not the introduction of a proper system of compensation long overdue so that the families and the service men can be properly compensated for the damage to their health?
    Mr. Sainsbury: As I said, the report is to be published on 28 January. It would be wrong to anticipate its contents.
    Mr. Benn: Will the Minister address his mind to the question of the papers and reports in the Public Record Office that may have been suppressed, as the report on the Windscale fire in 1957 was suppressed, which prevented people who had claims for possible death or injury following 1957 having access to the relevant information? Will the Minister give an undertaking that all the reports made available to successive Governments since the original tests were conducted will be published so that people may study those reports as well as those of the National Radiological Protection Board?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman awaits the publication of the report and then studies it before trying to anticipate its contents.
    Mr. Denzil Davies: Does the Minister agree that the protection board's report is about statistics, not people, and that the board has never examined one person who was at the tests? Will the Ministry of Defence now sit down with the representatives of those people, who were not properly protected, to try to work out some decent compensation for them, because that is the British Government's moral responsibility?
    Mr. Sainsbury: We shall all be in a much better position to judge the situation when we have had an opportunity to read what is a full and exhaustive report, involving a study of the records of over 22,000 service men who took part in the tests.

    Chemical Weapons
    Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with the United States Government concerning chemical weapons.
    Mr. Younger: I have regular discussions with my colleagues in the United States Government on a wide range of security and defence issues.
    Mr. Hughes: Given that the Secretary of State knows that the multiple launch rocket system can carry a different

    163
    variety of warheads and that November's International Defence Review reported that chemical warheads are now being developed, will he assure the House that there are no plans to develop chemical warheads for the MLRS, and can we be sure that we can rely on that, given that in relation to Motebello, which was discussed earlier, answers were one thing one year but something very different a little later?
    Mr. Younger: It would be for the United States to answer that question as it is the only country in the West making chemical weapons. As far as stationing is concerned, the United States has made it perfectly clear that it does not have any plans to station any chemical weapons in Europe, short of a war situation.
    Mr. Key: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the case of chemical weapons is a classic example of what happens when countries unilaterally disarm? Will he join me in congratulating the work force of the Chemical Defence Establishment, Porton Down, whose defensive work is one reason why we have such a strong lead in chemical disarmament talks?
    Mr. Younger: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. The work that is done at Porton Down is entirely directed to assessing the protection of our own forces, who face, in this case, a threat to which they have no direct answer. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), who asked me the original question and who, I think, is a supporter of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, might like to note that although we have not had any chemical weapons since the 1950s, there is no sign whatever that the Soviet Union has made any gesture to reduce its production.
    Mr. Denzil Davies: The Secretary of State is aware that the United States still has a large stock of chemical weapons in the Federal Republic. Does the British Army have any access to that stock, or is the stock solely and exclusively for the use of the United States Army?
    Mr. Younger: Yes, those stocks are entirely the property and for the use by the United States forces. I understand that they intend to phase them out, as they are becoming aged, and to replace them with the new binary weapons, which NATO decided to ask the United States to produce.
    Mr. Brazier: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Soviet Union has an estimated 14 factories producing such weapons, and that the Americans are planning just one?
    Mr. Younger: Yes, my hon. Friend is quite correct. It is sad that the Soviet Union does not yet appear to have been clear-cut in its admission about its stocks of chemical weapons. However, it is interesting to note that, on the information that we have, it probably has about 300,000 tons of chemical weapons awaiting use. As I have said, we have not had any such weapons since the 1950s. It is about time that the Soviet Union followed our lead.

    Low-flying Aircraft
    Mr. Wigley: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received concerning the low-flying of aircraft over the site of the National Eisteddfod of Wales in Ponthmeidog in August 1987; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Freeman: One complaint has been received concerning low-flying military aircraft over the site of the National Eisteddfod of Wales in Porthmadog in August 1987. This is currently under investigation.
    Mr. Wigley: Is the Minister aware of the dismay that will be felt in Wales at the reply that he gave to my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas), in response to question 7, and at the contempt that he showed for feelings in Wales when he gave no apology for the effect of low-flying aircraft on the community? Is he further aware that, despite repeated requests to the Royal Air Force to avoid low-flying aircraft over this site, there were specific flights which appeared to be buzzing the field and disrupting competition there? Is it not high time that the RAF showed greater sensitivity about such activity and towards the needs of the local communities?
    Mr. Freeman: As I have said, one incident is under investigation and, if it turns out that there was a violation of the avoidance area, I shall write to the hon. Gentleman to express apologies and say what action has been taken. In reply to an earlier question, I said quite correctly that the hon. Gentleman and his colleague, the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas), belong to a party which is opposed to low-flying aircraft anywhere in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Bill Walker rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Walker. I remind the hon. Member that the question is about Wales, not Scotland.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that all investigations carried out by the RAF into allegations of unauthorised low flying are very thorough and very full? Does he further agree that low flying, particularly contour low flying and low-level navigation, is an essential part of our deterrence capability, just as search and rescue pilots must be of a standard to enhance our deterrence capability?
    Mr. Freeman: I can confirm that all complaints are properly investigated and those of a serious nature are investigated by the Royal Air Force police. I write to hon. Members who draw complaints to my attention when those investigations are completed.

    European Fighter Aircraft
    Mr. Ernie Ross: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has any plans to reduce the Royal Air Force current requirement for the European fighter aircraft.
    Mr. Sainsbury: As I told the hon. Member on 8 December 1987, it is too early in the project to forecast with certainty the eventual size of the United Kingdom purchase of European fighter aircraft. The work-sharing agreement is, however, based on the declared requirement for 250 aircraft.
    Mr. Ross: The Minister will accept that his failure to commit the Government to 260 fighters, which the RAF says it requires, has serious employment consequences for those who will participate in the programme. When will he be able to guarantee that he intends to protect those 260 orders within the present defence review?
    Mr. Sainsbury: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that it would be neither normal nor sensible to place a firm

    165
    order until after the project definition stage has been completed and there is a design of an aircraft to order and also, by that time, a reasonably firm estimate of the cost.
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Will my hon. Friend, in any negotiations, guard contractually against a situation where one of the other parties places a larger initial order than he intends to take delivery of, so that he gets a larger percentage of the work? This is grossly unfair to the other parties to the agreement.
    Mr. Sainsbury: My hon. Friend raises an important point. I can assure him that the work-share agreement for the production phase will be based on the declared orders at that time and not on the declared orders at the project definition stage.
    Mr. Rogers: Will the Minister ensure that, in the final requirements laid down for this aircraft, the radar installed will be European, and preferably British?
    Mr. Sainsbury: We must await the outcome of the present competitive tendering exercise, but the United Kingdom is strongly represented in both the bidding consortia for the aircraft's radar.

    Nuclear Weapons
    Mr. Flannery: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's latest plans to modernise their nuclear weaponry.
    Mr. Younger: We are proceeding on schedule with the modernisation of Britain's strategic nuclear deterrent through Trident. In addition, some technical studies are taking place with a view to identifying a possible successor to the United Kingdom's current sub-strategic weapon, the free-fall bomb; however, no decisions on a replacement for this have yet been taken.
    Mr. Flannery: Is it true that in the next few years NATO is to introduce thousands of much more powerful nuclear weapons? I ask that question since the Government, and the Prime Minister in particular, do not seem to show the same enthusiasm for the INF treaty as the United States and the other countries in Europe. After Montebello, are more powerful weapons coming in?
    Mr. Younger: The hon. Gentleman has asked me a question, and I must, in the kindest possible way, say quite simply that he is wrong. Not only has Britain shown a strong enthusiasm for the reduction of nuclear weapons, but we are the first Government in Britain to have supported a move, which has been successful, to remove a whole range of nuclear weapons and to reduce the total number available to East and West. I should have thought that that was a great success.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. McCusker: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 26 January.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, including one with the President of Egypt. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. McCusker: Will the Prime Minister find a few minutes today to consider whether anything of any value is left of the Anglo-Irish Agreement? Will she now concede that it has failed in its primary objective of reducing violence in Northern Ireland, not only as illustrated in the statistics of the past two years, but in the statement by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland last week that the people of Northern Ireland should prepare for another terrorist onslaught, and, more immediately, by the death of another civilian and another policeman in Northern Ireland yesterday? If relationships between the right hon. Lady's Government and the Government of the Republic have failed to improve, to the extent that they could have prevented the outbursts from the Dublin Government over the past 24 hours in relation to the statement made to the House yesterday, what has the agreement to commend itself, except that it continues to alienate large sections of the community in Northern Ireland?
    The Prime Minister: It will not surprise the hon. Gentleman to hear that I disagree with him. The Anglo-Irish Agreement has led to greatly increased co-operation on security, which is to the advantage of the people in Northern Ireland and in the Republic of Ireland. With regard to the statement that was made yesterday, I have nothing to add to what my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General said.
    Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Following her remarks on "Panorama" last night, will my right hon. Friend consider the future of the National Health Service management board? Does she think that it adequately reflects the commercial and managerial disciplines of the private sector, and is she satisfied that, since it is responsible for perhaps the largest service organisation in western Europe, it has the powers that any normal board of directors should have over such a massive organisation?
    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend is aware, the management board has on it people who are well accustomed to managing private sector organisations. We are now gathering together the requisite information, which shows that different authorities make very different use of the money at their disposal. Now that we have that information, the management board may be able to take more effective action on it. I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of the excellent management of resources throughout the service.
    Mr. Kinnock: Will the Prime Minister respond to last Friday's letter from Mr. Trevor Clay of the Royal College of Nursing and other leaders of nursing and midwives trade unions by agreeing to meet those people urgently?
    The Prime Minister: Mr. Clay wrote to me and to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services, and my right hon. Friend will be meeting them very shortly. [HON. MEMBERS: "You."] I am delighted that people always want to see me. I am absolutely delighted. Yet if ever I say that I shall do something I am accused of dictatorship and all sorts of things. We have rather a lot of most excellent Ministers on the Government Front Bench, and it is right that the Secretary of State in charge should see these people first, and that is what will happen.
    Mr. Kinnock: Does the right hon. Lady not realise that those people want to see her because she is the architect of the crisis of underfunding? Why will she not see them? Why does she treat the nurses with such contempt" Does

    167
    she not realise that those nurses are motivated entirely by concern for the National Health Service and the patients in their care? Who can believe that her so-called review of the National Health Service can have any integrity, when she slams the door in the face of people best placed to know the problems of health care and of funding because they have to deal with those problems every day of their working lives?
    The Prime Minister: It was this Government who, because the Royal College of Nursing had never gone on strike, and does not, set up a review body, whose recommendations have so far been honoured. It is this Government who have seen to it that nurses have had increases in pay over and above inflation–30 per cent. in real terms. It is this Government who have reduced the standard working week of nurses from 40 to 371/2 hours. It was the last Labour Government who cut the pay of nurses.
    Mr. Kinnock: If the Prime Minister has such faith in her figures, why does she not have the nurses into No. 10 Downing street and offer that recitation to them face to face? Why does she not do that and see what response she gets? Perhaps she knows what response she will get and that is why she is frightened to meet them.
    The Prime Minister: Which of the figures is the right hon. Gentleman challenging? He seems to be indicating that he is challenging none of them. Or is he saying that he does not believe any figures given by the Government? If so, why does he ask any questions?
    Mr. Squire: Is my right hon. Friend aware we on the Government Benches welcome her comments last night and the record of her Government? Is she also aware, given the impossibility of a National Health Service meeting immediately every demand that is made upon it, that in addition to looking at further ways of funding it, some of us would also wish us to be looking at medical priorities within the National Health Service?
    The Prime Minister: Doctors, of course, make decisions on medical priorities almost every day. I think that it is for them to establish priorities. I doubt very much that we could do it—not between patients. But I know that a number of doctors have made comments recently, which have been very carefully noted, which indicate that they are thinking about this matter themselves.
    Mr. Wigley: In view of what the right hon. Lady said on television last night, that the review of the National Health Service should be expedited very quickly, will she suggest to health authorities considering hospital closures that they should suspend such closures until the review has been completed?
    The Prime Minister: Not in any way, because, as the hon. Gentleman is aware, sometimes the building of a big new facility which brings new possibilities of medical treatment to a whole region may also depend on the closure of some local hospitals. To stop the one will also stop the other and could result in less medical treatment than the present system provides.
    Mr. Gerald Bowden: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 26 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Bowden: My right hon. Friend must be well aware that the statement she made last night about instituting her fundamental review of the National Health Service will be widely welcomed, since there is widespread public concern about the operation of the service. Does she join me in condemning those who callously exploit individual suffering, often misrepresenting the facts, for crude political purposes?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I have had occasion at Question Time before to correct the alleged facts of a particular case. Last week at Question Time another case was brought up, of someone who, it was said, had been moved 2 miles in a furniture van which was dirty and smelly. I made inquiries of the regional health authority, which has indicated that the patients, two patients who could not be moved by ambulance because they had to be moved on beds, were in fact moved in a van. They were kept warm with thermal blankets, they were moved skilfully and the van was clean. They were accompanied by ambulance men and nurses on a short journey, and their condition on arrival was as good as it had been when they left the first hospital. The medical staff and the consultant orthopaedic surgeon were happy with all the arrangements. The regional health authority chairman said:
    "ambulance men and nurses have expressed their concern at the distorted reporting of the transfer by the news media, particularly as they would never associate themselves professionally with any action which compromised the wellbeing of patients."
    Mr. Flannery: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 26 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Flannery: When will the Prime Minister realise that reading out cold-blooded statistics at the Dispatch Box —[Interruption.] — despite all the noise that hon. Members behind her make, will not solve the problems of the National Health Service? Only more money will solve those problems. Would it not be a good beginning to give deserving nurses the 20 per cent. increase which they have asked for? [Interruption.] I hope hon. Members will let me say what I want to say. Is the right hon. Lady not ashamed that she can say, "I want to go into hospital on the day I want, to the doctor I want, and when I want," when she is stopping thousands of people doing just that? Babies are dying while she is doing that.
    The Prime Minister: First, next year there will be more money, £1,100 million more, which will be paid by the taxpayer. Secondly, 3,000 babies survive every year who would not have survived as far back as 1978–79. Thirdly, it sounds as if the hon. Gentleman wants a voucher scheme. Fourthly, in Sheffield health authority area inpatient cases are up by 13·5 per cent. since 1982—the last reorganisation—and day cases are up by 4,000. The Northern general hospital had a £9·5 million development opened in the summer of 1986, and there is a £8 million development opening this year. At the children's hopital there is a £8 million development opening in 1989. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is pleased with the advances under this Government.
    Mr. David Evans: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 26 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Evans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that British Aerospace and the people of Welwyn and Hatfield should be congratulated on designing, producing and selling 109 146 Jetliners and 684 British Aerospace executive jets? Does she also agree that this mirrors the success of privatisation?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend sets out the most excellent record of a successful company, which is selling aircraft in the highly competitive North American market, and getting increased performance and increased profits. I understand that it also exports to about 40 countries. I join him in congratulating the company on its excellent record. It is a tribute to privatisation.
    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 26 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Banks: I have given the Prime Minister prior notice of my supplementary in the hope of getting a considered response. Is the Prime Minister aware that the world population of black rhinos has gone down from 65,000 in 1970 to under 4,000 now and continues to decline? The reason, as she knows, is poaching. One of the most important world markets for black rhino horn products is Hong Kong. Will the Prime Minister tell us what Her Majesty's Government are doing to clamp down on the internal and external trade of black rhino horn products in Hong Kong?
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice. I know that he and many
    170
    hon. Members are interested in conserving the rhino. The hon. Gentleman has asked the Foreign and Commonwealth Office a number of questions and I have taken steps to find out the precise position with regard to Hong Kong.
    The Hong Kong Government have banned the import of rhino products, including rhino horn, since 1979 and a total ban on the export of all rhino products, including horn, has been in force since 1 April 1986. A total ban on the sale of rhino products within Hong Kong will take effect from July this year.
    Mr. Robert G. Hughes: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 26 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Hughes: In the course of her busy day, will my right hon. Friend take time to note the achievement of the London borough of Harrow, which for the third year running has the best 0-level results in the country? That is partly due to many years of parent power, as envisaged under the Education Reform Bill, being practised in Harrow. Will she consider an invitation from the London borough of Harrow to see that success at first hand?
    The Prime Minister: I gladly join my hon. Friend in congratulating Harrow on its excellent results. May I point out to him that Barnet comes pretty close—in particular Barnet girls are very good indeed. I hope that the opportunities provided under the new Education Reform Bill to give parents a wider say will extend the excellent results of which my hon. Friend speaks.

Parliamentary Standards
3.31 pm
Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance on a matter relating to the reputation of the House. Yesterday, on BBC Radio 4 news, at 1 o'clock, an hon. Member stated that he had provoked his naming and expulsion from the House so that he would be invited to appear on the Terry Wogan show and state his views on the Westland affair to an audience of 6 million people.
Mr. Speaker: Order. What goes on outside the House is, thank goodness, nothing to do with me.

National Health Service
3.32 pm
Mr. Robert Adley: On a point of order Mr. Speaker. Last week, in the House, a Labour Member made an allegation about treatment under the National Health Service. This afternoon, the Prime Minister clearly made the point that that allegation had been repudiated by workers in the National Health Service.
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a continuation of Prime Minister's questions. Perhaps on another occasion the hon. Gentleman will be lucky and be able to put his own question.

Regional Health Authorities (Abolition)
3.33 pm
Miss Ann Widdecombe: I beg to move
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to abolish regional health authorities.
In seeking leave to introduce the Bill, may I first welcome the comments made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on "Panorama" last night. I am sure that they will bring great relief to the general public, because if the Government are as successful in reviewing the National Health Service as they have been in revising the education system and the economy, there is great hope for the Health Service in the next few years. I thank my right hon. Friend for her remarks.
I propose a modest measure for directing money in the Health Service away from administration and into patient care. I therefore seek leave to introduce a Bill to abolish the regional health authorities. My reasons for doing that are based, first, on the ground of cost. The money would be better spent on patients. Secondly, the functions of the regional health authorities are superfluous, as they could be carried out by district health authorities, by a central board of management, or by central Government. Thirdly, their structure is wrong, as too many disparate interests are grouped together, competing for scarce resources. Fourthly, there is too little accountability.
Theoretically, the regional health authorities are accountable to the Secretary of State, but their powers and budgets are devolved, and very often we hear it said that something must be a purely regional decision. Unlike the Secretary of State, regional health authorities do not have to answer to the public through the ballot box every five years for what they are doing. Furthermore, many of those who sit on regional health authorities have to pass judgment on local situations prevailing in areas with which they are not familiar and which they do not know, whereas district health authorities deal wholly and all the time with what is going on in their own patch, with which they are very familiar.
In 1986, across the country, regional health authorities cost £109 million on administration alone. That figure was given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Health in answer to a parliamentary question from my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood). That was £109 million on top of the £317 million that we spend every year on administration costs per district. That represents thousands of nurses' salaries. That represents an opportunity lost for thousands of operations. The Government have always stated, and have more than proved, that they believe that money must be spent at the sharp end of our public services, so that money should be taken from that wholly superfluous tier of administration and put in at the sharp end.
The Bill would allow district authorities to control consultants' contracts. At the moment, the regions issue contracts to consultants and the financial liability for them is passed on to the districts. I know of no commercial analogy which allows one department to issue contracts and another to accept the financial liability.
The Bill would devolve the control of property and land to the districts. At the moment there are considerable numbers of surplus properties and pieces of land throughout the country. There is very little incentive for districts to put their backs into selling that property,

173
because too often the proceeds go back to the regions because they are over certain limits. The districts could develop those properties and that land, or sell them to raise income to help patients, which is what the service should be about. I strongly believe, therefore, that they should have the control, which would mean that they would also have the incentive to make the best use of such assets.
The territorial overview of facilities that would have to be provided, not in every district, but simply between three or four districts, could, I believe, easily be carried out centrally by a fairly minimal and not particularly costly expansion of the existing regional liaison structure within the Department.
There is already provision for the central purchasing of supplies. I believe that this should continue, but that the districts should take over the control of distribution.
It has often been said that 219 districts is a rather large number for any Government Department to deal with, and I have some sympathy with that view. Nevertheless, the Department of the Environment has to deal with several hundred district councils, and the Department of Education and Science is contemplating dealing with a large number of individual schools, which will draw their grants centrally. I therefore think that this requirement could be accommodated by a slight expansion of the regional liaison department.
I do not regard this proposal as any sort of alternative to any other major reorganisation that may be proposed for our health services, nor that on its own it will solve the problems of the National Health Service, but I do believe that at the moment we are spending money that could be better spent, and this would, administratively speaking, be a fairly easy and straightforward way of getting the money for patient care, to pay nurses and to pay for operations.
3.39 pm
Mr. Dave Nellist rose—
Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Member wish to oppose the motion?
Mr. Nellist: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
The hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) described this as "a modest measure to drive money away from administration and toward patient care." The abolition of the regional health authority structure in the Health Service would mean an enormous upheaval in the organisation of that service. When the hon. Member says that the cost is £109 million for administration, she is, quite frankly, naive if she believes that if her Bill were to be passed the Government would take that £109 million and put it into patient care or use it to increase the wages of those working in the Health Service. As with all the other changes that have taken place in the past eight or nine years, from redundancies in British Steel, to the abolition of the county council structure, the money saved would go back to the Treasury and end up as tax cuts for the top 5 per cent. of the population.
I should like to ask the hon. Member for Maidstone, not today, but at a later stage, to say whether she has approached her colleagues in government to seek ministerial backing for this measure. It seems to me, from a pamphlet from the Adam Smith Institute this month, that once again the Right wing, inside and outside the Tory party, is pushing towards more privatisation in the Health Service. The pamphlet from the Adam Smith Institute said:
174
"if the Regional Health Authorities arc to be retained at all, which is a matter of debate, they could exist as branch offices of a quasi-independent national board. Alternatively, their staffing levels could be reduced and their operations could be made more flexible by the greater use of contracting rather than in-house expertise."
A fortnight ago the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) started to wave the privatisation flag for the Post Office, and today the flag is being waved by the hon. Member for Maidstone in respect of the Health Service.
As to regional health authorities being "superfluous", there is a clear need for strategic planning, for example, of the siting of regional facilities, whether it be for children's heart operations or for renal dialysis centres. One of the original aims of the regional health authorities when they were established in 1974 was to link each of the 14 authorities with a university medical school and a teaching hospital, primarily to improve the distribution of medical manpower and reduce inequalities between the regions. In the past decade rising unemployment and growing, poverty have militated against any serious work in that direction. In fact, Tory Government decisions, ranging from inadequate nutritional standards in schools, all the way through to mass unemployment, simply mean that more people fall sick. The solution is not one of administration, but is one of finance. That is the core of my opposition to the Bill.
On page 2 of its annual report for 1986–87 on the Health Service in England, the Department of Health and Social Security makes it clear how the regional health authorities fit into the centralised structure of health care. They are part of a centralised, unelected, unaccountable structure in which control is exercised downwards from the Secretary of State through the regional health authorities to the districts themselves. The chairmen and members of the regional health authorities are appointed by the Secretary of State. The regional health authorities then dictate the membership of the district health authorities and, in particular places such as the west midlands, the north-west, Merseyside and the hon. Member for Maidstone's own area of south-east Thames, trade union nominees have been weeded out, and vetoed by regional health authorities for having the temerity to stand against cuts in the Health Service.
In my own region, the west midlands, there were three candidates last year — George Evans for Wolverhampton, Marilyn York for Bromsgrove and Redditch and Raghib Ahsan, who was already a member of the West Birmingham health authority. Two of those three were the only woman and the only ethnic minority candidate proposed for the district health authorities. They were vetoed by the regional health authority as part of the process of weeding out opposition on those bodies. Although Marilyn York gained a position in another health authority, George Evans and Raghib Ahsan were vetoed, as was John Dempsey, a National Union of Public Employees full-time official who was nominated for a regional health authority seat.
I can think of legions of examples which, with the under-funding of the Health Service and draconian methods of management, locally and regionally, have no doubt fuelled the anger of health workers in recent years. No doubt many health workers would have some initial sympathy with the move to abolish regional health authorities. A better response, however, would be to campaign for the democratisation of an expanded Health Service, which should include the present peripheral,

175
privately owned institutions, all the way from abortion clinics to the drug companies themselves. The majority of district and regional health authorities ought to be elected and accountable, with, in turn, a majority of their seats reserved for health workers and other trade unionists. Local authorities should have direct representation so as to represent the interests of the population at large. At some stage of his or her adult life everyone is a consumer of the National Health Service, barring of course the Tory Cabinet.
Clearly, the Government would want some representation to secure a reasonable, even distribution, based on specific regional problems. There should be direct representation from the districts to the regional health authorities. In other words, control and management should extend from the bottom up, with the full involvement of ordinary working people, and not Tory placemen. These proposals are outlined in a private Member's Bill, which I support, which has been brought in by my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon). I refer in particular to clause 6 of the National Health Service (Improved Provision of Services) Bill.
There can hardly be any family left untouched by the crisis in the National Health Service, which the Prime Minister again refused to admit today. During the past three months I have brought examples before the House from Coventry ranging from delayed heart operations for babies to the proposed closure of one of the city hospitals specialising in geriatric care and, in some cases, to undignified reductions such as the complete curtailment of supplies of incontinence pads. I told the House of a constituent who, before Christmas, was drying out on a radiator used incontinence pads for her elderly mother because of district health authority cuts. The root cause of that is not administration, but the financial cuts imposed by the Government.
Of the 21 OECD countries, the United Kingdom is 17th on the list — only Spain, Portugal, Greece and New Zealand spend less on health. One of the consequences of that is that for the first time since 1970 the number of deaths of infants between the ages of 28 days and 12 months is rising in England and Wales. The huge problems faced daily by patients, families and Health Service workers are light years away from the Secretary of State for Social Services, who goes into a private hospital at £1,000 a week when he gets ill, and from the Prime Minister, who, in her three periods of illness during her term of office, has used private care on each occasion.
In the past eight years under-funding has totalled £1·5 billion, as estimated by the Select Committee on Social Services. The Government will claim that they spend more money — we heard that again today during Question Time. However, taking into account inflation, the extra cost of drugs and equipment, which the Government estimate to be rising faster than inflation, the Government's estimates of the rising population of the elderly, and the increased sickness, which is due to their policies, it is clear that their 2 per cent. real growth targets are not being met.
In the west midlands, James Ackers, the regional health authority chairman, said that the authority is underfunded by £40 million this year on pay awards alone. The £6–7 million that the authority received before Christmas is pathetically inadequate.
176
The deep and widespread opposition to the Government's cavalier attitude to the Health Service, ranging from the 40,000—signature petition in Coventry against the closure of Whitley hospital, to the half-day strike in the city last November, to the increasingly spontaneous decisions of health workers to step up their action in defence of the Health Service and their own working conditions and wages, was perhaps best evidenced last night in the constituency of the former Secretary of State for Social Services—Sutton Coldfield —when the workers at Goodhope hospital voted that, if the closure proposals for the accident and emergency services at that hospital are not withdrawn, they will occupy and work in the hospital, with the backing of the area consultant, to take out of the hands of this Government the decision whether or not health facilities should be given to working people in our areas.
The responsibility for co-ordinating this action and supporting it around the country now lies, in my view, with the Trades Union Congress, which should bring together the regional action of workers into a one-day national strike against the Government to warn them that it is our Health Service, not theirs. The Bill should be rejected.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 19 ( Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):—
The House divided: Ayes 88, Noes 91.

Division No. 153]

[3.48 pm

AYES

Aitken, Jonathan

Hunter, Andrew

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Irvine, Michael

Ashby, David

Irving, Charles

Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

Janman, Timothy

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

Beggs, Roy

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Bevan, David Gilroy

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Boswell, Tim

Kennedy, Charles

Bowis, John

Kilfedder, James

Brazier, Julian

Kirkwood, Archy

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

Lawrence, Ivan

Butler, Chris

Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

Carrington, Matthew

McCrindle, Robert

Cartwright, John

McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Mans, Keith

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Marlow, Tony

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Moss, Malcolm

Day, Stephen

Neale, Gerrard

Dover, Den

Page, Richard

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Fearn, Ronald

Redwood, John

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Rost, Peter

Fookes, Miss Janet

Rowe, Andrew

Forth, Eric

Shaw, David (Dover)

French, Douglas

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb)

Gill, Christopher

Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

Glyn, Dr Alan

Steel, Rt Hon David

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Stern, Michael

Gow, Ian

Summerson, Hugo

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Thorne, Neil

Harris, David

Thornton, Malcolm

Haselhurst, Alan

Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

Hayes, Jerry

Tredinnick, David

Heddle, John

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

Holt, Richard

Walker, Bill (T'side North)

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Warren, Kenneth

Howells, Geraint

Watts, John

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Wells, Bowen

177

Widdecombe, Miss Ann

Tellers for the Ayes:

Wiggin, Jerry

Mr. Nicholas Bennett and

Mr. Simon Burns.

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Kirkhope, Timothy

Anderson, Donald

Lamond, James

Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

Leadbitter, Ted

Ashton, Joe

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Loyden, Eddie

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

McAllion, John

Barron, Kevin

McAvoy, Tom

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

McCartney, Ian

Boateng, Paul

McKay, Allen (Penistone)

Boyes, Roland

Madden, Max

Buchan, Norman

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

Maxton, John

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Carttiss, Michael

Meacher, Michael

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Meale, Alan

Clay, Bob

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Clelland, David

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Corbett, Robin

Mullin, Chris

Corbyn, Jeremy

Nellist, Dave

Crowther, Stan

O'Neill, Martin

Cryer, Bob

Patchett, Terry

Dalyell, Tarn

Pike, Peter

Darling, Alastair

Primarolo, Ms Dawn

Doran, Frank

Radice, Giles

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Richardson, Ms Jo

Faulds, Andrew

Robertson, George

Favell, Tony

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

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

Sedgemore, Brian

Fisher, Mark

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Flannery, Martin

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Flynn, Paul

Short, Clare

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Skinner, Dennis

Fyfe, Mrs Maria

Soley, Clive

Garrett, John (Norwich South)

Spearing, Nigel

George, Bruce

Steinberg, Gerald

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Strang, Gavin

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Haynes, Frank

Thomas, Dafydd Elis

Heffer, Eric S.

Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

Hinchliffe, David

Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

Home Robertson, John

Wilson, Brian

Hood, James

Winnick, David

Hoyle, Doug

Worthington, Anthony

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Tellers for the Noes:

Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

Mr. Harry Cohen and

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

Mr. Pat Wall.

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Question accordingly negatived.

Royal Prerogative
3.59 pm
Mr. Tony Benn: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. I wish to raise with you a major constitutional question arising from the gross abuse of the royal prerogative by Ministers in the following respects. It is now clear that, by royal prerogative, members of the security services are allowed to break the law. It is also clear that Ministers will exempt people who so do on the grounds of the national security, again using the royal prerogative. It is also clear that Ministers will go to the courts and claim national security and will win judgments, such as that given by the Master of the Rolls, on the groundss of royal prerogative.
In this House, questions on security are refused by the Table on the grounds of national security under the royal prerogative. If hon. Members raise this matter in the House it will be sub judice under the royal prerogative, and if hon. Members draw conclusions from it and use words that are plain in the English dictionary to describe it, they are suspended for using unparliamentary language.
I make my point briefly at your request, Mr. Speaker, but I genuinely believe that the abuse of the royal prerogative by this Government has negated the rights, and responsibilities of the House of Commons, which we elected you to defend. I do not ask you to respond today, but I ask you to consider carefully the points that I have made, which are all founded in established fact and records, and to consider how best the House can defend itself against a major evasion of the Government's manifest constitutional responsibility to the Parliament elected by the people of this country.
Mr. Tam Dalyell rose—
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Before we go any further, may I say to the right hon. Gentleman that I shall carefully consider what he said, but I should like to have more details about what he has in mind.
Mr. Dalyell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I provide the detailed and precise points that we would like you to consider? Sir John Donaldson, the Master of the Rolls, said that law-breaking by the Security Service, MI5, was in the public interest—
Mr. Speaker: Order. That matter is sub judice and we cannot discuss it on the Floor of the House.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You asked for more information—
Mr. Dalyell rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I did not call the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). Mr. Campbell-Savours.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Further to that point of order Mr. Speaker. Perhaps I can help you. You may have noticed that over the past seven days I have tabled innumerable questions on the royal prerogative and its use. If you study the answers that have been given, you will notice that there is ambiguity in the replies. I know that you will say, legitimately, that answers from Ministers are not a matter for the Chair. However, I put it to you that this is not a minor question. The answers are significant, in the way that my right hon. Friend the Member for

179
Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) has suggested, because they have a constitutional importance. There are people throughout the world who are observing those replies because they have implications not only for our Parliament but for other Parliaments throughout the Commonwealth. May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to consider those answers and make the necessary representations to Ministers?
Mr. Speaker: Order. I should have no time to do anything else if I studied all the written answers. I have no intention of doing that. If all the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen who have raised these matters would kindly put their points in writing, I shall, of course, gladly consider the matter.
Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is the right of Parliament to ask Ministers about any form of public activity. That is one of the jobs of Parliament. If that was not one of the roles that we play, Parliament would be very much eroded and undermined. I am asking you to rule on a matter of great public importance—our right to question the activities of the security and intelligence services when we believe that there may be serious allegations of law-breaking.
As I understand the law — I am sure that you will correct me if I am wrong, Mr. Speaker — all public servants have a duty and responsibility to uphold the law. Parliament has not given any public servant the right to break the law. I am referring, not simply to the exchanges that we had yesterday, but to wider issues. If there is a genuine feeling in Government circles that the security and intelligence services are in a position to break the law, and that the law that we are all supposed to uphold does not apply to the security and intelligence services, are we, as Members of Parliament, not able to ask Ministers about that? That would mean that the security and intelligence services would be acting illegally and were not being prosecuted for such activities, and we, as well as the press, would be gagged, because we would have no way of questioning Ministers. It is an important issue.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I sense that this is a continuation of what went on yesterday. [Interruption.] Order. The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) addressed his point of order to me.
There is every reason why the Government should be questioned on security matters, as they were yesterday. I cannot rule on a general proposition, but I say yet again that if right hon. and hon. Gentlemen will specify their points in writing, I will look into them.
Mr. Tony Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), referred to one of my hon. Friends as Hitler. I imagine that that is most unparliamentary—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The best thing that we can do is get on with the debate on the Army.
Mr. Campbell-Savours rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Does the hon. Gentleman wish to take up the time of his colleagues who want to speak in the debate? If he does, I shall have to bear that in mind.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I want to raise with you the question of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, for which you have a special responsibility. The CPA is made up of representatives of all the Parliaments throughout the Commonwealth. I put it to you that there are interests in Parliaments throughout the Commonwealth that mirror the interests that are raised in this Parliament. The issue of the royal prerogative will be debated in other Parliaments.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have already said that if the hon. Gentleman will specify his point, I will consider it.
Mr. Dave Nellist: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There has been a plethora of allegations, particularly in recent months, about the activities of the security services against past Labour Governments. I know that this is not original, but it is appropriate to this series of points of order. According to the rules of the House, it seems that if something happened in the past, in the 1970s, it is history; if it is happening at the moment, it is sub judice; and if it will happen in the future it is hypothetical. I have been elected, not just once, but several times, by 50,000 people in Coventry, South-East to come here and scrutinise the activities of Ministers. How can I do that with those constrictions on my activities?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is bound by the Standing Orders and rules of the House on these matters. There are plenty of opportunities to raise these matters.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: When?
Mr. Speaker: We have had debates in the past, and there was Question Time yesterday.
Mr. Richard Ryder (Assistant Government Whip): I beg to move, That this House do now adjourn.
Mr. Speaker: The Question is—
Mr. Benn rose—
Mr. Speaker: I cannot answer the right hon. Gentleman's questions, because I do not know what he is talking about.
Mr. Benn: To save you having to read a lot of documents Mr. Speaker, may I put the point to you simply? If the House and you, Mr. Speaker, accept that anything that the Government define, including theft and murder, as covered by national security cannot be debated, the House and you personally are reduced to impotent witnesses of actions by an unaccountable Government. You do not have to read the papers or any documents or written answers to appreciate the vitality and importance of the point that is being made.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I realise the importance of the matter, and I am the first to protect the right of Back Benchers to ask questions, provided that they are within our regulations. I shall continue so to do.

The Army
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ryder.]
4.9 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Tim Sainsbury): Just over 175 years ago, the Duke of Wellington said:
"The country must have a large and efficient army, one capable of meeting the enemy abroad, or they must expect to meet him at home."
After successive years of growth in the defence budget, and in the capabilities of the Army, the British soldier is better equipped, better trained and more highly professional than he has ever been. I am confident that the Iron Duke would immediately recognise the same great fighting spirit that is to be found in the British Army today as it was in his time.
The development of the Army must be considered against the wider background of East-West relations. The intermediate nuclear forces treaty, which was signed by the United States and the USSR last December, is a milestone, especially because of the precedent that it so clearly establishes for asymmetrical reductions and intrusive verification regimes which will he of central importance as we move forward to discuss conventional and chemical arms control — both sectors in which the Soviets have clear advantages.
The Alliance strategy of extended nuclear deterrence and flexible response remains unchanged. All the necessary ingredients of flexible response — strong conventional forces, theatre and intermediate nuclear forces, and strategic nuclear forces — remain in place and, as before, the potential aggressor faces a range of possible NATO reactions to aggression which he cannot calculate with precision in advance, and which face him with unacceptable risk.
It is right that, with the treaty signed, closer attention is focusing on the conventional disparities. We must recall that the central security problem for western Europe has been, and remains, the massive military power of the Soviet Union in central Europe—especially its capability to mount an invasion of western Europe at short notice.
The Warsaw pact continues to modernise its conventional and nuclear forces facing us in cental Europe. By any standards, its superiority is substantial —twice as many soldiers as NATO, more than twice as many main battle tanks, three times the artillery, twice as many tactical fixed-wing aircraft and several thousand assault and ground attack helicopters.
Nor is it simply a case, as some have claimed, of Warsaw pact quantity opposing NATO quality. In recent years, the Warsaw pact has made very extensive improvements to its conventional forces, concentrating in particular on enhancing the firepower and mobility of its offensive systems, such as tanks and artillery. For example, improved tanks are now appearing in the group of Soviet forces in Germany fitted with explosive reactive armour, which pose a significant extra threat, as the armour is more difficult to penetrate. The T64B and T80 are equipped with a 125 mm smooth-bore gun, which is capable of firing anti-tank guided missiles as well as conventional rounds.
More effective helicopters are also appearing, with two new attack helicopters about to enter service. The number
182
of heavier calibre artillery pieces based in eastern Europe is roughly double what it was in 1981. The 152 mm howitzer not only uses a more effective conventional round, but is capable of firing nuclear rounds.
At the same time, the Soviets' concerted development of the infrastructure of command, control and communications will enhance the flexibility and quicken the reaction time of the Warsaw pact forces, increasing their capability to make rapid and deep offensive thrusts. Its possession of a wide spectrum of chemical weapons remains a most significant threat. It is unmatched on our part, thus giving its forces a considerable potential advantage in the light of our inability to respond in kind to a chemical attack.
Those factors, together with the potential aggressor's ability to select the time and place of attack to achieve an overwhelming local superiority, presents a formidable challenge to NATO forces committed not to be the first to use force. The British Army of the Rhine makes a major contribution to NATO's response to that challenge.
The centrepiece of the Army's contribution to NATO and the forward defence of the United Kingdom is its role in the central region within the Northern Army Group known as NORTHAG. BAOR consists of 1st British Corps and supporting elements to provide the necessary logistic support. The BAOR peacetime strength is 55.000, and that will be increased to 56,000 by the end of the decade. BAOR is the most tangible evidence of the Government's continued commitment to the forward defence of Europe. Three armoured divisions, containing seven armoured brigades, an airmobile brigade and substantial numbers of supporting corps troops, ate in place in peacetime.
On mobilisation, the numbers in BAOR would he increased to more than 150,000 by the movement, from the United Kingdom to the Federal Republic, of 2nd Infantry Division, containing one regular infantry brigade and two territorial infantry brigades, and other units.
The NORTHAG area covers northern Germany, roughly from the Ruhr to the coast. Within that area 1st British Corps is responsible for a 60-km wide sector of the front. The Commander-in-Chief BAOR also carried the NATO appointment of Commander NORTHAG.
Since the adoption of the strategy of forward defence and flexible response by NATO in 1967, NORTHAG has planned to fight its defensive battle as far to the east as possible. But continuing improvements in Soviet firepower and developments in its military doctrine have led to its placing great emphasis on the concentration of forces to achieve surprise and local superiority.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: With regard to BAOR, has the Minister seen the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General which was issued by the National Audit Office a week or two ago? Does he accept that there is room for economies in BAOR, as is suggested in the report? Will he say whether he thinks that that is the case?
Mr. Sainsbury: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that it is normal to wait until the Public Accounts Committee has considered the report arid responded in the normal way through a Treasury minute. We should not anticipate what the PAC has to say on that subject.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Does the Minister have a view on the matter?
Mr. Sainsbury: The hon. Gentleman is asking me to anticipate the PAC's report. As he is a member of the PAC, that is a rather surprising request.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: I am not asking the hon. Gentleman to anticipate a report of the PAC; I am asking him to respond to a report that has been produced by the National Audit Office, which makes a number of statements. I am asking for his comments.
Mr. Sainsbury: The National Audit Office's report will be considered by the PAC, which presumably will then give its views. When it has done so, as is the convention, the Government will respond.
A new concept for the defence of the NORTHAG area has therefore been devised to respond to the new developments in Soviet firepower and changes in its military doctrine.
The essence of the new concept is to place greater emphasis on the selection and defence of the most vital areas, the employment of reserve formations, tactical flexibility and mobility and close co-operation with allied air forces. Limited penetration into NATO territory would be accepted to expose the flanks of the enemy to a variety of counter-moves using reserve formations. That does not imply any abandonment of the principle of forward defence, which remains a fundamental tenet of NATO strategy. Nor does it imply a willingness to abandon West German territory to an invader. But it recognises that force improvements to the various national corps, including 1st British Corps, will permit the adoption of a more mobile tactical concept within the overall strategy of flexible response and forward defence.
The new concept places increased emphasis on the need for strong armoured reserves. In order to strengthen 1st British Corps reserve, 6 Brigade, which at present has two non-mechanised infantry battalions only, will be converted to an armoured brigade, starting in April this year.
Over the past four years, 6 Brigade has been carrying out an extensive trial as an airmobile formation. Such a formation provides a highly mobile force strong in infantry anti-armour weapons, which can be moved by RAF support helicopters at short notice to respond to an enemy penetration. It can delay such a penetration until the main armoured reserve can be brought to bear. The trial has fully validated this concept and has shown the potential for further development of airmobile operations. It has therefore been decided to transfer this important role to 24 Infantry Brigade, which is based at Catterick and is part of 2 Infantry Division.
Unlike 6 Brigade, 24 Brigade will be specifically organised and equipped for its new primary role. It will incorporate an Army Air Corps regiment equipped with Lynx helicopters in the utility role and fitted with TOW missiles in the anti-tank role. The brigade depends for its effectiveness on RAF support squadrons. RAF Puma and Chinook will provide the support helicopter lift until the 1990s, when EH101 enters service and becomes the brigade's prime mover. Six Brigade, working with helicopter squadrons from RAF Germany, has already demonstrated the outstanding operational results that can be produced by close inter-service co-operation. The developmeent of an airmobile force for use in the central region of Europe from the present early stages on into the next century presents a challenging and exciting new role for the Army.
184
I must also mention two exercises that took place in BAOR. Exercise Keystone provided an opportunity for the United Kingdom-based 2 Infantry Division to practise its operational role in BAOR in conjunction with elements of 1st British Corps and troops from Belgium and the Federal Republic of Germany. Some 19,000 men travelled to BAOR for this exercise, of whom some 12,500 were members of the Territorial Army. The exercise demonstrated not only their commitment and enthusiasm but also their professionalism and expertise, which enables them to fulfil a front-line role alongside regular soldiers
Some 7,000 British troops were among the 78,000 troops who took part in Exercise Certain Strike, in which 3rd US Corps practised its deployment from the United States to continental Europe, as would happen in war.
The exercise demonstrated the ability and determination of the United States to reinforce Europe in war, and the extensive allied co-operation at many different levels of command. The exercise was under the command of General Sir Martin Farndale; and this was the first time that such an exercise had been run by a non-American. It proved to be an outstanding success from every point of view and in particular it fully validated the NORTHAG concept to which I have already referred.
Exercises also provide an invaluable opportunity to test the reliability of our equipment. I am glad to say that recently the Army has received a large amount of new equipment. Over the first eight years of this Government the Army programme has been expanded by more than £4 billion in real terms at 1987–88 prices. That excludes expenditure directly attributable to the Falklands conflict. The greatly enhanced strength and capability of our forces, especially the front-line units, are the results of the massive investment.
Of course, that does not mean that we will not face difficult choices in the future. It will always be necessary to establish relative priorities in our forward plans, as part of our normal planning process. The improvements that have already been made to our forces, however, are evidence that we are getting the decisions right. Whereas BAOR had eight armoured regiments in 1980, by the end of the decade there will be 12.
There will be a third air defence regiment, equipped with the new high velocity Starstreak missile. Six Brigade, following its successful trial in the airmobile role, will from 1988 be re-equipped with Challenger and Warrior and return to its former mechanised status and 52 Field Squadron Royal Engineers will be moved in 1989 from the United Kingdom to RAF Bruggen in Germany. It will be our first in-theatre airfield damage repair squadron and its presence will considerably improve the operational availability of our aircraft by ensuring that the runways and other facilities on which they depend are kept open during hostilities.
The bulk of the increase in resources, however, has gone on new equipment. I should therefore like to say a bit more about what that money has bought and is buying for us — not simply with a recitation of new items of equipment coming into service, but by setting the items in their operational context and against the background of our continuing aim of achieving greater value for money in procurement.
Taking armoured vehicles first, deliveries for the fifth Challenger regiment will shortly be completed. Tanks for the sixth Challenger regiment are on their way and those for the seventh have been ordered. A replacement for the

185
remaining Chieftain tanks is now under active consideration. Ten battalions-worth of Saxon armoured personnel carriers and 13 Warrior infantry combat vehicles have been ordered. Most of the Saxon battalions are already in service and we expect nearly three Warrior battalions to come into service this year. With its Chobham armour, Challenger is among the best protected main battle tanks in the world and we are engaged in a major programme to improve its main armament and fire control systems to preserve and enhance its capability to engage and destroy enemy armoured vehicles.
I am happy to say that the infantry have not been neglected. With the introduction of Warrior, not only do we have a vehicle that is the result of a highly successful competitive procurement; we provide our infantry with greater protection, greater mobility and, with the Rarden 30 mm cannon, greater firepower. The introduction of this very capable vehicle will enable our infantry battalions to work more closely and effectively with our armoured regiments. The infantryman's indivdual weaponry has also been improved. The introduction of the SA80 rifle has given him a weapon which is lighter and more accurate than the SLR, and which uses the standard NATO calibre of ammunition.
Mr. Julian Brazier: I have just had a meeting with my local regiment, the Queen's Regiment, which is on its way to Ulster. The men were re-equipped with the rifle just six weeks ago. They were telling me that, so successful is the new weapon, on the ranges their proportion of marksman and, indeed, ordinary passes has been transformed.
Mr. Sainsbury: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks, which confirm what I was about to say. The new weapon is popular with the soldier and impressive improvements in marksmanship have been achieved where the rifle has been used in place of its predecessor. Whereas an average of 8 per cent. of recruits would reach army marksmen standard using the SLR, the figure for the SA80 is 50 per cent.
In addition, this year will see the introduction into service of the LAW80 anti-tank weapon. This man-portable one-shot launcher will enable a single soldier to destroy the most advanced Soviet armed vehicles.
On air defence, I have already spoken of the new Starstreak missile. It is a highly capable weapon which will provide effective point defence of key units and installations against a wide range of air threats. A number of our existing Rapier area air defence missile systems are being updated to improve their night and poor weather capability, and our planned introduction of Rapier 2000, with its eight-rail launcher and improved ECCM, will represent a quantum jump increase in this capability area. We also plan to introduce the air defence alerting device which, by giving early warning of an air threat, will enable our missile crews to get into action much more quickly.
The creation of three multiple-launch rocket system regiments will vastly increase the firepower of our artillery and will enable our forces to engage targets and interdict movement behind the enemy's forward battle area with heavy firepower.
However, before the Army can fight its enemy, it must find him, and on the modern battlefield it is not enough to wait for him to appear in one's sights. We have therefore ordered a new medium range surveillance and target
186
acquisition radar to replace the old ZB298 battlefield radar, and the Phoenix remotely piloted air vehicle for surveillance and target acquisition is due to be introduced in the next few years. Both these systems, incidentally, were procured after successful competitions had been held.
In the mobile battle, the importance of command and control functions will be heightened by the speed and fluidity of operations. The Army's major investment in command, control and communications in past years has been designed to meet this requirement. It has given it, for example, Ptarmigan, a mobile secure trunk communications system which proved its worth in the recent major reinforcement exercise, Certain Strike, when its ability to handle a vast quantity of messages reliably and rapidly, and so enable commanders to respond quickly and surely to events as they develop, clearly demonstrated why that and other systems like it are known as force multipliers.
Mr. Martin O'Neill: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Will he explain to the House whether Ptarmigan is compatible with other systems used by our NATO allies, or do we have a series of systems which are not compatible arid which, at present, do not dovetail together but simply work as separate entities?
Mr. Sainsbury: The intention is certainly to have as much inter-communication ability as can be contrived within our own forces—the next one I am coming to is the Wavell system — as well as between forces. Incidentally, it is interesting that during exercise Certain Strike the performance of Ptarmigan was particularly praised by the Americans, who saw it in use for the first time then. Ptarmigan has cost us about £1·25 billion. Similarly, our air defences will be considerably enhanced by the introduction of ADCIS, another command system designed to enable fire units to engage enemy aircraft more effectively.
Alone, the main items of equipment that I have highlighted represent an expenditure of well over £6 billion by this Government on equipment for the Army and are themselves only a part of the wider programme of development and purchase that we have undertaken and are continuing.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the Minister say a few words on this interesting contract BATES, battlefield artillery target engagement system, or words to that effect? Will he tell us what is happening in terms of the investigation by Ministry of Defence police into Marconi on that contract? Will he give us an assurance that no obstruction will be placed before the MOD police in carrying out those inquiries and that it will be made most clear to the Director of Public Prosecutions, when finally the report on that and other Marconi contracts is placed before him, that the Government expect a prosecution?
Mr. Sainsbury: The hon. Gentleman is always ingenious in finding moments to raise points which he finds of particular interest. As he knows, we have had exchanges on this issue before. He knows that the MOD police in this inquiry are acting under the direction of the Director of Public Prosecutions, so questions on that matter would be for my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General—[Interruption.] In an inquiry of this nature, the MOD police act under the Director of Public Prosecutions, who is, of course, answerable to my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General.

187
I was talking about the £6 billion expended by this Government on equipment for the Army. That is only part of a wider programme. Examples of other recent orders are thermal imaging sights and new NBC protective equipment. The new generation of military bridging ordered last year is another example of a successful procurement where the application of competition has yielded estimated savings of 26 per cent. of the final cost. We expect to place orders for 16 Lynx light battlefield helicopters in the near future, which will provide additional support for airmobile operations now to be conducted by 24 Brigade.
I do not say that any of that is extraordinary, or that the last year, by itself, stood out in any special sense from those preceding it. Military programmes are planned so that expenditure is spread from one year to the next, each year being in itself only one step in the continuous process of keeping the Army's equipment up to date.
Although much of the equipment that I have mentioned is being deployed with our forces in Germany, a great deal is also going to equip the 60,000 soldiers engaged in the vital task of defending the United Kingdom which, of course, is a vital role. The United Kingdom also provides key ports, airfields and other operational facilities for the assembly, transit and launching of reinforcements to the NATO forces on the continent. We plan to hold later this year a series of military home defence exercises, within the separate Army districts, to test defences against sabotage or attack.
Many of the men committed to home defence are Territorial Army and Home Service Force personnel serving alongside regular reservists and Regular Army personnel. The continuing build-up in the strength and capabilities of our reserve forces demonstrates the importance we attach to home defence. One important initiative last year was the establishment of the National Employer Liaison Committee, to give independent advice to Ministers on measures needed to maintain the support of employers for members of the volunteer reserve forces of all three services.
I am pleased to be able to inform the House of the recent decision by the States of Jersey to provide on Jersey, at local expense, a Territorial Army Royal Engineer field squadron as their contribution to the defence of the British islands. I am particularly glad that this contribution will consist of a formed unit made up of citizens of Jersey. As such it will be a valuable and tangible witness to Jersey's commitment to defence and of its resolve to pay its way. Setting up a unit from scratch can be a lengthy business and there are dangers in seeking to go too fast. However, Ministry of Defence experts will give the advice and assistance required to ensure that an effective field squadron will be established in Jersey as soon as is practicable.
I am sure that the House will wish to join in paying tribute to the men and women who give up their free time to train for the defence of this country. This Government will continue to support all efforts to recruit and sustain the Territorial Army so that it can fulfil its role in the Army's order of battle.
The services' commitment to Northern Ireland continues to be substantial. The Army, including, of course, the Ulster Defence Regiment, together with the Navy and Air Force, carry out a vital role in supporting
188
the Royal Ulster Constabulary in the fight against terrorism. I am sure that the whole House will join in expressing our admiration for the way in which our service men and women perform that difficult task with dedication and bravery in the face of dangerous and trying circumstances. It is a tribute to the professionalism of all involved that they maintain steady progress in bringing terrorists to justice and thwarting terrorist acts of murder and destruction. One measure of that is the fact that in 1987 over 250 weapons were found and nearly 10 tonnes of explosives were found or neutralised — the highest total since 1976.
Sadly, there has been a price to pay for those successes. During 1987, 11 soldiers were killed and 26 wounded in terrorist attacks. Eight of those killed and nine of those wounded were members of the UDR. The fact that all the UDR dead were murdered while off duty speaks volumes for the courage of the men and women who continue to serve even in the face of a relentless threat to their lives both on and off duty. We must not forget that that threat continues even after they leave the regiment. A former member of the UDR was murdered in June—he had left the regiment in April.
Mention must also be made of the bravery of the bomb disposal teams, who were last year called to over 1,300 incidents. The courage and skill of our service personnel serving in Northern Ireland are highlighted by the fact that in 1987 they won 88 awards for gallantry, including two military medals and 76 mentions in dispatches.
The Army has also continued to provide two additional battalions over the past year to enhance the flexibility of the security forces in countering the terrorist threat.
Mr. James Kilfedder: Is it correct that the bomb disposal team has been used on the other side of the border?
Mr. Sainsbury: I have no knowledge of such an event. If the hon. Gentleman has some suggestion to that effect, perhaps he could let us know the circumstances in which he thinks it occurred.
As I said, the Army has continued to provide two additional battalions over the past year to enhance the flexibility of our forces. The need for those additional battalions, together with the level of service support as a whole, is kept under constant review. There are currently over 10,000 regular and some 6,500 UDR personnel in Northern Ireland, and we retain the capability to reinforce at very short notice should that be required.
Last Thursday, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland announced that he had, with the Chief Constable and the GOC, reviewed the deployment of the security forces in the Province. As a result of this review, a new brigade headquarters will shortly be established, to be concerned with the border areas, leaving the existing two brigades responsible for supporting the RUC in the rest of the Province. As part of the ceaseless quest for new and better ways of tackling violence and banishing the spectre of terrorism from Northern Ireland, I believe that these new arrangements will make a valuable contribution.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Can I ask the Minister about the allegation made by Mr. Frank Turner on "QED' that he supplied army equipment, including berets, to the Royal Ulster Constabulary and that they were delivered to Ulster by van from a site in Kent? Will the Minister

189
explain to what possible use he believes RUC personnel would want to put British Army equipment, other than covert activity?
Mr. Sainsbury: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could let me have more details about this allegation. I am not familiar with the details of the suggestion that there was delivery to Northern Ireland.
Turning now to matters further from home, we maintain a number of garrisons overseas—including, of course, our forces in the Falklands. Britain also provides military training and advice to many countries, particularly in areas of the world where we have traditional ties. The scale of Army military assistance has been growing steadily in recent years and now totals 360 service men on loan service in 23 different countries. In addition, many more service men are used on short-term advisory visits.
The nature and type of military assistance varies widely. Sometimes the personnel are integrated into the armed forces of the country concerned. In Belize, Brunei and Oman, for example, we have made available a number of personnel for operational and command appointments. The trend, however, is towards largely training and advisory roles for our loan service personnel, working in self-contained teams which concentrate on the development of one or more aspects of military organisation or training. These teams may vary considerably in size and in the scope of their activities, from personnel on longterm loan to short-term visits by advisory teams such as the REME team that visited Mauritius and the infantry team that trained members of the Royal Lesotho defence force. During the last year, an Army team has been helping to train the new Gambian army and bring it up to its full establishment.
We have also provided personnel in support of sales of British defence equipment, including those to Saudi Arabia, and a team is now established in Indonesia in support of Rapier sales. It is often necessary to provide this training to back up sales of the United Kingdom's advanced defence technology on which so many jobs in Britain depend.
The Army has again given valuable help to the civil community in 1987.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Are Defence Ministers happy about the efficacy of the end user system? There have been various undertakings to review it, particularly in view of arms finding their way to the markets of Peshawar in Pakistan.
Mr. Sainsbury: If the hon. Gentleman knows of cases of misuse, perhaps he will let me know about them. However, he will be aware that it has been the practice of successive Governments not to comment on such issues.
In the wake of the storms in October, service men, and the Army in particular, provided over 5,000 man days of aid, and some 700 vehicles were employed in tasks ranging from the clearance of fallen trees from roads, railways and power cables, to the delivery of meals to old-age pensioners, and the provision of generators to hospitals and farms.
Army personnel were also involved with the provision of medical support and general administrative assistance in the aftermath of the tragic sinking of the Herald of Free Enterprise at Zeebrugge early last year.
190
Our explosive ordnance disposal teams continue to clear both munitions left over from the last war and devices planted by terrorists. Of more than 3,000 incidents which were reported, one of the most spectacular was a 1,000 lb world war two bomb discovered near Tower bridge, in Bermondsey, on 29 June, which required nearly two days' work by the Royal Engineers to make it safe. The calm courage of these men deserves our highest praise.
The Royal Engineers were also involved in disaster relief operations in the Cook Islands, Vanuatu and Bermuda. The Queen's Gurkha Engineers assisted the Royal New Zealand Engineers with rehabilitation work in the Cook Islands following cyclone Sally in January. In March, they also produced a team, supplemented by sappers from the United Kingdom, to help in the aftermath of cyclone Uma in Vanuatu. In Hong Kong, the Queen's Gurkha Engineers cleared 1,000 tonnes of mud and boulders in 17 hours after a landslide blocked a road at Kwai Chung in July. A Royal Engineers officer also advised the authorities in Bermuda after hurricane Emily in September.
In conclusion, as I have said, the Army's main role is to form part of the United Kingdom's contribution to NATO, but it may be called on to perform other tasks, for example, the defence of British interests overseas. A soldier may be required to confront terrorists in Northern Ireland, to train to fight in the jungles of Belize or the chillier climate of the south Atlantic, to help restore hurricane damage on a remote Pacific island, or to aid the civil community a t home. The skills required to meet this wide range of demands calls for physical fitness and mental flexibility, and the highest degree of professionalism, training and dedication. The last 12 months have witnessed a fair, but by no means untypical, test of the flexibility of our soldiers in dealing with unexpected challenges, as well as the complete spectrum of operational tasks and training. We can rightly be proud of the Army's achievements.
4.45 pm
Mr. Denzil Davies: The Minister paid tribute to the professionalism of our armed forces, the Territorial Army and the reserve forces and, I am glad to say, especially to the bomb disposal units for their bravery and professionalism. I join him in those tributes. As his speech showed, the British Army still carries out its duties and tasks in many different parts of the globe, from Ireland to Belize and from Berlin to Hong Kong. However, as the hon. Gentleman recognised at the beginning and end of his speech, the British Army is now, in the main, a European army and perhaps more of a European force than either the Royal Air Force or the Royal Navy.
Fifty-five thousand troops live in West Germany with their families and are committed, first of all, to the defence of the Federal Republic as part of NATO. Obviously, many troops based in Britain would rapidly be transported to the central front if war broke out in that part of Europe. The Minister spent some time on this point, and I shall concentrate on the Army's commitment to NATO and consider how that commitment may change as the political realities in Europe change over the next few years.
The Army's duties and tasks in Europe, and the military strategy that governs its operations, are affected by a number of factors. Some of them are wholly within the British Government's control, some of them are partly within the British Government's control and, frankly, some of them are totally outside the British Government's

191
control. As always, the Army is dependent upon the money that the Government provide for it from the budget and, as the House well knows—the Minister mentioned this — is increasingly dependent on the modern equipment that that money can buy.
The Army's strategy is affected, not by the military strategy that the Government might wish to lay down, but by the strategy of NATO. Almost since the inception of NATO that strategy has been substantially fashioned by political and military priorities as seen in the Federal Republic of Germany. The Army's role in future is bound to be affected by the political relationships between the super-powers and by the consequences of any arms reduction agreements, both nuclear and conventional, that may be reached between the super-powers and also between the members of NATO and the members of the Warsaw pact. The Minister mentioned briefly the conventional arms talks.
The Minister did not say very much about money, and one can understand that. Last week's public expenditure White Paper confirmed what we all know. The "Statement on the Defence Estimates" made it clear that expenditure on defence over the past few years has been declining, is now declining and will continue to decline, certainly until 1990. Some have estimated that that reduction comes to about 2·5 per cent. in real terms. That is on the basis of what I would describe as the general rate of inflation, but since the cost of defence equipment, often, although not entirely, because of technological advances and changes, tends to increase faster than the general rate of inflation, the reduction in expenditure must be, and is, greater than 2·5 per cent.
While general defence expenditure is now declining, expenditure on nuclear weapons is apparently increasing rapidly. In 1979–80, expenditure on nuclear weapons to which the Government admit — official expenditure —was about 1·5 per cent. of the defence budget. This year that expenditure is 4·7 per cent. of the defence budget, and it is rising rapidly — an increase of 300 per cent. Of course, that is not all the expenditure on nuclear weapons; it is only the expenditure of money wholly and exclusively on nuclear weapons. As I understand it, there is no apportionment in the official figures of expenditure on nuclear and conventional matters. Therefore, we are seeing a decline in the total defence budget, but a dramatic increase in the money spent by the Government on nuclear weapons, at the expense of our conventional defences.
The Minister is responsible for procurement, and he spent some time dealing with equipment. Over the next few years, as the Government well know, much of the British Army's present equipment will have to be replaced, at a considerable cost. The Minister said a lot about tanks, but not what we wanted to hear. The reality is that 900 old Chieftain tanks will soon have to be replaced with new Challenger tanks. Some people unkindly say that many of the old Chieftain tanks emit so much smoke that they can be seen coming miles away. I do not know about that, but the total cost of the replacement of those 900 old Chieftain tanks at today's prices has been estimated, in the press at least, to be about £700 million. I hope that when the Minister replies he will tell us whether that is a reasonable figure.
I want to press the Government on their intention about replacing the old Chieftain tanks. Are they still
192
thinking about buying new tanks, either from the United States or from the Federal Republic, or are they committed to placing that order with, in effect, the royal ordnance factory in Leeds? If that order is not placed, it will be a devastating blow to our defence industry. It will mean the closure of the old ordnance factory, now under new management, and would have a considerable effect on subcontractors in Britain's defence industry. I hope that when the Minister replies he will tell us a little more about the Government's intentions in relation to tanks.
The Minister mentioned briefly light armoured vehicles. As I understand it, many of those—the Fox and Ferret reconnaissance vehicles, the AFV432 personnel carrier, and some of the older Scorpion tracked vehicles —will have to be replaced. What are the proposals for the replacement of many of those vehicles?
The Minister said nothing about the so-called self-propelled howitzer. The SP70 has already cost the British taxpayer £88 million in an abortive multinational exercise. What will happen now? Will the order be placed with the United States? I believe that Vickers at Barrow and Vickers at Newcastle have put proposals to the Government. What is the Government's intention? Can the Minister at least tell us that the Government intend to buy British and to provide the Royal Artillery with the self-propelled gun that it requires and needs?
On expenditure, I raise again the Schleswig Holstein question. Perhaps I should leave that to my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley South (Mr. Hughes), who knows exactly whether Schleswig Holstein is in Denmark or in Germany, but there is a commitment to the defence of Denmark and Schleswig Holstein, and 16,000 British troops are part of that commitment. Some people —General Sir Frank Kitson is one—believe that in terms of NATO that commitment is more important than even the commitment to Norway. I do not know about that, but it is certainly an important commitment from which the Government have been trying to resile over the past year. They have been trying to move away from it and to cut down on it. I hope that when the Minister replies he will tell us exactly what is happening. Are the Government still negotiating through NATO with the Danish Government on that important NATO commitment?
The kind of equipment that the British Army needs obviously depends to a considerable extent upon NATO's collective strategy, which must be influenced by NATO's perception of the intentions of the Soviet Union—whatis described as the threat — and by the relationship between the Soviet Union and the United States.
The Minister touched upon the INF agreement and uttered a few ritualistic sentences at the beginning of his speech about how flexible response was still completely sacrosanct. I wonder why the Minister felt it necessary to make those remarks. Perhaps there is some doubt or concern about it. Frankly, I do not believe that the concept of flexible response and forward defence is realistic any more. I have always believed that it was obsolete, and certainly after the INF treaty it is becoming more exposed and unrealistic. As I have said, it owed as much, if not more, to political factors in West Germany than it often did to sensible military doctrines.
There is nothing very flexible about a strategy which envisages a battlefield nuclear war in central Europe which follows about eight to 10 days of conventional hostilities.

193
It never seemed to me a sensible military strategy, and it certainly was not flexible. After the INF agreement, that strategy is even more unrealistic.
The Prime Minister was right to call a meeting of NATO Heads of Government before President Reagan and Mr. Gorbachev meet in Moscow later this year. As I understand it, there will be such a meeting at the beginning of March, and I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm that when he replies. The Prime Minister wants a meeting, but she shows no signs—there was nothing in the Minister's speech, but perhaps that is too much to expect—of bringing any new thinking to that meeting. The Government are still completely wedded, as we have heard, to the concept of flexible response, despite the fact that one important element, one important rung on the ladder of flexible response, has been removed by the INF treaty, and despite the fact that there is now deep hostility, on the Right and on the Left, in the Federal Republic of Germany to battlefield nuclear weapons.
That hostility is not merely based on the fact that Germany has to accept nuclear risks. Of course, Germany has to accept nuclear risks, as do other countries in the Alliance. The hostility is based on the fact that the battlefield weapons are located solely in West Germany, on German soil, and there the nuclear war will be fought. Those weapons are the weapons most likely to be used first under the NATO strategy of first use of nuclear weapons, and they have a short range. As Chancellor Kohl's personal adviser, Dr. Werner Ruhe—we have given this quotation before and I do so again—recently said:
"The shorter the range, the deader the German."
Dr. Ruhe could also have said: "The shorter the range, the deader the British and American soldier," because this is not just an issue for the Federal Republic; it is an issue for the 55,000 British troops located and based in Germany. They will be affected by the use of battlefield nuclear weapons, the present range of many of which is such that they would not carry the shells anywhere near the inter-German border if the war were being fought on this side of the border. So it is an issue for us, but there no new thinking is coming from the Government.
New thinking is also required—the Minister touched on this, but no more—because NATO will soon have to enter into a new and different round of negotiations on conventional arms, and, I understand, it still has only a very hazy idea of how it will approach those negotiations.
The Prime Minister must make up her mind. She is obsessed with nuclear weapons; she loves them. She is obsessed with Mr. Gorbachev; she loves him. But he wants to get rid of nuclear weapons by the year 2000. The Prime Minister loves Ronnie, but Ronnie thinks nuclear weapons are immoral. She tried to act as an honest broker between President Reagan and Mr. Gorbachev, but neither believes in mutually assured destruction, and neither really believes in the metaphysics of nuclear deterrence. The Prime Minister must get her act together, or Mr. Bernard Ingham must get her act together, because at present the British Government do not know what the approach to these matters should be.
I turn to the negotiations on conventional weapons. Obviously, these negotiations are bound to affect the British Army, the role that it has to play and the weaponry that it will need in the future. The negotiations give the West the opportunity to improve still further the political dialogue between Eastern and Western Europe. They provide us with an opportunity to remove the mutual fear
194
and distrust that have existed between Eastern and Western Europe almost since the end of the second world war. They also give us an opportunity to secure significant reductions in those Warsaw pact weapons which NATO and the NATO Governments have publicly maintained they are concerned about and which have provided—at least in public—the justification for many of NATO's nuclear weapons.
If the Governments of the NATO Alliance still persist—we had an echo of this in the Minister's speech—in exaggerating Warsaw pact superiority in conventional forces, a matter on which the Government have been one of the most cynical and shameless offenders, the Alliance will find itself, if it keeps on trying to believe its own propaganda, in a terrible tangle in the conventional talks. It will fail to secure the reduction in Warsaw pact forces and weapons which it says it desires, and which I hope it really desires, and it will have lost another political initiative in Europe to Mr. Gorbachev. For the reality is that while there is Soviet supriority in some weapons, it has never been as great as Ministers have tried to make us believe.
Sir Antony Buck: There is set out in the admirable White Paper on defence—with true Tory logic, covered in blue, which I am glad of—a table giving a comparison of NATO and Warsaw pact forces, a table with which the right hon. Gentleman will be familiar. Is he now disputing that? Is he disputing the fact that the Russians and the other Warsaw pact countries outnumber us in tanks on the central front, with 16,700 as opposed to 7,800 NATO tanks? I do not concede that Ministers exaggerate the disparity. It is set out in the White Paper, and I have never heard it disputed before.
Mr. Davies: I have a great regard for the hon. and learned Gentleman, but he should not quote the last defence White Paper, because it was really merely an election manifesto for the Conservative party.
Sir Antony Buck: Answer the question.
Mr. Davies: I shall deal with the hon. and learned Gentleman's point. There are on both sides of the House hon. Members who are members of the Western European Union. Perhaps I may refer the House to a recent assessment by WEU. These are difficult comparisons and assessments, which depend on geographical territory and so many other things, but I believe that the recent WEU study has come as close to a realistic and sensible comparison as has been attempted so far.
That assessment uses a military comparison in what WEU describes as divisional equivalents, taking account, of course, of the differences in size between the Warsaw pact and NATO divisions. The Warsaw pact has 104 divisional equivalents which are deployed on the central front or which can be readily mobilised, including those in European Russia. NATO has 76 divisional equivalents. That is a Warsaw pact advantage of less than 1·3 to 1—nothing like the 3 to 1 advantage that military men tell us is thought necessary for a successful offensive across the Elbe, across the inter-German border into western Europe.
The report, which is very fair, also emphasises other factors which must be taken into account, factors which the White Paper of course does not emphasise. As the House well knows, the capacity to wage war depends primarily on industrial strength and technological skill. If

195
we take merely the seven WEU countries—the United States is not a member—we see that they have a far greater gross national product than the Soviet Union and the other Warsaw pact countries, and they certainly have greater technological sophistication.
Let us talk about those tanks. The WEU assessment is that the Warsaw pact has a numerical advantage in tanks of 2 to 1. I would accept WEU's analysis before I would take one from the British Government just before an election, when obviously they were trying to heighten fears on defence.
Sir Antony Buck: The figures are much the same.
Mr. Davies: It is no good the Minister saying that the Warsaw pact tanks are a lot better now than they were a few years ago and that they have the marvellous reactive armour. I read about that the other day. I should not like to be in a Russian tank faced not only with Western explosives but surrounded by Soviet explosives as well, because reactive armour is just packages of explosives round the tank, so one gets blown up twice—once by one's own explosives, and once by those of the other side. So let us not hear too many blood-curdling speeches about reactive armour, which was invented by a West German in 1971. He could not sell it to NATO — and quite properly so.
Therefore, let us take the quality of those tanks into account. Forty-one per cent. of the total NATO tank force consists of 1980s models. The Soviet equivalent of the modern American M1 — I hope not the one the Government will buy to replace our existing tanks —makes up only 3 per cent. of the Warsaw pact total. Nearly half the Warsaw pact tank deployment are 1940s models. As the report points out, NATO scraps its own tanks or sells them to third countries. The Warsaw pact, with the long tradition of tank warfare within the Soviet general staff and the love of tanks, keeps its old tanks in service.
When it comes to anti-tank weapons, the report concludes that NATO has considerable superiority and far greater sophistication.
I return to the talks on conventional weapons. Over the past few months there have been a series of statements by Mr. Gorbachev, which have perhaps not always been fully reported in our newspapers, showing quite a shift in previous Soviet attitudes and putting the new talks on conventional arms reductions on quite a different footing from the previous talks, which have dragged on for 14 years without any progress. It is no good the Government thinking that they can postpone all the decisions until the conventional talks are concluded, because the existing talks have been there for 14 years and there is no problem.
These talks will be different. In Prague on 12 March Mr. Gorbachev said, in effect, that he was prepared to accept — although he may not have been conceding—that reductions in conventional arms would have to be made by the side that had the advantage. He indicated his readiness to remove elements of what I would call inequality, for which the jargon word, which we have to use, is asymmetry. He was prepared to accept that if there was asymmetry the side that benefited from it should give up its advantage.
On 18 March, in east Berlin, he said something else. A few years ago, if an Opposition Member had mentioned twice in his speech what the general secretary of the Soviet
196
Communist party had said, there would have been howls of derision from Members on the Government Benches. Now they listen respectfully and intently. What their innermost thoughts are I do not know, but they have to listen, because Mr. Gorbachev is a bosom friend of the Prime Minister and, as she has told us, she trusts him implicitly. So I make no apology for quoting what a close friend of the Prime Minister said.
On 18 March, in east Berlin, Mr. Gorbachev proposed talks on conventional arms reductions from the Atlantic to the Urals. In effect, he accepted the view of many in Europe that stabilisation of the military situation required that the western military regions of the Soviet region be included as well. Of course, that also has implications for western forces and western materiel located far behind the central front area of the Soviet Union.
On 11 June the Warsaw pact, in a communiqué, stated that the military doctrines of both sides should be based on defensive principles. Again, no doubt that would bring howls of laughter from many military audiences. Perhaps I should quote what Mr. Gorbachev said on 19 December in a conversation with Franz Josef Strauss. He is reported as saying:
"On the whole, it is necessary not simply to agree on eliminating imbalance, but to reduce step by step the military potential down to the level required only for defence and insufficient for waging offensive action."
Hon. Members may not believe that that statement was significant. It is perhaps easy to dismiss it, but, as our Defence Ministers know very well, bearing in mind what Soviet military leaders have written over the years about strategy, especially in Red Army publications, and bearing in mind, too, the views of all generals everywhere throughout the ages about strategy, that was a remarkable statement. I hope that NATO leaders will realise that they are embarking on something different. The conventional arms reduction talks will not be easy if NATO fails to react constructively and imaginatively.
How much scope there will be for balanced reductions of forces on both sides I do not know. It is difficult to say. It will depend on the negotiations. Someone suggested a trade-off of tanks for fighter bombers. I do not know about that. Others, such as Senator Sam Nunn, talk about withdrawing troops behind each side of the inter-German border. I do not know. I concede that in the end the Soviet Union may have to accept some asymmetrical reductions in certain weaponry, such as tanks and artillery.
In his reply to the debate, can the Minister tell us whether the artillery operated by the British Army in Germany, which can fire conventional and nuclear shells, will be included in the conventional arms reduction talks? At Question Time today I asked the Secretary of State whether British Tornado aircraft carried nuclear bombs, conventional bombs, French air-launch cruise missiles or American air-launch cruise missiles, and whether those aircraft, or fighter bombers—however they are described—would be included in the talks. We received a very hazy answer. Perhaps we can leave that question for another debate, but let us have an answer to the question about artillery. Are all the artillery pieces, whether they fire nuclear or conventional shells, to be included in the talks? I do not see how they can be excluded, but let us have it confirmed by the Minister, because no doubt the Ministry of Defence has been involved in drawing up the complicated negotiating brief for the talks within NATO.

197
To secure asymmetrical reductions in Soviet forces, there are a number of proposals that NATO could and should put forward. Mr. Gorbachev cannot carry his general staff with him in getting rid of two thirds of his tanks without a quid pro quo from NATO. First, I believe that NATO should be ready, within the context of an agreement, and not outside it, to drop the whole idea of follow-on forces attack and to reject firmly the nonsense of Air/Land Battle and Air/Land Battle 2,000. Secondly, NATO, and in particular the British Government, should agree to hold simultaneous, multilateral talks on the mutual reduction and elimination of battlefield nuclear weapons.
There is no logic in the Government's position. We have been told time and time again that these weapons are needed to destroy concentrations of Soviet armour. Why not talk about them at the same time as the negotiations aimed at reducing those concentrations of Soviet armour?
The Prime Minister had better think about that. The political repercussions in Germany will be considerable if the Prime Minister and the other NATO Heads of Government are seen to be opposed to talks about their removal. The one thing that unites Franz Josef Strauss and Herr Honecker is the belief that these weapons should be removed by mutual negotiation. It is no good Western commentators and politicians making speeches accusing Mr. Gorbachev of trying to drive a wedge between the Federal Republic and its NATO allies, and then giving him such a splendid tool with which to do so.
NATO should be prepared to renounce its policy of first use of nuclear weapons. Again, as it has been explained to us, that policy was meant to compensate for the imbalance that was perceived in conventional weaponry. As I have tried to argue, it has become increasingly unrealistic, even more after the INF agreement. An agreement to reduce conventional weapons asymmetrically makes first use unnecessary. Therefore, why not offer no first use to secure better Soviet reductions in conventional forces?
The British Army will always do its duty proficiently and professionally. The Government have a corresponding duty to provide it with the wherewithal to do so, but they also have a duty to fashion their strategy in such a way that the British Army is not put in a position where it can be annihilated on the battlefield.
5.19 pm
Sir Antony Buck: I hope that the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) will forgive me if I do not follow his many trains of thought. I shall not deal with broad strategic issues, which seem to me to be more relevant to a debate on the White Paper than to a specific debate on the Army. This debate is in response to an assurance given when the Ministry of Defence was reorganised so that there were no longer Ministers for individual services. I was doubtful about the reorganisation, but we were given the assurance that there would be debates on the individual services so that we could focus on the affairs of each of the armed forces in turn.
Although many of the points made by the right hon. Member for Llanelli apply to a strategic debate rather than to a debate on the role of the Army, I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will deal with some of those points when he winds up.
This is the first time that I have heard doubts about the figures set out in the White Paper as to comparative forces
198
and the balance between NATO and the Warsaw pact countries. I have not previously heard doubt cast on the tables dealing with the balance of forces, set out on page 62, annex A of the White Paper. A gloss can be put on them, suggesting that the quality of our tanks is superior, but I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will deal with that serious allegation that the figures are wrong, because the figures are important, and I have not previously heard them disputed. The Warsaw pact countries have, on the western front, no fewer than 16,700 battle tanks, whereas NATO has 7,800. Opposition Members are putting in doubt significant figures, and I shall be obliged if my hon. Friend will deal with that issue.
One advantage of a single-service debate is that we are able to home in on each of the armed forces in turn. I am proud to represent a constituency that has a substantial Army presence. The main barracks are distributed between my constituency and that of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Colchester, South and Maldon (Mr. Wakeham), who is, I know, equally proud to represent a constituency with military connections. We both take considerable interest in what happens in Colchester in regard to units that are based there permanently and visiting "resident" battalions.
No one who has had the opportunity of meeting our young soldiers at first hand could deny their enormous quality. All hon. Members will agree that our soldiers are extremely fine young men and dedicated professionals. It is up to us to ensure that they are given proper equipment. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to dispose in due course of the points raised by the right hon. Member for Llanelli.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and I have been able to observe at first hand the military units in our constituencies. As a former Minister for the Royal Navy, and chairman of my party's parliamentary defence committee, with the co-operation of the Ministry of Defence, I have been given the opportunity to visit our armed forces in many theatres, and I value those opportunities.
Undoubtedly, the most difficult task of our armed forces is the sustained burden that they bear in Northern Ireland. All our armed services bear a burden there, but the Army, the Ulster Defence Regiment and the Royal Ulster Constabulary bear the main burdens. I do not believe that any armed forces but ours could have sustained, with such self-discipline and with such propriety, those enormous burdens for such a prolonged time. From time to time a young soldier may overstep the mark, but that is hardly surprising when one considers what they have to put up with in Northern Ireland.
I have been in an armoured personnel carrier and have been driven along the Falls road, being stoned all the way. I have seen something of the burdens that our armed forces have to sustain. When hon. Members debate the armed forces, we should always pay proper tribute to the burden sustained by our armed forces in Northern Ireland. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House would endorse that.
We admire the professionalism of our armed forces in their role in Northern Ireland and in BAOR. I look forward to my hon. Friend dealing with the question of equipment there. Such superb young men as our armed forces deserve the best equipment. I hope that the Front Bench will give us an assurance about that.

199
I have had the opportunity to see our armed forces in many parts of the world, through the co-operation of my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench. I have visited them several times in Northern Ireland and I have also been to Belize. That was an interesting venture. I saw our armed forces in operation in a place that the soldiers described in very unparliamentary terms. The climate there is not idyllic, but it was a fascinating visit. The presence there of our Harriers is significant. Our battalions there have the opportunity for valuable training in jungle conditions, and they undertake it with great professionalism.
I hope that my hon. Friend will deal with the issue of recruitment into the Army and tell us about current trends. I should like to know how many applications are being received for premature voluntary release and whether there is an outflow. When our Government first came to power, there was a massive outflow from what could be called the middle management of the armed forces. Sergeants, colour sergeants, lieutenants and captains were getting out of the forces—perhaps, as a former Navy Minister, I can use the expression—at a rate of knots. The first thing that the Government did was increase pay in the armed forces, and that helped to stop the rot. I should like to know the current situation for recruitment into the Army and applications for premature release from the armed forces.
Mr. Churchill: I share my hon. and learned Friend's concern about the way in which the forces were paid under the previous Administration. It is a great feather in the cap of the Government that we have honoured all the Armed Forces Pay Review Body awards. I hope that we will continue to do so. Does my hon. and learned Friend share my concern that during the past three years there has not been full funding from the Treasury for the pay awards? Indeed, there has been a cumulative deficit of 11 per cent. Does he agree that it is time that the Treasury took that on board? If the forces are properly paid, that will be at the expense of the defence equipment budget.
Sir Antony Buck: I have considerable sympathy with what my hon. Friend has said. No doubt my hon. Friend the Minister will wish to deal with that point. The Government are entitled to considerable credit for dealing with armed forces pay immediately on coming into office. They did not even wait for the Queen's Speech. I remember raising the matter with the Prime Minister. I said that I hoped that in the Queen's Speech the question of armed forces pay would be dealt with. She said that it would not, and I looked cross, whereupon she said, "We are not waiting for the Queen's Speech; we are announcing it tomorrow." So it was done at once, and that was quite right. But now things have dropped back in the way that my hon. Friend has just indicated, and I have no doubt that in winding up the Minister will wish to deal with the matter.
In conclusion, I reiterate that I enjoy having an Army constituency to represent. I reiterate that we in the House are, and have cause to be, enormously proud of the sheer professionalism of our armed forces, including the Army. We are under a duty to see that our soldiers are superbly equipped, and I hope that the doubts which have been raised about that will be dealt with by my hon. Friend at
200
the end of the debate. We who give our troops a very difficult task to do are under a duty to debate Army affairs regularly and to pay visits to the troops.
I hope that, with the co-operation of those on the Front Bench, those who are particularly concerned with defence matters will continue to be able to benefit from visiting our armed forces. Strangely enough, in a masochistic sort of way, the troops like being visited by us politicians. We give them such difficult tasks that the least we can do is pay close attention to the admirable feats which they are performing on the nation's behalf.
5.31 pm
Mr. Jack Ashley: The hon. and learned Member for Colchester, North (Sir A. Buck) is very experienced in military matters and his views are respected by hon. Members throughout the House. He happens to be an old political sparring partner of mine from our student days at Cambridge and we have clashed very often on wide issues. I should like to take up some of his points, but I hope that he will forgive me if I do not deal with the wider issues that he has dealt with.
I share his views on the quality of our soldiers and I want to take up that point, although I suspect that I shall be a bit more critical of the Army and of the Ministry of Defence than he has been. I want to speak about bullying in the Army, but first I want to comment briefly on the British nuclear test veterans, because I understand that the National Radiological Protection Board report will be published on Thursday and of course it is a matter of great interest to see what that says about the Army and events in the past.
Cabinet papers published recently under the 30-year rule indicate that the safety of British soliders who participated in the Pacific island nuclear tests was not a high priority in those days. Regardless of the conclusions of the NRPB report, which is basically a statistical exercise, I think that the only way to remove the searing sense of injustice felt by the nuclear test victims is to have a judicial inquiry into their claims. I hope that the Minister will give sympathetic consideration to the holding of a judicial inquiry.
I wish to speak about the difficult question of bullying in the Army, because, although progress has been made, we are nowhere near solving the problem and much remains to be done. Army bullying became a public issue in 1987 because of the revelations of vicious, cruel and degrading conduct, which was proved at courts-martial. The humiliating ordeals suffered by some soldiers shocked the public and posed serious questions for the Ministry of Defence.
We all want and need tough, well-trained, disciplined soldiers. We are proud of the Army, but we have to recognise that the power structure of the forces and the type of training required to produce tough soldiers create fertile soil for bullying. Officers, commissioned and noncommissioned, rightly demand an automatic response to authority. The close community life within units creates an admirable esprit de corps, but at the same time it readily breeds intolerance of individualistic behaviour or of someone who is felt to have let the side down. These are vital factors in army life, but they are reasons for vigilance against bullying, not for acceptance of it.
The recruits of today are not the 18-year-olds and upward of wartime Britain; they are 16 and 17-year-olds, youngsters who join to escape unemployment, learn a trade

201
and make a constructive contribution. They have the right to civilised treatment along with tough training and their parents have the right to an army that takes over parental rights and exercises them with the care and attention the parents themselves would put into it.
Paradoxically, bullying has remained a public issue partly because of the Army's praiseworthy, vigorous attempts with courts-martial to stamp out the worst excesses of brutality by NCOs and sadistic initiation rights by soldiers themselves. It is a paradox, but it is true, so the MOD should be praised for what it has done with courts-martial, but that has kept this issue to some extent on the public stage.
In addition, the abolition of section 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947 — and I pay tribute to all those who played an important role in that—led to a new interest in personal ill treatment, which resulted in many letters being sent to me. Significantly, it was often parents who wrote. Even more significantly, many wrote anonymously or were unwilling to have their names revealed.
I will quote from a letter from a mother who wrote about the bullying of her son and explained why she and her son were unwilling to be identified. She had discussed the question with her son, and he had argued that
"to relate those events which have happened, are happening and also those of which he is aware would, if not in themselves actually identify him, certainly throw suspicion on all those concerned."
She went on to say the following:
"It became distressingly obvious during the course of his leave that he is deeply troubled. He, unusually, was quiet and did not speak of the Army or his new units as I would have expected. What did come out of one conversation however is that he has two NCOs who are blatantly abusing their rank. His real fear of the consequences if he breaks the silence is more acute than I had ever imagined."
That letter, written with such vivid honesty, goes some way towards explaining why, on this issue of bullying, anonymous letters cannot be dismissed, as they usually have to be, otherwise the truth may remain obscured by fear.
I appreciate, of course, that some people may exaggerate and that some may even fabricate a case, as happened with the letter about the Queen's Dragoon Guards. I would like to repeat my apology to this fine regiment for naming it before investigations were made, and I would add that the Army has shown itself to be as gracious in accepting apologies as the House of Commons customarily is.
So I accept that a few of the letters are unsound. Nevertheless I have received and sent on to the Ministry of Defence an outpouring of deep anxiety and acute concern.
The response of the Ministry of Defence has been admirable but, in my view, inadequate. The Under-Secretary of State has categorically stated that bullying is not tolerated in the British Army, and I welcome that categorical statement. The Adjutant-General, Sir David Mostyn, has been equally firm and has told all commanding officers of the need for continued vigilance and for firm disciplinary action when ill treatment or bullying is proved. I warmly welcome these actions by the Minister and by the Adjutant-General, and undoubtedly there is now more vigilance on the part of commanding officers and their staff. Yet the advances will be only temporary if comprehensive action is not taken.
202
Just as a doctor cannot cure unless he diagnoses correctly and understands the nature of the complaint, so the Army will not eradicate bullying unless it recognises the whole spectrum of unacceptable behaviour and until it appreciates that bullying and fear go hand in hand. Fearful young soldiers—and nobody knows how many there are—need an impartial, independent person such
as an ombudsman to whom they can turn. The Ministry of Defence apparently believes that this would have an adverse effect on the Army's own efforts to look after its soldiers. I disagree. The good COs, whose immediate responsibility this is, will continue as they do now. The less effective ones, who are oblivious of what is going on or condone mistreatment, could be jolted into early preventive action.
I propose an ombudsman not as a panacea—there is none available—but as the best and most important step that can be taken in the present circumstances. There may be resource implications, but a message should go from this debate to the Secretary of State and to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that cash must be found for new initiatives to eradicate bullying from the Army. The welfare of the men is as important as the maintenance of machines.
I hope that, when he replies to the debate, the Minister will feel able to assure the House that he will reconsider my proposal—and tell us of any other constructive proposals that he may have in mind—and thereby signal a shift in gear in the Ministry's attack on bullying in the Army.
5.44 pm
Mr. Neil Thorne: The whole House will have listened with great care to what the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) has told us about bullying in the armed forces and particularly in the Army. I was very glad to hear him say that he appreciated what the Ministry of Defence was doing to ensure that this type of behaviour was completely eradicated from the services. It has no place there and it must not be allowed to exist. We must expect that commanding officers and others will always be vigilant in this regard, and I would expect them to be at the forefront in this.
I am not entirely convinced that the right hon. Member's suggestion of an ombudsman is right, because, if officers and warrant officers are doing their job properly, such a person should be entirely unnecessary. I hope that this action by the Ministry of Defence will ensure that we have seen the last of the bullying in the armed forces for a very long time to come.
We must, of course, keep the matter in perspective and recognise that bullying happens elsewhere too. I heard not so long ago of similar cases in the fire service, and it certainly happens among apprentices in other trades and businesses. But it is unacceptable behaviour in the late 1980s and it must not be allowed to exist anywhere. I am therefore delighted that the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South has, after considerable study, acknowledged that the Ministry of Defence is taking the matter extremely seriously, and we hope that that is the end of it.
I also listened with great interest to what the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) had to say, particularly about the role of the Army in Germany. When he opened the debate my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary used a

203
quotation from the Duke of Wellington about how much more acceptable it was to have our forces fighting battles on foreign soil than on our own. We must not forget that. Our forces are in Germany principally to defend us here and not to defend the Germans. The defence that they provide for the rest of Europe is incidental to their defence of this country, which is why they are there.
The Minister then went on to talk about nuclear weapons and mentioned no first use. I want to address my remarks particularly to this subject and to the nuclear deterrent. Since the last debate on the Army we have gone a considerable way towards removing certain nuclear weapons from the field of battle, and we all, I think, accept that that is a good thing—that the sooner this can come about, the better. We will, however, be quite wrong not to acknowledge our debt to nuclear defence over the past 45 years, during which time we have had some extremely good defence on the cheap. It has cost us something like 10 per cent. of our national defence budget to save a very considerable sum on conventional weapons. If we had not had that type of defence, our expenditure would undoubtedly have been much greater.
If, as we approach 2000, we expect nuclear weapons to form a much less important part of our defence, we must address ourselves to the alternatives, one of which is national service. One of the advantages of nuclear defence is that we have been able to rely on a response which meant that, if we were attacked in any way, we could and would be prepared to respond with nuclear defence. That is why it is so important that we do not agree to no first use. If we accept no first use we must have parity in conventional weapons.
The right hon. Member for Llanelli said that he did not agree with the figures given in the Government's White Paper for the forces held by the Warsaw pact countries, as opposed to those of the NATO Alliance. He felt that the enormous disparity in those tables was inaccurate, and not nearly as great as shown. I do not share his belief. I think that the figures are accurate and I shall listen with interest when my hon. Friend the Minister replies to the debate. I hope he will be able to say more about that.
Mr. Allan Rogers: Would the hon. Gentleman accept that what my right hon. Friend was saying was that there is a difference in numbers, but that the quality of weapons on both sides needs to be taken into account—as well as other strategic and tactical matters of disposition of weapons. If one audits the quality of the weapons in that way, one sees a much closer parity of conventional forces on either side.
Mr. Thorne: I accept that those factors must be taken into account. Nevertheless, there is still an enormous disparity; we must be aware of it and ensure that we compare like with like. The right hon. Member for Llanelli ridiculed some of the recent developments in the Soviet army. I cannot go along with that, because I felt that he was not comparing like with like. So one must be careful; the White Paper shows an enormous disparity, which is a cause for considerable concern.
I am far from satisfied that we have the necessary arrangements for carrying out adequate verification of nuclear weapons. We all remember the scenes on television not so very long ago that showed what happened to a major in the United States army who was prying too
204
closely in his capacity as a verification officer examining Russian installations. He was shot dead by the guard. If that is what happens in Europe, what can we expect of verification in the enormous areas covered by the Soviet Union? That is a serious problem.
We must also bear in mind chemical weapons —nuclear weapons verification alone is not enough. Whatever we do, we must examine the alternatives and thank our good fortune for the high quality of British service personnel — regular and reserves. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Sir. A. Buck) has already given credit to those who serve in the services part-time, as well as doing their daytime jobs. However, we are losing a good deal of talent because of the enormous demands placed these days on young people who are trying to match the capability of those in the regular forces. I am delighted that the Home Service Force can offer an alternative which is less exacting than the Territorial Army. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to make good progress in enlarging that force as soon as possible, because we must build up our reserves in that way.
People with experience of life in the armed forces are now disappearing because national service went so long ago. To make up for that, we must try to keep the talent we have and ensure that as many people as possible have this type of experience. Between the two world wars many people had real experience of the Army and kept us in good shape for 1939—largely at their own expense—by learning about military affairs. But we are short of such experience now, so we are not as well off as we were in 1939.
The reserve forces that we have are of extremely high calibre, but the number of people who have basic knowledge is diminishing, and I want that problem addressed. Many of our NATO allies still retain national service; those who do it carry forward their experience, which can be revised at fairly short notice.
In some countries that do not have the nuclear deterrent, particularly in Scandinavia, there is not only national service but, following that, a home defence force, so that people are posted from national service to home defence units. Until their sixtieth year, they are expected to serve in civil protection units. That is normal practice in Scandinavia and it ensures that such countries have a reservoir of personnel with the necessary knowledge and experience.
I was delighted to hear the Minister announce that Jersey is to recruit an engineer unit. I hope that Guernsey will not be far behind and will make its contribution in the near future.
People who serve the country in the armed services have a special job and we should be especially grateful to them. While they protect us from every eventuality, we owe them a great deal of care and should look after their interests. My hon. Friend the Minister will remember that, just before Christmas, I raised the matter of armed forces pensions for people who left the services at a time when there was a pay freeze. One of the examples I gave was that of a lieutenant colonel who was retiring. If he had retired two years earlier as a major, he would have drawn a considerably higher pension than the one he eventually received.
A number of service personnel were asked by the Government of the day to stay on in post because there was a shortage in their discipline, and they readily agreed

205
to do so. When they were eventually asked to go, they found themselves considerably worse off financially. We should not allow that to continue. We should not say that it was perpetrated by a Government of a different political complexion and that it was an example of what happened when the other lot had their chance. We should be prepared to correct the matter now and ensure that no one is penalised because he carried on serving his country and is now drawing a lower pension, not for one or two years, but for the rest of his life. That should be corrected as a matter of urgency, and I hope that my hon. Friend and his ministerial colleagues will support my demand to the Treasury as soon as possible.
I turn now to the future of the Gurkhas. For more than 170 years, we have had the support of the Gurkha units in the Army. My hon. Friend the Minister knows that the Select Committee on Defence now proposes, at my suggestion, to carry out an inquiry into the future of the Gurkhas. This is a new departure for the Committee because Select Committees usually report and criticise the Government for action that they have already taken. This will be the first occasion on which the Select Committee on Defence will be investigating a matter and publishing its conclusions in advance of any decision by the Ministry. I hope that that works well and that my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Ministry will find it helpful. Indeed, I hope that they will be able to act upon the Committee's report, which I hope will be published later this year or early in 1989.
I make a special plea that, when my hon. Friend replies, he says something about the role of the helicopter in the Army. If our forces are to have a modern infantry role we must match what has been done by other armies in NATO and in the Warsaw pact. Undoubtedly, we have been extremely economical with the number of helicopters that we have deployed. However, if we were honest we would have to admit that to fulfil our commitments we need about 100 additional combat helicopters to make up for the existing deficiency. I realise that to economise in such a way is an easy option, but we must consider this matter carefully. We must ensure that we are not cheating on our defence by inadequately providing ourselves with the necessary equipment. I hope that my hon. Friend will give careful consideration to this matter and I hope that he has happy news to report.
6.1 pm
Mr. John Cartwright: To begin with, I should like to mention two constituency issues that are of considerable concern to the people of Woolwich.
The first relates to the long-running saga about the headquarters building of the directorate general of defence quality assurance. That unit has been based at Woolwich Arsenal since the 1960s and it has survived a substantial period of review and examination concerning possible relocation. Many of us felt that the uncertainty about the headquarters building had been settled a couple of years ago when a final decision was given that it would stay at Woolwich. Indeed, a great deal of work had already gone into providing architectural drawings and designs for a new office building within the Woolwich Arsenal complex.
Unfortunately, after the present Secretary of State took office, he decided that, before making a major financial investment, it was prudent to examine other possible locations for the headquarters of that important operation. I perfectly understand that, but the difficulty
206
has been that that decision has put the whole thing back in the melting pot. We have had a further period of considerable uncertainty. I am sure that the Minister appreciates that that uncertainty has had a worrying effect on the work force and the management. I hope that an early decision is reached. Indeed, I hope that that decision will be in favour of retaining defence quality assurance at Woolwich. When the Minister reviews the matter and makes the crucial decision, he must bear in mind the generations of service that the people of Woolwich have given to the Army.
The second local issue is the state of military buildings of historic interest. Sadly, many of those have been allowed to decay and are in an extremely poor condition. Indeed, they are a terrible indictment of our neglect of some of our important history.
I pay tribute to the Minister for the Committee that he has set up to consider the problem. I am aware that that Committee has already visited the Woolwich area and I am extremely glad of that. I believe that it would be helpful to the House if the Minister could tell us how it will be possible to preserve the buildings and, in some cases, to bring them back to the state and condition that they deserve. I should be grateful if the Minister could tell us how we shall find ways of using them for the community's good and how we shall retain such an important element of our heritage.
Mr. Dalyell: Has the hon. Gentleman had the opportunity to visit Fort George? Although I agree with the hon. Gentleman in general terms, the Ministry must be congratulated on its part, along with other conservation bodies, in the restoration of Fort George.
Mr. Cartwright: I have not had the opportunity of seeing Fort George. In my constituency at the Woolwich Arsenal there is a wonderful piece of restoration, the brass foundry, which is one of the original Woolwich Arsenal buildings. Unfortunately, that building is simply used for storage by the National Maritime museum at Greenwich. That beautiful building is not available to the public. I want all such buildings to be preserved and maintained but also, as far as possible, available for the public to enjoy. They are part of our heritage.
We must consider future recruitment and manpower arising from the problems of demography. I have already raised this issue in previous Army debates. There is widespread understanding that the numbers of young men in the population has been declining since 1981 and will continue to do so. Indeed, by 1996 the number of 15 to 19-year-olds will be 77 per cent. of the present level and only 73 per cent. of the 1981 level. The number of young men will not rise above 80 per cent. of the present level until the end of the century and, as far as it is possible to predict, will never return to the current level. That poses a major problem for the armed forces because they must recruit a higher proportion of young people to maintain their present level of manpower.
The recruitment drive will occur at the very time that there is other competition for skilled manpower from other employers. Without doubt there will be problems for the armed forces. They will have to face the problem of the extra cost involved in improving the pay and conditions of those whom they employ or face the problem of simply not having the necessary manpower. That problem does not affect this country alone; it affects a number of western

207
European countries, in particular the Federal Republic of Germany. However, those other countries have conscription and have been able to tackle part of the problem by extending the period of conscription. Such an option is not open to us. It will be interesting to know the Government's views on this matter and their proposals to deal with a problem that will be with us until the end of the century.
We must consider battlefield nuclear weapons and their strategic place given the changing circumstances that we face after the INF treaty. We all understand that the impending removal of longer and shorter-range intermediate nuclear weapons will inevitably concentrate much more attention on short-range tactical nuclear weapons, especially battlefield systems.
In the past few weeks there has been some interest, and indeed excitement, about the Montebello decision. I am rather puzzled by that because I do not believe that any of us who followed the Montebello discussions were in any doubt about what had been agreed. At Montebello there was a clear agreement to reduce the number of NATO warheads in Europe by 1,400 to a total of 4,600 by 1988. However, there was an accompanying agreement that the reduced stockpile would involve modernisation and that the weapons that were retained were to be improved to provide greater range, improved accuracy, better survivability, better safety and security. In other words, the argument was that we would have a smaller NATO nuclear stockpile in Europe, but that it would be safer and more effective. I find it hard to argue with that general approach, which seems to make absolute sense. When one applies the general principle to individual weapons systems it is sensible to review the situation against the present background because, after the INF agreement, the prospects are different from those apparent in 1983 when the Montebello decision was taken.
I have always felt that battlefield nuclear weapons are the most dangerous of all nuclear weapons, because they are uniquely designed for war fighting. They cannot be referred to, or regarded as, weapons of last resort. They are there for use in a battle and — this applies particularly to nuclear artillery—they are based very far forward. That means that decisions about their possible use would have to be taken at a very early stage of a coventional conflict. For those reasons, battlefield weapons inevitably lower the nuclear threshold. There are many examples of military men who have taken the view that, once that threshold has been crossed, none of us knows what will flow from it.
I can, therefore, understand the argument that we must follow the first two zeros—the zero agreements on the longer-range and shorter-range intermediate nuclear weapons — with the third zero, which encompasses a negotiation on the battlefield and short-range systems. However, as we have been reminded by the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies), the military argument for battlefield nuclear weapons is that they have a deterrent effect, and that they prevent the massing of Soviet armour on the central front. There is, therefore, a natural reluctance on the part of the military to negotiate those weapons away when the perceived threat remains.
Like the right hon. Member for Llanelli, I am attracted to the idea of linking progress in negotiations on battlefield nuclear weapons with progress in negotiations on the conventional arms front. That strikes me as one
208
way of ensuring progress. However, I cannot be quite as optimistic as the right hon. Gentleman appeared about the prospects for the conventional arms negotiations. We know that the new forum to discuss those issues will be very different from that of the MBFR. It will cover a very much wider area, from the Atlantic to the Urals. Its general approach — to try to secure stability and security, at lower levels of arms deployment — is one that we would all endorse, but I do not believe that we should underestimate the problems.
There has been some difference across the House about the issue of Warsaw pact superiority in terms of conventional defence. It is hard to dispute the existence of that superiority, but its extent is a matter for legitimate debate. One of the difficulties is the method by which the relative strengths are calculated. There is at present no agreed basis on which such calculation might take place. I have recently seen a study by the Atlantic Council of the United States, which set out the problems of trying to agree a basis for calculating the strength of each side in Europe. If we consider NATO and the Warsaw pact, for example, we do not count France and Spain in the NATO forces, because they are not part of the integrated military command. However, it is hard to expect the Soviets to assume that there will be no assistance to NATO from the direction of Spain and France. If Spain and France are included in the figures, that will add some 20 divisions, some 2,000 tanks and 700 tactical aircraft. Whether those countries are to be included is thus a very important issue.
If there is to be conflict in Europe, it cannot be assumed that the non-committed or neutral nations will sit quietly on their hands and play no part in it. The Swedes, the Finns and the Swiss have effective forces which must be involved to some extent in the calculations. There is also the question of what proportion of the forces are to be counted. Should it be only those in place in Europe, or those that are capable of being transferred into Europe in time of conflict? Should it be only troops in active service, or should reservists be included?
There is also the issue of equipment. Front-line forces no longer equip their men; they man their equipment. Equipment is obviously extremely important. The question has already been raised in the debate of what sort of tanks we should count. Should it be only modern, effective tanks, or should we count the aging systems held in reserve? Should we count defensive as well as offensive systems?
Those are all difficult issues, and, as other hon. Members have said, it is a question not only of quantity but of quality. As many systems have not been tested in warfare, it is very difficult to judge the quality of one tank or one aircraft against that of another, and it is certainly difficult to assess the quality of individual forces. How, for example, do we judge Spanish and Portuguese forces against Polish or Romanian forces? There are also the problems of the back-up of defence industries, the geographical asymmetry and so forth. I am merely trying to argue that, when we approach the difficult issue of conventional arms negotiations from the Atlantic to the Urals, agreeing the forces belonging to each side that are to be counted in those negotiations is far from straightforward.
That leads me to believe that, while there is certainly a case for linking the negotiation on battlefield nuclear weapons with progress in conventional arms control, it is likely to be a lengthy process. We must recognise that some

209
European countries are so anxious about the destabilising effect of nuclear artillery, in particular, that they would much prefer to see those systems taken out and negotiated separately from conventional systems. We must be clear about what NATO strategy is to be. If there are divisions within the member nations of NATO, they will undoubtedly be exploited by the Soviet Union.
There is a wide measure of agreement within the NATO Alliance that the security of Europe, for as far ahead as we can see, depends on a mix of nuclear and conventional deterrence. The problem for NATO is to decide and achieve the maximum agreement on the balance between the two, and the make-up of the individual parts of that deterrence.
It would be useful to hear the Government's views on this important issue, and also to hear how they intend to influence the development of a NATO negotiating position in the testing time that lies ahead.
6.16 pm
Dr. Alan Glyn: I congratulate the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) on representing his constituency interests so well. I should like to take up many of his points during my speech, because I have considerable sympathy with them.
We now have a professional and efficient regular Army. However, the necessity for conventional forces has become more important — we hope because the dangers of atomic warfare are gradually receding. We must always remember, as the hon. Member for Woolwich pointed out, that until we are sufficiently strong we must retain our present strength until the reduction is complete. We must retain superiority.
To be efficient, an army must first be mobile, and secondly, as the Minister said, it must have proper communications. Those communications, however, must not only be between units of our Army; they must also be between our allies in other NATO armies.
The right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) doubted the relative strengths of the two forces, and also called into question the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1987". I do not believe that all this matters. The hon. Member for Woolwich spoke of France and Spain's inclusion, and that of non-committed nations, and the age of Soviet equipment. Most people would agree, however, that the Soviet side has a considerable force, which is very much stronger than the NATO Alliance, together with France, Spain and any other nations. That is unquestionable.
I do not think that it matters whether equipment is old or new, or whether or not it is behind the Urals. The balance is loaded against us. We have to start off with that premise.
Our Army is called upon to perform many duties. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Colchester (Sir A. Buck) referred to Belize and the Falklands, and we have forces on loan to various parts of the world. They have a varied and interesting role to play. The worst role is that in Northern Ireland, where our forces work in conjunction with the Ulster Defence Regiment and the Royal Ulster Constabulary. I believe that the bomb disposal people are the bravest of the lot. To defuse a bomb in cold blood is one of the bravest things a man can do. It is easy to go over the top but it is much more difficult to do something in cold blood. The Minister paid a tribute to the people who devote their lives to that task. The Army in Northern
210
Ireland does a good job but no army can ever do its job if its hands are tied. Therefore, one has to give our soldiers some latitude.
My hon. Friend the Minister talked about the central front. I was a little worried about that. He said that the central front may move but that it will not affect West Germany. That causes the conundrum to which I have referred before. There is the difficulty of what East Germany would do if West Germany was invaded and what West Germany would do if it was called upon to invade East Germany. We do not know. I have talked to officers in the West German army and their views differ according to whether they have relatives in East Germany. It is an unknown factor with which we have always to reckon.
My hon. Friend the Minister mentioned the importance of search. He was a soldier and he knows the importance of reconnaissance. He knows how important it is to find out where the enemy is. I was interested in the new devices he mentioned and in the communications systems to which he referred. I want to emphasise the importance of being able to communicate not only between units of our own forces but between the units of other forces in western Europe.
My hon. Friend mentioned the T64B and the T80 tanks. That illustrates — I am pointing this out to the hon. Member for Woolwich—the fact that the Soviet army has been developing a large number of techniques which add to its capability and which, to some extent, replace the old tanks that are going out of service.
The Russians have an immense reserve force. I believe that they have about 1 or 2 million active reservists on their reserve list. The Russians have historically always had a large reserve army. Even in Tsarist days, Russia was full of people walking around in uniform. Perhaps they simply liked the uniform.
My hon. Friend the Minister referred to the Challenger tank. He said that 5th and 6th regiments would be coming into service, followed by the 7th. I am worried about tank replacements. The Army wants 500 new tanks at a cost of £700 million. When choosing a tank we have to balance two factors. First, there is the question whether they will be produced in this country, and, therefore create employment, which is important. Secondly, it is necessary to have a tank that is efficient and which has parts that are interchangeable with those of our allies. When one goes to war it is essential to have interchangeable parts. If one breaks a sprocket and the tank breaks down and if other units do not have appropriate spares, one will find that the tank is out of use. I should like to see us producing a tank in the United Kingdom that has parts which are interchangeable with our NATO allies. That applies to weapons as well.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne), who also has military experience, mentioned helicopters. The infantry is becoming more mobile and is better able to operate with tanks. I hope that it is also on the same wireless frequency. That is important. The Saxon and the Warrior are useful but the helicopter is, as yet, under-employed.
I should like to ask the Government how they are getting on with chemical agent monitors. I should also like to ask how they are getting on with regard to nerve gas. We know that the Soviet Union has 300,000 tonnes of chemical and biological weapons. It is essential that our Army has sufficient protective clothing to use in the event

211
of the Soviets embarking upon chemical or biological war. As they have such a superiority, I am sure that they may be tempted to use it.
The importance of our reserve force is immense. We have to have a good Territorial Army. The hon. Member for Woolwich pointed out the importance of demography. We cannot have conscription so we have to increase our Territorial reserve forces. There is one thing that holds us back. It is easier for people who work for large firms or conglomerates to take time off to participate in Territorial Army activities, but it is difficult for the self-employed or those working in a small business. We have to find some inducement to get those people to give up their fortnight's leave. Perhaps we should give them some extra leave in exchange. It is of national importance. They are providing a service for their country and, incidentally, for their company because they are learning discipline and many other things.
I was a little worried about the issue of women. During war we have all seen the importance of women in the armed forces. I understand that there are not enough people to train them, and I am worried about that. Women can do so many jobs. Home service is important and the Government have not paid sufficient attention to it. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Minister has announced that there will be a 20 per cent. increase in the home service.
I do not want to take up any more of the House's time, but there is one more issue to which I would like to refer. It is the purely domestic problem of the rebuilding of Victoria barracks in Windsor. I was told in a parliamentary answer on 4 July 1985 that completion was due for 1989. So far, the drains have been completed and there is some grass planted in the centre barracks. I do not know whether that is to prevent it from being used as a car park. As a garrison town and the home of the Sovereign, we have a duty to rebuild the barracks. My own regiment, the Household Cavalry, has an extremely good barracks there. It is right that the Footguards should have their barracks in Windsor. Traditionally, the monarchy, the Household Cavalry and the Footguards have been located there, and, as a Household Cavalry man, I should like to see the Footguards back in Victoria barracks at the earliest opportunity. I hope that when my hon. Friend replies to the debate he will say a few words on that matter.
6.30 pm
Mr. Bruce George: If people have the energy to read the debates that we have had on this subject in the House over the past 10 years, they will notice a remarkable transformation in East-West relations. I was a Member of Parliament in the mid-1970s. It was the era of détente. As we proceeded through the 1970s we heard here and outside a shrill hostility to the Soviet Union. The emergence of the cold war was reflected in debates in the House throughout the 1970s and up to the mid-1980s, and until recently there has been confrontation between the parties and a perception of East-West relations on the part of the Government reminiscent of earlier and sadder periods.
If anyone had predicted a year or so ago what would happen in East-West relations, he would have been dismissed as being amenable to psychiatric treatment. The changes in East-West relations have been truly remarkable. We are living in exciting times. The problem lies in
212
achieving a proper sense of balance, not being carried away by euphoria and devising security policies for countries within the Alliance that will be valid a decade hence. That is exceedingly difficult to achieve in any circumstances. We are living in fluid times, so the problem is even more difficult.
We are living in an era of change. We have seen the signing of the momentous intermediate nuclear forces agreement, which I hope will be ratified by the United States Senate. If the circumstances of SALT II were replicated, the consequences for NATO would be catastrophic. Existing trends in the Senate give one cause for optimism that it will ratify the agreement.
We have seen a decline in the rhetoric of confrontation. There have been unprecedented developments in the Soviet Union. We have heard much talk about further arms control negotiations in the pipeline. Most important of all, we have seen, in many countries in the Warsaw pact and in NATO, old-established principles of security being re-evaluated. Political parties with established principles of security are having to re-evaluate them in the light of changing circumstances. Much is in a state of flux with regard to security policy.
Changes in the Soviet Union impinge on NATO. The main thrust of my speech will be about how these changes will take place, be assessed, recognised, accommodated and adapted within the NATO Alliance, which most hon. Members wish to see survive, because it is the essential principle of our security policy.
Since Mr. Gorbachev's accession to the post of General Secretary, he has made some remarkable changes in Soviet domestic society, which now appears to have primacy over foreign relations. The words glasnost and perestroika have almost entered the English language. One must ask to what degree those reforms will be successful. We must ask whether the extremely impressive rhetoric that we have heard from the Soviet Union on defence and foreign policy will be translated into concrete action. There are signs of a transference between rhetoric and action, but it is dangerous to take too many decisions based on a reaction to what Mr. Gorbachev is saying. We must observe what is being done.
I advise hon. Members to read a book that was recently written by a Frenchman, Michel Tatu, who is probably the leading Kremlinologist in Europe. He argues that we should hope that the Gorbachev reforms will be successful, but he cautions that Mr. Gorbachev might fail. One problem that Mr. Gorbachev has with his "cabinet" which our Prime Minister has not is a degree of opposition. Therefore, it is by no means impossible that those reforms in domestic politics and international relations will be negated. It is by no means certain that Mr. Gorbachev will be around in five or 10 years' time to continue his policies. While I support a positive reaction to his initiatives, it is important not to become too carried away. Even if the Soviet Union becomes less revolutionary and less proselytising, as it appears to be doing, a non-revolutionary Marxist-Leninist Soviet Union can still pose a threat to the West. One must not become too carried away by developments in the Soviet Union.
Let us hope that Mr. Gorbachev's impetus is carried forward. Let us hope that the era of détente, in which he has played a major part, survives and that we do not return to the position of the 1970s, when the era of détente lasted a few years but dissolved. We must hope that this era will survive into the 1990s and beyond.

213
Equally important changes are taking place in the United States. With regard to foreign policy in the 20th century, the hegemony of Europe was undermined. It was not possible for European powers to achieve a balance of power that inhibited one of its own from securing dominance. That led to the reluctant incursion of the United States into European politics in the first world war. It then stepped back and left us to our own devices. Once again it became necessary for an external power, the United States, to remedy the balance of power which did not preval in the second world war. After that, the United States remained behind and became a global power—the protector of Europe.
Circumstances are changing, and the international balance of power is changing. No longer do we have the super-power hegemony that prevailed for much of the post-second world war period. The United States has neither the economic resources nor—among sections of Congress and the public—the will to remain the global power in the 1990s that it was in the 1960s and much of the 1970s and 1980s.
The problem with which we are faced, not only in NATO, but in Japan and other countries which have an affinity with the United States, is how to manage this decline. The Americans deny that there is such a decline, but the United States is clearly faced with the problem that faces us perennially—there are too many commitments for its diminishing resources. If its presence around the world will not be as complete as it was, we either say that the vacuum will not be filled, or that the rest of the democratic world will have to adjust to the fact that the United States will not be performing — many people welcome this — the global role that it has hitherto played.
Anyone who has talked to Congressmen will be aware of the growth of isolationism in Congress, which reflects and partly fuels the growth of isolationism in the United States. Therefore, it is important to ask the American public the inescapable question: is NATO still in the United States' interest? Is the maintenance of a large nuclear and conventional commitment to Europe still in its interest? Most people here consider that the answer is a very clear yes. We must he aware that changes are taking place as a result of that reorientation in the United States.
There are changes taking place in Europe. We are no longer economically, politically or militarily as prostrate as we were when NATO was founded. Europe's GNP is very impressive compared with that of the United States and of the Soviet Union. In future Europe should, and must, do more to secure its own protection than it has in recent years. It is important that we point out to the United States that the development of the concept of a second pillar of the Alliance must be seen within the context of NATO. It would be wrong to give the United States the impression that Europe is ganging up on it, because that would lead eventually to a diminution of the American presence, which we should try hard to avoid. Most members of the Government and most Opposition Members would argue, not for unarmed or semi-armed neutralism, but for Europe's playing a more significant role and having a greater impact on decision-making in NATO.
Changes taking place in the rest of the world impinge on NATO. For example, medium-rank powers are developing nuclear weapons, and wars are taking place which the super-powers cannot control. Anyone who
214
thinks that the future of the world lies in the global competition between the Soviet Union and the United States is not paying due heed to the break-up of those powers' empires and to the emergence of new medium-rank and smaller powers outside their control.
All those changes are having an impact on NATO. What will NATO be in the 1990s? Will it survive? Will it have withered away because the threat to western Europe and the United States will have evaporated? I suspect not. Will NATO have outlived its usefulness, or cracked as a result of internal, if not external, pressures? Those of us who are inclined to support NATO are constantly lamenting the problems that it faces. Some have an apocalyptic vision of the future and envisage the collapse of NATO under the weight of crises. However, NATO has always been able to resolve crises. One must hope that external and internal circumstances give NATO the opportunity to reformulate its policies on nuclear weapons and conventional forces and to readjust its decision-making procedures. If the Alliance is to have the vitality to survive the difficult years ahead, it is critical that it should undergo a re-examination and modify substantially its policies and structure.
In the late 1980s NATO requires the emergence of a new Harmel report and an organisation of wise men to map out its future over the next few years. The Alliance is in considerable need of restructuring. Will there be changes in its nuclear policy? Despite the critique of the policy of flexible response, no serious alternative has yet emerged to replace it. The advantage of the policy lies precisely in its flexibility and ambiguity. The concept of flexible response has more or less served us for a number of years. If it is to be replaced, much more research needs to be carried out. It is easy glibly to say that flexible response is out. It is far more difficult to provide something in its place.
If one element of flexible response has been impaired as result of the INF agreement, it is surely important to strengthen its conventional element. The irony is that, although we have heard much from the Minister about what is being done to enhance our conventional capability, and while it is easy to detect the rhetoric of improvement throughout the Alliance, the reality is that, given the financial pressures on all Governments, it will be exceedingly difficult to maintain our conventional capability, let alone expand it. All Governments face that problem. We need to re-examine our reliance on nuclear weapons and realise that arms control negotiations, if sensibly pursued, will diminish the requirement of first use, or indeed early use, policy. However, that can be an expensive option, because it will mean a considerable improvement in our conventional capability.
I hope that NATO will seek, not only an accommodation with the Soviet Union but ways of reconciling the security policies of different parties within the member countries of NATO. I am worried about the disharmony that exists within NATO. In recent years the various Socialist, Social-Democratic and Democratic-Socialist parties in the NATO countries have put forward an approach to security that is at variance with established NATO policy. I hope that the present state of flux will give NATO the opportunity of a rapprochement with the political parties that helped to found NATO but which have diverged from its policy. That rapproachement needs to be found, because unless security policy is underpinned by substantial political support it becomes vulnerable.

215
The changes that take place in future will include developments in arms control. Perhaps the INF agreement will make Isaiah's hope of beating swords into ploughshares look a little less unrealistic than hitherto. However, one thing is fairly clear. The 14 European nations that belong to NATO do not have identical arms control policies. Two of the 14 counties are nuclear powers; a number of the others permit nuclear weapons on their soil; others will accept nuclear weapons in time of crisis; and some do not accept nuclear weapons, but accept American nuclear protection. The different perceptions of nuclear weapons are reflected in different attitudes to arms control.
One thing is fairly obvious. With the possible exception of the French Government, the Governments of European NATO countries wish to be perceived by their electorates as working for arms control agreements. Arms control has come to be seen as an integral part of security policy, but beyond general attitudes towards arms control policy the Reykjavik near-agreement 18 months ago had quite a profound effect. European Governments largely wish to ensure the continuation of the policy of nuclear deterrence which remains a bedrock of Alliance security.
For Europe, in practical terms, that means pursuing 50 per cent., not 100 per cent., reductions in strategic systems. It means accepting— albeit reluctantly in the case of a number of Governments— a zero-zero INF agreement. It means deferring negotiations on tactical nuclear weapons and, for most European Governments, it means taking conventional arms control negotiations very seriously. According to an American ambassador, Jonathan Dean, Europe
"has concluded that the East-West confrontation has passed its peak and is in decline, a decline which should be hastened."
Coupled with anti-nuclear sentiment among the public and many opposition parties, NATO Governments will continue to face important challenges and the need prudently to balance arms control and defence policy.
Conventional arms negotiations are clearly inevitable. We have heard much about the balance of power and the conventional balance in Europe. There is only one thing more dangerous than overstating Soviet capability, and that is understating it. The problems are immensely complicated. My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) eulogised the report of the Western European Union. The hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes), the author of that report, must be very pleased, as this is one of the few occasions on which something that he has done has attracted support from an Opposition Front-Bench spokesman. However, I might add that that report was not accepted by the Assembly of the Western European Union.
One can pick any report on the military "balance" that apparently sustains one's own argument. My view is that Soviet conventional superiority is considerable and that any arms control negotiations take that into account. It is not a question simply of head-counting—or rather tank or ship-counting—because it depends largely on where the weapons are situated. A fact that has not emerged yet is that it is not simply a matter of saying, "How many do we have? How many do they have? What is their quality?" The key question is where the weapons are located and the
216
length of time that it will take to achieve the military balance at the point of contact that looks quite neat in a journal.
The geographical problems of getting the reinforcements from North America are far more formidable than the problems that the Soviet Union faces in moving conventional forces from other parts of its own territory. There are great problems in conventional arms negotiations which I hope will be surmounted.
One contentious issue is that of out-of-area activities. For the West, the United States has been the world's policeman — a role that it picked up with some reluctance from the United Kingdom in the 1940s and 1950s. However, that role is coming to an end and it is important that we should be prepared for that. That is not to say that the United States will not remain a global power. It means that the United States will rely more on its allies, either within treaty organisations, such as NATO, or with the countries with which it has bilateral treaties.
It is dangerous to hide our faces from what happens outside the NATO area. That does not mean that Europe should have the will to wander anywhere throughout the world — clearly, military power directed at a problem can make that problem infinitely worse — but it is important that we realise that if we want to have an influence on United States policy outside the NATO area we can do so only if we have capability, presence and involvement. As a result of the South-West Asia impact study, one way was devised in which Europe has agreed to take some compensatory measures. If the United States acts out-of-area there will be some support, such as over flying rights.
What has been happening in the Gulf is very important. In the United States last summer, when hysteria was at its height, many Congressmen had the idea that the Armilla patrol had been operating in the Gulf since 1980. The fact that some had just suddenly discovered the Gulf meant that they were oblivious of the fact that allied Governments actually had naval bases in the Gulf region. Even a report from the Pentagon, written by Mr. Weinberger, did not mention the fact that the Armilla patrol had been operating in the Gulf since 1980. Pressure built up during the early summer. Many people in the USA saw European involvement in the Gulf as almost a touchstone for continuing to have American support troops in Europe and for NATO.
Therefore, it was wise of Europe to react in the way that it did. One suspects that if one asked why various European nations committed naval forces to the Gulf, the answer would be that it was less for the protection of their own shipping, and more for political purposes — to placate the United States and prevent the growth of hostility towards Europe from reaching such a point that it would have disastrous military consequences for NATO.
Of course, forces could not be sent there under the auspices of NATO because, under the treaty, NATO's terms of reference would preclude that. Therefore, the Western European Union and unilateral and bilateral decisions to commit ships there were resorted to. The Gulf operation by Britain, France, the Netherlands, Belgium and Italy, together with the fact that although West Germany's constitution apparently forbids out-of-area activity it is compensating by sending ships to the Mediterranean, is a belated recognition of the fact that events outside the NATO area can have serious

217
ramifications for Western Europe, not simply in terms of buying off American opposition, but because what happens out there affects us.
Therefore, it is important—it may be unpalatable to many people—that we do not exclude the possibility of further action out of area. I hope that Europe never has the remotest need to operate outside the NATO area. It is as much as we can do to operate successfully within that area. However, we need a capability that may have to be deployed, although that does not mean that it will be deployed.
I do not know how the Government will sustain their commitment to NATO nuclear modernisation, replacing Nimrod, and deploying forces throughout the world, with so many of our naval and armed forces units in the Gulf and the Falklands. One wonders how the Government will manage the increasing commitments with diminishing resources.
We have been in NATO since 1949. I hope that the day will come when that Alliance will be superfluous, but I suspect that it will be needed for many years to come. We must play our part as a nation in that Alliance, deploying our resources competently and efficiently. However, that Alliance, which has served us well, is undergoing change. I only hope that we have military personnel, politicians, diplomats and others who can manage those changes well. Unless those many changes are properly analysed, accommodated, resolved and a restructured Alliance devised for the 1990s, the potential danger for the European members of the Alliance are severe. Therefore, I hope that the changes will be well managed and that our Alliance will he as vital and necessary in the 1990s as it has been since 1949.
6.56 pm
Mr. Ian Bruce: As the House knows, there are massive numbers of forces personnel in my constituency. In fact, the Army has two bases at Lulworth and Bovington, where the armoured corps has most of its tank ranges and trains many soldiers in the use of armoured personnel carriers and armoured vehicles generally.
Close to my constituency—looking after my western border — the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Sir J. Spicer) contains the rifle range at Chickerell. In addition—although I would not want to be ruled out of order by mentioning it at any great length—we have a naval air station on Portland as well as the Admiralty research establishment which has many Ministry of Defence procurement jobs. Therefore, south Dorset is quite crowded in terms of numbers of service personnel.
As a man of 40, I have little experience of armed forces matters. I am glad that that is so and that so many of our countrymen have not needed to fight for their country or be called up. All hon. Members have paid tribute in this debate to the dedication of the young men and women who are training for a conflict that we hope will never happen. However, in a constituency such as mine, with a large number of forces personnel so close to civilians, the further we are from a conflict, the more little moans start and become greater moans.
I have already been contacted on various occasions about problems such as rifle ranges. My hon. Friend and I have several excellent forces' rifle ranges within hearing distance of our constituencies. It is not long before people
218
start wondering whether so much ammunition should be fired and whether family Sundays should be disturbed. Blast damage may be involved. Apparently, if a double glazing unit fails in south Dorset, for many years there has been a ready pound from the Ministry of Defence to put it right, but occasionally the Ministry resists that. The public seem to think that the Ministry should always he ready to pick up the bill.
In a debate last week, we considered the problems of gun clubs and self-loading rifles. Many of my constituents trained with the forces and, after leaving, wished to pursue their skill in arms as civilians. A good point made to me by some of those people is that gun clubs have always been able to train people and keep them up to the mark with the normal service rifle. If the measure that we debated last week is enacted, we would prohibit rapid-fire weapons, which tend to be the standard issue of NATO army forces, so they would not be able to train with that weapon. We should consider that point in respect of our home affairs.
Although there have been excellent speeches from both sides of the House in this debate, I find it strange that there is such unanimous support for NATO. It is the first time that I have heard a speech by the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George). He said that we would all prefer not to have the NATO Alliance, but that we realise that we will need it for decades to come.
Before I became a Member of this House, I had to listen to members of the Labour party—I do not know where they are today—who constantly denigrated the fact that we are part of NATO. One would have thought that the two alliance parties would accept that NATO is part of our defence strategy, yet they have been arguing about whether to include NATO in their constitution. The Liberal Benches are empty, yet for most of this afternoon's debate 20 per cent. of the SDP was present, including 50 per cent. of the Owenite wing. It may he uncharitable to say that, because the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) and the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) have strong constituency interests in this matter, they would favour a strong defence alliance, but it is something which needs to be said.
Opposition Members have commented on the quality of Soviet forces. Our forces are extremely fine and it is interesting to note the quality of our peacetime professional Army. I went behind the iron curtain when I visited Czechoslovakia. Things tended to be badly run and looked very scruffy until one saw a member of the Czech or Soviet armed forces. It would be wrong for us to think that they are just a lot of vodka swilling conscripts who could not launch an armed attack. The quality of their forces is very high and is given great emphasis in that society.
I have not been involved with the armed forces, so I did not worry too much about our defence strategy until I was asked to go and speak, in debates with self-styled peace campaigners, against prospective Labour parliamentary candidates and prospective Liberal candidates. I came out of those debates very fearful for the future of our country because those people seemed to dismiss the necessity of good defensive forces to deter attack and ensure that we do not get into a hot war.
I am almost 41 years old and I have never felt the threat that I am about to be called up and brought into military service, but one need only look around the world and analyse the various conflicts to know how they started. Almost without exception, from Adolf Hitler to the latest

219
conflagrations in the middle east, they started when one side felt that it had overwhelming superiority and could rush its forces into another country.
I agree with the concept that, if we want peace, we must prepare for war. When they are in their listening campaign, Members of the Labour Front Bench should listen to many of their dyed-in-the-wool supporters. I distinctly remember carrying out a survey, not as a member of the Conservative party, which involved a couple of guys in Halifax market. I questioned them about their commitment and what they wanted out of life. They appeared to be natural supporters of the Labour party, but I discovered that they had been in the armed forces and were involved in the Falklands conflict. They were absolutely certain that, if there was an armed conflict in which British soldiers were involved, they wanted Margaret Thatcher to lead the country. The Labour party is alienating a part of its possible electorate by not assuring those people a proper defence of the country.
Defence has implications for employment, and the Ministry of Defence has a massive role to play in this. I have lived in the north of England and now live in Weymouth in my constituency. In my constituency, employment is a difficult matter because we are so far from the lines of communication. Traditionally, the Ministry of Defence has always been there and, despite small difficulties, it is very welcome. It is a matter of great concern that, as a result of studies regarding the Ministry's procurement arm, it might suddenly move many people, thus creating great difficulties within the constituency. As we heard earlier, the Ministry of Defence must consider the greater good of the community.
The Ministry of Defence must reconsider its regional policy. Many of the jobs in the armed forces are created in areas which have almost no unemployment. There can be great difficulty in housing people in high-cost areas when it would be much better to base those people elsewhere.
I wish to mention a very poignant reminder of times gone by — prisoners of war of the Japanese. When I came to my constituency, I was approached by a number of people who, many years ago, had had to fight for their country and were captured by the Japanese. They had suffered a great deal and their health was permanently impaired as a result of diseases contracted in the jungle, where they were cruelly imprisoned. As they grow older, they are now suffering even more. When the war was over, decisions had to be made about compensation to which people were legally entitled. The Japanese should think seriously about what they could do unilaterally to help those people who, frankly, still hate them. Those people have a growing need for recompense.
Mr. Harry Cohen: What does the hon. Gentleman think about the British Government's assistance to the Japanese, for example, in sending them plutonium from nuclear reactors? Given what he has just said, does he think that that is a sensible policy?
Mr. Bruce: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but since the second world war the Japanese have been exemplary in showing that they do not wish to use nuclear weapons and things of that nature. One might have expected a country with such enormous economic power to have pushed for military might, but, to a great
220
extent, it has said that it wishes to remain peaceful, and I welcome that. However, that section of the British community which has suffered at their hands would consider that recompense from the Japanese, who they feel harmed them greatly, would outweigh greater recompense from the British Government.
I welcome the Army's attempt to achieve better understanding with the community through open days, community work and so on. Members of Parliament on both sides of the House should talk and listen to the armed forces to find out what their work is about.
Finally, I must reiterate that there should be all-party support for NATO. Clearly, there will be differences, certainly between nuclear and non-nuclear policies, but the message should go out from a united House of Commons that we will defend ourselves and ensure that we play our part in maintaining the peace of the world.
7.11 pm
Mr. Harry Cohen: Last week I received the latest edition of "Courage" from the War Widows Association of Great Britain and I was struck by its chart of pensions to war widows in Europe. Britain came near the bottom of the league.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) asked how much the Ministry of Defence pays in pensions to war widows and he was told that a Falkland widow receives the grand sum of £2,709 per annum. The Government are incredibly mean in that respect. Dutch war widows are three times better off than their British sisters and German war widows receive even more than the Dutch.
A letter from the War Widows Association of Great Britain last week says:
"It is with some concern that this Association learns that, due to an error in the Retail Price Index, pensioners were underpaid last year. Though this is being remedied by a grant of £8 per head next month there will still be a small balance —£9 million—over. We understand that it is suggested that this sum may be given to charities. Surely this could be better used to help elderly war widows—some of whom have only their war widow's pensions."
In 1985 the association suggested a small increase of about £2 a week which would incur a further expenditure of only £5,200,000, but that was rejected out of hand by the Chancellor.
The association goes on to say:
"Could not some of this surplus £9 million be used to help those elderly war widows? Some of them have had no holiday for years—and others have never had a new winter coat. This is a sad reflection on this country's care for them. Without their husbands' sacrifices where would this country be today?"
That is a terrible indictment of the Government's treatment of war widows. Last spring, the Dutch war widows donated clothes to British war widows. What a disgrace. What meanness from the Government.
The situation of war widows is especially bad when it is compared with the wholesale waste in other areas of the Government's defence programme. I mentioned many examples of that in the recent debate on the Defence Estimates. Hundreds of millions of pounds on individual projects— billions of pounds in total — go down the drain. Let me repeat a few examples that relate to the Army. When the SP70 artillery project was scrapped by the Government £200 million went down the drain — £100 million straight from the British taxpayer. A pittance from that would have made the war widows better off. The

221
Government appear to be considering the procurement of an alternative to the SP70 artillery system which is likely to cost as much again—£200 million.
BATES—the Army's artillery command computer— has incurred expenditure of at least £200 million and is going nowhere. That is double the original estimate and costs are still rising substantially, yet it is nowhere near completion. That really is a case of Marconi milking the Ministry dry. The Ministry is a pushover for defence monopolies in such matters. It was reported in the press that the Ministry of Defence is currently investigating £3·5 billion of public expenditure. That is the sort of privatisation that the Government is going in for. It is robbery from the public purse.
Mr. Keith Mans: Is it not better to cancel a project when it is clear that it is not getting anywhere, rather than do as the Labour party did when it was in power, and keep going on with something that clearly will not reach a conclusion and so waste even more taxpayers' money? The Nimrod project is a classic example of that.
Mr. Cohen: Vast amounts were wasted on the Nimrod project by this Government. The Government spend £200 million before they even consider whether a project is leading anywhere, and that is a scandal. Such money would be much better spent on the war widows.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Does my hon. Friend accept that a disturbing feature of these lavish contracts, which would be criticised by every Tory Member if a local authority were carrying them out, is that distinguished generals and admirals join the boards of many of the companies concerned, as do senior civil servants, permanent secretaries and deputy secretaries from the Ministry of Defence, which perhaps facilitates some of those contracts?
Mr. Cohen: I agree with my hon. Friend. I am particularly worried when a top civil servant, who has been involved in a waste of money, now has a senior auditing position under the Government. He must come forward with results, or some of us will not be very happy.
Let us compare the waste in land and housing with the meanness shown towards war widows. The Ministry of Defence has 16,000 empty houses. Nearly 20 per cent. of its housing stock is empty and a quarter of that has been empty for over a year. Yet Britain has a homelessness crisis. The Ministry of Defence has over £50 billion worth of land. That is at 1982 values and we know what has happened to the value of land since 1982. Prices have rocketed. No one can tell me that some of that land could not be released for homes and hospitals. Yet, far from being satisfied with its existing land holdings, the Ministry of Defence is trying to get more from the National Trust and other owners of beauty spots in Wales and Cumbria.
Another big source of waste is the Falklands, now costing £400 million a year. Some of the money now going down the drain could have been used to resettle those living on the islands. They could have had about £1 million in their pockets and the taxpayers would still have been saved millions of pounds. But the Government have made no attempt to reach an agreement with the democratic Government in the Argentine or to reach a settlement, perhaps one by which those living in the Falklands could have stayed, while we were relieved of that enormous, ridiculous cost.
222
When hon. Members try to tackle the waste of money they receive an irresponsible response from Ministers. For example, I asked the Government to list all their overspending of £1 million and more. "No way" was the reply, "but we report to the Comptroller and Auditor General when it goes over £250 million." What nonsense, and how irresponsible of the Government not to report to hon. Members when there is overspending on projects. The sum of £1 million is still a sizeable amount.
As I have said, the Ministry of Defence is a pushover for the defence contractors, and it seems to me that it is a pushover for any speculator, to judge from the report about its attempts to move to Millbank. A speculator bought the property just before Christmas for £80 million, and because he could not use it for housing he decided to rent it to the Ministry for £20 million a year. Either there is something corrupt going on in the Ministry of Defence, to help out a speculator who probably helps the Conservatives at general elections, or it is totally incompetent. That money could be put to much better use. That waste must be compared with the appalling meanness to the war widows.
In the short time available to me I want to go on to the question of battlefield nuclear weapons, which very much affects our armed forces. If such weapons were ever used our armed forces in the front line would annihilated. That is why the Germans do not want them; they would be annihilated as well. Even if only one or two of those weapons were used, the rest of us would be irradiated to a much greater extent than happened after Chernobyl. Yet the Government are surreptitiously and stealthily expanding the numbers of battlefield nuclear weapons.
A British American Security Information Council report published this week shows that in the mid-1990s —arising from the Montebello agreement reached four years ago, about which the Government have been extremely disingenuous—there is to be a big expansion, including an increase in the number of battlefield nuclear weapons.
It is worth getting some quotations from the report into Hansard to show how the Army, for example, will be affected. Under the heading
"Short Range Ground Launched Cruise Missile",
we read:
"According to its presentations to Congress in 1986, the US Army is continuing to develop the Joint Tactical Missile System with the US Airforce to be fired from the Multiple Launch Rocket System (MCRS). 'Joint Tactical Missile System (JTACMS) is a deep strike cruise missile being developed jointly with the Air Force."
The Army systems
"'will be superimposed on the existing MLRS force structure."'
The report adds that
"In 1987 the US Department of Defense sought to lift the Congressional prohibition on a nuclear warhead for the JTACMS,"
Therefore there will be an increase in the number of those missiles for the Army.
With regard to warheads, the BASIC report refers to the programme called "Follow-on-to-Lance". It says:
"In 1987 the US Senate lifted its ban on the study of a nuclear warhead for the Army Tactical Missile System … According to Senator Kennedy lifting the prohibition 'allows the Army the possibility of developing a nuclear ATACMS"—
army tactical missile system—
"'as a potential follow on to the Lance-tactical missile'"
so as to have more theatre nuclear capability in Europe.

223
The report also talks about artillery, a matter that directly affects the Army. I wish I could read out to the House the whole of an extensive part dealing with enhanced radiation or neutron weapon capability that could be used in the new artillery warhead that is to be produced. The Americans are pulling the wool over people's eyes, because they define their enhanced-radiation-capable shells and other components as not being enhanced radiation weapons. However, they will have neutron bomb capability in the W82 shell, a 155 mm projectile that the Government are pressing on with.
What we see from such reports is that certainly no reduction in nuclear weaponry is planned, despite the intermediate-range nuclear forces agreement, which gives the impression of achieving reductions. The Government are not interested in reductions. They want to have compensatory measures and much more. They never put before the British electorate that they would have a massive build-up in the guise of modernisation. By the mid-1990s there will be, according to the report, a huge stockpile of about 4,600 new nuclear weapons in Europe, which will enable the Government to get rid of some of the obsolete stock. Those new nuclear weapons will be much more dangerous and deadly in many ways. They will be more devastating and more accurate, but, more worryingly, they will be more usable. That is what the Pentagon report entitled "Discriminate Deterrence" is all about. The International Herald Tribune said of it:
"Highly accurate nuclear and conventional missiles have reduced the possibility of an all-out Soviet assault in Western Europe but increased the risk of limited nuclear strikes, possibly involving the superpowers in Third World conflicts, according to a Pentagon report.
To maintain stability, the report says, the West should concentrate on high-technology weapons capable of delivering surgical nuclear strikes."
The Herald Tribune goes on, quoting Mr. Fred C. Ikle,Under-Secretary of Defence for Policy, that:
"'Improving U.S. and Soviet ability to knock out military installations with long-range, small-warhead nuclear weapons adds up to the most important military development since World War II…The 30-year revolution in accuracies has more cumulative impact than the initial qualitative leap from conventional explosives to the A-bomb'."
The newspaper adds that the Pentagon report says that
"The West … must turn to those 'politically usable' nuclear weapons".
That is the approach the Government are taking alongside NATO and inside NATO, with their change from the more obsolete weapons to the new ones—making them more usable, more likely to be used.
There is another great advantage to such weapons. They are excluded from the arms talks, so the Government can get away with it. If the weapons were ever used it would be appalling for our Army and dangerous to the world, and they are not what the people of the West want in any case. As a first stage we should be going in another direction, guaranteeing no first use of these battlefield nuclear weapons. That would help the mood for a nuclear reduction agreement and stimulate the Soviet Union to make concessions.
Then we should begin negotiations in earnest for battlefield nuclear zero in Europe. We can get an agreement. It would have to be asymmetrical, as the INF agreement was. In the INF agreement the Russians gave more. In this case we would have to give more because we rely more on battlefield nuclear weapons in Europe. We
224
also want them so that we can use them in the Third world. A battlefield nuclear zero agreement could easily go hand in hand with cuts in conventional forces. Again, such an agreement would be asymmetrical, with the Russians giving more. They have offered to give more but, because we are keen on using battlefield weapons, we have not taken those negotiations seriously.
We could get agreement in both spheres with extended joint verification procedures and restrictions on military manoeuvres. Large-scale attacks by either side would be impractical. That would be a major step towards peace. That would be the way to release the vast amount of unproductive resources currently wasted in propping up entrenched military vested interests. Those resources would be released for the worldwide welfare of mankind. That would be far better than the nuclear narcissus approach and the macho military role which the Government so eagerly promote. The Tory nuclearphiliac approach is inappropriate for the real needs of the people.
7.31 pm
Mr. James Couchman: I am delighted to be able to make a brief contribution to this year's Army debate. It is a very interesting debate. We have had the geopolitical overview from the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), which I found interesting; indeed, I have much in common with his views. We have had from the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) his theories of forced resettlement of Falkland islanders. Were such an idea to be mentioned in connection with many parts of the world, I suspect that it would not be a popular view for the hon. Gentleman to express. Perhaps the House will forgive me if I do not attempt to follow the hon. Gentleman's arguments with regard to nuclear forces because I wish to take a few minutes to discuss a matter which is fairly parochial and relevant to my constituency.
During the debate on this year's Defence White Paper, I paid tribute to the Royal Engineers in this, the bicentenary year of their royal charter. If I do not repeat my plaudits this evening, it is simply because such repetition would be otiose. However, the corps plays a most important part in the life of my constituency. I was pleased that my hon. Friend, in opening the debate, referred to the Royal Engineers' considerable contribution throughout the country and throughout the world during the year. In Kent their help through the heavy snows of last January and through the effects of the hurricane in October were invaluable. My hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson), who is in his place, would also like to pay tribute to the Sappers for their efforts at that time. We also applaud their courage and skill shown in their work with the disposal of explosive ordnance.
The matter which I wish to raise with my hon. Friend is bound up with that great military establishment, the Royal School of Military Engineering at Brompton in my constituency, and with the former royal naval dockyard and base at Chatham, which is also predominantly in my constituency. The matter which is greatly exercising the concern of my constituents and of my local authority, Gillingham borough council, is in stark contrast to a point made by the hon. Member for Leyton—the disposal of land declared to be redundant to the Ministry of Defence, in whose tenure it has been vested for almost 300 years.
On two occasions I have shared my concern and that of my constituents with my hon. Friend the Member for

225
Southampton, lichen (Mr. Chope) in his role as Under-Secretary of State for the Environment responsible for the Property Services Agency. As a result of those debates on 15 December 1986 and 10 April 1987 my hon. Friend visited my constituency on 29 April last year to view the land in question. In so doing, he followed in the footsteps of my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Lee), who visited the same land when he was Under-Secretary of State for Defence. My aims and efforts in articulating my concern have been simple, and I shall come to that in a few minutes.
First, I must define the areas of land for which the Ministry of Defence and the PSA, acting as estate agent for the Ministry, have expressed predatory planning aspirations. There are presently extant and at different points in the planning process three planning applications for residential development, and there is the likelihood of a fourth application on different pieces of the same large area of land in the Ministry's tenure. I say tenure rather than ownership, because the PSA has continually been challenged to prove the Ministry's title to the land and has consistently refused so to do, leading to the suspicion that the Ministry, aided and abetted by a prevaricating and obstructive PSA, may have doubts about its ownership and, therefore, its right to sell the land.
The land constitutes different parts of the Brompton Lines conservation area, which was scheduled in 1965 by the Government as an ancient monument. I need not remind my hon. Friend that circular 23/77 assures us that it is Government responsibility to ensure that ancient monuments are preserved.
The three planning applications for residential development relate to land known respectively as the Great Lines, Lower Lines and East Camp, and the Garrison No. 2 sports ground. The first application has been refused by Gillingham borough council and is now the subject of an appeal. The second application is likely to be approved, subject only to the PSA agreeing the access conditions put down by the council.
It is the third application, concerning Garrison No. 2 sports ground, which is causing a great deal of trouble and concern locally. This sports ground was declared surplus to the Army's need in 1978 and was leased to the borough council for 10 years. Since then 10 sports clubs have played cricket, hockey and football in some 300 matches a year and it is an important sports facility in the area. With no consultation, the PSA served minimum notice on 7 September 1987 that the lease will not be renewed when it expires on 8 September 1988. The notice was followed smartly on 14 October by an outline application for residential development on approximately 6·25 hectares of this mature sports ground on which county cricket and, indeed, hockey of international standard have been played in the past and may be played again this year. The council will determine this application next week. It is likely that this determination will be in the negative.
I do not wish to rehearse again, because it would be tedious for the House, the arguments I have rehearsed with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment. I certainly do not want to get into the complicated legal position which is being searched out by the council. My reason for raising the matter today is the frustration which I and the council feel at the hostile planning applications being submitted by the PSA on a scatter-gun basis, without sensible consultation with the council.
226
There is much land in the tenure of the Ministry of Defence, as one would expect in a town so closely associated with the Royal Navy and the Army for almost 500 years. The people of the Medway towns are pleased to have served and hosted the forces of the Crown for so long. They have a very great affection for the Royal Navy and for the Sappers. They have also enjoyed the great open space provided in their tight urban environment by the Brompton Lines. That is why they are resisting the development of the Lines so fiercely.
I wish to bring to my hon. Friend's attention the difficulties that arise in the matter of land disposal out of the split responsibility between the Ministry of Defence and the PSA. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State can say he has declared, as he is bound to do by the Government's policy, land redundant to the MOD's needs, but my conflict is with the PSA over the manner by which it seeks to dispose of the land. The PSA, for its part, claims that it is acting only as the Government's estate agency and is bound to seek the best price for the land, and that involves probing the development potential of the land.
The problem is that neither the MOD nor the PSA seems to be prepared to sit down with the local council and consider the matter in the round, to discuss all the MOD's landholdings likely to be surplus to the Army's needs, and to agree a comprehensive plan for development., or otherwise. There is even a perfect vehicle for such consultation, the inelegantly abbreviated SMALC—the Services Medway Area Liaison Committee. However, the PSA, which is present or represented at SMALC meetings, seems not to want to view the holdings in the round. Indeed, the recently appointed PSA consultants, Messrs Edward Erdmann, rejected just such a strategy at a meeting with the council only last week.
The problems Gillingham is presently encountering with the PSA in the matter of the disposal of land surplus to MOD needs arises from an unwillingness of PSA, and perhaps MOD, to consult with the local community. I suspect that that may apply to other areas were the MOD may be seeking to dispose of land for which it no longer has a use.
I conclude by inviting my hon. Friend to commit his Department, in co-operation with PSA, to opening a thorough-going review of land, surplus or likely to be surplus to the Ministry's needs, with Gillingham borough council, Rochester-on-Medway city council and Kent county council, thereby avoiding a bruising war of attrition which may well lessen the affection of the Medway towns for the services. For those of us who take pride in having the Army as a highly valued constituent, that would be a sad day indeed.
7.42 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: In my experience in relation to the disposal of land, the Ministry of Defence has been very constructive and helpful, although it may vary from one part of the country to another. I have to put it on record that I have had nothing but helpful letters from the Minister and his colleagues on individual cases. I stick to my view that the services have handled individual matters with compassion and good sense.
With reference to what was said about heritage, I wish to congratulate the Department on what it has done at Fort George and say that the Scottish command seems to be running extremely satisfactorily under the distinguished

227
tenure in office of General Sir Norman Arthur, who has been a great success as GOC. I also believe that bullying has been greatly exaggerated in the papers. It is very rare. The level of civilisation in the services is increasing, and it is unfortunate that one or two incidents have been highlighted in the press. I join my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) in paying tribute to the bomb squads.
I have given the Minister short notice of a question about what happened at Porton, and the problem of the Building Design Services and the contaminated vaccines. I understand that more than £1 million will be paid to the Ministry of Defence, because the Building Design Services did not meet DHSS standards or United States Department of Defence standards. I have long been interested in Porton. Can the Minister say something about that?
I made an intervention in the opening speech in relation to end user certificates. I shall say exactly what concerns me about arms exports. Arms are finding their way through Asia and certainly to the Afghan border. My hon. Friends the Members for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) and for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown) came back with pictures of British Blowpipes. Yet again, the question arises as to how they got there and Government policy on that issue.
In regard to arms exports, I draw the Minister's attention to the remarkable television programme, the dispatches programme, "Gunning for Government". It raised the case of 60,000 Indian rifles. I have one precise question. Mr. Frank Turner is central to the problem which is well-known to the Minister of State for Defence Procurement. Do the Government accept what was said in the programme? Was there a special relationship with named personnel in the Ministry of Defence? If the Minister cannot answer that question, perhaps he can write to hon. Members about it. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) and the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) are extremely active about this matter, and I am asking for a letter to try to establish the facts.
I speak about military intelligence with some anger, because last night I saw the Prime Minister, in her interview wth Mr. Dimbleby, say that ordinary people wanted to keep the nation's secrets, and implied that the press and certain politicians did not. I certainly yield to no one in wanting to keep the nation's secrets secret in so far as they relate to potential enemies. I have never believed in parading the nation's secrets just for the hell of it. But there is another side to that when so-called secrets relate not to potential enemies but, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) put it, to our own people.
I do not think that the Prime Minister can blame anyone other than herself for that. She insisted, against the pleas of the Civil Service, on making a statement on Anthony Blunt. She insisted on making a statement on Sir Roger Hollis against the wishes of senior civil servants. Sir Charles Cunningham and Sir Philip Allen and other senior civil servants were quite appalled.
Many of the present troubles go back to 23 April 1985, when there was an ambiguous statement on the late Sir Maurice Oldfield. I was a friend of Sir Maurice Oldfield —I do not pretend to have been a close friend—and I can say that, whatever hon. Members think about
228
intelligence chiefs, Sir Maurice Oldfield, more than any other man, kept Britain out of the Vietnam war by persuading Harold Wilson that it would be unwise to accede to Lyndon Johnson's request "to put in a battalion of bagpipers". Sir Maurice Oldfield was, at that time, head of the intelligence services for the far east and knew a great deal about Indo-China, and — according to my then boss, the late Dick Crossman — was instrumental in persuading Harold Wilson not to accede to the American request.
Against that background and more, in the summer and earlier, I encouraged Anthony Cavendish to write that now notorious volume. I certainly shall not quote from it. The issue is the alleged illegality of military intelligence against our own people. That is why hon. Members raised this afternoon—Mr. Speaker will undoubtedly make a judgment on it—what was said in the courts:
"Sir John Donaldson, Master of the Rolls, yesterday said that law-breaking by the security service … was in the public interest and the courts should take a pragmatic view about its activities. It is silly for us"—
he said in the Courts of Appeal—
"to sit here and say that the security service is obliged to follow the letter of the law. It isn't real."
And he said further that it was essential in the public interest for MI5 officers to break the law in some ways and that such breaches could, or would, never be prosecuted.
What is the Government's attitude to this? I think the sooner they make a statement to the House the better. It is a double public issue. It is, first, a question of in what circumstances the security services break the law. It is also the rather different question, which would be out of order in this debate, of the Executive versus the House of Commons, because it becomes a matter of House of Commons rights. It affects Government Members as much as Members of the Opposition. It is a central issue as to the rights of the House, because Parliament is supposed to make the laws and no one, we thought, had the right to break the law.
The doctrine that has been promulgated by the Master of the Rolls is entirely new and I think that someone had better make a statement on it pretty soon.
On Cavendish, I am concerned about one thing. He talks about the smears by the intelligence community on Ted Short and there was the whole question of the forgery to his bank account which did such harm at the time. Those of us who were here in the mid-seventies know how damaging it was. There were smears on Harold Wilson and, indeed, on Ted Heath.
I am no admirer of Peter Wright. On behalf of the National Executive Committee of the Labour party at my party conference, replying with the authority of the National Executive, I referred to Peter Wright as in many ways a fantasist. But these goings-on do not arise only from all that Peter Wright has written. There is also Colin Wallace, whom some of us who started by being very sceptical tend to believe, and this was echoed by a far more heavyweight figure, Anthony Cavendish.
So I really do think that there has to be a public inquiry, not least in the light of the remarkable book "An Affair of State" by Philip Knightley and Caroline Kennedy, which really is spine-chilling in its implications. It is a description of the Profumo affair, which certainly dominated the House of Commons when I first arrived here. It is a defence of Stephen Ward.

229
Incidentally, I am making a very non-political speech, because I think that every one of us, as a Member of the House, must look at these things in a very objective way.
I go on from that to raise another issue which is connected, and that is the intelligence services' role in what is alleged to have been the destabilisation of the Australian Labour Government. I am not making a party political issue of this, because there is none to be made. The truth is that it was an Australian Labour Government and a British Labour Government, so this is a House of Commons issue as far as the security services and military intelligence of this country are concerned.
I first became interested when I went to Australia, to Woomera and Innisfail, in 1969 and first learnt of the importance of Pine Gap. I am giving away nothing because a lot of this is in print in a remarkable book "The Ties that Bind", by Jeffrey Richelson and Desmond Ball, on intelligence co-operation between the United States and the Commonwealth countries, including Australia and New Zealand. There is no question of trying to use names that have not already appeared in print. The issue is that a duly elected Australian Prime Minister was tossed out of office, and the allegations are that British military intelligence was instrumental in getting rid of Gough Whitlam.
If this was true, do the records show that it was known to any Minister of the United Kingdom Labour Government of the time, whom I supported? Precisely what communications were there in 1974 and 1975 between British and American intelligence on the security risks allegedly posed by the Whitlam Government? What communication was there in 1974 and 1975 between the director of the Central Intelligence Agency, William Colby, and the head of MI6, Sir Maurice Oldfield, on the question of a security risk supposedly posed by the Whitlam Government? What is the role of the MI6 liaison officer at the Pine Gap base near Alice Springs? What is the role of the MI6 base at Kowandi, south of Darwin? Is the function of these bases fully known to the Australian Government? Did British intelligence at any time pass on information which was used directly to brief the Governor General in 1975, Sir John Kerr?
I must repeat that in no way am I breaking any kind of intelligence secrecy, because it is all in public print. That is an additional reason why, either in writing or in some other way, we should get an explanation from the present Government of what happened.
Tonight there will be a television programme on this issue by two remarkable journalists, John Pilger and Alan Lowery. Pilger is interviewing, among others, John Trento, who is a senior intelligence expert from the United States. Pilger says:
"What are some of the specific examples you would give to substantiate what you say?
Trento: Well, how about a call from the CIA to MI5/MI6 saying we have a security problem in Australia? We have a security problem with the Prime Minister. He's endangering national security for the United States and the Alliance. What's the evidence? The evidence is he is making noises about our bases, he's making threats; those bases are absolutely essential to the survival of the Alliance. That plants a seed in the British intelligence community.
Pilger: Are you saying that such a call took place?
Trento: Absolutely. More than one call. Dozens of calls. It became a part of the policy. Now what caused the Brits to act? What caused the English to act? What caused Kerr to act? I don't think you could say the CIA forced Kerr
230
to sack Whitlam, but I think that decisions were made that led to his sacking—based on what the CIA was telling the English.
Pilger: You have it on good authority that those calls took place?
Trento: I have it on authority at the highest levels of the US intelligence community that there was genuine concern over the loss of those bases.
Pilger: So this is a direct implication of MI5 and MI6 with the overthrow of the Australian Government?
Trento: No, I wouldn't call it an overthrow, they made a recommendation …
Pilger: All right then, with the demise …
Trento: They made a recommendation for the demise, yes. They made a recommendation. I think Whitlam was perceived as a danger. And in a way, it allowed a duly elected Prime Minister to be tossed out of office. It's all scary really, when you think about it."
That is going to be seen by some millions of people tonight on ITV, and I think that there has to be some explanation from the Government.
Page 154 of "The Ties that Bind" shows that SIS calls to ASIS, the Australian intelligence services, were 697 in 1974, and by 1975 they had rocketed up to 1,211 reports. That again requires some explanation. What we are really talking about is the demise of the Australian Government. Somehow Parliament has to come to grips with this and give those of us who lived through that time some explanation.
Finally, I wish to raise another topic. In Lubeck, the north German port, in the second week of January, a lady called Christine Gabrella Endrigkeit was arrested on suspicion of having planted the bomb in the La Belle discotheque, which was the excuse given by the Reagan Government for sending aircraft and the excuse given by our Ministers for allowing American aircraft to leave British bases to bomb Libya.
I quote particularly the answer of the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. He said:
"On the Berlin bombing, there is no evidence implicating Syria or any country other than Libya in the bombing of La Belle discotheque last April."—[Official Report, 24 October 1986; Vol. 102, c. 1505.]
I can most succinctly put it by quoting from the International Herald Tribune of 12 January under the headline, "A Woman is Arrested in Berlin Disco Attack" by Robert J. McCartney, Washington Post Service:
"The police arrested a West German woman Monday who the authorities said was strongly suspected of having planted the bomb that exploded in a West Berlin discotheque on April 5, 1986, and killed three persons, including two US servicemen. Ten days later, the United States launched a retaliatory air raid on Libya. The US administration said that it had conclusive evidence that the Libyan government ordered the discotheque attack, in which 204 people were injured. But West German sources familiar with the case said that the new clues that had led to the woman's arrest have strengthened the suspicion that the discotheque bombing was carried out with Syrian rather than Libyan backing. In Washington, a spokesman for the State Department conceded Monday that new evidence suggested that another country might have been involved in the bombing of the discotheque. The woman arrested Monday, Christine Endrigkeit, 27, is suspected of having planted the bomb on the orders of a convicted Arab terrorist who has been linked by a court to Syrian officials in another West Berlin bombing, judicial authorities said. Investigators now find a possible Syrian connection more interesting than before in the light of the evidence implicating Mrs. Endrigkeit, a West German source said. US officials said Sunday that the latest revelations could cast doubt on the hypothesis that Libyans ordered the bombing of the La Belle Discotheque."
If that is true, it has considerable implications for the quality of the military intelligence of this country. This

231
House was absolutely assured, time and again, that the Government had complete evidence that the outrage in Berlin in 5 April 1985 was all about the Libyans, that they were absolutely certain of it; and that was the justification for the launching of those aircraft from Upper Heyford, Lakenheath and wheresoever. If we find that there was no such evidence, if it transpires that all these things that have been said about the manipulation of evidence by the Colonel Oliver North situation and other things appearing in the West German press are true, then we must think again. I have asked Ministers here why they think that they know better than the Bundeskriminalamt, why they think they know better than the Nachrichtungsdienst —German intelligence — and why they think they know better than the Verfassungsschutz — German home security.
If we are going to have this kind of certainty, that we know better than the authorities in West Berlin, it is high time that we started to produce our evidence.
Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: I apologise to the House—I have just come in—but I have heard what the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) was saying. He will realise that his great ancestor, who founded the Royal Scots Greys, took a more simplistic approach, because when he invented the discipline of this Scots regiment he made 46 of the 50 offences punishable by capital punishment without trial.
Mr. Dalyell: I know that that ancestor escaped from the Tower of London, God bless him—one of the few to have done so — but that is not very relevant to this debate.
What is very important is that, if we are going to base major decisions, such as the bombing of women and children in Tripoli and Benghazi, on intelligence sources, we had better make absolutely certain that those sources are accurate. The Government ought to take the greatest interest in what has happened in Lubeck because, if it is shown that all this is about Syria but not about Libya, an explanation will have to be given to the House.
8.4 pm
Mr. James Kilfedder: Because of the time restriction, I shall limit my remarks to the role of the Army in Northern Ireland. I wish to pay tribute to the members of the security forces who operate in the Province, where they face a callous and implacable terrorist organisation. In opening the debate the Minister was very generous in his praise of members of the regular Army and the Ulster Defence Regiment, who serve the people of the Province. For the past two decades, soldiers as well as police have performed their duties with courage and restraint, despite terrible atrocities. Many regular soldiers and members of the Ulster Defence Regiment have been murdered in the course of the terrorist campaign, and members of the Ulster Defence Regiment have been murdered when off duty and at least some of them were murdered in front of their families.
It is not unnatural that, in the face of threats and provocation, some members of the security forces have responded angrily on occasions; but they are rare exceptions. The young British soldier who has served in Northern Ireland is a real professional and, perhaps because of his service there, he is a better fighting man than
232
the soldier of any other regiment in any other part of the world. It is perhaps worth noting that there have been no allegations of bullying of soldiers serving in the Province. No doubt this is due to the camaraderie that is developed when they face the common enemy, the Provisional IRA or any other terrorist who might operate against service men.
The security forces operating in Northern Ireland have won the admiration of decent people everywhere, and I compare their methods to the authorised and unauthorised actions of the armed forces in Israel during the current riots.
The Provisional IRA has a powerful and skilful propaganda machine which spreads lies and allegations all over the world. Sympathisers are found in all places and all walks of life. They are quite happy to knock Britain and criticise the security forces in Ulster. That is why it is so important for the Army and for Her Majesty's Government to augment their information services with people well experienced in the media and public relations.
As I understand it, the Anglo-Irish Agreement was designed, among other things, as a manifestation of the united determination of the United Kingdom and Eire to work closely together to defeat the Provisional IRA. It is, therefore, nauseating to encounter hostility from Dublin whenever a soldier actually crosses the long, complicated and winding border separating Northern Ireland from the Irish Republic; a border which, I may say, is not always clear to people living in Northern Ireland.
For instance, a British Army reconnaissance plane accidentally flew across the border for a short distance into the Irish Republic at the end of December—that at least was the report. The incident, innocent as it was, prompted a vigorous protest from Dublin, which regarded the intrusion as a major diplomatic affair. In response to the protest, an apology was duly and humbly sent to Dublin from London.
I cannot understand the reaction of the Dublin Government. I thought that we were all fighting the common enemy, the Provisional IRA, which is a threat to Dublin as much as to this country. It is inexplicable that the Dublin Government should demonstrate such anger when an accidental crossing takes place by either a soldier or an Army plane. Such protests must cast doubt on the amount of co-operation that exists between the security forces on either side of the border. Indeed, it must alarm those who are responsible for security operations in Northern Ireland.
Security is deteriorating in the Province. I draw the attention of the House to the remarks made at the special news conference last week by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who issued a grim warning to the people of Northern Ireland that a new, terrible and horrible campaign of terrorism was likely to be waged by the Provisional IRA there—a terrorist campaign that would be funded and armed by Libya. Colonel Gaddafi has never forgiven the Prime Minister for allowing the United States air force, based in Britain, to be used for the bombing of Libya. I listened with great interest to what the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) said about the Libyan matter. So, in addition to their own problems, the Ulster people must bear more horrible suffering.
The Libyan intervention puts the conflict in Northern Ireland in an international context. Terrorism is international, and the battle being waged in Northern Ireland should be viewed with concern by the other NATO

233
countries and the United States of America. Each of them, as part of the defence of the Western world, should be urged to do everything humanly possible to counter IRA fund raising and propaganda in their countries. Money collected by Republican sympathisers in any of those countries—and in the United States in particular—will be used to buy bombs and bullets to kill British citizens and soldiers.
It is reported that four boatloads of arms, including SAM missiles, have been landed in the Irish Republic during the past year. Those armaments came from Libya, and I understand from press reports that they are now believed to be in bunkers waiting to be transported from the Irish Republic into Northern Ireland. It was only by chance that the boatload that was caught was discovered to have arms and ammunition aboard. That is extremely worrying. The French stopped the boat because they believed it was carrying drugs. Why did the intelligence service—we are all told that it is extremely good, and no doubt it has collected some good information over the past 12 months—not have information about those five shipments of arms?
Why have those stored arms not yet been discovered by the Republican Government in the Republic? What steps are now being taken to ensure that if any attempt is made to move them across the border they will be stopped by British soldiers? I do not have too much faith in the activities of the security forces on the other side of the border. If the Provisional IRA will soon have SAM missiles in use in Northern Ireland—that is a possibility—will the security forces there be able to deal with the new menace to helicopters, planes and ordinary civilian aircraft flying between Northern Ireland and Britain?
The Minister referred to the establishment of new headquarters for the Army in Northern Ireland to cover the border area. That was good news—it was released last week —but I want to know whether more soldiers will be provided for service in Northern Ireland to ensure that the new headquarters do not drain away soldiers from other parts of the Province, thus allowing the Provisional IRA to commit atrocities in areas that do not enjoy the same level of security.
This debate takes place after a massive bomb explosion in Belfast today. Yesterday the IRA attacked a police-Army patrol, and a police officer has since died as a result. Perhaps the Minister will look into a report that I have received that the missile that was thrown—reported on the tape as having been a grenade — was able to penetrate the armour plating of the Land Rover in which the police officer was sitting. Can the Minister tell me, either now or in a letter, whether the IRA has acquired armaments that can pierce the plating on Army and police Land Rovers?
During the Minister's opening speech I intervened to ask whether the bomb disposal team at times operated across the border with the consent of the Irish authorities. I believe that that is so, and I want to know how often it has been so employed with the consent of the Dublin Government.
Another matter for grave concern is the murder of contractors employed by the Army in Northern Ireland. The considerable development that was taking place in Palace barracks, Holywood, in my constituency, was brought to a halt last year when the contractors, a large United Kingdom company, pulled out after threats made by the Provisional IRA. Will the work be completed by the
234
Ministry of Defence using the Army or local contractors? Will it be done by the original completion date? I assume that a penalty clause was included in the original contract. Have damages been paid by the international firm concerned for abandoning the contract? Can the Minister assist the House by saying whether the same contractor will be used in future for other defence work?
A word about the Territorial Army, in conclusion. Other hon. Members have referred to it today. I had the privilege of serving for some years in the Territorial Army, and I have nothing but the greatest admiration for the commitment of its men. I hope that the Government will always recognise and reward their efforts in the proper way.
8.17 pm
Mr. Bob Cryer: This debate covers a wide range of issues to do with the Army. One of those is the fact that it is in control of tactical nuclear weapons, which is a serious matter because their use can escalate into a nuclear war, in which both sides are extinguished and the notion of the defence of freedom is illusory. We should remove them. They must not be used, and if people talk about the threat from the Soviet Union I remind the House that the Soviet Union is headed by a man who was greeted by the Prime Minister and regarded as a great leader. Special discussions were held with him when he came for a meal and a chat during refuelling at Brize Norton, when the Prime Minister poured lavish praise on him.
One cannot have it both ways: either the Soviets are a threat making invidious attacks on our defences — including, presumably, the Prime Minister's intelligence defences—or Mr. Gorbachev is the sort of leader that the Prime Minister describes. I would hesitate to be a member of the Government who criticised the Prime Minister's judgment, because such a person would not stay a member of the Government for long. When people say that we must have nuclear weapons against the threat, I point out that no member of the Government has yet been able to answer the question why, if it is so important for us to have nuclear weapons, 135 nations have pledged themselves not to have them in the United Nations nuclear non-proliferation treaty instead of following our example and having them. How long will the United Kingdom go on, year after year, spending vast sums of money on Trident, on updating Polaris—at a cost of £300 million or so — and on retaining the deployment of Lance tactical nuclear weapons by the Army, while telling those 135 nations—I assume we say this—that it is good of them to sign the non-proliferation treaty and keep their promise not to deploy nuclear weapons? Those self-same nations keep asking the nuclear powers when, under clause 6 of the treaty, to which we are a signatory, we shall carry out our promise to get rid of nuclear weapons. Therefore, there is an overwhelming argument against the Government's deployment of tactical nuclear weapons and the development of Trident.
The members of the armed forces who control the weapons of mass extermination have onerous responsibilities. Should any loony in the Government give orders to fire such nuclear weapons I hope that such people would refuse. The Minister may think that that is seditious, but I believe that the threat of mass extermination is one of the most horrible, anti-humanitarian ideas that anyone can hold. Indeed, on that basis we criticised Hitler during the

235
second world war. However, the nuclear weapons that we deploy have far greater killing powers than the gas ovens that Hitler used.
Given the onerous responsibilities of the members of the armed forces, what about giving them a few rights? What about giving them the right of representation? They should have the opportunity to put forward their points of view. Perhaps those views differ from those held by the Minister and perhaps those members of the armed forces do not wish to be used as pawns, given the possible use of weapons of mass extermination. What about giving them trade union rights in common with other workers? Even within the confines of the Government's legislation they have not yet made it illegal to join a trade union—they would like to, but that would fly in the face of the behaviour of every other civilised country throughout the world.
If the Minister thinks that such an idea is outrageous I shall quote, in support, a February 1984 report from the Common Market. I do not like the Common Market and I believe that it is a big burden around our necks. However, the Government subscribe to that organisation and the Government and the Prime Minister believe that it has manifold virtues.
The EEC report of February 1984 pointed out that some member states have provided professional organisations that have a right to be consulted, but have no negotiating rights. Those member states are Belgium, Germany, The Netherlands and Luxembourg. In the Federal Republic of Germany there is the right
"to form associations to safeguard and improve working and economic conditions … guaranteed to everyone and to all trades, occupations and professions … The right to form associations is therefore a fundamental right under the constitution. This right may not be restricted for soldiers by laws concerning military service"
In The Netherlands the report states:
"As in the Federal Republic of Germany, officials and servicemen are not entitled to take part in negotiations. However, the associations must be consulted when the legal status of servicemen is affected by ministerial rulings etc. A central consultative committee has been set up for this purpose with the Secretary of State as the chairman. It meets twice a month and discusses all legal conditions and provisions which affect servicemen and the policies, guidelines and general principles of the personnel programme. There arc subcommittees dealing with matters relating to the army, navy and air force which meet once a month"
For Luxembourg the report states:
"Article 11(5) of the Constitution of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg guarantees the freedom to form trade unions by law.
2. Servicemen are allowed to organise or join non-political unions. The majority are members of the Syndicat professionel de la force publique which is part of the Confedération générale de la fonction publique"
For Denmark the report states:
"Article 78(1) of the Danish Constitution gives the right to freedom of association. Pursuant to Article 85, this right may be curtailed for servicemen"
Paragraph 3 of the report concludes:
"Servicemen therefore have the same negotiating rights and the same right to conclude agreements as all other government employees. There are various groups of professional organisations for serving officers, reserve officers and serving soldiers. These associations negotiate on general pay and working conditions with the Ministry of Defence. They voluntarily renounce the right to strike."
Therefore, the notion of trade union rights for members of the armed services — we are discussing the Army
236
tonight — is not as outlandish as some Conservative Members would have us believe. Conformist Governments such as Denmark, the Federal Republic of Germany and Luxembourg — all Conservative Governments — permit serving members of the armed forces to engage in trade union negotiating rights and join professional associations. Why should we not give this right to members of the British armed forces? After all, they have greater responsibilities and they may have larger areas of concern because they are conducting exercises, guarding, examining, and checking weapons that have a greater destructive power than anything we have ever known. It is not unreasonable to ask that we should listen to their representations.
The third modest item that I wish to consider is some rather curious expenditure item that appears on page 10 of the Defence Estimates for 1987, Vol. II. At the bottom of page 10 it discusses:
"Local administration communications etc. in the United Kingdom".
The expenditure on those items for 1987–88 will amount to £1·5 billion. I find that extraordinary and I would like some more detail from the Minister—I do not mind if the Minister writes to me about this. Let us compare that sum with the war and contingency stocks, which are important should we embark upon a conflict. A number of Conservative Members have talked rather lovingly about war and the need for the armed services because of the possibility of war. As the phrases were rolled out there was an almost lingering affection for war. However, the war and contingency stocks for the Army amount to £139 million. That is a lot of money, but when one compares it to £1·5 billion for "Local administration communications etc." one wonders what sort of area those items cover. Is there anything secret going on or something subversive that we should know about? In view of the fact that the total defence budget is £19 billion, I am especially keen to know what the £1·5 billion has been spent on.
My hon. Friends have already mentioned some of the contracts that are connected with the procurement of equipment for the Army. They are right that those contracts are lavish by any standard. I hope that we will have greater scrutiny of those contracts. When people such as General Sir Harry Tuzo retire from the Army they are able to find comfortable positions on the boards of such contracting firms.
In the Exhibition Hall in the Committee Corridor at the top of the stairs there is an exhibition on UNICEF—the United Nations International Children's Fund. I picked up its pamphlet which stated that between 1947 and 1985 it had used $3·73 billion — roughly £2 billion. Our annual defence expenditure amounts to £19 billion. UNICEF has used its money for 373,000 health centres, 1 million schools and teacher training institutes, 770,000 child nutrition centres and 387,000 family and child welfare clinics. We have been talking about incredibly sophisticated defence equipment to guard against our mythical enemy. However, the enemy which the Government have postulated was met at Brize Norton and we are all chums now. In comparison to such sophisticated equipment and expenditure UNICEF has helped to install 876,900 water supply systems. The developing world is unable to turn on a tap to provide a supply of pure water. We should consider the supply of water a priority instead of the massive £19 billion that is spent by the services on the procurement of equipment.

237
There has been some reference to Northern Ireland, which is indeed an important subject. There are two forces in that sad Province. One is the police—the RUC—who are there as an impartial body, as are the police in this country, not committed other than to keeping the peace and the laws that our Parliament produces. The other is the Army, which is there to supplement the police, because the Government believe that it is necessary to control the division of opinion that has erupted over many years into a serious loss of life.
The role of the police is put forward as impartial: to keep the law, and to present people to the courts to produce justice. I am very concerned about this, even after the Attorney-General's statement yesterday that RUC members who had killed others were not being prosecuted. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) expressed strong reservations about that. Is it because the police and the Army have been mixed up?
I have in my hand a buying order from the RUC central stores in Sprucefield, Lisburn, county Antrim, to QED Design and Development Ltd. of Borough Green, Kent. The order is for a curious number of items — for example, parka jackets, British Army; trousers, Army denim, green; shirts, army, lightweight, green; face veils; and fatigues.
Why should the RUC want items that are standard issue for the British Army? This is a very curious set of events. Surely one of the means of keeping the police as an impartial force for law and order is to make them distinct and separate. I should have thought that one of the Government's policies was to keep the Army back from actual conflict: to diminish confrontation and introduce a civilian force, the police, to maintain law and order. Yet the police are ordering items of Army equipment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) asked a number of questions about those interesting items. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said:
"These items are for use in training or operations in the field where circumstances or bad weather conditions so require".—[Official Report, 15 December 1987; Vol. 124, c. 481.]
We understand that members of the RUC need a raincoat in bad weather. But does the reference to
"training or operations in the field"
mean that they go out on operations disguised as members of the British Army? If that is so, Parliament should be told and the practice should be halted forthwith, because it is very dangerous for all concerned. Does it mean that members of the RUC were involved in some of those operations in Army uniform that Stalker was investigating when he was taken off his duties and the cover-up started?
I hope that the Minister can give a clear answer to the questions that have been raised. No such answer has so far been given to parliamentary questions put by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington, who has followed these matters assiduously. There is, for example, the question of surplus weapons: what does the Army do with all those old guns that have been replaced with modern equipment to maintain it as an efficient fighting force? In the past, some of them were sold to QED Design and Development Ltd, which seems to have done a prosperous trade in the killing fields. Lucky QED obtained a contract to buy a number of pistols — several thousand, as a
238
matter of fact — from the Ministry of Defence, that righteous Government body which has such good standards to which we can all subscribe.
QED obtained the contract. It was going to sell the guns and make a profit of about £450,000, which is not a bad deal. But then the MOD decided to change its policy, and I am asking the Minister what its policy has been changed to. We know that, before obtaining this contract, it sold surplus arms to dealers for its friends to make a fast buck selling arms anywhere where a profit could be made. That is the enterprise culture. It does not matter if people in other parts of the world are slaughtered: it is all part of the enterprise culture. Presumably, QED was not going to sell the weapons to be displayed as antique weapons in the front rooms of people living in Acacia avenue or Tunbridge Wells. It was going to sell them, possibly abroad, for use in killing people.
The changed policy may mean that the MOD has decided to sell all those arms itself. Perhaps it can make more profit. Perhaps the enterprise culture is now spreading to the MOD, which thinks that it will be able to sell all the surplus guns at a larger profit — which, perhaps, can be spent in the NAAFI. But what has the policy changed to?
We know that the MOD suddenly became sensitive about the issue. In order not to go to court, it decided that it would be better to buy off QED, which had a clear contract in its hand for the purchase of guns from the MOD. In the Estimates on Defence Procurement 1982–83, class I, Vote 2, is a curious item. It is not an item that the Government explained when they were saying to local authorities, "You cannot have money for social services. You are spending too much on education", and telling the National Health Service, "Be more efficient. Get consultants working faster in the operating theatres. Get more operations out—and, if people have to wait, hard lines." They did not say, in the background to all those cutbacks, that to stop a case from going to court they would give QED the profit that it would make on the purchase and sale of guns.
In the Estimates is an item:
"Settlement of a sale contract cancelled due to a change of policy … £450,000."
That £450,000 was simply handed over because of a
"change in policy".
I look forward to the Minister's explanation of those double standards. The Government cut local authority services — decent, worthwhile services that particularly affect the poor, the mentally handicapped and the generally needy in society — but, when it comes to the arms trade, there is a change in policy: "Do not let us fall out; let us not stick to our words; let us use the taxpayers' money to keep everyone quiet, and put in a little item about the settlement of a sales contract being cancelled due to a change in policy."
It is time that the Minister of Defence and the Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Services gave us a few more details about the change of policy, and about how many more contracts have been dealt with in the same way. The MOD, with all its personnel—its thousands of employees — will not reveal to Parliament all the contracts below £450,000 which have been paid out due to a "change in policy". It would be very expensive to find that information. I suspect that that is bland economy with the truth. The Minister has an opportunity to explain that

239
tonight and I hope that he will take advantage of it. I suspect that after remarks tonight people outside will be waiting with bated breath for that explanation.
8.39 pm
Mr. Hugo Summerson: With your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will not attempt to follow the remarks of the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer). I do not intend to talk about local authorities. I will return the debate to the Army, NATO and the nuclear deterrent, which I believe are inextricably linked.
A total of 95 per cent. of our defence spending is related to NATO. We provide 70 per cent. of the front line forces for the Atlantic and Channel commands and 56,000 men plus tactical aircraft for the central front. We need to maintain a wide range of nuclear and conventional forces to deter aggression on every front.
What aggression? Is there aggression? The history of the Soviet Union's efforts to expand its influence and the build-up of Soviet military strength in Europe make it essential that the West should not lower its guard. We must ensure that we do not unilaterally deliver ourselves into a less secure world. As progress in nuclear disarmament is made, so progress in making a more equitable match in the conventional arena must also be made. We are faced with an enormous preponderance of Soviet arms. We are outnumbered in tanks, tactical aircraft and artillery.
In those circumstances, is it right to spend money on Trident if it means that there will be less money available for the Army and the other armed services? We should bear it in mind that the money devoted to Trident would provide us with two more armoured divisions — 300 tanks. There are two points to be made. First, in terms of deterrence against aggression, the men in the Kremlin will not bite their fingernails in anguish over the retaliatory capacity of two extra armoured divisions. Secondly, without Trident we are exposing ourselves to nuclear blackmail, in which case we may just as well not have an army at all. Therefore, the answer is that we do need Trident.
My only misgiving is that four Trident submarines may not be enough. I would be happier with eight. The Labour party should ask our soldiers and the British Army of the Rhine what they think about a policy of unilateral nuclear disarmament which would leave them facing nuclear weapons with nothing comparable in return. It would be like waving a fly whisk at a charging tiger.
I want to contrast the figures for NATO forces and Warsaw pact forces. In 1985, the Warsaw pact's total troop strength was 6·5 million, 80 per cent. of whom came from the Soviet Union. There has been an increase of 400,000 in 10 years. It is nearly 1·5 million more than NATO troop strength. The Soviet Union produces 3,000 new tanks a year and NATO produces 1,500. Faced with those facts, what does the Labour party do? It says that it wants to reduce our spending on defence to the European average. Our spending today represents about 5·5 per cent. of gross domestic product. The European average is 3·3 per cent. A reduction to 3·3 per cent. would mean a cut in our spending of 40 per cent. Is that enough for the Labour party?
240
I have seen nothing to persuade me that the Soviet Union under Mr. Gorbachev is any different from the Soviet Union under Andropov, Brezhnev or Khrushchev. It is true that Mr. Gorbachev has a nice smile and that Mrs. Gorbachev has a nice dress. Communism has neither.
We need our highly trained Army. We must find the resources to ensure that it can continue its admirable work. We must guard the integrity of NATO — that extraordinary free alliance of 16 free nations, each of which has seen for itself that its security is best guaranteed in conjunction with others. I pay tribute to the Army, to its highly developed quality, to the dedication of its men and women and to the vital role it plays.
8.44 pm
Mr. Bernie Grant: Many problems facing the Army have been discussed in this debate. However, there is one issue that has, perhaps not unexpectedly, been given no attention. It is an issue of the utmost gravity and is just as important to the esteem with which our armed forces are held by the people of this country. I am referring to the ugly phenomenon of racism in the Army.
Many right hon. and hon. Members will have read the recent article in The Observer Magazine on Sunday 24 January. It exposed in the most public way yet the routine and institutionalised racism that exists in the armed forces. Some Labour Members have known about that for many years. We are grateful to the author of the article and the magazine for exposing what I suspect is only the tip of the iceberg. I call on black people in the services to contact me if they have any complaints to make about racism in the armed forces, however small.
There is nothing new about racism in the Army. It goes back many years. For literally centuries the United Kingdom has been happy to enlist black people to fight and die for this country but not to acknowledge their contributions or reward their courage in the normal way. The article says:
"NCOs in the Guards who say, 'We're not having niggers', do not know their own regimental history. There were, according to Sir Walter Scott, six black trumpeters in the Scots Guards in 1679; a black drummer fought with the Household Cavalry at Blenheim in 1704; and black musicians served with the Coldstream and Grenadier Guards up to the middle of the last century."
That is some of the history of black people in the Army, but there is more.
How often, in reminiscing about the first and second world wars, is the contribution that black people made to the victory recognised? For example, according to The Times of 11 June 1919, during the first world war 1 million east Africans were drafted into the Army and 100,000 died as a result. More often than not they were used in the front line on the orders of white officers who saw them as expendable. The casualty figures are there for all to see. For example, in the King's African Rifles, of those killed, British officers numbered 66, British NCOs numbered 47 and Africans numbered 1,198. Of those wounded, British officers numbered 194, NCOs numbered 59 and Africans numbered 3,553. The total losses in east Africa alone were calculated at 300,000.
Similarly in the second world war, the British recruited in the Caribbean, India and Africa in large numbers and the casualties were similarly disproportionate. How many of them are remembered? How many of them were honoured with medals or decorations? The record will show that comparatively few received any honour.

241
For many years the contribution of black people has passed without comment, as in so many other areas of British society. Black people are confined to the ranks. They are seen, literally, as cannon fodder and forgotten when the need for them has passed. There are many recent examples such as the Asian Sapper, Pradeep Ghandi, from Brent who was killed in the Falklands war. How often is that mentioned in the discussions about the problems of our multi-racial society?
There is a serious problem in the Army which has been aired in the House in the past by my right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) and others. To date that problem has been called "bullying". This House needs to be told by the Minister how much of it is really racism. Does the Minister know the meaning of the ugly term, "niggerbaiting"? I suspect that he does not or that he does not want to know.
The Army is not attuned to the problems of racism in its ranks. It would prefer to hide them under the carpet.
Mr. Barry Field: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that one of the most popular men in my regiment was Sergeant Mattatoga from Fiji? He was a coloured soldier who served with some distinction in my regiment. He was probably one of the most popular soldiers that we had.
Mr. Grant: If he was so popular, he should have been a colonel or another rank. There are individual soldiers who are able to progress, but the majority of them do not.
It seems commonplace that black soldiers are subjected to racist abuse and undisguised race hatred. According to the article in The Observer Magazine, one black recruit to the paras was asked by his sergeant:
"What are you doing here … nigger? I joined the Army to kill … people like you."
The article points out that, of an estimated 5,000 black service men and women, there were a mere handful of black officers. There are very few senior black NCOs.
Black recruits are dissuaded from joining certain regiments, such as the Grenadier Guards. Although one black person has recently been allowed to join, I am told that he has been subjected to racial threats and abuse. The article in The Observer Magazine says:
"With the arrival last year of Private Richard Stokes at the Second Battalion Grenadier Guards it is now a token one. According to his white adoptive father, Brian, Private Stokes has had a nasty baptism, including a knife threat from a Welsh Guards corporal, who told him: 'We're not having niggers in the Guards, and an ugly moment when he arrived in Northern Ireland and every man in the mess walked out."
The interviewer spoke to the soldier who said, "I'm not a racist." When he was asked why there are no black men in the Guards, the soldier said:
"the Guards protect the Queen and you should never have any black Guards because no black man can ever be a true Englishman."
According to that independent research, that is the position in the Army. But what does it do about it? What does the Minister do about it? Do Ministers know what is going on? If they do, what are they doing about it? Are the Government encouraging racism by their silence in this regard?
What we need to hear from the Minister are some reasonably firm answers that something will be done. For example, I should like the Army to keep ethnic records on the promotion of black people. It keeps ethnic records with regard to recruitment. That policy should be extended to deal with promotion, discipline and other matters.
242
Black soldiers must contend with the insult or less experienced and less competent soldiers being promoted over their heads. The article in The Observer Magazine gave many examples of that.
Does the Minister know how many black soldiers have left the Army, disparaged and disappointed by its failure to promote them? Are there exit interviews on black service people that give the reasons why they left? We should like to know whether those matters are logged.
The Minister is prepared to do very little about racism in the Army. When he leaves the House tonight, he should return to his advisers and draw up a thorough strategy to deal with the problem; it should then be brought back to the House for discussion. It should include making racism a specific disciplinary offence and establish a proper complaints procedure that will protect the complainant from further harassment. That is unlikely to be achievable unless the Minister is prepared to ensure that specific officers are designated with responsibilities for overseeing the strategy to combat racism.
In the meantime, the Minister should not be surprised if black people stop joining the Army. They will no longer tolerate this sort of treatment in the Army, just as they are no longer willing to tolerate it in society.
8.54 pm
Mr. Andrew Mitchell: I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in this annual debate on the Army, although I do so with a certain amount of trepidation, conscious as I am of the wealth of expertise and military experience that surrounds me on these Benches.
My brief military service in the Royal Tank Regiment, and subsequently with the United Nations peace-keeping forces in Cyprus, afforded me a taste of Army life as a young commissioned officer, for which I shall always—at least in retrospect—be grateful.
I remember some specific, enduring lessons. I remember in particular my experience of the United Nations. As a force for keeping the peace, it is greatly underrated. In Sinai and Cyprus the degree of international co-operation and the ability to defuse potentially dangerous incidents all too often went unremarked. The position in Cyprus is much quieter now, but we still have nearly 1,000 troops seconded to the United Nations forces there, and to the multinational force in Sinai.
The support given by the British sovereign base areas in Cyprus to the United Nations forces there and in the Golan heights is essential to the United Nations effort, and is provided with the quiet efficiency, skill and expertise that one has almost come to take for granted from the armed forces. I gladly pay tribute to the work of the United Nations peace-keeping forces and the outstanding role that is played by Britain within them.
Since my brief sojourn in the Army, a great deal has changed. In 1976 the Army was deeply demoralised, underpaid and under-equipped. It is interesting to recall that in 1978 the total spent on the armed forces was £7·5 billion. This year it will he £18·8 billion. During the intervening period over 90 per cent. of the budget has been spent on improving the conventional defences of this country. Pay in the armed services is much better, but progress has not been achieved at the expense of the equipment budget. When I left the Army, less than 40 per cent. of the defence budget was spent on equipment. Next year, the comparative figure will be 45 per cent. There can

243
be little doubt that the Government have taken the necessary steps to promote and secure our defence needs with a consistency of purpose, policy and philosophy that commands widespread support and acceptance across the country.
In assessing the role and needs of the Army and our armed forces, we inevitably focus on Europe. The centrepiece of our defence policy is deterrence and our role within NATO. Our main contribution to Europe's defence is through the BAOR. Europe today is, perhaps, in a greater state of flux and uncertainty about the future—and indeed of both nervousness and excitement at the possibilities that lie ahead—than at any time since the second world war.
The principal political characteristics of Europe have remained largely unaltered since the end of the second world war: a continent divided; the prospective battle lines well drawn and well known; and an Eastern Europe with clearly determined and defined goals and parameters. Many of us have felt a sense of security. After all, we have had Europe's longest period of peace under such an arrangement.
Three developments now challenge that state of affairs, and all of them may have a direct bearing on our future defence needs. All three could work equally to our advantage or to our disadvantage. Under Gorbachev, the clear thrust of Soviet policy is to reallocate some resources away from defence. With that policy change will come rising material expectations. The policies of glasnost and perestroika will significantly affect the relationship between Russia and her East European allies. Clearly, we need to approach Gorbachev's policies with an enlightened caution. If they survive and he succeeds, or vice versa, they will offer an opportunity to West Europe and NATO.
The second uncertainty lies in the future relationship between America and Europe. We should not forget that America's support for Europe is not set in concrete. The Americans spend about 7 per cent. of their GDP on defence, whereas we spend about 5 per cent. and the Germans spend about 3 per cent. It is interesting to note that the sum spent by America on keeping its troops in Europe is not unadjacent to the amount of its deficit. Rearmament spending under Reagan has not gone into Europe. It has gone into SDI and other projects not directly related to Europe. We should never take the American commitment to Europe for granted —especially in the year of a United States presidential election. Who knows what may be said or proposed between now and election day, on 8 November? We are indeed fortunate in the unflinching support that we have received from the Americans.
The third factor of change and flux in Europe to which I wish to draw attention is the state of the debate on the German question. In Germany, even Christian Democrat politicians have been reacting favourably to suggestions of a denuclearisation of East and West Germany. My hon. Friends and I who visited the German NATO forces last year could not fail to notice the intense interest in the German question and the inner-German border, stoked up by the change in Russian foreign policy, and the effect on that interest that the recent INF agreement and its potential successors have stirred in Germany. Of course we must take advantage of the new opportunities that now
244
exist in Europe, but we must do so in the awareness of the absolute need to maintain the quality of our deterrent, no matter how the situation develops.
My second specific point concerns procurement. In recent years there has been a comprehensive modernisation of the Army's equipment. At the same time, one should be impressed by the initiatives being taken to secure better value for the taxpayer's money, in particular by the initiatives taken to promote greater competition, by the greater degree of co-operation and collaboration with our allies, and by the initiative to encourage small firms to compete for business. These three factors are extremely important.
The "Statement on the Defence Estimates" gives some interesting and, I find, rather disturbing examples of savings; for example, the competition for training missiles, where the price of the winning tender was 50 per cent. below the most recent non-competition-based price-50 per cent.! I accept that value for money in military procurement means something more than just price, but it is most important to open up competition in procurement, and it is long overdue. It came as little surprise to hear that the small firms advice division of the Ministry of Defence was approached by 300 companies registering an interest in competing within two months of that unit's being set up.
My final point concerns the Army's role as a trainer of the forces of friendly nations. The help that we give to Zimbabwe and Mozambique is well known, and I see from the Estimates that 650 servicemen have been involved in such work outside NATO in 23 different countries. Quite apart from promoting the stability of areas in which we may have national interests, by assisting with training and military advice we actively encourage and enhance trade —far wider than the arms trade—and commerce by this cost-effective and eminently sensible policy.
This debate takes place against the background of progress in the quality of our Army, progress in arms negotiations and optimism and opportunity in Europe. It is well timed.
9.3 pm
Mr. Frank Cook: Because of the constraints of time, I shall confine my remarks to one subject. As the Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces is by nature an attentive man with an eye for detail, I would expect him to respond later this evening.
My subject is the allowance payable to service personnel for service overseas. The Under-Secretary will know that eight or nine weeks ago I visited Rheindahlen, Wildenrath, Munster and one or two other places. On that visit, I was saddened by the fact that the grievous resentment at some of the anomalous conditions related to the payment of the overseas allowance remained. I am even more concerned in that on a previous visit to Rheindahlen three years ago, that resentment was already evident. On our latest visit, we were told that a review was taking place.
I know that there are many complexities and I shall not rehearse them because we do not have the time—in fact, it could be the subject for a debate in itself. However, last night on television the Prime Minister made the plea to her interviewer that rather than set up a Royal Commission on the Health Service, which she has been looking at since 1979, because that would take too long, in the interests of speed she was ordering a review. Quite honestly, one is not

245
giving express consideration if one takes more than three years to consider the allowances that are paid to overseas personnel.
Therefore, I am seeking some prediction from the Minister of what our service women and men, commissioned and non-commissioned, black and white, can expect by way of resolution of this grievous cause for concern.
9.5 pm
Mr. Julian Brazier: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement rightly drew the attention of the House to the arrival of the new T80 in the Red Army. With its 135 mm gun and reactive armour, I put it to the House that it is the queen of modern tanks.
I should like to speak on a subject that is critical to the future equipment of our own Army and, indeed, to our Navy and Air Force — the research and development establishments. I should like to point to what, in my view, is the one really woolly passage in an otherwise excellent White Paper. Page 48 states:
"the Government shares the underlying concern of those who fear that necessary investment in defence R & D may crowd out valuable investment in the civil sector … it would be regrettable if defence work became such an irresistible magnet for the manpower available that industry's ability to compete in the international market for civil high technology products became seriously impaired."
Before I discuss the work of our defence establishments, especially the two related to the Army, I should like to explode that thesis. Just under one fifth of our national research and development expenditure is spent on the defence sector. However, we can consider a more basic statistic: the total proportion of graduates in science and technology leaving our universities in 1986 who went into Electronic Engineering Association companies, which do most of the work, was only 2·5 per cent. There is, indeed, a shortage of scientists and engineers in this country who choose to go into civil research and development. However, that has nothing to do with the fact that a small number choose to work in defence research and development.
From the Army's point of view, the two principal establishments are RARDE whose satellite MEXE produced the design for the most successful bridging equipment that the world has ever seen, and the Royal Signals Radar Establishment at Malvern, which is tri-service and has produced, among other weapons, the Rapier which, incidentally, resulted in £1·5 billion of exports.
Why are those establishments so vital for our armed forces? Although there are several reasons, I should like to focus on two. The first is blue sky research. In its excellent paper, published last week, the Department of Trade and Industry hit it exactly right in saying that the role of Government in research and development is to focus on the blue sky end. Whereas product development is best done by the private sector, very long-term research will not produce results for perhaps 15 or 20 years. We do not have companies in a pool as small as the United Kingdom economy that can afford to put large sums into such speculative work, but that is the work that will produce the products that our armed forces need in the 21st century.
The second reason why the research and development establishments are so critical — this is much more
246
concerned with the here and now, or at least with the next few years —is because of the role that they play in supporting the project teams in the procurement executive. I have heard repeated attacks in the House on the Nimrod project. I wish to put it on the record once and for all that if successive Governments, both Labour and Conservative, had had the courage to listen to the Royal Signals Radar Establishment at Malvern, we would never have gone down the Nimrod route.
I welcome the Government's new competitive policy. I pay tribute to the Secretary of State because he had the courage to cancel the Nimrod project and, at last, get away from it. The Government's competitive policy will save us money and, indeed, has already done so in the past two years. These savings will remain possible only while we have the capability, through our research and development establishments, to remain an educated customer. We are getting better value for money and more equipment for what we are spending precisely because we are adopting this policy.
What has been happening in our research and development establishments? Over the past six years, we have reduced the number of scientists in the Ministry of Defence from 10,000 to 6,400. This is not necessarily a bad thing, if we avoid duplicating work done by our allies, but, alas, it is not the dead wood that is being pruned. Civil Service rules prevent that. Instead, because of the relatively poor pay, in many cases it is the brightest scientists who are tending to leave.
At the same time, extramural funding — funding provided by the Ministry of Defence in the private sector —has fallen by 15 per cent. Meanwhile, the Red Army is rapidly closing the technology gap and, in the case of the T80, has probably overtaken us. There is an economic point here too. At present, we buy 80 per cent. of our equipment from the United Kingdom and three quarters of the balance has a United Kingdom element in it. We export £6 billion in arms. The Government have every right to claim some of the credit for our successful growth in defence exports by making our private sector more commercial.
Although making the private sector more commercial has improved the shop window, resulting in a considerable improvement in our arms exports, the sad fact is that this is based on the money spent on research and development 10 or 15 years ago. With the cut in our present research and development funding, I fear that this will not be the case 10 or 15 years from now.
What am I proposing? I should like to suggest a route which would fit very well with the Government's sound policy of competitive tendering within the procurement executive and would be highly cost-effective. We should assure ourselves that, in every area where we are buying equipment, we still have the critical mass of skills available to be an educated customer. I am assured by our friends in industry that this is still the case in most areas, but not, alas, all. We should concentrate the rest of our funds in those areas where we have a proven record of success.
In areas where we have been less successful, for example, artillery, we should be willing to arrange swop agreements with our allies, so that—as the Government did successfully by exchanging Rolls-Royce engines for Goalkeeper engines—we can guarantee that, when we have to import foreign equipment because we cannot afford to develop it ourselves, we balance it with an extra export.

247
What about the structure that we need to support this policy? There appear to be two options facing the Government in respect of research and development establishments. We could leave the present, cosy Civil Service arrangements or we could go for out-and-out handing over to the private sector. I propose that we should follow a middle course and go for a trading fund. This would keep the research and development establishments together as centres of excellence. It would enable them to prune the dead wood because they would no longer be subject to Civil Service rules. It would enable them to pay market rates to their best employees and, most important of all, for those who are worried about the civil sector being crowded out, as suggested in the White Paper, it would give a concrete, market-driven incentive to those who manage these research and development establishments to sell the spare capacity in their facilities to United Kingdom companies. At the moment, all the money from selling that capacity goes straight to the Treasury. As a trading fund it could be credited to the establishment's own account defraying costs. That is a much more market-driven approach than setting up the wretched Defence Technology Enterprises which desperately runs about trying to look for spare ideas.
Let me end with a statistic. We should be grateful to the Americans. We should be aware of the fact that their trade deficit, about which our Treasury is so worried, is very nearly equal to the figure they spend on keeping their armed forces in Europe. They are keen on collaborating with us on science and there is no way in which our Treasury could more please the Americans than by being willing to provide a little money out of central funds to ensure that we have the research and development facilities that our armed forces need for the 21st century.
9.15 pm
Mr. Sean Hughes: It is customary in debates such as this to pay tribute to the work and dedication displayed by the armed forces in these islands and around the world and I happily add my thanks to the gratitude which has been expressed tonight to all those who serve in our armed forces.
This year is the 300th anniversary of the so-called glorious revolution, which is seen as the cornerstone of our parliamentary democracy, not least by the acceptance of the principle that the Executive is provided with an army only with the consent of Parliament.
We see what happens in other countries, where the establishment cynically uses the army and the security forces to thwart or bypass the democratic process. We at least can take comfort from the fact that no such moves are even contemplated here.
I have an enormous respect for those who dedicate their lives to service in the armed forces. I may not always agree with the perceived view of their opinions, but I pay tribute to their commitment, dedication and loyalty. But it is the politicians who control our armed forces and it is they who are fair game whenever we come across their pomposity, arrogance or sheer stupidity.
This is the first Army debate of this Parliament, the third of the present Administration. Recently, the Prime Minister celebrated in distinctly regal terms the fact that "our" Government have lasted longer than Asquith's. Now Lord Liverpool's record is at stake.
248
I do not know what all the fuss is about. The Prime Minister passed Asquith's record some time in 1981. He had a single-party majority for only two years, whereas the Prime Minister has had one for almost nine years.
The Prime Minister's political longevity has one particular significance, and that is that it really is time that we started to discuss her Government's record against what the Tories promised, implied or preached in opposition or in the early heady days of government.
There seems to be a belief on the Tory Benches that they have cornered the market on defence, a view confirmed by some of the speeches that we heard this evening. Some Conservative Members seem to think that, because they represent the odd garrison town or have picked up the odd minor military title, somehow or other they are uniquely qualified to lecture the rest of us on our best interests in defence. It is time that belief was exploded.
One of the most obvious trends in the past three decades as regards the Army is the decline in manpower, despite the fact that the Minister, in his opening speech, referred to Wellington's strictures on the need for a large and efficient army. The Tory party's manifesto in 1979 expressed the aim to increase the strength of our armed forces. In 1983, that became an insistence on the need for strong conventional forces and in 1987 a promise to continue to increase the effectiveness of our conventional forces.
One might have thought that such loud promises to strengthen our conventional defences might have manifested themselves in arresting the decline in military personnel — but not a bit of it. So I began to think about what must be the reason behind the fall in numbers. After all, there must be a reason why the British Army now employs fewer privates than the total number of people, part-time and full-time, employed by the Sainsbury grocery chain.
In 1957, there were 233,177 privates. Ten years later, the figure was just over 81,500. That is easy to explain: national service had been abolished and our colonial commitments had been severely reduced. Countries such as Ghana, Malaya and Kenya had been granted their independence. By 1977, we were down to 67,613 privates. I suppose that we can explain that further decline: the previous decade had seen us shedding our colonial commitments to west of Aden.
But by 1987, the number of privates was down again, to 62,028. One might have thought that eight years of Conservative Government committed to strengthening our armed forces would have put a stop to the inexorable decrease in army manpower. One can hardly say that the shedding of colonial responsibilities was the reason — unless, of course, the granting of independence to the Gilbert Islands and the former New Hebrides accounted for the change.
However, I do not want to be accused of total pessimism. The number of privates may be down to 26 per cent. of the total 30 years ago, but at least my hon. Friends will be heartened to know that the number of generals is down to only 57 per cent. We should not be too cynical about that, because there are considerable market forces working in that direction. In the past 10 years, while a private's pay has increased by 174 per cent., a general's has increased by 246 per cent.,. which is not bad when we consider that 10 years ago a general was earning eight

249
times what a private earns. That helps to put into perspective the statement in the Conservative party general election leaflet, "Our First Eight Years", that "armed services pay has been restored to a proper level".
It also helps to put into perspective some of the self-congratulation about pay expressed by some Conservative hon. Members early in the debate. But I digress.
It is not just the number of personnel that has failed to live up to the high expectations. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) mentioned in his opening speech, there have also been problems with equipment. I realise that the Government will bleat on about how they are spending more on equipment than we did when Harold Wilson or James Callaghan were in power, or probably more than would have been spent had George Lansbury or J. R. Clynes made it to No. 10. But that is not the point. We are entitled to judge the Government on their own standards, to judge them against the grandiose claims they have made.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli said, expenditure is declining and will continue to decline. Indeed, the City stockbrokers Kleinwort, Grieveson have forecast that between now and 1991 the equipment budget will fall by £240 million —and those will be the peak years of Trident spending.
Those factors, as well as some of the mismanagement that has already been referred to, will continue to diminish our forces' ability to play their NATO roles adequately. The quantity of new equipment will fall and the quality of existing systems will deteriorate. Shortage of time prevents my giving specific examples.
I ask the Minister to deal in his winding-up speech with the following two specific questions. First, were the further 16 Lynxes that he mentioned the same 16 as the Secretary of State announced last year would be purchased? Secondly, why is it only we and the Greeks whose army helicopters are run by the air force?
At the same time as the decline has been in progress — as my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) discussed in a characteristically thoughtful speech — we have maintained a series of treaty obligations involving military assitance. I realise that it is unlikely that there will be a conterminous outbreak of crises in all the locations to which we are committed. But it makes one pause to reflect on the demands which could be made at any one time on our armed forces, especially if a crisis in any of the farflung regions coincided with a crisis in Europe. That is why it is impossible to embark on any meaningful discussion of the role of the Army without setting it in the context of NATO's strategy of flexible response. [Interruption.] I hope that the hon. and learned Member for Colchester, North (Sir A. Buck) will allow me to develop this theme for a few moments. I am advised that the object of the use of nuclear weapons in a restricted and restrained way is to induce the enemy to take the political decision not to proceed and to withdraw. Put more briefly but no less euphemistically, flexible response simply maintains the nuclear option. This is a concept which deserves wider discussion.
The received wisdom is that, if the Soviets were of a mind to attack, they would not need to resort to first use of nuclear weapons because of their superiority in conventional weapons. Furthermore, there is a perception that Soviet Russia would not resort to the first use of nuclear weapons also because the Soviets would be only too well aware of how it would affect them, having learned
250
the lessons of Chernobyl. Consequently, NATO's flexible response should maintain the option to go nuclear in the face of a Soviet conventional attack.
If this is NATO thinking, it is little wonder that they will not agree to a no first use agreement, since we see ourselves under the flexible response strategy as the only people who would ever contemplate the first use of nuclear weapons. Whichever way I look at this, I cannot help but see flaws.
If our perception of the Soviets is that they would not use nuclear weapons first, because they have the intelligence to appreciate how their use of their nuclear capability would affect them as the aggressor, is it not conceivable that they might develop a perception of us, however wrongly, that we might just have the intelligence to appreciate how our first use of our nuclear capability might affect us as the aggressor? I understand that this is known as the concept of self-deterrence.
Of course, if both power blocs have the determination never to be the prime mover, even if they refuse so to admit, there would be some attraction to this flaw in the strategy. "O felix culpa," as the eastern hymnist wrote. I do not think there is anything fortunate about this point. There is the obvious possibility of nuclear retaliation. If we ever carried out our flexible threat, they might respond flexibly. If General de Gaulle could ask whether an American President was prepared to risk Chicago for Hamburg, we are entitled to ask whether the British Prime Minister is prepared to risk Liverpool for a breach of the reindeer fence at Kirkeness in northern Norway.
Even more significant in the context of the Army debate is the unchallengeable fact that any movement towards nuclear control or reduction must involve a reassessment of conventional weapons. Under NATO's strategy of flexible response, if we enhance our conventional weapons too much, we reduce the credibility of the nuclear weapon in flexible response. In the past, we on these Benches have argued that, given the finite nature of our military budget, if we pour £10 billion into Trident or whatever, we will not have the resources to modernise conventional weapons.
It is more ominous. It is not just a question of our not having the material wherewithal to spend on conventional weapons; we would not have the inclination or the desire to spend on conventional weapons. The popular perception is that, because of the conventional imbalance, NATO needs to maintain the option of first use of nuclear weapons, but the reality is that the Government do not believe that, even if we had a conventional balance, we could trust the USSR to stay on its side of the border. So even if we negotiated such a balance, that would not be in our interest, according to the logic of this strategy.
It really is an incredible concept. It is the perfect example of what Galbraith called convenient reverse logic, a logic which proceeds not from diagnosis to remedy, but from the preferred remedy back to the requisite cause.
The doctrine of flexible response flies in the face of what the present Secretary of State for Defence said to the House of Commons 20 years ago:
"It is absolute nonsense for anybody to say that it is impossible to imagine a conventional war. It may be very unlikely; it may be completely improbable; but it is certainly not impossible to imagine … Although I would say that at present I cannot envisage it, who can say that he could not envisage any form of conventional war in Europe in five, 10, 15, 20 years time?"—[Official Report, 10 May 1966; Vol. 728, c. 318–19.]

251
It is now 20 years later. Is that the thinking of the Secretary of State? If it is, logically we should be working towards a conventional balance to prevent a limited conventional war. That runs counter to the logic of the flexible response, because it raises the nuclear threshold, and makes Europe safe, as one general quaintly put it, for a limited conventional war to be fought.
What precisely is the Government's position? What is the role of nuclear weapons? The hon. and learned Member for Colchester, North clearly does not realise that, for the third time running, the Government won the general election and it is their policy that we are debating.
Sir Antony Buck: The hon. Gentleman referred to me. I am looking for a clear response or a substitute policy to the flexible response. Such a policy has not been spelt out. The flexible response policy was adopted by an earlier Labour Government, and I have not seen a substitute for such an eminently sensible policy.
Mr. Hughes: In my part of the world, that would be called a cop-out. It is the duty of the Opposition to probe and explore what the Government are doing. That is precisely what we are doing. We have a right to ask whether the role of nuclear weapons in flexible response, as the Government tell the public, relates to conventional imbalance or whether it is the be-all and end-all of military strategy.
There has been a reference to glasnost. We could do with some glasnost from the Government. I remember listening to our much-maligned Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. and learned Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor), speaking in Committee on the Arms Control and Disarmament (Privileges and Immunities) Bill about a new era of openness. When such a man speaks of openness he deserves attention. He is certainly a distinguished—some would say the greatest living—exponent of the art of open diplomacy. Sadly, he was speaking about openness with the Russians and not with the House of Commons.
I realise that, by their twisted logic, the Government claim credit for the INF agreement between the United States and Soviet Russia, to which they were not invited and about which they were not consulted. An endearing feature of the Government is that, while they consistently refuse to accept responsibility for their own actions, they have developed a singular capacity for claiming the success achieved by others. It is like the self-decorated south American dictators who luxuriate in the reflected splendour of their national team's World Cup success—but even they do not say that they scored the goals.
The House has a right to expect Ministers to be more forthcoming about the implications of the doctrine of flexible response. I believe that the soldiers in the lines also have that right of expectation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) referred to the problem of the overseas allowance for troops based in Germany. I hope that the Minister will address himself to that specific question, although it is yet another niggardly reduction that hardly bears out the patriotic glory speeches often made by Conservative Members at times of stress.
252
One area of concern, for instance, is that members of the Territorial Army who are out of work suffer cuts in their social security money if they do more than 16 mid-week drill nights per year.
Growing concern has also been expressed by members of both the Government and the Opposition about armed forces pensions and especially the pensions of widows of those who have served in the armed forces. The hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne), as he rightly reminded us, raised this matter before Christmas, and the point was emphasised in detail by my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen). Here again there is a feeling that the Government could perhaps do more than they are doing at present.
The problem of bullying has also been raised, especially by my right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley). It was also emphasised by my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant), who equated it with racism. Bullying, as we would all agree, is unacceptable wherever it is manifested, not least in the bizarre and extraordinary circumstances described recently. While we recognise that, as Kipling said, men in barracks do not grow into plaster saints, there is a feeling that something has gone wrong, somebody has gone too far, and responsibility is not confined to noncommissioned officers even if they were the most immediately involved.
Reference was made during Question Time to the Prime Minister's performance on "Panorama" last night. I want to refer to one sentence in that interview, when she said:
"You are not properly and adequately defended enough to deter an aggressor unless your things are up to date. Any potential aggressor will see that his are."
What becomes obvious in debates such as this is that she is not considering the Army in that, but only the nuclear weapon. Fortunately, it has become equally obvious that hon. Members, both Opposition and Government, do have the Army in mind. That is why appreciation of the services has been expressed on both sides.
9.37 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Roger Freeman): I very much admire the very witty debating style of the hon. Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. Hughes). I shall not follow him either in that style or in the sequence of the comments that he made, because I want to deal with the many questions that have been raised in the course of the debate.
Government Members — and I am sure that the Opposition join us in this — warmly welcome four additional contributors to the regular Army debates: my hon. Friends the Members for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson), for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier), for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell) and for Dorset, South (Mr. Bruce). We hope that they will continue their excellent contributions in the future.
The right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) asked me a number of questions, which I shall try to answer. He began by saying that the rapid increase in expenditure on nuclear weapons since 1979 had been at the expense of expenditure on conventional armaments. He also said that he was not very good at mathematics. If he reflects upon the levels of expenditure in real terms since 1979, he will realise that his comment about expenditure cannot be right. Since 1979 the increase in real expenditure for the Army alone has amounted cumulatively to £4 billion. My

253
hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement mentioned the many new weapons that had been introduced and will be introduced in the future. For the next three years, beginning on 1 April, we shall see level funding in real terms for the armed forces.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about tanks and the replacement for Chieftain. As well as reviewing possible overseas options, the possibility of an improved version of the Challenger tank is under discussion with Vickers Defence Systems. No decisions have yet been taken on the timing of a Chieftain replacement, and the Ministry is continuing seriously to consider both the improved Challenger and other possible options.
The right hon. Gentleman also asked me about the replacement for the Abbott self-propelled howitzer. We have sought and obtained proposals from four companies for a 155mm self-propelled howitzer to meet our most pressing national requirements. This will replace the aging 105mm Abbott gun. These proposals are currently being assessed in the Department.
The right hon. Member then raised the question of the role of the United Kingdom mobile force and argued that the Government were trying to renege on this North Atlantic Treaty Organisation commitment. We are looking at re-role-ing the United Kingdom mobile force, but it will he subject to the agreement of NATO, and I assure both the right hon. Gentleman and the House that there is no question of a unilateral change, and no question of reneging on that commitment.
The right hon. Gentleman also asked me when the next NATO Heads of State meeting will take place, and I am happy to tell him that it will be on 2 and 3 March. The right hon. Gentleman then asked about dual-capable artillery and whether this would be included in conventional disarmament talks. All Warsaw pact and NATO conventional ground forces in Europe will be covered by the talks, including those in the British Army of the Rhine, so the answer is yes.
The right hon. Gentleman then raised a very serious question about the validity of the White Paper, and this was also referred to by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Sir A. Buck) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne). The Ministry of Defence has made a fair assessment of the number of conventional forces, both men and equipment, on both sides. The qualitative factors are, of course, difficult to assess, but the quality of Soviet armour and of Soviet equipment is improving all the time, and the somewhat complacent attitude of Opposition Members —or at least that is the conclusion one might draw—does not help in assessing the military imbalance.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Colchester, North paid tribute to the professionalism of the forces and asked a number of questions about recruitment, as did the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright). I am encouraged to see that the current levels of premature voluntary retirement from the Army are substantially lower than in 1978–79, with the exception of certain specialist—
Mr. Cryer: More unemployment.
Mr. Freeman: No, the reason is that the Government have consistently honoured the awards of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body. It is the consistent payment of
254
proper pay to the armed forces that has reversed the situation that the hon. Gentleman's Government left us with. With the exception of certain specialist shortages, our Army is fully manned. Recruiting has generally held up well, and the average length of service has never been greater. In the past 18 months it has increased, for soldiers, from 4–6 years to just on six years. This is particularly reassuring and represents a vote of confidence in the Army. The improvement in retention is due largely to the recognition by those serving of the high priority given to fair remuneration, together with a policy of continued modernisation of equipment and improvement of the Army's combat capability. The 1987 recommendations of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body were accepted in full, and the consequent revised pay rates continued to maintain comparability with the private sector.
The hon. Gentleman asked me about the demographic trend and how it would affect recruitment. He is right to draw attention to this, but we are convinced that our policy of fair pay, and of fair conditions and allowances, which have as great a role to play as pay itself, should ensure that we keep ahead of the game and cope with the demographic trend and the smaller number of youngsters available to join the armed forces. It is a matter that we are determined to keep closely under review.
I turn now to deal in a little detail with the point raised by the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) about bullying. I think that the House would expect me to return to this subject as I promised in the debate on the Estimates. I know that this is an issue that has been of very real concern to the right hon. Gentleman, as it has to many hon. Members. It has been of equal concern to me and my ministerial colleagues in the Ministry of Defence, and to the senior commanders—both in the field and in the Department — who have responsibility for the welfare and well-being of the men and women who serve in the Army.
I have stated our position in previous debates. Bullying is a serious offence, whether committed by noncommissioned officers towards junior ranks, or by members of a peer group, soldiers towards each other. It forms no part of proper service life, and we are clear that it cannot be tolerated.
The Adjutant General and I have both met the right hon. Gentleman on a number of occasions, and I believe that he appreciates that we share his concern and have been determined to deal with the problem. We have been grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his interest in this issue. He has made a number of constructive suggestions, which we have examined very carefully. We disagree about the extent of bullying in the Army. Recent cases, and the media coverage devoted to them, have suggested that the problem of bullying and ill-treatment is widespread. I and my senior Army colleagues do not believe that to be the case. Since January 1986, in an Army that numbers some 160,000 regulars—including some 20,000 under training —only 100 or so cases of alleged bullying, intimidation or ill-treatment have come to light, and some of those have related to incidents that took place at an earlier date. In 19 of the cases, investigations are still continuing.
The charges in 35 of the other cases have been substantiated, and have or will result in disciplinary action. I make no excuses for these cases, which have included several serious and degrading incidents, but I hope that the sentences awarded by the courts martial, and reported in the press, will serve to underline my assertion

255
about the seriousness with which the Army regards the issue of bullying and the determination that exists to stamp it out. In the remaining 48 cases that have been investigated—very nearly half the total—the Army's inquiries have not substantiated the initial charges or allegations. Therefore, I do not believe that these overall figures reflect an endemic problem. Nor do I agree that these cases are only the tip of the iceberg.
We are not, and cannot be, complacent, however. As I have said previously to the House, the exposure given to this issue over the last year, and the concern to which it has naturally given rise, has led to the most serious self-examination throughout the Army. In July last year the Adjutant General wrote to commanding officers throughout the Army, requiring them to examine their own units in relation to bullying and intimidation, and to report back to him in early December with proposals and recommendations, both to deal with any immediate difficulties and to help obviate such practices in the future.
I undertook in the defence debate last October to report the outcome of this re-examination and our proposed action after analysing the replies to the Adjutant General's directive. There remains some work to be done. As ever, in a tight defence programme, we have to justify very carefully any demand for new resources, and its relative priority. I know that the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South understands that. I can tell the House, however, the general thrust of our conclusions and the broad areas in which we intend to make changes.
The general consensus in the responses from commands is that bullying and other unacceptable forms of behaviour are not prevalent; that, to the extent to which they occur, it is partly because the Army reflects changing standards in the society from which it recruits, in which the young soldier may at the same time be less tough physically than his forebears and yet more inured to the concept of violence, assault, and alcohol abuse — for example, through television and films; that the Army, for its part, needs to re-emphasise its responsibilities for man management, and to foster in officers and NCOs a greater awareness of their supervisory duties. That is, perhaps, particularly the case in off-duty hours, because changed patterns of barracks accommodation, the increasing trend of married officers and NCOs to live out, and soldiers' wish for privacy off-duty have to some extent led to some falling off in the level of supervision.
Another conclusion is that, in some cases, it would appear that the process of pursuing cost-effectiveness and efficiency has produced pressures at some levels of staffing which we need to re-examine to see whether a shift in the burden of unit administration can be achieved, again with the aim of giving junior and middle-level commanders more time to concentrate on their task of leadership.
Finally, it is proposed that welfare support to the chain of command be re-examined. In recent years much has been done in this area in relation to Army families, and we need now to extend more of these improvements to the single soldier.
The changes that we shall be considering as a result of these broad conclusions centre on six areas. First, at the recruiting and entry stage, we shall be looking at the scope for extending the medical examination process, with a view to more thorough screening out at that stage of young men who may not be robust enough to cope with the toughness
256
of military training. Secondly, we shall be re-examining our already careful selection and induction training of NCO instructors to see whether there is scope for further improvement. Thirdly, we shall be looking at the scope for reorganising administrative commitments in training units, to allow officers and NCOs to devote more time to their supervisory responsibilities.
Mr. Rogers rose—
Mr. Freeman: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I shall finish.
This may mean that we need more junior officers and NCOs in the training depots. The individual training organisation is in any case the subject of a major study, which will take account of the conclusions I have outlined. Fourthly, we shall be considering the most effective deployment of our volunteers, who work with soldiers in army units. Fifthly, we shall review the content and degree of man management training on officer and NCO courses. More emphasis will be placed on that aspect, and we shall be revising the pamphlet that gives guidance on the principles and aspects of that skill. Finally, we shall formally ban all harmful initiation ceremonies.
I hope that that brief summary gives some suggestion to the House of the constructive way in which we are approaching this issue.
Mr. Ashley: The Minister has just made a major statement of policy and I warmly welcome the proposals made in response to the campaign because, although they may not be the complete answer, they are constructive and deserve to be warmly welcomed in all parts of the House. They will reassure the Army, and especially soldiers who have been bullied and their families. My interpretation of the policy is that it is a combined operation on bullying. When does the Minister expect to be able to implement the proposals?
Mr. Freeman: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I shall be pursuing all the recommendations—they represent a statement of policy—with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my other colleagues. We hope to make rapid progress.
Mr. Rogers: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Freeman: I am sorry, but I have only a few minutes left.
Mr. Rogers rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. One at a time. I believe that the Minister is not giving way.
Mr. Freeman: My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South raised the matter of the Gurkhas. We have repeatedly made it clear that there is a continuing role for the Gurkhas in the British Army after 1997. We welcome the interest that is being taken by the Select Committee and will read its report with great interest.
My hon. Friend also raised the question of Army helicopters, as did the hon. Member for Knowsley, South. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement has spoken about the conversion of 24 Brigade to its airborne role. He also mentioned the intention to order 16 Lynx helicopters—the same 16 helicopters that we announced last year—and reminded the House that 25 RAF EH101 helicopters will contribute to the air mobility role.

257
The hon. Member for Woolwich spoke about the future of the Woolwich garrison. I am grateful to him for paying tribute to the establishment of the new historic military buildings committee and the work that it can do. Although the future of the quality assurance directorate is not a matter for me —it is a subject of discussion within the Ministry — I can tell him that one solution that commends itself to the committee is the partial sale of the site along the river front, including the grand store, which will release a listed, valuable building for possible residential use. The site would he put into the hands of new owners who had the funds and the energy and foresight to develop it for the greater value of Woolwich.
My hon. Friend the Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Dr. Glyn) asked about the Victoria barracks. My hon. Friend will be aware that the preparatory work has now been finished. Planning for the re-build is now almost completed and it is hoped to make a start on the site in September this year. If my hon. Friend cares to visit the site with me, and if we fix the date for I September, I assure him that that will have the effect of concentrating the minds of the planners most wonderfully. I look forward to visiting his constituency with him.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South spoke about the use of ranges at the weekend. The hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) also raised this matter, and I owe him a written reply on the range safety working group. The use of ranges, particularly at the weekend by the Territorial Army, is safe and necessary. The Army wants to be good neighbours and if we come across legitimate complaints about noise we try to solve them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) raised some specific constituency issues. He rightly said that disposals were a matter for the PSA and not for me. However, we have developed a new policy within the Ministry towards disposals and that has been applied at Deal, Eastney, Gosport and Dishforth. We place great emphasis on forward planning, so that we know precisely when we are to get rid of a site and how much of a site is to be disposed of. We also believe in cooperation with the local authorities and taking them into our confidence about the future of the sites. We seek their views. I should like to join the long list of Ministers who have visited the Great Lines, Gillingham, and hope to pay it a visit very shortly.
I thank the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), not only for his comments about Fort George and how the Army deals with individual cases, and for setting the subject of bullying in proportion, but for his kind remarks about the GOC Scotland. He asked me a couple of direct questions affecting the Ministry of Defence, and was kind enough to brief me beforehand about one of them. If I may, I shall reply in writing to those two specific questions about the Ministry of Defence, or one of my ministerial colleagues will do so. The hon. Gentleman would not expect me to have the answers to such detailed questions immediately to hand. His more general comments will, I am sure, be read with interest by other Ministers.
Mr. Dalyell: I asked only for letters.
Mr. Freeman: I shall certainly pursue the points that the hon. Gentleman has raised.
The hon. Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder) raised some specific security matters concerning Northern
258
Ireland. I shall call them to the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces, and I know that he will respond in writing.
The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) suggested that we should look seriously at the introduction of trade unions in the armed forces. That, of course, was considered by the Committee on what is now the Armed Forces Act 1986 in the last Parliament, in which the hon. Gentleman did not serve. I had the honour of serving on that Committee, and I think that its conclusions were right. There is no demand for trade unions within the British armed forces, and no need for them. The hon. Gentleman cannot build a case on the limited examples that he cited. Our armed forces are politically independent. They have an independent pay review body, and there is no question of our introducing trade unions in the armed forces.
The hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant) suggested that there was racism in the Army, and appealed to soldiers to write to him so that he could take up individual cases. I listened to his remarks with interest, and I shall read the Official Report tomorrow. However, I must say to the soldiers to whom he has appealed that that is exactly the wrong advice. They are British soldiers, and they should take up any allegations with their commanding officers. That would be far more effective and would be in the best interests of soldiers in the British Army, whatever the colour of their skins.
The hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) asked me a specific question about allowances. I assume that he was referring to local overseas allowances, rather than to the more general package that has been under study by the MoD for some time. All that I can say about LOA — although I should be happy to meet the hon. Gentleman and discuss any specific points that he would like to put forward—is that it is a mechanical system, a non-taxable method of compensating service men for the extra costs of living in Germany. It is determined automatically by movement in relative prices and exchange rate.
Other hon. Members — I believe that they included the hon. Member for Leyton — raised the question of war widows. Since 1985 the Government have been assisting the Royal British Legion in a scheme whereby war widows are helped to visit their husbands' graves overseas. Assistance is provided in the form of grants-in-aid to the Royal British Legion. By the end of March this year some 1,200 war widows will have benefited from it.
I am also pleased to announce that the Government's help in the scheme is to be continued for a further five-year period, from financial years 1990 to 1995. The grant for 1990 will be £169,000.
The hon. Member for Knowsley, South put a number of questions to me, including the key question about the role of the Army in Europe and the British Army of the Rhine. He failed to convince the House that there has not been a substantial increase in expenditure on conventional weapons in the BAOR. If he thought to make that case — perhaps halfheartedly — he failed to prove it. Cumulatively, an extra £4 billion has been spent on the Army.
The hon. Gentleman completely failed to argue that there is conventional balance between the Soviet and NATO forces. The House will have read the White Paper. The figures contained in it were produced by the Ministry of Defence to present a fair assessment of the imbalance

259
of conventional forces and Conservative Members will support the Government in making adequate preparations to deal with that conventional imbalance. That means
260
pressing ahead with conventional disarmament measures. Until those measures succeed, we intend that battlefield nuclear weapons should remain and that our—
It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Church of England (Legal Aid and Miscellaneous Provisions) Measure
10 pm
Mr. Michael Alison (Second Church Estates Commissioners, Representing Church Commissioners): I beg to move,
That the Church of England (Legal Aid and Miscellaneous Provisions) Measure, passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.
I will not detain the House for long on this Measure. The purpose of a miscellaneous provisions Measure is to effect minor or, as I hope it will prove, non-controversial changes in the law. Part I of the Measure consolidates and amends the provisions relating to the ecclesiastical legal aid fund at present contained in three different Measures. Part II makes minor amendments to the law on several topics and Part III contains formal provisions.
The four clauses of Part I and schedules 1 and 2 revise and consolidate the existing statutory provisions concerning the Church of England's ecclesiastical legal aid fund.
At present three Measures and three items of subordinate legislation deal with legal aid. There is the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Measure 1963, the Incumbents (Vacation of Benefices) Measure 1977 and the Pastoral Measure 1983. Alongside those are three subordinate pieces of legislation: the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction (Legal Aid) Rules 1964, the Vacation of Benefices (Legal Aid) Rules 1978 and the Compensation of Clergy Rules 1970. That is a disparate collection of Measures and rules which vividly show the advantage of consolidation.
The ecclesiastical legal aid fund was set up by the 1963 Measure to which I have referred. Section 59 states that it was for the purpose of assisting in the payment of
"the costs of any complainant or accused person in … any legal proceedings … in respect of any offence under this Measure."
The two more recent Measures provide that legal aid may be granted for other sorts of proceedings. The sort of cases with which we are concerned are those relating, for example, to the parson's freehold or the compensation that might be payable to an incumbent displaced under a pastoral reorganisation scheme. The various Measures and regulations to which I have referred do not provide a common approach and practice in the administration of the legal aid fund.
Part I of this Measure together with schedules 1 and 2 consolidates, with amendments, the statutory provision. It deals with existing differences and includes further provisions. New rules made under clause 4 are being prepared and, in accordance with clause 4(4) and 4(6), they will require the approval of the General Synod and be subject to the negative resolution procedure in the House. The new rules will provide one set of legal aid rules providing a common procedure for applications for the grant of legal aid, the issue of a certificate, the control of proceedings and the assessment of costs.
Mr. Gerald Bermingham: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware of clause 2(4), which gives the criteria by which legal aid can be granted and the assessment of means. Will he explain how, when assessing
262
the availability of legal aid, it can be said that the means of a wife should be taken into account? She may he a material witness in the case or not a party to the application. For example, a vicar whose wife has left him may be an adversarial party. Have the Synod or the Church Commissioners considered such an analogous matter?
Mr. Alison: The hon. Gentleman will note the phrase in clause 2(4):
"the Commission shall consider the financial resources of the applicant".
The conclusion that it may reach following that consultation remains within its discretion. The sort of technical or human point that the hon. Gentleman has given will readily be taken into account and weighed in the most humane way by the commission in its discretion.
Mr. Tony Benn: The right hon. Gentleman says that he is sure that it will be all right. Parliament is telling the Church that, where a vicar is appealing on a matter that will require legal aid —it may be of an ecclesiastical nature and have nothing to do with his relations with his wife, from whom he may be separated —that it can examine, like the Supplementary Benefits Commission, whether the wife can afford to pay. Is the right hon. Gentleman asking Parliament to give a family means test provision where there is a legal aid arrangement that might protect a vicar from dismissal from his parish?
Mr. Alison: The Church of England asks us, in this Measure, to authorise the making of rules. The rules then made will have to come before the House for scrutiny and be made subject to the negative resolution procedure. The right hon. Gentleman will have a further opportunity to consider the rules as made. They will have to be subject to the ultimate assent of the House if prayed against.
Mr. Benn: I accept what the right hon. Gentleman says, but what if people object in principle, as I do, to the idea of a family means test for legal aid? The only way in which that could be clearly shown to the Church would be by declining to pass the Measure tonight.
Mr. Alison: The right hon. Gentleman has already made a helpful intervention and has sent up a signal, which will be duly noted. The rules must be fully endorsed and passed by the General Synod. It is not unresponsive or unaware of the interest that the House takes. The right hon. Gentleman's objection in principle to family circumstances being taken into account will be noted. I shall make it my business to ensure that the General Synod is aware of his sensitivities on this matter. It may be that the rules will be considered in the light of his comments.
The right hon. Gentleman is right. If, finally, in the light of all the criticisms and reflections made in the House and elsewhere relating to the rules and their consideration in the Synod—in the House of Bishops and Clergy, who are the most intimately affected by this, and to whom no doubt the right hon. Gentleman's point has already occurred — the rules come before the House with roughly what is here suggested in place, the only remedy available to the right hon. Gentleman is to vote against them when they are brought here in the form of a statutory instrument. He may then pray against them.
Mr. Benn: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for clarifying the matter. I am particularly grateful for the flattering suggestion that I have only to make an intervention for the Synod immediately to abandon the

263
family means test, that he will undertake to refer my comments to the Synod and that it will no doubt yield immediately to what might be called the "Chesterfield objection".
However, the right hon. Gentleman did not answer my question. If we want to rule out the possibility of a family means test, the only way to do so is to defeat the Measure. If we defeat it, the Synod will have to reconsider the matter and bring it back without even an enabling provision. I am asking the right hon. Gentleman to give me advice as to how one could rule out, without having to listen to speeches or read Hansard, any possibility of a family means test.
Mr. Alison: The right hon. Gentleman has over-evaluated the significance that I placed on his intervention. I would certainly not claim that the General Synod is waiting agog for every word that drops from the right hon. Gentleman's lips. However, as his colleague in this House, I have my ears finely tuned to his remarks and I shall certainly make it my business to ensure that his views are conveyed to the General Synod. However, I am afraid that I cannot guarantee that the General Synod in its wisdom will not come forward with rules including what the right hon. Gentleman describes as a family means test.
Part II comprises nine clauses. Clause 5 amends the Extra-Parochial Ministry Measure 1967, under which clergymen are licensed to perform offices in institutions such as hospitals and prisons, to take account of the changes made in the law of marriage for households or detained persons under the Marriage Act 1983. The clause has been included in response to the request made by the Home Office, during the preparation of the Marriage Act 1983, that consequential amendments to the 1967 Measure be made by Measure rather than in the 1983 Act. The effect is to enable clergymen to solemnize certain marriages in institutions such as hospitals, prisons or places of learning.
Clause 6 provides for the name of a diocesan or suffragan see to be changed. As present, there is no machinery to allow this to happen and the clause gives powers to Her Majesty in Council to change the name of a see.
Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House whether the clause was prompted by the likely request for such a change? It was recently reported in the press that the diocese of Ripon was contemplating changing its name to the diocese of Ripon and Leeds or Leeds and Ripon. Are there any other such changes in the pipeline?
Mr. Alison: The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that the clause was prompted by the case to which he referred. I am not aware of any others but perhaps when the precedent has been set, others will wish to follow suit.
Clause 7 deals with the revocation of licences. A bishop, by right of his office, has always been able at his discretion to revoke a minister's licence to officiate in his diocese. Until 1964, a minister had no right of appeal. Section 10 of the Clergy (Ordination and Miscellaneous Provisions) Measure 1964 gave the minister a right of appeal and incorporated in statute the bishop's power to revoke summarily licences of ministers in his diocese. It was considered desirable to give a similar right of appeal to
264
other persons licensed by the bishop — for example, deaconesses and lay workers. Section 10 of the 1964 Measure is being repealed and clause 7 is an enabling power for the General Synod to make provision by canon as to the revocation of licences of ministers, deaconesses, lay workers and readers.
Mr. Bermingham: Bearing in mind the fact that the right is now being extended to deaconesses, lay readers and other persons, and bearing in mind the views expressed by some bishops on what should and should not be practised by ministers of the Church, does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it would be a little fairer if the reason for the revocation of the licence were given? I understand that by tradition, if a minister has his licence revoked, reasons are given for that revocation. Should we not write into the statute a provision that says that if a deaconess, lay reader or other person has his or her licence revoked, reasons must always be given? The person wishing to challenge the decision would then have something upon which to act and a ground upon which to appeal. Otherwise, they will find themselves doing something akin to swimming in a bowl of treacle.
Mr. Alison: It follows logically in the provision that is being made, both for the revocation of a licence and for an appeal against such a revocation, that that against which an appeal is to be lodged must be specified in clear terms so that an appeal is feasible. The very fact that those two notions go together demonstrates with logic that the nature of the charge will be made plain.
Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West): Will the right hon. Gentleman assist me by telling me whether there is any other appeal other than that to the archbishop following revocation of a licence by the bishop—
Mr. Harry Greenway: To God.
Mr. Banks: Well, from a sedentary position the hon. Gentleman says "To God". However, God works in mysterious ways and He might not necessarily deliver a judgment that is immediately helpful to the minister who has just had his licence taken away. Is there a more earthly appeal or any way in which a minister can, for example, go to an industrial tribunal or come to Parliament to make a further appeal?
Mr. Alison: I can speak with authority only within the ambit of the Measure and of canon law, which underpins and underlies it. So far as canon law is concerned, the archbishops at either end of the wicket are, as it were, the longstops of this match. The buck stops with them; they have the final determination—
Mr. Tony Banks: It is a funny old cricket match.
Mr. Alison: Well, although I am not a lawyer, there may be some scope in common law or natural justice for further appeal. However, I am not competent to pronounce on that. It is conceivable that common law might have a part to play in such matters. I can advise the hon. Gentleman only in the context of common law, because determination of an appeal is made by the archbishops.
As right hon. and hon. Gentlemen who will have been able to get hold of a copy of the Ecclesiastical Committee's report will have seen, the second paragraph of that report states:
"The relevant Canon approved by the General Synod would give ministers the same right of appeal as they presently enjoy, and the Ecclesiastical Committee accept the evidence

265
given on behalf of the General Synod that it would be unrealistic to suppose that the power in Clause 7 would in future be used in such a way as to remove or cut down the right of appeal."
Clause 8 is also an enabling power to make provision by canon as to the appointment and dismissal of organists and choirmasters. The right of appointment to the office of organist belongs to the incumbent. However, the parochial church council is responsible for the payment of his remuneration. The right of the incumbent to appoint and dismiss an organist is being retained, but provision is to be made by canon for the agreement of the parochial church council generally to be attained first, before an organist is appointed or dismissed.
Clauses 9 to 12 deal with minor amendments or improvements to various statutes made at the request of the Church Commissioners and the Church of England pension board.
Clause 13 amends the Parochial Church Councils (Powers) Measure 1956 so that money given at the service of holy communion should be disposed of at the discretion of the parochial church council and not of the minister and churchwardens as currently directed by the rubric of the Book of Common Prayer. The provision makes it possible for communion alms to be treated in the same way as the other money collected in church, which is already the regular practice of the majority of parish churches. It should be noted that money given at a holy communion service which is in the form of a covenant or other pledge in favour of the PCC is not, in any case, subject to the rubric.
In its report, the Ecclesiastical Committee was of the opinion that
"the case for Clause 13 is well-founded."
Mr. Harry Greenway: Could my right hon. Friend say how much, in proportion to the general total of almsgiving, comes from holy communion services? I believe that it is much more substantial than 50 per cent. and, therefore, that this is a most important Measure.
Mr. Alison: I cannot give my hon. Friend that information, but I shall seek to obtain it and communicate it to him. He will understand the difficulty about having a sure measure of this because of the wide and divergent practices in many parish churches. Many of them have the communion service as an integrated part of their main service of morning prayer. Others have it as an isolated and single service early or late in the day. It is difficult to get cut-and-dried information, but I shall try to do so and pass it on to my hon. Friend.
Mr. Tony Banks: Will the right hon. Gentleman indulge me by going back to clause 8, which he skipped over quickly? Why are we talking specifically about an organist or a choirmaster? Are there no other office-holders in a church whom the minister might wish to dismiss, or already has the power to dismiss? Why is it considered inappropriate for a parochial church council to discuss the reasons for the dismissal of an organist? Are the morals of organists particularly lax? We might be discussing an alleged improper relationship between him and a member of the choir. Of course, it might not be a him; it might be a her. Why are organists being singled out? Does the right hon. Gentleman know something about the sexual mores of organists which Opposition Members do not know? We should like to share that experience with him.
Mr. Alison: The hon. Gentleman is tempting me to draw a veil aside, which it would be quite improper for me to draw. I must remain comparatively Trappist in my response to him.
I am content to return to clause 8. The incumbent, or the minister, as he is properly described in the clause, does not have many individuals whom he might have the power, authority or occasion to dismiss. All members of his congregation are voluntary participants in the community, the parish and the fellowship of the Church. His own fellow-ordained clergy would be subject to the various appropriate canons and ecclesiastical disciplinary measures. Their disciplining would be taken out of his hands. Paradoxically, it boils down to the choir and the choirmaster, who are paid from funds which remain at his discretion.
The Measure seeks to make it the norm, or to reflect the broadly established norm, that it is natural for the incumbent to discuss with the parochial church council, which has the ultimate spending sanction at its disposal, whether the hiring or firing should take place. Particular sensitivity is reflected in the comments made by the Ecclesiastical Committee that there may he some occasions relating to a dismissal when it would probably be unhelpful, particularly when personal relationships were involved with the individual subject to possible dismissal, for the nature of the case to be widely discussed and circulated among a quite numerous parochial church council. It would probably be accepted by all in the parish that the discretion of the vicar was properly exercised without more general and widespread discussion.
Mr. Tony Banks: Surely the right hon. Gentleman knows that the more vulgar Sunday newspapers are usually full of stories of vicars running off with wives and boy friends and organists going off with choirboys. In those cases, the parochial church councils will have the disadvantage of reading about these events in local or national newspapers and not having the opportunity to discuss them and to make a decision. Surely they must know more about the facts than the journalists who go sniffing around church vestries to try to get hold of these stories.
Mr. Alison: The hon. Gentleman has not taken my point. Reports in The Sun and the News of the World, or whatever other papers may be thought likely to be interested in such cases—
Mr. Frank Cook: Why only those two?
Mr. Alison: I can give the hon. Gentleman a much longer list, but I do not want to detain the House.
The very fact that an incumbent decides not to discuss a particular case with anybody, including the PCC, is probably the best remedy for securing that the PCC does not subsequently read about that particular case. Discretion is of the essence of this provision.
Mr. Michael Latham: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that at present the PCC has no locus in this matter and the purpose of the new Measure is to give it a new locus, subject to the exceptional case where the archdeacon intervenes? The Ecclesiastical Committee — it is a matter of public record — asked exactly the same question that my right hon. Friend has just answered.
Mr. Alison: I am happy to confirm my hon. Friend's interpretation. The PCC has no de jure involvement in the situation, but in most parishes and for many years past there has been a de facto relationship of close co-operation for the obvious reason that the PCC holds the purse strings. This measure formalises that partnership but makes provision, by the use of a particular word, for the incumbent, in certain circumstances, to dispense with the advice of the PCC in a dismissal case.
Mr. Bermingham: The right hon. Gentleman passed clause 10 at a gallop; that deals with section 31 of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967. Can the right hon. Gentleman explain where, for example, the church has a property which it holds on a long leasehold, whether the vicar, curate or somebody else becomes the tenant, why, in the terms of this amendment the church is surrendering its right to enfranchise that leasehold? The right hon. Gentleman may be well aware that if a person who holds such a leasehold is resident for more than five years, he has a right to enfranchise that leasehold. If that leasehold lies in the body corporate, for example the diocesan board, that right is lost. Would it not be better to allow the vicar or curate, or other servant of the church, to have it in his name during the course of his occupancy of a particular office and thus to exercise the benefit of section 31?
Mr. Alison: The hon. Gentleman talks in the language and the jargon of a lawyer. I suspect that he must have some legal knowledge. I would want to see in the cold print of the Official Report exactly the point he is making. On studying it carefully, I shall get in touch with him on his complex point. Suffice it to say that clause 10 amends the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 to take account of the transfer of the interests of the incumbent as landlord of glebe land to the diocesan board of finance by the Endowments and Glebe Measure of 1976.
The Home Office has been fully consulted on the measure throughout its progress through the General Synod, and the General Registrar Office and the Department of the Environment have also been consulted on clauses 5 and 10. When the Measure was given final approval by the General Synod at its February 1986 group of sessions, there was no vote against the legislation. The Ecclesiastical Committee stated in its report that the Measure is expedient.
10.28 pm
Mr. Tony Benn: There has been some merriment in the course of the speech of the right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison), but for those in the Church this must be an important Measure. It may not raise issues familiar to Members of Parliament, but it touches on pensions, legal aid — on which I raised questions about a family means test—the ownership and disposition of land and land rights, and the name of a diocese, which would certainly have as much interest in the Church as a change in our constituency boundaries. It deals with the revocation of a licence by a bishop. It deals with the question of the appointment or dismissal of organists or choirmasters. It deals with the disposition of funds coming in in holy communion.
Those are very important matters. They come before a House that does not by law require to be Anglian or Christian, and I do not believe that the House tonight, in a debate that perhaps is more jocular than it should be,
268
should venture to enact such a Measure, for a very simple reason. I shall give the House that reason, first in detail and then in general.
If an organist is dismissed in Chesterfield and comes to me as his Member of Parliament and says, "I have been dismissed," am Ito say, "Nothing to do with me"? He will say, "Not at all. You passed the Church of England (Legal Aid and Miscellaneous Provisions) Measure. Why did you pass it? It is under the authority of Parliament that I have been dismissed."
Or what about a minister who may be dismissed by a bishop, for all sorts of reasons? I will not go into them, but the Bishop of Ripon has recently made some statements about his attitude to the sexuality of those in his diocese. —[Interruption.] Hon. Members may agree or disagree, but I do not see why Parliament should empower the bishop to sack a minister and then the minister be able to come to us and ask, "Why did you pass this law?" with the answer being," Because you are an established Church."
We do not in this House legislate for Catholic churches. We do not legislate for synagogues. We as Members do not have to be Anglicans. The Measure could go through tonight on the votes of humanists. According to Gallup polls, a quarter of the population of this country claim no religious affiliations whatever. Yet a House of Commons that has no knowledge of, interest in, or religious commitment to, the Church of England, is taking decisions that, although we may laugh about them, because they have a comic side late at night, are desperately important to the people for whom they would then become law of the land.
I raised this matter of the establishment on the bishops retirement Measure some time ago. The two Measures go together. On that occasion I did not divide the House; I shall tonight, if I receive support, aim to do so.
There was a provision in that Measure that the Church of England, with the authority of Parliament, could retire a bishop, which, among other things, would take him out of the House of Lords. The only person who can be removed from the House of Lords is a bishop forced to retire. Bishops, when they retire voluntarily, not being temporal peers, do not remain there. A bishop can be retired, and the bishop can revoke the licence of a minister. But the power to appoint a bishop rests with the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister does not in law have to be an Anglican. In law, the Prime Minister does not even have to be a Christian.
Mr. Harry Greenway rose—
Mr. Benn: I shall give way shortly to the hon. Gentleman, because he may have a point of substance.
The question I am asking the House to consider is whether we any longer seriously wish, as a House of Commons, to interfere in and legislate for the affairs of one Church only, in one part of the United Kingdom only. We disestablished the Church of Wales. We disestablished the Church of Ireland many years ago. The Church of Wales was disestablished by a 1914 Act. The Church of Scotland is not established.
Do we really want tonight to entrench in the legislation of this country detailed control of the affairs of human beings who have rights of their own that we tonight are taking away without knowledge or any possibility of amendment? Does not that raise wider questions?
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Benn: I give way to all those hon. Members who wish to intervene—by seniority. Perhaps they could sort it out for themselves.
Mr. Patrick Cormack: Although the right hon. Gentleman is right in saying that in other parts of the United Kingdom the Church has been disestablished, the fact is that in England the Church has not been disestablished. So we have not only a right but a duty to examine these Measures.
Mr. Benn: I take the point. But I am, and always have been, a disestablishmentarian. It is a permissible view to take. If under 30 per cent. of the clergy, according to Gallup polls, for what they are worth, take the same view—
Mr. Harry Greenway rose—
Mr. Benn: I will give way to everyone in a moment.
If I want to bring about disestablishment and the separation of church and state, which is a legitimate political objective, one way to do it would be to refuse to pass the Measure. Then the Church would say, "We must be free to legislate." if the Church legislated, that would be part of the process. What the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) said is correct. Under law we have to legislate, but if we refused to legislate, the Church would have to decide for itself.
It would be just as if the Prime Minister were to refuse to appoint a bishop, which it is open to a Prime Minister to do; the Church would have to pick its own bishop. That would be one way of precipitating a separation of Church and state—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. I must remind the House that this is a very narrow Measure. It does not deal with disestablishment. Hon. Members must relate their comments to the legal fund and the provisions of that fund, which is the crux of the Measure that we are dealing with.
Mr. Bermingham: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Surely if we are discussing a Measure which deals with the question of the locus standi of a particular body, we are entitled to question the locus standi. Otherwise, surely we cannot discuss the matters relative to the question generally. I appreciate that your assistant clerk may be advising against me, but I say gently that I disagree with him.
Madam Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman may well disagree with the Chair, but that is not what the Measure is about. The Measure is about legal aid and the provisions of that fund. It does not relate to the disestablishment of the Church. I am simply giving a warning. If hon. Members wish to go wider, their comments must relate to what is in the Bill.
I understand that the right hon. Gentleman was about to give way to the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway).
Mr. Harry Greenway: The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) rightly said that all hon. Members, regardless of their religion, are entitled to speak upon the Church's position in relation to its employees, such as an organist. Does he accept that the spirit of these debates is that on the whole only hon. Members who belong to the Church of England participate? A great many hon. Members who belong to other churches do not
270
take part in these debates simply because, although they have the right, as he does, they feel that it is outside their real interests and outside their moral interests.
Mr. Benn: If it is true, as the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South said, that we have a duty to do it, that duty applies to every hon. Member. The fact that the debate tonight may he confined to people of a particular religious denomination has no bearing. In the view of the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway), if a Jew or a Catholic were to become Prime Minister, that Prime Minister would not appoint a bishop. That would have exactly the effect that I seek, which is that Parliament should not intervene in these matters.
Mr. Harry Greenway rose—
Mr. Benn: I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman again. Other hon. Members will want to raise points.
I am serious in what I am saying. I have no wish to circumvent your ruling, Madam Deputy Speaker, or to leave the Chamber under circumstances preceded by a Division, so I will not get into any difficulties of that kind.
I ask the House seriously to consider, as we deal with what one might call the minor aspects of establishment, whether the manifest absurdity of what we are doing does not point to the liberation of the Church from the control of the state.
Supposing today I had been moving a ten-minute Bill to establish the Catholic Church, people would have thought that I was mad to suggest that Parliament should take over the Catholic Church; or to establish the Jewish faith, so that the Chief Rabbi would be appointed by the Prime Minister. He has been put in the Lords, but that is another matter, and that is another aspect of privilege. As far as I know, the Prime Minister did not appoint the Chief Rabbi; she ennobled him, along with a lot of others.
I believe that what is wrong in our system of government is the absolute corruption of patronage. I raised it today with Mr. Speaker on other matters—the power of the Prime Minister to appoint Ministers, to appoint bishops, to appoint judges, to go to war, to sign treaties, without any requirement to come to Parliament.
What we are discussing today is the implication of patronage. A Prime Minister appoints a bishop. A bishop then sacks one of the clergy in the diocese under the law that we are about to pass tonight. The man appeals, and they will not give him legal aid because his wife has some British Telecom shares. Are we really tonight to uphold the principle of state control of the Church? I believe not.
I hope that I am within the ruling that you have given, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I want to be a good parliamentarian. I have been here far too long to wreck that reputation now. But what I am saying is that there are lessons to be learned from individual Measures, and this Measure, in my honest judgment, confirms the view I have long held—that the Church should be free of the state.
It is easy to giggle and say that the hon. Member is favouring privatisation—I have heard that said in fun—but of course it is more than that. In other countries, where the Church is controlled by the state, we denounce it as a denial of human rights and the rights of religion. In Britain we just assume it is all right. It is quite sensible for an hon. Gentleman to be put up by the Church Commissioners to justify a Measure. We all nod and thank God there is not a Whip, and half a dozen Members come along and it goes through.

271
But it is more important than that, because there has been evidence of direct political intervention in the Church. I do not have to go into it, because I would be out of order, but the anger at the Archbishop's sermon on the Falklands, the Crockford's dispute, which led to a tragic suicide, the argument for the appointment of a stronger —[Interruption.] Well, the bishops—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is a superb parliamentarian, but he is now going wide of the Measure, I am afraid.
Mr. Benn: I do not wish to fall foul of your ruling, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I want the chance to develop a fair argument. But it is a fact that the relationship between Church and state, which has burbled on non-controversially for a long time, has flared into political argument in recent weeks. Therefore, we have to look at the implications of what we are doing.
Mr. Latham rose—
Mr. Benn: The rules of the House are that, if a Member does not give way, the hon. Member wishing to intervene has to resume his seat.
I am sorry to perform your function for a moment, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will give way in a second.
Madam Deputy Speaker: My attention was riveted on the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Benn: I find that very flattering, just as I do the fact that I understand that the Synod is going to amend its plans when its members read Hansard, according to what I was told a bit earlier on.
I am going to seek to divide the House tonight, first of all because I think this is a bad measure in regard to the family means test, but secondly because I think that no Parliament, looking at the argument that surrounds the relationship between Church and state, should reinforce that relationship by purporting tonight, not being a Christian body, to lay down laws for the Church.
Mr. Latham: Could the right hon. Gentleman answer two questions very briefly? First, has any significant number of people in the General Synod asked him to propose disestablishment in the House? Secondly, will he confirm that the present rules relating to the appointment of bishops were set in motion by Lord Callaghan when the right hon. Gentleman was a member of his Cabinet?
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have ruled that the first of those questions is out of order.
Mr. Benn: I did not know that an hon. Member had to be interrogated on his sources, but if it is of any interest to the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham), he will see from the record that I have been arguing this case seriously, beginning with a major lecture at St. James's, Piccadilly about five years ago, the text of which I sent to a number of bishops and clergy; out of that, and in correspondence since with the Archbishop of Canterbury and so on, I have put the case honestly and sincerely.
I wrote to the Archbishop of Canterbury just before Christmas, telling him that I intend to proceed—as I do, but it would be out of order to discuss it now—with an English Church Bill which my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) and I intend to bring forward in order to follow the precedent of the Welsh
272
Church Act 1914, the text of which I have but which you will not let me read, Madam Deputy Speaker. I do not complain, however, because that would be beyond the point.
But I do know, from my correspondence on this matter which is quite extensive, that a very large and growing number of clergy in the Church of England are deeply worried about a relationship that they thought was cosy and innocent and which is now charged with political danger for them, arising from the patronage of this or any other Prime Minister.
As to Lord Callaghan, I do not answer for him, and I hope that I can anticipate what I shall be writing later on that matter, for those who cannot wait.
I have almost finished, Madam Deputy Speaker. I hope that I have not strained the rules of the House—I do not believe that I have. There is a libertarian element in the Conservative party — I am not trying to divide hon. Members on the Government Benches but there is an element there which believes, as I do, that the state should not control the Church.
When the Anglican Communion meets later this year, the only Church in that Communion throughout the world whose bishops are appointed by the Prime Minister will be ours. In no other episcopalian Church does that occur. It is a feudal anomaly, launched by Henry VIII because he would not have the Pope interfering. It is a feudal anomaly that turns up as a funny Measure that normally goes through on the nod but which tonight has become real because of the political pressures being put upon the established Church. I recommend the House not to accept the Measure.
10.46 pm
Mr. Patrick Cormack: I shall not be tempted to follow the arch-leveller of Parliament too far along the primrose path. The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) is an experienced parliamentarian, as both he and you, Madam Deputy Speaker, have attested, but the fact of the matter is that he is waging a campaign, as he would readily admit, for the disestablishment of the Church of England. In a strange, paradoxical way, the Measure before us tonight will make his task all the easier. Because it will do so, I have grave misgivings about it.
I should like briefly to refer to a very interesting and extremely perceptive letter that I have received from an experienced cleric, who wrote to me in these terms:
"I would respectfully submit that there are two points at least of the greatest significance in the Measure: first, that it is possible for the Church of England to legislate for the people of this country without their having a clue as to what is proposed. The average Churchwarden, Incumbent, Curate or Organist who is affected, for better for worse, by this Measure is quite wholly ignorant of what is about to become the law (unless you can stop it). You can test this innocence for yourself easily enough".
That is true.
He goes on:
"Secondly … it is a very undesirable development that many of these areas of law should be permanently removed from Parliamentary scrutiny, and for the future made a matter purely of delegated legislation by Canon: not even to be laid before Parliament as a Statutory Instrument would be, or the Rules made under certain other Measures are."
This really brings us to the nub of it. There are those of us who feel very deeply and passionately about the Church of England as by law established. This debate, in

273
a sense, is rather like Hamlet without the prince, because I have very much missed the presence of Mr. Enoch Powell, the former right hon. Member for South Down. He brought to our debates a depth of knowledge and passionate intensity that is much missed.
Tonight we are being asked to connive at a Measure that can have only one effect—to erode the influence of Parliament, to remove parliamentary control and to give greater autonomy to the General Synod and the bureaucracy of the Church of England.
Mr. Latham: We must get the facts straight. At present there is no parliamentary scrutiny of the dismissal of an organist by the minister. The minister can just dismiss him. All that clause 8 does is give new rights to the parochial church council.
Mr. Cormack: That may or may not be so. If my hon. Friend will allow me to develop my case, I shall do so.
My hon. Friend cannot deny—no one can—that we are willingly abdicating a degree of parliamentary responsibility. It may be perfectly reasonable that we should do that; it may be an entirely proper step to take; but if we pass the Measure, that is what we shall be doing.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Selby, (Mr. Alison), when introducing the Measure with his customary moderate lucidity, referred to the Ecclesiastical Committee. Some of us who serve on that committee feel that it is an unsatisfactory body for one fundamental reason — it cannot amend. It can deem a Measure expedient, or reject it. As hon. Members know, many measures that come before us do not divide the House on Second Reading, but are subject to detailed scrutiny and amendment in Committee. Many measures emerge from Committee much the better for that detailed scrutiny.
The Ecclesiastical Committee, on which many hon. Members serve and have served for many years, is unique in that it is a Statutory Committee of the Commons and Lords, bringing together—I exclude myself, but say this with some certainty — Members with enormous experience and commitment to the Church of England. But it does not have the power to amend. If it did, it would. Anyone who has sat on the Committee for any length of time— I have sat on it for many years—would know that we frequently deem a Measure expedient because we do not want to cause a confrontation; nor do we wish to cause great consternation in the Church, but we are often not wholly happy with the Measure before us.
My right hon. Friend was guilty to some extent of the sin of which we are all guilty from time to time—that of selective quotation. I want to quote parts of the Ecclesiastical Committee's report which he did not see fit to quote to the House. He quoted entirely accurately and properly from the second paragraph of clause 7, but he did not quote from the concluding words of the first paragraph:
"The Committee were concerned that the effect of the Measure was to remove a right of appeal at present directly conferred by Measure, and therefore under Parliament's control, and replace it by a power to deal with the matter by Canon, thus taking it out of Parliament's control".
That is why I said at the beginning of my speech that this Measure, if passed, is taking a step along the road to disestablishment. That is the road that the right hon. Member for Chesterfield seeks to take. Debates such as this are not party political and it is sometimes paradoxical that hon. Members find themselves — almost like Caesar's Gaul—divided into three parts.
274
Let us consider the report's comments on clause 13 In the second paragraph, the Ecclesiastical Committee said:
"The objects to which money collected in church is in general to be allocated are determined by the parochial church council jointly with the minister. That is provided by section (iv) of the Parochial Church Councils (Powers) Measure 1956. That provision is, however, expressed to be subject to the directions contained in the Book of Common Prayer."
I remind the House that the Book of Common Prayer is still the statutory Book of Common Prayer of the Church of England.
Mr. Latham: A statutory book.
Mr. Cormack: My hon. Friend reminds me, quite accurately that it is a statutory book, but neverthless, to many of us, it is fundamental.
Mr. Latham: Amen.
Mr. Cormack: I am glad that my hon. Friend echoes that sentiment.
The Ecclesiastical Committee report continues:
"That provision is, however, expressed to be subject to the directions contained in the Book of Common Prayer as to the disposal of money given at the offertory. The directions in question are embodied in one of the rubrics at the end of the service of Holy Communion, and that provides that such money is to 'be disposed of to such pious and charitable uses as the churchwardens' "—
in fact the Book of Common Prayer says ministers and churchwardens—
"'shall think fit.' The effect of Clause 13 of the Measure is that churchwardens would lose"—
I must declare an interest as a churchwarden—
"their ancient rights in this respect and money given at Holy Communion would be at the disposal of the parochial church council jointly with the minister, like all the other money collected in church."
No one can pretend that the changes are not significant alterations. They are steps along the road towards disestablishment. That is a perfectly proper road for certain people to advocate that we should tread. The right hon. Member for Chesterfield has an extremely consistent and honourable record in this regard. He has never disguised his feelings. The argument that he has put forward, year after year, has, in logic—if one accepts his premise—been entirely reasonable. However, there are other arguments, and I am sure that he would accept the logic and integrity of my arguments, as I accept his.
Mr. Tony Banks rose—
Mr. Cormack: I shall give way in a moment.
There are many of us who firmly and deeply believe in the position of the established Church and who very much regret changing its status by stealth. Who would deny that the Measure is, in effect, changing the status of the established Church by stealth?
I would welcome a full-blooded debate on establishment, and perhaps at some stage in this Parliament or in a future one that will take place. That debate is not taking place tonight, but it is perfectly permissible for those of us who see the Church of England, as a result of the Measure, taking steps along that road to say that it should hold, listen and take account. Parliament must realise what It is doing. We must realise that, if this Measure is passed, we are surrendering certain rights, passing over certain responsibilities and sacrificing a position. Fair enough, if that is what people want Parliament to do, but let us he in no two minds about what we are doing.
Mr. Tony Banks: It has been argued in the past that disestablishment started on its long road with, for instance, the repeal of the Test Acts and the Catholic Emancipation Act. We are still, perhaps, proceeding down that road. Will the hon. Gentleman tell us, as he is obviously opposed to this Measure, whether he will join us in the Lobby and vote against it? If so, it will be the first time that we have been in the same Lobby, and we shall be there for completely different reasons.
Mr. Cormack: The hon. Gentleman knows enough about my independence on a number of issues to be aware that it would not be the first time that we have been in the same Lobby. Whether we will be tonight depends on what others say in the debate. I simply want to put down a few markers.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the hon. Gentleman joining the unholy alliance?
Mr. Cormack: Any alliance joined by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) would be sublimated, not holy.
Mr. Simon Hughes: I understand the hon. Gentleman's objections to disestablishment, but can he tell us whether he honestly believes that in practice the Measure takes any steps down that road? It seems to me that the proposal for the alteration of the collection money does not alter that issue.
Secondly, has the hon. Gentleman any practical objection to, for example, the proposal that the funds collected during holy communion be distributed by the parochial church council rather than by the churchwardens? He does not seem yet to have made any objection to the content of the Measure.
Mr. Cormack: Either the hon. Gentleman has been slumbering, or I have been guilty of total obscurity in the argument that I have sought to advance.
I do not wish to transgress further on the time of other hon. Members on both sides of the House; nor do I wish to trespass on territory which you, Madam Deputy Speaker, have suggested is forbidden. Let me simply say in conclusion that we should realise tonight that if the Measure is passed we shall be giving up a certain amount of the parliamentary control, scrutiny and supervision—as well as parliamentary duties—that we now possess. I do not think that we should do that lightly. It is very important that, sooner or later — in my view, it is in everyone's interests that it should be sooner—we should examine, with total clarity and objectivity, the relations of Church and state; and, in particular, the position of the established Church.
11.2 pm
Mr. Frank Field: I hope to be a little briefer than previous contributors. Let me begin by thanking my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) for making out a powerful case for establishment, although anyone listening to him might not have fully realised that he was doing so. The case that he put tonight centred on a couple of clauses: first, clause 7, which Opposition Members take very seriously. After all, it is the reselection clause, and those of us who have to face that process are very interested in people's rights of appeal. He also made an important point about how any means test will be calculated for legal aid.
Had we had a disestablished Church, this Measure would not have come before us. We would not have had
276
the benefit of listening to my right hon. Friend making his case, and obtaining an undertaking from the Church Estates Commissioner that Synod would at least listen to the arguments put forward, if not actually agree with them.
The other argument is one that I have had before with my right hon. Friend. It is a very simple argument about the Church of England. Because it is established, it belongs to the whole nation and that is why the House has every right to discuss it—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes, it does. The Church is accountable to all the people who are elected to this Chamber. It is right that that should be so. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield brings forward his Measure for disestablishment I shall oppose it, as I have opposed every measure of privatisation. We shall see a national body handed over to a sect or the shareholders, and for that reason I will object to it.
Mr. Bermingham: My hon. Friend worries me a little when he says that were the Church disestablished there would not be provisions for legal aid and so on. Surely, then, the servants or employees of the Church would have the normal right to apply for legal aid, subject to the normal rules and not the sectarian rules contained in the Measure.
Mr. Field: Each time I hear my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) intervene, I become more convinced that he must be a lawyer, as does the right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison).
I want to make two other points about the way in which the Church brings forward these Measures. When pressed, the Commissioners had to say that although they are changing the status quo they can assure the House that nothing will change. Hon. Members from both sides of the Chamber have been concerned about people's rights when they face the possibility of losing their jobs. The right hon. Member for Selby said, "We can assure you that when the Church obtains control nothing will change." If nothing is going to change, why do we need the Measure in the first place?
The second point deals with clause 13. It shows the dangers of a body that wants to reform for reform's sake. It changes what should happen to collections at the eucharist. I have been briefed, as was the right hon. Member for Selby, by a vicar in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker). He pointed out the irony of bringing forward this reform tonight. In 1549, Cranmer directed congregations to put their offerings in the poor man's box, as it was then called. He said that those offerings should be used for the direct relief of poverty. Because congregations did not pay enough attention to that, the direction was brought back in 1552 and the churchwardens were asked to produce the box in front of the congregation so that they could be reminded of their duty to the poor, not just in theory, but so that they would give some of their wealth for the relief of poverty. Tonight we are discussing the abolition of the compromise that was put forward in the Prayer Book of 1662.
It seems ironic that when the Church is setting up the urban fund, it should also come before Parliament to ask us to abolish a much longer-standing relief of poverty. It is just a warning to the Church. When the right hon.

277
Member for Selby reports back to the Synod he will report back on the household means test, which concerns many people, not just my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield. He will also report on the temper of these debates and the difficulty that will be experienced in getting through reforms, a large part of which are unnecessary.
11.8 pm
Mr. Harry Greenway: I do not have strong feelings about establishment or disestablishment. However, I certainly echo the views of the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) who feels strongly that hon. Members who do not have the slightest honest interest in the Church of England ought not to be seeking to make powerful contributions to discussions on the Church of which he and I are members. I say that simply in respect of the fact that most colleagues in the House who do not have a close and living membership of the Church of England do not normally take part in these discussions, for honourable reasons. I do not deny anybody their rights. As the hon. Member for Birkenhead has often said, that is a point that many hon. Members should bear in mind, and I do not fear to say it.
Mr. Tony Banks: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman's strictures apply to me. Is he saying that, because I am not a practising communicant, although I have been baptised and confirmed in the Church of England, I should not take part in the debate? I should tell the hon. Gentleman that I was a verger at one time.
Mr. Greenway: My point applies to whom it may concern. I shall be brief because other hon. Members want to take part—
Mr. Skinner: Chapel.
Mr. Greenway: Labour Members can all make their claims. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is shouting, "Chapel," and God knows what. I shall let him shout.
Clause 8 will facilitate the dismissal of a church organist by the incumbent without the agreement of the parochial church council, if agreed by the archdeacon; I fear that clause.
The last Bishop of Dover said many a time that the devil often comes into church through the organ. That may be true. It is certain that many an organist has got up sides with his or her incumbent because they do not agree with the music on offer at church services, and tragedies have resulted.
I would cite, in the presence of my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham), the case of Oakham parish church, where there was, until a year or two ago, a superb, almost unsurpassed choir affiliated to the Royal School of Church Music. It would sing Stanford in B flat and Stanford in C as well as any other choir. The organist got uptight with the vicar; the vicar dismissed him and the choir walked out in support of the organist. The Church has been deprived of a major element of worship through its music since that moment. I am not saying that the present choir does not make a brave effort, but it is not like the first one.
Such an example will be facilitated by this measure. That is a pity, and I express my reservations about that matter.
278
Clause 13 will take from churchwardens the right of disposal of collections at holy communion services. My right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) was unable to give the proportion of Church income that is given on the plate at holy communion services. I believe it to be substantial; possibly as much as 75 or 80 per cent. of the Church's income.
There are not many churches, rightly so, that do not teach that the holy communion service is the central service on a Sunday and of the Church.
Mr. Tim Boswell: Will my hon. Friend comment on the proportion of that giving of holy communion that comes from planned giving through the envelope scheme? It seems to me, and other Conservative Members, that the rubric has abolished itself because the overwhelming proportion of such giving in my parish church is in that form.
Mr. Greenway: The answer to my hon. Friend lies in the spirit of stewardship schemes and giving through envelope schemes, in which a member of a Church is asked to consider that the essential giving will be in the spirit of the eucharist. Therefore, I do not think that my argument falls down by virtue of my hon. Friend's important point.
If 75 or 80 per cent. of Church income comes through the holy communion service, this is a major step to take. I have always thought it valuable that churchwardens should be slightly apart from parochial church councils in their advice to incumbents or in their view of the appropriate disposal of church giving. Having sat on parochial church councils for a long time, I know that those bodies are sometimes given to discussion of an excessively parochial nature that does not take into account the wider aims of giving that a couple of wise churchwardens can see. That may seem a small point, but in practice it is substantial.
11.15 pm
Mr. Simon Hughes: The Church of England has not had much good said of it in this debate; in fact there has been no positive comment on it. With one exception, the provisions in the Measure should be accepted.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Tell us about "Voices and Choices For All".
Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman said that loud enough for it to appear in the Official Report, so I shall comment on it. On balance, i feel that the Church of England should be an institution in which the voices arid choices are for all and that it should not be subject to the jurisdiction of this place. I speak as one who was confirmed into the Church in Wales, which is disestablished. That is a proper issue and I would welcome an early debate on the matter.
The point made by the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) showed up the ludicrous nature of the debate. We could have a debate with 650 hon. Members, from all Churches and from none, participating to discuss the jurisdiction, running and practical details of the Church. Although I understand the arguments about whether the Church is a Church for the whole nation, in a nation many of whose members are of no faith or of other faiths, I think that the time has come to deal with this point and that the Church would be far more militant and probably more effective if it were not hidebound by

279
many of its traditions and old practices. For as long as we have jurisdiction, however, we must do our job. On that basis, I happily take part and argue that the Measure should be approved.
My one reservation coincides with that expressed by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and others, and I would ask the Synod to re-examine the provisions in clause 2 relating to legal aid. It is not in keeping with the mood and spirit of the times that the financial resources of another person should be taken into account in assessing a person's legal aid. Although elsewhere in the Measure we are removing from ourselves the right to determine very important matters of appeal, we are doing so on the basis that there will be an appeal mechanism through the hierarchy of the Church, and that is a satisfactory alternative.
I have made this complaint before. The Measure was approved by the Church with no dissent nearly two years ago. It has taken two years to come this far. The slowness of the legislative process is highly unsatisfactory.
Mr. Skinner: Like your merger.
Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is wrong about that. The process—
Mr. Skinner: It is not settled yet.
Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is certainly right to say that it is not settled yet but it started formally only six months ago and it is proceeding pretty quickly by comparison with this Measure.
As we hold responsibility for these matters, we owe it to the Church to get on with the job more quickly. I have now been nominated to the Joint Ecclesiastical Committee, which has not yet met in this Parliament. I am concerned that it has not met for one reason in particular. Members from this House have been nominated but I understand that Members from the other place have not yet been nominated. That is holding up an important Measure — the Church Urban Fund Measure, which needs urgently to come before the House.
I advise the right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison), who speaks for the Church Commissioners, that I hope that he will use his influence and that the members of his party's Front Bench will use their influence to make sure that Members are nominated in the other place so that that Ecclesiastical Committee can meet and we can deal with matters that are in the pipeline, and, with the Church urban fund, which needs to be dealt with soon. The delays that occur in relation to Church legislation are highly unsatisfactory and as long as we have the competence to deal with it, we should do so properly and expeditiously and not nearly so slowly as we do now.
11.20 pm
Mr. Gerald Bermingham: It may come as a slight embarrassment to the spokesman for the Church Commissioners, but I declare an interest as a lawyer. I remind my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) that his constituency is but a little way from mine and I have been known to be somewhat concerned with legal matters for some considerable time.
I also declare an interest as a non-member of the Church of England, so it is with the permission of the hon.
280
Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) that I trespass on such matters. Sometimes it pays to listen to the voice from without, rather than to the voice from within. The voice from without does not seek to interfere in the affairs of the Church of England, for which I have the greatest respect, but it occasionally seeks to question the wisdom of what the Church seeks to do.
Mr. Frank Field: My hon. Friend is making the case for establishment.
Mr. Bermingham: I hear mumblings from my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead, who may just have a slight interest in such matters.
I draw to my hon. Friend's attention the clauses dealing with legal aid. You will recall, Madam Deputy Speaker, that it was I who first posed the intervention tonight on the question of legal aid, which was ably and well taken up by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). I came tonight simply to bring the outsider's voice to the issue of legal aid in the Church of England. I do so because that issue has been raised with me, as a Member of Parliament, by several persons who are members of the clergy. I am delighted to see the Attorney-General, who has, perhaps, a little interest in such matters, present tonight, and perhaps he might take under his wing the comments that I make about the Church in respect of legal aid generally.
Bluntly, the position is that if one looks at the proposed arrangements, the Church Commissioners are to accept or to determine who shall or shall not have legal aid. However, the Church Commissioners are a party to the proceedings. Therefore, effectively, under these clauses the party who is to be judge is the deciding party as to who shall or shall not be represented, and the terms and conditions under which they can be represented. No matter how one looks at it, that is not fair.
I am moving as speedily as I can and am bearing in mind that other hon. Members wish to speak. However, if one considers clause 4(2), one wonders how the Church of England and the Church Commissioners can justify that subsection, which states:
"The Standing Committee of the General Synod may by rules vary the provisions of Schedule 1 to this measure."
It also states that there are certain tribunals to which a person shall not have the right of representation by solicitor or counsel and in those cases there shall not be legal aid. In effect, they are closed little courts in which people cannot have the right to representation.
We all know the old adage which states that the man who acts for himself in a court of law has a fool for a client. It is an adage as old as time—
The Attorney-General (Sir Patrick Mayhew): It is, "A lawyer who acts for himself has a fool for a client."
Mr. Bermingham: The Attorney-General corrects me, and he should know. A lawyer who acts for himself has a fool for a client. I stand corrected, but the principle is the same.
If one gets to the point where one says that here are certain places where lawyers shall not go because the Church will not have them, one is effectively saying that there are persons who may well come before tribunals, committees or other bodies when their future, their living or their rights are at stake and because they are not articulate and not able to express an argument, they may well find that they suffer considerably.

281
Justice is meant to be absolute. Rules and regulations brought before the House by a body which is the established Church of this land should at least have a semblance of justice. Conditions in respect of this Measure concerning legal aid, the right to representation and the right of audience and other matters are a disgrace. I hope that the Church Commission will take away the remarks that have been made in the House tonight and I ask Synod –1 ask this as an outsider—to think again. Surely the Church should set an example on the matter of justice. I hope that the Measure will be opposed tonight.
11.25 pm
Mr. Alison: With the leave of the House, I should like to reply briefly in the few remaining minutes.
It was a paradox of the speech of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) that he referred to the weightiness of the issues with which we are dealing tonight — for example, the fate of individuals such as choirmasters, the names of dioceses involving much local pride — but then complained that we disposed of too much power by way of remedy for those sensitive issues. No doubt real power does lie here and the right hon. Gentleman will flex the muscles of parliamentary power if he seeks to divide the House, but disestablishment, the elimination of that power, lies wholly and fully within the hands of the Church of England.
The real pressure for disestablishment can and should come, if come it will, by the initiative of the Church and its adherents. The cause of liberty and its attainment is in the Church's hands. If it wants it, it will undoubtedly get it. The right hon. Gentleman should not overstate or overestimate the extent of the Prime Minister's power in, for example, the appointment of bishops under modern arrangements. It is very limited. The logic of the right hon. Gentleman's appeal for the elimination of parliamentary power over the Church of England is that he should sit in his place tonight and not to seek to divide the House.
My hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) was anxious that we were abdicating parliamentary responsibility, and he levelled the charge against me of selective quotation. But he himself stopped short of the operative sentence in the first paragraph in the Ecclesiastical Committee's report on clause 7 which says that the Ecclesiastical Committee is,
"however, satisfied that this is a matter that may properly he left to the Church's own regulation."
The regulation in view here is the question of the revocation of licenses. It can hardly be imagined that the Church of England in the Synod drafting its own canons with a House of Bishops and a House of Clergy, all ordained men concerned with these revocation matters, will not grant canons which fully sustain and maintain the interests and the needs of the clergy who are affected by this. There is no abdication of power here.
The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) referred particularly, in a helpful contribution on the relevance of establishment, to the clause relating to the Book of Common Prayer's rubric. The legal advisory committee of the General Synod was asked for an opinion on the rubric and it stated:
"Whilst no exhaustive definition of the phrase 'pious and charitable uses' can be given, the uses are not confined to the relief of poverty though that is certainly one of the objects to which the money can be applied."
282
Any object for the advancement of religion is a pious and charitable use, including most items for which money which is collected for general treasury purposes is usually devoted.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) referred to the important question of collections. I must stress once again the significance of the envelope and the convenanted collection system under which these envelopes, that go straight to the paraochial church council, are collected at the time of holy communion. That is not in accordance with what is stated in the rubric, but it would be reasonable to modernise church practice in this respect.
The important matters about which the House has expressed anxiety, particularly the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham), are subject to the negative resolution procedure. If he needs one, he will have a further opportunity to reflect on the rules when they are brought before the House.
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 66, Noes 36.

Division No. 154]

[11.30 pm

AYES

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Amos, Alan

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

Janman, Timothy

Ashdown, Paddy

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfiek)

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Knapman, Roger

Boswell, Tim

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Bottomley, Peter

Latham, Michael

Bowis, John

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Brazier, Julian

Lightbown, David

Burns, Simon

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Burt, Alistair

McLoughlin, Patrick

Butterfill, John

Mates, Michael

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Chope, Christopher

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Colvin, Michael

Nelson, Anthony

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Neubert, Michael

Cope, John

Patnick, Irvine

Dorrell, Stephen

Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

Dunn, Bob

Shaw, David (Dover)

Durant, Tony

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Evennett, David

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Fookes, Miss Janet

Stevens, Lewis

Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Thurnham, Peter

Green way, Harry (Ealing N)

Tracey, Richard

Gregory, Conal

Twinn, Dr Ian

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Waddington, Rt Hon David

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Wood, Timothy

Hampson, Dr Keith

Harris, David

Tellers for the Ayes:

Hind, Kenneth

Mr. Richard Ryder and

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Mr. David Maclean.

NOES

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

McAvoy, Tom

Blunkett, David

McCartney, Ian

Clay, Bob

McFall, John

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

McKay, Allen (Penistone)

Cousins, Jim

Martlew, Eric

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Meale, Alan

Cunningham, Dr John

Michael, Alun

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

Mowlam, Mrs Marjorie

Eastham, Ken

Murphy, Paul

Flannery, Martin

O'Brien, William

Fyfe, Mrs Maria

Patchett, Terry

Haynes, Frank

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Hood, James

Rooker, Jeff

283

Skinner, Dennis

Wigley, Dafydd

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Wilson, Brian

Strang, Gavin

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

Tellers for the Noes:

Vaz, Keith

Mr, Gerald Bermingham and

Warden, Gareth (Gower)

Mr. Tony Banks.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Church of England (Legal Aid and Miscellaneous Provisions) Measure, passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.

PETITION

  Rating Reform
  11.41 pm
  Mr. Thomas McAvoy: I am very grateful for the opportunity to present this petition on behalf of the people of Glasgow, Rutherglen. It has been signed by 4,000 people from throughout the areas of Castlemilk, Toryglen, Cambuslang and Rutherglen.
  The humble petition of the residents of the constituency of Glasgow, Rutherglen showeth
  That the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act provides for the introduction in Scotland of the system of community charge or poll tax, which will impose upon the people of Scotland a system of local taxation which will take no account of the ability of the citizens to afford such taxation, and will cause hardship to many who are already poor. The community charge or poll tax will cause the redistribution of resources away from poor areas into areas which are already prosperous. It will be expensive to operate and its collection will entail invasions of privacy …
  Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable House repeal the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act
  And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Stockport (Road Schemes)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dorrell.]
  11.42 pm
  Mr. Tom Arnold: I am most grateful for this opportunity to address the House on the subject of road schemes in the metropolitan borough of Stockport. I should like to touch on a number of schemes presently being funded by the Government and make some comments.
  There is a great deal of congestion in Stockport at present. My view is that, whatever local people may think, it cannot be dealt with satisfactorily until the road building programme has been completed. Although it is extremely frustrating to have to put up with the serious delays that motorists and other travellers are finding in a number of areas of the borough today, until such time as the motorway programme and the bypass relief programme in particular have been completed, I am afraid the congestion will continue.
  However, we must deal with the through traffic in the areas. Any visitor to the borough of Stockport will have noticed that travel speeds are frequently less than 10 miles an hour. I gather that this is a reflection of the fact that traffic growth in Stockport is above the national average and that two and indeed three-car families are now quite common.
  Fortunately, the Government have come forward with a very large, very expensive programme. I am delighted to have had in the various campaigns with which I have been associated the support of a number of other hon. Members in persuading the Government to go ahead, and wish to thank successive Ministers for the interest that they have taken.
  The problems locally were well summed up in a letter of 18 November last I received from the veteran director of works, Mr. Donald Wroe, who gave the following graphic description of the situation in Stockport:
  "If you look at the topography of Stockport you will see that it lies on the confluence of three valleys, and the highways tend to follow the valley routes. This results in the fact that the traffic has to get in before it can get out. Consequently, the result is a whirlpool of congestion, particularly on the eastern side of the town."
  The constituency of Hazel Grove lies on the eastern side of the town, and it is to the schemes there that I wish to draw the attention of the House.
  Beginning with the Portwood-to-Brinnington M63 motorway and the Portwood-to-Denton M66 motorway, I understand that these schemes are due for completion in the spring of 1989. I should be grateful for clarification of that point from my hon. Friend. In other words, can we expect completion of these motorways on time in the spring of 1989? I gather that at that moment the motorways will be redesignated the M60, which is slightly confusing.
  There is a point about road signs which I should like to put to my hon. Friend. I gather from the director of works of Stockport council that there is a proposal in the Department of Transport to re-sign Stockport on a number of roads leading towards the borough in other parts of the north-west so that the signs will say "Manchester, South" instead of "Stockport". The word "Stockport" is, I understand, to be removed from the signs. That proposal has been badly received locally. If it

  285
  is serious, I hope that the Minister will consider it again. Far from introducing clarity, it is felt that it would provoke confusion.
  On the construction of the motorways, their completion will remove a tremendous amount of pressure in the northern part of the Hazel Grove constituency, with particular reference to the area of Bredbury. I moved recently to Marple, but having lived for four years on the Stockport road in Bredbury, I have been a witness, sometimes daily, to the severe build-up of traffic at peak periods. I believe that the construction of these motorways will make an enormous difference to hard-pressed motorists in the Bredbury and Romiley areas. Will the Minister confirm that as part of these schemes he is going ahead with the construction of an all-purpose road from Ashton road to Portwood, which will run adjacent to the motorway and provide further relief to traffic in the area?
  In the central and southern areas of the constituency, the great event is the public inquiry which is still taking place into the Hazel Grove bypass, technically known as the A6(M) Stockport north-south bypass. The history of this project goes back many decades—indeed, to a time long before both the Minister and I were born. I believe that 1934 is the earliest record of a specific proposal for a bypass round Hazel Grove. The Government have committed themselves to constructing a motorway at considerable expense and have chosen as the preferred option a route known locally and colloquially as the blue route. I emphasise once again that the blue route has my full support.
  I have campaigned long and hard for the construction of the bypass. I have almost lost count of the number of my right hon. Friends who have been to Hazel Grove, at my invitation and at the invitation of other hon. Members. You will doubtless remember, Madam Deputy Speaker, Maurice Orbach and Tom McNally. We all campaigned together for this road, along with Sir Tom Normanton, MEP, and other distinguished former Members of the House. My right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell), my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker) have all been there in recent years and they have all expressed support for the project. It is high time that it went ahead.
  I hope, therefore, that the Minister will be able to say that his right hon. Friend will decide quickly, following the inspector's report, that we shall have a decision this year and that that decision, should it be favourable, as I hope it will be, will be followed by a quick start. Can we look forward to completion of the project by, shall we say, the spring of 1992? We have to accommodate local needs as quickly as we can.
  Although there are a number of controversial issues —the Minister and I have had a lengthy correspondence about Halliday Hill farm, a site of historic interest, and I hope that the inspector will be able to accommodate some of these points without undermining the principles on which the blue route has been designed—nevertheless I hope that the Government will reiterate their determination to go ahead with all possible speed.
  Turning now to the most recent developments, I was delighted to receive the news from the Minister that he has taken his work on the A6 Highlane-Disley bypass a good deal further. Indeed, he is mounting an exhibition this week in the village of Highlane and I am looking forward to attending it on Friday. I suspect that further
  286
  improvements will be needed to other roads in the area if this scheme goes ahead and I would draw my hon. Friend's attention to improvements which will be required on the Windlehurst road between Highlane and Marple.
  I am firmly of the opinion that construction of the Highlane-Disley bypass will have far-reaching effects on the town of Marple, where traffic at the moment is particularly severe. Indeed, last Saturday I had a meeting with the Marple community council and tried to persuade the members of that body, which, albeit unelected, is locally influential, that the construction of this road will indeed be of great benefit to Marple. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to touch upon the reasons he sees for the construction of this further road.
  I also understand from the director of works at Stockport council that a proposal is now being considered in the Department of Transport for a Poynton bypass, which would connect the blue route, to which I have already referred, with the A523 to Macclesfield south of Poynton, and that were such a scheme to be in my hon. Friend's mind this could represent the start of a Manchester airport eastern link road, which again has been talked about for decades and is something which in principle I support.
  My specific question to the Minister is, does he intend to make this Poynton bypass a trunk road? Clearly that has important spending implications. An answer to that question, if not tonight at any rate in the near future, would be most welcome.
  As can be seen, there is a formidable programme of work under way—four schemes in the process of being completed, about to start or at the stage of a preliminary exhibition following the consultant's report. Indeed, I have referred to another scheme, making five altogether, which I believe my hon. Friend the Minister may be contemplating. This is a formidable and an expensive programme. It is a recognition of the way in which successive Ministers and local Members of Parliament—not just myself, but my colleagues—have fought long and hard to deal with the traffic problems in Stockport, with particular reference to the east side of the town. We have to bring about a situation in which we get the through traffic off the present roads and on to the new roads.
  I believe that when this programme is completed it will enhance the quality of life in our area considerably. People who are opposed to these roads and advance a case based on a very real fear of change ought, I think, to look at what thousands of people have to put up with at present. I am referring to the frustrations not just of motorists but of people who have to run shops and look after businesses — for example, on the London road, Hazel Grove, where conditions are frequently chaotic and where the noise, pollution levels and damage to the environment in terms of the sheer quantity of filth, soot and dirt which have gathered over the years have made life very difficult for many people.
  I am strongly of the opinion that when these roads are built, a new sense of civic pride will be engendered in a number of the areas to which I have made reference, because the traffic jams which have been a daily, miserable feature of life in recent years may rapidly become a thing of the past.
  It is in a spirit of optimistic assessment of what the Government are seeking to achieve that I have raised these issues tonight, in the firm belief that only this programme and its successful completion will deal with the very serious

  287
  problem of traffic congestion and all that it entails in the metropolitan borough of Stockport and in my own constituency of Hazel Grove.
  11.54 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Peter Bottomley): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Arnold) on the work that he has done for his constituency and for Stockport generally. I asked in the Department when he started campaigning for better roads for Stockport, and I was told that it was 15 years ago. I have had the opportunity to read the debate that he had with my right hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker) in, I think, 1983. I do not think that anyone could have done more, and I echo his basic, underlying theme—that one cannot have a decent environment, casualty reduction and a prosperous community without effective communications. As he pointed out, trunk roads—national as well as local roads—are a major element in this.
  There are major national roads coming into the borough of Stockport. The M56 and M63 motorways from the west give access to Manchester airport, the outer ring road and the national motorway network. The most recent extension of the M63, the Stockport east-west bypass, opened in 1982. There is the A560 eastwards to Bredbury, and the M67 at Mottram and on into Yorkshire. There is the A6 south-eastwards through Hazel Grove and High Lane into Derbyshire, and the A523 southwards towards Poynton, Macclesfield and south Cheshire.
  Within the borough there are six miles of trunk road motorway and seven miles of all-purpose trunk road. Local roads, which Stockport looks after itself, total about 560 miles. So, in essence, it has 98 per cent. of the roads in Stockport. Those miles include the A6 and the A560 within the old county borough.
  There are four major schemes under construction or planned in the borough. They represent a total investment in the next few years of almost £150 million for works alone, and nearer £200 million when land acquisition and other costs are taken into account. Almost every other borough in the country will be envious of this sort of infrastructure input, but I do not want anyone to believe that it is just because of my hon. Friend's representations that Stockport is getting that money, or I might find myself breaking what I might call the "George Young record" for Adjournment debates. It is due to a mixture of strong representations and a basic, underlying case.
  All the national road schemes meet the three main points of national policy on roads: assisting economic growth and employment, removing through traffic, especially lorries, from unsuitable roads, and enhancing road safety. My hon. Friend has talked about the long gestation of the A6(M) north-south bypass. I keep encountering assurances given by my predecessor and my predecessor's predecessor, and there are one or two that go back to Hore-Belisha.
  One of the points that I feel strongly about is that there should be as much relief, as possible from through traffic. The Dutch call it "woonerf", which is both unpronounceable and unspellable. I translate that as PETER—"partial exclusion of traffic and emphasis on residents". My hon. Friend talked about the needs of through traffic,
  288
  as well as those of residents. We also want enhanced road safety, economic growth, through roads and through traffic.
  We know that there are worries in solving one set of problems. Individual schemes, and especially perhaps the A6(M), can create other problems by attracting extra traffic to roads which are not really suitable and which feed into the new scheme. We fully realise the potential problems and plan to do something about them.
  In the nature of national road programming and the planning processes, as well as financial realities, we cannot build all interdependent schemes at once. If we did, the traffic speed would not be 10 mph; it might be 1 or 2 mph. Our objective is to build all that we propose as soon as design and statutory procedures permit.
  My hon. Friend referred to the M63-M66 Portwood to Denton stretch — five miles of dual two or three-lane motorway with works costing £40 million. Two contracts—Portwood to Brinnington and Brinnington to Denton —are under way for completion in just over a year's time. That will complete the southern section of the Manchester outer ring road and start the eastern side.
  My hon. Friend asked about reasonably precise dates for completion. It might be better if I kept him up to date as the construction goes through. He also raised the issue of motorway designation and signs on the motorway. Perhaps I might take advice on those points and let him know our thinking on the matter.
  The M63-M66 will lead to some increase of traffic on existing roads. It is also worth stating that much of that increase will be local traffic wanting access to the motorway. We want motorways to act as vacuum cleaners, bringing suitable traffic on to the motorways and taking unsuitable traffic off local roads as far as possible, but that traffic will have to find its way to the motorway.
  The A6(M) north-south bypass will reduce the A560 flow. The next major scheme in proposal is the A6(M), to which my hon. Friend has, rightly, given so much time over the years. The estimated works cost for this scheme of more than five miles is about £50 million or more. It is mainly a dual three to four-lane motorway, but there will be a dual two-lane all-purpose stretch at the south end. I cannot go into detail about that, or even pick up the point that my hon. Friend made about it, because of the major public inquiry that is now under way. Subject to the outcome of that and other statutory procedures, construction might start in about 1991, so I do not think that we shall be able to finish it by 1992. If the independent, impartial inspector comes to the view that there should be changes, that will necessarily require extra time.
  I, like my predecessors, am grateful for my hon. Friend's long-standing support for the scheme. On behalf of them and myself, I pay tribute to the skill and persistence with which he has pressed his claims on the Department. What I can say about the A6 through Hazel Grove and Stockport is that it carries about 40,000 vehicles a day through a heavily built-up area, including major shopping areas. It is one of the busiest roads of its type that anyone could find, or wish to find. I saw something of it when I went to open the accident seminar in Stockport town hall last October.
  With regard to traffic increases expected on the three main routes from development of the A6(M), the A523 towards Poynton, the A6 through Highlane and Disley and the A626 Stockport-to-Marple roads will be affected.

  289
  As my hon. Friend said, we shall shortly be explaining proposals for major new bypasses at Poynton and DisleyHighlane. Stockport will be considering the need for improvements to the A626 in the light of the prospective opening of the A6(M) and the outcome of our work on the Highlane-Disley bypass.
  Not all the problems on the A6 can wait for the bypass. My hon. Friend recently drew attention to a problem at the Commercial road junction in Hazel Grove, for which Stockport and the Department are considering possible solutions. I hope that we shall he able to settle proposals soon for dealing with the long-standing egress problem at Windlehurst road in Highlane.
  The A523 Poynton bypass is about three and a half miles long. It is expected to be a dual two-lane carriageway costing about £11 million. It was added to the programme last April and is therefore the least advanced of the four national road proposals. Cheshire county council was appointed as our agent and is in the preliminary stages of design investigations. It could be quite some time before we are able to build, and it depends entirely upon the design and the statutory processes. It seems certain that it will be a considerable time after the prospective opening —if statutory procedures allow—of the A6(M).
  We have asked Cheshire county council to study the scope for interim improvements at junctions. Obviously, it is at junctions that most of the injury accidents take place. It is too early to quantify the relief for the A523, but it is expected to be substantial.
  The A6 Disley and Highlane bypass is six and a half miles of dual two-lane carriageway and is costing about £40 million. We have just invited comment on the proposed route and, as my hon. Friend has said, there will be four exhibitions this week and the plans will on display until the 4 March. We believe that our route is the only fully acceptable one, and now is the chance for anyone who disagrees to let us know. I understand that concern as already been expressed about effects on Ridge End, Woodend and Waterside. I hope that the Department and the consultants will be able to put people's minds at rest.
  We take consultation and public opinion extremely seriously, and I think that anyone who is interested might want to refer to volume 2 of the "National Roads Programme", which came out in April. That programme gives some illustration of how local views have effected our proposals.
  Stockport plans to complement the massive national roads schemes investment with three main schemes of its own. One is the town centre western relief road. The council has just completed a distribution ring on the east side of the town centre— the A626 diversion and the southern links road—with national taxpayers' support through the transport supplementary grant. It now
  290
  proposes to carry out a series of improvements in roads to the west of the town centre— the town centre western relief road. The cost of all the improvements is about £2.5 million.
  Another proposal is the Manchester airport eastern link road, which would be a combined venture between Cheshire, Manchester and Stockport councils. It would be expected to form a continuation of the Department's national north-south bypass scheme and might take advantage of part of the route of the A523 Poynton bypass. The cost of the single carriageway, phase 1, in Stockport is likely to be more than £2 million. The cost of a further phase has not been settled. A further proposal is the A34 bypass south of Cheadle. The timing of the schemes is a matter for Stockport county. I predict that, when the appropriate time comes, Stockport will ask the Department to provide national taxpayers' support through the transport supplementary grant scheme.
  To use a "Willie Whitelawism" to describe road building plans for Stockport as "robust" risks understatement. Road improvements will reinforce the role of the borough as a centre of communication networks. The borough will have motorways feeding in from three of the four quarters of the compass. This refers to my hon. Friend's point about the three valleys and the roads running through them.
  Because the programme is so comprehensive, it is impossible to implement all the schemes simultaneously. The A6(M) in particular will create temporary problems of access. We recognise those problems and we have plans to deal with them on a reasonable time scale.
  To conclude this brief, but important, debate, there are times when people say that one can recreate economic prosperity without spending money on infrastructure—on what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I call "roads and bridges". We have had debates on public transport — last night we debated London public transport—and on British Rail. The growth in capital investment both for public transport and for roads is one of the things that have contributed to providing the economic growth, the drop in unemployment and the increase in taxation that allows for better things to happen—hospitals, schools, pensions or whatever.
  I believe that if we can keep the roads schemes moving forward in the way that is proposed in the Stockport and Hazel Grove areas we shall do our duty by the people and provide a wealth-creating infrastructure which our successors will use to generate wealth to pay for our pensions when that time comes.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at nine minutes past Twelve o'clock.

WALES

  Battery Hens
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what guidance he has given, or intends to give, to egg producers in Wales as to the time at which they should comply with the provisions of the Welfare of Battery Hens Regulations 1987, in the light of the further review to be undertaken in 1993.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The regulations came into force on 1 January 1988. As from that date all new cages must conform: for existing cages the space allowance must be achieved by 1 January 1995. Within the seven-year lead-in period for existing cages, the timing of any change will largely be a matter for the individual producer. The Government will maintain close links with the industry on both their ongoing review and the scientific report due from the Commission by 1 January 1993.

  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make representations to the European Communities Council of Ministers to ensure full compliance within Europe with the provisions of European directive 86/113 on the welfare of battery hens.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Compliance with EEC directives is a matter for individual member states and for the European Commission. In this instance, article 7 requires the Commission to undertake inspection programmes within member states to ensure that the directive is complied with and uniform standards applied. The Commission is also required to produce reports on those inspections.

  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy that cage sizes for battery hens should be increased by 1993 to allow greater space and height for the welfare of the birds.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The Government believe that a European standard of about 600 sq cm per bird would be more appropriate in welfare terms and will be seeking improvements when the review of the directive, due in 1993, takes place.

  Cardiology Service (North Wales)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will increase the finance available to the cardiology service provided by Liverpool health authority for north Wales patients.

  Mr. Grist
  The Mersey RHA is historically funded to provide cardiac services for patients in north Wales. A review of cardiac services provided by Liverpool RHA is currently under way and its outcome will be discussed with the Welsh Office in due course. In the meantime, in an effort to increase the number of cardiac patients in north Wales being treated, arrangements have been made by 128
  Clwyd DHA, with funding from the Welsh Office, for individuals to be referred to a private hospital in Manchester. The need for this arrangement will be reviewed regularly.

  Surgery
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list in order of frequency the 10 most common forms of surgery for which patients are admitted to hospitals in Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  The information requested is shown in the following table:

  Ten Most Common Forms of Surgical Operation in National Health Service Hospitals in Wales in 1986

  OPCS Operation Codes

  Type of operation

  Number

  703-706

  Dilation, curettage, biopsy and excision of lesion of cervix

  9,384

  770-779

  Post-Natal or post-abortion operations

  8,866

  607,608

  Cystoscopy (with destruction of lesion)

  8,027

  752,753,758-762

  Other delivery operations

  7,347

  780-789

  Treatment of fracture by operations

  7,160

  230-239

  Tonsillectomy and Adenoidectomy

  4,636

  742

  Termination of pregnancy

  4,592

  400-409

  Operations on abdominal wall, peritoneum and mesentary

  4,311

  764-769

  Caesarean Section

  4,107

  170-179

  Operations on lens

  4,094

  Hospital and Health Services
  Sir Raymond Gower
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he has any change to announce in the cash limit for class XVII vote 8.

  Mr. Grist
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate, the cash limit for class XVII, vote 8 (Hospital and Community Health Services, etc, Wales) will be increased by £3,800,000 from £716,836,000 to £720,636,000. My right hon. Friend announced this increase in his written answer of 16 December 1987, at columns 512 and 513, which should ensure that current levels of patient services are maintained without carrying forward a large burden of expenditure liabilities to 1988–89.

  This increase will be charged to the reserve and therefore does not add to the public expenditure planning total.

  Infants (Spinal Curvature)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures have been taken by his Department to ensure that all children born with spinal curvature are screened for non-spontaneously resolving scoliosis within two to three months of birth in all Welsh health authority areas.
  129
  Mr. Grist
  [holding answer 15 January 1988]: Guidance on the medical examination of the new born baby and the care of babies born with a malformation or risk of handicap, and their subsequent follow-up, has been published in the third report of the maternity services advisory committee to the Secretaries of State for Social Services and for Wales.

  The report, published in 1985, was endorsed by the perinatal mortality initiative survey group in its report to the Secretary of State for Wales in 1986. Both reports were distributed to general managers of district health authorities, administrators of family practitioner committees, secretaries of community health councils and health professionals working in the maternity and neonatal services. The Department issued a circular, WHC(86)69, in December 1986 to all health authorities in Wales asking them to review their service provision and examine their performance in the light of the guidance in these two reports. Copies of the two reports are available in the Library. A copy of the circular will be placed in the Library of the House.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Social Security Commission (Cardiff Office)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will list the bodies with which consultations took place, and over what period, prior to the decision being made by Her Majesty's Government to close the Cardiff office of the social security commissioners.

  The Attorney-General
  Consultations on the proposal to close the Cardiff office of the Social Security Commissioners took place between 4 December 1985 and 31 January 1986.

  The following individuals and organisations were invited to comment:

  The Welsh Office.

  The Department of Health and Social Security.

  National Association of Citizens Advice Bureau (South Wales Regional Office).

  Child Poverty Action Group.

  Council on Tribunals.

  Chief Social Security Commissioner.

  Mr. Roderic Bowen QC (the former Resident Welsh Social Security Commissioner).

  Lord Chancellor's Department Trade Union Side.

  The Staff of the Cardiff Office.

  In addition, representations were received from the following:

  Mr. Griffith Owen George (Resident Welsh National Insurance Commissioner 1950–1967).

  Institute of Directors (Wales Division).

  Wales Trade Union Congress.

  Bail
  Mr. A. Cecil Walker
  To ask the Attorney-General how the Northern Ireland Court Service ensures that the minimum amount of time elapses between bail requirements being completed and the papers being returned to the prison in order to ensure the speedy release of the person to whom bail was granted.

  The Attorney-General
  In almost all cases, completed documents are given to the police for delivery to the prison.
  130
  Occasionally, if prison warders are in the courts, they effect delivery. Court staff have also delivered documents and, in the provincial areas, recourse has been made to the first-class postal system.

  Mr. A. Cecil Walker
  To ask the Attorney-General what has been the maximum length of time which has elapsed in any individual case relating to a male held on remand in Her Majesty's prison, Crumlin road, between bail requirements being completed and the actual release of the person who was granted bail.

  The Attorney-General
  This information is not readily available and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost. If the hon. Member has a particular case in mind, I would be happy to look into it.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Population Component
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will list in the Official Report the eight requests for assistance for projects with a population component on which preparatory work was in hand at 31 December 1987.

  Mr. Eggar
  The information is as follows:

  India:
  Orissa Family Welfare Project Phase II.
  Gujarat Integrated Rural Development and Family Welfare project; possible extension of population component.
  Population components in three slum improvement projects.

  Kenya:
  World Bank Third Population Project; proposed ODA co-financing.

  Tanzania
  Technical co-operation input to 1988 Population Census.

  Pakistan:
  Possible new phase of support for population activities.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Murderers and Rapists
  Mr. Dover
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many murderers and rapists have been released over the last 10 years and have committed the same crime again.

  Mr. John Patten
  In the period 1977 to 1986 four offenders originally convicted of murder and later released on licence from prisons in England and Wales have subsequently been reconvicted of murder.

  The only information readily available on rape relates to a sample of adult males discharged from prison department establishments in 1981 and is for those discharged from a sentence for any sexual offence. About 3 per cent. of those so discharged were convicted of another sexual offence within two years. Results of this study were published in tables 8(h) and 8(i) "Prison Statistics, England and Wales, 1984" (Cmnd. 9622), copies of which are in the Library.

  Horses and Ponies
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Home Department if he proposes to take any action in the light of the report on stray , tethered and abandoned horses and ponies in England and Wales, issued by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, a copy of which has been sent to him; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  It is already an offence under the Protection of Animals Act 1911 and the Abandonment of Animals Act 1960 to cause unnecessary suffering to domestic or captive animals, or to abandon them without reasonable excuse in circumstances likely to cause unnecessary suffering. The maximum penalty for such offences has recently been substantially increased, and proposals to extend the power of disqualification from keeping an animal have been introduced. We believe that with these changes the existing legislation provides adequate remedies for offences of cruelty.

  Firearms
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he intends to take to reduce the costs incurred by the Metropolitan police in the administration of the issuing of firearms and shotgun certificates, down to a level comparable with other police forces.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  No sample survey of costs incurred by police forces in issuing firearm and shotgun certificates has been undertaken since 1981. A comparison of costs on the basis of the most recent Metropolitan police assessment of costs for the period 1 April 1985 to 31 March 1986 is not therefore possible. This assessment was accepted for consideration by the working party on the review of fees which we intend should resume its work in the light of the proposed new firearms legislation.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action has been taken by police officers to locate, document or seize the 45 calibre Thompson and 9 mm Bergann pistol held by the late Michael Ryan without a firearms certificate.

  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 the firearms indicated.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of firearms in circulation in each category have been reported as stolen in each of the past 10 years or for any lesser period for which records are readily available.

  Mr. John Patten
  The information requested is not available. The number of burglaries and thefts recorded by the police in which firearms were reported to have been stolen, by principal weapons, is published in table 3.12 of "Criminal Statistics, England and Wales, 1986" (Cm. 233). The number of firearms and shotgun certificates on issue at the end of each year is published in tables 1 and 3 of Home Office statistical bulletin issue 2/88. Copies of both publications are in the Library. Information is not collected centrally at present on the number of firearms 132
  stolen in each offence nor of the numbers of weapons held on certificates. The information collected on these subjects is under review.

  Community Radio
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidelines he will be giving to community radio stations in Wales when granting their licences with regard to the proportion of time they will broadcast in Welsh and English; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  Under the legislative proposals that my right hon. Friend will bring before Parliament it will be for the radio authority and not the Home Secretary to award radio broadcasting licences, having regard to criteria which will reflect paragraph 7.23 of our Green Paper.

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list, by species, the number of animals involved in experiments at Porton Down, in universities and other establishments of higher education, for each year 1979 to 1987; and how many of each were killed.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The number of experiments which were started on animals, in each year from 1977 to 1986, at universities and polytechnics in Great Britain is given in table 20 of "Statistics of Experiments on Living Animals 1986" (Cm. 187), copies of which are in the Library. The records are kept in terms of experiments begun each year on animals and do not show how many of these died as a result or were subsequently killed. A breakdown by species is not readily available; I will write to the hon. Member with this information.

  It is not our practice to make available detailed information on the usage of particular species in animal experiments at the Chemical Defence Establishment, Porton Down.

  B2 Division, Lunar House
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is(a) the average, (b) the median and (c) the maximum casework backlog in B2 division at Lunar house; what are the causes of such backlogs; and what measures are being taken to reduce them.

  Mr. Renton
  [holding answer 19 January 1988]: On 18 January there were 269 cases which had been in B2 division for at least a month without initial action being taken. This largely reflects staff absences for a number of reasons, including leave over the Christmas period. The highest number on any one case-working officer's desk was 68, the average 7·5 and the median 0.

PRIME MINISTER

  RAF Molesworth
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Prime Minister when she next expects to pay an official visit to RAF Molesworth.

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

  St. Philip's Marsh, Bristol
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Prime Minister whether she plans to visit the St. Philip's Marsh area of Bristol.

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

  Engagements
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list the time, duration and nature of her engagements on Monday 18 January.

  The Prime Minister
  During the morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. I gave a lunch at 10 Downing Street for the United Kingdom/ Japan 2000 Group. In the afternoon I had further meetings, and in the evening I attended a dinner at the Guildhall.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 26 January.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 26 January.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 26 January.

  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 26 January.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 26 January.

  The Prime Minister
  This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, including one with the President of Egypt. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today.

  Cabinet Committees
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will make a further statement on her practice in answering questions on the numbers and names of the Cabinet Committees and Sub-Committees.

  The Prime Minister
  There continue to be four Standing Committees of the Cabinet: a Defence and Overseas Policy Committee and an Economic Strategy Committee under my chairmanship; and a Home and Social Affairs Committee and a Legislation Committee under the chairmanship of my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council. Attendance at these Committees will vary according to the subject under discussion. Sub-Committees of the Standing Committees will be continued or established as appropriate. Membership and terms of reference of the Standing Committees and their Sub-Committees will remain confidential.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Teacher Training (Report)
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) if he will identify those institutions included in Her Majesty's inspectorate's report "Quality in Schools: The Initial Training of Teachers" of which the inspectors reported that teaching accommodation showed serious deficiencies;

  (2) if he will identify those few institutions described in Her Majesty's inspectors' report "Quality in Schools: The Initial Training of Teachers" as ones in which the British
  134
  education degree course contained a method course designed for students to consider the application of their specialist subject to childrens' learning;

  (3) if he will identify those institutions described in her Majesty's inspectors' report "Quality in Schools: The Initial Training of Teachers" of which the inspectors reported that they gave considerable time and emphasis to preparing students for work in a multi-ethnic society;

  (4) if he will identify those institutions described in Her Majesty's inspectors' report "Quality in Schools: The Initial Training of Teachers" of which the inspectors reported that attention was given to preparing students for work in a multi-ethnic society;

  (5) if he will identify those institutions and courses included in Her Majesty's inspectors' report "Quality in Schools: The Initial Training of Teachers" where the inspectors reported that specialist subject method courses in the British education and the post graduate certificate in education had serious difficulties;

  (6) if he will identify the small number of institutions included in Her Majesty's inspectors' report "Quality in Schools: The Initial Training of Teachers" of which the inspectors reported that there was some imaginative coverage of the world of work and the industrial and commercial relevance of the school curriculum;

  (7) if he will specify the number of instances covered by the reference in Her Majesty's inspectors' report "Quality in Schools: The Initial Training of Teachers" to cases where students were exposed to poor practice during their time in schools;

  (8) how many of the institutions surveyed in Her Majesty's inspectors' report "Quality in Schools: The Initial Training of Teachers" had libraries which contained a minimum of 90,000 volumes in the main collection, together with subscriptions to 400 or more periodicals.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  It is not the practice to identify the individual institutions concerned as regards references made to particular aspects of their provision in reports of general surveys by HMI. Individuals HMI reports on each of the institutions have been published over the last three years.

  Students
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what are the latest available figures for numbers of students for every university and polytechnic by(a) full-time and (b) part-time status.

  Mr. Jackson
  The information is shown in the following tables:

  University student number in 1986

  Thousands

  Universities (Great Britain)

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Aston

  3·6

  0·4

  Bath

  3·7

  0·3

  Birmingham

  9·3

  1·0

  Bradford

  4·4

  0·6

  Bristol

  7·1

  0·5

  Brunel

  2·9

  2·1

  Cambridge

  12·2

  1·1

  City

  3·2

  1·0

  Durham

  5·1

  0·4

  East Anglia

  4·2

  0·6

  Essex

  3·1

  0·2

  135

  Universities (Great Britain)

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Exeter

  5·0

  0·4

  Hull

  4·8

  0·7

  Keele

  2·8

  0·2

  Kent

  4·2

  0·5

  Lancaster

  4·6

  0·4

  Leeds

  10·3

  0·7

  Leicester

  4·9

  0·5

  Liverpool

  7·7

  0·8

  London Business School

  0·3

  0·2

  London

  40·1

  8·4

  Loughborough

  5·2

  0·5

  Manchester Business School

  0·2

  0·1

  Manchester

  11·3

  1·4

  Manchester Institute of Science and Technology

  4·1

  0·3

  Newcastle

  7·8

  0·6

  Nottingham

  7·3

  0·9

  Oxford

  12·2

  1·9

  Reading

  5·8

  0·5

  Salford

  3·7

  1·0

  Sheffield

  8·2

  0·5

  Southampton

  6·5

  0·6

  Surrey

  3·4

  0·7

  Sussex

  4·5

  0·3

  Warwick

  5·9

  0·7

  York

  3·7

  0·2

  Aberystwyth University College

  3·2

  0·3

  Bangor University College

  2·8

  0·3

  Cardiff University College

  5·7

  1·0

  St. David's Lampeter

  0·7

  0·0

  Swansea University College

  4·5

  0·3

  University of Wales College of Medicine

  0·8

  0·1

  UWIST

  2·9

  0·2

  Aberdeen

  5·6

  0·5

  Dundee

  3·3

  0·2

  Edinburgh

  10·1

  0·8

  Glasgow

  10·5

  2·6

  Heriot-Watt

  3·5

  0·5

  St. Andrews

  3·6

  0·1

  Stirling

  2·9

  0·4

  Strathclyde

  7·6

  1·3

  TOTAL GREAT BRITAIN

  301·3

  39·4

  Polytechnic students in 1986

  Thousands

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Polytechnics (England)1

  AFE

  NAFE

  AFE

  NAFE

  North-East London

  5·0

  —

  2·7

  0·0

  Middlesex

  7·0

  0·2

  1·7

  0·2

  Kingston

  5·6

  0·1

  1·4

  —

  Birmingham

  5·0

  0·1

  4·7

  0·6

  Lanchester

  5·8

  0·1

  1·3

  0·0

  Wolverhampton

  4·8

  0·0

  3·0

  0·1

  Liverpool

  7·1

  0·1

  3·2

  0·1

  Manchester

  9·7

  0·3

  5·1

  0·4

  Full-time

  Part-time

  AFE

  NAFE

  AFE

  NAFE

  Polytechnics (Eng)(1)

  Aged under 21

  Men

  46·5

  0·6

  6·5

  1·0

  Women

  36·3

  0·8

  3·0

  0·7

  Total

  82·8

  1·5

  9·5

  1·7

  Aged 21 and over

  Men

  45·0

  0·5

  40·1

  4·7

  Women

  31·9

  0·7

  24·2

  5·3

  Total

  76·8

  1·2

  64·3

  9·9

  136

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Polytechnics (England)1

  AFE

  NAFE

  AFE

  NAFE

  Sheffield

  7·9

  0·1

  3·8

  0·3

  Huddersfield

  4·7

  0·1

  2·1

  0·2

  Leeds

  5·9

  0·1

  3·8

  1·5

  Newcastle

  6·9

  0·0

  3·3

  0·3

  Sunderland

  4·2

  0·0

  1·6

  0·1

  North London

  4·8

  0·0

  2·0

  0·2

  South Bank

  5·0

  0·3

  3·6

  0·3

  City of London

  3·2

  0·2

  5·0

  2·4

  Central London

  4·3

  0·1

  3·6

  2·0

  Thames

  4·8

  0·0

  1·9

  0·6

  Bristol

  5·5

  0·1

  3·9

  0·4

  Teesside

  3·5

  0·1

  1·8

  0·0

  Plymouth

  4·7

  0·2

  0·6

  0·1

  Brighton

  5·7

  0·1

  1·2

  0·8

  Portsmouth

  6·4

  —

  0·7

  —

  Hatfield

  4·1

  0·0

  1·5

  0·0

  Preston

  4·1

  0·1

  2·3

  0·4

  Leicester

  6·4

  0·1

  2·0

  0·1

  Trent

  7·9

  0·0

  3·1

  0·1

  Oxford

  4·5

  0·0

  1·3

  —

  North Staffordshire

  5·0

  0·1

  1·8

  0·4

  Total Polytechnics

  159·6

  2·6

  73·8

  11·7

  1 AFE (Advanced Further Education) courses are courses of higher education. NAFE (Non-advanced Further Education) courses are lower level courses. Some students may be enrolled on both a full-time and a part-time (evening) course or on more than one part-time course. In the figures shown they are counted once for each course on which they are enrolled.

  Figures may not sum due to rounding

  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what are the latest available figures on the number of students by age, over 21 years and under 21 years, and by gender in(a) universities and (b) polytechnics.

  Mr. Jackson
  The information is as follows:

  Student numbers in 1986

  thousands

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Universities (GB)

  Aged under 21

  Men

  97·5

  0·5

  Women

  73·0

  0·9

  Total

  170·4

  1·4

  Aged 21 and over

  Men

  82·1

  23·8

  Women

  48·8

  14·2

  Total

  130·9

  38·0

  137
  (1)—AFE (Advanced Further Education) courses are courses of higher education. NAFE (Non-advanced Further Education) courses are lower level courses. Some students may be enrolled on both a full-time and a part-time (evening) course or on more than one part-time course. In the figures shown they are counted once for each course on which they are enrolled.

  (2)—Ages as at 31 August.

  (3)—Figures may not sum due to rounding.

  Persian Studies
  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received about the future funding and future location of Persian studies in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  My hon. Friend wrote to me on 18 January on this subject, and I am making inquiries. I have received only one other recent representation. Persian studies fell within the scope of the review of Asian and African languages and area studies conducted by Sir Peter Parker for the University Grants Committee, which has accepted and is now implementing his recommendations.

  Achievement Profiling
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) whether the commitment to the target of 1992 for the completion of achievement profiling for all pupils in maintained schools still stands;

  (2) how many pupils in maintained schools at (a) primary and (b) secondary schools are currently thought to be covered by achievement profiling;

  (3) what records his Department keeps of progress on achievement profiling; and what information it requires on profiling from local education authorities;

  (4) what study his Department has made, or proposes to make, of additional resources whether human or material, required in the introduction of achievement profiling.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The Government's objective is to agree and establish by 1990 national arrangements under which all young people in secondary schools will have a record of achievement. Education support grants are being used to support development work in nine pilot schemes in England and Wales, to cast light on the best ways to record pupils' achievement, including consideration of the resource implications.

  A national steering committee has been set up to oversee the work of the pilot schemes and to report this autumn on experience gained and the implications for introducing records of achievement nationally. The schemes have made annual reports on progress to the committee and will make their final reports in March. A national evaluation team is evaluating progress for the committee.

  Information about the number of pupils involved in records of achievement schemes throughout the country is not collected centrally. The pilot schemes receiving education support grant funding involve 22 local education authorities in England and Wales and some 250 secondary schools. Records of achievement are also being developed in many schools and local education authorities outside these areas.

  Universities
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) if he will provide for each of the eight Scottish universities a table showing, for all academic 138
  staff, the location of their first degrees as between Scottish universities, other United Kingdom universities and foreign universities, only the totals being required in each case;

  (2) if he will provide a table showing for all academic staff at each of Oxford and Cambridge universities the location of their first degrees, as between Oxford and Cambridge, Scottish universities, other United Kingdom universities and foreign universities, only the totals being required in each case.

  Mr. Jackson
  The "Commonwealth Universities Yearbook", a copy of which is in the Library, lists staff, by name, at each university and includes information on the university at which first degrees were obtained.

  Modern Languages
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when the final version of the policy statement on modern languages in the school curriculum will be published.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and I have today published the policy statement "Modern Languages in the School Curriculum". Copies have been placed in the Library of the House and are being sent to all local education authorities and secondary schools, and to other interested bodies within and beyond the education service.

  The main messages of the policy statement are that pupils should study a modern foreign language throughout compulsory secondary education, and more should continue with a language into the sixth form; there should be a greater diversification of first foreign language provision into languages such as German, Italian, Spanish or Russian; and more emphasis should be placed on communication skills.

  The policy statement complements our proposals for a national curriculum, which include a modern foreign language as a foundation subject for all secondary school pupils.

TRANSPORT

  Night Flying
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement concerning his review of night flying restrictions at London's airports.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The Department is considering the many helpful responses to the recent consultation. My right hon. Friend expects to be able to announce new night restrictions for Heathrow and Gatwick in the next few weeks.

  London Dial-a-Ride
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received about funding levels for London Dial-a-Ride in 1988–89.
  139
  Mr. David Mitchell
  I have received a number of letters from Members of Parliament, private individuals and others concerning Dial-a-Ride. I have made it clear that as there is evidence that current resources are not in all cases being used cost-effectively, decisions on future levels of funding must depend on further efficiency improvements by some Dial-a-Ride organisations.

  Roads
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to reappraise future road requirements.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We shall continue to develop the trunk road network to meet future traffic needs in a timely fashion. We have a large new construction and improvement programme which is regularly reviewed and to which further schemes are added as required. Each scheme within the programme undergoes continuous assessment to ensure that, when constructed, it will meet its required objectives. Responsibility for local roads rests with local highway authorities.

  London Regional Transport
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next expects to meet the chairman of London Regional Transport to discuss problems facing London Regional Transport.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  My right hon. Friend next expects to meet the chairman of London Regional Transport on 4 February 1988.

  London Underground
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the total number of stations covered by the station modernisation of London Underground Limited as described in paragraph 15 of the annual business plan of London Regional Transport, together with(a) expenditure already incurred (b) expenditure already committed and (c) the total sums paid to each to the five contractors, respectively, receiving the highest global sums together with the number of stations contracts awarded to each.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  The latest reported information shows that expenditure to date on the station modernisation programme, begun in 1981, is £73 million, with a further £32 million committed (1987 prices). The figures include additional maintenance and repair work undertaken during modernisation. The programme affects 138 stations in whole or in part. Information on the value of contracts placed respectively with individual contractors since 1981 is not readily available.

  Lorry Drivers (Refreshment Facilities)
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what plans he has to encourage the provision of adequate resting and refreshment facilities for commercial lorry drivers on Britain's roads, in the light of the decline in such provision;

  (2) what steps are being taken to encourage the building of refreshment establishments on Britain's trunk roads that cater for the drivers of heavy goods vehicles.
  140
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We are shortly to have meetings with representatives of the local authority associations arid the private sector about steps to stimulate further provision of facilities.

  Our general policy on provision of service areas on English trunk roads was set out in answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) on 1 July 1987 at column 88.

  On motorways, our aim is to provide service areas at approximately 30-mile intervals. They are required to provide, for 24 hours of the day, toilets, refreshments, telephones and fuel for all motorway travellers, including drivers of heavy goods vehicles. Operators are free to agree parking stays of over two hours and may charge a fee. HGV drivers frequently rest overnight in their sleeper cabs. Operators are providing overnight accommodation blocks on many of the sites.

  On all-purpose trunk roads, the provision of services, including those for heavy goods vehicles, is primarily for the private sector within the framework of local planning policies. We want to see the needs of HGV drivers met.

  Responsibility for roads other than trunk roads lies with the local highway authority.

  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will introduce legislation to outlaw the display of signs at refreshment establishments which refuse admittance to drivers of heavy goods vehicles.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We could not reasonably ban display of any road traffic sign which indicates that a particular service area is not for heavy goods vehicles. Some service areas off motorways do not have the capacity to take such vehicles. We have no jurisdiction over signs displayed by proprietors on their own property.

  Cattle Creep (A52 Bypass)
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what would be the cost of providing a cattle creep under the A52 bypass at Bottesford, Leicestershire.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The cost would be £260,000 at Barkestone lane and £220,000 at Easthorpe/Muston lane had they been included in the design. Work on the bypass has started and it would cost considerably more to incorporate them now.

  Underpasses
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will list the bypasses of trunk roads constructed by his Department over the last three years which have(a) cattle creeps, (b) pedestrian under-passes and (c) pedestrian bridges provided as part of the construction work; and what was the cost of the provision in each case.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  I will write to my hon. Friend.

  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what would be the approximate cost of constructing underpasses under the new A52 by-pass at Bottesford, Leicestershire, at Easthorpe/Muston lane and Barkestone lane; and how that would compare with the construction cost of the by-pass itself.
  141
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  If they had been included in the design, the cost of constructing the two underpasses would have been £480,000. Construction of the bypass is estimated to cost £2·76 million.

  Provision of a cattle creep or underpasses was ruled out because of the costs involved. They would necessitate raising the level of the bypass over a distance of 1 km to achieve the required height.

  At the public inquiry in April 1986, the Department gave evidence to show that, over a 10-hour period, between 8 am and 6 pm in September 1983, only 15 cyclists and 12 pedestrians used Easthorpe/Muston lane. Numbers may have increased slightly, but it is not considered that they warrant the provision of an underpass. Barkestone lane has become a dead end. No counts were taken, but we would expect the number here to be even less. Very few residents are served by it.

  Coal Imports
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consultations have taken place on the creation of new port facilities, or the expansion of existing port facilities, to land imported coal; and with whom.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  The provision of port facilities for unloading coal is a matter for users and port operators.

  Landing

  Take offs

  Total

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Winter 1986–87

  2,256

  82

  490

  18

  2,746

  100

  Summer 1987

  1,348

  67

  654

  33

  2,002

  100

  Dr. Glyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to ascertain from the airlines concerned the justification for the night movements in and out of Heathrow attributable to these airlines, and the extent to which such flights could be made in daytime; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  [holding answer 25 January 1988]: The Department consulted airlines about night restrictions at Heathrow in 1986. We consulted again in November on our proposals for future night restrictions. It is clear from their replies that the effectiveness of Heathrow as a major international airport would be seriously impaired if flights now operated at night were required to be by day.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Financial Services Act 1986
  Dr. Blackburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he intends to make an order under section 191(3) of the Financial Services Act 1986.

  Mr. Maude
  I have today laid before Parliament an order exempting trustees who are members of certain small self-administered pension schemes and the members of certain other small schemes in certain circumstances for the requirement in section 191(1) to obtain authorisation because of their investment management activity.
  142
  The Central Electricity Generating Board has recently asked officials in my Department about the statutory procedure for seeking powers to construct a jetty for seaborne coal for its proposed new power station at Fawley.

  London Hackney Cabs
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many personal accidents to passengers in the new London hackney cabs have been reported, with injuries arising from contact with the metal frame of the occasional seat; and if he will ask the Public Carriage Office to investigate and to make recommendations on necessary modifications.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  I have received no reports of accidents of this kind. The Department would be prepared to investigate any complaints and consider whether any design modifications are desirable.

  Heathrow (Night Movements)
  Dr. Glyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many of the scheduled night movements from and to Heathrow are(a) landings and (b) take-offs.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  [holding answer 25 January 1988]: The figures provided by Heathrow Airport Limited are:

  Steel
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the total output of steel, the percentage exported and the share of the domestic market taken by imports in 1958, 1960, 1965, 1970, 1975 and each year from 1979 to 1987.

  Mr. Butcher
  The figures are as follows:

  Year

  UK Crude Steel Production '000 tonnes

  Per cent, of Production Exported1

  Imports as per cent, of Total Deliveries to Home Market2

  19583

  19,880

  16·0

  3·5

  1960

  24,695

  16·0

  7·7

  1965

  27,421

  17·7

  3·0

  19703

  28,291

  18·5

  5·5

  19753

  20,098

  20·6

  20·6

  1979

  21,464

  27·0

  20·6

  1980

  11,277

  29·4

  32·6

  19813

  15,573

  31·0

  23·0

  1982

  13,704

  31·2

  26·6

  1983

  14,986

  33·2

  24·7

  1984

  15,121

  33·3

  24·3

  1985

  15,722

  37·8

  26·2

  1986

  14,726

  44·6

  30·2

  198734

  17,420

  na

  na

  1 Calculated on a "crude steel equivalent" basis.

  2 Imports exclude conversion materials, except in the years 1958 and 1960 for which only total imports are available. Total deliveries

  143

  are net deliveries by UK producers to home market plus imports.

  353-week period.

  4 Provisional.

  Ships
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the number and total deadweight of(a) vessels completed and (b) vessels in construction in British shipyards in 1958, 1960, 1965, 1970, 1975 and each year from 1979 to 1987.

  Mr. Atkins
  The available information is shown in the table.

  Merchant vessels completed and under construction in United Kingdom shipyards

  Completed

  1Under construction

  Numbers

  2Gross tonnage: 000's

  Numbers

  2Gross tonnage: 000's

  1958

  270

  1,464

  310

  2,234

  1960

  263

  1,298

  258

  1,694

  1965

  176

  1,282

  184

  1,388

  1970

  139

  1,327

  146

  1,649

  1975

  114

  1,170

  145

  1,880

  1979

  86

  691

  79

  514

  1980

  68

  427

  58

  644

  1981

  46

  213

  67

  815

  1982

  59

  435

  71

  793

  1983

  60

  497

  52

  567

  1984

  46

  445

  40

  236

  1985

  35

  172

  40

  337

  1986

  37

  101

  31

  255

  1 Figures are at the end of the year.

  2 Figures in deadweight are not available.

  Source: Lloyd's Register of Shipping.

  Cars
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the total output of cars in(a) Britain, (b) West Germany and (c) France, the percentage exported and the share of the domestic market taken by imports in 1958, 1960, 1970, 1975 and in each year from 1979 to 1987.

  Mr. Atkins
  The available information is shown in the tables.

  Trends in United Kingdom Car Output United Kingdom

  Production of Cars (units: thousands)

  Exports as Percentage of Total

  Importers share of United Kingdom Market Percentage

  1958

  1,052

  50

  n/a

  1960

  1,353

  57

  n/a

  1970

  1,641

  44

  14·3

  1975

  1,268

  42

  33·2

  1979

  1,070

  37

  56·3

  1980

  924

  38

  56·7

  1981

  955

  32

  55·7

  1982

  888

  25

  57·7

  1983

  1,045

  23

  56·9

  1984

  909

  21

  57·5

  1985

  1,048

  20

  58·1

  1986

  1,019

  18

  56·0

  1987

  11,143

  225

  51·7

  n/a = Not Available.

  1 =Provisional.

  2 = Estimated.

  Source: DTI and Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders Ltd.

  144

  Trends in West German Car Output West Germany

  Production of Cars (units: thousands)

  Exports as Percentage of Total

  Importers share of United Kingdom Market Percentage

  1958

  1,307

  48

  n/a

  1960

  1,817

  48

  n/a

  1970

  3,528

  55

  n/a

  1975

  2,908

  52

  n/a

  1979

  3,933

  58

  24

  1980

  3,521

  60

  28

  1981

  3,578

  61

  27

  1982

  3,761

  67

  26

  1983

  3,878

  65

  27

  1984

  3,790

  68

  30

  1985

  4,167

  67

  31

  1986

  4,311

  66

  32

  n/a =Not Available.

  Source: Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders Ltd.

  Trends in French Car Output France

  Production of Cars (units: thousands)

  Exports as Percentage of Total

  Importers share of United Kingdom Market Percentage

  1958

  969

  33

  n/a

  1960

  1,175

  42

  n/a

  1970

  2,458

  43

  n/a

  1975

  2,546

  48

  n/a

  1979

  3,220

  48

  22

  1980

  2,939

  47

  23

  1981

  2,611

  48

  28

  1982

  2,777

  43

  31

  1983

  2,961

  40

  32

  1984

  2,713

  41

  36

  1985

  2,632

  49

  37

  1986

  2,773

  47

  36

  n/a = Not Available.

  Source: Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders Ltd.

  Imports
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the percentage of home demand taken by imports in the latest available year and in 1987 for(a) metal manufacturing, (b) chemicals, (c) man-made fibres, (d) mechanical engineering (e) electrical and electronic engineering, (f) motor vehicles and parts, (g) other transport equipment, (h) instrument engineering, (i) footwear and clothing, (j) other manufacturing and (k) manufacturing (revised definition).

  Mr. Atkins
  The most recent information, relating I o the year ended September 1987, was published in " British Business" on 15 January 1988, page 20.

  Iran
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) what percentage of EEC exports to Iran, by value was accounted for by exports from the United Kingdom in 1977, 1978, 1984, 1985, 1986 and 1987;

  (2) what rank, among the current members of the EEC, the United Kingdom held in value of exports to Iran in 1977, 1978, 1984, 1985, 1986 and 1987.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Figures for the whole of 1987 are not yet available.
  145

  United Kingdom exports to Iran

  Percentage of EC exports

  Rank as EC exporter

  1977

  18·2

  2

  1978

  18·4

  2

  1984

  16·9

  3

  1985

  16·7

  2

  1986

  16·0

  3

  19871

  13·0

  3

  1 January to May.

  Source: OECD Series 'A'.

  Sheffield
  Mr. Patnick
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many Government initiatives have been taken since 1979 to deal with urban dereliction and inner-city decay in Sheffield, by means of encouraging development and raising business confidence; if he will list them, indicating the amounts expended under each heading; if he will also indicate any grants available which were not taken up; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Since 1979, the Government have developed a range of initiatives to deal with urban dereliction and inner-city decay by encouraging development and raising business confidence, as I outlined in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Heddle) on 19 January 1988,Official Report, columns 598–600.

  The following table gives details of the initiatives which have been undertaken in Sheffield since 1979 and the level of Government support:

  £ million

  Urban Programme

  38·0

  Urban Development Grant

  0·9

  Derelict Land Grant

  1·3

  Estate Action

  1·1

  European Regional Development Fund

  23·1

  Regional Selective Assistance

  9·2

  Business Improvement Scheme

  1·7

  Industrial Development Act

  3·0

  In addition, the Government have given support under various schemes to assist local enterprise and innovation through the Sheffield enterprise agency and joint ventures with the private sector.

  We have directed over £75 million towards these initiatives in Sheffield since 1979, which represents a substantial commitment to the area. There has been an increasing level of interest and take-up across the range of initiatives available to encourage development and raise business confidence.

  High Technology Audits
  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many visits he has authorised, to United Kingdom companies by United States of America officials, pursuant to his agreement with the United States of America relating to high technology audits; when these visits took place; which companies were visited; and what reasons were given.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  None

  Trade Mission (South Africa)
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is his policy on the forthcoming United Kingdom South Africa Trade Association trade mission to South Africa; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Officials both in the United Kingdom and overseas provide information and advice on the market to business visitors to South Africa, whether they travel there as individuals or as members of a trade mission. Such assistance is not contrary to any of our undertakings on South Africa.

  Textile Industry (False Labelling)
  Mr. Brandon-Bravo
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if, in the light of the report by the trading standards sub-committee of Nottinghamshire county council, dated 16 November 1987, submitted to his office on 13 January, if he will indicate what steps his Department will take to protect the textile trade from unfair competition and loss of value to consumers by false labelling of goods, with particular reference to garments labelled as wool, and found to be either deficient or containing no wool at all.

  Mr. Maude
  I have noted the recent report of the trading standards sub-committee of the Nottinghamshire county council. Enforcement of United Kingdom legislation governing fibre content labelling of textile products rests, as does much other consumer protection legislation, with individual local authorities. I know, however that the EC Commission has been investigating whether there are particular problems concerning the importation of fabric with overstated wool content. It has not yet announced the outcome.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Grylls
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will give details of the progress made by his Department in implementing the policy of deregulation in the last 12 months.

  Mr. Maude
  Deregulation is one of the DTI's prime objectives and central to the enterprise initiative we launched earlier this month. In the last 12 months, substantial progress has been made in the areas listed in the report "Encouraging Enterprise" published last May, particularly in relation to reducing burdens imposed by company law, the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and the Weights and Measures Act 1985. Legislation to amend those Acts and implement the proposed changes in company law will be introduced at the first opportunity.

  My hon. Friend can be assured that we will continue to devote every effort to simplifying those regulations which are necessary and removing those which are not.

  Regional Aid
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will publish in the Official Report the names of all those companies which have received moneys from the regional development grant and regional selective assistance in excess of £25,000 since 1978–79 in the borough of Sunderland.

  Mr. Kenneth Clark
  The information requested is only available at disproportionate cost. However, details of
  147
  grant recipients above certain thresholds are published in British Business. The dates of publication of regional development grant payments were as follows:

  Publication date

  1978–79

  11 August 1978

  Q1

  3 November 1978

  Q2

  16 February 1979

  Q3

  18 May 1979

  Q4

  1979–80

  19 October 1979

  Q1

  7 December 1979

  Q2

  22 February 1980

  Q3

  6 June 1980

  Q4

  1980–81

  29 August 1980

  Q1

  28 November 1980

  Q2

  13 February 1981

  Q3

  15 May 1981

  Q4

  1981–82

  7 August 1981

  Q1

  6 November 1981

  Q2

  12 February 1982

  Q3

  7 May 1982

  Q4

  1982–83

  13 August 1982

  Q1

  29 October 1982

  Q2

  4 February 1983

  Q3

  6 May 1983

  Q4

  1983–84

  29 July 1983

  Q1

  4 November 1983

  Q2

  3 February 1984

  Q3

  25 May 1984

  Q4

  1984–85

  31 August 1984

  Q1

  9 November 1984

  Q2

  15 February 1985

  Q3

  10 May 1985

  Q4

  1985–86

  16 August 1985

  Q1

  17 January 1986

  Q2

  11 April 1986

  Q3

  20 June 1986

  Q4

  1986–87

  19 September 1986

  Q1

  5 December 1986

  Q2

  10 April 1987

  Q3

  10 July 1987

  Q4

  1987–88

  4 September 1987

  Q1

  18 December 1987

  Q2

  Notes: Details published are:

  (i) original RDG scheme: individual payments which exceed £25,000;

  (ii) revised RDG scheme: payments to individual undertakings in a Travel-to-Work-Area which cumulatively exceed £25,000 in any one quarter.

  Offers of Regional Selective Assistance were published in the following editions of British Business:

  Date

  1978–79

  18 August 1978

  Q1

  148

  Date

  24 November 1978

  Q2

  9 March 1979

  Q3

  15 June 1979

  Q4

  1979–80

  14 September 1979

  Q1

  21 December 1979

  Q2

  29 February 1980

  Q3

  11 June 1980

  Q4

  1980–81

  15 August 1980

  Q1

  5 December 1980

  Q2

  6 March 1981

  Q3

  24 July 1981

  Q4

  1981–82

  25 September 1981

  Q1

  4 December 1981

  Q2

  26 March 1982

  Q3

  28 May 1982

  Q4

  1982–83

  24 September 1982

  Q1

  17 December 1982

  Q2

  15 April 1983

  Q3

  24 June 1983

  Q4

  1983–84

  18 November 1983

  Q1

  17 February 1984

  Q2

  6 July 1984

  Q3

  13 July 1984

  Q4

  1984–85

  14 September 1984

  Q1

  23 November 1984

  Q2

  22 February 1985

  Q3

  28 June 1985

  Q4

  1985–86

  30 August 1985

  Q1

  29 November 1985

  Q2

  28 February 1986

  Q3

  6 June 1986

  Q4

  1986–87

  26 September 1986

  Q1

  28 November 1986

  Q2

  27 March 1987

  Q3

  19 June 1987

  Q4

  1987–88

  28 August 1987

  Q1

  22 November 1987

  Q2

  Note: Details show offers of £5,000 or more and are published after a first payment has been made.

  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will publish the amount of regional development grant and regional selective assistance grants made in(a) county of Tyne and Wear (b) new town industrial estate of Washington and (c) Sunderland borough council area for each year 1978–79 to the latest date available.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The information is not available in the form requested but the following data can be provided:
  149

  £ million

  1978–79

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  11987–88

  Regional development grants

  Tyne and Wear County

  8·6

  8·2

  12·6

  18·0

  23·4

  16·5

  13·1

  13·6

  27·7

  21·2

  Houghton/Washington2

  0·8

  0·9

  0·6

  0·9

  0·8

  1·3

  8·7

  3·3

  7·2

  2·5

  Sunderland3

  2·1

  2·4

  2·2

  3·6

  3·7

  3·9

  3·3

  4·5

  9·8

  4·3

  Regional selective assistance

  Tyne and Wear County

  3·6

  3·3

  5·3

  8·2

  10·6

  5·5

  4·0

  4·7

  5·3

  5·9

  Houghton/Washington2

  0·4

  0·3

  0·2

  0·6

  0·5

  0·6

  0·9

  0·9

  1·5

  0 7

  Sunderland3

  1·2

  0·7

  0·6

  1·1

  1·0

  0·8

  1·4

  1·4

  1·7

  1·4

  1 Provisional to end-December 1987.

  2 Defined as the Parliamentary Constituencies of Houghton and Washington, except in respect of the original regional development grants scheme for which constituency level data are not available. Instead data have been given for the employment office areas of Houghton and Washington for this scheme.

  3 Defined as the Local Authority District of Sunderland, except in respect of the original regional development grant scheme for which district level data are not available. Instead data have been given for the employment office areas of Houghton, Southwich, Sunderland and Washington for this scheme.

  Planning and Expenditure
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the implications for his Department's(a) planning and (b) spending on job reinforcement of recent projections published by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys that East Anglia will have in the next 13 years the greatest proportionate population increase of both people moving in and of new births of any English region.

  Mr. Butcher
  [holding answer 25 January 1988]: The high population growth forecast for East Anglia reflects the economic buoyancy of the region. It is to the credit of East Anglian enterprise that GDP per head in East Anglia grew from being the eighth highest in the United Kingdom in 1975 to second highest in 1985. My Department wishes to encourage wealth creation in East Anglia, as elsewhere, and is ready to work with the private sector, local authorities, and the standing conference of East Anglia local authorities to achieve this end. In particular, the enterprise initiative, soon to operate in East Anglia from a DTI office in Cambridge, will be a vital factor in encouraging the growth of real jobs throughout the region.

  Regional Selective Assistance
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if there are any proposals to change the criteria for granting regional selective assistance or the ceilings of such aid as a result of the ending of automatic grants.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 25 January 1988]: As the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said in the House on 12 January 1988 at column 160, there are no proposals to change the essential criteria for granting regional selective assistance. We shall ensure that the criteria—particularly additionalityy, ie whether assistance is necessary to enable a project to proceed—are applied rigorously in the interests of securing maximum value from the resources devoted to the scheme.

  The present ceilings on regional assistance are expressed in terms of the total amount of assistance which can be provided for a project. With the ending of regional development grant it will be possible in development areas for the same amount to be provided in RSA as could previously be provided in RDG and RSA combined. The amount actually offered in individual cases is the minimum needed for the project to proceed.
  150
  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many successful applications for regional selective assistance are forecast for 1988–89, 1989–90 and 1990–91.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 25 January 1988]: The number of successful applications for regional selective assistance will depend on the number and quality of applications which come forward. It is estimated that in England there will be approximately 1,600 applications during 1987-88 resulting in RSA offers. It is not possible to provide a forecast for future years with any degree of confidence, but the number is likely to increase.

  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will forecast the level of regional selective assistance for 1990–91.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 25 January 1988]: The planned level of provision for expenditure on regional selective assistance in England in 1990–91 is approximately £150 million, of which some £130 million is for industrial and training grants. Residual commitments under the business improvement services scheme, and expenditure under the exchange risk guarantee scheme account for the remainder. These amounts are net of recoveries and other domestic receipts, but gross of receipts from the European regional development fund.

  Associated British Foods
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list any Government assistance which has been given to Associated British Foods, specifically in relation to its Pendleton's factory in Kirkby.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 25 January 1988]: The Department of Trade and Industry has no record of an application from Associated British Foods for assistance for the Pendleton's factory in Kirkby.

  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will meet a deputation from the work force of Associated British Foods to discuss the proposed closure of the Pendleton's factory in Kirkby with the consequent loss of 185 permanent jobs and a further 200 seasonal jobs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 25 January 1988]: I see no point in meeting a deputation from the work force of

  151
  Associated British Foods at this time. The company has taken a commercial decision to close Pendleton's factory at Kirkby. This decision was taken on the basis of substantial losses incurred at the plant over the last four years.

  European Regional Development Fund
  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the latest forecast outturn for 1987–88 in respect of money obtained for the United Kingdom from the European regional development fund.

  Mr. Maude
  [holding answer 25 January 1988]: United Kingdom receipts from the European regional development fund in the nine months to December 1987 were £255 million. The total for the current financial year should be about £340 million.

  BP Shares
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what information he has as to the latest level of shareholding in BP by Kuwaiti interests.

  Mr. Maude
  [holding answer 25 January 1988]: The level of shareholding stood at 18.88 per cent. as at close of trading on 22 January.

ENERGY

  Coal Industry
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) if he will list the opencast coal workings currently operating in the United Kingdom, by region, and(a) the annual output in each site and (b) the expected life and total output of each site;

  (2) if he will list all proposed new developments of opencast coal workings for each part of the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The British Coal Corporation is responsible for both its own opencast mining operations and the issue of licences to private opencast operators. I have asked the chairman to write to the hon. Member.

  Coal Imports
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list(a) the amount of coal imports into the United Kingdom by country of origin, for the latest year for which figures are available, (b) the ports in which they are being landed and the amounts each year and (c) the names of the companies which are registered to import coal.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Details of imports of coal into the United Kingdom by country of origin in 1986 (the latest year available) are in table 20 of the "Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics" published by HMSO. A copy is in the Library of the House.

  In 1986 the ports into which coal was being imported and the amounts landed were as follows:

  Port

  Quantity thousand tones

  Middlesbrough

  2,610

  Port Talbot

  1,558

  Immingham

  1,349

  152

  Port

  Quantity thousand tonnes

  Greenock

  1,301

  Trent

  778

  Medway

  661

  London (including Tilbury)

  404

  Hartlepool

  295

  Cardiff

  247

  Sunderland

  243

  Colchester

  196

  Belfast

  176

  Liverpool

  143

  Avonmouth

  96

  Newport (Gwent)

  83

  Others (38 ports)

  413

  10,554

  Source: Her Majesty's Customs and Excise.

  Details about coal importing companies are commercially confidential.

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what discussions there have been with importers of coal on the future levels of imported coal; and what was the outcome.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  None.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Savings
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish the latest figures for savings on both a per capita basis and as a percentage of gross national product; and what comparable figures he has for other members of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development.

  Mr. Lilley
  The latest annual figures are for 1986, when, according to the United Kingdom national accounts, total saving (by persons, companies and Government) in the United Kingdom (after providing for stock appreciation but before providing for depreciation) amounted to £70·8 billion, or £1,247 per head of the population, or 18·7 per cent. of the gross national product.

  International comparisons in money terms are difficult because of the difficulties in measuring according to some common standard, the different purchasing powers of different currencies. (Current exchange rates are not always a good guide.) The following table gives 1985 figures compiled by the OECD for gross saving as percentages of gross domestic product for each OECD country.

  Gross saving as a percentage of GDP in 19851

  Percentage

  United States

  16·5

  Japan

  31·7

  Germany

  22·2

  France

  18·0

  United Kingdom

  19·2

  Italy

  17·7

  Canada

  19·0

  Australia

  19·3

  Austria

  24·4

  Belgium

  15·9

  Denmark

  14·9

  Finland

  23·8

  Greece

  12·2

  153

  Percentage

  Iceland

  16·3

  Ireland

  18·1

  Luxembourg

  65·3

  Netherlands

  24·1

  Norway

  30·0

  Portugal

  23·1

  Spain

  21·0

  Sweden

  17·8

  Switzerland

  30·0

  Turkey

  18·7

  New Zealand

  20·9

  Source: OECD Historical Abstracts (1987).

  1 Gross saving by persons, companies and government before providing for depreciation but after providing for stock appreciation.

  Publicity
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much was spent on Government publicity in free newspapers in the last three available years; and if he will make it his policy to increase the proportion of Government publicity expenditure through this medium.

  Mr. Brooke
  Information is not readily available in the form requested. The criterion used by the Central Office of Information in the selection of publicity media is, and must remain, cost-effectiveness in reaching the audience required to meet the specific objectives of each campaign.

  Exchange Rate
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will set out in tabular form the relationship between the three-monthly change for the period 1975 to 1987 in the real exchange rate and the three-monthly change in(a) exports (volume), (b) imports (volume), (c) profits, (d) the retail prices index, (e) gross national product growth, (f) the level of domestic economic industry and (g) unemployment, all one year later.

  Mr. Major
  The figures requested are all readily available from published sources. The volume of exports and imports, industrial and commercial company gross trading profits, the retail prices index, industrial production and the level of unemployment may all be found in Economic Trends. Figures for the gross national product may be found in the monthly digest of statistics. There is no unique measure of the real exchange rate. Figures for the sterling exchange rate index and various measures of United Kingdom competitiveness are published in Economic Trends.

  Interest Rates
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the correlation between interest rates and the public sector borrowing requirement from 1979 to 1987.

  Mr. Major
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has made no estimate. United Kingdom interest rates are influenced by numerous factors including interest rates abroad, inflationary expectations, financial innovation and private sector borrowing, in addition to public sector borrowing. Consequently, simple correlations between interest rates and the public sector borrowing requirement are uninformative.

  Customs Clearance Station (Armagh)
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the existing customs clearance station near Armagh city has facilities to handle(a) the importation of live cattle from the Republic of Ireland and (b) the importation of live cattle from the United Kingdom into the Republic of Ireland.

  Mr. Lawson
  The existing customs clearance station near Armagh city does not have facilities to handle the regular importation and exportation of live cattle between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. It does have a limited facility for the temporary holding of cattle which on occasion may have been detained for customs purposes. The facility is only very occasionally used as the Armagh customs station is not linked to a Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland cattle pen. There are no proposals for such a link.

  Industrial Building Allowances
  Mr. David Howell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will now take steps to remove the restrictions imposed on the use of industrial building allowances which distinguish between manufacturing and service industries and limit their utilisation to buildings in the former category.

  Mr. Lawson
  [holding answer 25 January 1988]: I have noted my right hon. Friend's suggestion.

THE ARTS

  Business Sponsorship
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he has plans to continue the business sponsorship incentive scheme for 1988–89; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Luce
  The business sponsorship incentive scheme continues to be highly successful. Since it began in 1984 it has raised £16·4 million of new money for the arts and has attracted over 600 first time sponsors. Seventy per cent. of the awards have gone to arts groups outside London.

  I believe that the scheme should be strengthened and extended in 1988–89. I am therefore making provision to increase the amount available from £1·75 million to £3 million per annum, an increase of 70 per cent., to reflect the existing and anticipated growth in sponsorship. I am also restoring the maximum limit of £25,000 which was temporarily reduced following an exceptional run of awards in 1987–88. In addition, so as to safeguard the interests for arts organisations obtaining sponsorship for winter events, the budget will be operated in two six-monthly periods, on the basis of allocations reflecting the take-up pattern of previous years.

  I believe that this increase in funding and the change to six-monthly operation will provide adequate resources for the scheme to operate throughout the financial year. However, the scheme is cash-limited and may be exhausted by exceptional demand in either six-month period. In such unlikely circumstances I shall not introduce reduced awards.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Conventional Stability
  Mr. Allen Adams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on her Majesty's Government's latest position in the talks on conventional stability in Europe.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's latest position in the talks on conventional stability in Europe.

  Mr. Stott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's latest position in the talks on conventional stability in Europe.

  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's latest position in the talks on conventional stability in Europe.

  Mr. Mellor
  The position was set out in my reply to the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Garrett) and others on 8 December. I repeat it here: the Government fully support the launching of conventional stability talks covering the Atlantic to the Urals, first called for in the NATO Brussels declaration of December 1986. To this end, the Government are playing an active part in the informal discussions taking place in Vienna between NATO and Warsaw pact representatives to find a mandate for formal conventional stability negotiations. We hope these can begin in the course of this year. The Government's — and NATO's —primary objectives in these talks will be the establishment of a stable and secure balance of forces in Europe at lower levels together with the elimination of disparities in force levels and of the Warsaw pact's capability for surprise attack and offensive action.

  Arms Verification
  Mr. Thorne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made in arms verification negotiations with the Soviet Union which have implications for the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  Significant progress in the area of verification was made at the Stockholm conference on confidence-building which concluded in September 1986 with agreement on a substantial package of measures including provision for verification of compliance through on-site "challenge" inspection. The INF treaty signed on 8 December between the United States and Soviet Union also contains stringent verification provisions, including provisions for on-site inspections. The United Kingdom signed an exchange of notes with the Soviet Union on 21 December which granted the Soviet Union the right to conduct inspections at RAF Greenham Common and RAF Molesworth, the only United Kingdom bases covered by the INF agreement. In return, the Soviet Union agreed to comply with British laws and procedures.

  The negotiations for a comprehensive ban on chemical weapons will contain extensive verification arrangements, including the need to monitor certain activities of the civil chemical industry. Good progress has recently been made. However, many important details remain to be settled and early agreement is unlikely.

  COCOM
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has decided to join the internal COCOM trading community.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The United Kingdom is a member of COCOM (the Co-ordinating Committee for Multilateral Export Controls) at which the 16 member countries meet to co-ordinate the export of strategic equipment to Warsaw pact countries and China. COCOM is not a trading community.

  Mr. Douglas Forsyth
  Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what response the Egyptian Government have made to diplomatic representations with regard to Mr. Douglas Forsyth's property in Cairo; and whether, having regard to the low level of the compensation payment mentioned in his reply of 18 November 1987,Official Report, column 598, he is satisfied that the requirement for Mr. Forsyth, in common with other British subjects, to sell his property under duress of enforced Egyptian occupation is consistent with the letter and spirit of the 1959 United Kingdom Egyptian agreement.

  Mr. Mellor
  No formal reply to our representations have yet been received but further hearings have taken place of both Mr. Forsyth's appeals with one being found in his favour. With regard to the compensation accepted by Mr. Forsyth's late fater, this was judicially determined by the Foreign Compensation Commission. There is no requirement under the 1959 agreement for Mr. Forsyth to sell his property, but this remains an option open to him.

  Middle East
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a further statement on the peace progress in the middle east and any current Government initiatives in that regard.

  Mr. Mellor
  We shall continue to work for an international conference under United Nations auspicies as the framework for negotiations between the parties directly concerned.

  European Commission
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met the President of the European Commission; and what subjects were discussed.

  Mrs. Chalker
  My right hon. and learned Friend's most recent meeting with the President of the European Commission was in Brussels on 25 January when they discussed a number of issues, notably the negotiations on the control of Community spending.

  Central America
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his policy towards central America, in the light of the recent meeting of Presidents of the five central American countries.
  157
  Mr. Eggar
  We note that at their summit on 15–16 January, the Presidents of central America declared that they were not entirely satisfied with the implementation thus far of the Esquipulas II undertakings, and that they agreed to fulfil these unconditionally and unilaterally. We have consistently supported efforts to restore peace and promote democracy in the region and appeal to all the central American countries, and especially Nicaragua, to comply with their obligations under the agreement, especially those relating to democratisation.

  Sri Lanka
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Sri Lanka concerning human rights violations in the Jaffna peninsula.

  Mr. Eggar
  None. We deplore terrorist violations of human rights in the Jaffna peninsula and elsewhere.

  Ireland
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met the Foreign Minister of the Republic of Ireland; and what matters were discussed.

  Mrs. Chalker
  My right hon. and learned Friend last met the acting Foreign Minister of the Republic of Ireland on 25 November at a meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council. Their discussion was confidential. My right hon. and learned Friend was to have met the Foreign Minister on 18 January in London but, he is at present indisposed.

  United Nations
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the impact the current financial situation of the United Nations is having on its policies.

  Mr. Eggar
  While individual programmes are kept under constant review and the Secretary-General has instituted some cost-saving measures, including a recruitment freeze, reductions in staffing and savings in travel expenses, the current financial difficulties being experienced by the United Nations have not so far had any major impact on United Nations policies.

  Contra Rebels (Funding)
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made to the State Department of the United States concerning the continued funding of the Contra rebels in Nicaragua; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  We regularly discuss central America with the United States Administration, and they are well aware of our support for a peaceful rather than a military solution to the problems of that region.

  Cultural Diplomacy
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking in order to consolidate and expand the work of United Kingdom cultural diplomacy.
  158
  Mr. Eggar
  The needs of cultural diplomacy, like all aspects of diplomacy, are subject to continuous review. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the British Council are working closely together to agree the range of global priorities and objectives and the most efficient means of achieving these. The importance that we attach to cultural diplomacy was made clear in our reply to the Foreign Affairs Committee's report, and was reaffirmed by my noble Friend the Minister of State in another place on 20 January.

  Youth Exchange Schemes
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the total budget for youth exchanges between Britain and Europe; and if he will make a statement on the effect on this total of contributing to the Youth for Europe scheme.

  Mr. Eggar
  [pursuant to his reply, 18 January 1988, c. 498]: The total amount spent by us on youth exchanges with western Europe for 1986–87 was £387,198. Of this £365,233 was spent on exchanges with our EC partners. The Community's Youth for Europe programme is not yet ready for adoption. It will not be possible to estimate its effect, if any, on the United Kingdom's youth exchange programme until a budget for it has been agreed.

  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many people are covered by youth exchange programmes between Britain and Europe; how many schemes there are; how many of these are administered by the British Council; within the total how many places relate to each of Scotland, Northern Ireland and the North of England; and how many places relate to each of(a) the disabled and (b) ethnic minorities.

  Mr. Eggar
  [pursuant to his reply, 18 January 1988, c. 498.]: In 1986/87, 12,604 young people were funded by the Government to participate in 692 youth exchanges with our west Europen neighbours. The funding of such schemes was administered by the British Council. Out of this total, 1,100 young people were funded from Scotland, 554 from Northern Ireland, 1,468 from the North of England (ie from the Scottish border to south Yorkshire). A total of 822 disabled young people were also funded from the United Kingdom and Western Europe. Statistics for ethnic minorities are not available for 1986–87. They will be available for 1987–88.

EMPLOYMENT

  Small Firms
  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what advice his Department gives to small firms which are owed money by overseas suppliers or contractors and which are unable to secure payment; what representations he has received on this subject from LAMDEC of Frodham, Warrington, Cheshire,; what response he has made; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  The booklet "Payment on Time" issued by my Department in conjunction with the CBI and other organisations gives general advice on payment problems. Where small firms cannot resolve payment disputes with customers they should seek legal advice, whether the customer is in the United Kingdom or overseas.
  159
  A letter from LAMDEC outlining its payment problems was received on 19 January, in addition to representations recently made by my hon. Friend. The specific points raised in these representations are involved in a current High Court action and I cannot comment on them. I will reply to the representations to comment on the general issue of late payment in industry shortly.

  Benefits (Adjudication Officers)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to his reply of 10 December,Official Report, column 230, in which offices the additional 90 staff in support of adjudication officers have been located; what is the number of adjudication officers in each unemployment benefit office; what is the number of new unemployment benefit claims at each office in the last financial year; and what is the current number of unemployment benefit claimants at each office.

  Mr. Lee
  Adjudication officers are not attached to individual unemployment benefit offices. They work in groups which cover a number of offices. The additional 90 support posts were allocated in the two years to August 1987, on the basis of regional assessments of need. Since the creation of the employment service, adjudication officers have been reorganised into new regional groups and the additional 90 posts cannot be specifically identified.

  The number of adjudication officers and their support staff in post on 21 January 1988 in each employment service region was as follows:

  Employment Service Region

  Adjudication Officers

  Support Staff

  Northern

  32

  20

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  50

  44

  East Midlands

  48

  42

  London and South-East

  133

  91

  South-West

  53

  43

  Wales

  34

  21

  West Midlands

  51

  37

  North-West

  72

  62

  Scotland

  51

  40

  Total

  524

  400

  Regional statistics on new claims to unemployment benefit are collected by the Department of Health and Social Security. These could only be disaggregated by local benefit office at disproportionate cost. The regional totals are as follows:

  DHSS Region

  New Claims to Unemployment Benefit 1986–87

  South-East

  1,495,823

  East Anglia

  166,936

  South-West

  399,868

  West Midlands

  458,209

  East Midlands

  331,212

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  500,444

  North-West

  670,064

  Northern

  347,324

  Wales

  277,672

  Scotland

  613,181

  Total

  5,260,733

  160
  DHSS and Employment Service regions are not conterminous. Details of the number of people claiming unemployment benefit at each office are also collected by DHSS and published in "Unemployment Benefit Statistics— Quarterly Analysis of Unemployment Claimants" a copy of which is in the Library.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the number of persons in employment and the number unemployed in Derbyshire in each year from 1983.

  Mr. Lee
  Unemployment figures can be given but information about employment in counties and smaller areas is available only for years when censuses of employment are conducted. The available information is given in the table.

  County of Derbyshire1

  Number of:

  Year

  unemployed claimants2 (annual average)

  Employees in employment3

  1983

  45,604

  4

  1984

  47,208

  330,200

  1985

  48,936

  4

  1986

  49,799

  4

  1987

  46,911

  4

  1 The county is defined in terms of ward boundaries as at 1981.

  2 The numbers are affected by changes in the coverage of the count.

  3 The figure relates to a September date and excludes the self-employed and members of Her Majesty's forces.

  4 Not available.

  Trade Union Elections
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received on the conduct of ballots for union elections.

  Mr. Nicholls
  In addition to comments on the proposals contained in chapter 5 of the Green Paper "Trade Unions and Their Members", my Department continues to receive letters and requests for meetings about the conduct of ballots for union elections.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Grylls
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give details of the progress made by his Department in implementing the policy of deregulation over the last 12 months.

  Mr. Cope
  The Department of Employment group has continued in the last 12 months to review existing regulations and seek new opportunities for deregulation, including further reductions in burdens on small firms. The progress report on deregulation, "Encouraging Enterprise", which the then Secretary of State for Employment made to Parliament in May 1987, described action being taken on a number of proposals for reducing the burden of employment protection and health and safety legislation on employers, while maintaining necessary protections. Since then the Department has issued a consultative document on the restrictions on the employment of young people and the removal of sex
  161
  discrimination in legislation. The Health and Safety Commission has issued a consultative document with proposals to replace the existing requirements to post up abstracts of the Factories Act and Office, Shops and Railways Premises Act with a simpler and more effective requirement to provide information to employees by means of a poster or leaflet. Work has also continued on simplifying and speeding up administrative procedures which affect business and on improving means of communicating information and advice to employers about the DE group's services, programmes and responsibilities. Since "Encouraging Enterprise" we have, for example, speeded up the process of making decisions on loans to small firms under the loan guarantee scheme. The group has won two Plain English awards—one for DE's series of fact-sheets explaining employment law in clear and simple language; the other for ACAS's handbook for small firms, "Employing People". We have issued staff with guidelines on good buying practice and introduced training to help ensure that contacts with firms are dealt with efficiently.

  Small Firms
  Mr. Grylls
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the measures introduced by the Government to encourage small firms since 1979.

  Mr. Cope
  [pursuant to his reply, 18 December 1987, c. 830]: In my earlier reply at the above reference I promised to write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of my reply in the Official Report. The full text of that letter is as follows:
  On 18 December you asked for a list of the measures introduced by the Government since 1979 to encourage small firms. I am now able to let you have the information you requested. A copy of this letter will appear in the Official Report.
  In 1979 responsibility for the small firms sector resided with the Department of Industry. Responsibility was transferred from the amalgamated Department of Trade and Industry to the Department of Employment on 3 September 1985 to give a sharper focus to the promotion of enterprise and its potential for job creation. Government policy throughout has been to concentrate on tackling the particular disadvantages faced by people setting up a new business or wishing to expand an existing small firm.

  Finance
  The availability of finance to small firms has been improved by:
  The Loan Guarantee Scheme, introduced in 1981 to facilitate the supply of finance to viable small firms where conventional loans are not available, possibly due to lack of security or track record. The Scheme was extended for a further 3 years in the 1986 Budget. The premium paid by borrowers was reduced from 5 per cent. to 2·5 per cent. of the guaranteed proportion of the loan, which remains at 70 per cent. To date 18,741 guarantees have been issued with a total loan value of £627·42 million.
  The Business Expansion Scheme, introduced in 1983, provides income tax relief on new equity investment in unquoted trading companies. The life of the scheme was extended indefinitely in the 1986 Budget. In the first two years of the scheme's operation some 1,500 companies raised £252 million, half of which were small enterprises seeking to raise amounts below £50,000. The figures include 88 companies which raised finance in both years.
  The Venture Capital Scheme encourages the provision of
  162
  finance by enabling individuals and investment companies to set capital losses on disposal of shares in unquoted trading companies against income.
  The Enterprise Allowance Scheme was inroduced on a pilot basis in 1982 and nationally from 1983 to assist people who have been unemployed and in receipt of benefit to start their own business. Over 300,000 unemployed people have been helped by the Scheme. Provision for 102,500 entrants has been made for 1987–88 and 110,000 places in 1988–89. Greater emphasis is now being placed on counselling and training for applicants.

  Premises
  The Small Workshops Scheme stimulated private sector investment in small industrial premises. From March 1980 to March 1985, a 100 per cent. initial building allowance was given for capital expenditure on the contruction of small workshops.
  English Industrial Estates Corporation (EIEC) has concentrated on providing premises for small businesses (up to 2,500 sq. ft.). Special rental and tenancy agreements have been devised to meet the needs of small businesses and entrepreneurs. EIEC works with a number of public sector agencies—the Department of Trade and Industry, the Development Commission and universities. Similar programmes are undertaken by the Scottish and Welsh Development Agencies. The Department of Trade and Industry announced on 12 January 1988 that they will be paying special attention to increasing managed workspaces in inner city areas.

  Training
  The Manpower Services Commission has developed a range of training programmes and has particularly refocussed its adult training provision to take greater account of small firms' training needs.
  The Training For Enterprise programme (TFE) aims to equip potential and existing entrepreneurs with the skills and knowledge required to successfully launch, manage and develop a small business. The TFE budget has increased greatly since 1979/80; in that year 120 people were helped by the programme at a cost of £0·42 million, in 1986/87 67,000 people benefitted at an expenditure of £18·6 million. Estimates for the current financial year are for £19·3 million and 68,000 people.

  Government Purchasing
  The Government has improved small firms' access to information about purchasing departments, their procedures, requirements and points of contact. A Department of Employment booklet on "Tendering for Government Contracts" has been supplemented by some individual departments' own publications and information published on Prestel. Tendering and approval procedures have been simplified by exempting suppliers to most Government departments from normal approval procedures for contracts under £10,000, by allowing non approved firms to tender for non-urgent contracts subject to subsequent approval and by encouraging Departments to make regular reviews of tender lists to encourage new suppliers.
  The Ministry of Defence launched a small firms' initiative at the end of 1986 to increase competitive opportunities for small firms. This included the creation of the Small Firms Advice Division within the Procurement Executive to supervise the initiative, to advise on the development of MOD policy towards small firms and to offer a variety of advice and information to small firms wishing to obtain contracts. Another part of the initiative is aimed at enabling innovative small firms to obtain a greater share of MOD's research funds.

  Innovation
  The Small Firms Merit Award for Research and Technology (SMART) was run for the first time in 1986 to encourage small firms and potential entrepreneurs to put forward innovative ideas that cannot attract existing sources of funding. The scheme is to be expanded.
  The Support for Innovation Scheme was introduced in 1981 by the then Department of Industry to offer firms

  163
  assistance with Research and Development projects. The programme was reviewed in 1985 and the emphasis shifted towards collaborative research, advisory services and improving skills. Small firms are subject to a simplified appraisal process and so far 50 per cent. of participants in the scheme have been small firms. A change in emphasis was announced by DTI on 12 January 1988 to switch support from single companies to support for collaborative research and technology transfer particularly between industry and higher education institutions.
  The Teaching Company Scheme was set up by the Science and Engineering Research Council and the Department of Trade and Industry in the mid-70s. The Scheme promotes close active partnership between Higher Educational Institutions and companies to work on major industrial problems such as the application of new technology. There are currently about 275 programmes and in 1986–87 total funding for the Scheme was £10 million split between DTI, the Research Councils and Industry. United Kingdom industry has a high regard for the scheme and it had led to the recruitment and satisfactory integration of high quality graduates into small companies, especially those with no graduate employees. On 12 January 1988 the Department of Trade and Industry announced that the scheme is being substantially increased and that it will put greater emphasis on the projects of small and medium sized firms.

  Taxation
  Both small companies and unicorporated businesses are benefiting from tax reductions. The basic rate of income tax and the "small companies" rate of corporation tax have been reduced to 27 per cent. The highest rates of income tax have been substantially reduced.
  The capital gains tax exemption limits have been increased to £6,600. Retirement reliefs have been extended to cover retirement at 60, retirement through ill health and disposal of shares in family holding companies of trading groups. In 1987 the ceiling for retirement relief was raised to £125,000. Indexation has been improved and extended as have rollover reliefs. Reliefs have also been introduced to facilitate the incorporation of businesses, and losses on loans made for business purposes can now be offset against capital gains tax.
  Significant changes to capital transfer tax were introduced between 1979 and 1985 to increase thresholds from £25,000 to £67,000 and increase rate bands. From 1981, only transfers within the preceding ten years were taken into account in assessing cumulative total CTT liability. In 1986, the charge on lifetime gifts was abolished and the tax renamed inheritance tax with the threshold increased to £71,000 with further increases in rate bands. In 1987 business relief was increased from 30 per cent. to 50 per cent. for minority holdings over 25 per cent. in unquoted companies, the threshold was increased to £90,000 and the rate bands reduced from seven to four. These changes will further facilitate the transfer of business from one generation to the next without the need to dilute assets to meet the consequent tax liability.
  Income tax relief is available on personal borrowings raised to make investments in partnerships, close companies, co-operatives and employee buy-outs. Relief is also available for interest on loans to partners buying plant and machinery for use in their partnership business.
  Losses incurred in any of the first four years of trading by a new business carried on by an individual can qualify for special income tax relief. This can be obtained against earnings during a three-year period before the new trade started.
  Expenses incurred in the process of setting up a new business are now deductible from subsequent trading profits so long as the expenditure is undertaken in the three years prior to start-up.
  In 1987 a package of measures was introduced to lighten the VAT burden on small businesses including the option of cash and annual accounting for businesses with turnover up to £250,000, the registration threshold has been increased to £21,300, the period in which businesses are obliged to register extended to 30 days and simpler schemes have been introduced for small and medium-sized retailers.
  164
  Deregulation
  Over the past three years, reducing the burden of administrative and legislative burdens on business —particularly on small businesses—has been established as a major part of the Government's efforts to promote enterprise.
  Although prime responsibility for deregulation lies with the individual departments, work is co-ordinated centrally by the Enterprise and Deregulation Unit (EDU), which is now located in the Department of Trade and Industry. The EDU also helps with the development of policies across Whitehall to encourage enterprise more generally.
  Achievements to date are set out in the White papers "Lifting the Burden" (July 1985 Cmnd. 9571) and "Building Businesses … Not Barriers" (May 1986 Cmnd. 9794) and the report to Parliament "Encouraging Enterprise" (May 1987).
  This Department has produced a simplified guide to employment legislation for small firms' advisors, along with a model employment form and notice board kit aimed to help small firms in particular. In March the Department published a cartoon leaflet and series of fact sheets on employment law, designed to help those employing people for the first time. In addition, the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service has published a booklet for small firms with information on various aspects of employing people.

  Advice
  A major priority has been to make information and advice more accessible to small businesses and the self-employed through the Small Firms Service, Local Enterprise Agencies (LEAs), the Employment Service's Jobcentres and the publications "Action for Jobs' and "Guide to Enterprise".
  The Small Firms Service is a nationwide service which offers free information and impartial and confidential counselling on all aspects of starting running and developing a small business. During the 1986–87 financial year the Small Firms Service dealt with 310,000 enquiries in Great Britain and over 38,000 counselling sessions in England alone. The first three counselling sessions for a business are free, a modest charge of £30 (including VAT) is made for any subsequent sessions.
  To encourage the development of LEAs the Local Enterprise Agency Grant Scheme (LEAGS), a five year scheme of financial assistance designed to establish a network of viable self-supporting enterprise agencies, was introduced on 1 April 1986. LEAGs aims to encourage greater private sector support for the agencies (by being prepared to match it, up to a limit, with Government support). Approximately £2·4 million in grants was made available in the first year to about 170 agencies. A further £2·75 million is being made available in 1987–88. To encourage private sector support for LEAs, the government made provision in the 1982 Finance Act (Part III section 48) for tax relief on contributions to approved agencies by a company or unincorporated business.
  The Council for Small Industries in Rural Areas provides rural small businesses with advice through 33 offices on local opportunities and conditions, business management, marketing and technical advice, skills training and financial service.
  Until recently outside consultancy advice was subsidised through the Business and Technical Advisory Services (BTAS) run by the Department of Trade and Industry BTAS provided subsidised consultancy to small and medium sized firms on design, marketing and quality management. Advice on advanced manufacturing technology was also available.
  The Business Improvement Services package of schemes run by the Department of Trade and Industry, aimed to help small firms in areas affected by job losses in particular industries—steel, textiles, ship building, deep sea fisheries and tin-mining areas. Grants were available for consultancy advice on marketing, financial management, the application of computers arid licensing in of products and processes, as well as for common services for groups of small firms and investment projects. Comparable schemes were operated by the Secretaries of State for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
  On 13 January 1988 the Department of Trade arid Industry launched the "Enterprise Initiative", which offers access to and financial support towards the cost of specialised consultancy in a number of key management functions. This is targeted at firms with fewer than 500 employees.
  165
  Marketing
  Throughout 1987, this Department, together with the Manpower Services Commission, Lloyds Bank and the Institute of Marketing sponsored a series of workshops designed to show managers of small firms how to improve their competitiveness by the implementation of practical marketing techniques. In addition, with funds provided by the Department of Employment, CoSIRA is currently offering grants to assist small rural businesses to improve their marketing and sales to trade buyers.

  Health and Safety
  The Health and Safety Commission's Small Firms Working Group, chaired by a CBI nominated Commissioner, has special responsibility for the interests of small firms. A number of publications aimed specifically at small firms, have been produced and distributed — for example, the leaflet "500 dead" and a model guidance document designed to help small firms prepare their policy on identifying and controlling the risks within their businesses. The Health and Safety Executive is also preparing a general guidance handbook on health and safety aimed particularly at small businesses, which will be available shortly.

  Support in particular sectors
  The Government sponsors the Co-operative Development Agency. The Co-operative Development Agency and Industrial Development Act 1984 provided additional funding, effectively extending the Agency's mandate for a further six years, and gave it limited additional powers.
  The Small Engineering Firms Investment Scheme (SEFIS) was a short term scheme set up by the Department of Industry which closed for applications in September 1983. It operated in two phases to help small engineering firms to invest in particular types of advanced capital equipment.

ENVIRONMENT

  Ordnance Survey
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the implications for the Government's policy on fair competition of the lack of a direct or notional payment to the Exchequer by the co-publisher of a joint Ordnance Survey venture for the use of the Ordnance Survey logo and the goodwill associated with the name of the Ordnance Survey.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The value of the Ordnance Survey's name and logo is recognised in any negotiation with a publishing house on a joint-venture proposal. When considering partnership, Ordnance Survey is looking not only at the financial soundness of the project but also at the benefits in editorial design, marketing and selling skills that the proposed partner will bring to the venture. These internal skills, which play a major part in the success of any co-publication, will not be charged as a cost to the product by the commercial partner but have a value against which Ordnance Survey sets the value of its name and logo.

  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to the answer of 17 November 1987,Official Report, column 569, whether the Ordnance Survey commercial interest guidelines require the cost of drawing the maps used in the production of joint commercial ventures to be taken into account in the pricing of such publications.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The commercial interest guidelines as they apply to co-publishing require Ordnance Survey to 166
  act fairly and follow normal commercial practices in respect of setting prices and sharing all relevant production costs, along with the charging of royalty as a contribution to the use and maintenance of the mapping archive in line with that applied to other publishers. Relevant costs include those incurred by Ordnance Survey to produce the specific map components incorporated in co-publication.

  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his reply of 20 November 1987,Official Report, columns 681–82, whether the confidential information, concerning their future plans, which the private map-maker is required to provide to the Ordnance Survey, is seen by the publication division.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The information on map content and print run required from publishers by the copyright branch of Ordnance Survey to provide for prior permission to be given for the use of Ordnance Survey material and for the correct assessment of the royalty rate due, is not seen by Ordnance Survey's publication division.

  Pollution
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many reportings were made, and by whom, of the chemical smell which affected a wide area of the north of England on Friday 3 April 1987; what subsequent reports have been compiled; what caused the smell; which body within the area of responsibility of his Department had responsibility for dealing with it; whether there was any evidence to connect it with the dumping of chemical waste in the North sea; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Local authorities, the gas board, the emergency services, the Health and Safety Executive, Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution and the media all received telephone inquiries about the smell from members of the public. Her Majesty's district inspector of pollution reported on the incident. I am also aware of a report in June 1987 by the chief environmental health officer of Leeds city council to the council's health committee. No action was required of this Department, other than the monitoring of the incident undertaken by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution. It has not been possible to identify the origin of the smell, but given the prevailing wind at the time and the extent of the area affected, it has been concluded that it may have been caused by illegal tank washing by a ship in the North Sea or an offshore chemical spillage.

  Planning Appeals
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment on how many occasions since 1974 he has overruled his inspector's advice on planning appeals.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The information requested is available on an annual basis. The table shows the number of occasions on which the Secretary of State made decisions on planning appeals contrary to the inspectors' recommendation, following a public inquiry.
  167

  Year

  Total number of appeals decided

  Appeals recovered for decision by the Secretary of State

  Number decided after inquiry

  Number of decisions contrary to inspectors' recommendation

  1974

  12,198

  1,216

  71

  1975

  11,486

  1,397

  57

  1976

  9,253

  1,263

  52

  1977

  8,366

  953

  36

  1978

  8,952

  882

  41

  1979

  8,933

  861

  17

  1980

  13,130

  845

  15

  1981

  14,451

  919

  34

  1982

  12,915

  596

  20

  1983

  11,221

  370

  13

  1984

  11,643

  253

  16

  1985

  14,639

  289

  23

  1986

  14,823

  383

  23

  1987 (January to September)

  12,614

  329

  17

  Official Posts
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list in the Official Report the official posts, paid and unpaid, that are in his gift; and for each post, if he will state the level of remuneration where appropriate.

  Mr. Ridley
  The appointments to public bodies for which my Department is responsible are shown in the HMSO publication "Public Bodies 1987", which gives information on the numbers of posts and the levels of remuneration. These appointments are made under a variety of arrangements, and I and my Department are involved in the appointments to varying extents.

  In addition I make appointments to the following other bodies:

  Architectural Heritage Fund:
  Five members—Unpaid

  National House Building Council:
  Chairman—Unpaid

  National Park Planning Boards and Committee:
  One third of the Members—Unpaid

  Sutton Housing Trust:
  Four Trustees—Honorarium, £1,575

  Dartmoor Steering Group:
  Chairman (appointed jointly with Secretary of State for Defence)—Unpaid

  Parliamentary Boundary Commission:
  One Member—Unpaid

  Building Research Establishment Panel of Visitors:
  Up to 15 members—Honorarium, £1,000

  The Chequers Trust:
  One Trustee—Unpaid

  Environmental Assessment
  Mr. Madel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures Her Majesty's Government propose to take to comply with European Economic Commission directive 85/337 on the assessment of the affects of certain public and private projects on the environment.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  A consultation paper on the implementation of the European Community's directive 168
  on environmental assessment was issued by my Department in April 1986. In the light of the responses received to that paper, we are today issuing a further consultation document about the detailed legal and other mechanisms by which the directive will be implemented. Copies are being placed in the Library.

  A further paper includes a draft departmental circular which sets out proposed procedures for projects subject to planning control, including procedures for determining whether individual projects of the types listed in annex II to the directive should be subject to environmental assessment. The draft circular gives guidance on the scale and character of projects which might require assessment under the directive.

  The consultation document also includes proposals for applying the requirements of the directive to types of project listed in annexes I and II to the directive for which planning permission is not required, including certain agriculture fisheries and forestry projects, highways and other transport projects, and power stations and overhead electricity lines.

  I believe that our proposals will make a positive contribution to the effectiveness of our environmental decision making, but the proposals have been designed to ensure that the requirements of the directive are met without placing unnecessary burdens on developers or unnecessarily complicating the planning process. The planning systems in Great Britain already ensure that the environmental implications of new development are considered before permission is granted. For major projects likely to have significant environmental effects, environmental assessment can be a valuable technique for drawing together information so that those effects are taken fully into account in planning the project and deciding whether it should proceed.

  Member states are required to take the measures necessary to comply with the directive before 3 July 1988.

  Similar consultation papers will be issued by the Scottish the Welsh Office and by (DOE) Northern Ireland office.

  Sport (Drugs Testing)
  Mr. John Carlisle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if his Department will make funds available to support the Sport Council's new drugs testing regime.
  169
  Mr. Moynihan
  The Department has decided to make an additional allocation of £180,000 to the Sports Council to complete the total financial package required to fund the new testing regime in its first year–1988–89. The council and the Government expect that private sector sponsorship will make a substantial contribution to funding the scheme in future years.

  Region/Islands area

  Local government electorate 1982

  1987

  Increase

  Percentage increase

  Grampian region

  365,445

  391,115

  25,670

  7·0

  Highland region

  142,964

  151,641

  8,677

  6·1

  Orkney Islands area

  14,310

  14,975

  665

  4·6

  Dumfries and Galloway region

  109,534

  113,970

  4,436

  4·0

  Western Isles Islands area

  22,830

  23,685

  855

  3·7

  Fife region

  257,088

  266,585

  9,497

  3·7

  Shetland Islands area

  15,835

  16,357

  522

  3·3

  Border region

  79,456

  81,963

  2,507

  3·2

  Central region

  206,392

  211,944

  5,552

  2·7

  Lothian region

  586,116

  599,036

  12,920

  2·2

  Tayside region

  299,708

  303,808

  4,100

  1·4

  Strathclyde region

  1,813,832

  1,819,132

  5,300

  0·3

  Mentally Disordered Prisoners
  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consideration his Department has given to the problems presented by mentally disordered prisoners in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) of 11 January at column 150–151.

  School Management
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, under the Government's school management proposals whether school boards will be responsible for issues of non-attendance at school.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Government have concluded that it should not be one of the basic duties of a school board to be responsible for attendance issues. It will be possible for functions related to school attendance to be delegated subsequently by the education authority.

  Education Reform
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list in the Official Report the total cost incurred by his Department in carrying out the consultative process on school management and the role of parents, showing how these were accrued in (a) printing, (b) distribution, (c) general administration costs, (d) circulation of material to the press and media, (e) foreign and domestic travel by the Minister responsible for education and (f) any other costs.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information is given in the table. Where actual costs have not yet been received, or

SCOTLAND

  Electorate
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the Scottish regions in order of percentage growth in electorate since 1982; and what has been the percentage growth and the actual figures in each case.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information for the Scottish regions and islands areas for the period 1982–87 is set out in the table.

  cannot be calculated, best estimates have been used. Distribution costs relate to bulk contracted distribution and exclude postage charges for copies issued in response to individual requests received by the Department; these charges cannot be estimated with sufficient accuracy.

  Printing and Distribution

  £

  £

  Consultation Document:

  School Management and the Role of Parents

  Printing

  8,314

  —

  Booklets

  Parents, Teachers and School Boards

  Printing

  15,762

  —

  Distribution

  7,879

  —

  School Management—the Government's Conclusions

  Printing

  9,650

  —

  Distribution

  978

  —

  Miscellaneous Printing

  179

  —

  42,762

  42,762

  Publicity

  Paid Publicity

  17,708

  —

  Circulation of media releases

  702

  —

  17,780

  17,780

  General Administration

  Stationery

  731

  —

  Photocopying of submissions for libraries

  1,000

  Casual Staff and Overtime

  1,150

  —

  2,881

  2,881

  Travelling (Minister and Officials)

  2,386

  171

  £

  £

  Total

  65,809

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will set out a list of the powers of the school boards under the Government's new proposals.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  We propose that all school boards should have common basic functions, the main features of which are set out in "School Management: The Government's conclusions" which was published on 18 January. A Bill to give effect to these proposals will be published shortly.

  We propose that all school boards should have common basic functions, including: a right to seek information and initiate discussion on any matter to do with the running of the school; a right to approve the headteacher's plans for spending on books and materials; involvement in the appointment committees for assistant head teacher, deputy head teacher and head teacher; a

  Expenditure within the Secretary of State's responsibility in real terms (1986–87 base year)1

  £ million

  1979–80 Outturn

  1980–81 Outturn

  1981–82 Outturn

  1982–83 Outturn

  1983–84 Outturn

  1984–85 Outturn

  1985–86 Outturn

  1986–87 Outturn

  1987–88 Estimated Outturn

  1988–89 Plans

  1989–90 Plans

  1990–91 Plans

  Agriculture, fisheries and food

  201

  216

  193

  181

  187

  199

  209

  177

  187

  183

  190

  180

  Industry, energy, trade and employment

  166

  170

  160

  524

  337

  290

  299

  336

  247

  244

  230

  230

  Other services:

  Tourism

  12

  11

  12

  13

  13

  14

  13

  13

  13

  13

  10

  10

  Transport

  578

  546

  574

  573

  563

  549

  555

  575

  591

  563

  590

  580

  Housing

  1,222

  1,097

  918

  820

  817

  717

  634

  637

  670

  586

  620

  620

  Other environmental services

  656

  619

  597

  582

  600

  578

  545

  575

  630

  636

  630

  630

  Law, order and protective services

  408

  431

  458

  475

  509

  530

  522

  553

  595

  624

  610

  610

  Education

  1,886

  1,946

  1,990

  1,995

  1,957

  1,918

  1,844

  1,994

  2,044

  2,006

  1,970

  1,970

  Arts and libraries

  62

  77

  79

  76

  73

  75

  77

  82

  81

  81

  80

  80

  Health and social work

  2,053

  2,188

  2,266

  2,282

  2,322

  2,384

  2,387

  2,444

  2,577

  2,597

  2,610

  2,640

  Other public services

  100

  104

  102

  93

  109

  108

  107

  110

  113

  115

  110

  120

  Local authority current expenditure not allocated to services

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  37

  40

  40

  Total Other Services

  6,975

  7,020

  6,995

  6,869

  6,964

  6,872

  6,685

  6,983

  7,314

  7,258

  7,280

  7,310

  Nationalised industries external financing

  235

  153

  121

  190

  316

  410

  240

  235

  130

  123

  -70

  -160

  Total expenditure within the Secretary of Slate's responsibility

  7,577

  7,558

  7,469

  7,764

  7,803

  7,771

  7,432

  7,732

  7,877

  7,808

  7,640

  7,560

  1 Cash figures adjusted for general inflation as measured by the GDP deflator at market prices.

  Source: 1985, 1986, 1987 and 1988 Public Expenditure White Papers (Cmnd. 9428, Cmnd. 9702, Cm. 56 and Cm. 288).

  Museums and Galleries Commission (Report)
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he intends to announce his response to the Museums and Galleries Commission's report on museums in Scotland published in September 1986.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  An announcement will be made shortly.

  Scottish Museums Council
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he intends to announce the level of the 1988–89 grant to the Scottish Museums Council.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Scottish Museums Council will receive notification of a provisional grant allocation for 1988–89 in the next week or so, pending the announcement of the Government's response to the Miles report.
  172
  right to add or delete names from the shortlist for the head teacher appointment; power to raise funds for the benefit of the school; control of out of hours use of school premises (but excluding power to set charges); power to set occasional holidays for the school within statutory limits; responsibility for encouraging liaison between parents and school; a duty to report to parents on the board's own activities.

  Boards would be able to request that further powers were delegated to them by the education authority. If the authority was unwilling to grant the power request, the board is able to seek parental support in a ballot and if got that support to appeal to the Secretary of State.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table similar to that on page 285 of "The Government's Expenditure Plans 1988–89 to 1990–91", volume II (Cm. 288-11) for each year since 1979–80, at constant 1986–87 prices.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The information is as follows:

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his estimate of the number of single parents who will pay the poll tax; and, of those, how many will be subject to full rebate.

  Mr. Lang
  The Green Paper "Paying for Local Government" estimated that there are about 100,000 one-parent family tax units in Scotland; the number receiving community charge rebates will depend on personal circumstances. Details of the community charge rebate scheme are now the subject of consultation with the local authority associations and are a matter for my hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services.

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimates he has made of how many people will receive poll tax rebates; and at what level.
  173
  Mr. Lang
  The details of the community charge rebate scheme are now the subject of consultation with the local authority associations, and are a matter for my hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services.

  Education Expenditure
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the average expenditure per pupil in (i) primary and (ii) secondary schools in Scotland; and what information he has on comparable expenditures in(a) Belgium, (b) Denmark, (c) France, (d) the Federal Republic of Germany, (e) Holland and (f) Sweden.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  In 1985-86, the latest year for which information is available, net expenditure per pupil in Scotland, at outturn prices, was £961 for primary and £1,567 for secondary. Comparable expenditure figures are not readily available for the other countries listed.

  Vacant Dwellings
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the latest figures for vacant dwellings in Scotland owned(a) by Government Departments or agencies, (1)) local authorities and (c) private owners.

  Donations Collected

  Donors Bled

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  (a) Scotland

  January-March

  69,594

  73,392

  74,441

  79,074

  75,931

  April-June

  72,450

  73,881

  76,183

  76,097

  72,066

  July-September

  71,795

  72,102

  75,269

  74,274

  69,315

  October-December

  72,155

  73,987

  73,355

  74,959

  70,902

  Total

  285,994

  293,362

  299,248

  304,404

  288,214

  (b) West of Scotland Region

  January-March

  37,713

  39,357

  39,171

  39,577

  38,585

  April-June

  36,814

  37,011

  38,016

  37,564

  35,490

  July-September

  35,392

  35,180

  37,382

  37,921

  33,074

  October-December

  36,025

  37,361

  36,067

  37,167

  32,015

  Total

  145,944

  148,909

  150,636

  152,229

  139,164

  Notes:

  1. One donation is equivalent to 200 ml (approximately) of plasma.

  2. The basis of recording changed (from 1985) from "donations collected" to "donors bled". The two figures are not totally comparable as some donors may not be able to complete the donation.

  Illegal Drugs
  Mr. Ron Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has as to how many vessels were seached for illegal drugs in the Firth of Forth area during 1984, 1985, 1986 and 1987, respectively; and what were the numbers of convictions.

  Mr. Lilley
  I have been asked to reply.

  Vessels are not searched by Customs specifically for illegal drugs, but for smuggled goods in general (although the detection of drugs is, of course, a top priority). The numbers of vessels searched, drugs and other smuggled goods found, and convictions are as follows:
  174
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  At 31 March 1987, approximately 21,300 dwellings owned by local authorities were vacant. Up-to-date figures for the other groupings requested are not available.

  Blood Donations
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much blood was donated in(a) Scotland and (b) Greater Glasgow health board area in each month in 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986 and 1987; and in each year for both areas, by how much the amount donated was above or below self-sufficiency for those areas.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer, Monday 2 January 1988]: Greater Glasgow health board is one of six boards covered by the West of Scotland region of the Scottish national blood transfusion service and statistics relating to that board could be separately identified only at disporportionate cost. The following table shows the requested information for the West of Scotland region as a whole, and for Scotland. The information is aggregated quarterly: a monthly breakdown is not readily available.

  Blood collected in Scotland is for use wherever it is needed, shortages where they arise in a particular area being met from surpluses in other areas. Scotland has been self-sufficient in blood and all normally requires blood products since the end of 1983.

  Discovering of smuggled goods

  Convictions

  Year

  Vessels

  Drugs

  Other goods

  Drugs

  Other goods

  1984

  378

  1

  48

  1

  —

  1985

  520

  —

  92

  —

  1

  1986

  547

  8

  106

  —

  —

  1987

  612

  3

  77

  —

  —

  Totals

  2,057

  12

  323

  1

  1

  In 10 of the 12 drugs cases the person smuggling the drug could not be traced. The non-drugs cases concerned mainly goods subject to excise duties, where smuggling offences are generally dealt with by payment of a compounded penalty rather than court proceedings.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  ADAS (Charges)
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent representations he has received concerning charges made by the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service for routine visits to farms; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I have received representations from individual farmers, from their Members of Parliament and from organisations such as the National Farmers' Union and Milk Marketing Board about the introduction of charges for work in connection with the milk and dairies regulations.

  The decision to introduce charges reflects the need to reduce public expenditure and our view that the industry benefits from the strict enforcement of hygiene standards. I have no plans to review our policy on this point of principle, but the search for economies is continuing and any reduction in costs will be passed on to producers. In this connection my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and I have decided, with the agreement of the Prime Minister's adviser on efficiency, that there should be a formal efficiency scrutiny to review the scope for further economies in the enforcement of the milk and dairies regulations. A member of the state veterinary service has been appointed as the examining officer responsible for undertaking the scrutiny. He will be consulting widely in the course of the study and is required to report by the end of May 1988.

  Annual Review
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the outcome of the 1988 Annual Review of Agriculture.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave on 25 January to the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. MacLennan).

  Sheep (Radioactivity)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many sheep in the restricted area of Cumbria which had died from natural causes were monitored for radioactivity in each month from January 1987 to date.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  [holding answer 25 January 1988]: The information requested is as follows:

  Number

  February 1987

  5

  March 1987

  5

  Farm Woodland Scheme
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what extra provision, in terms of staff and resources, he is making for the Agricultural Development Advisory Service in order to meet the demands of the proposed farm woodland grant scheme.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  [holding answer 25 January 1988]: The demand for advice is hard to predict with a
  176
  new scheme of this sort, since it will depend upon the regional spread, the pattern of uptake during the year, the number of farmers who may wish to explore possibilities without necessarily joining the scheme, and the number who require more detailed advice. However, we shall be making available a number of ADAS advisers to deal with this work on a full or part-time basis and we shall be keeping the position under review in the light of demand for advice. The Forestry Commission is also allocating additional staff to the scheme.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what training is being given to Agricultural Development Advisory Service employees to deal with the proposed farm woodland grant scheme.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  [holding answer 25 January 1988]: ADAS employs more than 100 chartered surveyors who have a sound basic training in forestry and the related questions of conservation and amenity in woodlands. Of these, 24 have already received further specialist training in these subject areas. Beyond this, ADAS's policy of continuing professional development will help to ensure that the proficiency of these officers is subject to continued improvement.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture Fisheries and Food what consultation procedures will precede the payment of grants under the proposed farm woodland grant scheme; whether they will apply to all applications; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  [holding answer 25 January 1988]: Applications to join the farm woodland scheme will be subject to the prevailing consultation procedures operated by the Forestry Commission, for its forestry grant schemes. In drawing up the proposals for this scheme we have been concerned to try and simplify it as far as possible and to keep administrative costs to the minimum. To this end, we have decided to reduce the amount of consultation with local authorities on planting of small areas. However, in areas such as sites of special scientific interest, environmentally sensitive areas and national parks existing arrangements would continue to apply.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture Fisheries and Food how many Agricultural Development Advisory Service staff are presently employment to give specialist advice on the planting and management of farm woodland.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  [holding answer 25 January 1988]: None are employed purely for this purpose. In practice, ADAS staff who give advice on woodlands have a wide range of qualifications and spend differing proportions of their time on this work.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture Fisheries and Food what special consideration will be given to applications for grants under the proposed farm woodland grant scheme to farmers in environmentally sensitive areas, sites of special scientific interest, areas of outstanding natural beauty and national parks, respectively.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  [holding answer 25 January 1988]: In drawing up their applications for grant, farmers will be reminded of the need to take account of any such designations in the type of scheme they put forward.

  177
  Proposals in the above areas will then be scrutinised to ensure that they are compatible with the designation. They will also be subject to the Forestry Commission's consultation procedures where applicable.

  Hedgerows
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to the reply of 12 January, if he will introduce legislation to make possible the allocation of grants to local authorities for the provision, replacement or improvement of hedgerows; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I have been asked to reply.

  Grants from the Countryside Commission are already available to local authorities and others towards the costs of replanting, reinstating or improving hedgerows, where these contribute to the landscape. The Nature Conservancy Council has power to pay grants to local authorities and others on expenditure relating to hedgerows which are an integral part of a site of nature conservation importance.

  Irradiated Foodstuffs
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) how many instances there have been in each year since 1980 of irradiated foodstuffs imported into the United kingdom being returned;

  (2) how many instances there have been in each year since 1980 of irradiated foodstuffs being imported into the United Kingdom for domestic consumption;

  (3) if his Department has developed any method of testing imported foodstuffs in order to determine whether they have been subjected to irradiation for the purpose of preservation;

  (4) how many prosecutions there have been in each year since 1980 for the importation of irradiated foodstuffs into the United Kingdom.

  Mrs. Currie
  I have been asked to reply.

  Under the Food (Control of Irradiation) Regulations 1967, it is illegal to import irradiated food. Port health authorities are watchful for any indication of irradiation as evidenced by accompanying documentation or markings on the packaging. Only one well publicised, illegal, importation is on record. In the current financial year, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is providing 150,000 for research towards the development of detection tests.

DEFENCE

  Royal Ordnance Factories
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what action he has taken in respect of the criticisms made by the Comptroller and Auditor General of his Department in relation to the privatisation of Royal Ordnance factories; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  There is nothing in the Comptroller and Auditor General's report which is a criticism of the Department of a sort which requires any action. Therefore, no action has been taken.

  Persian Gulf (Service Personnel)
  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many non-Royal Navy forces personnel are currently engaged in operations in the Gulf.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  It is not our general practice to give details of numbers of service personnel operationally deployed.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current level of commitment of(a) operational units and (b) personnel to operations in the Gulf.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current level of commitment of(a) operational units and (b) personnel to operations in the Gulf.

  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current level of commitment of(a) operational units and (b) personnel to operations in the Gulf.

  Mr. Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current level of commitment of(a) operational units and (b) personnel to operations in the Gulf.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  It is not our practice to comment on details of operational matters. However, I can say that there are currently three vessels of destroyer or frigate size, four mine counter-measure vessels, and associated afloat support in the Gulf area.

  Nuclear Artillery
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the United Kingdom's latest plans for battlefield nuclear artillery systems.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the United Kingdom's latest plans for battlefield nuclear artillery systems.

  Mr. Allan McKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the United Kingdom's latest plans for battlefield nuclear artillery systems.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) on 23 July 1987, at column 390, it has been decided to rationalise United Kingdom-operated battlefield nuclear weapon systems in BAOR by withdrawing from the 8 in. nuclear artillery role and concentrating resources on the 155 mm dual-capable gun which is already in service. This rationalisation process is now under way.

  No decisions on modernisation as it affects British forces have yet been taken. A report on this aspect will be made to the House when the appropriate moment comes.

  Dartmoor National Park
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what weight he gives when making decisions on future military activity on Dartmoor to the implications for public enjoyment of the Dartmoor national park of the continuing firing of live ammunition.
  179
  Mr. Freeman
  The range danger areas cover only 10 per cent. of the Dartmoor national park. Moreover, there is no live firing on Dartmoor during August, on all public holidays or, so far as possible, at weekends, which are the times when most visitors would wish to enjoy the use of the national park. I shall naturally continue to give the fullest consideration to the question of public access to Dartmoor when making decisions about military activity commensurate with the overriding need to ensure the maintenance of training standards and operational effectiveness in the services.

  French Defence Minister
  Mr. Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he last met his French counterpart; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. John Garrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he last met his French counterpart; and what matters were discussed.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he last met his French counterpart; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Orme
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he last met his French counterpart; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Younger
  I last met M. Giraud in mid-December. We discussed a range of subjects of mutual defence interest.

  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his plans in the current year for closer co-operation on defence matters with his opposite number, the French Minister of National Defence.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  We will continue to seek opportunities for extending Anglo-French co-operation across a wide range of defence business with a view to developing further the close relationship that already exists between us.

  Nuclear Tests (Radiation Victims)
  Mr. Snape
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects he receive the report of the National Radiological Protection Board on nuclear test veterans; when he will respond; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to receive the report of the National Radiological Protection Board on nuclear test veterans; when he will respond; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I refer the hon. Members to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) earlier today.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he next proposes to meet representatives of the Nuclear Test Veterans Association to discuss their claim for damages to soldiers caused by British nuclear tests.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  My noble Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement, who is responsible for these matters, offered to meet members of the BNTV as early as March 1987. This offer has been reiterated several times, but has as yet to be taken up. The offer still stands.

  Schoolchildren (Germany)
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has any plans to review the school psychological service and pre-school facilities available to the children of service men serving in Germany.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Service Children's Education Authority (SCEA) conducted a review of its special needs provision including that for pre-school children during 1987. Policy changes are currently under discussion within the Ministry of Defence.

  The subject of pre-school facilities is kept under continous review. The Pre-School Playgroups Association in Germany was first established in 1980 and has proved most successful — the salary and expenses of the co-ordinator and full-time organisers, one for each division headquarters, are now met from public funds.

  Low-flying Aircraft
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent consultations his Department has had with the National Farmers Union, the Scottish National Farmers Union and the Farmers Union of Wales concerning compensation for the effects of low-flying aircraft.

  Mr. Freeman
  Officials met representatives of the National Farmers Union, the Scottish National Farmers Union and the Farmers Union of Wales during 1987 as part of my Department's review of procedures for dealing with compensation claims from farmers whose livestock may have been affected by low-flying military aircraft. Discussions have continued since then, and regular contact is also maintained between my Department's officials and the farmers' unions on a case-by-case basis.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about low-flying aircraft over East Anglia.

  Mr. Freeman
  As my hon. Friend will be aware, training in the crucial techniques of row flying is vital if we are to maintain an effective modern air force capable of maintaining our security by deterring any potential aggressor. None the less, we are acutely aware of the disturbance this essential activity may cause on the ground and will continue to do all we can to keep this to an absolute minimum. In fact, low-flying aircraft activity during 1987 was marginally lower than during 1986, a trend particularly marked in the low-flying administrative area which comprises most of East Anglia and parts of Lincolnshire, which experienced approximately 24,000 movements compared with just over 32,000 the previous year.

  Nuclear Modernisation (Montebello Decisions)
  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with his Dutch counterpart regarding interpretation of the nature of the recommendation and decisions on nuclear modernisation reached at Montebello in 1983.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with his Dutch counterpart regarding interpretation of the nature of the recommendations and decisions on nuclear modernisation reached at Montebello in 1983.
  181
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with his Dutch counterpart regarding interpretation of the nature of the recommendations and decisions on nuclear modernisation reached at Montebello in 1983.

  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with his Dutch counterpart regarding interpretation of the nature of the recommendations and decisions on nuclear modernisation reached at Montebello in 1983.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  My right hon. Friend and his predecessors have discussed the 1983 Montebello decision with their Dutch colleagues on numerous occasions over the last five years, both bilaterally and in NATO fora.

  European Fighter Aircraft
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has any plans to reduce the Royal Air Force's current requirement for the European fighter aircraft.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross).

  Royal Navy
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the effectiveness of the Royal Navy.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  The Government remain committed to a modern, effective and well-balanced Royal Navy. Since 1979 we have ordered no fewer than 61 ships and submarines worth over £6 billion at 1986–87 prices; these include seven new and highly capable classes of vessel. We also continue to pursue a substantial programme of enhancements to existing weapons and sensor systems and purchases of new ones to update our capabilities and to ensure that the effectiveness of the Royal Navy is maintained.

  Frigates
  Mr. Rees
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his plans for frigate construction over the next 12 months.

  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the frigate and destroyer building programme.

  Mr. Galloway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his plans for frigate construction over the next 12 months.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The frigate-building programme is proceeding well with 10 frigates currently under 182
  construction, four of which are expected to enter service this year. In addition, on 6 October last year, my right hon. Friend announced that we were to seek tenders for up to four more type 23 frigates. We have received tenders and their evaluation has now begun.

  Cruise Missiles
  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his latest estimate of the numbers of United States nuclear sea-launched cruise missiles(a) currently based in the Atlantic and (b) to be based there by 1995.

  Mr. Bidwell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his latest estimate of the numbers of United States nuclear sea-launched cruise missiles(a) currently based in the Atlantic and (b) to be based there by 1995.

  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his latest estimate of the numbers of United States nuclear sea-launched cruise missiles(a) currently based in the Atlantic, (b) to be based there by 1995.

  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his latest estimate of the numbers of United States nuclear sea-launched cruise missiles(a) currently based in the Atlantic and (b) to be based there by 1995.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  Nuclear sea-launched cruise missiles (SLCM) were introduced into service with US naval forces in 1984. These forces are deployed worldwide, including the Atlantic. The number of nuclear SLCM deployed in the Atlantic is classified United States Government information.

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his latest estimate of the number of United States nuclear air-launched cruise missiles(a) currently based in Europe and (b) to be based there by 1995.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his latest estimate of the number of United States nuclear air-launched cruise missiles(a) currently based in Europe and (b) to be based there by 1995.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his latest estimate of the number of United States nuclear air-launched cruise missiles(a) currently based in Europe and (b) to be based there by 1995.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  I refer the hon. Members to the answer given earlier today by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo).

  Uniforms and Equipment
  Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what basis it is decided when to update military uniform and equipment.

  Mr. Freeman
  I assume that my hon. Friend is referring to items of combat clothing and personal equipment. As a general principle, any necessary improvements to items already in service are proceeded with as and when they can be accommodated in the defence programme according to their relative priority. If my hon. Friend could specify the items of clothing or equipment which he is concerned about. I would be glad to reply in detail.

  Territorial Army
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on progress made and current plans for the improvement and increase in size of the infantry units within the Territorial Army.

  Mr. Freeman
  Phase II of the Territorial Army expansion programme set out in "Defence Open Government Document 84/02" began formally in April 1986. The majority of planned new infantry units and sub-units have been formed and are recruiting.

  Mr. Conway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the manpower contribution to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation of the British Territorial Army; and what percentage of the defence estimates expenditure on the British Territorial Army this represents.

  Mr. Freeman
  On current plans some 55,000 Territorial Army soldiers would be assigned to NATO tasks in the event of war. The balance would he deployed on defence tasks in the United Kingdom, which also form a contribution to NATO's military strategy. The cost of NATO-assigned forces represents approximately 65 per cent. of defence estimates expenditure on the Territorial Army.

  RAF Air/Sea Rescue Services
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many representations he has received in favour of maintaining Air/Sea rescue services as a function of the Royal Air Force.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Ministry of Defence has received a considerable number of inquiries concerning the future of the United Kingdom SAR service, of which about 45 have expressed support for the continuation of search and rescue helicopter services as a military function.

  Mr. Terry Fields
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement concerning the future of the Royal Air Force air/sea rescue services.

  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement concerning the future of the Royal Air Force air/sea rescue services.

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer the hon. Members to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) earlier today.

  F-15E Strike Eagle
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if there are any plans to base the F-15E Strike Eagle equipped with(a) the joint tactical missile system or (b) nuclear weapons in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  I have nothing to add to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Mr. Stanley) on 23 February 1987, at column 141, to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strange).

  South Rona
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are his long-term plans for his Department's site at South Rona.

  Mr. Freeman
  The shore facilities for the Royal Navy's Minches trial range are based on Rona. There are no longterm plans to change this use.

  USSR Nuclear Forces
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what implications the modernisation of the Soviet Union's nuclear forces has for the United Kingdom's defence policy.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  The Soviet Union is continually updating and improving the capabilities of both its conventional and nuclear forces. This is a major consideration in determining our own defence priorities.

  Defence Programmes (Employment Implications)
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he makes of the employment implications in the defence industries after considering reductions in defence expenditure programmes.

  Mr. Eastham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he makes of the employment implications in the defence industries when considering reductions in defence expenditure programmes.

  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he makes of the employment implications in the defence industries when considering reductions in defence expenditure programmes.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer given to the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) earlier today.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's latest plans to modernise their nuclear weaponry.

  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's latest plans to modernise their nuclear weaponry.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply given earlier today by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery).

  YTS
  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many young people are now enrolled in YTS placements in each of the three services.

  Mr. Freeman
  In November 1987 a total of 543 trainees were serving on the armed services YTS. The numbers are broken down as shown in the table.

  Number

  Royal Navy

  6

  Army

  63

  Royal Air Force

  474

  German Defence Minister
  Mr. Litherland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he last met his German counterpart; and what matters were discussed.

  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he last met his German counterpart; and what matters were discussed.

  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he last met his German counterpart; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State regularly meets his German counterpart to discuss a wide range of subjects of mutual interest. The last such meeting was on 20 January.

  Falklands Campaign Widows (Assistance)
  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what financial assistance is currently provided by his Department for Falklands war widows.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what financial assistance is currently provided by his Department for Falklands war widows.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what financial assistance is currently provided by his Department for Falklands war widows.

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what financial assistance is currently provided by his Department for Falklands war widows.

  Mr. Freeman
  All Falklands war widows would receive benefits, as appropriate, from my Department under the terms of the armed forces pension scheme. For examples of the benefits payable I refer the hon. Members to the answer which I gave to the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) on 13 January 1988 at columns 323–24.

  In addition, my Department also meets the travel costs for the next-of-kin to make one visit to the graves of service men who are killed while serving overseas, and are buried there, within two years of burial. This provision applied to the next-of-kin of those killed in the Falklands.

  Chemical Weapons
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the implications for United Kingdom defence policy of the resumption by the United States of America of a chemical weapons production.
  186
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the implications for United Kingdom defence policy of the resumption by the United States of America of chemical weapons production.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the implications for United Kingdom defence policy of the resumption by the United States of America of chemical weapons production.

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the implications for United Kingdom defence policy of the resumption by the United States of chemical weapons production.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  The modernisation of the United States' limited retaliatory chemical weapons capability with binary munitions will underline to the Soviet Union the benefits of reaching early agreement in the negotiations in Geneva for a comprehensive and verifiable global ban on chemical weapons, which remains the Government's primary aim. In the absence of such an agreement, the production of binary munitions will contribute to the maintenance of NATO's deterrent strategy in the face of the massive Soviet chemical warfare capability.

  Operational Requirements (Harmonisation)
  Sir Antony Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent progress has been made towards harmonising operational requirements.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Good progress has been made. Over the past three years the United Kingdom has subscribed to 18 staff requirements agreed in NATO's conference of national armaments directors (CNAD) and nine of the 13 agreed in the Independent European Programme Group (IEPG).

  Strait of Hormuz (Armilla Patrol)
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many merchant ships the Armilla patrol accompanied through the Strait of Hormuz during 1987.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  During 1987, the Armilla patrol accompanied 405 British merchant ships through the Straits of Hormuz.

  Persian Gulf (Mines)
  Mr. John Townend
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many mines have been located and destroyed by Royal Navy minesweepers in the Gulf.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  Since they commenced operations, the Royal Navy's mine counter-measures vessels in the Gulf have detected and destroyed a total of 10 mines.

  Defence Exports
  Mr. Brandon-Bravo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what measures his Department is taking to assist United Kingdom defence exports.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Through the Defence Export Services Organisation (DESO) the Ministry of Defence helps British firms to market and sell their defence products and
  187
  services overseas. It does this mainly by advising firms on defence market prospects on a worldwide, regional or country basis. Our defence representatives overseas also provide companies with a wide range of follow-up support and assistance.

  Gartree Prison (Escape)
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what requests were made by prison officers at Her Majesty's prison Gartree to Royal Air Force flight controllers at the time of the helicopter escape of John Kendall and Sydney Draper; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what requests were made by prison officers at Her Majesty's prison Gartree to Royal Air Force flight controllers at the time of the helicopter escape of John Kendall and Sydney Draper; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  On the afternoon of 10 December 1987, the Leicestershire police telephoned the London air traffic control centre at RAF West Drayton to inform it that a helicopter-assisted escape from Gartree prison had taken place and to ask for assistance. Under standing instructions, immediate steps were taken to provide all possible assistance to the police in apprehending the fugitives. Subsequently, a member of the staff at Gartree prison telephoned the control centre, making a similar request. By then action was already in hand, although the helicopter was airborne for too short a period for it to be tracked successfully.

  Thames House, Millbank (Centralisation)
  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the effect on the efficiency and effectiveness of his Department of the proposal to centralise parts of his Department at Thames House, Millbank.

  Mr. Stuart Holland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the impact on the efficiency and effectiveness of his Department of the proposal to locate parts of his Department at Thames House, Millbank.

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer the hon. Members to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) on 20 January 1988, at column 764.

  Small Firms (Contracts)
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what further steps he plans to take to assist small firms in tendering for defence contracts.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Ministry of Defence procurement policy is based on securing value for money through greater competition. Small firms especially are encouraged to become defence contractors through the promotion of competition at the sub-contract level and by advertising contract opportunities more widely. The launch of the MOD small firms initiative in November 1986 gave impetus to these policies, through the creation of a new division specifically to advise small firms wishing to enter the defence market. Small firms have welcomed this new 188
  service and over 1,300 contacted the division directly in its first year. Some 1,100 firms have attended regional seminars conducted by the division and many have made contact at business exhibitions.

  The division will continue to offer advice and assistance to small firms individually, to give presentations and to be represented at appropriate exhibitions. In addition, a new edition of the booklet "Selling to the MOD" will be published this year with information helpful to small firms. Finally, a further £1 million is being made available during 1988–89 to enable those small firms with the ability to generate new and innovative products and processes in a cost-effective manner to obtain a larger share of defence research funds.

  DROPS
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he has taken to satisfy himself that the tenders for the demountable rack offloading pickup system project were fairly assessed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The Ministry's assessments of the original DROPS competition have been exhaustively examined by Ministers and senior officials over more than four years. No evidence of bias or impropriety has been revealed. Additionally, as my hon. Friend will be aware, the Department has co-operated fully in the Comptroller and Auditor General's review of DROPS procurement which is now the subject of consideration by the Public Accounts Committee.

  Trident
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the latest estimate of the cost of the Trident programme.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his latest estimate of the total cost of Trident.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I refer to the answer given by my right hon. Friend on 21 January at column 775.

  United States Bases
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give the number of United States bases(a) operational, (b) part operational and (c) available for use in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  Sixty-six bases and facilities are currently made available for use by United States forces in the United Kingdom. There are also two armament depots run by United Kingdom civilians on behalf of NATO which provide a service for United States forces.

  The 66 bases and facilities comprise seven main operating bases, two GLCM bases, 26 storage/support facilities and 22 communications facilities, all of which are fully operational, as well as two standby deployment bases and seven contingency wartime hospitals.

  National Trust Land (Installations)
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what response he has received from the National
  189
  Trust to his request for permission to erect military installations on National Trust land in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) on 22 January 1988, at column 897.

  SP-70 Programme (Replacement)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the costs of the artillery programme intended to replace the cancelled SP-70 programme.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  A competition is currently in progress for 155mm self-propelled Howitzers for the British Army but no decisions have yet been taken and it would not be appropriate to disclose an estimated programme cost at this stage.

  Contracts (Police Inquiries)
  Mr. Campbell Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which defence contracts have been the subject of his Department's police inquiries over the last two years.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The MOD police have dealt with 32 cases of alleged contractual fraud, each involving different numbers of contracts, since January 1986. It would be inappropriate to specify the actual contracts involved.

  Frigates and Destroyers
  Mr. Douglas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the number of frigates and destroyers which are currently operational and available for duties within the area of operations of NATO.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  There are currently 48 destroyers and frigates in service with the Fleet, of which 41 are operational or engaged in preparing for service or trials or training. A number of these ships are at present deployed outside the NATO area but could be recalled for operations in support of NATO in the event of an emergency.

  "Blundering Into Disaster"
  Mr. James Lamond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if his Department has obtained a copy of the book Blundering Into Disaster, by Robert McNamara.

  Mr. Freeman
  Yes.

  Contracts
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made towards extending the range of companies competing for his Department's contracts.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The Department's policy of seeking competition at all levels wherever it is reasonable and practicable is bringing significantly better value for money for defence and for the taxpayer, and offers excellent opportunities for companies to compete for MOD business.

  The number of companies seeking registration on the defence contractors list continues to increase significantly.
  190
  About 38 per cent. more applications from companies wishing to join the list were received during the period October 1986 to September 1987, the last period for which figures are available, than in the preceding 12 months, and about 45 per cent. more were accepted. There are now just under 9,000 companies on the defence contractors list which are eligible to compete for direct MOD headquarters contracts. They cover a vast range of products and services.

  In addition, our policy of requiring prime contractors to place subcontracts by competition wherever possible will have increased the range of companies competing at this level, although the Ministry compiles no statistics on this.

  INF Treaty
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received about the implications for the United Kingdom of the intermediate nuclear forces treaty.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has received some 58 representations from hon. Members and members of the public since 1 July 1987 concerning the INF treaty.

  Blue Vixen Radar Programme
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to be able to authorise the Blue Vixen radar programme into full development and production.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The contract for development and producion of the Blue Vixen radar was signed in October 1984.

  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what slippages have occured in the Blue Vixen radar development programme.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Nineteen months from the schedule established at the start of the project in June 1983.

  Research Projects
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish in the Official Report all research projects funded by his Department currently under way in universities and other institutions including Ministry of Defence establishments; showing the cost of each and indicating which were experiments on animals.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The defence research programme is made up of 1,200 work items covering the major fields described on pages 57 and 58 of the "Annual Review of Government-funded R&D 1987". The aggregate cost is £400 million a year. It is not our policy to describe in detail the content and methods of the work.

  Anti-Air Warfare Missile System
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on progress in the development of a new naval anti-air warfare missile system.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Development of the next generation AAW system is being pursued through two separate parallel international collaborative programmes; one led by the United States, the other being a European
  191
  programme with equal participation by four nations including the United Kingdom. The United States-led programme commenced in October 1987 with participants' signatures of the memorandum of understanding. We hope very shortly to be in a position to sign the MOU for the European programme.

  Both collaborative programmes will commence with a feasibility study phase at the end of which a further decision will need to be made on the way forward.

  The purpose of these programmes is to provide an AAW capability effective against the evolving air threat (including anti-ship missiles) for service in the late 1990s.

SOCIAL SERVICES

  Health Authorities (Money Raising)
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if, in the light of Government proposals to encourage health authorities to raise money for themselves, he will make it his policy that any money so raised will not be deducted from present or future revenue or capital allocations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  The overall planning of health services must, of course, take account of all resources available, including those from charges and land sales. We are however emphasising to regional health authorities the need for allocation arrangements which ensure that districts see clear benefit from successful income generation schemes.

  Pesticides
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what steps Her Majesty's Government are taking to co-ordinate reports of illness in high intensity farming areas which may have been caused by pesticide or environmental illnesses.

  Mrs. Currie
  No arrangements exist to co-ordinate reports of illness specifically in high-intensity farming areas. Where ill health due to specific exposure to pesticides is suspected, the details can be reported to the Health and Safety Executive. All such cases are investigated, and a report which is seen by the statutory Advisory Committee on Pesticides is made to the Government. Similarly, all cases of acute poisoning from pesticides which involve hospital treatment, or a request to a poisons centre for advice, are recorded. The Government are considering how all this available though separate information can be co-ordinated.

  There would be very great difficulties in studying populations in areas of high intensity farming so as to obtain general information on possible untoward effects from long-term exposure to pesticides. However, we will be discussing with the Medical Research Council, which is the main Government funded body supporting medical research from its grant-in-aid under the Science Vote of the Department of Education and Science, whether it would be possible to investigate the feasibility of such studies in order to increase public reassurance as to the safety of approved pesticides.

  The Government have established a small area health statistics unit at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine under the direction of Professor
  192
  Geoffrey Rose, to develop methods and undertake studies of illnesses which might be associated with local sources of environmental pollution.

  Obstetric Units
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will publish in the Official Report a list of each obstetric unit for each health authority showing for each year since 1979 the number of deliveries.

  Mrs. Currie
  I have arranged for the information requested to be placed in the Library.

  Incontinence Advisers
  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has any plans to increase the number of incontinence advisers in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  It is for individual health authorities to decide for themselves both the level of provision, and the pace and direction of further developments in their services, in the light of their local needs and circumstances.

  We do, however, expect health authorities to provide appropriate services for incontinent people, and in 1977 the Department's chief nursing officer wrote to all health authorities advising them that the management of incontinence should he clearly identified as the responsibility of a designated special nurse, who should act as a "resource person" for nurses working in hospitals and the community services. Since then, most district health authorities have appointed at least one in continence adviser. Community nurses also provide advice and assessment as part of their nursing duties.

  Blood Glucose Monitoring Strips
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services when he intends to make available the free blood glucose monitoring strips.

  Mr. Newton
  I refer the hon. Member to my replies to my hon. Friends the Members for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) and for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson) on 24 November 1987 at column 174 and on 12 January 1988 at column 247 respectively.

  Surgery Statistics
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list in order of frequency the 12 most common forms of surgery for which patients are admitted to hospitals in the South East Thames regional health authority.

  Mrs. Currie
  The information requested is given in the table

  Estimated number of the 12 most common forms of surgery (in order of frequency) performed in NHS non-phychiatric and non-maternity hospitals,

  South East Thames Regional Health Authority, 1985

  Condensed1 list operation number

  Operation

  Estimated number of operations

  1. 080

  Dilatation, Curettage, Biopsy and Excision of Lesion of Cervix

  8,400

  2. 093

  Treatment of Fracture by Operations

  7,550

  193

  Condensed1 list operation number

  Operation

  Estimated number of operations

  3. 061

  Cystoscopy (With Destruction of Lesion)

  7,320

  4. 023

  Tonsils and Adenoids

  5,720

  5. 032

  Operations on Heart and Intrathoracic Vessels

  5,260

  6. 039

  Inguinal Hernia Operations

  5,260

  7. 092

  Post-Natal or Post-Abortion Operations

  5,260

  8. 078

  Hysterectomy

  4,870

  9. 038

  Operations on Abdominal wall, Peritoneum and Mesentery

  4,760

  10. 100

  Arthroplasty

  3,870

  11. 014

  Operations on Lens

  3,850

  12. 044

  Operations on Appendix

  3,640

  Source: Hospital In-Patient Enquiry (HIPE)

  1 OPCS condensed list of surgical operations.

  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list in order of frequency the 12 most common forms of surgery for which patients are admitted to hospitals in the Brighton health authority area.

  Mrs. Currie
  The information requested is given in the table

  Estimated number of the 12 most common forms of surgery (in order of frequency) performed in NHS non-phychiatric and non-maternity hospitals,

  Brighton District Health Authority, 1985

  Condensed1 list operation number

  Operation

  Estimated number of operations

  1. 061

  Cystoscopy (With Destruction of Lesion)

  1,030

  2. 023

  Tonsils and Adenoids

  940

  3. 080

  Delatation, Curettage, Biopsy and Excision of Lesion of Cervix

  730

  4. 093

  Treatment of Fracture by Operations

  710

  5. 038

  Operations on Abdominal Wall, Peritoneum and Mesentery

  590

  6. 078

  Hysterectomy

  440

  7. 014

  Operations on Lens

  400

  8. 109

  Operations on Veins

  390

  9. 100

  Arthroplasty

  370

  10. 092

  Post-Natal or Post-Abortion Operations

  350

  11. 044

  Operations on Appendix

  340

  12. 087

  Other Termination of Pregnancy

  320

  Source: Hospital In-Patient Enquiry (HIPE)

  1 OPCS condensed list of surgical operations.

  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list in order of frequency the 10 most common forms of surgery for which patients are admitted to hospitals in the Wessex regional health authority.

  Mrs. Currie
  The information requested is given in the table.
  194

  Estimated number of the 10 most common forms of surgery (in order of frequency) performed in NHS non-phychiatric and non-maternity hospitals,

  Wessex Regional Health Authority, 1985

  Condensed1 list operation number

  Operation

  Estimated number of operations

  1. 080

  Dilatation. Curettage, Biopsy and Excision of Lesion of Cervix

  7,350

  2. 093

  Treatment of Fracture by Operations

  6,480

  3. 061

  Cystoscopy (With Destruction of Lesion)

  5,420

  4. 023

  Tonsils and Adenoids

  4,750

  5. 039

  Inguinal Hernia Operations

  4,330

  6. 078

  Hysterectomy

  4,070

  7. 038

  Operations on Abdominal Wall, Peritoneum and Mesentery

  3,930

  8. 100

  Arthroplasty

  3,930

  9. 092

  Post-Natal or Post-Abortion Operations

  3,910

  10. 014

  Operations on Lens

  3,860

  Source: Hospital In-Patient Enquiry (HIPE)

  1 OPCS condensed list of surgical operations.

  Mr. Grylls
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list in order of frequency the 10 most common forms of surgery for which patients are admitted to hospitals in the South West Thames regional health authority.

  Mrs. Currie
  The information requested is given in the table

  Estimated number of the 10 most common forms of surgery (in order of frequency) performed in NHS non-phychiatric and non-maternity hospitals,

  South East Thames Regional Health Authority, 1985

  Condensed1 list operation number

  Operation

  Estimated number of operations

  1. 080

  Dilatation, Curettage, Biopsy and Excision of Lesion of Cervix

  6,150

  2. 093

  Treatment of Fracture by Operations

  5,500

  3. 061

  Cystoscopy (With Destruction of Lesion)

  5,460

  4. 023

  Tonsils and Adenoids

  3,910

  5. 039

  Inguinal Hernia Operations

  3,750

  6. 078

  Hysterectomy

  3,750

  7. 092

  Post-Natal or Post-Abortion Operations

  3,670

  8. 014

  Operations on Lens

  3,530

  9. 038

  Operations on Abdominal Wall, Peritoneum and Mesentery

  3,460

  10. 100

  Arthroplasty

  3,270

  Source: Hospital In-Patient Enquiry (HIPE)

  1 OPCS condensed list of surgical operations.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list in order of frequency the 10 most common forms of surgery for which patients are currently admitted to hospitals in the North West Thames regional health authority; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  The information requested is given in the table.
  195

  Estimated number of the 10 most common forms of surgery (in order of frequency) performed in NHS non-psychiatric and non-maternity hospitals,

  North West Thames regional health authority, 1985

  Condensed1 list operation number

  Operation

  Estimated number of operations

  1. 080

  Dilatation, Curettage, Biopsy and Excision of Lesion of Cervix

  8,270

  2. 093

  Treatment of Fracture by Operations

  7,010

  3. 061

  Cystoscopy (With Destruction of Lesion)

  5,970

  4. 023

  Tonsils and Adenoids

  5,800

  5. 039

  Inguinal Hernia Operations

  4,670

  6. 092

  Post-Natal or Post-Abortion Operations

  4,550

  7. 078

  Hysterectomy

  3,900

  8. 032

  Operations on Heart and Intrathoracic Vessels

  3,730

  9. 014

  Operations on Lens

  3,600

  10. 038

  Operations on Abdominal Wall, Peritoneum and Mesentery

  3,540

  Source: Hospital In-Patient Enquiry (HIPE)

  1 OPCS condensed list of surgical operations.

  Mr. Waller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list in order of frequency the 10 most common surgical procedures for which patients are admitted to hospitals in the Yorkshire regional health authority area.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list in order of frequency the 10 most common forms of surgery for which patients are admitted to hospitals in the Mersey regional health authority.

  Mrs. Currie
  The information requested is given in the tables.

  Estimated number of the 10 most common forms of surgery (in order of frequency) performed in NHS non-psychiatric and non-maternity hospitals,

  Yorkshire Health Authority, 1985

  Condensed1 list operation number

  Operation

  Estimated number of operations

  1. 080

  Dilatation, Curettage, Biopsy and Excision of Lesion of Cervix

  10,630

  2. 093

  Treatment of Fracture by Operations

  8,770

  3. 061

  Cystoscopy (With Destruction of Lesion)

  8,180

  4. 023

  Tonsils and Adenoids

  7,750

  5. 078

  Hysterectomy

  6,090

  6. 039

  Inguinal Hernia Operations

  5,470

  7. 092

  Post-Natal or Post-Abortion Operations

  5,400

  8. 038

  Operations on Adominal wall, Peritoneum and Mesentery

  5,070

  9. 014

  Operations on Lens

  5,630

  10. 044

  Operations on Appendix

  4,630

  Source: Hospital In-Patient Enquiry (HIPE)

  1 OPCS condensed list of surgical operations.

  196

  Estimated number of the 10 most common forms of surgery (in order of frequency) performed in NHS non-psychiatric maternity hospitals,

  Mersey Regional Health Authority 1985

  Condensed1list operation number

  Operation

  Estimated number of operations

  1. 080

  Dilatation, Curettage, Biopsy and Excision of Lesion of Cervix

  6,090

  2. 093

  Treatment of Fracture by Operations

  5,600

  3. 092

  Post-Natal or Post-Abortion Operations

  3,550

  4. 078

  Hysterectomy

  3,370

  5. 023

  Tonsils and Adenoids

  2,980

  6. 039

  Inguinal Hernia Operations

  2,890

  7. 044

  Operations on Appendix

  2,870

  8. 014

  Operations on Lens

  2,790

  9. 061

  Cystoscopy (With Destruction of Lesion)

  2,700

  10. 100

  Arthroplasty

  2,600

  Source: Hospital In-Patient Enquiry (HIPE)

  1 OPCS condensed list of surgical operations.

  Mr. Fry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list in order of frequency the 10 most common forms of surgery for which patients are admitted to hospitals in the Oxford regional health authority.

  Mrs. Currie
  The information requested is given in the table.

  Estimated number of the 10 most common forms of surgery (in order of frequency) performed in NHS non-psychiatric maternity hospitals,

  Oxford Regional Health Authority 1985

  Condensed1list operation number

  Operation

  Estimated number of operations

  1. 080

  Dilatation, Curettage, Biopsy and Excision of Lesion of Cervix

  5,850

  2. 093

  Treatment of Fracture by Operations

  5,270

  3. 023

  Tonsils and Adenoids

  4,390

  4. 061

  Cystoscopy (With Destruction of Lesion)

  3,990

  5. 078

  Hysterectomy

  3,820

  6. 039

  Inguinal Hernia Operations

  3,430

  7. 092

  Post-Natal or Post-Abortion Operations

  3,220

  8. 038

  Operations on Abdominal Wall, Peritoneum and Mesentery

  3,150

  9. 100

  Arthroplasty

  3,120

  10. 044

  Operations on Appendix

  2,970

  1 OPCS condensed list of surgical operations.

  Source: Hospital In-Patient Enquiry (HIPE)

  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list in order of frequency the 10 most common forms of surgery for which patients are admitted to hospitals in the North Western regional health authority.

  Mrs. Currie
  The information requested is given in the table.
  197

  Estimated number of the 10 most common forms of surgery (in order of frequency) performed in NHS non-psychiatric and non-maternity hospitals,

  North Western Regional Health Authority, 1985

  Condensed1 list operation number

  Operation

  Estimated number of operations

  1. 080

  Dilatation, Curettage, Biopsy and Excision of Lesion of Cervix

  14,510

  2. 023

  Tonsils and Adenoids

  10,290

  3. 093

  Treatment of Fracture by Operations

  10,150

  4. 061

  Cystoscopy (With Destruction of Lesion)

  8,340

  5. 038

  Operations on Abdominal Wall, Peritoneum and Mesentery

  6,980

  6. 078

  Hysterectomy

  6,170

  7. 092

  Post-Natal or Post-Abortion Operations

  6,160

  8. 014

  Operations on Lens

  5,540

  9. 044

  Operations on Appendix

  5,460

  10. 039

  Inguinal Hernia Operations

  5,450

  Source: Hospital In-Patient Enquiry (HIPE)

  1OPCS condensed list of surgical operations.

  Midwives
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many staff midwives were in post on 30 September in each region, listed separately, in England and Wales in 1985, 1986 and 1987.

  Mr. Newton
  The information for each region in England for September 1985 and September 1986 is shown in the table.

  Similar information for 1987 is not yet available.

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

  NHS staff midwives in post1: England at 30 September Whole-time Equivalents2

  Regional health authority

  1985

  1986

  Northern

  520

  550

  Yorkshire

  510

  560

  Trent

  590

  620

  East Anglian

  290

  320

  NW Thames

  450

  450

  NE Thames

  620

  640

  SE Thames

  530

  600

  SW Thames

  440

  420

  Wessex

  430

  440

  Oxford

  330

  350

  South Western

  410

  440

  West Midlands

  650

  640

  Mersey

  280

  330

  North Western

  640

  680

  London post-graduate special health authorities

  110

  110

  England

  6,820

  7,150

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

  1 Excludes agency staff midwives.

  2 All figures are independently rounded to the nearest 10 whole time equivalents.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the current level of midwife staff vacancies within the National Health Service and the trend of such vacancies on previous years; whether Her Majesty's Government has any plans to procure a reduction of these vacancies, by the recruitment and retention of more midwives; and if he will make a statement.
  198
  Mr. Newton
  I regret that information on vacancies is not collected centrally and no current information on vacancies is available. The results of the 1987 regional health authority chairmen's survey undertaken for the Nurses' Pay Review Body are expected shortly. However, the results of the previous surveys show that at 31 March 1986 2·7 per cent. of midwives' posts had been vacant for at least three months compared to about 3·0 per cent. a year earlier.

  Nationally the number of midwives has increased by 16·0 per cent. since 1981. Action is being taken centrally where appropriate to improve recruitment and retention of such staff. For example, the new grading definitions recently agreed by the Nurses and Midwives' Negotiating Council will provide better career opportunities for those who develop their clinical skills and will improve incentives to remain in the Health Service.

  Midwifery Students
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many intakes of midwifery students were cancelled in 1985, 1986 and 1987 in each year ended 30 September; and what are the most recently available staffing figures.

  Mr. Newton
  I regret that information on the numbers of intakes cancelled is not collected centrally.

  The latest available detailed staffing information is September 1986 and this shows:

  National Health Service midwifery staff excluding agency staff at 30 September 1986: England

  Wholetime equivalents1

  Qualified midwives

  18,670

  Student midwives

  4,180

  1 Figures are independently rounded to nearest ten (10) wholetime equivalents.

  AIDS
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the total number of AIDS tests undertaken by the public health laboratory service to the latest available date.

  Mr. Newton
  The public health laboratory service has carried out a total of 289,221 AIDS tests as at 30 November 1987.

  Medicines Act 1968
  Mr. Thornton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects the independent study carried out by Dr. John Evans and Mr. Peter Cunliffe into the operations of the Medicines Act 1968 to report; when he expects to make his decision on their recommendations; and when the results will be made publicly known to the interested parties.

  Mr. Newton
  The study, which I announced on 11 March last year, has been completed. Dr. Evans and Mr. Cunliffe submitted their report just before Christmas and I am placing a copy in the Library. Copies will also be generally available, price £4·75 from the DHSS leaflets unit, PO Box 21, Stanmore, Middlesex HA7 1AY. We are consulting the Medicines Commission on certain issues as
  199
  appropriate. In the light of its advice, we will take decisions and where necessary will enter into discussions with the bodies concerned.

  Wessex RHA (Overspending)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will indicate the extent and the reasons for the overspend by the Wessex regional health authority on its computer system; whether there are any plans for his Department to attempt to resolve the problems; whether there are any implications for his Department's own central computerisation project; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  I have been assured by officers of Wessex regional health authority that their computer programme is not overspent; that current expenditure on computer systems continues to be within the capital allocation approved by the regional health authority for computing up to 31 March 1989; and that the computer programme continues to be under regular review by the regional health authority.

  Officials are monitoring the progress of this project as part of the normal accountability procedures. There are at present no known implications for any existing departmental central computerisation projects.

  For further information the hon. Member may like to consult the Wessex regional health authority.

  Family Planning Clinics
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will publish in tabular form the proportion of funds directed to family planning clinics by each of the health authorities in England and Wales for each year for which figures are available since 1979.

  Mr. Newton
  I regret that this information is not collected centrally.

  Professional and Linguistic Assessment
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give the following information concerning the tests held under the auspices of the Professional and Linguistics Assessment Board:(a) how many/often the tests are held, (b) what is the average time taken from application for a test until the results are made available to districts health authorities and (c) how many places are available for each test; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  Information obtained from the General Medical Council, which is the independent statutory body responsible for controlling the tests, shows that in 1987 there were 11 test sessions involving 1,734 candidates. Test sessions are held at approximately monthly intervals at different locations. No figures are available regarding the average time taken from application for a test to the results being made available, although because of the demand for places candidates are advised to apply six months in advance. The availability of places for each test is limited by the seating accommodation at each test location which 1 understand varies from about 110 to 200 places.

  Free Milk
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many children under five years of age 200
  and cared for by registered childminders are currently in receipt of free milk; and how many childminders this involves.

  Mrs. Currie
  Information is not available in the form requested. It is estimated that some 200,000 children in England are receiving free milk at day nurseries, playgroups or childminders at any one time.

  Medical Laboratory Scientific Officers
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Secretary of Slate for Social Services how many medical laboratory scientific officers have been newly appointed by each health authority in England in each year since 1982.

  Mr. Newton
  Information in the form requested is not held centrally. The total number of qualified medical laboratory scientific officers in post rose by 14 per cent. between 1982 and 1986.

  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many medical laboratory scientific officers were newly appointed by the Sunderland, Durham and Hartlepool district health authorities in 1985–86, 1986–87 and 1987 to date.

  Mr. Newton
  Information in the form requested is not held centrally. The latest available staff in post figures are shown in the table.

  Medical laboratory scientific officers in post at 30 September 1986

  Whole-time equivalent1

  Sunderland District Health Authority

  77

  Durham District Health Authority

  35

  Hartlepool District Health Authority

  31

  Source: Department of Health and Social Services annual census of National Health Service non-medical manpower.

  1 Figures rounded to nearest whole-time equivalent.

  For further information the hon. Member may wish to write to the chairmen of the health authorities concerned.

  Departmental Local Offices
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list the establishment figures of each local benefit office, distinguishing between short-term and permanent posts, and between contributory and noncontributory benefits sections, and showing the current case load per head at each office.

  Mr. Portillo
  I regret that information cannot be provided as requested. The table shows the current complement of each local social security office with the latest supplementary benefit caseload, which is based on a 100 per cent. count of liver cases. Although staff are designated as employed on either contributory benefits or supplementary benefits the totals will include staff employed on common services such as finance work. No figure comparable to supplementary benefit caseload exists for the range of contributory benefits.

  The size of caseload is only one factor which determines complement. Other factors, such as activity on the caseload, play a more prominent role.

  To provide a fuller answer would be disproportionately costly.
  201

  Integrated local offices

  Contributory benefits complement 1987–88

  Supplementary benefit complement 1987–88

  Supplementary benefit caseload

  North Eastern Region

  Ashington

  43

  69

  7,097

  Barnsley East

  46

  115

  10,752

  Barnsley West

  39

  81

  7,939

  Berwick

  10

  22

  1,887

  Bishop Auckland

  62

  130

  14,762

  Blyth

  41

  86

  8,872

  Bradford East

  38

  136

  14,944

  Bradford South

  43

  130

  13,730

  Bradford West

  50

  146

  13,235

  Bridlington

  28

  54

  5,914

  Chester-le-Street

  31

  68

  6,794

  Darlington

  57

  139

  13,905

  Dewsbury

  54

  143

  14,973

  Doncaster East

  48

  127

  11,712

  Doncaster West

  65

  144

  14,559

  Durham

  42

  60

  6,174

  Eston

  26

  86

  8,445

  Gateshead

  80

  206

  23,898

  Goole

  19

  46

  4,833

  Grimsby

  74

  210

  21,856

  Halifax

  72

  163

  16,172

  Harrogate

  46

  70

  7,414

  Hartlepool

  46

  130

  12,365

  Hemsworth

  28

  47

  4,818

  Hexham

  21

  26

  2,865

  Houghton le Spring

  24

  44

  4,541

  Huddersfield

  69

  164

  16,567

  Hull East

  67

  233

  24,681

  Hull West

  71

  203

  23,084

  Keighley

  40

  93

  9,249

  Leeds East

  62

  173

  17,857

  Leeds North

  61

  171

  16,353

  Leeds North West

  58

  164

  14,999

  Leeds South

  41

  98

  9,248

  Leeds West

  48

  117

  12,361

  Middlesbrough

  73

  253

  23,121

  Newcastle East

  51

  144

  17,170

  Newcastle St. James

  58

  162

  17,303

  Newcastle West

  33

  102

  11,836

  North Shields

  42

  109

  11,462

  Northallerton

  36

  51

  5,362

  Peterlee

  62

  71

  7,396

  Pontefract

  31

  61

  6,413

  Redcar

  33

  92

  9,492

  Rotherham North

  27

  54

  5,671

  Rotherham South

  71

  170

  19,452

  Scarborough

  41

  95

  9,696

  Scunthorpe

  41

  120

  12,676

  Seaham

  19

  31

  3,154

  Sheffield North East

  54

  185

  20,970

  Sheffield North West

  55

  188

  19,353

  Sheffield South East

  43

  129

  14,057

  Sheffield South West

  51

  156

  17,738

  South Shields

  41

  120

  14,040

  Stanley

  47

  93

  10,502

  Stockton

  74

  204

  20,321

  Sunderland North

  67

  206

  20,612

  Sunderland South

  58

  149

  16,131

  Wakefield

  50

  114

  12,006

  Wallsend

  26

  80

  9,202

  York

  75

  153

  14,705

  Midland Region

  Birmingham Edgbaston

  45

  165

  18,573

  Birmingham Erdington

  47

  141

  16,331

  Birmingham Handsworth

  45

  195

  19,551

  Birmingham Ladywood

  55

  123

  12,470

  Birmingham Northfield

  41

  145

  16,818

  Birmingham Perry Barr

  41

  109

  15,467

  Birmingham Ravernhurst

  39

  109

  11,021

  Birmingham South Yardley

  78

  176

  23,828

  Birmingham Sparkhill

  31

  69

  8,414

  Birmingham Washwood Heath

  37

  136

  14,819

  202 203

  Integrated local offices

  Contributory benefits complement 1987–88

  Supplementary benefit complement 1987–88

  Supplementary benefit caseload

  Boston

  46

  73

  8,282

  Burton-on-Trent

  30

  60

  6,346

  Cannock

  44

  93

  9,520

  Chesterfield

  103

  146

  19,271

  Corby

  25

  67

  5,461

  Coventry East

  63

  195

  22,352

  Coventry West

  51

  151

  17,619

  Derby (Beckett Street)

  50

  124

  13,120

  Derby Heritage Gate

  36

  56

  7,283

  Derby London Road

  58

  134

  14,824

  Dudley North

  69

  150

  20,249

  Dudley South

  43

  84

  10,070

  Grantham

  31

  65

  6,507

  Hereford

  54

  98

  10,195

  Ilkeston

  39

  75

  7,660

  Kidderminster

  36

  87

  9,839

  Leamington

  57

  94

  11,713

  Leicester Burley's Way

  40

  77

  8,199

  Leicester Lower Hill Street

  58

  111

  12,544

  Leicester Norton Street

  65

  164

  15,204

  Leicester Yeoman Street

  66

  150

  15,825

  Lichfield

  43

  102

  11,925

  Lincoln Newland

  37

  90

  10,455

  Lincoln Orchard Street

  57

  128

  13,526

  Loughborough

  55

  93

  9,288

  Mansfield

  85

  124

  13,419

  Nottingham Castle Gate

  48

  137

  13,676

  Nottingham David Lane

  49

  118

  12,543

  Nottingham Shakespeare Street

  53

  146

  15,420

  Nottingham Station Street

  71

  150

  17,353

  Newcastle

  51

  79

  9,036

  Nuneaton

  58

  117

  13,464

  Redditch

  48

  101

  11,015

  Rugby

  24

  47

  5,493

  Shrewsbury

  79

  118

  14,575

  Skegness

  25

  58

  5,335

  Smethwick

  62

  155

  19,762

  Stafford

  33

  62

  6,618

  Stoke North

  87

  158

  17,887

  Stoke South

  61

  100

  10,572

  Sutton-in-Ashfield

  47

  77

  8,755

  Telford

  53

  149

  16,375

  Walsall East

  59

  117

  13,567

  Walsall West

  51

  126

  15,747

  Wellingborough

  65

  131

  13,385

  West Bromwich

  56

  162

  21,149

  Wolverhampton North

  50

  169

  19,328

  Wolverhampton South

  63

  157

  19,679

  Worcester

  70

  139

  16,180

  Worksop

  48

  90

  9,888

  London North Region

  Acton

  56

  134

  15,258

  Aylesbury

  60

  83

  8,979

  Banbury

  34

  63

  5,919

  Barking

  56

  137

  17,333

  Barnet

  45

  61

  7,457

  Basildon

  95

  194

  23,447

  Bedford

  70

  127

  13,996

  Braintree

  40

  79

  9,154

  Bury St. Edmunds

  61

  99

  10,234

  Cambridge

  84

  179

  15,141

  Canning Town

  16

  65

  5,362

  Chelmsford

  53

  74

  9,452

  Clacton-on-Sea

  28

  55·5

  7,271

  Colchester

  73

  121

  11,711

  Cricklewood

  28

  88

  9,621

  Dunstable

  31

  57

  5,876

  Ealing

  63

  141·5

  16,073

  Edgware

  42

  69

  8,228

  Edmonton

  76

  136

  17,646

  Euston

  64

  133

  12,517

  Finsbury Park

  53

  171

  21,457

  Grays

  42

  103

  11,369

  204 205

  Integrated local offices

  Contributory benefits complement 1987–88

  Supplementary benefit complement 1987–88

  Supplementary benefit caseload

  Great Yarmouth

  38

  87

  10,828

  Hackney

  51

  159·5

  17,550

  Harlesden

  43·5

  127

  12,450

  Harlow

  40

  79

  8,165

  Harrow

  62·5

  96

  11,247

  Hemel Hempstead

  41

  62

  6,298

  Hendon

  50·5

  96

  10,299

  Hertford

  32

  69

  8,195

  High Wycombe

  57

  77

  9,066

  Highgate

  68

  181

  19,598

  Hoxton

  41

  122

  13,129

  Ilford

  85

  148

  17,319

  Ipswich

  81·5

  150

  18,604

  Kings Lynn

  79

  164

  17,023

  Leytonstone

  40·5

  100

  11,292

  Lowestoft

  39

  84

  9,089

  Luton

  55

  148

  15,723

  Milton Keynes

  46·5

  125

  12,981

  Neasden

  58

  134

  13,393

  Norwich Chantry

  68

  136

  15,350

  Norwich Mountergate

  67

  158

  17,684

  Notting Hill

  26

  99

  10,608

  Paddington

  47·5

  172

  15,537

  Peterborough

  92

  218

  20,794

  Plaistow

  35

  95·5

  11,338

  Poplar

  41

  143·5

  16,499

  Romford

  42·5

  122

  13,517

  Southall

  58

  106

  11,383

  Southend

  75

  161

  19,741

  St· Albans

  41

  71

  6,930

  Stevenage

  55·5

  108

  12,455

  Stoke Newington

  46·5

  95

  10·264

  Tottenham

  45

  167

  17,235

  Uxbridge

  48·5

  74

  8,156

  Walthamstow

  50

  121

  13,987

  Watford

  65

  82

  8,958

  Wood Green

  50

  84

  9,240

  Woodgrange Park

  48·5

  147

  14,934

  London South Region

  Aldershot

  77

  104

  8,886

  Andover

  25

  51

  4,512

  Ashford

  27

  54

  5,808

  Balham

  38

  167

  15,322

  Basingstoke

  32

  62

  5,730

  Battersea

  28

  139

  14,018

  Bexley

  59

  119

  12,179

  Bognor Regis

  24

  69

  8,012

  Bracknell

  55

  77

  7,903

  Brighton

  64

  168

  17,447

  Brixton

  50

  138

  11,363

  Bromley

  50

  81

  8,895

  Chatham

  70

  117

  10,732

  Chelsea

  48

  154

  13,493

  Chichester

  30

  49

  5,134

  Crawley

  43

  77

  8,120

  Croydon

  62

  167

  18,602

  Crystal Palace

  39

  117

  12,077

  Dartford

  36

  65

  6,207

  Dover

  33

  66

  6,896

  Eastbourne

  61

  104

  11,188

  Epsom

  54

  56

  4,927

  Fareham

  52

  107

  10,263

  Folkestone

  29

  72

  7,878

  Gravesend

  28

  67

  6,817

  Greenwich Park

  38

  160

  14,671

  Guildford

  70

  91

  8,772

  Hastings

  102

  116

  14,262

  Hounslow

  80

  148

  16,297

  Hove

  36

  88

  9,593

  Isle of Wight

  47

  106

  11,651

  Kennington Park

  25

  108

  11,964

  Kensington

  34

  139

  10,540

  Kingston Upon Thames

  68

  91

  8,907

  206 207

  Integrated local offices

  Contributory benefits complement 1987–88

  Supplementary benefit complement 1987–88

  Supplementary benefit caseload

  Lewes

  27

  64

  6,945

  Lewisham

  51

  149

  14,718

  Maidstone

  46

  91

  9,455

  New Forest

  46

  81

  8,112

  Newbury

  32

  69

  5,897

  Orpington

  38

  59

  5,790

  Peckham

  58

  109

  9,826

  Portsmouth North

  47

  113

  12,725

  Portsmouth South

  30

  109

  10,676

  Reading

  75

  171

  12,503

  Redhill

  49

  78

  7,352

  Sittingbourne

  32

  79

  8,600

  Slough

  85

  141

  12,179

  Southampton

  84

  247

  24,583

  Southwark

  44

  129

  12,108

  Streatham

  44

  105

  10,505

  Thanet

  43

  131

  14,533

  Tunbridge Wells

  55

  77

  9,603

  Twickenham

  40

  59

  5,801

  Wandsworth

  43

  93

  10,893

  Westminster

  42

  113

  5,518

  Winchester

  40

  61

  5,527

  Woking

  65

  84

  9,109

  Woolwich

  52

  225

  19,028

  Worthing

  66

  103

  11,729

  Wales and South Western Region

  Aberdare

  41

  62

  6,475

  Abertillery

  18

  35

  3,213

  Aberystwyth

  27

  46

  4,705

  Ammanford

  33

  30

  3,331

  Anglesey

  26

  58

  7,323

  Bargoed

  35

  56

  5,627

  Barnstable

  46

  84

  9,539

  Barry

  32

  76

  7,412

  Bath

  55

  110

  12,104

  Blackwood

  32

  41

  4,102

  Bournemouth

  79

  186

  18418

  Bridgend

  80

  108

  11,208

  Bridgwater

  42

  70

  7,389

  Bristol Central

  44

  134

  11,284

  Bristol East

  72

  145

  16,848

  Bristol Horfield

  26

  72

  7,337

  Bristol South

  52

  155

  14,830

  Bristol West

  49

  78

  8,179

  Caernarfon

  19

  52

  5,993

  Caerphilly

  32

  58

  6,758

  Cardiff Central

  58

  101

  11,300

  Cardiff East

  47

  131

  14,663

  Cardiff West

  40

  108

  12,428

  Carmarthen

  26

  37

  4,041

  Cheltenham

  51

  96

  10,234

  Chippenham

  33

  55

  5,998

  Colwyn Bay

  39

  74

  8,164

  Cwmbran

  59

  118

  13,157

  Devonport

  44

  105

  12,149

  Ebbw Vale

  42

  74

  7,145

  Exeter

  107

  181

  19,997

  Gloucester

  66

  131

  13,470

  Haverfordwest

  29

  54

  6,574

  Launceston

  31

  55

  5,854

  Llanelli

  57

  84

  8,657

  Merthyr Tydfil

  52

  65

  7,623

  Morriston

  44

  80

  8,721

  Neath

  39

  62

  6,252

  Newport

  78

  176

  20,680

  Newtown

  32

  47

  4,695

  Pembroke Dock

  17

  41

  4,252

  Penzance

  38

  70

  7,940

  Plymouth

  81

  179

  18,556

  Pontypridd

  47

  62

  7,690

  Poole

  77

  118

  14,674

  Port Talbot

  41

  60

  5,846

  Porth

  31

  35

  5,224

  208 209

  Integrated local offices

  Contributory benefits complement 1987–88

  Supplementary benefit complement 1987–88

  Supplementary benefit caseload

  Porthmadog

  31

  37

  4,933

  Rhonnda West

  57

  65

  6,069

  Rhyl

  70

  129

  15,157

  Salisbury

  41

  70

  6,935

  St. Austell

  45

  93

  10,638

  Stroud

  43

  67

  7,852

  Swansea

  82

  167

  19,610

  Swindon

  60

  99

  13,871

  Taunton

  57

  138

  10,315

  Torbay

  88

  205

  22,467

  Trowbridge

  31

  51

  4,954

  Truro

  54

  117

  13,431

  Weston-super-Mare

  41

  86

  8,822

  Weymouth

  52

  86

  9,349

  Wrexham

  91

  183

  18,950

  Yeovil

  41

  66

  7,267

  North Western Region

  Accrington

  45

  77

  7,380

  Ashton under Lyne

  50

  112

  12,434

  Barrow

  44

  76

  8,116

  Birkenhead North

  63

  168

  17,562

  Birkenhead South

  45

  102

  11,313

  Blackburn

  70

  148

  14,783

  Blackpool North

  89

  156

  19,785

  Blackpool South

  49

  76

  9,734

  Bolton

  92

  195

  23,405

  Burnley

  83

  153

  15,701

  Bury

  73

  146

  13,879

  Buxton

  16

  23

  2,092

  Carlisle

  43

  79

  8,430

  Chester

  48

  92

  10,864

  Crewe

  53

  91

  11,232

  Ellesmere Port

  29

  75

  7,138

  Farnworth

  41

  88

  9,882

  Hyde

  45

  96

  11,251

  Kendal

  23

  28

  2,732

  Lancaster

  54

  115

  11,514

  Leigh

  57

  100

  10,206

  Liverpool Belle Vale

  37

  98

  10,987

  Liverpool Bootle

  50

  116

  14,125

  Liverpool Breckfield

  49

  127

  16,818

  Liverpool City

  34

  89

  8,840

  Liverpool Crosby

  33

  94

  11,360

  Liverpool Edgehill

  26

  93

  9,857

  Liverpool Garston

  29

  84

  9,400

  Liverpool Huyton

  45

  144

  16,458

  Liverpool Kirkby

  57

  165

  17,773

  Liverpool Toxteth

  38

  158

  16,734

  Macclesfield

  27

  45

  4,438

  Manchester Central

  39

  68

  5,767

  Manchester Cheetham

  43

  122

  13,539

  Manchester Chorlton

  30

  97

  10,736

  Manchester Failsworth

  53

  130

  13,226

  Manchester Longsight

  35

  127

  12,051

  Manchester Middleton

  34

  90

  8,985

  Manchester Openshaw

  32

  85

  11,133

  Manchester Rusholme

  40

  142

  13,719

  Manchester Sale

  67

  130

  14,917

  Manchester Wythenshawe

  48

  144

  13,843

  Northwich

  34

  69

  6,579

  Oldham

  80

  168

  17,561

  Penrith

  15

  22

  2,043

  Preston North

  56

  110

  13,757

  Preston South

  64

  93

  11,137

  Rochdale

  58

  125

  12,501

  Rossendale

  27

  51

  5,000

  Salford North

  60

  148

  16,627

  Salford South

  45

  107

  11,897

  Skelmersdale

  42

  99

  10,283

  Southport

  46

  82

  10,173

  St. Helens

  99

  166

  19,056

  Stockport North

  56

  107

  12,204

  Stockport South

  51

  93

  11,291

  210 211

  Integrated local offices

  Contributory benefits complement 1987–88

  Supplementary benefit complement 1987–88

  Supplementary benefit caseload

  Wallasey

  42

  109

  12,627

  Warrington

  87

  139

  17,786

  Whitehaven

  28

  48

  4,617

  Widnes

  53

  141

  15,727

  Wigan

  102

  170

  20,148

  Wilmslow

  20

  31

  3,424

  Workington

  28

  56

  5,755

  Scotland

  Aberdeen North

  54

  105

  9,638

  Aberdeen South

  54

  110

  9,925

  Airdrie

  27

  95

  8,305

  Arbroath

  26

  70

  6,694

  Ayr

  46

  177

  15,333

  Bathgate

  52

  180

  14,209

  Campbeltown

  7

  19

  1,630

  Clydebank

  22

  75

  7,716

  Cowdenbeath

  24

  60

  4,422

  Cumbernauld

  48

  113

  10,427

  Dumbarton

  25

  86

  8,229

  Dumfries

  40

  88

  8,011

  Dundee East

  47

  152

  11,613

  Dundee West

  38

  112

  10,979

  Dunfermline

  32

  69

  5,832

  East Kilbride

  29

  70

  6,506

  Edinburgh City

  56

  132

  12,071

  Edinburgh East

  38

  128

  11,695

  Edinburgh North

  31

  137

  11,047

  Edinburgh South

  49

  133

  11,265

  Edinburgh West

  49

  120

  11,207

  Elgin

  30

  73

  5,986

  Falkirk

  58

  178

  13,812

  Fort William

  11

  30

  2,619

  Galashiels

  34

  68

  6,374

  Glasgow Anniesland

  59

  138

  11,872

  Glasgow Bridgeton

  24

  102

  8,657

  Glasgow City

  49

  115

  9,335

  Glasgow Craighton

  33

  134

  12,646

  Glasgow Laurieston

  53

  153

  15,912

  Glasgow Maryhill

  36

  115

  10,488

  Glasgow Parkhead

  41

  122

  12,026

  Glasgow Provan

  32

  198

  14,513

  Glasgow Rutherglen

  42

  181

  14,762

  Glasgow South Side

  45

  158

  13,505

  Glasgow Springburn

  42

  169

  13,955

  Greenock

  49

  126

  12,338

  Hamilton

  68

  161

  16,338

  Inverness

  38

  104

  11,207

  Irvine

  39

  147

  12,974

  Johnstone

  29

  84

  7,899

  Kilmarnock

  33

  108

  9,246

  Kirkcaldy

  45

  125

  11,696

  Lerwick

  8

  12

  1,080

  Leven

  22

  58

  5,393

  Motherwell

  41

  119

  11,527

  Oban

  11

  21

  2,112

  Paisley

  67

  185

  16,726

  Perth

  39

  89

  8,323

  Peterhead

  24

  56

  4,348

  Port Glasgow

  19

  62

  5,369

  Stirling

  52

  124

  11,289

  Stornoway

  14

  32

  4,574

  Stranraer

  11

  30

  3,026

  Wick

  22

  42

  4,202

  Area Offices

  Supplementary benefit complement 1987–88

  Supplementary benefit caseload

  North Eastern

  Castleford

  56

  5,594

  Jarrow

  75

  8,693

  212

  Area Offices

  Supplementary benefit complement 1987–88

  Supplementary benefit caseload

  Skipton

  26

  2,426

  Wath-on-Dearne

  85

  7,879

  213

  Area Offices

  Supplementary benefit complement 1987–88

  Supplementary benefit caseload

  London North

  Diss

  29

  3,221

  Oxford

  180

  16,884

  Shoreditch

  95·5

  10,737

  Stepney

  100

  10,291

  Thames North

  40

  1,884

  Midlands

  Birmingham Bradford st.

  83

  11,709

  Northampton

  181

  19,531

  North Western

  Morris Green

  73

  8,345

  West Derby

  94

  10,525

  Scotland

  Bellshill

  77

  6,874

  Coatbridge

  77

  7,186

  Glasgow Cranstonhill

  43

  2,082

  Glasgow Partick

  85

  9,247

  London South

  Bloomsbury

  154

  8,634

  Camberwell

  142

  11,749

  Canterbury

  87

  9,564

  Eltham

  34

  2,988

  Havant

  84

  8,393

  Hither Green

  46

  4,464

  Mitcham

  74

  7,768

  Oval

  134

  11,976

  Rochester

  64

  5,391

  Surbiton

  54

  4,769

  Sutton

  60

  5,238

  Thames South

  74

  1,115

  Wimbledon

  77

  8,245

  National Insurance Offices

  Contributory Benefits complement 1987-88

  North Eastern

  Castleford

  31

  Goldthorpe

  21

  Jarrow

  25

  Mexborough

  21

  Skipton

  18

  London North

  Abingdon

  18

  Bishops Stortford

  16

  Diss

  11

  Hatfield

  27

  Hornchurch

  38

  Oxford

  73

  Stepney

  38

  Wantage

  11

  Midlands

  Northampton

  96

  North Western

  West Derby

  50

  Scotland

  Coatbridge

  37

  Cumnock

  15

  Lanark

  12

  Shotts

  13

  Wishaw

  35

  London South

  214

  Contributory Benefits complement 1987–88

  Aldershot Benefits

  74

  Broadstairs Benefits

  83

  Canterbury

  43

  City

  70

  Eltham

  29

  Havant

  38

  Haywards Heath

  32

  Littlehampton

  21

  Portsmouth Conts

  67

  Richmond

  24

  Sutton

  77

  West End

  58

  Wimbledon

  38

  Hospital Waiting Lists (Derbyshire)
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the current hospital waiting list in Derbyshire, North-East for(a) urgent cases, (b) urgent cases which have been waiting for more than one month, (c) non-urgent cases and (d) non-urgent cases which have been waiting for more than one year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  Due to the introduction of a new computer system on 31 March 1987, the data supplied by district health authorities in Trent region did not distinguish between in-patient waiting list cases classified by consultants as urgent or non-urgent. The available information for North Derbyshire health authority is that on 31 March 1987 there were 2,520 patients on the inpatient waiting list, 684 of whom had been waiting for more than one year. This is an improvement over the position at 31 March 1986 when the in-patient waiting list stood at 2,633 of whom 883 had been waiting over a year.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what assessment he has made of the extent to which, in order to remain within cash limits, district health authorities may be obliged to implement decisions that impose a real reduction in services on the population which they serve.

  Mr. Newton
  I announced on 16 December, an increase in health authority allocations across the United Kingdom of over £100 million in this financial year. This step was taken because our assessment of the financial pressures facing authorities showed that they would otherwise be required to take short-term measures that would not improve health care or efficiency.

  General Practices (Inner Cities)
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what steps he is taking to encourage the establishment of general practices in the inner cities.

  Mr. Newton
  The Government encourage the development of general practice in the inner cities mainly through payment of enhanced rates of improvement grant for practice premises and through the medical practices committee which takes into account the special needs of the inner cities in its control of the distribution of general
  215
  practitioners throughout the country. In addition, resources have been made available to encourage GPs to form group practices.

  Proposals in the White Paper "Promoting Better Health" (Cm. 249), published last November, are designed to further improve general practice in the inner cities. These include relating the distribution of doctors more closely to medical and social needs; the introduction of new allowances especially related to working in areas of deprivation; increasing the assistance available to doctors in improvement grants and under the cost rent scheme; and strengthening the role of family practitioner committees generally.

  Resources (Allocation)
  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what criteria have been taken into account by the National Health Service resource allocation working party in assessing regional and district health needs; and if any changes are contemplated in future assessments.

  Mr. Newton
  The resource allocation working party formula measures the relative needs of each region by taking account of: population (and the use made of health services by people of different age groups and sexes); morbidity as indicated by standardised mortality ratios; patient flows between regions; and higher staff costs in London and the south-east. Separate allocations are made to take account of the costs associated with medical teaching. The assessment of the relative needs of health districts is a matter for regions, who are expected to follow the same principles as the national formula, but to have regard also to local needs and circumstances.

  The NHS management board's review of the national RAWP formula is exploring the scope for improving the way in which the formula measures relative need. The review's programme of analysis and research is now almost complete, and any recommendations which may emerge will then be carefully considered

  Social Security

  Table 15.1 (1) (in constant 1986–87 prices)

  £ million

  1982–83 outturn

  1983–84 outturn

  1984–85 outturn

  1985–86 outturn

  1986–87 outturn

  1987–88 estimated outturn

  1988–89 plans

  1989–90 plans

  1990–91 plans

  Contributory benefits (ie those paid from the National Insurance Fund)

  Pension benefits

  Retirement pension basic element

  16,115

  16,597

  16,583

  16,938

  17,552

  17,683

  17,381(2)

  17,700

  18,000

  earnings-related component

  48

  68

  95

  145

  219

  278

  346

  400

  500

  Christmas bonus

  122

  117

  115

  108

  107

  103

  99

  100

  100

  Widows' benefits, etc basic element

  854

  862

  829

  790

  785

  751

  735

  700

  700

  earnings-related component

  11

  17

  28

  34

  40

  49

  62

  100

  100

  Unemployment, incapacity and other benefits

  Unemployment benefit

  1,789

  1,707

  1,724

  1,637

  1,734

  1,480

  1,359

  1,200

  1,200

  Sickness benefit

  661

  302

  305

  284

  179

  159

  153

  100

  100

  Invalidity benefit basic element

  1,837

  2,059

  2,231

  2,289

  2,480

  2,616

  2,649

  2,800

  2,900

  earnings—related component

  63

  76

  109

  131

  193

  248

  298

  400

  400

  Death grant

  20

  19

  19

  19

  18

  0

  0

  —

  —

  Industrial injuries benefit

  1991 Census
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what assumptions he makes as to the percentage of misleading answers given during the next census which will result in the census being of little use for planning purposes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  No such assumptions are made. Tests are being conducted to ensure that proposed census questions are as clear and acceptable to the public as possible.

  Mersey RHA
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the percentage increase in medical and dental staff whole-time equivalents, in the Mersey region between 1978 and the latest available year.

  Mrs. Currie
  The percentage increase in hospital and community health services (HCHS) staff between 1978 and 1986 is 14 per cent. This is based on the information, as set out in the table.

  HCHS medical and dental staff' at 30 September each year

  whole-time equivalents

  Mersey RHA

  1978

  1986

  Percentage change

  All Staff

  1,956

  2,231

  +14

  1 Includes permanent paid, honorary and locum staff.

  Public Expenditure
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will publish in the Official Report the information in table 15.1 of Cm. 288-II, expressed in constant 1986–87 prices.

  Mr. Scott
  The information requested is set out in the table. The figures for the last two years are, as in Cm, 288, rounded to the nearest £100 million.
  217

  1982–83 outturn

  1983–84 outturn

  1984–85 outturn

  1985–86 outturn

  1986–87 outturn

  1987–88 estimated outturn

  1988–89 plans

  1989–90 plans

  1990–91 plans

  Industrial disablement benefit

  409

  421

  416

  419

  440

  428

  403

  400

  400

  Industrial death benefit

  61

  62

  60

  60

  61

  58

  55

  100

  100

  Other industrial injuries benefits

  6

  6

  5

  5

  4

  3

  3

  —

  —

  Family benefits

  Maternity allowance

  181

  161

  176

  169

  168

  64

  39

  —

  —

  Guardian's allowance and child's special allowance

  2

  2

  2

  1

  2

  2

  1

  —

  —

  Total contributory benefit expenditure

  22,179

  22,477

  22,696

  23,029

  23,983

  23,922

  23,584

  24,000

  24,000

  Non-contributory benefits (i.e. those met from voted expenditure or paid by local authorities etc.)

  Pension benefits

  Non-contributory retirement pension

  48

  47

  43

  42

  45

  42

  40

  —

  —

  Christmas bonus

  7

  7

  7

  7

  8

  8

  6

  —

  —

  War pension

  601

  598

  594

  599

  589

  565

  543

  500

  500

  Disability benefits Attendance allowance

  481

  565

  629

  707

  779

  814

  835

  900

  900

  Invalid care allowance

  10

  11

  12

  13

  104

  157

  142

  100

  200

  Non-contributory invalidity pension/severe disablement allowance

  184

  208

  258

  274

  285

  294

  282

  300

  300

  Mobility allowance

  282

  347

  389

  435

  514

  572

  609

  700

  700

  Supplementary benefit/income support/social fund

  Supplementary pension

  1,726

  810

  972

  1,039

  1,178

  1,209

  —

  —

  —

  Supplementary allowance

  5,743

  5,567

  6,096

  6,631

  6,789

  6,551

  —

  —

  —

  Income support

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  7,879

  8,100

  8,300

  Social Fund

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  32

  151

  100

  100

  Family benefits

  Child benefit

  4,366

  4,548

  4,671

  4,603

  4,513

  4,420

  4,156

  4,200

  4,200

  One parent benefit

  109

  122

  131

  138

  148

  153

  155

  200

  200

  Family income supplement/family credit

  112

  140

  138

  134

  161

  158

  375

  400

  400

  Maternity grant

  19

  19

  20

  18

  14

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Housing benefit

  Rent rebate

  1,108

  2,258

  2,343

  2,363

  2,421

  2,459

  2,497

  2,500

  2,600

  Rent allowance

  88

  611

  752

  860

  947

  1,014

  1,059

  1,100

  1,200

  Total non-contributory benefit expenditure

  14,883

  15,854

  17,055

  17,862

  18,496

  18,477

  18,730

  19,200

  19,500

  Total benefit expenditure

  37,063

  38,332

  39,751

  40,892

  42,479

  42,369

  42,315

  43,200

  44,000

  Administration and miscellaneous services

  National Insurance Fund administration (collection of contributions and payment of contributory benefits)

  874

  791

  883

  821

  727

  765

  823

  820

  820

  Non-contributory benefit administration (payment of non-contributory benefits)

  689

  854

  849

  856

  1,037

  1,165

  1,154

  1,170

  1,160

  Housing benefit Local authority etc. administration

  82

  121

  152

  160

  174

  210

  191

  190

  190

  Total administration

  1,646

  1,765

  1,883

  1,837

  1,937

  2,140

  2,168

  2,180

  2,180

  Total Department of Health and Social Security—Social Security

  38,710

  40,097

  41,634

  42,728

  44,416

  44,509

  44,483

  45,300

  46,100

  1 Footnotes to Table 15.1 of Cm. 288-II apply.

  2 Fall between 1987–88 and 1988–89 caused by their being one fewer encashment week in the latter year.

  NHS (Trade Unions)
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what information he has on the trade unions and professional organisations operating within 218
  the National Health Service and their membership numbers amongst doctors, nurses, administrative, ancillary and other staff.
  219
  Mrs. Currie
  The trade unions and professional organisations recognised for the purpose of negotiating pay and conditions for staff in the NHS are as follows:

  Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers (Technical, Administrative and Supervisory Section)

  Association of Clinical Biochemists

  Association of Dispensing Opticians

  Association of NHS Officers

  Association of Optical Practitioners

  Association of Scientific, Technical and Managerial Staffs

  Association of Supervisors of Midwives

  British Association of Occupational Therapists

  British Dental Association

  British Dietetic Association

  British Medical Association

  British Orthoptic Society

  Chartered Society of Physiotherapy

  Company Chemists Association Ltd

  Confederation of Health Service Employees

  Co-operative Union Ltd

  Electrical, Electronic, Telecommunication and Plumbing Trades Union

  General, Municipal, Boilermakers and Allied Trades Union

  Health Visitors Association

  Hospital Physicists Association

  National and Local Government Officers Association

  National Pharmaceutical Union

  National Union of Public Employees

  Pharmaceutical Standing Committee (Scotland)

  Royal College of Midwives

  Royal College of Nursing of the United Kingdom

  Scottish Association of Nurse Administrators

  Scottish Health Visitors Association

  Scottish Committee of Ophthalmic Opticians

  Socialist Health Association

  Society of Administrators of Family Practitioners Services

  Society of Chiropodists

  Society of Opticians

  Society of Radiographers

  Society of Remedial Gymnasts

  Transport and General Workers Union

  Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians

  Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers

  Information about membership numbers is not held by the Department.

  Infant Mortality
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list the six health authorities with the highest percentage of post-neonatal deaths for each year since 1975.

  Mrs. Currie
  I shall let the hon. Member have such information as is available without incurring disproportionate costs as soon as possible.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will order an urgent inquiry into the causes of the increase of post-neonatal deaths.

  Mrs. Currie
  The increase in the infant mortality rate in the latest figures (1986), produced by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, is small and may not be sustained. None the less, I have arranged for the matter to be further examined with the help of medical experts.

  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give the number of post-neonatal deaths for each year since 1975 as a percentage figure for each socio-economic group.

  Mrs. Currie
  [holding answer 25 January 1988.]: The exact information requested can be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, the tables show the numbers and rates for post-neonatal deaths, and
  220
  percentage distribution by social class for legitimate births for 1975 to 1985, and for jointly registered illegitimate births for 1975 and 1985 only. These statistics are from data which link the infant death records to their corresponding birth records. Information on social class for illegitimate births as a whole is not shown as this is not collected on a comparable basis to that for legitimate births.

  Post-neonatal mortality by social class (legitimate births only)

  England and Wales 1975–1985

  Social class

  Number

  Per cent. of total

  Rate

  1975

  Total

  2,500

  100·0

  4·6

  I

  127

  5·1

  3·0

  II

  324

  13·0

  3·3

  IIIN

  200

  8·0

  3·5

  IIIM

  949

  38·0

  4·4

  IV

  485

  19·4

  5·7

  V

  237

  9·5

  3·7

  Other

  178

  7·1

  7·5

  1976

  Total

  2,198

  100·0

  4·1

  I

  107

  4·9

  2·6

  II

  280

  12·7

  2·8

  IIIN

  171

  7·8

  3·1

  IIIM

  827

  37·6

  4·0

  IV

  431

  19·6

  5·1

  V

  211

  9·6

  8·4

  Other

  171

  7·8

  8·8

  1977

  Total

  2,079

  100·0

  4·0

  I

  120

  5·8

  2·9

  II

  305

  14·7

  3·0

  IIIN

  172

  8·3

  3·2

  IIIM

  712

  34·2

  3·7

  IV

  408

  19·6

  5·0

  V

  202

  9·7

  8·0

  Other

  160

  7·7

  8·7

  1978

  Total

  2,200

  100·0

  4·1

  I

  135

  6·1

  3·0

  II

  326

  14·8

  3·1

  IIIN

  177

  8·0

  3·2

  IIIM

  855

  38·9

  4·2

  IV

  374

  17·0

  4·3

  V

  181

  8·2

  7·1

  Other

  152

  6·9

  8·9

  1979

  Total

  2,326

  100·0

  4·1

  I

  129

  5·5

  3·3

  II

  341

  14·7

  2·8

  IIIN

  157

  6·7

  2·6

  IIIM

  813

  35·0

  3·9

  IV

  464

  19·9

  5·2

  V

  263

  11·3

  8·1

  Other

  159

  6·8

  9·0

  1980

  Total

  2,266

  100·0

  3·9

  I

  132

  5·8

  3·2

  II

  384

  16·9

  3·1

  IIIN

  212

  9·4

  3·4

  IIIM

  748

  33·0

  3·5

  IV

  424

  18·7

  4·8

  V

  204

  9·0

  6·2

  Other

  162

  7·1

  8·1

  1981

  Total

  2,167

  100·0

  3·9

  I

  128

  5·9

  3·1

  221

  Social class

  Number

  Per cent. of total

  Rate

  II

  329

  15·2

  2·7

  IIIN

  181

  8·4

  3·0

  IIIM

  777

  35·9

  3·9

  IV

  384

  17·7

  4·8

  V

  223

  10·3

  7·1

  Other

  145

  6·7

  7·7

  1982

  Total

  2,131

  100·0

  4·0

  107

  5·0

  2·6

  II

  390

  18·3

  3·3

  IIIN

  193

  9·1

  3·3

  IIIM

  734

  34·4

  3·9

  IV

  363

  17·0

  4·6

  V

  201

  9·4

  6·5

  Other

  143

  6·7

  7·1

  1983

  Total

  2,045

  100·0

  3·9

  I

  96

  4·7

  2·5

  II

  353

  17·3

  3·0

  IIIN

  166

  8·1

  2·9

  IIIM

  694

  33·9

  3·7

  IV

  393

  19·2

  5·1

  V

  182

  8·9

  5·8

  Other

  161

  7·9

  7·7

  1984

  Total

  1,793

  100·0

  3·4

  I

  88

  4·9

  2·2

  II

  305

  17·0

  2·6

  IIIN

  180

  10·0

  3·1

  IIIM

  593

  33·1

  3·2

  IV

  308

  17·2

  4·0

  V

  170

  9·5

  5·7

  Other

  149

  8·3

  6·7

  1985

  Total

  1,781

  100·0

  3·4

  I

  95

  5·3

  2·4

  II

  335

  18·8

  2·8

  IIIN

  144

  8·1

  2·6

  IIIM

  592

  33·2

  3·2

  IV

  301

  16·9

  4·0

  V

  158

  8·9

  5·2

  Other

  156

  8·8

  6·2

  Note: Post neonatal mortality rate: deaths at age 28 days and over but under 1 year per 1,000 live births.

  General Practice Finance Corporation
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services on what date the annual report of the General Practice Finance Corporation was(a) received by his Department and (b) made public, in each of the financial years 1966–67 to 1985–86.

  Mrs. Currie
  Information about the date that the corporation's report was sent to the Department is readily available only for the last two years, but I am able to supply the publication date in each of the years in question.

  Financial Year

  Date Annual Report sent to the Department

  Date Annual Report published

  1966–67

  —

  23 October 1967

  1967–68

  —

  3 December 1968

  1968–69

  —

  13 October 1969

  1969–70

  —

  21 July 1970

  1970–71

  —

  26 July 1971

  1971–72

  —

  31 July 1972

  222

  Financial Year

  Date Annual Report sent to the Department

  Date Annual Report published

  1972–73

  —

  25 July 1973

  1973–74

  —

  19 November 1974

  1974–75

  —

  28 July 1975

  1975–76

  —

  5 August 1976

  1976–77

  —

  28 July 1977

  1977–78

  —

  20 July 1978

  1978–79

  —

  23 July 1979

  1979–80

  —

  29 July 1980

  1980–81

  —

  28 July 1981

  1981–82

  —

  26 July 1982

  1982–83

  —

  26 July 1983

  1983–84

  —

  25 July 1984

  1984–85

  17 June 1985

  22 July 1985

  1985–86

  20 June 1986

  22 July 1986

  Private Patients and Clinics
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will publish for each district health authority the net income from private patients and clinics in 1986 under sections 65, 66 and 58 of the National Health Service Act 1977; if he will publish, for each district health authority, the amounts written off as bad debts under sections 65, 66 and 58 of the National Health Service Act 1977; and if he will give the regional totals for 1985.

  Mrs. Currie
  [holding answer 18 January 1988]: A table giving the information requested has now been placed in the Library.

  Income Support
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many gainers and losers he assesses there will be from the introduction of income support in April for(a) single pensioners under 80 years, (b) single pensioners over 80 years, (c) pensioner couples under 80 years, (d) pensioner couples over 80 years, (e) single unemployed under 25 years, (f) single unemployed over 25 years, (g) unemployed couples with children and (h) single parent families.

  Mr. Scott
  [holding answer 18 January 1988]: The information is in the table. It is comparable with tables 1A and 2A of the "Impact of the Reformed Structure of Income-Related Benefits", a copy of which is in the Library. The explanatory notes to those tables apply equally to this.

  People on Income Support: Change in disposable income after meeting housing costs. Cash position at point of change.

  Increased

  No change

  Decreased

  Single pensioners under 80 years

  570,000

  360,000

  1—

  Single pensioners under 80 years

  210,000

  190,000

  1—

  Pensioner couples over 80 years

  140,000

  130,000

  1—

  Pensioner couples over 80 years

  20,000

  20,000

  1—

  Single unemployed under 25 years

  540,000

  160,000

  10,000

  Single unemployed over 25 years

  310,000

  280,000

  1—

  Unemployed couples with children

  460,000

  40,000

  1—

  Single Parent families

  380,000

  220,000

  1—

  223

  1 Denotes figures of less than 5,000

  Note: Boarders are not included: they cannot be categorised in this way.

  Windscale (1957 Fire)
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether his Department retains any unpublished files, information and reports in connection with the 1957 Windscale fire; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  [holding answer 18 January 1988]: National arrangements for dealing with the fire at Windscale and for subsequent action did not directly involve the then Ministry of Health; radiation protection advice at that time came from the Medical Research Council and the Department is in possession of no original papers on the subject.

  Neighbourhood Nursing Schemes
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list those district health authorities which operate neighbourhood nursing schemes.

  Mr. Newton
  [holding answer 18 January 1988]: I regret that the information is not held centrally.

  Infertility
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list the names of(a) organisations and (b) individuals who responded to his Department's consultation document, Cm. 46, "Legislation on Human Infertility Services and Embryo Research", published in December 1986.

  Mr. Newton
  [holding answer 20 January 1988]: Detailed responses were sent to the Department by the 158 organisations listed as follows and by 40 individuals. The other health departments also received comments. The list indicates those organisations whose submissions have been placed in the Library. Clearance is being sought to make similar arrangements for the remaining organisations.

  LIST OF ORGANISATIONS RESPONDING TO THE CONSULTATION PAPER: "LEGISLATION ON HUMAN FERTILITY SERVICES AND EMBRYO RESEARCH" (CM 46)
  (The responses of organisations marked with an asterisk have been placed in the Library of the House)

  Medical

  Association of Clinical Cytogeneticists

  Birmingham University, Department of Obstetrics & Gynaecology*

  Bourn Hall Clinic, Cambridge*

  British Fertility Society

  British Medical Association*

  British Medical Association, General Medical Services Committee*

  British Pregnancy Advisory Service*

  British Psychological Society

  British Society for Developmental Biology

  Brook Advisory Centres*

  Committee of Directors of Polytechnics*

  Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals*

  Doctors who respect Human Life*

  Family Planning Association*

  General Medical Council"

  Guild of Catholic Doctors*

  Hallam Medical Centre*

  Hammersmith Hospital Infertility Clinic*

  Humana Hospital Wellington, IVF Unit*

  224

  Joint Coordinating Committee Medical Defence Unions*

  Leeds University, Dept. of Obstetrics & Gynaecology*

  Leicester University, Dept. of Obstetrics & Gynaecology*

  London Independent Hospital*

  Medical Research Council*

  Medical Women's Federation*

  National Association of Family Planning Doctors*

  National Perinatal Epipemiology Unit

  Oxford University, Nuffield Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology*

  Paediatric Research Unit

  Park Hospital, Nottingham*

  Royal College of General Practitioners*

  Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists*

  Royal College of Physicians*

  Royal College of Surgeons*

  Royal Society*

  Sandwell DGH, Obstetrics & Gynaecology Division

  Sheffield University, Dept. of Obstetrics & Gynaecology*

  University Grants Committee"

  Voluntary Licensing Authority*

  Wessex Regional Medical Advisory Committee (O&G)

  York University, Dept. of Biology*

  Nursing

  Central Birmingham Health Authority (Nursing Staff)

  Health Visitors Association*

  Health Visitors Association (Thames Valley Branch)

  Mid-Downs DHA (Nursing Staff)

  Mid-Staffordshire Health Authority (Nursing Staff)

  Royal College of Midwives*

  Royal College of Nursing*

  Southmead Hospital (Senior Midwives)

  South West Surrey DHA (Nursing Staff)

  South West Thames Regional Professional Advisory Committee for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting

  Social Work

  Association of Child Psychotherapists

  British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering*

  British Association for Social Work (BASW)

  CHILD*

  Child Care and Development Group (University of Cambridge)

  Childcare*

  Childrens Legal Centre*

  Childrens Society

  East Anglia Adoption and Family Care Association

  Institute of Population Studies, Exeter*

  Maternity Alliance*

  MENCAP*

  National Association for Maternal and Child Welfare*

  National Association for the Childless*

  National Association for the Childless (Norfolk Branch)

  National Childrens Bureau

  National Organisation for Counselling of Adoptees and Parents (NORC)*

  Nottinghamshire County Council, Social Services Department

  One Parent Families*

  Parent to Parent Information on Adoption Services

  Suffolk County Council, Social Services Department

  Legal

  Association of Lawyers for the Defence of the Unborn*

  Council on Tribunals*

  Family Division of the High Court of Justice*

  Family Law Bar Association*

  Solicitors Family Law Association*

  Religious

  Baptist Union*

  Brownhill United Reform Church

  CARE Campaigns

  Catholic Bishops Joint Committee on Bio-Ethical Issues*

  Catholic Womens League*

  Christian Action Group, Leicestershire

  Christian Concern for Plymouth/Peverell Community Church

  225

  Christian Medical Fellowship*

  Church of England, Board for Social Responsibility*

  Clinical Theology Association

  Diocese of Chichester, Board for Social Responsibility

  Diocese of Oxford, Board for Social Responsibility

  Fellowship of Independant Evangelical Churches

  Free Church Federal Council*

  Ivy Cottage Evangelical Church

  League of Jewish Women*

  Methodist Church, Division of Social Responsibility*

  Mothers Union*

  National Board of Catholic Women

  Order of Christian Unity*

  Renewal Christian Centre

  Saffron Walden Constituency Prayer Group

  Salvation Army*

  St. Boniface Church Parish Council, Southampton

  St. Michaels RC Church Care Committee

  St. Peters Parochial Church Council, Bucks

  Stafford and District Council of Churches

  Sunderland South Constituency Prayer Group

  Surbiton Christian Response

  NHS

  Burnley Pendle and Rossendale CHC

  Central Manchester Health Authority

  Central Nottinghamshire CHC

  Coventry CHC

  East Anglian RHA*

  Hammersmith SHA

  Lancaster Health Authority

  Mersey RHA*

  Newcastle CHC

  North Tyneside CHC

  North Warwickshire Health Authority

  North West Thames RHA*

  North Western RHA*

  Northern RHA*

  Peterborough CHC

  Preston CHC

  Rochdale CHC

  Sandwell DGH (Ethics Committee)

  Solihull DGH

  South East Thames RHA*

  South Manchester Health Authority

  South Western RHA*

  Trent RHA*

  Wessex RHA*

  West Midlands RHA*

  West Norfolk and Wisbech CHC

  Other bodies

  All-Party Parliamentary Pro-Life Group*

  Association of Genealogists and Record Agents

  Birmingham Reproductive Rights and Abortion Group

  British Federation of University Women

  British Federation of University Women (N.E. Association)

  British Housewive's League

  British Humanist Association

  Type of hospital: Geriatric

  Health district

  1982–83 (£s)

  1983–84 (£s)

  1984–85 (£s)

  1985–86 (£s)

  1986–87 (£s)

  North Derbyshire

  1,938,369

  1,891,141

  2,060,668

  2,110,109

  2,162,757

  South Derbyshire

  4,227,006

  4,491,060

  4,594,986

  4,791,763

  4,973,201

  Leicestershire

  4,305,544

  4,565,233

  4,756,529

  5,092,452

  5,573,483

  North Lincolnshire

  179,473

  50,482

  —

  —

  —

  South Lincolnshire

  1,322,352

  1,320,771

  1,341,036

  1,413,469

  1,563,875

  Bassetlaw

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Central Nottingham

  1,365,941

  1,350,439

  1,405,112

  1,537,890

  1,674,045

  Nottingham

  5,797,026

  5,584,392

  5,309,095

  5,334,949

  11,433,782

  Barnsley

  1,728,603

  1,894,737

  2,002,620

  2,017,793

  2,219,033

  Doncaster

  1,228,744

  1,313,241

  1,378,398

  1,410,566

  1,506,579

  Rotherham

  1,814,795

  1,959,563

  2,186,568

  2,360,767

  2,508,066

  Sheffield

  1,045,420

  1,300,031

  1,441,894

  1,540,155

  1,659,115

  1 Expenditure reduced due to closure of hospital

  226

  Campaign for Homosexual Equality*

  Conservative Family Campaign

  FINRRAGE

  Lewisham Green Party

  LIFE*

  LIFE (N.E. Surrey Branch)

  National Federation of Women's Institutes*

  National Union of Townswomen's Guilds*

  PROGRESS*

  Sheffield Family Concern

  Society of Genealogists

  Soroptimist International (Hastings and Bexhill)

  SPUC*

  SPUC (Bradford Branch)

  Tuberous Sclerosis Association of Great Britain

  United Kingdom Federation of Business and Professional Women

  Womens Health Information Centre

  Womens Reproductive Rights Information Centre*

  York Womens Reproductive Rights Campaign

  Psychogeriatric Patients
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) if he will give the levels of spending on psychogeriatric patients, of all the area health authorities in the Trent region for each year from 1979 to 1987, inclusive;

  (2) if he will give the levels of spending on geriatric patients for all the area health authorities in the Trent region for each year from 1979 to 1987, inclusive;

  (3) if he will give the levels of spending on the mentally handicapped of all the area health authorities in the Trent region for each year from 1979 to 1987, inclusive;

  (4) if he will give the levels of spending on the mentally ill of all the area health authorities in the Trent Region for each year from 1979 to 1987, inclusive.

  Mrs. Currie
  [holding answer 15 January 1988]: Information on health authority expenditure by type of patient is not collected centrally. Hospital cost returns submitted to the Department show expenditure on hospitals of different types and cost returns in respect of community health services show expenditure relating to the major areas of activity.

  Hospital cost returns submitted by district health authorities in the Trent region, since their inception on 1 April 1982, show total current expenditure on hospitals categorised as geriatric, mental handicap and mental illness as follows (nil expenditure indicates that a district had no hospitals in that particular category during the year).
  227

  Type of hospital: mental handicap

  Health district

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  11985–86

  11986–87

  North Derbyshire

  3,760,460

  3,854,884

  3,978,758

  4,128 160

  4,681,143

  South Derbyshire

  4,202,289

  4,225,978

  4,626,664

  4,690 461

  4,937,146

  Leicestershire

  6,496,328

  6,947,855

  7,285,903

  7,554 433

  8,185,386

  North Lincolnshire

  4,650,608

  4,765,020

  5,111,489

  23,836,817

  3,682,726

  South Lincolnshire

  2,292,253

  2,820,998

  3,034,981

  3,239 575

  3,787,246

  Bassetlaw

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Central Notts

  4,506,470

  4,740,308

  4,850,758

  9,682,446

  10,428,017

  Nottingham

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Barnsley

  —

  —

  594,870

  1,066,991

  1,314,513

  Doncaster

  3,542,812

  3,551,173

  3,728,446

  3,756,358

  3,610,210

  Rotherham

  818,942

  886,983

  794,973

  790,732

  875,333

  Sheffield

  5,219,160

  5,183,987

  5,603,047

  7,186,103

  7,383,766

  1 Includes expenditure on National Health Service Community Units for the mentally handicapped.

  2 Expenditure reduced due to transfer of a hospital to Grimsby Health Authority.

  Type of hospital: mental Illness

  Expenditure (£s)

  Health district

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  North Derbyshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  South Derbyshire

  12,777,177

  13,285,772

  13,788,416

  14,377,703

  14,966,212

  Leicestershire

  13,174,162

  14,320,593

  13,823,662

  13,633,952

  15,026,698

  North Lincolnshire

  7,643,349

  7,652,187

  8,110,451

  8,138,261

  8,585,737

  South Lincolnshire

  4,510,549

  4,262,967

  5,830,970

  5,024,503

  5,199,335

  Bassetlaw

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Central Notts

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Nottingham

  14,674,232

  14,957,211

  14,615,781

  14,561,423

  15,232,277

  Barnsley

  1,230,817

  1,221,006

  1,456,774

  1,775,115

  1,894,087

  Doncaster

  1,186,001

  1,274,749

  1,338,424

  1,679,227

  1,734,360

  Rotherham

  485,542

  505,659

  1—

  1,454,723

  1,734,831

  Sheffield

  9,965,152

  10,355,025

  10,676,196

  13,726,853

  14,417,279

  1 Nil expenditure in 1984-85 due to closure of one hospital in 1983–84 and opening of new hospital in 1985–86.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations he has made to the Government of Gibraltar on behalf of Northern Ireland investors with International Investments Limited, Gibraltar; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stanley
  My right hon. Friend has made no representations. This matter is essentially one for the Government of Gibraltar. Certain aspects are the subject of inquiries by the RUC.

  Anglo-Irish Agreement
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many district councils have been requested by the Department of the Environment to remove signs which express opposition to the Anglo-Irish Agreement; why this form of expression is being denied; what has been the cost of this work by the Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  Ten district councils have been requested to remove advertisements being displayed in contravention of the Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1973. In exercising its powers under these regulations the Department has regard solely to the suitability of the locations for the display of advertisements and does not take into account the content of the advertisements. It is 228
  not possible to identify the costs of dealing with particular unauthorised advertisements within the Department's overall action on such advertisements.

  Nuclear Waste
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what consultations he has had or proposes to have with Nirex regarding nuclear waste disposal into or under the Irish sea.

  Mr. Needham
  UK Nirex Ltd. recently published a discussion document "The Way Forward" a copy of which is available in the Library, which sets out the options for future disposal of nuclear waste. Following receipt of comments it expects to be in a position in about a year's time to recommend to Government one or more sites worthy of further investigation. Consultations with UK Nirex Ltd. before it has made a recommendation would not be productive.

  Amusement Machines
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will review the regulations relating to the establishment of amusement arcades in Northern Ireland containing fruit machines, slot machines and video machines, with a view to restricting their proliferation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  These regulations, which are contained in the Betting, Gaming, Lotteries and Amusements (Northern Ireland) Order 1985 and the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Northern Ireland) Order 1985, have been in operation only since 1986. I have no
  229
  plans to review them until there has been adequate experience of their operation, and there is a clear indication of a need to do so.

  Domestic Assistance
  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people were receiving domestic assistance additional requirements as part of their supplementary benefit in each year from 1981–82 to 1986–87.

  Mr. Needham
  Actual numbers are not known but, based on a 5 per cent. sample, it is estimated that some 213 people were receiving an addition for this purpose in May 1987. Reliable estimates are not available for earlier years.

  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will provide a breakdown of the number of domestic assistance additional requirements paid by each social security office in Northern Ireland for each year from 1981–82 to 1986–87.

  Mr. Needham
  I regret that a reliable breakdown is not available.

  Free Milk
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many children under five years of age and cared for by registered childminders are currently in receipt of free milk; and how many childminders are involved.

  Mr. Needham
  A total of 371 children and 148 childminders.

  Single Payments (Abolition)
  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the effect on the average income of pensioners in Northern Ireland in 1988–89 of the abolition of single payments.

  Mr. Needham
  Pensioners on income support will have access to the social fund when single payments are abolished in April 1988. As it is not known how many pensioners are likely to claim and receive social fund grants it is not possible to predict the effect on average income in 1988–89.

  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the total savings he expects to make in benefit payments in 1988–89 from the abolition of single payments and the introduction of the social fund.

  Mr. Needham
  It is estimated that savings will amount to some £7·45 millions after taking account of partial recovery of loans.

  Security
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the current security position.

  Mr. Tom King
  During 1987 a total of 468 people were charged with serious offences including 28 with murder. In the same period 267 weapons, almost 20,000 rounds of ammunition and about 13,000 lbs of explosives were 230
  recovered. Six hundred and seventy-nine people were convicted during 1987 of offences related to terrorism. Security policy is continually kept under review but the threat remains high. On 21 January I announced new arrangements for the deployment of security forces in border areas. The courageous and determined efforts of the security forces are continuing to yield results.

  Lignite
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what studies have been made or commissioned by his Department on the pollution caused by the burning of lignite coal.

  Mr. Needham
  There is ample precedent in West Germany and elsewhere for burning lignite as fuel in power stations. Any new power stations in Northern Ireland would be required to meet the emission standards for sulphur dioxide nitrogen oxides and particulates specified by the Northern Ireland alkali and radiochemical inspectorate. These standards would reflect the latest abatement technology, national policy, and the need for compliance with EC directives.

  Security (Belfast)
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the security situation in central Belfast.

  Mr. Tom King
  Security policy in Northern Ireland is continually kept under review and the security forces are determined to prevent the terrorists from carrying out their campaign to disrupt life and destroy property in central Belfast and other major towns. The Provisional IRA carried out a bomb attack at the magistrates' court near the city centre on 9 January. The area had been cleared, damage to property was largely superficial and there were no injuries. The court resumed sitting as usual the following Monday morning.

  Supplementary Benefit
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the future of the present supplementary benefit residence test.

  Mr. Needham
  From April 1988 the residence test will not feature in the income support scheme as it would not be fully consistent with EC law and with the European social charter. However, adequate measures will continue to be taken to safeguard against abuse of public funds.

  Cross-border Co-operation
  Sir John Biggs-Davison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made in obtaining cross-border co-operation with the Irish Army and Air Corps; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stanley
  Both the RUC and the Garda make use of the respective armed forces supporting them in working co-operatively to improve security across the border. A notable example of this occurred during the major search operation that was conducted in the Republic with support in the Province last December. Procedures also exist wherby in the course of clearing suspected or actual
  231
  explosive devices on or near the border ammunition technical officers from the British and Irish armies may by invitation cross the border to facilitate their duties.

  Trawsfynydd Power Station, North Wales
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he was first advised of the proposed experimental shutdown on 12 February at Trawsfynydd power station in north Wales; what precautions are being taken in Northern Ireland; what are the implications of this experiment for Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 22 January 1988]: This is a matter for which Northern Ireland Government
  232
  Departments have no direct responsibility. I understand that a proposal has been submitted to the nuclear installations inspectorate by the Central Electricity Generating Board to carry out a test at Trawsfynydd power station.

  In Northern Ireland there is continuous monitoring to identify potential radiological hazards, to determine appropriate remedial measures, and to provide advice and information to the public. The proposed test is not expected to have any particular implications for Northern Ireland.

  As the Prime Minister indicated during Question Time in the House on 19 January the CEGB proposal would not involve the suspension of any safety mechanisms at the Trawsfynydd plant.

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

Engineering Council's Education Proposals
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: 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 are their intentions towards the Engineering Council's proposals Radical Ideas on Educational Fronts.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Education and Science (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, the Engineering Council has recently published two documents, one titled Restructuring of Engineering Higher Education and the other, Continuing Education and Training—a national system for engineering. The Government welcome these initiatives and await the outcome of responses with interest.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. May I ask her this question? In view of the work that the Engineering Council is doing in the field of education, especially among young people in the engineering world, will she ask her right honourable friend to say thank you to the Engineering Council for the great work it is doing?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, we have had occasion to say thank you already. Last week I was at the launch of a pilot project which is supported by the Department of Education and Science through a programme called Pickup which is based upon an initiative by the Engineering Council. It gave me a suitable forum for saying thank you on that particular front.
Baroness David: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in the discussion document Restructuring of Engineering Higher Education produced by the Engineering Council, one of the theme songs is the need to have more engineering students, particularly women? Is the Minister further aware that of 19,000 engineering students in 1986, only 2,000 of them were women? Are the Government going to respond in such a way that will encourage more students and more women?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that question. On all fronts the Government are encouraging the easier access of women to the professions and to kinds of work which were not normally feminine occupations. The Government have taken action to increase the number of engineering and technology places in
490
higher education through their engineering technology and HITECC programmes. The Government are concerned about a reported shortfall in the take-up of places on engineering courses; but we believe that our proposals on education reform will achieve a great deal to increase the awareness and ability of young people in the relevant subjects. They will also involve employers and industrialists.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, like many other professions, engineers and those engaged in engineering technology are going to depend a great deal upon computers? It is engineers who train engineers and architects who train architects; therefore ought it not now to be the policy of the Government that computer experts should train computer students?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the various initiatives taken by the Government, particularly in terms of the proposals for a national curriculum, are intended to ensure that computer knowledge is widespread across all fields of education.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, one situation that we do not want is more and more engineers with less and less ability to express themselves coherently in grammatical English.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I believe that not only the Government but the Engineering Council will subscribe to that.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is the Minister aware—and I am sure the whole House will agree with this—there is a shortage of well-qualified engineers in this country, and that they are essential for the future of the country? It was good to hear the Minister say that the Government are aware of the shortfall. The following point has been brought out in a number of exchanges and debates in this House. Is it not the case that engineers are badly paid compared with other professions, and that the average wage of a qualified engineer compares very badly with lawyers, architects, the medical profession—and certainly with pop singers and other "show-biz" representatives? Would the noble Baroness say what the Government are doing to improve the conditions and pay of the engineering profession?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am not sure what to say about that matter since my father was an engineer. It is for the engineering industry to be concerned about pay. The Government can do all that is possible for them to do in terms of ensuring that the engineering workforce is properly prepared and educated. It is then for the employers and the industry to ensure that they get the best possible people to perform the jobs by offering the best possible salaries.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, would the Minister agree with this view? If the Government are serious about wanting to get more women into engineering

491
and back into the labour market, they have to make it far easier for women who wish to return to work to be encouraged and helped in a variety of ways. For example, the limitation put upon women going for training under the adult training scheme that they are not registered as unemployed and therefore are not eligible for training grant is a quite unnecessary obstacle.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, all I can say is that the access courses which are being supported by the Government in various institutions are designed primarily to ensure that discrimination should not take place.
Baroness David: My Lords, as the Engineering Council has recognised that there must be some restructuring of higher education (because, it says, of lack or resources given by the Government) may I ask when the response will be given to the Engineering Council by the Government so that it can make its forward planning?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, in the conclusions of the document published by the Engineering Council on restructuring of higher education, resources were not referred to at all. But I understand that the responses are expected to be finally in at the end of April, at which time we can assess the situation.
Baroness David: My Lords, lack of resources was mentioned in the document, if not in the conclusions.
Lord Annan: My Lords, would it not help if more universities followed the admirable example of those universities which were colleges of advanced technology and had sandwich courses for those in engineering departments? Is not this something which would bring the student earlier into contact with the realities of industrial life?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, we recognise the many advantages of the type of course to which the noble Lord refers. Our aim is to start at a very early age in inspiring young people to find interest in occupations such as engineering by involvement with employers and industry in the education process in schools and colleges. However, it is for the higher education planning bodies, the UGC, and the National Advisory Board to advise the Government on what action should be appropriate as a consequence.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the University of Essex has a highly esteemed engineering department?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am well aware that the University of Essex has many highly esteemed departments.

Statues: Codes of Practice
2.45 p.m.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: 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, whenever a government Bill contains provisions for a code of practice, they will incorporate in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum to the Bill an explanation of the legal effect, if any, of that code.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Cameron of Lochbroom): My Lords, as noble Lords will know, we have recently issued guidance to departments on the drafting of statutory provisions relating to codes of practice. The guidance is intended to ensure that the legal effect, if any, of a code should now be apparent from the provision under which it is made. While I would expect that the passage in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum referring to that provision would normally refer briefly to the legal effect, I do not see any need for the memorandum to duplicate such an explanation.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for that positive Answer. I also thank him for his responsiveness to a debate in this House which called for clarification of the drafting of codes of practice. Might I ask the noble and learned Lord whether the paragraph in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum on Clause 27 of the Local Government Bill now before this House should not be the model for the future? If he has been good enough to do that for this particular Bill, I cannot understand—and may I ask him why —he cannot do the same for future Bills as well. It would he a great help to legislators.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: My Lords, I am grateful for what the noble Lord said. I pay particular tribute to him and to other noble Lords who took part in that debate as being a spur to the provision of the guidance which is now in the Library of the House. I take the point that the noble Lord has just put to me, and indeed he has referred to the very Bill that we are looking at this afternoon.
The content of a memorandum is obviously the responsibility of the Minister who promotes the Bill. It may well be that the terms of the provision itself make quite clear what the legal effect is. This will be a matter for the Minister promoting the Bill to consider, but I shall certainly draw the attention of colleagues to the point that the noble Lord has made this afternoon.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, how does one draft an indictment for breach of a code of conduct, and who tries it?
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: My Lords, I think I would be slow to give the noble Lord advice on the drafting of indictments. I can simply say that I should look to the offence provisions to find the means whereby any offence is to be set out.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, is not one of the difficulties of this that codes of practice are somewhat indeterminate bits of the law? For instance, a breach of the code of practice under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act on the part of a police officer can result in disciplinary proceedings against him, but when one comes to recollect measures like the ancient highway code where this business of indeterminate bits of the law started, breaches of the highway code do not have the force of law but of course they can be taken into account in legal proceedings. It is not a very satisfactory position either for Parliament or for the citizen.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: My Lords, I think I would he slow to be drawn further than what I have said already this afternoon, despite the blandishments of the noble and learned Lord. What we are dealing with is what the trigger clause will say, and that will make quite clear what the legal effect, if any, is to be of the code of guidance or code of practice to be issued under it.

Social Fund Regulations: Funding
2.49 p.m.
Lord Moyne: 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 how it is proposed under the new social fund regulations to assess the availability of other sources of funding whether from charities or relatives.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Skelmersdale): My Lords, other sources of funding as described in my noble friend's Question only arise in the case of crisis loans. The provision in the social fund manual is similar to the one under which the existing urgent needs payments are made. The social fund manual expressly says that applicants should only he directed to other sources of funding provided:
"that there is a realistic expectation that help would be available and available in time, if the applicant were to seek it".
Lord Moyne: My Lords, in thanking my noble friend for his Answer, may I ask whether he can assure the House that the new arrangements will not result in applicants, who may be neither very capable nor very mobile, having to hurry from pillar to post, from one charity to another, or to their relatives, before the social fund officer can consider their case?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I should like to make it clear to my noble friend and to the House that there is absolutely no question of applicants being pushed from pillar to post. 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 local 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.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, would it not be simpler if the Minister were to ask his right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to put some more of his spare money into the social fund rather than expecting charities to subsidise the DHSS?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, that is a possibility which is always in the forefront of the minds of noble Lords opposite. As I have made quite clear, there is no question of expecting charities to subsidise the state in this way. Only if a suitable local charity exists which has the money or service available will it be an appropriate source of help.
Lord Carter: My Lords, is it correct that the guidance manual for the social fund includes a recommendation that a claimant should be directed towards the use of credit cards? If that is the case, will the Minister comment on a recent report from the National Consumer Council which drew attention to the rapacity of the banks and credit card companies in the interest rates they charge?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, this confusion probably exists because it is not generally realised that crisis loans are available to any member of the public, not just to those on benefit. It is therefore necessary to have regard to all possible methods of repayment. In some cases—I accept by no means all—a credit card may be appropriate.
Lord Carter: My Lords, if that is the case, have the Government given any consideration to the sources of finance which are more traditional for the poor; for example, the pawnbroker and the money lender?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I have already explained that we are talking not only about the poor and those on benefits. The loans are available to any Member of your Lordships' House and to any member of the public; therefore an appropriate means of repayment has to be ascertained in each case.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, the noble Lord did not answer the second point in his noble friend's question in relation to relatives. Is it intended that people should be encouraged to go to their aged aunts to ask for money before going to the social fund?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, "relatives" means immediate relatives and certainly not aged aunts. What is important to realise is that when an application is made there will be an interview by the social fund officer of the applicant. One of the questions that will be asked at the interview is whether the applicant has access to other funds from his or her immediate relatives. If the answer is no—and only the applicant can answer that question—the subject will be dropped.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, as an aged aunt I am anxious to know the degree of consanguinity which will give me responsibility for the excesses of all my nieces and nephews. How close is a close relative in this context?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, it depends on how far away they live.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, has not the Minister made it very clear that what he is talking about are the rights of all citizens? Having regard to the rights of all citizens, how does he reconcile what he says with how the citizen in question will feel if directed to go to a particular charity and appeal in a Dickensian manner for assistance?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I do not think that "a Dickensian manner" would apply to organisations such as the Aberfan Disaster Fund. The charity involved would depend upon the circumstances. One obvious possibility is where a disaster fund is already in existence to meet claims arising from a particular tragedy. There are sometimes local charities which provide grants or services to people in need. For example, if there is a flood in Buckinghamshire and the local WRVS is providing blankets, there seems to be little point in the social fund making duplicate provision.

Persian Gulf: Naval Co-operation
2.55 p.m.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied with the degree of co-operation between naval forces in the Persian Gulf.
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, yes. Satisfactory arrangements have been developed both locally and between capitals for co-operation. Although the Royal Navy's Armilla patrol remains a wholly national operation, the United Kingdom remains committed to close and effective co-ordination with other friendly navies operating in the Gulf.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Can he say whether the Government are satisfied with the level of intelligence co-operation in the Gulf between the various naval forces? Are they aware of the need to try to prevent the attacks made on military and civil shipping by rendering inoperable the bases from where they are made?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, as the noble Lord will be aware, we never discuss in detail our intelligence arrangements. However, the noble Lord may be assured that the more general answer that I have already given applies to the particular.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether in his view it is really out of the question for the Security Council to constitute some force under the auspices of the United Nations for patrolling the Gulf, which of course it is fully entitled to do under the United Nations Charter? If so, will they consider urging Sir Brian Urquhart to rejoin the United Nations for a period in order to preside over such an admirable operation?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, we have no difficulty in principle with the idea of a United Nations force. Indeed, we contribute to United Nations forces of other kinds around the world. However, we see very considerable practical difficulties in the way of a United Nations naval force of the kind that I think the noble Lord has in mind. There has never been such a force, as I am sure the noble Lord will be aware, and the difficulties of forming and operating one are formidable.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, is this not, then, the best opportunity to commence?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, there are powerful arguments against commencing something which is almost certain to prove impossible.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that according to reports in the newspapers there appears to have been a lapse in the threat from mining and that, to some extent. the threat has now switched to fast patrol boats armed with surface-to-surface missiles? If this is true, are we co-ordinating activities between the various allied nations in that part of the world against this threat as well as we did against the mining threat?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, my noble friend is certainly right when he says that the threat faced by our forces and indeed by the other forces in the region is a continually changing one. My noble friend may be assured that we keep the changing threat under careful and continuous review and adjust our arrangements accordingly.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, is not the position in the Gulf that every single warship there is subject only to the commands of its own government and that its duty is to provide for its own security? In the circumstances, are we not astonishingly lucky, and have we not much on which to congratulate the command there, that ships have not sunk each other yet?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, pointed out, there is considerable interchange of information between the commanders on the spot to avoid just the eventuality that the noble Lord anticipates.
Lord Irving of Dartford: My Lords, can the noble Lord confirm that a decision has been taken to reduce the number of Royal Navy minesweepers in the Gulf and to co-ordinate the operations of those that remain with the Belgian and Dutch ships? Following the call from the commander of the French naval forces in the Gulf for his ships to protect merchant ships of all flags, can Her Majesty's Government say whether any plans to change the rules of engagement have been issued to our forces in the area?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, as the noble Lord will be aware, we do not discuss in detail the rules of engagement issued to our forces on the spot. But, so

497
far as I am aware, there has been no recent change in those rules of engagement. As for the earlier part of the noble Lord's question, the answer is, no.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree, however, that in the Gulf, as in Lebanon, the Americans take unilateral action and European governments are dragged in one by one without any apparent co-ordination of policy? Would he say whether the Government are satisfied with this? Have they raised questions of policy co-ordination early on, and did they do so in the Western European Union?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that we have not been dragged in, as the noble Lord says, by anyone. We are there because we chose to be there to protect British shipping and other qualified vessels.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, further to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing—I understand that I cannot expect a detailed answer—might some consideration be given to rendering inoperable the bases from which these very venomous attacks are made on naval and civil shipping, causing so much damage?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, we are there to try to reduce the temperature, not to increase it. I am not sure that the course that the noble Lord proposes would necessarily contribute to that end. We are anxious to ensure, so far as we can, that British shipping and the other vessels that are qualified for the protection of British forces in the area get as much protection as we can provide. But we are not concerned to raise the temperature of the situation in the way that the noble Lord's action might.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, as the Soviet Union has been urging a United Nations force for the last six months, can the noble Lord state what are the reasons which make him think that it might be impossible to get one?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, that is, if I may say so, a very comprehensive question. The answer would be a somewhat lengthy one, perhaps unduly trespassing upon your Lordships' Question Time. But for example, co-ordinating rules of engagement would be a very difficult matter.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for your Lordships' convenience to know that the Committee stage of the Local Government Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7.30 p.m. for approximately one hour and that during this adjournment the Code of Local Government Audit Practice for England and Wales and the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) Order 1988 will be taken.
Liverpool Exchange Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
City of Westminster Bill
Read a second time, and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.

Local Government Bill
3.3 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Caithness.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Defined authorities]:
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 9, at end insert ("or designated authority, as the case may be").
The noble Lord said: I understand that in the groupings Amendment No. 4 is coupled with Amendment No. 1, and with the Committee's permission I shall speak to both amendments at this point. The purpose of the amendments is to provide for some local flexibility instead of the blanket competition regime which the Bill imposes. It would permit some local variation in the competition. This would be entirely subject to the Secretary of State's approval.
We believe that the need for the amendments arises because the Bill does not recognise that local authorities are at different stages with competition—some already have experience of it—that it would be far more efficient if local authorities were given the chance to proceed on the basis of the current state of the art locally, and that where problems with competition arose, probably of a minor nature, the authority should be able to apply to the Secretary of State for a variation order to allow it to cope with the problem in the most practicable way.
Authorities will have to proceed with competition on a uniform basis. The consultation paper issued by the Department of the Environment on the phasing of competition under various defined activities made it clear that these would be phased in, not in relation to the local authorities' present position but simply by reference to alphabetical order, which I suggest is not the best way of proceeding. This could create some rather absurd situations. For example, authorities may well have a fully detailed specification and have measured items in respect of ground maintenance, but nevertheless will be

499
required to implement competition on, say, catering before that. This amendment would allow them to put a scheme to the Secretary of State so that they could substitute one activity for the other.
In addition, the amendments allow for flexibility so that account could be taken of the views of the local contracting industry. Contractors may be geared up for a particular service, but may find that authorities have put out to tender another service simply because of the listing in alphabetical order. In addition, authorities may have some practical experience on tendering in some of the service areas. Often it is the case that local authorities will have engaged in competition on some parts of their service delivery, and surely it would make sense if they were allowed to enter further competition in this area rather than have to start new areas once again because of the alphabetical listing.
Another major consideration is the way in which local authorities are decentralising their services and attempting to go local on a corporate basis. If these amendments were agreed, authorities would be able to put a scheme to the Secretary of State whereby they could tender across a range of service areas on a neighbourhood or area basis, rather than have to arrange their tendering by function and completely foul up the development of a corporate local approach.
It is extremely worrying that the Bill as drafted does not provide for any formal system for local authorities to seek a variation in the competition arrangements in the light of subsequent experience. It is unlikely that it will be necessary for local authorities to apply for a complete exemption in respect of any service, but there may be minor parts of it where it proves very difficult to provide satisfactory competition: for example, in respect of police work.
The Bill provides for catering in police stations to be subject to competition. There are grave reservations about this, but should it prove to be satisfactory generally it is possible that in some higher risk areas an exemption will need to be sought because of conditions there. A similar situation could arise in respect of ground maintenance requirements. As many of the competition areas are entirely new it is impossible to anticipate what problems may arise. It is therefore wholly reasonable that there should be a formal scheme to seek variations in the light of practical experience.
The following provides some examples of potential problem areas. Sheltered workshops provide some service to local authorities but will almost certainly not be able to compete on commercial terms, and special exemption may need to be sought to allow these establishments to carry on. Some services are provided by local workers in specific instances. For example, on estates residents are employed to clean staircases and walkways. This has been done to improve tenants' identification with the estates and to reduce crime and vandalism. Those who have experience know that this particular type of activity works well.
Some co-operatives have been set up for social and commercial purposes and may not be able to compete upon normal commercial terms, especially in the early development years. A part of one of the services may have been traditionally reserved for disabled employees. They would not be able to compete on commercial terms. Those of us who have experience of this type of activity know that it is often used (not only as depicted in the Bill) for occupational therapy and is tremendously successful.
A caretaker's duties may be largely cleaning or related to some other defined activity and they are therefore not exempt. It is however important that their services should be retained for security purposes. That may arise in a village school, cemetery or park, or areas especially vulnerable to damage and vandalism. Having been an inner-city MP I can give some outstanding examples of schools with no resident caretaker where vandalism has taken place but where on the institution of a caretaker it has either been controlled or disappeared completely.
They are some of the points that I wish to make about those parts of the Bill. I think the amendments are worth while and I shall be interested to hear what the Minister says when he replies. I beg to move.
Lord Hylton: The Committee will be grateful to the noble Lord for moving the amendment. I should like to ask the Government whether there is any de minimis provision written into the Bill. I ask that question because I see that "parish councils" are included on page 2 at line 19. It so happens that the parish council where I live retains a footpath warden for the princely sum of about £20 a year. In return for that payment the individual concerned does work worth far more than £20. Is it seriously proposed that the parish council should put this work out to tender to see whether someone will do it completely free of charge? That is what I have in mind. I hope that the Government will have a helpful answer to the question.
3.15 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: It may be helpful if I begin by explaining briefly the way in which the Government have proposed that the competition provisions in Part I of the Bill should be implemented. My department issued a consultation paper on the matter on 2nd November of last year, with a closing date for comments of 31st January. Similar papers were issued by the Scottish and Welsh Offices at much the same time.
Under the Government's proposals local authorities are split into groups on an alphabetical basis. Each group has to expose its different activities to competition by 1st April 1989. The groups then expose other activities to competition at six-monthly intervals, so that for all authorities the implementation process would be completed by 1st October 1991. The only exception to our proposed general phasing programme is in respect of ground maintenance. There we have to recognise that the capacity of the private sector is especially limited.
Therefore for ground maintenance we have proposed that all authorities should have to expose at

501
least 10 per cent. to competition by 1st April 1989. That figure should be increased by 10 per cent. steps at six-monthly intervals so that all activities are exposed to competition by 1st October 1993.
The Government's proposals have been criticised because of the random way in which we have proposed grouping authorities and because the programme is laid down centrally. I should perhaps remind the Committee that before we published our proposals some people said that we would implement Part I in a way that favoured contractors, by picking and choosing between authorities so as to offer contractors what they regarded as the best pickings. The objectives of our proposals are to expose services to competition as quickly as possible but at a pace with which the authorities and contractors can cope. I am afraid that we can only achieve those objectives if we impose a programme from the centre. If each authority is allowed to draw up its own scheme, we cannot ensure that all the authorities in a particular area do not choose to expose the same service to competition at the same time. If that happens contractors will he swamped by invitations to tender and in many cases there will be little or no competition.
I appreciate that the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, seeks to give the Secretary of State the power to modify the schemes that authorities draw up. But operating with such a system would be a nightmare. For example, if all the Labour-controlled boroughs in London put in the same local scheme, which is not inconceivable considering their opposition to competitive tendering, how would my right honourable friend proceed? On what criteria would he modify or reject the scheme? Would he not be wide open to challenge whenever he did so?
We shall of course consider carefully the comments made on our consultation paper on implementation. The closing date for those comments, as I said, is 31st January of this year. I should be misleading the Committee if I gave the impression that we see simple ways to provide significantly greater opportunities for local flexibility in the implementation of the programme.
The noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, mentioned some areas which are to be contracted out. I think that he mentioned catering and ground maintenance. Similarly, he drew attention to those who might be employed by the local authority, such as the disabled. As the Committee will be aware, a great deal of what he said on those matters is subject to detailed discussion on amendments which are on the Marshalled List. Perhaps when we come to it, that stage will be the moment to go into such detail.
However, I should point out that in the case of functional work, which constitutes the vast majority of the work carried out by direct labour, the Bill would provide the Secretary of State with extremely flexible powers to decide where and at what rate competition is to be phased in.
Clause 15(6) permits regulations under Clause 6(3) to make,
"different provision for different cases or descriptions of case (whether for different areas, different defined authorities or kinds of
502
authority, different defined activities, different kinds of work falling within the same activity or",
as the Bill puts it, "otherwise". I do not believe therefore that the amendments along the lines proposed are necessary.
What would be added by the amendments would be an invitation to the Secretary of State to consider a shoal of schemes for phasing in, put forward no doubt by every authority in the land. I remind the Committee that there are some 406 principal authorities in England alone. If the Secretary of State decided to proceed in that way, and the amendments, perhaps inconsistently, do not require him to, he would create a bureaucratic nightmare not known outside the central planning bureau of the Communist bloc. Of course my right honourable friend will consider what use should be made of Clause 15(6) in the light of responses to the consultation paper. However, we must ensure that the implementation scheme is simple, readily comprehensible and as certain as possible. That means, as I have already said, that the scope for local flexibility is bound to be a bit limited.
The overriding aim must be to deliver competition and the savings to ratepayers which will flow from it as soon as possible. That takes me onto the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. We are concerned with savings to the ratepayers. He mentioned the case of a parish council with a small contract. He will I am sure be aware of the consultation paper where we propose a de minimis exemption of £100,000, so I am sure that a lot of his worries have now been allayed.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: The Minister has given a most disappointing reply. I shall try to summarise what he said. First, he said that the amendment is not necessary because there are other provisions in the Bill which will do what it seeks to do; that is, to take account of the variety of circumstances that apply to different authorities and the local availability of contractors, of which the Minister will take account if he is prevailed upon to do so. Nevertheless, he wishes to lay down blanket legislation. He speaks with some authority about the Communist Party and monolithic structures. What he is doing is to begin at the very beginning by laying this down.
It is very interesting that he said that everything was being done in order to create savings to the ratepayers. I have news for the noble Lord, and his ministerial colleagues beside him will nod their heads. What local government is about is services to the ratepayers as well as how much they cost. We on this side of the Committee are appalled when looking at the democracy of local government and the responsibilities of local councillors. From their experience they have a wide and deep knowledge, a caring knowledge, let me say, of the impact of what the Government are seeking to do in these matters.
I am sure that in this role the Minister will do as he has done in other roles he has filled with distinction in this Chamber. He will very quickly get to grips with the reality on the ground inside the 400 local authorities to which he referred. I can assure him that there is a great deal of difference between the briefs

503
prepared for him in the Department of the Environment and the real world outside. I invite him to go there.
The noble Lord spoke specifically about the London local authorities or Labour authorities as likely in some way to take advantage of what this amendment seeks to do. If they are the only councillors who are concerned about their ability to fulfil the remit in this Bill, I should be very surprised indeed.
The amendment does not seek to drive a coach and horses through the Bill. It is not a wrecking amendment. It is an amendment in the spirit of the Bill. The Minister and his colleagues in both Houses have said, first of all, that they intend to open up local services to competition. There is nothing in the amendment which seeks to negative that view. It seeks to give to the Minister the benefit of hindsight. The system is monolithic and it is still laid down that local authorities must comply with the time-scale by a certain date on certain services. I can well envisage, as my noble friend Lord Dean of Beswick has illustrated, that from their own experience they will want to say to the Minister, "Will you please, in accordance with this amendment, exempt from this part of the Bill for such period as you may determine"—that is, the Minister may determine—"work defined within a defined activity or such proportion of such work as you may determine?"
We are saying to the Minister, "Please listen reasonably to a case which has been put by people who are facing desperate circumstances." I can assure the Minister that that is so. I am not talking just about inner city authorities. I am talking about every councillor in every authority who is faced with a nightmare, as the Minister said. It is a nightmare for a councillor on a local authority to try to do what his local people have elected him to do; that is, to deliver the services.
Speaking to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, perhaps I may say that I am sure that in his own way he will be making a speech to which I shall listen, as I always do, with care and attention. Then I may be able to hear it!
The councillors and the local authority associations all recognise that they need some opportunity to make a case. If this amendment were carried it would certainly not have any executive authority because the powers the amendment seeks are powers which would be left in the hands of the Minister alone.
Perhaps I may give the Minister one practical illustration. About three of four weeks ago I went to visit a school in a neighbouring borough to mine, Waltham Forest. My borough is Enfield, on one side of the Lee Valley, and the school is on the other side of the Lee Valley. I went to a school in Chingford, Chase Lane school, to see how their school meals were operated. I am bound to say that I was very impressed both by the quality of the meal and also by the dedication, care and genuine concern principally but not exclusively of the women who work in that service.
504
I do not know the time-scale, but they are faced with having to operate to a time-scale. I am absolutely certain that when that local authority has to get down to the nitty-gritty it could very well be that for its own good reasons it is jealous of the services it is providing to the children who are enjoying those school dinners and to their parents. Those dinners are certainly subsidised. The ratepayer interest could very well come in from the point of view of saying "If what you want is a meal that costs less we can get it but it will be of a much lower quality". That authority, those ladies, those parents and children are deeply affected by what this amendment calls flexibility, providing the Minister and local authorities with an opportunity to put into practice what the Government want.
When the Minister uses a phrase like "bureaucratic nightmare" he is really saying that it is a big problem, but "I can get rid of a big problem by having three or four lines in a Bill, by driving them through with a parliamentary majority; and that is the end of it." Local government in 1988 is a nightmare; it is a big problem. Outside in every council are groups of people of all political persuasions who recognise the political reality of the parliamentary arithmetic. It is not a question of throwing out the Bill or doing great damage to it in this amendment. We want the opportunity for the Minister to sit down and listen to people's cases. I very much hope that the Minister will take the further opportunity to listen to what we have to say, to listen to the associations and to come back with a better deal. Otherwise I can see that quite early on in this Bill there will be a clash of opinion.
Baroness Blatch: This amendment is no more than a licence for prevarication. There is no doubt in my mind that what is being asked for is an opportunity to use this time, not for getting a better service, but to thwart and prevaricate. For those authorities which are both philosophically and politically opposed to the idea of opening their services to more competition, it gives a greater opportunity to delay what we believe ought to be brought about.
I find it very interesting that the Minister is being invited to meddle even more in the affairs of local authorities. The noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, would argue strongly, if this had been a clause in the Bill, that the Minister had too many powers to interfere in day-to-day operational services. I find this a strange contradiction of intent on the part of the noble Lord.
There seems to be some confusion as to what the Bill is about. The requirements on local authorities are simply to prepare their services: first of all, to determine the priority of their services; secondly to determine the level of those services; thirdly, to draw up specifications requiring the level of services to be delivered; and then simply to put them out for open competition. If the school which was so well described by the noble Lord is producing a quality service at a cost which can be afforded by the ratepayer, it may well be that that tender will be won by the very people doing the job.
If the market is asked, "Here is the level of service we require. We wish it to be done at the best possible

505
cost price", thereby liberating resources for those parts of the services where we want them to go—back to the classroom, back into care of the elderly, back into care for the young—then this Bill is to be welcomed and the amendment must be rejected.
I am also interested in something which has been said not only in this Committee but in my local authority and many local authorities across the land. It is that somehow workers who work for public authorities are more honest, that they do not vandalise and that they are more trusting and more caring. It has been said that people who work for private contractors are deemed for some reason to be dishonest or subject to vandalising their workplaces. That has been implied by much of what has been said. Whether it is people who work, people who cater, people who clean our schools or people who care for the elderly, it is people we are talking about. There are good, had and indifferent people both in public authorities and in private authorities.
If the Bill is to be enacted and to be effective, then local authorities need first of all to know what service they want and the standard they require before putting it out to open competition. More significantly, they need to make sure they receive that service. If they do that properly, the tools to make sure that that happens will be built into any contract that is made up between a local authority and a contractor. The tools are: withholding of payment if a service is not delivered, penalty clauses and a host of other tools that can he employed to make sure that a level of service is being delivered properly.
I am pleased about the phrasing of the Bill. The idea originally was that all local authorities should put all services that were named in the Bill out to tender at the same time. The phrasing of the Bill is absolutely right. It really does mean that a local authority at least concentrates on one particular service and is given six months to do that in order to determine the level of service, prepare the specifications and go out to tender.
If in the private sector companies are not ready to pick up that work, it will be the direct labour of each authority that will win the contract until the availability of labour is out in the private sector and it can compete favourably.
The Bill will not oblige all local authorities to put all their work out to the private sector. The Bill states that local authorities need to demonstrate more openly to local people that the best possible prescribed service is being obtained at the best possible price, thereby releasing resources which can be properly applied to more needy parts of the service.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Before the noble Baroness sits down, will she confirm that I heard her correctly when she said that this Bill will not compel local authorities to put all their services out to tender? If that is the case, I draw the attention of the noble Baroness to Clause 2(3) at the top of page 3, which states:
"The Secretary of State may by order provide for an activity to he a defined activity by adding a paragraph to those for the time being appearing in subsection (2)".
506
Surely the noble Baroness is not so naive as to believe that it is not the Government's intention eventually to put out many more services to tender than those which are specified here?
Baroness Blatch: Of course it is the Government's intention to make sure that all local authority services are subject to competition, but what is important is the requirement on local authorities to make sure that the defined level of service is open to tender. It may well he, and I am sure will be, the case in many local authorities that direct labour will get the work. If that direct labour is not competent, efficient or effective both in terms of the cost and the operation of the service, the work may well go to the private sector.
We must not lose sight of the fact that we want to have the most cost-effective and operationally effective services; that is, we must care about the level of services as well as the cost of the services. The body that carries out the work should be the most appropriate one, whether it be public or private.
Lord Parry: Having listened very carefully to the progress of this amendment, I understood the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, to say that we were very carefully considering the balance between public and private contracting and making certain that those elements of the public service that were in competition were able to compete properly for the services. There is no intention on this side to question the concept of competition in order to ensure that people in a local area get the very best service.
I rise to speak at this time because some of us believe that in all parts of the country and in various local authorities of various political opinions there are local councils that are deeply concerned that the overall provision will go much further than that. They are concerned that it will create a situation where true competition between the private and the public sector will not be possible. That is why this amendment seems to attract the support that it does.
Baroness Phillips: I should like to follow what my noble friend has said. Unless things have changed, local authorities were bound to accept the lowest tender. Even if they do not do so they will still be attracted by the lowest tender. I wish to mention an example of contracted labour. I went to a conference in one of the universities quite recently; it shall be nameless. The meals were not good and the university was dirty. When I questioned that I was instructed by the person organising the conference to write to the vice-chancellor. I was told that the university was now obliged to use contract labour.
I am not criticising the people who work for the contractor, but today they will be working in the university or the town hall and tomorrow they will be working for Joe Bloggs down the road. They are paid appallingly. It is always worth checking how much contracted cleaners receive. How else can one save on this?
The noble Baroness appears to be living in a land that most of us do not know about. We are trying to protect adequate services. I was speaking to the people who provide services in schools the other day,

507
as my noble friend on the Front Bench has mentioned. They are very worried indeed because they feel that they have given a good service; and they have given a good service. They are worried that on some given day they will all be told that this will now be a different service altogether. Will it be of the same quality? That is very doubtful.
Lord Bellwin: Should we not, right at the beginning of these deliberations, get a few of the basic facts clearly understood? As my noble friend Lady Blatch said, the Bill is really about a local authority itself specifying the level of service which it desires in a written form as a specification. It does not have to be higher or lower than the local authority feels is necessary, so long as it is borne in mind that somebody has to pay for it at the end of the day.
However, once the specification is made and the contract goes out to tender, it is open to everybody to be able to tender, including an in-house organisation. But the virtue of this is that with the specification clearly laid down the authority in a management sense then has the ability to monitor that level of provision and to make sure that it is carried out.
What exists at the present time? I need no lessons in the reality of what exists at the present time or in local government. At the present time in many authorities the in-house team carries out the work, and if there are complaints they are passed on to it. But if it does not carry out the work adequately, the sanctions upon those who do not carry out the work adequately are limited. If a private sector company contracts to provide the service and it does not carry it out, it is then for the authority to impose its own penalties either by way of a fine or indeed in the end by cancelling the contract and getting somebody else to do the work. That is an option which is not available to those who do not go out to tender.
I think the case for what the Bill sets out to do is overwhelming, because any authority whose only concern, as we are constantly told by Members of the Committee opposite, is to ensure that services of a good standard are provided should really not mind at all who actually provides those services. It should ensure that a good standard is provided. I submit that among other aspects of what the Bill entails local authorities will receive the chance to do just that in a way they have not been able to do in the past.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, said that it is a nightmare to be a councillor trying to provide services in local government today. If local government concentrated on the role given to it by Parliament and was not sidetracked by so many of the other undertakings on which it has embarked, perhaps it would not be so much of a nightmare. Indeed, perhaps it would be rather more like it was—I say this with the Committee's forbearance—when I was trying to provide local services in the best way I could. My local authority did not get itself involved in the national issues of the day or try to take over and tell government what they should be doing and the way in which they should be doing it. That is somewhat of an aside, but I think that we shall get many such asides in the course of these deliberations.
508
Finally, to return to the amendment, I think, as my noble friend Lady Blatch said, that it is totally impracticable. I remember standing at that Dispatch Box for some years through 26 Bills and being told by noble Lords opposite again and again that the intention that the Secretary of State should have the last word really was anathema to them and how wicked that was. The amendment asks for that same facility to be provided. It does not make sense. If we think carefully about what it would entail and what it would lead to, it does not—without putting it in too harsh a way—make very much sense. I hope that the Committee will not accept the amendment.
Lord Dean of Beswick: Perhaps I may first say to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, that speaking for this side of the Committee, and I am sure for the whole of the Committee, there is no suggestion in any of the amendments or in our minds that there is to be found less integrity, honesty and diligence in those who work in the private sector than in those who work in the public sector. If that has been said, we totally disown it.
I believe that the Minister implied that when the Bill becomes law the responsibilities will be phased in alphabetically. I assume that that means that if the name of a local authority begins with a "Z"—I do not believe we have one—that authority will be very lucky indeed.
A noble Lord: Zetland Council.
Lord Dean of Beswick: If the Minister is right in interpreting the Bill in that way, although it is not spelt out in the Bill, that is a very funny method. If you are at the back end of the queue alphabetically, you have a longer time to get your house in order. I do not believe that that is a good way of doing things.
I was surprised when the Minister dwelt substantially on the question of consultations. If I understood him correctly, the consultations must be completed by 31st January. I believe that we are being asked to enact legislation before the facts presented during consultation have been digested. That is a peculiar and silly way of carrying out our responsibilities. If the reason is that the Bill must meet a timetable, I suggest that the Government seriously consider slowing up some of their legislation in order to deal with the Bill in a tidy manner and so that it can be debated properly.
I am grateful for the courteous way in which the Minister replied to the amendment. It is what we have come to expect from him. However, I was surprised when he tried to draw the conclusion and create the impression in his reply that all local authorities are alike. Nothing could be further from the truth. Even local authorities of the same size and complexity sometimes need different approaches to their problems. The implication may be that only Labour-controlled authorities have problems, but so far as I am aware these amendments have the support of all local authority associations, whether Labour, Liberal or Conservative. There is great concern over what is taking place. I do not believe that the amendment is a recipe for prevarication or that it is designed to thwart the Government, as the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, has said.

509
I am mindful of the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin. We are old opponents in the best spirit. At Second Reading he said that it was open to local authorities, if the private sector failed to perform, to take the offending private contractor to task and recoup their losses. In the Second Reading debate I quoted some outstanding cases in which local authorities have had to find huge sums of money to rescue contracts when a private contractor was not able to deliver and where it would have cost inestimable sums of money to go to court, recoup the losses and still do the job. It is therefore not true to say that there is an open door to court which the local authority may use to get full recompense. There are dozens of cases which show that that is untrue.
The noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, told the Committee that when he was a Minister—he is entitled to fall back on his experience; one would expect nothing less of him—the Opposition in another place said that the Secretary of State was taking too much power to himself. I believe that the amendments would give the Secretary of State power to digress from the rigid approach which the Bill would force on him. We are of the opinion that that is necessary because of the complexity and variety of local authorities.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, spoke of her experiences on the council in Cambridge. With all the good will in the world—no one would deny that Cambridge has its problems—can one say that a councillor living in Cambridge will be familiar with the problems of an inner-city area such as those found in Camden, Manchester, Leeds or Birmingham? I found when I came to another place from Manchester that there is almost what one would call a big fence around local authorities. They are not particularly aware of the problems of other areas because they do not have to live with them. I do not believe that a councillor on Cambridgeshire County Council would be dealing with the same problems as are to be found in, say. Waltham Forest, Birmingham or Sheffield.
I do not believe that councillors would go in for spurious applications to the Secretary of State so that he had to deal with them individually. I am disappointed that the Minister cannot give a bit more in this case.
3.45 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: I am grateful to the noble Lord for allowing me to say another word. As he and the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, fully appreciate, authorities will be able to take account of local circumstances in drawing up the specifications which we have been discussing and deciding how the work should be packaged provided that they do not prevent or distort competition. That is one of the purposes of the Bill.
As I said, they will have to do so within the implementation programme which we have set. It is consultation on the implementation of the Bill that lies at the moment with the local authorities. Consultations about the Bill started three years ago, in 1985. The consultations which are being considered at the moment do not in any way
510
prejudice what is before Parliament at the moment. That overrides the consultation document, and rightly so.
From what I have heard about the phasing of the proposed contracting-out, some of the replies have been extremely favourable. Local authorities are saying that, rather than the situation appertaining under the amendments where there would be a series of schemes put forward to the Secretary of State, they will at least know where they stand. They will know that they have a set timetable. They will know what they have to do by certain dates. That is much the best way to proceed.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham, was right to say that services matter. If the school which he mentioned at Waltham Forest produces good school meals efficiently and cost-effectively, it has nothing to fear from competition. However, looking at Ealing, one sees that it has contracted out its meal service and that it has much better value for money. It has saved £500,000 and produced a much better service. Is that not right for the taxpayer and the ratepayer?
I suggest that there are lots of examples like those. They do not come from low pay, as the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, said. All the evidence—independent evidence—that we have on refuse collection shows that the majority of savings are coming from better efficiency, better utilisation of the working day and better utilisation of the machinery employed by the contractors. So there is lots of scope. I hope that all sides of the House agree that it is right that the taxpayer and the ratepayer should receive a good service which is laid down and controlled by the local authority but which has been put out to tender in order to achieve the best value for money.
I was extremely grateful for the contribution of my noble friend Lord Bellwin, with his great experience. The Committee realises that in relation to local government his experience in Leeds is considerably greater than my experience. I urge the Committee to bear in mind his argument that the provisions in the Bill are superior to those in the amendment.
Lord Dean of Beswick: I thought I was giving way, but before the Minister sits down would he care to deal with the point that I made as to whether the provisions are to be introduced alphabetically? I think that is very important.
The Earl of Caithness: Alas I do not think I have the consultation document with me, though I certainly had it this morning. The authorities are divided up alphabetically, but that does not necessarily mean that Z will have to contract out all its works after A. It will be phased between the two, so that A will be contracting out some services, as will Z, but they will not necessarily be the same services. However, by October 1991 all the services will be contracted out throughout local authorities.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Let us suppose that the service that a local authority is invited to deal with is not the one which to its knowledge it believes it would be preferable to deal with first. The Minister has outlined a scheme—which I can understand—which means that not all authorities will put out tenders for

511
all services at the same time. I can appreciate the mischief that might be made of such phasing. The London Borough of Enfield or of Haringey might be told that it has to contract out a service which is not the one that it is best able to contract out among a totality of six services.
This amendment seeks the flexibility to allow a variation between the categories of service which the Minister wishes local authorities to have contracted out by the due date. The amendment is asking for the Minister to listen to the case for flexibility.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: There are perhaps two relevant points which have not been made this afternoon and which are giving great concern to local authorities. Under privatization—or whatever one likes to call it; the services being taken away from local councils—there is a problem concerning the superannuation of many employees who have worked in the services for a great many years. Before they start thinking about privatisation, councils have seriously to consider that aspect and the recompense that they must pay to those employees. That is a very serious problem with which most large local authorities are confronted. In addition, there is the unemployment that will arise from those departments which close down. In those circumstances do the employees get redundancy pay and their subsequent pension?
Another important point is that many local authorities recognise that there will be privatisation—some have already introduced it—and feel that there needs to be a safety net if the privatisation scheme falls down, which could happen. For example, there was a large contract for school cleaning in Birmingham which was failing miserably. Not only teachers but school inspectors and parents were complaining. What happened was that all the school cleaning staff employed by the local authority had previously been dismissed and the contractor was now saying "Let me pay my penalty price and get out of this contract". This was a difficult situation for a local authority which had discharged all its employees in that area of the city but had to make facilities available very quickly. Such a safety net is an important provision for a local authority when for some reason or other a private contractor fails to honour the contract.
Those are two very valid points which a local authority has to consider seriously when it embarks upon privatisation. As other speakers have said, there is plenty of privatisation already taking place in local authorities without compulsion and without the provisions contained in this Bill.
The Earl of Caithness: Perhaps I may just clarify the matter for the Committee. The word "privatisation" takes the discussion into a different sphere. We are not talking about privatisation but about getting a competitive tender. If the direct labour authority happens to produce the lowest tender because it is the most efficient provider of the service—or indeed not necessarily the lowest because it is not incumbent upon the local authority to accept the lowest tender under the provisions of the Bill,
512
although they have to say why they do not do so—that is quite right from the point of view of the taxpayer and the ratepayer. We are talking about putting services out to tender to make sure that we are getting value for money for the services specified by the local authority. I do not think that that can be classed as privatisation.
To answer specifically the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher of Rednal, about the possibility of redundancy, of course there are redundancy costs as a result of an authority losing work that has been done in-house because it can be done more efficiently outside. These costs will have to be taken into account by the local authority.
With regard to her second point about a safety net, I think we are straying slightly from the amendment before us. Further down the list of amendments we come to the matters raised by the noble Baroness, which we shall be discussing in much more detail later on.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: It may help the Minster to come back to Amendment No. 1. with which we are now dealing. The question is whether at the end of line 9 on page 1 we agree to appointing a designated authority as well as the defined authority—a local authority is defined later on in the same clause of the Bill. The amendment asks whether we should appoint a
"designated authority, as the case may be."
What I found attractive about the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, was his emphasis on the necessity of getting to grips with realities. That seems to me to be a very commonplace phrase, but what went through my mind was the circumstances in which we would deal with the realities. Then the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, with his great experience, mentioned the world "realities". After he had spoken I wondered whether the Minister had in mind the reality of the effect of this amendment on my own country of Wales. Many Members of the Committee may want to know why I should have been inspired at this time of the afternoon to speak about Wales after the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, had done so. The noble Lord is smiling so sweetly at me that I must refer to another time when this Chamber dealt with a subject concerning Wales. At that time he was not supportive and I expressed my surprise that a noble Lord who had a double "1" in his name should not have been supportive of something of concern to Wales.
I have considerable experience of local government in Wales in a general sense. I have a relative who is the borough surveyor for three great counties in Wales. What consultation has there been with regard to Wales, and what has been the effect of it on the realities of Welsh local government?
Lord Dean of Beswick: I have raised the question of the alphabetical introduction of the provisions of the Bill. However, the answer that the noble Earl gave me was not in accord with the information that I have received from various sources. Am I therefore to understand that no decision has been made? Is it correct to assume that if one's local authority is

513
Aldershot one is unlucky and if it is Yarmouth one will be very lucky indeed. It is a very peculiar way to introduce legislation prior to the final consultation and proposals.
I have listened with great care to the various points that the Minister has made. We shall be discussing some of the points made by my colleague in a previous speech much more thoroughly at a later stage in the Bill. However, my noble friend Lord Graham in his second intervention touched on the nub of the matter we are considering. If the Bill becomes an Act, the authority will be required to provide a specification for its services. It may well be that the authority is at almost the final stage of presenting specifications for an extensive service that it is carryng out. But under the Bill it can be deemed to have to provide a specification for a service in which it may not even have been involved. I find that a complete contradiction.
The amendment allows the authority to make an approach to the Secretary of State for the Environment to ask for an exemption from particular clauses in the Bill. I do not know whether we shall return to the subject at a later stage in some form, but on the basis of what the Minister has said I am prepared to test the opinion of the Committee.
The Earl of Caithness: Before the noble Lord does that—that is of course up to him—perhaps I may answer the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran. Of course my noble friend Lord Bellwin, with two "1"s in his name, is concerned about Wales. I, with two "s"s in my name, am concerned about Scotland. My noble friend Lord Hesketh has two "e"s; that covers England as well. The consultation exercise for Wales, Scotland and indeed England was carried out in 1985 and the consultation paper on implementation which is before local authorities now is also in all three countries.
4.3 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 106; Not-Contents, 157.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Diamond, L.

Amherst, E.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Ardwick, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Attlee, E.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Aylestone, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Banks, L.

Ezra, L.

Basnett, L.

Falkland, V.

Blease, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Bottomley, L.

Gallacher, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Galpern, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Gifford, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Glenamara, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Grey, E.

Carter, L.

Grimond, L.

Chitnis, L.

Hampton, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Hanworth, V.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Heycock, L.

514

Hirshfield, L.

Nicol, B. [Teller.]

Hooson, L.

Oram, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Parry, L.

Hughes, L.

Phillips, B.

Hunt, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Hylton, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Jacques, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Jay, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Jeger, B.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Seear, B.

John-Mackie, L.

Seebohm, L.

Kennet, L.

Shepherd, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Simon, V.

Kilmarnock, L.

Somers, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Stallard, L.

Lawrence, L.

Stedman, B.

Leatherland, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Listowel, E.

Strabolgi, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Lockwood, B.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

McCarthy, L.

Underhill, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

McNair, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Mar, C.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Whaddon, L.

Mayhew, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Milford, L.

Willis, L.

Mishcon, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Molloy, L.

Mulley, L.

Winstanley, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Dickinson, L.

Allerton, L.

Dowding, L.

Ampthill, L.

Dundee, E.

Arran, E.

Eden of Winton, L.

Auckland, L.

Effingham, E.

Balfour, E.

Ellenborough, L.

Bauer, L.

Elles, B.

Beaverbrook, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Bellwin, L.

Erne, E.

Beloff, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Belstead, L.

Faithfull, B.

Bessborough, E.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Blake, L.

Ferrers, E.

Blatch, B.

Ferrier, L.

Blyth, L.

Fortescue, E.

Borthwick, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Gisborough, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Glenarthur, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Gridley, L.

Broxbourne, L.

Halsbury, E.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Butterworth, L.

Harrowby, E.

Caccia, L.

Harvington, L.

Caithness, E.

Havers, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Hayter, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Hesketh, L.

Carnock, L.

Hives, L.

Chelwood, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Coleraine, L.

Hood, V.

Colwyn, L.

Hooper, B.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Ilchester, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Cowley, E.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Cox, B.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Craigavon, V.

Killearn, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Kimball, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Knutsford, V.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Lane-Fox, B.

De Freyne, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Denning, L.

Long, V.

Derwent, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

515

Luke, L.

Porritt, L.

Lurgan, L.

Prior, L.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Pym, L.

MacFadzean, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Ryder of Warsaw, B.

MacLchose of Beoch, L.

St. Davids, V.

Maclcod of Borve, B.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Margadale, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Marley, L.

Sandford, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Savile, L.

Merrivale, L.

Selkirk, E.

Mersey, V.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Milverton, L.

Stockton, E.

Minto, E.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Mottistone, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Strathspey, L.

Moyne, L.

Sudeley, L.

Munster, E.

Swansea, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Terrington, L.

Nelson, E.

Teynham, L.

Norfolk, D.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Norrie, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Thurlow, L.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Trafford, L.

Onslow, E.

Trefgarne, L.

Orkney, E.

Trumpington, B.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Ward of Witley, V.

Pender, L.

Wise, L.

Pennock, L.

Wolfson, L.

Perth, E.

Young, B.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Young of Graffham, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.12 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 24, leave out ("islands").
The noble Lord said: It would perhaps be for the convenience of the Committee if we also dealt with amendments which have a bearing on the matter, that is, Amendments Nos. 11, 14, 16, 17, 24, 52 and 53.
From the Scottish point of view this is an extremely important amendment. We are dealing with something that is unique to Scotland—groups of islands which have their own local government. If the Minister has the consultation paper available he will see in paragraph 3 the reasoning of the Government that small authorities are in general just as capable of benefiting from competition as large authorities. That was the argument used by Ministers in Committee in another place. They used the unfortunate example of the Isles of Scilly in trying to make a comparison with the Scottish islands. I am sure they do not need to be reminded that the Isles of Scilly are quite different from the Scottish islands. The Scottish islands are more remote. There are more of them. And they are substantially larger in terms of geographic extent, population, and the range of functions for which they are responsible. I do not believe that direct comparison is valid.
I am very grateful to the Shetland Islands Council and the Western Isles Council for the help they have given me on this series of amendments. They are extremely worried about the difficulties that the Bill would bring to their islands. I have visited Shetland, the Orkneys and the Western Isles on a number of occasions, although not in connection with the Bill. I
516
know roughly the geography of the islands. I have observed the size of some of the services that are necessary in those islands. One dust cart may easily be enough for an entire island. In some Scottish islands, unlike some of our cities, one individual can keep the streets remarkably clean.
Island services, such as those of the Shetland Islands Council or the Western Isles Council, are dispersed of necessity. They are organised separately for each island unit and, for compelling geographic and other reasons, for disparate units in the larger islands. The terrain, the climate and the dispersal of the communities dictate this pattern. There is no means by which an island council can organise its defined activities other than as a series of low volume, low value units. The economies of scale open to even quite small mainland councils are not open to an island council because of distance and transport difficulties.
An example given in another place, using that of Shetland again, concerned the problems of trying to combine a service between Fair Isle, Fetlar, Foula and Papa Stour. I am sure that the noble Earl who is to reply will be familiar with these islands and will realise the impossibility of dealing with them as one could perhaps deal with even small units on a mainland basis. Refuse collection is an obvious example. These activities can best be undertaken by local contractors without whom the service could not function effectively. But it does not require legislation for this machinery to be used. Many local authorities have one or several local contractors making an estimate every year and putting in a bid for doing the job. They are able to assess fairly accurately what is competitive and what is not.
Compliance with the existing terms of the Bill will make it much more difficult for local authorities to handle very small quantities of work. I wish this had been left out of the whole debate, but the de minimis definition that the Western Isles, Shetland and the Orkneys will need to look at all their services as one, and that they will not be able to split up into little areas will make it extremely difficult for such local authorities to comply with the Government's requirements, however stupid they may be in those cases.
The nub of this issue resides in the effect that these laborious procedures will have on the council departments concerned. The Member for the Western Isles in another place put the matter very succinctly. Islands councils have the widest range of duties in local government, but they are all undertaken on a small scale by small departments. To require within each department the separation of the client function from the contractor function, and to set up the machinery for the contractor to carry out his duties quite independently of those of the client colleagues can only be done by damaging greatly departmental cohesion and all that goes with an efficient, well run, and, if you like, happy local authority.
It is almost certain to be more costly than the present method of working. It is well known that the current Shetland estimate for street cleansing is £104,000. If this activity were to be taken alone it

517
would exceed the current proposed de minimis level and would need to be subjected to competitive tender. For the purposes of this example—I have tried to find an example that perhaps the noble Earl and the Committee will appreciate—Shetland's cleansing activities cost it £104,000. A contractor may come in and offer to do the job for £90,000. What will be the effect of that? Without elaborating on the effect of the council contracts department needing to give up its machinery, perhaps having to make redundancy payments to its staff and losing the cohesion, there are other costs. If the Committee will bear with me I shall quickly try to go through them. The equivalent of two to three persons at a fairly low AP 4/5, currently about £10,000 to £12,000 a year, plus distant island allowance of about £8,200—which is all part of the argument when one is considering the islands—should be appointed to oversee the client function in relation to this activity. Somebody must surely be designated to see whether the contractor is doing his job properly.
With overheads and administrative costs, which have all been carefully examined subject to district audit, and nominal other costs at £3,500, all the advantages of the savings are lost. That would be a contractor coming in at more than 10 per cent. less than the present cost of the job, which would suggest great inefficiency in the local authority at present. I am sure the Minister does not believe that, if any efficiency does exist, it is as low as that.
I am sure that the case for the islands being excluded is very strong. I hope that the Minister will consider this group of amendments with a little more flexibility than they were viewed in the other place. I believe that other noble Lords have put their names to the same type of amendment as this. I look forward to hearing from them and the Minister's reply. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Croy: Half of the amendments being discussed in this debate are in my name. They have different purposes, but I agree that by grouping all the amendments together we are able to have one debate, on the three island groups, which may be convenient for the Committee.
One of the main reasons that I have put down these amendments is, as some Members of the Committee will remember, that I brought these three island groups into existence when local government was being reformed in Scotland in the 1970s. The Royal Commission, the Wheatley Commission, had not recommended that they should be separate, but that they be part of the local authorities based on the mainland. Before coming into government in 1970 I had indicated in another place that that was the way the then Conservative Opposition were thinking concerning the Wheatley report.
These three island groups—Orkney, Shetland and the Western Isles—are separate communities, considerable sea journeys distant from mainland Britain. All four of my amendments refer to those three island groups and not to other islands off the Scottish coast. As a result of the decisions taken by me in the early 1970s, these three authorities became a single tier of local government. They carry out most
518
functions performed by regional and district councils in Scotland and county and district councils in England and Wales. I recognise that Amendment No. 24 may not be necessary. It explains what "islands area" means in the legislation. This is a technical term. For those who are not familiar with Scottish local government legislation, I thought that I should make it clear that it refers to islands in the three island groups only.
I should make it clear that I fully support the principle in the Bill of competitive tendering open to contractors as well as to local authorities' own work units and employees. My amendments are concerned with the way in which the principle is to be applied in cases where local authorities, in an unusual combination of circumstances, are situated entirely in islands and have many functions, remoteness and small populations.
The Government have recognised the special situation of these three island councils and the problems that can arise with them. The Government commissioned the Montgomery Committee, which reported in 1984. Most of its recommendations were accepted by the Government, especially recommendation 4 which suggested that there may be circumstances in which provisions in legislation should allow for the application of Acts of Parliament in islands' areas to be varied. In the Government's response the Secretary of State at the time—I have his document in my hand—stated:
"I accept recommendation 4, and will consider for future legislation whether it would be appropriate to ask Parliament to approve a power to vary the application of particular provisions in specified areas".
The simplest option for the Government is to make such a variation or variations and that is the purpose of my Amendment No. 52 to Clause 6. One advantage of the amendment is that there would be no question of making the Bill hybrid. Governments dislike hybridity in Bills because it holds them up. The three councils are in a category of their own and can be dealt with generally as falling within a distinct class of local authorities. That is one option for the Government and it has the benefit of simplicity.
I realise that the Government may not wish to relieve the three councils of a duty to test the market in appropriate services. Other local authorities administering remote areas and other islands might feel aggrieved and left out. My other amendments therefore offer other options.
Let us consider first what is the present practice of the three island councils concerned. They use their own squads and equipment for some of the services. They use private contractors also for other services depending on what is available and appropriate. Some islands have fewer than 100 residents and in some cases school meals have to be provided on islands with fewer than 10 children. Each group of islands consists of a number of inhabited islands, some very small and distant from the larger islands. Here is an example of some of the special circumstances where the island councils are concerned. If a contract were put out to tender for refuse collection or street cleaning, a private contractor might be successful with a very low bid. If

519
the local authority had previously been responsible it would be expected to dispose of the vehicles and equipment which had been used.
Three or four years later the contractor, if he was not as scrupulous as he ought to be, could put up the charges to a great extent. He would then have little competition, unless there was another contractor—and in the island groups there are few—because the local authority would have been expected to dispose of its plant, vehicles and equipment, and in some cases it has specialised vehicles. It would be very expensive not only to provide them again, but because of the cost of sea transport, when one considers that Shetland is 150 miles by sea from its supplying port, Aberdeen. In those circumstances it would be difficult for the local authority to tender again later.
The problem does not arise in the same way in other local authorities in the United Kingdom, even though they may be in remote areas or have islands within their areas. That is because they have part of the mainland in their areas and it is not so difficult to provide healthy competition for bids from private contractors from sources near at hand. The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, mentioned the fact that the islands councils have a wider range of functions than any other in Britain but that they have small departments. I hope that they will continue to be small and I am sure that my noble friend would not wish to see the expansion of bureaucracy.
Amendment No. 11 deals with the de minimis point. In their consultation paper the Government have indicated that at present they are considering £100,000 as the de minimis figure. I should like to say in passing that I hope there will be index-linking to provide for future inflation if and when a figure is included in the legislation.
The islands councils are seldom able to carry out a service for the whole of their area as a single operation. Usually a number of separate operations must be undertaken. On an isolated island it may be an operation for a small handful of people; for example, collecting rubbish, school meals or cleaning. Private contractors exist and where they are willing and available they should be given opportunities. On one of the small islands in one of the groups two private contractors were available and competed for a contract. They were road haulage firms. There are a few road haulage firms based in the islands because of the need for that kind of transport and the roll-on roll-off facilities. However, I hope that I have indicated the fact that it is impossible to generalise. The point of my amendment is that where there are separate operations for parts of the area, the different parts should be considered for the de minimis provision and should not be added together and included in the council's entire area.
Amendment No. 17, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, is similar to my Amendment No. 11. However, my amendment provides for the inclusion of the opinion of the Secretary of State, whereas the noble Lord's amendment provides for the opinion of the local authority only. I believe that it would be better if the local authority were not the
520
sole judge of its case and that the Government should also agree as to what is a separate operation and falls within the de minimis rule.
In an earlier version of the amendments the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, spelt out the fact that the Secretary of State should be the Secretary of State for Scotland. However, I believe that it has now disappeared from the amendments. In my drafting the words "Secretary of State" are used in the usual, accepted, conventional way as applying to any Secretary of State, but the appropriate Secretary of State acts in the circumstances. Therefore the amendment does not require to have "Secretary of State for Scotland" spelt out.
Amendment No. 14 provides for an exemption where the costs of procedure for tendering will be heavier than any benefits which can be gained. I should like to quote the Minister, Lord James Douglas-Hamilton, speaking in another place during the Report stage. He said:
"If the cost of compliance with competition outweighs the benefits of the competitive process, that will be taken into account".—[Official Report, Commons 15/12/87; col. 982.]
I am glad to note that assurance. The Scottish consultation paper invited representations and views by 31st January, a few days ahead. That does not give the Government much time to consider the replies to the consultation document and then to formulate a view. I hope that the Government will arrange the timetable for the Report stage and Third Reading of the Bill to fit in with their thoughts on the matter and will give high priority to deciding the action that must be taken after receiving the views and representations. In this amendment I have included the provision for the opinion of the Secretary of State, as well as that of the local authority, in order that it is not the sole judge of its case.
I hope that no Member of the Committee suffers from sea-sickness. If anyone does, I give warning of what I am about to say. It is important to realise that ordinary communication and movement between the groups of islands must be carried out by sea; there are very few facilities for air travel. Sometimes the sea is like a mill pond. I know all three groups of islands quite well and I can assure Members of the Committee that one is often on choppy seas with squalls and sometimes horizontal sleet and snow. It is the equivalent of moving from one ward to another in a town or city or moving from one village to another nearby in the country. I hope that everything I have said will be remembered in the light of the conditions that I have described and of the difficulties which the islands councils will probably meet unless some variation is made in their case.
The Earl of Balfour: In the case of the island authorities, will the Minister consider making a special provision that they have the choice of at least two contractors who tender for the work. I sympathise with what has been said. If there is only one contractor who, for example, successfully carries out the cleansing for some of the islands, the authority may then dispose of its refuse collection vehicles. If in four years' time the contractor doubles his price the authority will be left in an unpleasant position. I should like to be certain therefore that

521
where an island authority goes out to tender for any work, at least two private bodies will submit an estimate for the work involved.
At the time of the reorganisation of local government in 1973 I had a meeting with my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy in the Scottish Office. His officials pointed out to me that one of the reasons for opting for larger authorities in Scotland was to create a reasonable career structure for the local authority officials employed at the time. One of the faults with the old type of local government was that in many cases the small boroughs had part-time officials. I am sure that most Members of the Committee will agree that that situation is unsatisfactory.
I do not necessarily support the amendments that have been tabled but I believe that we must be certain that if the islands councils accept a contract, the contractor will not be in a position to hold them to ransom in a few years' time. In addition, they should not be placed in a position where part-time officials are carrying out important duties, as happened in many of the small boroughs before the reorganisation of local government.
Lord Ross of Marnock: It is a great pity that three authorities particularly three councils in Scotland which are unique in being single-tier authorities—should be delaying the Committee at this, the prime time of the day. Would it not have been better to do what we should have done before? If a proposal is made that applies to Scotland, it should be covered in an Act of Parliament for Scotland. I seem to remember that in the last Session a point was raised in the Chamber as to the manner in which Scotland is woven into English legislation. Often there is no application to England and Wales at all. There are no such authorities in England and Wales.
We have heard a former Secretary of State pleading for the uniqueness of Orkney, Shetland and the Western Isles authorities. Would it not have been better to have a Scottish Bill based purely on the knowledge of Scotland? Would it not have been better if this had been dealt with in Edinburgh where there is probably a little more interest in such matters than there is in the great measures of principle that will apply to London, Manchester, Liverpool, and so on?
I know that there are difficulties in another place. The Members there do not want Scottish legislation—they cannot even man a Scottish Committee. There are only five Back-Benchers in another place. There are more than that in this Chamber.
Lord Hughes: Especially when one of them will not work.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I am not concerned about whether they are prepared to work or whether they have fallen out with the establishment. The fact is that there are only five Back-Benchers in another place, and the result is the worst of all worlds. Scottish legislation is tied into English legislation
522
because this does away with the need for a Scottish Committee and because the English majority existed from the very start.
I am sure that this measure could be torn up as far as the islands are concerned. I heard some reference to a bureaucratic nightmare. This is a bureaucratic nightmare. The question has arisen of the £104,000—which is just over the limit—which is applied to Strathclyde, but Strathclyde contains half the population of Scotland. It does not make sense even when it is applied to the islands. In fact, the whole thing is a bureaucratic nonsense; it is just dogma.
As the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, said, in many islands this is being done. Where possible, things are being put out to tender. They are glad to get anyone to do the job. The Post Office is carrying both parcels and passengers because of the difficulty in getting people to run buses.
The noble Earl, Lord Balfour, made the very good point that there should be at least two or three competitors. I can think of many islands in Scotland where there will be not even one competitor and they are in great need of services. Some services that have been mentioned will probably never be carried out. Would it not be better to leave out reference to the islands altogether?
4.45 p.m.
A further point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, and by the noble Earl, Lord Balfour. Suppose that the service is being carried out by the local authority and it loses out in competition. I like the word "exposed" that has been used in regard to competition. It is a good word. I think that it is the dogmas of the Government that are being exposed. If the local authority does lose out, when the contract comes up for renewal after three years the real competition will have disappeared because the local authority service has gone. I do not know what will happen to the capital investment, the cleaning material and so on, but I imagine that the competitor will have bought it up. The competition will have gone and one will be back to a private monopoly. What will be provided will have no relation to what the contract was first awarded for. One might think that local authorities in Scotland and those in the authorities had no sense. They have been contracting out all their lives. There is a lack of trust here, and it is no wonder that the people of Scotland have turned against the Government. No wonder that, of the 73 Members, they have only 10. If the Government continue like this, they will have none.
Common sense is needed. There is no reason why other councils in Scotland should be included and no justification to include the Highlands and Islands, the Western Isles, Shetland or Orkney. I remember the first thing that the Government did in about 1956, having fought the election on anti-nationalisation. They introduced a Bill to nationalise the shipping services in the northern isles of Scotland. There was no competition but, as the services were essential, they had to be nationalised. Let us recognise the uniqueness of the islands. The noble Lord, Lord

523
Campbell of Croy, has made the position perfectly plain. Let us leave out the islands and trust to the good sense of the councillors in the areas.
Lord Stodart of Leaston: I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, has been not too fit for the last few weeks. I am bound to say that at my age I do not have the energy to join him in his chase of the hare of devolution, which he has attempted today.
I agree—this has been stated twice in the debate—that these authorities are unique in their powers. Five years after the passing of the Local Government Act I was invited to examine the functions in order to elucidate some of the grey areas. The impression of the Commitee, which I chaired, and indeed my own impression, of the activities of these island councils with their virtually all-purpose operations, was that their efficiency was very good. We had no criticism to make, although of course we did not go into the details, which were examined later by the Montgomery Committee.
From my understanding of what has been said, the time has not yet passed when consultations can take place. There is a very strong case for making no decision today on the proposal as outlined in the Bill. It is extraordinary to attempt to apply a blanket operation of this kind throughout the country from the City of London to the island authorities.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: It has been a pleasure to see the noble Lord, Lord Ross, again. The greatest pleasure was to hear him complaining about a Bill as important as this is to Scotland being discussed in prime time in Committee. How we deal with the Bill is very important to the remoter areas of Scotland. At the moment we are discussing the islands. I have been to the islands and comparatively recently I was involved in the operation of putting out services to tender in remote areas of the Scottish glens—not unlike the islands although the situation is somewhat different because there is not the problem of having to cross the sea between the various communities.
It is true—and I believe the island authorities are right in their concern—that services have to be broken up into low-volume units, as the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, said. There has to be one small service here and one small service there. Some services have to be co-ordinated while others, on a remote island, do not. Nevertheless the three islands councils are very considerable concerns. They spend a great deal of taxpayers' and ratepayers' money on services broken up into small units.
The advantage at the heart of this Bill—the need for a council to specify precisely the work that has to be done and the cost—is as important for the people of the islands as it is for anyone else in the country. What we are really discussing is how this should be done. I believe it quite wrong simply to say that the islands should be left out. Before agreeing to that, I would need it proved to me that there was no way of making it possible for the proposals at the heart of the Bill to be applied in the islands to the advantage of the people there.
524
Representatives of the Shetland Islands have said to a number of us that they are concerned to employ someone who is capable of specifying very precisely what the work should be and of costing it. They wish to ensure that what a contractor is asked to do is precise and that the bids which are put in can be compared. To employ such a person might cost more than was saved by putting the work out to competitive tender.
That may be so, and the Government need to look at it very carefully. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Campbell is right when he says it has to be the Secretary of State who decides at the end of the day whether that provision is to be in the Bill. It will have to he the Secretary of State who decides whether it is correct that the cost of employing someone, or perhaps two or three people, to do the work would be greater than the amount that was saved.
When a service is put out to tender in a remote area, all kinds of things may happen. It has been suggested that there may be one person capable of doing the work in the area. That person has a monopoly and can very often, as we say in Scotland, take the council to the cleaners. There may be three people who can do the work. If it is window cleaning or cutting grass, that is quite possible. It is possible for those people to form a ring and to agree that only one person should hid and so create a monopoly. That has been known to happen quite often in the remoter areas.
The procedures which are at the heart of the Bill would help very much the islands authorities to specify, to cost and to know exactly what it is they are comparing. They know then what it should be costing and how far a contractor can be negotiated downwards. The main problem is how it is to be done. The correct line for the Committee to take this afternoon is to say to the Government that when their consultations are complete, they should look at the facts and see what is possible to enable the advantages of the Bill to be available to the people in the islands and to potential contractors in the islands. The Government can then decide whether any special arrangements need to be prescribed for these three islands authorities. That is the line to take. I do not believe at this time we should take the islands out of the Bill.
The Earl of Dundee: I am very grateful to all Members of the Committee for their contributions. With the leave of the Committee I should like to speak together to Amendments Nos. 2, 11, 14, 16, 17, 24, 52 and 53. All seek varying degrees of exemption from the competitive process in respect of the islands and the Scottish islands authorities. I know that the Committee would wish to join with me in congratulating these authorities on the useful work they have always done and which they continue to do. As the Committee will be aware, the authorities might well not exist to do this work had my noble friend Lord Campbell not taken the helpful initiative that he did earlier on.
I am convinced of the need to include all local authorities in the scope of the Bill, including the Scottish islands authorities. There is of course a

525
strong case for exemption in certain circumstances; for example, when the cost of compliance with the competition requirements outweighs the possible benefits from the competitive process. That is the purpose of the de minimis level which the Scottish consultation paper suggested should be set at £100,000 of expenditure in a year on any given service. The Government will be looking closely at the responses to this paper, due by the end of January. In my view it is perfectly reasonable to stipulate that any service involving expenditure above a given exemption level should be exposed to the competitive process wherever that service is provided. There is no need for competition to be confined to urban areas.
Having said that, we arc aware of the special circumstances in which the island councils operate. Yet private enterprise in the islands has to operate in the same circumstances. There is really no case for exemption for the islands authorities alone on the grounds that it is more difficult or expensive to provide services in remote and isolated areas. All of us concerned about public expenditure must ensure that the services provided by local authorities are provided as efficiently as possible. Our view is that opening services to competition can bring substantial savings as well as improvements in the standard of service.
This policy is certainly not enforced privatisation. All the legislation will do is impose fair competition between local authorities' own work forces and the private sector. If an authority, including any of the three islands authorities, can themselves provide the best and cheapest service, then it should continue to do so. If the private sector can offer a better deal to the ratepayers and consumers of the service then that is the option that the local authority should choose. Whether or not the private sector can compete can only be established by testing the market. Without this test the authorities cannot be sure that their present operation is the best available.
Competition ensures that value for money is obtained whether the successful tenderers come from a local authority or the private sector. It does not matter how small the population of any one island is; the purpose of the Bill is to subject those local authority activities defined in the Bill to the competitive process. As I have said the proposal is that there is only a case for exemption in respect of any de minimis provision applied to the whole of any local authority activity. However, I have listened carefully to the arguments put forward by my noble friend Lord Campbell and by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, in support of selective exemption within the authority for particular islands, and I should certainly be happy to discuss with them their concerns on this matter between now and the next stage of the Bill.
Without the test of competition it cannot be demonstrated that there is no competition forthcoming from the private sector. Even if it does prove to be the case in more remote areas like the Scottish island authorities that the competitive process produces no bids from the private sector, that is not a reason to forgo competition. The very
526
drawing up of the work specification and the necessary contract documentation concentrates the mind properly and forces local authorities to look critically at the most effective, efficient and economical way of discharging their services, whether it be by contractor or, in the event of no competition, by their own direct labour force.
Neither is it the case that the initial absence of competition means that the private sector will never respond. Given the opportunity, the private sector will normally respond to the challenge, and it should be given the opportunity to do so. Nor is there any need for a power which would enable the Secretary of State to choose not to apply the competitive process to any particular island. The Secretary of State already has the power under Clauses 6(3) and 15(6) of the Bill to make regulations applying competition to such authorities and with such exemptions as he may determine, and that is quite sufficient. Nevertheless, the existence of this power does not mean of course that competition will not extend to the Scottish islands other than any exemption they may gain by way of the de minimis provision.
The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, from some of his remarks gave me the impression that he may not be quite sure of the proposed timing of the procedure for putting out to competitive tender. The trigger for putting out to tender is the cost of the service in the preceding year. My noble friend Lord Campbell raised the point about how local authorities may need to dispose of their plant and equipment if they lose a contract to a private contractor. The local authority, in drawing up the specification document, could invite the private contractor to use the local authority's equipment, thus safeguarding the equipment for future use by the local authority. I hope that that may give some reassurance to my noble friend.
My noble friend Lord Balfour referred to the need to have more than one contractor for the sake of efficiency. I should say to my noble friend that the Government cannot be responsible for drumming up contractors to hid for contracts, but there is of course precedent for work being taken back in-house by the local authority in the light of a contractor holding the local authority to ransom or failing to deliver a service satisfactorily.
The noble Lord, Lord Ross, queried in general the wisdom that legislation here should be on a United Kingdom basis rather than on a special Scottish footing. There are many precedents, of which the noble Lord will be aware, of previous administrations enacting legislation for Scotland within a United Kingdom Act. However, I can assure the noble Lord that there will be an opportunity to debate this point in another amendment.
I appreciate fully how concerned the island authorities are about the possible effects of the provisions of this Bill. As I have said, I am prepared to talk with noble Lords on their concerns regarding how the de minimis level should relate to single islands. And regarding the broader issue of competition within island authorities we shall certainly examine the experience of the workings of the Bill with considerable care. The Bill gives power

527
to the Secretary of State to make changes in the light of circumstances as relevant. Meanwhile, I think we have sufficient protection through the de minimis provision, and in view of their comments I hope that the noble Lords will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
5 p.m
Lord Campbell of Croy: It may be better if I speak at this stage, before the noble Lord who moved the amendment, and speak to my four amendments which were discussed with his. First, as others have done, I should like to welcome the noble Lord, Lord Ross, back to health, and in what seems from his contribution robust health after a period of restricting illness.
The Government seem clearly not to be prepared to accept Amendment No. 2 at this stage. The consultations with the local authorities, including the three island councils, are still continuing. I can see that the Government may not wish to exempt completely these three councils, Orkney, Shetland and the Western Isles. I emphasise that it is simply the islands in those three groups which are the subject of these amendments.
I can see also that other local authorities in remote areas may feel that it was unfair to them if there were total exemption from testing the availability of competition. But I hope that the Government will consider carefully the other amendments which would temper the provisions of the Bill to the unusual conditions of these three island authorities.
If I may remind the Committee, the amendments in my name would, first of all, enable the Government to make use of the variations recommended by the Montgomery Committee for this category of local authority, islands councils. Secondly, the application of the de minimis provision would apply to individual operations carried out either on a single island or a group of islands which were only part of a local authority's area but which nonetheless required a completely separate operation. Thirdly—and this is where my noble friend's honourable friend in another place definitely agreed—there should be arrangements where the cost of the procedures for opening a contract to outside tenders weighed heavily against any possible benefits which could be gained.
These points all having been discussed and the special circumstances pointed out, we await the Government's further consideration and decisions, because the time for consultations does not end until 31st January. I hope that the Government will then, with priority, get down to their own consideration and decision.
I should also like to accept what I think I heard as an offer by my noble friend to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, and myself and others interested to be able ourselves to have discussions before the next stage of the Bill with my noble friend and his other friends in the Scottish Office. I gladly accept that. I am not proposing at this stage, particularly as the consultation period is still going on, to move my
528
amendments when they are reached later during this Committee stage, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, will not press his either at this stage.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I too am grateful for the Minister's suggestion that he discuss the matter with the Members of the Committee. I hope he will take to the Secretary of State for Scotland, before he comes to discuss it, the firm opinion that came from all sides of the Committee, and quite powerfully, that there is something special about the islands, and not just in sentimental terms but in factual terms. The idea of trying to impose a Bill upon, as the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, suggested, London, the Shetlands and Stornoway at the same time does not seem to balance at all.
With great respect to the noble Earl, if he does not take advice and make a clear statement to the Secretary of State about this Bill and the feeling in the Committee, a meeting would not be of any great value. I hope he will go there first, then come to us, and then go back. We know how government works, and we hope he will do that.
Everybody who spoke except the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, felt that the Bill was really a nonsense for Scotland and for the islands. At this point I should like to say how much I appreciate the fact that my noble friend Lord Ross is back with, as someone said, a typically robust speech. It was also a highly political speech, but it is important that this should have been discussed in Scotland as a Scottish Bill. Because of the uniqueness of Scotland's position, and because it is the only area with these island authorities, there should have been a separate Bill for Scotland.
When the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, spoke about competition in the islands she mentioned grass cutting and window cleaning. No great capitalisation is needed either for grass cutting or for window cleaning. What will happen to a local authority if it has bought, or has in existence with a long life ahead of it, some fairly important capital equipment? It will have to be left for scrap if the new contractor decides not to buy it, or sold on the mainland second-hand market or left to rot.
The noble Earl said that if a contractor was falling down on the job the work could be taken back in-house. He has heard arguments from both sides of the Committee about the difficulty of taking work back in-house if there was no equipment to do it or the equipment had disappeared. How often could this happen? If a small island authority decided that the contractor had let it down completely, would it need to take the work back in-house, do the job itself and then perhaps two years later put the work out to contract again?
How often would it need to do that? Would the Secretary of State then give that one part of the island authority exemption? It might apply to only one part of the island authority. A large number of questions must be answered. I hope that the Minister will discuss the matter much more widely with his colleagues, and in particular with the Secretary of State. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Hughes: Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may say a few words. I must apologise to the Minister. I was out seeking information when he rose to speak. In the light of one of the remarks he made I do not think that I am being unfair in coming into the debate at this stage.
On the question of competition, a point was raised about local authorities disposing of their plant in the cleansing department and at the end of a contract being placed in an impossible position when the contractor increased his prices substantially because the competition from the local authority had been removed. The Minister dealt with that point rather simply and on the face of it very logically by saying that the local authority could put into its contract the need for the contractor to use its equipment, which presumably would be made available on leasing terms. This is one of the points I was inquiring about when I was outside. The information I was given is that this opens up a most extraordinary situation.
I asked on what basis would the leasing price be determined. If an authority had written it down at half its original value, would it be leased to the contractor on the basis of that written-down value or would the price for the leasing take into account the replacement value of the plant? The answer I was given is that nobody knows. If the local authority did it one way, it could be regarded as unfair competition by its own department. If it did it another way, the contractor could take it to court on the basis that this was unfair competition.
Have the Government any idea of how they wish this to go ahead? On what basis would they regard a lease price to a contractor as unfair competition? Have the Government any idea? It may well be that the Minister knows the answer to the question. If he does not, it is certainly one of a whole number of similar points which we would expect to be answered during the consultations. What is quite certain is that there is no easy way out of this problem in the islands. The problem of the leasing or selling of plant to a successful contractor will not be confined to the islands. The problem will arise in every local authority in the country. It could be one kind of a mess.
The Earl of Dundee: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, for drawing to my attention the problem of the arrangements for leasing. I cannot give him an answer now. As he will be aware, we await the proposals for detailed implementation. However, it is useful that he comments on the matter now. I trust that if the point has not already been taken on board it will be resolved satisfactorily in due course.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My noble friend interrupted me most profitably while I was trying to withdraw the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 26, after ("1973") insert ("except where the regional or islands council is acting as a water authority in terms of the Water (Scotland) Act 1980").
The noble Lord said: This is another example of the fact that it would have been better to have a Scottish Bill. The Bill before us is designed for the legal system and the local government system of England. It is quite inappropriate in this instance for Scotland.
The amendment says:
"except where the regional or islands council is acting as a water authority in terms of the Water (Scotland) Act 1980".
The Bill as it stands includes all local authorities. As in Scotland regional and island councils are also water authorities, this means that the water undertakings will be caught by the Bill. They will need to behave in the same way as local authorities although the English ones will not. In England, water boards are independent bodies and are not covered by the Bill. There seems to be no good reason for that. If English water boards are excluded, perhaps because of the essential services they provide, councils in Scotland should be exempted when acting as water authorities.
During the debates in Standing Committee in another place the reply of the Under-Secretary of State to the amendment did not answer the points properly. He said that water authorities in England and Wales were not included in Clause 1,
"because water authorities are separate entities in those countries".
That is tautology. That is what we have been saying all the time. If water authorities in England are excluded, why should water authorities in Scotland doing exactly the same job not be excluded as well? That is an obvious point and I look forward to the Minister accepting the amendment. I beg to move.
The Earl of Dundee: This amendment would, if accepted, isolate an integral part of local authority activity in Scotland from the scope of the Bill. It would also create an anomalous situation between Scotland and England and Wales. Water services in Scotland are organised on a different basis from those in England and Wales, but the provisions of the Bill have a common effect throughout Great Britain.
The Committee will be aware that the Bill is limited to certain defined activities which a local authority undertakes in the provision of its services. It would of course make no sense to exclude, for example, the repair and maintenance of vehicles used in the water services function of a regional or islands council. This amendment would single out an integral local authority function which properly and logically falls within the scope of the Bill. It therefore creates an anomaly, and for that reason I would ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Can my noble friend tell us why it is that English water authorities are not included in the Bill?
The Earl of Dundee: Yes. It is because English water authorities are not under the control of local government, whereas they are north of the Border in Scotland.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I have a feeling that that reply does not really satisfy the noble Baroness. The whole history is so different. The

531
Minister suggested that if this amendment were accepted there would be an anomalous situation as between Scotland and England. But the whole purpose of the amendment is to correct what we believe to be a glaring anomaly if the Bill goes through, in that water authorities in England will not be involved in the Bill while water authorities in Scotland will be involved.
This seems to us to be a much larger anomaly than appears from the explanation given by the noble Earl. We may come back to this point later. Perhaps it is something else that we can talk about when we are discussing the islands with the noble Earl at a future date. At present, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: I was expecting something to be said about the fire brigade in the debate on Clause 1 and I have not heard anything. Is there another amendment?
Lord Dean of Beswick: Later.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Defined activities]:
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, line 35. at end insert ("except when carried out in a particular location by persons more than half of whom are disabled or handicapped").
The noble Lord said: Very briefly, before I move this amendment, perhaps I may say that the last discourse between various Members of the Committee gave me thought about the different treatment that is being accorded to various regions of the United Kingdom. I think that the Government are in danger, if they are not very careful, of treading on the question of hybridity. The differences are becoming very manifest.
Amendment No. 5 seeks to protect from the competitive tender provisions existing arrangements whereby work falling within a defined activity is carried out by a group of people who are handicapped or disabled in some way. It is put forward in terms of specific exemptions and merits consideration on the same welfare grounds as the exemptions already recognised in the Bill, such as the excepted day centres and other establishments specifically excluded in Schedule 1.
It is not aimed at exempting work carried out by any employee or other person who is disabled, but only where organised collective arrangements obtain to provide a substantial number of handicapped people with employment. This is effected by reference to "the greater part"—that is, a majority of people carrying out that particular work in a particular location.
The amendment is to exempt groups of disabled and handicapped persons. There is a considerable amount of work which falls within the defined activities which is currently carried out by adult
532
training centre trainees and similar establishments. For example, Norfolk County Council uses ATC trainees to provide a grounds maintenance service for some of its old people's homes. In Nottinghamshire, some school meals are prepared in a sheltered workshop for delivery to schools. There are arrangements in conjunction with the Manpower Services Commission whereby employees whose disability is mainly mental handicap are engaged in grounds maintenance. And there are schemes—for example, under the Nottinghamshire sheltered placement scheme—whereby people whose disability is mainly epilepsy are engaged in street cleaning.
These are the kinds of arrangements which serve two very useful purposes—getting the work done and providing training, useful employment and a kind of independence to people handicapped by a disability—which could be severely jeopardised by the Bill as it stands, for the activities to put out to competitive tender are actually those in which many such disabled people are engaged.
It seems that the actual terms under which handicapped people carry out cleaning, catering, and so forth, can range widely. In some circumstances, they may be paid directly by the authority and definitely have the status of employees; in others, there may be a contract or agreement with the training centre, or whatever, and the person receives some payment through the mechanism of the linking organisation or establishments.
It could be argued that, as the test for whether the work is carried out by the local authority appears to be whether or not the work is carried out by a council employee—for example, work carried out by a defined authority through an employee—many existing arrangements with sheltered schemes, adult training centres, and so on, would in any case be exempt from the Bill since the workers are not council employees and the arrangement or contract is between the authority and the scheme.
However, there are three snags in this argument. The first is that people within a number of schemes would probably nevertheless be, or fall, within the definition of an employee and they would not be exempt. The second is that it is still not clear whether not having the technical status of council employee definitely exempts from the Bill any person carrying out the council's work.
For example, is the work carried out by YTS trainees included in the Bill? They are not technically employees of the council, but they may carry out on work experience both work for the authority and additional tasks to give them appropriate training and experience. Their status of trainee should suffice to exempt them from the tender provisions, but there is apparently some doubt about this. A clarifying statement on how YTS trainees are regarded in relation to Part I of the Bill would be useful. It clearly has relevance for the position of handicapped workers who are not technically council employees. This uncertainty about the position of workers who are not employees in the usual sense is the reason for the wording "persons" rather than "employees" in the amendment.
The third argument against any view that in practice most current arrangements for handicapped workers can co-exist reasonably well with Part I of the Bill concerns the complications if it is ultimately decided that the only way of safeguarding such arrangements is for a local authority to treat a sheltered workshop, adult training centre, or whatever, as if it were part of the contracting process.
Such an approach would assume, first, that workers under such special schemes were not exempt from Part I even if they were not council employees within the scope of the usual pay and national insurance arrangements, etc. Presumably an authority asking for a tender to carry out work from an establishment which itself forms part of local authority provision, such as an adult training centre, would count as in-house work. What then of the workload of preparing for separate tenders for every such parcel of work within the restrictions set down in Part I? Would the justification of accepting the ATC tender on welfare grounds be acceptable, even if it is not the lowest tender and the value of it relates as much to the workers as to the consumers of the service—those who eat the meals or live in the old people's homes, etc? Would it not be a farce to undertake the elaborate process of tendering when all parties concerned intend the contract or arrangement to continue because it is very much to the benefit of those handicapped people as well as getting the work done? I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Hylton: This is a most important amendment. Surely it is of the greatest importance that disabled and handicapped people should be able to do positive, meaningful jobs and have the satisfaction of doing a day's work. I wonder whether part of the difficulty could be circumnavigated by using de minimis provisions in some form, so that the individual establishment that is providing the service can have a ceiling which is clearly much higher than the amount of work it will do in any given year. I throw that in as a suggestion.
The Earl of Caithness: I believe that we are talking to Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 at the same time. Both amendments have as their laudable objective that of protecting the jobs of handicapped employees. It is an objective with which I, and I am sure all the Committee, have considerable sympathy.
I have to put it to the Committee, however, that there never can be any absolute guarantee of job security even for the disabled. One major reason is that they are usually distributed throughout an otherwise able-bodied workforce; in other words, in sheltered placement schemes rather than in sheltered workshops. I am sure that the Committee agrees that it would be quite unacceptable to protect an entire workforce from competition just because a few of its members were disabled, but I fear that might be the effect of the second of the two amendments. Nor, of course, do all of the disabled register as such. That may seem surprising to some Members of the Committee. It is nevertheless the case that only a minority are thought to do so, as registration is voluntary. Any amendment referring to sheltered
534
schemes or workshops therefore fails to deal with the majority of the disabled because only the registered disabled are employed under these schemes.
The first of the amendments, on the other hand, deals only with the very rare case where more than half the workforce is disabled or handicapped. I am aware of only one case, in the field covered by this Bill where that would be effectual—a sheltered kitchen in Nottingham, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick—although there may be some others.
The noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, makes a fundamental point which concerns us all. That is why we have considered it carefully. We have concluded that the most comprehensive way to deal with it is to give authorities an assurance that in considering whether to act against failure by them to meet their financial objectives, the Secretary of State will take into account the extent to which any failure is due to the extra costs of employing the disabled. I confirm that I am talking about any disabled employees whether or not they are registered; therefore, our proposals are wider than those proposed in the amendment. The effect is that the local authority would be able to discount the additional costs of employing the disabled when preparing bids. That covers the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, when he asked for something on the de minimis lines. It will enable the local authorities to say, "This would be our normal contract price. However, because of the number of disabled or handicapped people we employ there are extra costs." It will allow the local authorities and the Secretary of State to take into account the extra costs and discount them.
When one looks at the problem I wonder what the extra costs of employing the disabled will be. I do not think that those costs will frequently be a decisive factor in tilting the balance between financial failure and success, because the issue is generally more clear cut than that. I hope that the Committee will agree that an assurance on those lines strikes a better balance than either of the amendments and that in the light of that the Bill can be accepted as it stands.
Lord Dean of Beswick: I am grateful to the Minister for his comments about handicapped and disabled people. However, I think that the issue goes a little wider than the narrow confines to which he has chosen to keep. As one who was heavily involved in local government and in the employment of the disabled and handicapped, I know that it is a sad fact that society as a whole—we are all to blame—has never reached anywhere near (even in government and local authority establishments) gainfully employing the number of people we should like to see taken from the disabled list.
Some people are aware of establishments that cater extensively for the employment of disabled people. Some of those people have been highly skilled and have unfortunately suffered partial strokes and other such handicaps. They are given dignity by being taken back into work. It may not be the same job; but their talents are used to the benefit of the community. What I and the supporters of the amendment are trying to achieve in this and the following two

535
amendments is that there should be nothing in the Bill when it is enacted that can be seen to deny work to a handicapped or disabled person who is gainfully employed at present or that would result in their being thrown on the scrap heap.
I should like to look at what the Minister has said, as, I am sure, will the people involved in the care of the less fortunate members of our society. If necessary, I may come back and press him a little harder on the subject in the later stages of the Bill. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 6:
Page 2, line 35, at end insert ("except when carried out by sheltered workshops and sheltered placement schemes'").
The noble Lord said: Having already spoken to the amendment, I think there is no need to waste time. Therefore, I will not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
The Countess of Mar The Countess of Mar moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 2, line 35, at end insert ("except where the premises are provided by a local social services authority under section 21(1) and Schedule 8, paragraph 2(1)(a) and (b) of the National Health Service Act 1977, where residential or day-care facilities are provided for habilitation or rehabilitation.").
The noble Countess said: This amendment, although similar to those that have just been spoken to, is slightly different in that it is aimed at protecting an aspect of community care about which the Government are so keen.
Local authorities are empowered under the National Health Service Act 1977 to provide residential and day-care accommodation for people who are likely to be ill, are ill, or have been ill. In many cases they use the premises for the rehabilitation or habilitation of former patients. For example, in my locality, there is a home which takes former psychiatric patients. They are encouraged to cook for their fellow residents and to clean not only their own rooms but the common parts of the house in which they live. Another place habilitates mentally handicapped people and teaches them how to cook, garden and do various other things. It is important that we defend that aspect of community care. I ask the Committee to consider that the amendment is worthwhile. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: I totally agree with the noble Countess that the work in these fields is important. She referred specifically to cooking and cleaning. I draw her attention to paragraphs 2(4)(b)4(4) of Schedule 1 where she will find, as I have, that it exempts precisely what she is trying to exempt.
The Countess of Mar: I am most grateful to the Minister. The matter did not seem clear to me in the Bill. However, I am grateful to him for clarifying that point, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Cox): I should point out that if Amendment No. 8 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 9.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 3, line 4, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Lord said: I am very happy to settle for Amendment No 8 and forget Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 if enough points have been made.
The Earl of Caithness: Are we discussing Amendments 8, 9 and 10 together?
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Yes. As the Minister is aware, his advisers have suggested that Amendments Nos. 8, 9 and 10 can perfectly properly be debated together, so my remarks will include those three. But I acknowledge that when the matter is resolved, if it has to go to a vote, the vote will be taken on Amendment No. 8. As the Deputy Chairman of the Committee pointed out, that will negative the other amendments.
On this side of the Committee we consider this a very important group of amendments. In moving them, I am speaking particularly to Amendment No. 8. I think it would be helpful if I were simply to read into the record that part of the Bill which we wish to delete. It is Clause 2, page 3, line 4, subsection (3):
"The Secretary of State may by order provide for an activity to be a defined activity by adding a paragraph to those for the time being appearing in subsection (2) above".
Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 go a little further, referring to subsection (4) on page 3 where first of all we are being specific. We are saying that nothing more shall be added before April 1993. The case for that quite simply is that one needs a period of digestion in order to absorb, as in many councils, all the activities which are defined.
The other amendment, simply to get it onto the record, is that in subsection (4):
"the Secretary of State shall consult such representatives of local government as appear to him to be appropriate".
We are trying to be helpful to him by pointing out that in our view the representatives who could be appropriate are the local authority associations and such other local authorities, bodies or individuals as may appear to him to be concerned. We are saying to the Minister very kindly that we have every good faith that the ADC, the ACC, the AMA and the ALA are very proper bodies collectively to represent the views of their members. If any consultations are to take place, they ought to be the prime bodies concerned. But there may be other individuals, authorities who the Minister feels ought to be brought in. In particular, there may be other associations representing sports bodies.
We are very concerned at what has already been said by the Minister's colleagues in another place. Indeed, there have been consultations in respect of a further service which could be added to the Bill: sport and leisure. The Minister knows that there has been a consultation process and a document has been circulated. He is undoubtedly in the process of receiving those observations.

537
However, the Committee ought to be aware, at the beginning, of representations from non-political bodies. That is not councils; that is not bodies about which the Minister or his colleagues from time to time say, "Well, they would say that, wouldn't they, to anything this Government say". I should like to report what the Amateur Swimming Association has said about the possibility of another activity (sport and leisure) being added to the Bill. The Amateur Swimming Association has told us:
"The Committee of the ASA are deeply concerned about the possible repercussions of swimming pools being run by commercial operators. Swimming relies almost entirely on facilities provided by local authorities, and we as an Association do not relish the prospect of being at the mercy of operators intent on achieving financial targets, at the expense of facilities available to the sport or indeed as as service to the community at large".
No doubt the Minister can put their minds at rest that the commercial operator will not have his profits uppermost in his mind but service to the community and the sport at large! That is what the Amateur Swimming Association feels at the moment.
Then the All-England Netball Association says:
"It will be exceedingly difficult to retain the philanthropic aims of the local authority centres with a commercial operator standing to reap the rewards of a more commercial approach".
I suppose that operator will be looking for a net return in respect of netball. I think that is very good, too!
On the same theme, the English Basketball Association says:
"We are naturally concerned that the recreation services of local authorities should be efficient and effective but feel that the proposed measures could be counter-productive…The less affluent and disadvantaged sectors of our community who wish to lake part in sport and recreation must be protected".
There is a great deal more in a similar vein from other sports.
I am certain that the Minister will be trying to be helpful to them and to assuage their concern. However, we on this side of the Committee ask the Minister why he needs to be bothered with this at all. There is a large tranche of local services which are at present non-competitively tendered for and which are in the gift of a local authority. If the Minister has his way and this Bill becomes an Act and is then proceeded with, certainly for a period estimated at five years, there will be a great deal of information to take on board.
Never mind the people on whose behalf the Minister and his colleagues feel they are acting in this Bill that is, the ratepayers. I am talking here about the people who are the users of the service, the ratepayers and in particular their children who may not be paying rates or the future community charge but who are benefiting from the services.
Quite frankly, we are concerned indeed about some of the implications. If we look at the problems which might occur, the Minister has sought in his consultation document on sport and leisure to point out that certain dual-user facilities may very well be capable of being exempted if it is possible to prove that the majority of the use or the "principal" use (which is the word used) is by pupils and students. But there are other sports facilities provided in a local authority used by people other than pupils and students. For instance, there are the joint provision
538
schemes with health authorities, education, social services and the private sector; sports facilities whose site is a long distance from the educational establishment (that is, rugby and athletics grounds); facilities provided principally for the youth service or those for the police. All those are not adequately clarified as being excluded. If they are included, then I strongly suggest to the Minister that there will be many problems.
We are talking here about the following facilities being put out to be managed by outside contractors. Bear in mind that it is not, as the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, pointed out, just a question of laying down the specification and the service. It is a question of giving to a private contractor control over how long the service will be available, how much will be charged and a great many other things. These are: leisure centres, swimming pools, golf courses, bowling greens, putting greens, tennis courts, athletics tracks, pitches, cycle tracks, water sports facilities, artificial ski slopes, skating rinks, indoor bowling arenas and beaches. I think the noble Lord should help the Committee by explaining what he and his colleagues have in mind in seeking to give to some private contractor control over the use of and the charge for the use of beaches in the context of the Bill. I am sure the committee will be very interested indeed.
Local authorities have invested a considerable amount of money in local sports facilities which have been provided for their local community. They should not be forced to hand over those facilities and the control over admission policy to private sector managers who could transform the facility for new activities. They could determine the financial criteria and a great many other things. Local authorities will very often include many things in the use of a sports complex. The sports complex I know best is Picketts Lock in the Lee Valley Regional Park. It could very well have a range of activities which are extended and which will provide a comprehensive, satisfactory community facility. But if in one way or another facilities like Picketts Lock or those which are managed wholly by an authority are to be put out to tender, then it is at the whim of the private contractor. That really means: is there money to be made in it or not? That is the criterion as to whether he includes some facilities which need to be put in in order to encourage its use. I am thinking of sports like judo, for instance—a growing sport which may very often have a limited financial attraction to an individual. Yet in the totality of the provision one would need that.
One kind of activity to which I should like to draw the attention of the Minister and obtain some observations on is the following: a number of local authorities have sought to ensure that the needs of different communities are properly addressed; for example, through the provision of women-only swimming sessions with female attendants. That allows some Asian and other ethnic minority women to use the swimming facilities, as their culture prevents unclothed association with men.
Some councils provide information on their services in different languages, particularly in areas where English is not spoken. Authorities have also

539
targeted work with disabled groups and encouraged positive staff attitudes and a willingness to assist these groups who, for example, may not be able to move equipment about.
I plead with the Minister to listen to the voices of those who have not been part of his political process in this matter. I am referring to the voice of the Institute of Leisure and Amenity Management which has said:
"There will be many facilities that are of no interest to the private sector. Given the range of facilities listed in the consultation paper there is no universal financial target that could possibly be applied to them all without the implication that some services would be closed down."
Therefore this key amendment aims to take out of the Bill the possibility of the Government adding to the Bill services which are not already covered by the Bill. Amendment No. 9 further asks that nothing further be added—I am not saying that nothing more should be added—until at least 1993. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: I am sure that the Committee will agree that the first two of these amendments (Nos. 8 and 9), would in practice have a similar effect. The first would omit entirely the power to add further activities without recourse to primary legislation; the second would delay its use until so far into the future as to make it rather academic.
Perhaps at this stage I should remind the Committee of the power that we are talking about. It can be found in Clause 2(3). I shall quote the words of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, who said in another place on 6th July on Second Reading at col. 81 of the Official Report:
"This power is necessary so that we may add further services later once authorities have coped with the initial list. We shall certainly not use the power to add core services such as teaching, policing, planning control and the like. Use of the power will be subject to affirmative resolution of both Houses."
That sums up extremely well why we consider the power to be necessary. We do think that it is right that the local authority should have time to consider and implement what is at the moment subject to consultation and what we discussed on the first amendment.
The Government do not, despite much putting about of rumours to the contrary, have any plans to use Clause 2(3) immediately following Royal Assent to add a further raft of activities to those already on the face of the Bill, except for one matter. It may well be that the power is used to add sport and leisure management, but that has already been thoroughly foreshadowed and subject to a full consultation exercise.
I think that it would be wrong (because that consultation exercise has only just finished) for me to comment in detail on the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, because those are exactly the kind of points that we are considering. However, I do not think that it would be wrong for me to say to those who are concerned that, should one proceed down the road of using the order—that is what the Committee agrees—to include sport and leisure management in due course, of course that service and the strictures on it can be laid down by the
540
local authority. I have absolutely no doubt that the local authority, where it is using such leisure facilities for the handicapped, the disabled or for women, will specify that in the contract. It will be part of the tender document that within certain hours and at a certain price those facilities must be provided.
All that tender document is doing is setting out the service that the local authority wants. Then it will be for the local authority's in-house workforce to decide at what price it can perform that service as set down by the local authority. The same will apply to contractors. I have no doubt that the efficient and well-managed local authority labour forces will compete very fairly on that basis. Otherwise the fact is that there are no current plans for further additions.
But is it not entirely reasonable that the power to add by order should be provided for? It would be a wrong use of scarce parliamentary time if, whenever it did appear that there was a good case for adding an activity whose addition raised essentially the same issues as were raised by the services currently on the face of the Bill, the whole legislative process had to be gone through yet again. We are very much debating the principle; what the order does is to allow us to add other services which might be considered suitable.
The power is subject not only to mandatory consultation, as a result of an amendment accepted in another place, but also to debate in both Houses. Therefore I hope that my noble friends will join me in agreeing that these are amply sufficient safeguards against the abuse or misuse of this power.
I turn to Amendment No. 10 which concerns the wording of the duty to consult. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton that the local authority associations and all authorities, bodies, and individuals who appeared to be concerned would most certainly be consulted. I do not, in fact, believe that the amendment proposed would add substantively to the form of the duty already contained in Clause 2(4). This Government are in the habit of consulting widely on virtually every significant policy initiative, with or without statutory duty. For instance, the consultation paper of 2nd November, which set out the proposed de minimis level and phasing-in scheme, was sent out not only to the local authority associations but also to every single authority as well as to a wide range of other interested parties. There could be no fuller consultation than that.
The present wording does not, therefore, conceal the remotest hint of an intention to narrow the scope of consultation. Therefore I hope that I can assuage the noble Lord's fears on that point.
Lord Hughes: I do not know what my noble friend thinks about what the Minister has said on the assurances given about consultation, but I should be very surprised if he is in any way satisfied with the answer given by the Minister to the first amendment we were discussing which was to leave a subsection out of the Bill.
The Minister has said that the procedure for an order to be placed and to be subject to the affirmative resolution gives ample opportunity for both Houses

541
to discuss the matter and debate it at whatever length may be decided. If an order is being put forward for one particular addition, then obviously both Houses have the opportunity of expressing their views for or against that particular one. But there is a difference between the Houses because of the conventions which now apply.
The other place can vote against an order. Convention prevents us from voting against an order particularly if it has already been passed in another place. That would be bad enough if an order was being placed for one simple addition, but it would be more likely that the order to be presented would be adding two or more facilities to the procedure. It may well be that in either House Members would be quite happy about one of the additions but dislike intensely another. The provisions for dealing with orders do not allow an order to be amended. It has either to be accepted or rejected so there is no opportunity, particularly for this House, to give discriminating consideration to different aspects of the order.
The Minister said that if that subsection were taken out it would require primary legislation for other facilities to be added to the procedure. I suggest that that is not a major obstacle. It requires merely a very simple piece of legislation to add to Clause 2 the additional facilities and to add them to Schedule 1. I hesitate to say that it would be a one-clause Bill but it could quite easily be a one-page Bill. In that case the facilities would be available to both Houses to consider the matter in detail. I do not know how my noble friend feels on the matter. However, I feel that the answer to the question of relying on the affirmative procedure on the resolution is totally unsatisfactory. I hope that my noble friend will proceed to test the will of the Committee on that matter.
6 p.m.
Lord McCarthy: I should like to ask the Minister a question about what he said concerning consultation. He said that sport and leisure as a possible subject for compulsory tendering was subject to consultation. However, when it has been made subject to consultation, will the Government be influenced by the consequences of the consultation? My noble friend Lord Graham mentioned what he thought people in the sport and leisure industry thought of the idea of compulsory tendering. He said that they do not like it.
Will the Government be influenced by the consultation and will they tell us what the results of the consultation are before they come to extend the results of the Bill? They will not tell us the results of the consultations which they have had on refuse, cleaning, catering and maintenance. They say that they cannot tell us because that information is confidential. Therefore, they cannot tell us when it is confidential and they cannot tell us now. All they can tell us is that they will probably add it to the Bill. I think that is not reasonable, although the Minister says that he does not want to be unreasonable.
Lord Dean of Beswick: What is worrying many people who are involved in sport and like to watch
542
sport is the fear that the Bill, if it becomes an Act, and if orders were to be introduced later, could involve a substantial diminution of facilities in areas where they are most needed. Members of the Committee from all parts of the Chamber have noticed that in the field of sport (with the possible exception of soccer and cricket) and particularly in the more competitive sports which are done on a personal basis, in order for people to participate they need basic facilities to be provided for training, as they are in all parts of the world for their competitors. Other countries seem to be able to provide—I believe from public funds—those competitors with far more extensive training than we are able to give in this country.
I think that it is true to say that the one large swimming pool in the north of England—it is, I believe, just short of Olympic standard—is in Leeds. It is not in Manchester and it is not in Sheffield. It is the only swimming pool which can cater for international competitions. Some years ago there were plans afoot when Leeds was under the control of Conservatives to sell the pool to private enterprise because it was deemed to be a drain on the rates. That apparently meant that it was a commercial drain on the rates, without taking into account the good that the provision of a swimming facility of that standard was doing for the city of Leeds. It is no accident that some of the champion swimmers of this country are from that city. I am thinking of people such as Mr. Adrian Moorhouse.
Before I came to this Chamber I represented a part of Leeds which had contrasting areas, but one segment of it was the inner city area which included Armley. The local baths were almost falling down. The city council decided that a complete renovation of the baths was necessary and it built a sports complex around that. I was in Armley the other week, and it has completely and totally built up its facilities. Many of those facilities are used by young boys and girls who have the misfortune to be unemployed. My worry is that if that sort of facility is given to the private sector, we may be inflicting on some of our young people damage that we shall live to regret.
I for one should like to see, where athletes are training and starting to blossom, that we try to give them facilities which are comparable to those enjoyed by their counterparts in international competitions. It is no accident that one of the smallest countries in the world—East Germany—produces some of the best athletes. I am not suggesting that I like that system, but the fact is that their young people get better support in every sport in which they participate.
I feel it has been necessary to make those comments because some of us are frightened that if the Minister is allowed to include that type of matter by means of an order, it will be to the long-term detriment of the young people of this country who wish to participate in sport.
Baroness Blatch: Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, a question. There is nothing in the Bill as proposed that does not allow a local authority to determine services for its people. Therefore, if it has a view that it should subsidise

543
substantially access to sports facilities, it is a matter for the local authority to say that that is what it wants to do and to build that into any basis for open competition.
It is important to distinguish between the management and actual running of some complexes and the level to which the local authority wishes to subsidise the facilities for its people. By that method either the local authority will retain—having specified the level of service and the degree to which it wishes to subsidise the facility—the contract for itself because what it is doing is the best possible and most cost-effective operation, or it will allow the actual management to go to an outside contractor.
In any case, it will expose to the local people who pay for the service, and who have been little talked about in the debate, two things. The first is the cost of efficiently running an establishment and the second is the degree to which the local authority subsidises the facilities for its local people. I believe that there is nothing wrong with the local people understanding the level of subsidy.
If the local people support such a subsidy, and in particular if the people who are paying the bill support that procedure, is there any reason why that should not be exposed? At the moment, it is little known at what cost facilities are maintained for local people paying for the services. I do not see that as a threat to local people. If any local authority wishes to have free access or subsidised access to facilities, or even selectively reduced subsidised access, then it is a matter for the local authority to continue to do that.
Concerning consultation, which was a subject raised by another noble Lord, I believe that the Government have consulted more than any previous government in history. However, it is interesting to note the comment which was made. People who are concerned with leisure facilities should be asked what they think, and clearly they have a very direct vested interest in the future of the industry. However, there is a host of other interests to be consulted. Not least of those are the people who have to foot the bill for the facilities. They are also part of the consultation procedure. I think that there is nothing wrong in exposing the real cost of the facilities so that local people can make real choices about what they want and local authorities can then, with hand on heart, produce it.
Lord Dean of Beswick: Perhaps I may briefly reply to the point made by the noble Baroness. I think we see here a clear indication of the dangers of treating particular areas of the country as one and saying that they are all the same. They are not the same. I spent my childhood in an area of Manchester where I paid a penny a week at a working men's club. Facilities in those days were hard to come by. However, we produced the champion gymnast of this country, who captained our team in Berlin at the first Olympic Games after the war.
If we say that our main basis is simply to let the local authority underpin the expense and decide the level of subvention that it will pay, what is the point, when it is already doing the job, of going through an
544
exercise of letting the contract and deciding subsequently how much the charging rate will be for the subsidy on a contract which it is doing itself?
In my opinion, that is a perfect example of Parkinson's Law.
My main concern is that this will not make any contribution whatever even if the present standard is maintained, to helping people to participate in sport. As for the future, where does the question of innovation come in? Who will provide any new facilities? I cannot see the contractors who are taking the public contract and managing or administrating it providing sports facilities at the level that I would want for the people for whom I think we ought to be providing them, namely those who cannot pay for them because of their social situation. That is a particular danger which is worrying not only Members of the Committee but also people who themselves participate in sport. Those facilities have already suffered because of the way in which the Government have cut rate support grant. I think that it can only exacerbate the situation.
Lord Beloff: I should like to express my sympathy with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, about the importance to this country of having more and more widespread facilities in a number of sports for which we cater less well than do some other countries. In this connection I should like to ask the Minister whether, supposing that sport and leisure were added to the Bill in the way that is being suggested, it would be possible for a local authority to make it a condition of a contract to run a sports centre or similar installation that the contractor must also put in a capital sum and add to the facilities available? If such a condition were imposed and if it could be made into a profitable concern, there is no reason why capital should not be invested from the private sector. If this were to be a possible item in a contract, it seems to me that some of the anxieties of the noble Lord, Lord Dean, may be met.
The Earl of Caithness: I hope that the Committee will forgive me if I do not give the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, an answer at the moment because this treads on Treasury rules and the annual budgets of local authorities. As I am very new to the job, I hope that the Committee will allow me to find out the answer and write to my noble friend on that particular point, putting copies in the Library as usual.
I am sure that the pessimistic view of the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, on these proposals will not come to fruition. I must declare an interest in that both my children go to the local authority swimming baths at weekends. I should hate to see that facility reduced or diminished in any way. In fact I am certain that, given the Bill, it will not be diminished. I am sure that the local authority will lay down sensible conditions in the tender document.
I believe that it comes down to a basic difference between us: noble Lords opposite feel that what we are doing will diminish the service; the Government believe that the necessary safeguards can be laid down within the contract and tender documents. Moreover, we believe that if sufficiently good and cogent reasons are put forward for further local

545
authority activities, other than the core activities to which I have referred, to be put out to tender in due course, then those should be added by order.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: The Minister's response is far from satisfactory. Perhaps it is only he and I who have the benefit of having studied the consultation document, which is the key to what I believe is a misunderstanding. The Minister understands the matter very well because he has read the document, and so have I. However, I fear that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, could not have done so because she persists in putting forward the argument that it is wholly within the gift of the local authority to determine its pricing policy, to establish its criteria and to go out to tender. It then says to those who are tendering, "These are the charges to be applied and you must manage the situation". In other words it is perfectly clear that in all other tenders cleaning, catering and matters of that kind the authority will be able to lay down its standard and then invite people to meet that standard. But that is not so with leisure and sports. I believe that it may be helpful to the noble Baroness to read out the appropriate part of the consultation paper. The Government have invited local authorities to comment on which alternative they prefer—there is no question that if there is a majority in favour of one or the other they will get it. The options are either:
"(a) Local authorities should retain their present discretionary powers under Section 19(1) and (2) of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 and Section 16(1) of the Local Government and Planning (Scotland) Act 1982, and therefore remain in control of policy decisions on charges to users etc. Under these powers such decisions may of course be delegated to private sector management if local authorities prefer to so delegate; or
(b) the present discretionary powers should be amended to target more specifically on those members of the community who may not be able to pay the full market rate to use sport and leisure facilities but who clearly should retain the opportunity to make use of such facilities—for example the unemployed, the elderly, school groups. This would give the private sector managers the freedom to decide their own policies on pricing, admittance, and opening hours for most users of facilities but would allow local authorities, if they so wished, to control those policies in respect of certain disadvantaged groups".
The Government see only two options. One is that the local authority determines social as well as financial policies in the use of sports facilities. Then there is the instance of old-age pensioners—there must be a lot of old-age pensioners who use sports facilities—school groups and the unemployed.
What about the generality of the community? If a local authority follows the second route—and I repeat what I said in my opening remarks—the private contractor will decide, with his pocket as the sole criterion, whether it is in his interest to have a sports centre open at certain hours, how much to charge and what sports facilities it will contain. I think that that is very dangerous. I shall certainly give way to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Blatch: In fact the noble Lord misquoted me. I did not say that local authorities would have the power to determine charging policy. I said that the local authority would have the power to determine its degree of subsidy, which is a very different matter.
546
Therefore if the local authority itself wanted general access, it could determine general access by a wider subsidy. If it wanted selective access by choosing old and young people and certain disadvantaged groups, it could determine that too. So it is a matter of a local authority determining the degree to which it wishes to subsidise the facilities for the users.
Perhaps I may make just one other point while I am on my feet. It is very much in the interests of whoever manages a facility, be it the private contractor or the public contractor, to see that the facility is used. It will receive maximum use when the charging policy is right. If the charges are exorbitant, the facility will not be used to capacity, which is bad management whoever is managing it—be it a private or public contractor.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: The swimming pools and sports complex having been handed over, if it turns out that the policy was wrong, one will find that many facilities for community use that have been handed over will be closed.
The sole criterion of the private contractor must be his pocket. He may be interested in what is happening within the community; but if a facility is provided at a loss then, even though it may be beneficial to the local community, one of the criteria that he will have to consider is that it is costing him money.
The noble Baroness said that it was within the gift of a local authority to determine its level of subsidy for sports facilities. However, I doubt whether the noble Baroness is right in saying that. I realise that the Minister may not be able to respond immediately to that point. That would drive a coach and horses through the legislation in which the Government intend to save the ratepayers' money because quite clearly at times there will be a conflict between the council making a general subsidy that will have an impact on the rates, and otherwise.
I take the Minister head-on on the point made by my noble friend Lord Hughes. My noble friend Lord McIntosh at Second Reading was very quick to consider this crucial difference. As the Minister says, if something is added, then it will be the subject of an order. That is wholly different because an order is either accepted or rejected. One does not have the opportunity of a big debate. The Minister's parliamentary colleague, Mr. Christopher Chope, stated in another place that a second batch of services will be added well before 1993 because authorities should be able to cope with the second tranche of activities well before then.
The Minister tells me that he did not have specific ideas of the additional services, and I accept that. But it is the intention to come forward with a second tranche—which may be a further five, six or seven—well before 1993.1 believe that the Minister's response has been wholly unsatisfactory. I intend to test the opinion of the Committee and very much hope that Members of the Committee opposite will recognise that this clause, and this amendment, are seeking to maintain the principle that English, Scottish and Welsh local authorities make sport and leisure available to a wide range of people who deserve them.
The Earl of Caithness: With respect, the noble Lord has slightly misled the Committee on that last point. We are not talking solely about sport and leisure. We are discussing the right of adding other items by order to the Bill.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Perhaps I may say this before any Division takes place. Quite apart from the question of subsidy, if the suggestion that the contractors should provide investment was implemented, that would be wholly contrary to the principle of free tendering and could ensure only that the contractors for the most part would be able to secure the contract. That would be totally wrong, as I hope the Committee will agree.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 8) shall be agreed to?
6.20 p.m.
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 105; Not-Contents, 143.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Kissin, L.

Amherst, E.

Lawrence, L.

Ardwick, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Attlee, E.

Lockwood, B.

Aylestone, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Barnett, L.

McCarthy, L.

Basnett, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Blease, L.

McNair, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Mar, C.

Bottomley, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Brain, L.

Meston, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Milford, L.

Brockway, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Molloy, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Monson, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mountevans, L.

Carter, L.

Mulley, L.

Chitnis, L.

Nicol, B. [Teller.]

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Ogmore, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Parry, L.

Craigavon, V.

Perry of Walton, L.

David, B.

Phillips, B.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Diamond, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Ennals, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Evans of Claughton, L.

Seear, B.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Shackleton, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Shannon, E.

Foot, L.

Sheffield, Bp.

Gallacher, L.

Shepherd, L.

Galpern, L.

Simon, V.

Gifford, L.

Stedman, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Grey, E.

Strabolgi, L.

Hampton, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hanworth, V.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Heycock, L.

Underhill, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Hughes, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Hunt, L.

Whaddon, L.

Hylton, L.

Wigoder, L.

Jacques, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Jay, L.

Willis, L.

Jeger, B.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Winstanley, L.

Kennet, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Ypres, E.

Kilmarnock, L.

548

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Joseph, L.

Allerton, L.

Killearn, L.

Ampthill, L.

Kimball, L.

Arran, E.

King of Wartnaby, L.

Balfour, E.

Knutsford, V.

Barber, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Bauer, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Beaverbrook, L.

Long, V.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Lurgan, L.

Beloff, L.

Lyell, L.

Belstead, L.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Bessborough, E.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Birdwood, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Blake, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Blatch, B.

Margadale, L.

Blyth, L.

Marley, L.

Borthwick, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Merrivale, L.

Bramall, L.

Mersey, V.

Brookeborough, V.

Milverton, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Minto, E.

Broxbourne, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Caccia, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Caithness, E.

Mottistone, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Munster, E.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Nelson, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Norrie, L.

Carnock, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Chelwood, L.

Onslow, E.

Coleraine, L.

Orkney, E.

Colville of Culross, V.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Pender, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Crathorne, L.

Portsmouth, E.

Croft, L.

Prior, L.

Cross, V.

Pym, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Quinton, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Rankeillour, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Reay, L.

Denning, L.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Derwent, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Dilhorne, V.

Salisbury, M.

Dundee, E.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Eden of Winton, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Sandford, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Savile, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Selkirk, E.

Faithfull, B.

Sherfield, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Ferrers, E.

Stockton, E.

Ferrier, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Fortescuc, E.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Gisborough, L.

Swansea, L.

Goold, L.

Teviot, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Greenway, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Gridley, L.

Thurlow, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Trafford, L.

Halsbury, E.

Trefgarne, L.

Havers, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hesketh, L.

Tryon, L.

Hives, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Vinson, L.

Hood, V.

Ward of Witley, V.

Hooper, B.

Wolfson, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.31 p.m.
[Amendment No. 9 not moved.]
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 3, line 8, leave out from ("consult") to end of line 9 and insert ("the local authority associations and such other local authorities, bodies or individuals as may appear to him to be concerned").
The noble Lord said: This has already been spoken to, and I intend to press it to a Division.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 10) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 94; Not-Contents, 126.

DIVISION NO. 3

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Amherst, E.

Kilmarnock, L.

Ardwick, L.

Kissin, L.

Attlee, E.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Aylestone, L.

Lockwood, B.

Banks, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Basnett, L.

McCarthy, L.

Blease, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Brain, L.

McNair, L.

Brockway, L.

Mar, C.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Meston, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Carter, L.

Minto, E.

Chitnis, L.

Molloy, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Monson, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Mulley, L.

Craigavon, V.

Nicol, B. [Teller.]

David, B.

Ogmore, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Parry, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Diamond, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Ennals, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Evans of Claughton, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Foot, L.

Seear, B.

Gallacher, L.

Shackleton, L.

Galpern, L.

Shannon, E.

Gifford, L.

Shepherd, L.

Glenamara, L.

Simon, V.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Stedman, B.

Grey, E.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hampton, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hanworth, V.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Heycock, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Underhill, L.

Howie of Tryon, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Hughes, ughes, L.

Whaddon, L.

Hunt, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Hylton, L.

Willis, L.

Jay, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Jeger, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Winstanley, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Kennet, L.

Ypres, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Birdwood, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Blake, L.

Allerton, L.

Blatch, B.

Arran, E.

Bledisloe, V.

Balfour, E.

Blyth, L.

Barber, L.

Borthwick, L.

Bauer, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Beloff, L.

Broxbourne, L.

Belstead, L.

Caccia, L.

Bessborough, E.

Caithness, E.

550

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Margadale, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Marley, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Carnock, L.

Merrivale, L.

Chelwood, L.

Mersey, V.

Coleraine, L.

Milverton, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Mottistone, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Crathorne, L.

Munster, E.

Croft, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Cross, V.

Nelson, E.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Onslow, E.

Derwent, L.

Orkney, E.

Dilhorne, V.

Oxfuird, V.

Dundee, E.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Portsmouth, E.

Ellenborough, L.

Prior, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Pym, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Quinton, L.

Ferrers, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Ferrier, L.

Reay, L.

Fortescue, E.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Gisborough, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Goold, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Greenway, L.

Sandford, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Savile, L.

Halsbury, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hesketh, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Hives, L.

Stockton, E.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Hood, V.

Strathcylde, L.

Hooper, B.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Swansea, L.

Joseph, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Killearn, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Kimball, L.

Thurlow, L.

King of Wartnaby, L.

Trafford, L.

Knutsford, V.

Trefgarne, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Trumpington, B.

Lauderdale, E.

Tryon, L.

Long, V.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Lurgan, L.

Vinson, L.

Lyell, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Wolfson, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.42 p.m.
[Amendment No. 11 not moved.]
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 3, line 17, at end insert ("or if it is work carried out by the employee who is responsible for the security of any building").
The noble Lord said: I was thinking that the way we are going on, if we stay here a long time, we might even threaten the Government! We are doing a little better than Mr. Scargill.
This is a practical and specific amendment, designed to meet the concern expressed by very many authorities about the effects that the Bill as drafted would have on the role and supply of caretakers and wardens in schools, sheltered housing and similar establishments.
The effect of the amendment, if approved, would be to exempt from the competitive tendering provisions, caretakers and wardens in small establishments, whose job contains defined activities

551
such as cleaning which cannot be described as incidental and quantitatively small, and thus would not be exempt under Clause 2(6) as currently drafted, yet whose exemption is vital to the proper continuance of the caretaking and security functions, most particularly in rural and primary schools. The problem is basically one where the important element of the job may nevertheless quantitatively be the lesser part.
The Bill currently sets out in Clause 2(6) a very stringent and rigid test for exempting any "defined activity" work from competitive tendering. It means that work will only be exempt if it is incidental to the greater part of the employee's work and such greater part does not constitute a defined activity.
Although the Bill does not include caretaking or janitorial duties as defined activities, the fact remains that it will require local education authorities to include caretaking of many of their schools in the competitive tender provisions. This is because in the small schools the only practical and economic way of organising the coverage of cleaning, caretaking and security, and similar functions, is to employ one person to do all these things, sometimes on a part-time basis.
The Bill poses two solutions, both equally poor: to ask for tenders for the complete range of work under Clause 2(7), or to try to restructure the work in such a way that the caretaking function is split off from the cleaning and the latter only is put out to tender. This is an expensive, uneconomic and probably unworkable solution in many cases, resulting in the security function for a group of schools being carried out at a distance, remote from the community, with consequent difficulties of access and supervision; that is, assuming that the recruitment of such staff remains possible. Because cleaning is a defined activity and usually constitutes more than 50 per cent. of the caretaker's work in small establishments, the Bill's provisions will nevertheless apply.
I have various examples from a number of major local authorities such as Surrey County Council, Warwickshire County Council, Kent County Council and Gwynedd County Council that have submitted their views on this matter. I shall not go through the four because of the time factor, but I think it would be as well to quote the Surrey County Council's comments as it generalises the experience of most of them:
"Surrey County Council is an example of an authority very concerned about the impact of competitive tendering on their school caretakers and cleaners in charge. While the caretakers at most of their secondary schools have responsibility for a wide range of tasks and cleaning is a lesser part of their work, so that they would fall outside the Bill's provisions, the position is very different in their primary and special schools.
In very many of them—Surrey estimate 339 out of a total of 379 primary schools—the caretaking functions would be affected by the proposed legislation. These are schools where cleaning is currently 50 per cent. plus of the caretaker's work. If the cleaning contracts go to outside contractors, the implications for schools are considered by the authority to be very serious.
The presence of a caretaker is necessary for a whole variety of purposes which are not suitable for a private contractor to undertake. Such purposes include:

1. responsibility for the security of the premises;

2. unlocking and locking the school (both for school use and community and adult education, evening and weekend use):

552

3. receiving deliveries of supplies and services;

4. checking on the heating installation and operation and in general to be on site for a whole variety of things which might crop up each day.

Many of these caretakers are at present resident in a caretaker's house which presumably would then have to be vacated.
The security and caretaking function is not suitable for inclusion in private contracts, but the alternative—to adjust downwards the amount of time a caretaker spent on cleaning and restructure so that a caretaker's work was not exposed to competitive tendering—poses great problems. The cost implications would be substantial because extra cleaning hours would have to be allocated to each school".
It is contended by Surrey County Council that it is far more sensible not to have to split the work into two.
Such arguments also apply to the position of other employees such as sheltered housing wardens, and estate caretakers whose jobs contain a sufficient cleaning element to bring them within the Bill, but whose other responsibilities are not suitable for contracting out, yet it would be uneconomic and impractical to disaggregate the cleaning element from the other part of the job.
Those of us who have worn local authority hats have dealt with the question of primary schools and caretakers. Such people become a fundamental part, in a human sense, in the establishment. That was my experience in the area of Leeds which I was privileged to represent for nine years. When we were lucky enough to have a very necessary rebuilding programme of primary schools in the three that I was lucky to help to programme in West Leeds (where they were very badly needed) we did not at first cater for caretakers on-site. Very soon we had to correct that. We found that with the presence of the caretaker on-site in employment the financial advantages that accrued to Leeds from that decision could not be measured. Certainly the balance was well on the plus side because they became identified: they were at the schools, their presence restricted vandalism that was a serious problem; they became known to the staff, the children and the parents. The case is made. It would be a tragedy and counter-productive in the cost sense in the long-term to disrupt those type of arrangements that have stood the test of time so well in these schools and other types of buildings. I beg to move.
Lord Foot: The noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, has enumerated a number of important authorities which support the amendment. I should like to add Devon County Council which shares the concern so admirably expressed by Surrey County Council. The problem is particularly acute in Devon. It is a large area mostly of rural character and has a large number of small schools. It would be in great difficulty if it were obliged to contract out the functions which are at present performed by caretakers carrying out both caretaking and security duties.
I hope the Minister will look favourably upon the matter. Nothing in the amendment conflicts with the principle behind the Bill. It has already been acknowledged that there must be exceptions to the general rule. The amendment simply adds one further exception to those already contained in the Bill.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I do not know whether the amendment meets the problem because I have not been involved in its drafting nor in the discussions. If

553
in his reply, the Minister says that such people should be included, he should explain how he sees the principle of the Bill applying. In the area I represented for eight years, and all over Scotland, one often has someone responsible for the cleaning and security of small schools. If he or she does not live in a caretaker's house there will be someone living close by in the village who will provide a key for community groups wishing to use the school in the evening. It is a personal procedure and it is widespread. We, in Tayside, did not usually provide tied houses for such people. They lived in the locality and constantly went to and fro during the day and the evening.
I cannot picture how the tendering process will work for such people. I believe that there must be continuity in this function. The noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, pointed out a problem which had not previously occurred to me. The amendment does not deal with the essence, the principle or the advantage of the Bill; it makes sure that the Bill works for small primary schools, particularly in villages.
Baroness Stedman: I should like to support the amendment. A problem also arises in respect of retained fire stations in remote rural areas such as parts of Bedfordshire, Suffolk, Cambridgeshire, Devon, Cumbria and Yorkshire. There are many retained stations and the authorities are dependent on their manning for the maintenance of fire cover in the area. At such stations the duties of caretaker are usually performed by a local person at a time mutually agreed with the station's chief officer. Most of the stations are unmanned except on a drill night or during a fire call. The stations are therefore kept locked and the cleaners must have a key in order to obtain access. In most cases there is not a great deal of cleaning to be done. However, the question of security arises because at the station are kept the fire service vehicles containing various equipment and security devices. I think that such counties would be helped if they could continue to use locally based labour. Therefore, the issue falls into the same category as village schools.
The Earl of Minto: I should like to say a few words as an elected regional councillor in Scotland. I support everything that has been said by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour. I should like to hear the Minister's answer to the question posed. I have a great deal of sympathy for the amendment as it stands. We, in the Border region of Scotland, will suffer greatly unless the cookie crumbles—I hope the expression may be used in the Committee—in the correct way. The only way one will discover that is in the answer given by the Minister.
The Earl of Caithness: I should start my response by emphasising that the Government have recognised from the outset that it would be nonsense to require authorities to expose to competition minor bits of cleaning or other work carried out by people whose main job will not be subject to competition.
Clause 2(6) of the Bill provides that work which would otherwise have been subject to
554
competition—that is, it would have been part of a "defined activity", to use the words of the Bill—will not be so if it is incidental to the greater part of an employee's work, and the greater part is not subject to competition. This provision provides the answer in many of the cases to which these amendments seem to be addressed and which have been mentioned this evening.
Many caretakers spend only a small amount of their time on cleaning. The same is true of wardens of sheltered housing schemes. So these amendments are concerned only with cases where the greater part of an employee's work consists of a defined activity. The Government's view is that in those cases there is no reason why the whole of the employee's work —including security and any other responsibilities—should not be subject to competition and should not be awarded to a contractor if a contractor puts in the lowest competent bid. Contractors already carry out the vast majority of security work generally in this country, apart from police work itself, and so there is no reason to believe that they could not cope perfectly well with these kinds of jobs. Much of the Ministry of Defence security work is contracted out, as is that of my department. And it is working satisfactorily.
Clause 2(7) makes specific provision for authorities to subject work to competition in this way, although I should emphasise that it will be for individual authorities to decide whether they want to or not. The Bill will not stop them from redrawing responsibilities so that only work falling within a defined activity is subjected to competition if they decide that that makes most sense locally.
I should perhaps also draw to the Committee's attention the fact that the amendments seem to contain the seeds of an enormous loophole. An authority could give large numbers of employees nominal security duties and thus exempt them wholesale from competition. None of us would wish to see such an element.
I should like to point out that Wandsworth council, after contracting out caretaking on its housing estates, had a saving of approximately £640,000. The caretakers also had security and other responsibilities similar to those of' school caretakers. I hope that my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour will be satisfied that such things have been proven to be possible. I take her point that it may be more difficult, and I also acknowlege the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Minto, as regards more rural areas. The noble Lord, Lord Foot, mentioned the same difficulty as regards Devon.
From memories of my childhood in Aberdeenshire, I do not recall any difficulty about local villagers helping on a contract basis. That would satisfy the terms of the Bill and also provide the necessary security, cleaning and other operations about which Members of the Committee are concerned.
I hope that I have answered satisfactorily the points that have been raised. Between now and another stage. I should like to look at what Members of the Committee have said. I did not fully

555
understand some of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Dean, and I should like to consider them in discussion with members of my department between now and another stage.
Baroness Seear: I may not have understood the Minister properly. If in the caretaker's duties more time is spent predominantly on cleaning than on caretaking, because cleaning is to be a defined activity, it has to be contracted out. If it is a large, dirty school, no doubt with high security, it has to be contracted out. If it is a small, clean school, it does not have to be contracted out. Is that what we are being told?
7 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: The philosophy behind what we seek to do is as follows. If over 50 per cent. of the activities carried out is comprised of cleaning, for instance, as suggested by the noble Baroness, those should be put out to tender in the way that we all think is right, as we believe that this can be done satisfactorily without impinging on security. The noble Baroness produced an example of a swing of the pendulum at one end and compared it with one at the other end. It is for this kind of reason that I should like to have another look at the proposal.
Viscount Simon: It is suggested that the school caretaker has more caretaking than cleaning to do and that the cleaning should therefore be done by the contractors. Is it recognised that the school caretaker will have to be there because the cleaners will be unable to get into the school without the caretaker opening and shutting it and ensuring that everything is all right?
The Earl of Caithness: Such problems can be overcome. If there is more caretaking than cleaning, one must consider that in the terms of the Bill.
The Countess of Mar: What would happen if there were two activities? In some schools the caretaker not only cleans the school but looks after the grounds.
The Earl of Caithness: It may be that the local authority would wish to redraw the responsibilities to take account of the provisions in the Bill. In regard to the suggestion of the noble Countess, the local authority may wish to consider who was doing what before putting out any tender.
Lord Dean of Beswick: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. I am saddened by his reference to driving a horse and cart through the Bill. That is not our intention.
The Earl of Caithness: I did not make that assertion; I was exposing the fact that a loophole exists.
Lord Dean of Beswick: Given that we have been considering the Bill for only part of today, I think that the discussions have taken place in a reasonable, convivial and constructive manner. This will be soured a little if it is asserted that we represent people
556
who are attempting to pull a fast one on the Government. The sole purpose of the amendment is to write into the Bill protection that we think should be included and subsequently enacted. I would not want—nor do I believe that we would see—local authorities starting to redesignate the hours worked by their caretakers if the Government accepted the amendment.
I do not think that it is correct to attempt to compare caretakers of private schools with caretakers in Ministry of Defence departments. Caretakers in Ministry of Defence departments are surely known to their immediate workmates in the work vicinity. The point that I tried to make, perhaps not adequately, is that the caretaker as I know him—in the main we are speaking of primary schools—is an essential and identifiable part of the establishment. The first person whom the child of five years of age starting school comes to know by name is the caretaker. In the main—there are odd exceptions—caretakers provide a very personal service which I think society has been unable to measure financially in the fullest terms.
There are good caretakers and, one might say, some who are not so good. It is rare to find a caretaker who is not almost wholly respected and accepted not only by the headmaster or headmistress and the teaching staff but by the children and parents concerned. They sometimes do a great deal more in an establishment than one could put on paper.
I have no desire to press the amendment to a Division. I should like to study what the Minister has said. That may necessitate raising the matter at a later stage again and, if one is not satisfied with the Minister's reply, coming to a conclusion in a Division. That is not my intention tonight. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 13:
Page 3, line 17, at the end insert ("except where in the previous year the authority did not at any one time employ more than a single employee (or the equivalent of more than one full-time employee) at the point of performance for the purpose of carrying out the following work—

(a) security duties where the duties of the employee or employees also include responsibility for interior cleaning or the cleaning of the common parts of any establishment;

(b) duties of wardenship at an estate of sheltered housing.").

The noble Lord said: This amendment has been covered largely by earlier debates.
[Amendment No. 14 not moved.]
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 3. line 27, at end insert ("or if it is necessitated by the failure of a contractor to a defined authority to fulfil the terms of that contract and the consequences of the failure would, in the opinion of the authority, result in failure by the authority to exercise its functions, provided that the authority will as soon as reasonably possible, take the necessary steps to remedy the contractor's breach.").
The noble Lord said: Clause 2(8) seeks to deal with an emergency situation by allowing works to be carried out in the circumstances broadly specified in Section 84 of the 1973 Act without being put out to tender. Examples of such emergency situations are

557
the recent hurricane in the South of England and the Bearsden flooding in Glasgow earlier that year. However, it does not deal with the situation where a contractor simply fails to supply an essential service such as school meals or the collection of refuse.
The purpose of the amendment is to allow the authority to make short-term arrangements for the failure of a school meals supplier pending recontracting or remedying of the breach. It is submitted that this is essential if the council has no power to make temporary arrangements. Crucial supplies such as meals for the elderly and for school children may not take place. Although they could not be defined as emergencies in terms of the existing Clause 2(8) in the sense that they are likely to involve danger to life or health, no doubt the consequences would be unpleasant.
In reply to a like amendment in Standing Committee of another place, the Minister for Local Government said:
"As for the suggestion that envisages authorities being unable to fulfil their urgent duties in the event of contractor failure, I cannot support an amendment that hinges on contractor failure. The worst that can happen in the unlikely event of contractor failure is that the authority may have to wait a few weeks without grass being cut, for example, while competition is being arranged. That is the worst case scenario because in practice it will he usually possible to appoint another contractor on an interim basis.".
That reply does not address the real issue. What if meals are not delivered to a school or home, or refuse is not collected? An authority cannot wait a few weeks as it would be in breach of its statutory duty. The assumption that it would take only a few weeks to make interim arrangements with another contractor is realistic only if there is a contractor able and willing to respond in such circumstances. This is unlikely to be the situation in the more rural and remote areas. Can anyone suggest as regards private sector contractors that if there was a default there would be someone waiting who could be called upon and who had the necessary capital equipment stock ready to fill the breach in a situation like this? I do not know of many companies that would have this type of equipment on standby. It would be far too expensive not to have to put it to use.
Dare I suggest that if a private company involved in this activity was without contracts one of its first duties to the shareholders would be to unload that particular equipment and to sell it in the market. My own worry is that it is almost impossible or very unlikely to envisage a situation where there would be a company waiting in the wings, hoping that the contractor did not fulfil the contract and who would be called on in an emergency. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: I am prompted by the way in which that particular amendment was put forward to pose one question. Who or what steps into the breach when direct labour downs tools? For example, it may shut off the heating; fail to provide school meals; lock up the school gates so the children cannot actually come into school. What arrangements are to be made then and what recourse do parents have in that situation?
The Earl of Balfour: Perhaps I may ask a further question in respect of what has been said by the noble
558
Lord, Lord Dean. What happens if a contractor goes bankrupt? One of the matters that concerns me here is that of a contractor who has dealt with the contract very satisfactorily for two years. Everything is going fine and then suddenly he goes to the wall. I am wondering whether there could be some provision whereby the local authority could have its own insurance to cover such an eventuality.
I was recently dealing with a private legislation order in Glasgow in which one of the things the authority wished to do was to extend the insurance policy that it had to cover certain other fields. The hearing was under the excellent chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Hughes. Some authorities like Glasgow have their own insurance. I understand that Edinburgh is seeking similar powers. I believe that Strathclyde may also have some form of insurance to cover such eventualities. I doubt whether most local authorities have insurance—certainly not private insurance—to cover this situation. I have a horrible feeling that if they go into the market to get insurance the premium might be fairly high.
I do not know whether this amendment will meet the points. I believe that some provision should be made whereby a local authority is not going to be overspending its funds if it takes out insurance where it has put work out to tender. It should not be suddenly left holding the baby because the tenderer has gone bankrupt.
The Countess of Mar: One of the points that worries me about this amendment is that once all the local authorities have put these defined activities out to tender they will have got rid of all the staff and the equipment they need. If there is an emergency I wonder how on earth they are going to be able to replace the services. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, has said what happens at present if people go on strike. In the present circumstances, I believe that people are far more likely to go bankrupt than they are to go on strike.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I hope the Minister will appreciate that these concerns are genuine. They are not merely restricted to what is the hitherto known major disaster of a contractor going bankrupt. The remarks by the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, need reading and answering here tonight. We are into a new ball game. There are going to be many more private contractors for cleaning, catering, sports facilities and other activities. In this amendment we are not concerned with dealing with what one might call a normal management situation. Bankruptcy and failure to deliver the service is better known in private rather than in public facilities.
We believe that once you have bound an authority in the manner in which the Bill envisages—that is that it will have ceased to be the providers of a service—the requirement to make sure that the ratepayers are in receipt of a service will inevitably be wholly in the gift of the private contractor. What happens if particular statutory obligations are not

559
carried out? What powers will the authority have to take emergency action? The amendment is perfectly clear,
"provided that the authority will as soon as reasonably possible, take the necessary steps to remedy the contractor's breach".
We are talking about an emergency. The noble Lord, Lord Dean, made reference to existing powers under current legislation. Can the Minister tell us in the circumstances that have been outlined—and the noble Baroness has also given an illustration—what powers has an authority to take action of an emergency kind?
Later on there will be an amendment to be moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, which will seek to prevail upon the Minister to allow a certain proportion of the totality of the council's work to be retained. Percentages will be talked about. At least the authority will retain some workforce. The great danger is that if these provisions are carried through then a community will be at the mercy of the private contractor. I do not paint the picture as wholly black. I believe that the contractors intend to do a good job of work; but an emergency is one of the elements which any organisation needs to weigh up very carefully before it puts all its eggs into one basket. The intention of some noble Lords on the other side is to put as many eggs as possible into the privatisation basket. At the end of the day it is the council which has the responsibility. I hope the Minister can help us to assuage those fears.
7.15 p.m.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: What if the community is put at a great disadvantage because of local authority workers striking? It is a long time ago now, but I remember a case where I believe Bristol City built the most wonderful swimming bath out of ratepayers' money. It was the only swimming bath in the country at that time where our Olympic team could train. One morning one of the Olympic team—I expect this was just an excuse by the attendant—did not say "good morning" to one of the bath attendants so the staff went on strike. I understand that the strike spread and the local authority could not do anything about it. Here was a situation with a swimming bath costing millions and millions of pounds of the ratepayers' money and the local authority could not do anything about it.
Baroness Stedman: I understand that we are discussing Amendments Nos. 18 and 19 with this particular amendment, according to the groupings list. I believe it is important that the authorities should have a residual capacity to undertake work in an emergency. As a noble Lord said on an earlier amendment, how can an authority discharge its statutory responsibilities and deal with a situation of emergency such as a civil disaster, flood, bad weather, a contractor defaulting or one who reaches the position of a local monopoly? No one else can do anything about it. As the Bill stands at present, any authority which fails to win any tenders within the defined activity will no longer have any residual labour to use in this kind of emergency. The Government think—and they may be right—that the private sector is capable of responding to this kind of emergency; and that emergency response
560
requirements ought to be built into the contract. But that is really at this stage only wishful and hopeful thinking. I would question the ability or the willingness of the private contractors to drop everything on receipt of a telephone call and respond to these emergencies. Council staff know that the council has the power to direct them, even during unsocial hours, to provide such emergency services as are necessary, but how many of the independent contractors can comply with, or deliver, such a service? That we shall not know until this Bill has been in operation for a while.
It is ridiculous for the Government to believe that this kind of undertaking can be taken care of in a tendering contract. It takes no account at all of what happens in real life. The local authorities can deliver the service, and many of the contractors may not be able to do so. I believe that an authority has to be left in a position to make short-term arrangements in emergencies. They must have their own staff to call on where a contractor defaults—or where it cannot supply an essential service such as meals for the elderly, school meals, or even the maintenance of emergency vehicles—until such time as the contract can be drawn up again with another contractor. It is ridiculous to take all the labour away from the local authorities. They must be allowed to have a certain percentage of it in order to have this residual force of labour for emergencies.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I would not go along with the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, that the solution is to say that the local authority has to retain the labour. As one noble Lord opposite said, we are in a completely new ball game where we may have a situation where all the people working in these various areas of activity in a locality are working for private employers. We need to be assured by the Minister that if, for whatever reason, a service breaks down the Bill does not prevent the local authority finding someone else to do it by whatever means.
I do not take the point that the noble Countess made when she said that there may not be any equipment to do it with. Local authorities have to think about this. It may well be that the contract is to use equipment which belongs to the local authority; for example, wheeled bins for rubbish, or whatever it is. These are things local authorities will have to think about when they make their contract and specifications.
We need to know that when the service breaks down—and in rural areas you get this happening quite often—swift action can be taken to get another contractor to do it. To go through the whole process might be all right while the grass is growing. I did not think that that was a particularly good example when I heard it. The grass can certainly grow for a bit while a new contractor is found, but there are other things which cannot wait. We need to be sure that the Bill does not preclude the finding of another contractor, if that is how the local authority is going to do it quickly. Perhaps the Minister can tell us that now or later because it is an important point.
Lord McCarthy: The noble Baroness said that in the interests of emergency services she believes that

561
the local authority should be allowed to keep the equipment. However, in order to perform the service you have to have the labour force, and some of the labour force is quite skilled. Will she agree that they can keep both the equipment and labour force? Otherwise it would not be much use.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: The whole thing is complex and one has to try to imagine all the situations that could arise. In granting a contract, from my understanding of the Bill, I should have thought that an arrangement could be made in the contract to ensure that equipment that could not come from anywhere else was available for anyone else to use. For example, if the collection of refuse is contracted out and the authority owns thousands of expensive wheeled-bins which they have just bought, presumably the contract will be to use those wheeled-bins. They will not all be put in a cocoon or thrown away. If in that situation the service broke down—say the firm went bust—the wheeled-bins would still be there. That will all need to be thought about by the local authority when it makes the original contract.
Baroness Stedman: The noble Baroness is right when she says that it does not matter if the grass is left for two or three weeks. It may take a little longer to cut it when you get back to it, but at least that is not doing harm to anyone. It is the same if a contractor defaults on a building. If eventually the building is a month late being delivered to the authority, so be it, hut if the meals-on-wheels service breaks down, or the delivery breaks down, you cannot ask elderly people to wait a month until somebody brings them their dinner.
The Countess of Mar: We talk about the whole purpose of this Bill being business efficiency and saving money, but is the local authority, once it has contracted out certain activities, going to keep capital equipment? Is it not going to sell it?
Lord Trafford: I have some sympathy with the intention expressed in this amendment but I am a bit worried about the wording. It seems to me that the crises which are likely to arise once tenders have been put forth and accepted are not altogether dissimilar to the sort of crises which are likely to arise now. If these crises arise at the present time they will not arise because of natural disasters which occur, and where special arrangements are made. Presumably in every contract for tender this type of thing will be taken into account.
I think of things like the unsocial hours during which, for example, local authority workers clear snow, or clear roads after a storm, and that type of thing, which are not normally within the social or usual hours of somebody in a direct labour situation. But if this occasion arises, there is not much difference—and the amendment does not take account of this—whether or not the workforce is a privately tendered workforce under contract.
It does not occur, for example, because the contractor may go bankrupt. There are all sorts of other, different disasters. I agree that the local
562
authority is unlikely to have its labour withdrawn for that reason, but it may have its labour withdrawn for other reasons. Clearly the biggest single risk in the case of a private contractor is that he does not deliver the service, in which case presumably under the terms of the contract the contract can be terminated and he can be replaced; time would allow that, and it is only the emergency situation to which this refers. But emergency situations of a different type still arise under present circumstances.
Many of us have seen the cases—we do not need necessarily to quote Olympic baths in the South-West—which have occurred in various places where, for various reasons, the direct labour force which is now employed has either not delivered the goods on time or has failed to deliver them altogether. This is bound to arise in both circumstances.
The most classic example I can think of in recent years was the failure in one or two areas of the clearance of refuse. As has been pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Dean, this gives rise to certain statutory obligations under health Acts, but the same situation arises under private tendering as it does under public sector working, although the origin of the crisis may be different.
We do not have a very good mechanism for resolving the crisis with direct labour, although I accept that we have not yet heard—although I am sure we are about to—the systems by which it would be resolved with private tendering. Although the situation may arise from a different cause, the same situation is inherent in the delivery of any such service.
Lord Dean of Beswick: What disturbs me is the feeling from the Government Back-Benches, which has been running through this debate, of a criticism—I hate to use the word "attack"—solely of direct labour. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, asked what would happen if direct labour went on strike and they did not open doors, and lifts did not work. I can bounce the question the other way: what happens if the private sector goes on strike? They do go on strike, and in some cases far more often than direct labour.
The theme was pursued by the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, who has now left the Chamber, and it was referred to by the previous speaker although perhaps not quite in the same terms. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, has risen on three occasions and each time she has implied that everything that is wrong is in the public sector, and that there is nothing wrong in the private sector.
In October last year I attended the conference in Blackpool of the Institute of Maintenance and Building Managers whose members manage and operate local authority building and service departments. On the last day of the conference the hurricane hit the South of England. There were officers at the conference from all over the country; from the North, the South and from Scotland. They went immediately to the telephones to find out what had to be done and it was dealt with. I ask the Minister and noble Lords opposite who have spoken on the amendment to have regard to what one of their colleagues in the Cabinet, Mr. Parkinson, said after

563
that emergency. On more than one occasion during the emergency he rebutted any criticism of the performance of the electrical engineers in their attempts to restore power lines and bring back the electricity supply. I think I am correct in saying that the Secretary of State for the Environment (who is not known for his support for public works departments) is on the record as saying the same thing. He paid tribute to the reaction and response of local authority workpeople in the areas of devastation.
The noble Lord, Lord Trafford, asked what would happen if certain things closed down. I do not know what would happen. If it was an emergency service and the private contractor supposedly dealing with it was bankrupt the local authority could not refer to what has been said on the Benches opposite and take the matter to court. If a huge tree has fallen on a house it is not much use for somebody to say that there should have been a contractor here. The contractor is bankrupt. It is no use saying that the local authority, in order to deal with it on that person's behalf, will take him to court. What kind of answer is that to people who want services? It is undeniable that unless there is a small but mobile residue of a workforce in a local authority area there will be a gap which, the private sector will not be able to fill, however willing it is to do so.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Trafford: With due respect to the noble Lord, I think he has misinterpreted, at least in part, what was said. First, there was no criticism of direct labour in anything I said. I would expect contracts frequently to go to the in-house labour force. There was no criticism, implied or otherwise, of the labour that was involved following the hurricane. In that respect, I entirely endorse every remark the noble Lord made. I referred to snow clearance, and I think it was slightly unfair of him to make those points.
However, that was not the reason I spoke. I made the point because there are different causes for emergencies but they arise irrespective of whether there is a public sector direct labour contract or a private sector contract. Situations arise and emergencies occur. In some cases there would be plenty of time to deal with the problem whether through the courts or whether by some other means; for example, by issuing a further tender contract. However, emergencies can arise at present—and I started by saying that I have sympathy with the noble Lord's point—when there is no question of private tendering.
How does one build in something to prevent the problem happening? The suggestion put forward of a residual labour force or of keeping equipment does not seem to be the answer for two reasons. First, everybody knows what happens to stored equipment that is rarely used. Secondly, it is extremely expensive to keep a great deal of back-up labour for emergencies that may never arise, However, I do not want to go off on a tangent about the number of times point clearing equipment on railways is used, and arguments of that kind. The usual answer put
564
forward is that it is far too expensive to keep a force that has no function and does nothing. However, the point that brought me back to my feet was that the noble Lord unkindly misinterpreted some remarks which were intended to be helpful to the debate.
Baroness Stedman: I was not suggesting that members of the reserve force would be sitting on their backsides doing nothing. We were suggesting that 25 per cent. of the work that is to be put out to tender by the local authorities should be retained by their own direct labour organisations, and not that those men should be sitting there doing nothing and waiting for an emergency.
Lord Trafford: The noble Baroness has put it far more elegantly than I did when I suggested that they might be idle. I take the point. However, it would seem to be an extremely expensive way of doing it. A pluralistic approach (which is what this amendment really advocates) is nearly always more expensive.
Baroness Blatch: I rise to endorse the comments of my noble friend Lord Trafford and also to say that it is not my intention in any way to deprecate the work of direct labour organisations. I believe that direct labour will win much of the work across the country. I think it is important to put on record that the tenor of the amendments before the Committee today implies, at least to me, that noble Lords opposite believe that the public sector has the monopoly of good service.
Lord Dean of Beswick: I have not said that.
Baroness Blatch: I have no vested interest in terms of whether the work remains with local authorities or goes to private contractors. The responsibility of local authorities is to ensure that services are well provided, at a cost that can be afforded and at a standard predetermined by the local authority itself. We should not fear that. The best local authorities should not fear that and the worst should be worried, and rightly so.
Emergencies can arise whether the workforce is private or public. It is always possible to build into the contract of an employer—and certainly in the event of an employer going bankrupt, which is one of the instances that has been stated already—that the equipment used by the workforce, in our schools, our old people's homes and in our local authority buildings, will be requisitioned by the local authority. It can be a condition of contract that that should happen in the event of bankruptcy. I know that if the snow is too deep for people to get through to provide the services, people will stay at home, our children will not get to school or if they get to school there will be no heating or they will not get a hot meal. Such emergencies can be coped with, and as my noble friend Lord Trafford has pointed out, such emergencies happen whether the workforce is private or public. It is for the local authority at that time to determine what it will do.
I have one other point on the issue of public versus direct labour. The opportunity for a local authority to rise to the occasion in an emergency if the work is contracted out is rather greater than if it is its own workforce that down tools. That is not an anti-direct

565
labour statement. If local authority caretakers, cleaners or caterers decide not to work, as they have in the past, it is very difficult for the local authority to bring in another workforce. It is more costly than it would be the other way round.
So I think it is a matter for the local authority to work its way through in an emergency, for it to build into the contracts it lets and to pre-empt the possibility of bankruptcy on the part of the company. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, has taken that view. I think that we should be concerned about effective services, whoever provides them— public or private. That should he our concern and local authorities' responsibility.
The Earl of Caithness: I think we have had an extremely useful debate on what I call the safety net amendments, Nos. 15, 18 and 19. They are all related to the same point, as the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, said. I am of course as concerned as anyone that local authorities should be able to carry out their functions unimpeded by contractor failure, but I really do believe that noble Lords opposite have very considerably exaggerated the extent to which this Bill will create any serious danger of functions not being fulfilled.
I draw to your Lordships' attention Clause 2(8), whose purpose is to exempt from the Bill's provisions any work requiring to be done in an emergency; that is, in a situation where there is danger to life or health or serious danger to property. This exemption already covers a very wide range of circumstances of the sort which I suspect these amendments also attempt to deal with. If refuse collection, for instance, is not dealt with, it rapidly becomes a health hazard. Vehicle maintenance also must be done properly or danger to lift obviously occurs. The same can be true even of some elements of building cleaning. Floors allowed to remain so slippery that they are unsafe to walk on are clearly a health hazard.
It follows that in order to find instances where contractor failure would result in functions not being properly discharged and where Clause 2(8) would not allow the authority to carry out the work itself, one has to look to examples such as grass remaining uncut for a few weeks or a very few months while a fresh competition is arranged. But of course that is absolutely the worst case scenario because in practice it will usually be possible to appoint another contractor on an interim basis.
At this stage perhaps I may come to the point of the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, about capital assets. Authorities can write conditions into their contracts, so that if a contractor fails the assets revert to the authority, or they can lease assets to the contractor so that they will not need to find a contractor with his own capital assets in the unlikely event of a contractor failing. It takes care of the point that the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, made: when a contractor goes bankrupt, what will the labour force do? The labour force can then be hired because it will be looking for work, looking for payment, and the authorities will have the machinery on a lease within the condition, as an example of getting round that problem. If there are no other contractors available, that will he reflected in a nil response to the
566
notice—referred to in Clause 7(1) —inviting interested parties to put their names forward. When that occurs the authority is immediately free to carry out the work itself.
Any failure that has a life-threatening effect or would cause serious damage to property is, I emphasise again, already catered for by the emergency exemption. Like my noble friend, I am not slanging the DLO work, because in many cases it is of very high quality. But like some of my noble friends, particularly my noble friends Lady Blatch and Lord Trafford, I cannot resist pausing at this point to reflect on the numerous instances where extremely important tasks such as refuse collection fail to be carried out simply because the binmen arc on strike. One would think that any authority seriously worried about its failure to carry out its functions would then immediately call in private companies. Their reluctance to do so, I suggest, provides an interesting contrast with the importance attached by noble Lords opposite to this amendment.
Indeed, I have just suffered at home in Oxfordshire, where the binmen are on strike. The paper advertised that they were coming at a certain time on a certain day. We put out all the dustbins. Did they come? No. So I took the dustbins round to the tip and found that closed. So we have all experienced this problem, but it is just one example of where difficulties occur in the public sector.
I was very nearly persuaded by the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, in her support of her Amendment No. 19. Then I suddenly thought to myself: what about those authorities that have voluntarily contracted out work now? Have they contracted out 75 per cent? Have they retained 25 per cent. in-house in case of emergency? No, they have found that it is not necessary. They have not kept any work in-house or kept a small in-house operation in case the contractor fails. Indeed, surely it would be a nonsense for them to keep a couple of dustcarts just in case of failure, as some of my noble friends have said.
My noble friend Lady Carnegy said: let us look at the situation. What is going to happen in the unlikely event of a DLO or a private contractor not being able to fulfil its work? Are there going to be other people in the market ready to take up the work? It would have been found out at the tender stage whether there was competition. If there was not, the DLO would still be doing the work. I think that some of the concerns of noble Lords opposite are fears based on a possible privatisation monopoly, and I believe that is misplaced.
The private sector, as we all know, is a dynamic. everchanging phenomenon and the barriers to entry of new firms in the activities covered by the Bill are easily surmountable. Moreover, one of the most potent ongoing sources of potential competition for a contractor which has been awarded work in one authority may well be DLOs in neighbouring authorities. Local government seems to have rather a blind spot about this source of competition, but in the fullness of time I have no doubt that many DLOs will themselves emerge as potent forces in these areas of activity outside their own boundaries. I thought this was something which the noble Countess might have mentioned. She may like to think about that and the possible advantage.

567
I turn to my noble friend Lord Balfour, who raised the very important point about the risks that local authorities take at the moment and the risks that contractors have to take. Many authorities carry their own risks rather than insure. As I recall, when I was in private sector practice working with a local authority which put some work out to contract, my company was lucky enough to make the right offer to the local authority in open competition. The local authority quite rightly turned round to me and asked, "What happens when you go bankrupt?" So I said, "We are not going to go bankrupt"; to which they replied, "Fine, we will take your word for it, but that is not good commercial management. We will need a bond or form of insurance". That is quite legitimate commercial practice and I am sure, as my noble friend pointed out, that would be the common way in which local authorities seek to minimise any risk in contracting out work.
I turn finally to the noble Baroness's amendment, Amendment No. 19. I have given this a lot of careful thought and I really do not think that that provides a satisfactory solution to what is obviously of concern to the Committee. I believe that the Bill and the market place, together with the obvious commercial care that local authorities will take in putting anything out to tender, as my noble friend Lord Balfour mentioned, is by far the better way of dealing with any fears that the Committee may have.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick: First, if I misheard or misread the intention of the noble Lord opposite in his first remarks in Committee, I apologise. But the fact is that he used the words "direct labour", "direct works" and "strikes". Even the noble Baroness in her reply to me fell into the trap, and when talking about a strike she only used the words "direct labour".
I was interested in the points made and in the Minister's reply, but he does not remove from me, and I am sure he does not remove from the people who will have the responsibility, the view that the Bill as drafted, if it goes through, could leave tremendous gaps in the service. The Minister talked about substantial success by the private sector in tendering and providing services in local government. I do not want to compare lists, but I have here a list of public bodies that have put out contracts to private tender and have then been badly let down. Sometimes quite substantial sums of money were involved—in excess of £500,000. But, as I say, it is not the time or place to start bandying those types of figures around.
The Minister has not convinced me by any means that the Bill as it stands is the best way to deal with the situation. I should like to read more carefully what the Minister has said. I do not know whether he has any other examples to give to me. I am not minded to accept that what he said will happen. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. I shall perhaps come back to the subject in some form or other at a later stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resume and that we do not return to this Bill until 8.50 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Code of Local Government Audit Practice for England and Wales
7.51 p.m.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh rose to move, That the code laid before the House on 26th November 1987 be approved [9th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Section 14 of the Local Government Finance Act 1982 requires the Audit Commission to prepare, and keep under review, a code of audit practice prescribing the way in which auditors are to carry out their functions under Part III of the Act. The code must receive parliamentary approval at intervals of not more than five years. The present code was approved by the House on 24th October 1983. The Audit Commission has now prepared this revised code which is before your Lordships' House.
The code, as I have said, is the commission's code. It has been prepared by the commission, the members of which represent a wide range of interests in the public and private sectors and reflect wide experience of financial management relevant to the audit of local government accounts. It has been the subject of consultation, as required by the 1982 Act, with the bodies most directly concerned—local authority associations and the accountancy profession. It has also been the subject of consultation with the commission's auditors, the district audit service and the private accountancy firms.
My role in this matter is limited to bringing the code to your Lordships for consideration and, I hope, approval. As time is short, I believe that noble Lords would not wish me to trespass on the time available for debate by describing the changes from the original code. These have been helpfully summarised by the commission in the attachment which follows page 23. The effect of the changes is principally to update the code to reflect developments in accounting and auditing practice since 1983 and to clarify certain matters in the light of practical experience.
The further attachment summarises the major matters raised during the commission's consultation on the draft and the commission's response to those points. I hope that your Lordships will agree that the commission has produced a well-considered and practical code which will provide a sound framework for the work of auditors in local government. I therefore commend the code to your Lordships' House.
Moved, That the code laid before the House on 26th November 1987 be approved [9th Report From the Joint Committee].— (Lord Hesketh.)
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for having given a short

569
introduction to the Motion to approve the code of conduct in relation to local authority audits in England and Wales. I have already been in touch with the Minister about certain questions that I think it would be wise to clear up. I did so in the hope that instead of eliciting the reply often heard in your Lordships' House that the Minister would write to the person asking the question. I would receive answers this evening.
The first question that I ask arises from remarks that fell from the lips of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, at Question Time this afternoon. It is whether the code referred to and authorised under Section 14 of the Act has the force of law or whether it is purely a consultative document, although the auditors by contract have undertaken to comply with it. Is there any legal enforceability or not? This is a matter of some importance. I shall give way to the noble Lord if he can answer the question straightaway.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, asked about the legality of the code. The code has already received approval in another place and once your Lordships' House has approved it, compliance will become mandatory on all auditors appointed by the commission, whether for the district audit service or private firms. Section 15(2) of the 1982 Act makes that a requirement. With regard to private sector auditors, compliance with the code will form part of their contract with the commission.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I am not sure whether that answers the pertinent question put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton. I shall have to examine it. If the code now before the House, which is largely the same as the original, with one or two minor modifications, is legally enforceable, then firms of private auditors should consider seriously their position in relation to the performance of their duties. In any event, they should look at their professional indemnity policies because the detailed requirements to the code of practice, if followed meticulously, as the Act requires, would place (as unsatisfactory performance today places) such a burden on auditors that considerable expense, far beyond the scale of fees authorised by the Audit Commission, would be needed to cover them satisfactorily.
I suspect that some portions of the code of practice, although stated in precise and commanding terms, are such that in the normal way they lie outside the realm of the auditing profession and should have no place in the code. I do not know, nor is it for me to say, how the leading accountancy bodies, with which I understand the Audit Commission arrived at an agreement, can possibly agree to the adoption of a code of this character. It has so much scope as to almost usurp the whole function of management in local authorities.
If the noble Lord looks at the examples of the form and opinion certificate on the statement of accounts as reproduced at pages 20, 21, 22, 23 and so forth, he will find that the certificates relate in every case to the audit of the authority's accounts for the year
570
ended—whatever it may be—in accordance with Part III of the Local Government Finance Act 1982 and the code of audit practice. It is quite true that parts of the code of practice specifically refer to the procedure to be followed and the considerations to be taken into account in the audit of the accounts. There can be no doubt about that and I do not query its validity. I am surprised at the continued inclusion in the code of practice of matters which are not required to be certified so far as the accounts are concerned. Those are comprised principally in paragraphs 35, 36, 37 and so on in the code of practice. Perhaps I may give one example. Paragraph 36 says:
"The achievement of economy, efficiency and effectiveness depends upon the existence of sound arrangements for the planning, appraisal, authorisation and control of the use of resources."
In other words, the auditors have to be satisfied as to the entire work of the local authority. The local authorities' responsibilities are precisely encapsulated in the phrase "planning, appraisal, authorisation and control of the use of resources". What does that mean in practice? In addition to accounting matters, an auditor has to satisfy himself as to the management of the entire undertaking, the management of the entire local authority. As one who has had some experience in management work, I can tell the noble Lord that if this were to be done thoroughly as the code requires, it would involve an examination of every individual employee's job specification as incorporated in the proper procedure manual and that each specification would accurately describe the functions of the employee. It would have to define to whom the employee was responsible, first, for authorisation and for accountability; and, secondly, the sideways responsibilities which the employee had for informing people either in an equivalent category or those in a lower or higher category.
Then the auditor would have to define who was responsible to him or her and for what. He would outline the facilities to be afforded to the employee or the staff to enable the functions as described in the job specification to be carried out. Then, following the examination of each job specification, it would be the responsibility of the auditor to make quite sure that these interlocked with other specifications within a proper procedural manual. There would then have to be the allocation of responsibility for defects, either to the local authority or to central government themselves.
Since the passing of the original Act in 1982 there has been progressive intrusion by central government into the realms of local government. Local governments no longer accept or feel that they have the final responsibility for the conduct of their functions. Then in order to assess the precise matters which are set out in paragraph 36 which I have read, the auditor would have to satisfy himself that there are proper arrangements to get the best out of staff. That is because of course management involves managing people and getting the best out of them. Under paragraph 36 the auditor would have to satisfy himself as to that.
What has happened is that the Government themselves, although intervening more and more in local authority work, circumscribing their own

571
initiatives, their own responses to local people, are progressively becoming more and more involved in the management of authorities themselves. As I see it, under the Act and under the code auditors would be required to make a report upon these matters.
The intrusion of auditors into what must be a management function is entirely unwarranted. Either the political chiefs of the local authority trust their managements or they do not. But to make the auditors in effect responsible for what may be defects in the organisation itself, whether or not these arise from the defects of central government, is in my opinion a responsibility which auditors to whom this code applies ought not to have thrust upon them. If it is thrust upon them and if they exercise it thoroughly, unless they are prepared to make colossal losses on the expenditure of staff and subordinates to undertake all this investigative work into management and to assess it, they cannot possibly, within the confines of the code, comply with it in the detail which has been set out. I therefore wonder why these clauses remain within the code of audit practice.
I now pass to the concept, which again remains in the code of practice. In the debate which took place in this House on the original code I drew attention to the question of why the concept should be included. I am amazed to find that one of the principal responsibilities of the auditors, who are normally there to see that the accounts reflect a true and fair view and that the accounts are a proper record of the authority's activities, is the concept of value for money. "Value for money" is a term which has tripped off the tongues of government spokesmen for a long time now. It originated with the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, who waxed very eloquent on the subject in the course of the original Bill itself.
We on this side of the House tend to take the view that the Government know the cost of everything but the value of nothing. How is value for money to be determined by an auditor? The auditor is bound to look at the quantity of the goods and/or services delivered for the money, the quality of the goods and/or services which are provided in return for the money and the utility of the goods and/or services which are provided for the authority. How on earth can an auditor, in respect of a myriad of transactions, or even by representative sampling, satisfy himself as to value for money?
However, endeavours have been made. I do not want to trivialise this issue, I want to deal with the important aspects of it, but let us take the case of bed-and-breakfast payments by local authorities. Does the noble Lord think and do the Government think that the exorbitant sums charged by private hotels and other institutions in London for bed and breakfast provide value for money, even within the quite generous definition which I have given? Mind you, the local authorities or Government can share the views of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham, that there is something very praiseworthy about the efforts of these providers of bed and breakfast. Are they not creating wealth for themselves? Perhaps the Government are prepared to condone this bed and breakfast provision.
572
I am interested in what observations the auditors have made to the local authorities concerned or in turn the Audit Commission. What observations have they made to the Government and to the public on the economy, efficiency and effectiveness of these particular arrangements? I should be interested to know whether under this Act there have been any reports by auditors to local authorities about value for money in connection with bed and breakfast, or alternatively whether there have been any reports by the commission to the Government and to the public on the efficiency, economy and effectiveness of these measures.
What therefore is the auditor required to do? If he draws attention, which he might, to these inefficiencies and lack of effectiveness within the terms of the code, is he to content himself with an observation on this? Or is he entitled to say on an objective examination of the facts that two of the reasons that the local authority is driven, on reduced funds, to spend vast sums of money on bed and breakfast for the homeless is the refusal by the Government to permit sufficient funds to be made available for the repair and bringing into use of empty property, and the refusal of the Government to allow local authorities to spend capital receipts from the sale of houses? Is the auditor entitled or expected to make observations of that kind?
If he does not make those observations is he failing in his duty? I should not wish to prejudice either any appointed district auditor or a firm of private auditors who are unfortunately afflicted with the task of investigating the accounts of local authorities who pay out vast sums in bed and breakfast payments, but what are they expected to do? What attention will be paid either by the Audit Commission or by the Government if they report these gross examples of Government-induced inefficiency, waste and lack of effectiveness? I should be glad if the noble Lord will reply to that point.
Now we come to a matter which is not within the code at all. The code mentions "value for money" but it does not mention money for value. I should have thought that that would have been one of the matters to which the attention of auditors and the public should be drawn. There is no mention of what happens to receivables. There is no mention of what happens in the case of somewhat odd disposals of assets. I give the noble Lord a specific example of which I gave him notice so that he could reply. In January 1987, it should have been round about the 15th, there should appear an entry in the books or on the computer—whichever records it uses—of the Westminster City Council recording a receipt of 15 pence from a firm called Growise Limited. That was the proceeds of sale of three cemeteries at Hanwell, Mill Hill and East Finchley.
I do not know, because I have not seen the books, whether that money would be too small to be recorded. Some local authorities keep their accounts to the nearest pound. Perhaps it did not appear at all, but was an investigation made into the circumstances of a disposal for 15 pence for three cemeteries which a fortnight before had been valued at £1·25 million and which were later put on offer by those who ultimately bought them for £2·5 million? Then the

573
Westminster City Council, after having sold three cemeteries at five pence a piece, incurred a further bill of some £70,000 in order to secure for the purchaser vacant possession of the lodging places situated in the cemetery itself.
There has been some political talk, very often in Government circles, about the "Loony Left". What about the Loony Right? Those who were responsible for this kind of sale, for whatever reason, want their brains examined. It is no good blaming the officials of the local authority for this. I can assure the noble Lord that I have seen the extracts from the minutes of the council so I know who is responsible.
The questions I have to ask concern the concept that there should be money for value as well as value for money. What action was taken by the auditors as regards this item of 15 pence receipts from Growise for the property and the payment of £70,000 to secure vacant possession? What observations, if any, were attached to the accounts of the authority for the year 1986 to 1987, or do these items feature in the accounts for the year 1987 to 1988, which have still not been compiled?
My second question is: what action has been taken by the commission under Section 22(1)(a) of the Act following notification of this most extraordinary and bizarre event which has involved the ratepayers of the City of Westminster in such a colossal loss? What report has been called for by them and what action has been taken by the Secretary of State under Section 22(2) of the Act? For convenience, and as I have not quoted from any part of the Act so far, I shall quote from Section 22(2):
"If it appears to the Secretary of State that it is desirable in the public interest that there should be an extraordinary audit of the accounts of any such body as aforesaid he may require the Commission to direct such an audit by an auditor or auditors appointed by it."
What action has been taken by the Secretary of State?
What rights have the individual electors under Section 24 of the Act in regard to the accounts for the year 1986–87 now that these extraordinary events have come to light? What rights have they got? What rights will they have for an examination of the accounts and the questioning of the auditors in relation to the 1987–88 accounts?
My final question is: in the light of this extraordinary event, what action does the Secretary of State propose to take to ensure amendment to the code of practice so that it includes a regard that the auditors should have to ensure that money-for-value provisions are inserted in it in order to prevent a repetition of matters of this kind?
I am sorry to have to detain the House so long on those points. However, they have to be raised. They are derived essentially from the columns of the Evening Standard for 1st December 1987, 3rd December 1987, 4th December 1987 and 12th January 1988. I do not put myself behind the allegations that are made. I could not do that unless I had audited the accounts myself and observed the documents. I am very reluctant to think, however, that the features in that newspaper can be without foundation. I should like to ask the noble Lord what action he proposes to take upon them for the protection of the interests of the individual electors of
574
the Westminster City Council and the Westminster constituency, and also to protect the staff of the council and the auditors that are employed at present.
Baroness Stedman: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his introduction of the code. I do not have the expertise or the accounting qualifications of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce. I can only look at the matter from the point of view of one who has spent almost a lifetime as an elected member of local government.
As I understand it, this is the review of the code which has been in existence since 1983. I was interested to see, at the end of the copy which we have, the points which were raised with the Audit Commission by the various commentators and also the commission's response to them. I believe that the commission either explained why it was doing what it was doing or it made the necessary alterations or amendments which proved that it took note of the comments that had been sent to it.
I know that the Association of Metropolitan Authorities has shown some concern about the question of the report in the public interest and also the phrase "lack of prudence". However, I have had no representations from the other local authority associations, and indeed I understand that the Association of County Councils, of which I am the vice-president, has not raised any serious objections.
It seems to me that it has been very difficult for the commission to try to define the boundaries within which auditors should operate. I think that they have made an honourable attempt at it. I think that we accept that that will be a matter for the auditor to decide and that he may not always please all of us in the decision which he takes. However, I am sure that with good will and a good relationship between the local authorities and the Audit Commission—that should not be beyond the wit of either the local authorities, their associations or the Audit Commission—we shall have no more problems with the code until we come to review it again in another five years.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am most grateful to those who have contributed to this useful and interesting discussion. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, I am also not an accountant. I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, for his thoughtful observations on a rather complex subject and also for his courtesy in having communicated with me in advance of the debate.
As I said earlier in introducing the code, it is the commission's code. The commission, as your Lordships will know, is an independent body. Although the Secretary of State appoints its chairman and members, the commission's powers and duties are prescribed by Parliament rather than in ministerial guidelines. It is funded entirely from audit fees paid by local authorities and receives no government money. Your Lordships will also know that the commission has robustly demonstrated its independence of the Government on many occasions and especially in the reports it has produced looking at the impact of central government policies on value

575
for money in local authority service delivery. My role in the matter is therefore limited to bringing the code before your Lordships' House. I should, however, like to try to deal with some of the points which have been raised during the debate.
Both the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, and the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, mentioned the relationship of the auditor and local government. The noble Lord remains concerned, as he feels that there is an intrusion of auditors into local government. The question of whether auditors should examine the management arrangements of local authorities is that it is a requirement of the primary legislation that auditors should satisfy themselves that authorities have made proper arrangements for the achievement of value for money. It is not a management function of the auditor; rather the auditor reviews whether the management arrangements are in place and are effective. It used to be commonly thought that it was no part of an auditor's duty to concern himself with value for money. The 1982 Act (followed by the 1983 Act governing the National Audit Office) made it clear that value for money is an essential element of public sector auditoring. Increasingly it is, I understand, also regarded as part of good practice in commercial auditing.
I was therefore surprised that the noble Lord. Lord Bruce, should raise the question again in view of the substantial and widely acknowledged impact which the commission and its auditors have made in demonstrating the scope for improvement in value for money even in the better managed authorities. In its last annual report the commission recorded that a total of £490 million of value improvements had been identified as achievable in the service areas studied, of which around £80 million per annum had already been fulfilled. Those are figures of annual savings and the totals are increasing year by year. Even on the basis of savings achieved so far, the commission's value for money efforts have already paid for themselves many times over.
It is the commission's role to point the way to improved value for money and best practice. But it is for authorities themselves to make the decisions. Paragraph 38 of the code makes it clear that:
"It is not the auditor's function to question policy. It is., however, his responsibility both to consider the effects of policy and to examine the arrangements by which policy decisions are reached".
I believe that that is the right distinction to make and the one which quite properly separates the role of auditor from that of policy maker.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, also made a number of points concerning Westminster City Council cemetery transactions. He asked about the applicability of the code in dealing with certain transactions which the council are reported to have made in disposing of a number of cemeteries. Each local authority property transaction is subject to the normal processes of audit. I understand that those cases have been raised with the auditor by a Westminster elector. The code makes appropriate provision for dealing with such matters. If the auditor feels that a report in the public interest is called for, he is required to make such a report. Paragraphs 40
576
to 46 of the code prescribe the way in which he should proceed. If the matter raises questions of illegality or loss due to wilful misconduct, the code, supporting the legislation, will direct the auditor to take action using his special powers under Sections 19 and 20 of the 1982 Act.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, asked me whether the Secretary of State has directed the commission to order an extraordinary audit. The Secretary of State has not directed an extraordinary audit of the accounts of Westminster City Council. Such a direction would serve no useful purpose as the matter is already under consideration by the auditors.
The noble Lord also raised the question of the applicability of the code in respect of accounting for payments for bed and breakfast accommodation. I understand that it was audit inquiries which revealed the irregularities in the bed and breakfast payments made by one authority to which the noble Lord has drawn attention. The commission has, as a result, compiled a guide for auditors in dealing with such payments and is also considering a special study. I believe that that provides a good example of a matter which raises questions about the arrangements for securing economy, efficiency and effectiveness in the use of an authority's resources and which is properly within the auditor's purview.
At the start of the debate, the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, drew my attention to what he described as the burden on firms employed by the commission. The noble Lord is quite correct in saying that the code places significant burdens on the auditor. However, it is proper to say that the firms appointed by the commission are perfectly happy to endure that burden and to comply with the code before us.
Finally, the deputy controller of the Audit Commission, who has been listening to the debate, will, I am sure, take note of the points that have been made. The commission has done a thorough and highly professional job in revising the code. I believe that it will provide a sound framework for guiding the work of the auditors in local government. I hope that your Lordships will be able to accept the Motion. I certainly commend it to the House.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his reply. I should be glad if he would convey my felicitations to the deputy controller in his examination of the proceedings that have taken place this evening.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) Order 1988
8.30 p.m.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sanderson of Bowden)The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sanderson of Bowden) rose to move, That the order laid before the House on 11th January be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this order revokes and re-enacts with amendments the provisions of the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (No. 3) Order 1987 and the Food Protection (Emergency

577
Prohibitions) (No. 4) Order 1987. The emergency prohibitions imposed by those orders remain in force. They restrict various activities and prevent consumption of food rendered unsuitable for that purpose as a result of the Chernobyl radioactivity leak in 1986.
The areas in Scotland affected by the escape, from which the movement of sheep and in which the slaughter of sheep are prohibited, are designated again and are described in the order. As your Lordships are aware, the restrictions on the slaughter of sheep from the designated areas and the supply of meat derived from such sheep extend throughout the United Kingdom.
The Government, as your Lordships are aware, announced on 13th August 1986 the introduction of a mark and release scheme to allow sheep which failed a monitoring test for radioactivity to be moved from an area where the movement and slaughter of sheep had been restricted by order but not slaughtered. Their heads were painted with a distinctive paint mark to indicate that they came from a restricted area and to signify that they could not be slaughtered until they had passed a further monitoring test when they would be ear-tagged to show that they had passed. The only other way these sheep could legitimately be sent for slaughter would be after comprehensive monitoring had shown that the levels of radioactivity in sheep marked that colour had decreased to a level at which their consumption would not threaten health.
The colours green, blue and apricot are used in rotation for this marking. From Monday 11th January, the order lifts slaughter controls on green-marked sheep which were originally marked in the post-Chernobyl restricted areas. This follows a substantial fall in radioactivity levels in such sheep which were all marked on or before 27th September 1987.
The colour mark used to identify sheep which have not been marked up until now and which are to leave a restricted area having failed a live-monitoring test for radioactivity is changed from blue to apricot by the order—again from Monday 11th January. This change has been made so that newly marked animals can be distinguished from sheep which have moved earlier out of a restricted area on to clean pasture. In this way the eventual release from controls of the blue-marked sheep, once the readings for radioactivity permit this, will be able to be made.
Sheep marked blue on or after 28th September 1987 and sheep marked apricot on or after 11th January 1988 may not be slaughtered until they are successfully monitored and ear-tagged. These periodic changes in colour enable central control over the slaughter and movement of sheep from the restricted areas to be continued. They also provide a mechanism for releasing for slaughter sheep once unacceptably highly contaminated but now with decreased and acceptable levels of radioactivity.
The measures I have outlined, and which are supplemented by our slaughterhouse monitoring programme have been designed to protect the food
578
chain and to disrupt normal business as little as possible in achieving that aim. I commend the order to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the order laid before the House on 11th January be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Sanderson of Bowden.)
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation which makes it easier to understand what is inevitably a complicated order. We all laugh or make fun of bureaucracy but this is an example of exactly the sort of situation in which the value of bureaucracy is apparent. When the noble Lord described the details of the colour changes and all the rest of it, it showed how important it is to have a system which we laughingly call bureaucracy.
I am glad that there has been some reduction in radioactivity, if that is the correct phrase for it. There are only two questions that I should like to ask the Minister, one of which struck me while he was speaking: why only sheep? Are cattle in a different category? In the debate in another place all sorts extraneous foods such as fish, trout and rabbits—chickens as well, I believe—were mentioned. It seems to me that beef cattle are much more likely to be associated with sheep. I may be wrong. Perhaps sheep tend to go higher in the hills than cattle, and the higher they are in the hills the more likely they are to be contaminated.
The other point—it is a technical one and may be too expensive to consider in an order such as this—concerns the format. Reading through the order becomes slightly tedious after a while. Going into the detail that it does, I thought how incredibly helpful it would be if even a small and quite rough map could be included. I know that in terms of law there must be included an accurate description of the area. But it would be a great help to see even a fairly small-scale map. It would make matters more intelligible.
We would all agree that the Government have acted quickly on this problem. There is no point in asking the Minister when the provision will cease to be necessary. The answer was given by the Minister in another place when he said that he did not have second vision. We can thank the Minister for bringing the order before us today.
Lord Borthwick: My Lords, before the Minister rises, perhaps I may mention that the other day I was listening to a conversation between a couple of farmers who were arguing about the measures that were being taken. One farmer was quite keen; the other rather doubted them. I doubt them myself. One claimed that the energy being measured in the hill country, in the Highlands, had been there for a long time. I doubt that from what I have heard. I believe that the later tests carried out for acid rain show quite definitely that that was the time when the measures rose to a dangerous level.
Has any record been made of the actual levels of radiation earlier, before the catastrophe occurred? Are there any records which show that at all? I am led to believe that in the granite areas a greater level of

579
radiation is given off than in lowland areas where there is no granite. Is that correct?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, very much for the welcome that he has given the order placed before your Lordships' House this evening. So far as concerns animals affected by the Chernobyl disaster, we are dealing with sheep in the main. Cattle do not enter into the question, partly for the reason that he mentioned concerning their grazing habits. It is important to realise that sheep have been the most affected animal as regards this particular disaster—and it is a disaster—through their cropping of the grass.
Perhaps I may help the noble Lord with regard to the map. The most affected area which worried us in the first year—and we did tests across the whole of Scotland—was in the south-west of Scotland. That was the area that concerned us most. There were other areas such as Benbecula, and some areas as we worked north into the central region of Scotland. This year we were able to do far more monitoring than was possible in the first year. Noble Lords will know that 69 farms were designated this year—a total of 124,000 sheep out of a total sheep population of 8·8 million. That puts the matter into perspective.
The first designations that my department had to make were in Dumfriesshire. Latterly, in the second lot of designations, it was still prevalent in farms in the central region in a line from south Ayrshire through to west Stirlingshire.
In answer to my noble friend Lord Borthwick, we are dealing with the Chernobyl disaster. It is quite clear from the evidence we have that the tests and the problems relate entirely to that disaster. We are dealing with this order in relation to Chernobyl; and I wish to make that quite clear.
The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, referred to the length of time that this may continue. As he says, I cannot help him. Obviously we shall have to continue with restrictions as long as the monitoring proves that it is essential. It is not possible to predict when levels of radioactivity will have dropped sufficiently to enable restrictions to be lifted completely. But—and this is important—the government scientists are conducting laboratory experiments on the uptake of caesium from different types of soil. At this stage it is premature to anticipate the results of those experiments. With those few remarks, I commend this order to the House.
Lord Borthwick: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for what he has told us. If it is decreasing and the danger will soon pass, I am very glad to hear that. I was not acquainted with the position, not being in the area. What I have heard was very comforting.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until ten minutes to nine.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.43 to 8.50 p.m.]

Local Government Bill
House again in Committee on Clause 2.
[Amendments Nos. 16 to 19 not moved.]
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 3, line 31 at end insert—
("( ) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 2(2) above, a defined activity shall not be treated as a defined activity if the net expenditure by a defined authority on the direct discharge of the defined activity was, in the previous year, less than £250,000 (or such higher figure as the Secretary of State may determine upon special application of the authority) which said figure shall be adjusted annually by the Secretary of State having due regard to the rate of inflation then current.").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 20 I should like to link it with Amendments Nos. 22 and 23.
The justification for the amendments and the effect of Clause 2(9) as it stands would be to allow the Secretary of State to exempt certain activities from the definition of a defined activity as set out in Clause 2(2) and Schedule 1. The Government have proposed that,
"Defined authorities would be exempt from competition for a defined activity if the amount they spent on the direct discharge of an activity—including all relevant overhead costs—was less than £100.000 a year …. The Government propose, therefore, that an authority should he exempt in any year if its estimated gross expenditure in carrying out the activity in the previous year is less than £100,000."
It is important to note here that the intention of the Government is not to exempt an authority because it is small.
"Small authorities are in general just as capable of benefiting from competition as are large authorities."
Therefore, it seems to be the case that the Government can envisage certain situations where an exemption would be appropriate, but the size of the authority would not form the main reason for that exemption but rather would be incidental.
"The question is rather, where the level of activity is very small, is it appropriate to impose the full statutory accounting and reporting requirements?"
Further, it is the Government's clear intention that any such exemption shall be so narrow as to benefit very few authorities.
"Clearly, a de minimis level must be set at a low level of expenditure if it is not to cease to have any rationale."
Two major areas of concern have arisen in connection with Clause 2(9). Secondary legislation: the Bill in general and with particular relevance to Clause 2(9) is a skeleton which, after passing into statute, remains to be fleshed out by way of secondary legislation and ministerial order. Delegated legislation, while allowing for flexibility in response to complicated issues, prevents full public scrutiny in that what would have been subjected to the full parliamentary process becomes the subject of government proposals and assurances. However well intentioned such proposals and assurances are, and however well consultation is carried through, it cannot—nor is it designed to—have the public scrutiny of primary legislation. Any proposed de minimis exemption should therefore be set forth in the Bill itself, thereby ending the doubts and uncertainties for many local authorities.
As to the basis of the exemption, concern has also been expressed regarding the expenditure limit of £100,000, primarily because it is set too low. The following examples are typical responses to the Government's proposals.
"This Council notes that defined authorities would be exempt from competition for a defined activity if the amount they spend on the direct discharge of it is less than £100,000 per year. With regard to this council, refuse collection appears to be the only defined activity which would require to be exposed to competition. The other two defined activities, 'other cleaning' and 'cleaning of buildings' by this Council, do appear to fall beneath the £100,000 'de minimis' level. However, by 1st April 1990 it may be that all of the defined activities carried out by this Council would be well in excess of £100,000. On this basis and hearing in mind that private tenders are very unlikely to be received the Council recommends that the 'de minimis' level be raised to £250,000."
There are further examples by councils, Badenoch and Strathspey and the Association of Highland District Councils, which make the same point that the £100,000 is too low anyway and would become an historical nonsense. On that basis of that, I beg to move the amendments.
The Earl of Caithness: Amendments Nos. 20, 22 and 23 would raise the threshold below which work is exempt from the Bill's provisions very considerably. Amendment No. 22, couched in terms of 20 employees, probably translates into gross expenditure of the order of between £300,000 and £400,000. It might be more appropriate to describe such a threshold not as a de minimis but as a de maximus level.
I have to say that I cannot agree that it is not worth exposing such large sums to competition. They may not he large relative to typical expenditure levels on the Bill's services, but in absolute terms they are nevertheless very large. How many of the members of this Committee, in spending their own funds on something costing these orders of magnitude, let alone something considerably less, would do so without in some way testing the market? We must hear in mind that since it is an on-going provision that is at issue, any contracts are likely to last for several years. A service costing £250,000 per year would lead to a five-year contract worth £1,250,000 and yet still not be subject to the pressures for efficiency which the competitive process would otherwise bring to bear. We do not think that that is sensible.
The fact that the £100,000 limit proposed by the Secretary of State would exempt very few authorities' services is not really relevant to our proposals. Its aim is not to affect some target proportion of authorities but simply to exempt work where there really is a strong case for fearing that tendering and other administrative costs may outweigh competitive gains. The argument has been put forward that the Secretary of State has erred considerably on the high side, and that if there is any case at all for such a threshold it should be set far lower than £100,000. Indeed, I am sure Members of the Committee have read the argument for a £25,000 de minimis level in the papers recently. I would suggest that that view is held by a respectable number of people and is a view that we should take into account in considering the level in our consultations which, as the Committee knows, are still continuing.
582
The fact the Secretary of State has consulted on the basis of a £100,000 limit does not in any sense mean that this figure is set in concrete. First of all, it is only a proposal. A large number of responses to it have been received and these will be studied very carefully before any final decision is made. Secondly, the Secretary of State will be able to vary the initial limit or set different limits for different sorts of work if, in the light of experience, there is a case for doing so. Nor does it seem to me that there is thus any case for automatic indexing of any initial level.
I am sure that the Committee will agree that the right thing to do is to review it from time to time without prejudice to whether it should move up or down or stay the same in real terms. I come back to the suggestion that £100,000 is subject to consultation which is going on at the moment. There are a number of responses which we should like to consider very carefully.
Lord Dean of Beswick: I thank the noble Earl for that reply. What comes across more ominously than ever is the tremendous amount of consultation that is taking place to which people such as myself and other noble Lords interested in the Bill are not privy. We have to be a little careful that there is not so much consultation that it will end in legislative constipation, because so much is being pumped through at once quite blindly.
I wonder whether the Minister and the Government should not consider the disparity in size between authorities that will, if I heard him correctly, be covered by a blanket approach. I am sure that £100,000 for some of the very small authorities will prove more than adequate. I hope it will. But to limit that for the large county, city and borough authorities is a futile exercise. I do not think it would be a realistic figure.
Having heard the Minister tell us that consultations are still taking place, it is possible, first, to read what the Minister has said and understand what the consultations are saying, and then perhaps at a later stage the Minister may be able to give us a more definitive sum. I hope that he will listen to what we have said regarding the disparity of sizes that will be encompassed by the same figure of £100,000 and that he will think it may be worth considering an extension based on the larger and more involved authorities.
Having said that, I have no wish to press the amendment at this stage and I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 21 to 24 not moved.]
Clause 2 agreed to.
9 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick moved Amendment No. 25:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:
("Definition of Secretary of State.
("For the avoidance of doubt, any reference in this Act to "the Secretary of State" shall be interpreted as refering in England to the Secretary of State for the Environment; in Scotland to the Secretary of State for Scotland; and in Wales to the Secretary of State for Wales.")
The noble Lord said: This new clause has been recommended by the Law Society of Scotland. The Bill is designed to apply both in England and Wales and in Scotland. As such, it is drafted on the basis of English legislation with amendment to make the Bill apply to Scotland. In general terms it is unsatisfactory that legislation applying to Scottish local government should be dealt with in this way, rather than by primary legislation in respect of this country alone.
A consequence of promoting legislation in this form is that the Bill uniformly refers throughout to the Secretary of State, without specifying which Secretary of State is meant. While there is a parliamentary convention that the Secretary of State will be respectively the Secretary of State for the Environment in England, the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Secretary of State for Wales, such conventions do not have legal force and may be overlooked. It is important that the Scottish Office participates fully in the drafting of the subsidiary legislation for Scotland, and to protect this position the inclusion of a new clause is recommended.
I think this goes very much to the heart of some of the amendments we are debating. I believe our Scots colleagues from all parts of the Chamber have a justified grumble or gripe. They are being slotted conveniently into a Bill for England and Wales when they have full justification for a Bill for Scotland alone which they could debate in full. However, it is not for me to argue that case tonight. I am sure that Scottish Members will ensure that it does not go away. I beg to move.
The Earl of Dundee: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dean, who has moved this amendment on behalf of his noble friend. I am also very glad to see him taking a great part in a Scottish matter.
The duties of Secretaries of State are legally interchangeable and independent of any distinction on account of the departments over which they preside. This stems from the constitutional doctrine of the unity of office of a Secretary of State. In practice, however, each Secretary of State limits his function to those matters which have been allocated to him by the normal machinery of government. References to a particular Secretary of State are included occasionally in legislation which applies throughout Great Britain, where it is the intention that duty should fall upon or powers be exercised under that legislation by that particular Secretary of State and no other, and where there might otherwise be doubt. There may also be references to a particular Secretary of State where property is being transferred.
It follows that it is not necessary to make specific provision for other cases; for example, where it is intended that duties should fall on or powers be exercised by the territorial Secretaries of State in respect of matters which in Scotland, England or Wales are clearly within their responsibility. In such circumstances there can or should be no doubt that a reference to the Secretary of State means any of the Secretaries of State having relevant responsibility.
584
Since local government matters in Scotland, England and Wales are matters for which the Secretaries of State for Scotland, for the Environment and for Wales have separate responsibilities, there is no doubt that any reference in local government legislation to the Secretary of State means all three, each being charged with whatever duty is imposed or power conferred in respect only of that part of Britain in which his responsibilities lie. This convention is well tried and understood. It has been extensively used by governments. If this amendment were to be accepted, doubt would be cast on the terms of much previous legislation—the Mobile Homes Act 1975, the Race Relations Act 1976, the Transport Act 1978, to name but a few—let alone future Bills where references to the Secretary of State occur. For those reasons I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I am sorry that I missed the beginning of the debate on this amendment. The Committee will be aware that the House was late in finishing the last item. I was pleased to hear the noble Earl's definition of "Secretary of State". The amendment is inspired by the Law Society of Scotland. I agree with its opinion that it was all very well when 50, 60, or 100 years ago the job of Secretary of State was not onerous and one Secretary of State could cover all the tasks. I do not expect the Government to concede this tonight, but the point has been reached when the issue should be looked at again in a constitutional manner. There is no longer one Secretary of State. People become confused when they realise that the Secretary of State is, in essence, one person with a multiplicity of heads. I hope that the Minister will reconsider this matter and that it may be included in a separate Bill at some future date. The idea of there being only one Secretary of State is becoming antiquated. However, I have heard the noble Earl's explanation and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 1 [Competition]:
Baroness Nicol Baroness Nicol moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 32, line 8, at end insert ("; but an activity does not fall within section 2(2) (a) above if it involves the separate collection of recyclable materials for the purpose of waste recycling").
The noble Baroness said: I should like to move Amendment No. 26. It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I also speak to Amendments Nos. 27 and 28, and make a passing reference to Amendment No. 29, which again is a Scottish affair.
The amendment is fairly limited but it is important in its implication. The output of solid wastes (I am not referring to sewage but to household, commercial and industrial waste) in this country is approximately 15 to 20 million tonnes of household waste and approximately 36 million tonnes of industrial and commercial waste. We are therefore talking about very large quantities. Overall, approximately 15 million tonnes of waste is reclaimed or recycled so there is still a long way to go. Approximately 50 per cent. of household waste is recycled and industry and

585
commerce are becoming increasingly alive to the commercial sense of recycling. Increasing concern for the environment, which is reflected in community legislation, is an added incentive. I notice that on several recent occasions the CBI has exhorted its members to pay more attention to the reclamation and recycling of waste.
However, the fluctuating markets for the products of some recycled wastes, and the practical difficulties of organising domestic waste recycling, mean that there must be an organising force which can, to some extent, level out the peaks and troughs of demand. I am sure that the Committee is aware that the variations in the graph indicating the market value of household waste recycling are enormous. For example, waste paper can be valuable or it can be worth nothing at all, and the same applies to other materials.
The role may have to be filled by local authorities, backed by the Government where appropriate. By excluding recycling from the statutory requirement of Clause 2(2), local authorities would have a useful degree of flexibility which would not preclude their seeking competitive tenders if local conditions and circumstances made that feasible. I should like to remind the Committee of the recommendation of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution at paragraph 13.26 on page 165 of its 11th report. It is relevant to this discussion and it states:
"We consider that the Departments of Trade and Industry and of the Environment should continue to encourage recycling and resource recovery as a means of reducing pollution, including litter."
This is the important point:
"The fact that opportunities are not exploited as vigorously in the UK as they might be is due at least in part to the absence of a clear lead from the Government".
I maintain that although that recommendation was written in 1984 it is still relevant. As far as I am aware the Government have not acted upon it. The proposals in the Bill will move even further away from the recommendation of the Royal Commission. Therefore I hope that the Minister will look kindly on the amendment, which is limited in its scope. It will not stop those local authorities who wish to do so from contracting out of recycling. It will mean that in the light of local circumstances, which might make it difficult to contract out, they will have the option to continue with their recycling plans.
I should now like to deal with the other similar amendments, beginning with Amendment No. 27. The purpose of the amendment is to discover when the provisions of the Control of Pollution Act 1974—in particular Sections 12 and 30—are to be implemented. I know that this was raised in another place, and the reply there given makes me feel that there may be a constructive answer. I quote again from the 11th report of the Royal Commission, which states that it found the definitions of the 1974 Act "helpful and practical". That part of the Act has not yet been implemented. Thus the definition therein is not available to us with any force, however helpful and practical we may think that it is.
The Minister's right honourable friend said in Committee in another place at col. 258, that:
"those provisions are not yet in force, but we are consulting on the implementation of sections 12 and 14 of that Act prior to the Bill's
586
receiving Royal Assent. If it becomes clear that there is any danger of that not happening, we shall bring forward an amendment to create a free-standing definition of waste for the purposes of this legislation."
That would seem to indicate that the Minister then thought it was important that there should be an acceptable definition of waste. I maintain that it is very important before meaningful discussions can take place within the Bill or without it.
Can the Minister tell us when we can expect implementation of the Act and whether he has any plans for a free-standing definition? The subject of Amendment No. 29 is, I believe, the Scottish equivalent. I think that my noble friends will probably support the amendments for that reason. I beg to move.
9.15 p.m.
The Earl of Balfour: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak to Amendment No. 29. It deals with rather a different point.
I am grateful for what the noble Baroness has said. I should like to add that, according to the Scottish current law legislation citator of 1986, Section 124 of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 has been repealed by Section 126 of that Act because Sections 12 and 15 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974, Chapter 40, have now come into force. This is a complicated and technical point and I trust that I have it right. On further study, I think that I should have referred to Section 12, not Section 15, of the Act. According to the current law legislation citator, Sections 12 and 15 of the 1974 Act are in full force as regards Scotland.
The Earl of Caithness: I am afraid that I was totally floored by the amendments and misinterpreted them completely. I am therefore extremely grateful for the clear way in which the noble Baroness explained them, and I tell her that there is some good news to come.
I deal with Amendment No. 26 first. I find it difficult to understand. We have heard arguments to the effect that private contractors are unsuitable for work involving sensitive relationships of care with client groups. Even if one sympathises with that view, it is surely very difficult to draw any analogy with the handling of recyclable waste. In short, there seems no obvious reason why authorities, if they want such waste handled separately, should not simply say so in their contract documents.
The noble Baroness referred to the report of the Royal Commission. I should have thought that here we have an excellent opportunity for local authorities to show the way and encourage recycled waste by setting out the definitions carefully in the documents. I take the noble Baroness's point about the graph. I should like to look at that. At present we have an opportunity rather than a disincentive to continue the good work to which she referred.
Perhaps I may move to Amendments Nos. 27 and 28. The date for which the noble Baroness is looking is 5th April this year when we shall be implementing Sections 12 to 14 of the Control of Pollution Act

587
1974. As she knows, that will repeal Sections 72 to 76 of the Public Health Act 1936.
The effect of the amendment of my noble friend Lord Balfour would be to insert in the Bill a reference to a provision neither currently in force nor expected to come into operation in the foreseeable future, and to delete a reference to a current statutory provision under which local authorities are operating satisfactorily. The legislative arrangements for the collection and disposal of waste in Scotland differ significantly from those applying in England and Wales. In England and Wales the relevant provisions are at present contained in the Public Health Act 1936, to which I have referred. These will be overtaken on 5th April by Sections 12 to 14 of the Control of Pollution Act. In Scotland local authorities operate under a more modern Act, the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State, after carefully considering whether there were substantial reasons for bringing into effect Section 15 of the 1974 Act—that is the Scottish equivalent to Section 14—concluded that there were not.
The current provisions under Sections 124 and 125 of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 are working well and contain the powers and duties necessary to enable district and island councils to collect and dispose of household and trade waste as they see fit. It is for that reason that the Government see no reason for replacing them as proposed in my noble friend's amendment.
Baroness Nicol: I am glad to hear that quite soon we are to have a definition of "waste" which will be acceptable to everyone. With the greatest respect, I do not believe that the Minister's reply will be very useful in that local authorities can define "waste" in their contracts for the purposes of recycling. I do not believe it to be a good idea to have 450 different definitions of "waste" operating up and down the country. However, I am very pleased with the reply on the later amendments. So far as concerns Amendment No. 26, I wish to think a little more about what has been said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 27, 28 and 29 not moved.]
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 32. line 31, after first ("establishment") insert ("excepted school").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the amendment standing in our names on the Marshalled List. I believe it is in order for Amendment No. 36 to be taken with No. 30.
The Earl of Caithness: I apologise to the noble Lord but I thought that we were dealing with Amendments Nos. 30 to 36 together.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Now I have two pieces of paper instead of one.
588
As the Minister has pointed out, these amendments are related and they deal with the position of an excepted school. The Minister will recall that in another place and in the general philosophy of the Bill, in accepting that certain types of institutions should be exempted from the defined activities, the Government have argued that in these cases the grounds for exemption are that the staff perform a caring function in addition to their normal role. The Minister will recall that this has happened, for example, in the case of the cleaning of residential homes. The Government have also agreed to exempt the school catering activity in exempted schools on the same basis.
Excepted schools cater for children with special educational needs and those who are handicapped. These amendments seek the exemption of the cleaning activity in these schools on the grounds that the caring role of all staff, including cleaners, is an essential aspect of their work.
There is no doubt that the Government are trying to provide that the maximum amount of work currently carried on by councils should he tendered for competitively. We can honestly see no need to go to those lengths. This is one of those cases in which the Minister should say something helpful. I have in mind the Waverley School in Windmill Hill, Enfield. One needs to have an ambiance and a raison d'être in a school of that kind. I am thinking in terms of Westlea School, which is a school that I know in Hazelbury Road, Edmonton.
It is very difficult to look at some elements of the unity of a school when some are going to be in and some are going to be out. The Minister and his colleagues in another place have taken care to point out the special reasons why some of those who will be employed in those establishments are exempted. We want to do exactly the same. The Bill, as we see it, does not provide for that.
When we look at the other amendments, Amendments Nos. 31 and 34, we have introduced besides the excepted school nexus the day centre, and the Minister and his advisers will have seen that we tried to take in a special group of individuals and circumstances. Daycare centres will include the adult training centres for mentally handicapped adults. I can bring immediately to my mind the adult training centre on the Clavering estate in Montague Road in Edmonton. I can think of the establishment in Alma Road in Enfield. Everyone here who has a genuine knowledge of and affection for their own area can think of establishments of that kind.
I bring to my mind illustrations to try to understand what this Bill is all about, and I think of day centres and adult training centres for mentally handicapped adults. I appreciate that in many of these instances they are a new concept. To this Government's credit, as well as to the credit of many councils, there has been a general move over the past 20 to 30 years to make special provisions for those members of our community who need to have special provisions made for them. They are a new concept, especially day centres for the elderly. There are not only the physical needs but also the emotional needs of elderly people, who, to use a kind word, are frail

589
and need to lean not merely on those who advise them and take them to the centres but also on other people.
We believe that those who carry out domestic work in these places are every bit as much a part of the little enclave into which the elderly, the mentally handicapped and others go as those who have perhaps a more superior post or role. Of course there are those who are specially qualified. There are those who will have been well trained. There are those who are qualified by experience. What we say is that there are other people as well, and those are the domestic workers. We think that the domestic staff will be involved in the caring programme through meeting and talking to the clients, encouraging them to participate in the life of the centre, and helping them with personal issues.
I have walked round a dozen of these homes a hundred times in the past 15 years, and one does not separate those who may have a badge and those who may wear a different uniform. Everybody inside these establishments is part of the rescue service that the people who use them need. What we say to the Committee is that we want the cleaning staff and the domestic staff also to be exempted, and indeed others too. When one talks in terms of adult training centres, the one I remember best in the Clavering estate in Edmonton carried out not merely the function of providing work or a place for these people to go to in order to be assisted, but also carried out laundry work and other outwork. Everyone who is involved in these places ought to be treated equally. I hope that the Minister will see the sense of what I am saying, but, more important, will make it unnecessary for me to press this amendment to a Division. It is up to the noble Earl.
9.30 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: It is entirely up to the noble Lord, not to me.
The Government accept that some jobs falling within the defined activities are involved so closely with the care and welfare of certain client groups that it would not be appropriate to subject them to normal commercial disciplines. We have made provision accordingly, and the Bill therefore already exempts cleaning work in residential homes of various kinds.
I realise that there can be no hard and fast line between jobs which clearly ought to be exempt and jobs which clearly ought not to be, and indeed the case for exemptions might plausibly be argued to vary from home to home according to their individual nature. However, we believe that a line has to be drawn and we have taken the view that the case for exemption in the establishments mentioned in the amendments is not strong enough to justify further exemptions. In residential schools, for instance, cleaning work is likely to be done precisely when the residents are not there to get in the way of the cleaners. It is hard to imagine being involved in the welfare of someone you have not met or do not meet on a regular basis.
If we look at the Scottish hostels referred to, there are about 25 of them which cater for a wide range of different groups. These include people housed under
590
the Homeless Persons Act, students, young single people, women who have suffered from domestic violence, handicapped people and incoming workers to a new town. Cleaners in these establishments do not have a major caring element in their work. Indeed, in most cases the cleaning of the establishment will, again, usually be done during the middle of the day when residents are not in the hostel.
There is no sense in which the residents of these hostels have to be involved in undertaking the cleaning work themselves as part of any personal rehabilitation or skills development training. There is therefore no reason why cleaning services in housing authority hostels should be excluded from competition. The vast majority of sheltered housing is more akin to normal dwellings than to residential homes, and distinctions which attempted to differentiate between sub-types of sheltered housing would be extremely difficult and probably unworkable.
Quite apart from those specific points, I draw the Committee's attention once more to the fact that cleaning carried out by, say, a warden or any other member of staff as a minor adjunct to other work not listed in the Bill does not have to be competed for. In the case of any remaining cleaning work done by people employed only as cleaners, I must put it to the Committee that they will not be so substantially involved in a caring role that the possibility of their being replaced by a contractor's employees is just not significant. Directly employed staff do not have a monopoly of ordinary kindness, a point made by my noble friend Lady Blatch earlier this afternoon; nor do they have a monopoly of decency. Indeed, when contractors take over it is common for them to re-employ many of the people already carrying out the work.
I now turn to Amendment No. 33, tabled in my name. This merely puts right an unintended ambiguity in the reference to residential homes which can be provided under the National Health Service Act 1977. The original reference to Section 21 of that Act, by failing to specify which subsection, had the effect of referring not only to homes for the chronically ill but also to homes for the authority's staff, which are referred to in subsection (3). In fact, there is no need to refer to anything but Schedule 8 itself, and that is the effect of my amendment.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I am staggered at the amount of time and argument that the Minister has used to justify his unwillingness to include in the categories of exemption the minuscule numbers involved. The Minister spoke in terms of the people I am trying to include in the exemptions for competitive tendering not being as prominent in the caring role. I have news for him. As my noble friend Lord Dean said, someone who is looked upon as a functionary—the caretaker—in the eyes of a child assumes major significance. The people those in excepted schools, day centres and institutions for the adult mentally handicapped see year in and year out could well be the cleaning staff. They are part of their life. They are part of their empire. The people who perform a more important role may come and may go.

591
I am trying to persuade the Minister and his colleagues to understand that there are special circumstances. Continuity is very important in the lives of people who have already had a difficult and unfortunate blow dealt to them. For whatever reason, they are in a residential home or a day centre, or they may be elderly people, who ought to have the satisfaction and assurance that there are people about them who are just as much a part of care in the community as others. I intend to press this amendment to a Division.
9.36 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 30) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 29; Not-Contents, 48.

DIVISION NO. 4

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Mulley, L.

Attlee, E.

Nicol, B. [Teller.]

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L [Teller.]

Dean of Beswick, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Seear, B.

Gallacher, L.

Sheffield, Bp.

Gifford, L.

Simon, V.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Stedman, B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Strauss, L.

McCarthy, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

McNair, L.

Underhill, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Whaddon, L.

Molloy, L.

Willis, L.

592

NOT-CONTENTS

Allerton, L.

Fortescue, E.

Arran, E.

Gainsborough, L.

Balfour, E.

Gisborough, L.

Barber, L.

Goold, L.

Bauer, L.

Hesketh, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Hives, L.

Beloff, L.

Hooper, B.

Blatch, B.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Borthwick, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Joseph, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Killearn, L.

Butterworth, L.

Long, V.

Caithness, E.

Margadale, L.

Carlisle, E.

Mersey, V.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Minto, E.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Munster, E.

Craigavon, V.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Crathorne, L.

Selborne, E.

Cross. V.

Skelmersdale, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Trafford, L.

Dundee, E.

Trumpington, B.

Ferrier, L.

Vinson, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
9.43 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 31 and 32 not moved.]
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 32, line 40, leave out ("section 21 of or").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 34 not moved.]
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 32. line 43, at end insert ("and includes a hostel provided under section 2 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987.").
The noble Lord said: I think that the Minister referred to the contents of Amendment No. 35 earlier. The amendment would have the effect of exempting hostels provided by housing authorities from the requirement to put cleaning and catering out to competitive tenders. I want to emphasise to the Minister that we are talking about long-term not short-term residential accommodation. Before I make the decision to withdraw this amendment —that is what I intend to do—I would ask the Minister to pay attention to the fact that there is a difference. My noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton spoke about the continuity of staff in local authority places as against contract staff. I am sure that if the Minister looks at the figures he will find that the turnover of contract staff is far greater than that of normal local government staff. I hope he will take that into consideration. It was discussed in the Scottish Committee in another place, and if this amendment is not accepted now or given some consideration we shall certainly bring it back on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): You have not moved it; you cannot withdraw it yet.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I beg to move the Amendment.
The Earl of Caithness: Of course I can give the assurance which the noble Lord is seeking from me that I will read very carefully the points made by the noble Lord and discuss them with my right honourable friend.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 36 to 39 not moved.]
Baroness Nicol Baroness Nicol moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 34, line 43. at end insert ("; but the work referred to in sub-paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) above shall not fall within section 2(2)(f) above if it is carried out in connection with a national plant collection, a site of special scientific interest, a botanic garden, an arboretum, a horticultural collection, or any woodland or forest").
The noble Baroness said: This is a very narrow exemption for specialists who will be included in the provisions of the Bill unless we specifically exclude them. The activities with which we are concerned require a long timetable and a continuity of approach. It is difficult to see how it could be worked into tender requirements.
We are concerned to protect plant collections. For example, Leeds City Council has seven national plant collections in its care, and also sites of special scientific interest. We feel that an exemption could be made for all national plant collections, for sites of special scientific interest and for botanic gardens within the care of local authorities, without giving
594
anything other than a small exemption. For these and for some woodlands the labour force is very small and it has to be flexible in the way work is undertaken. Much of the work is seasonal and subject to on-the-spot decisions. It would be almost impossible to draw up meaningful tender specifications, and the man hours involved in trying to sort out the tender processes would in many cases be equal to or even greater than the work on the ground.
I know that the Minister has sympathy for this kind of work and I hope that he will be able to give us an encouraging answer this evening. It seems to me that we may be doing quite a lot of damage if we do not give this exemption. I beg to move.
The Earl of Selborne: I should like to commend this amendment to my noble friend on the Front Bench. I speak as chairman of an advisory committee for an arboretum in Hampshire administered by Hampshire County Council. I assure my noble friend that there would be grave risk to an extremely important collection of over 30,000 trees—10,000 different species—if it were to go out to competitive tendering.
If one thinks about the charge which Hampshire County Council has taken on, on behalf of the trust, it is to maintain and if possible increase one of the largest collections of temperate plants in the country; to make them available for scientific study and for conservation; and to help the public at large to appreciate and understand just what the collection is. The idea of putting such a collection in the hands of competitive tendering is unfortunate when there is no job which could be called unskilled—certainly not propagation and the maintenance of this collection nor the ability to prune and look after it on a day-to-day basis. I am sure my noble friend on the Front Bench will look at this very carefully. I agree entirely with the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, that in this case it would be quite impractical to allow unskilled and unsupervised labour, which was not under the direct control of management, to be let loose on such collections.
The Earl of Caithness: I assure the noble Baroness and my noble friend that the Government have sympathy with the suggestion that ground maintenance work which is scientific in nature should be exempt from competition. There is an outstanding commitment to consider whether an appropriate amendment should be brought forward, and I apologise for not having brought forward an amendment by this stage. Therefore, I am almost tempted to accept this amendment as it stands. However, it does seem to stray a little too far in the work that it would exempt. There is no obvious reason, I would suggest, why work in woodlands and forests should not be exposed to competition.
I hope I can persuade the Committee that the right course is to await the amendment which the Government have, as I say, committed themselves to and will be bringing forward at another stage which will meet the fundamental principle which the noble Baroness and my noble friend are driving at.
Baroness Nicol: I am very pleased indeed with the Minister's reply. I note what he says about woodland. But there are areas of ancient woodland and woods which are also SSSIs where perhaps there would need to be an exclusion. I am sure that if the Minister is approaching the amendment in the spirit in which he has suggested, the answer that will come will be acceptable. Therefore, I am very happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Mersey Viscount Mersey moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 35, line 6. after ("vehicle") insert ("or of a fire authority vehicle").
The noble Viscount said: I believe we have grouped here Amendments Nos. 41, 42, 44 to 46 and 48. The two amendments in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, are Amendments Nos. 41 and 44. I shall speak to those, but the others, to be moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, are, I think she will agree, pretty well identical, at least in effect.
The amendment I am moving will, I hope, find favour with Government as it is an amendment of life and death. It seeks to exempt fire brigades from enforced competitive tendering on vehicle maintenance in much the same way as police vehicles are exempted in the Bill.
I make the vital point that lives can be lost if there is a delay not so much of minutes but of seconds in the arrival of the correct fire appliance at the scene of the crisis. Fire brigade vehicles are peculiarly complicated. They tend to be quite old. And they tend to be hybrids; perhaps one company making the engine, another the chassis, another the pump take off point and yet more, possibly foreign companies, making turntable ladders, hoses, emergency lights and other parts.
The amendment originates from the London Fire Brigade and it also has the support of the Chief and Assistant Chief Fire Officers' Association. The London Fire Brigade at present maintains in-house a fleet of 700 appliances, the biggest in the country, I believe.
The maintenance crew consists only of 82 skilled men with 14 apprentices which is, I should have thought, a good use of labour. It has very specialised repair shops which I believe my noble friend has seen. They are large, complex and costly; the two biggest are at Lambeth and West Ruislip. All this—real estate, plant and indeed manpower—would be wasted should the brigade be forced to tender out.
The London Fire Brigade lists eight reasons why competitive tendering is not realistic. I shall give four of them, possibly saving the other four, which are just as good, for Report stage. The first is:
"There is a requirement (Fire Service Circular No. 4/85) to maintain standards of fire cover throughout London. This involves a specified response time for specified appliances in particular areas. It is vital to retain control over the resources which make the maintenance of fire cover possible. The Fire Service is unique among emergency services in having its response time imposed by Central Government."
The second reason is:
"The LFCDA has a statutory duty to make plans for the rescue of persons under the Civil Defence (General Local Authority Functions) Regulations 1983. Paragraph 5, Schedule 2, requires the LFCDA to
596
provide and maintain a service in the Local Authority areas for the rescue of persons. Paragraph 11 requires the LFCDA to maintain other services to safeguard life in the community. This would cover services other than rescuing people such as pumping drinking water from one place to another.
3. By virtue of the size and complexity of the fleet, a number of prime and sub-contractors would inevitably be involved in maintaining fire appliances. This leads to an appreciable risk of a contractor defaulting in the performance of the contract. Although financial guarantees and penalties are possible, this does not help as fire appliances cannot be obtained in the marketplace if they are delayed by the contractor.
4. The risk of default and the loss of flexibility could only be covered by the contingency of a Jarge reserve fleet. This would be very expensive".
Those are four of the eight reasons.
I hope that I am pushing against an open door. I have those hopes because the fire brigades were originally exempt from tendering, along with police vehicles, in the Green Paper which preceded the Bill. Police vehicles are still exempt but fire brigade vehicles have been taken out of the exemption. After my peroration it is hoped that they may go back in. I hope that the Minister will be able to help us and I look forward to his reply with measured optimism.
Lord Underhill: I should like to support the noble Viscount, Lord Mersey. After the excellent way in which he has introduced the amendment, there should be little else to say. I am surprised that the Government have not excluded fire service vehicles and equipment. Police vehicles are excluded, and rightly so. It is not a question of jealousy; it is right that police vehicles should be excluded. However, I can remember enough about my fire service duties during the war, when I was in the National Fire Service for five years, to realise how important it is that emergency vehicles should be up to scratch for the time when they are wanted. That is true of the equipment as well.
There are a number of amendments allied to the one which the noble Viscount has moved. I do not care which definition of a fire service vehicle is accepted, so long as the Government agree to accept one. I also do not care whether the amendments are accepted in the form in which they are printed on the Marshalled List, so long as the Minister says that those vehicles and equipment shall be excluded from compulsory tendering. That has nothing to do with the principle of tendering. We are discussing emergency work and I think that all Members of the Committee will be aware that it is necessary for the vehicles to be up to scratch so that they can perform their jobs. The speed and type of work requires that they should be in tip-top condition.
With excellent workshops not only in London but elsewhere, it is criminal that they cannot be used for the purpose for which they are intended. To ask one contractor not only to look after the vehicles and workshops but also to look after turn-table ladders, hydraulic equipment and all the other important equipment of a fire service seems absolutely ridiculous. There would have to be a number of contractors to cope with the job.
The important point is that in an emergency in which vehicles require urgent treatment, most fire services have workshops and men are on the spot to

597
do those jobs immediately. We are talking about emergency appliances, the safety of the public and the safety of fire crews. I hope that the Minister will see the number of amendments which have been put down in the names of a number of Members of the Committee and will say that he accepts the principle, even if that requires the Government to come back with an amendment of their own.
Baroness Stedman: I should like to support the group of amendments. This is not an old comrades' association of the National Fire Service; it is purely fortuitous that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, and I were both in the service at the same time. I also have a slight connection with the service now through its benevolent fund. It is important that fire service vehicles should be exempt in the same way as are police vehicles.
When I first joined the fire service there were still some police fire brigades available. They have always tried, as time has gone by, to maintain parity with the police in everything that they have done. While I do not want to return to police fire brigades, I should like to see the fire service vehicles treated in exactly the same way as police vehicles. I spent my years in the fire service as a member and chairman of the fire service committee. Indeed, at one time I was a member of the central fire brigade's advisory council. That was in one of the counties and not in London, which was the situation to which the noble Viscount, Lord Mersey, referred.
It is particularly difficult when one is trying to cover rural areas to get one's appliances out within the time laid down by the Home Office. One has to be absolutely certain that the appliances are in first class condition and will do what is required of them. They are subject to the most demanding reliability requirements and at times are driven to extreme limits. They have to start from cold and are expected to get up to their maximum speed very quickly, to ensure the quickest possible attendance time when lives and property are at stake.
The design specification for the operational appliances is issued under the authority of the Home Office Fire Department and is above that required of normal commercial vehicles. The appliances are really specialist vehicles and the repair and maintenance applies not only to the vehicle itself but also to the fire engineering which that vehicle carries—the pneumatic and hydraulic rescue equipment, the pumps, the generators and compressors, and so on. The operational availability of the fire appliances is vital. It is often necessary because the operational requirements for urgent work have to be carried out at short notice, or routine maintenance has to be rescheduled because of the calls on those appliances. This is much more easily achieved in self-managed workshops where there is a flexible programme of work that can meet the operational needs. The commercial contractors, we believe, are unable to comply with the rapidly changing priorities and create difficulties in maintaining the necessary availability of the fire appliances.
It is also unlikely in emergency circumstances that the fire services would be able speedily to gain access
598
to a contractor's premises out of normal working hours to recover a vehicle which was needed for a particular job. It is important that these vehicles are exempted in the same way as are police vehicles.
The fire brigade mechanics all have to attend operational incidents for emergency repair or for the maintenance of their vehicles. They are trained in basic operational techniques to ensure their own safety and the safety of others under the Health and Safety at Work Act. All the contractors' personnel likely to provide emergency availability ought to be trained by the brigades anyway on an initial course, and on a refresher course as time goes by, so that they know the brigade procedures, the operational procedures, and the operation of the equipment and all the various specialist items that are carried on the vehicle. This is not just an ordinary case of sending out a car for maintenance: this is specialist equipment. The vehicles cost a great deal of money. They need to be looked after. They need to be ready when they are wanted. I hope that the Minister will accede to our requests.
10 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I shall not detain the Committee. The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, has put all the facts into perspective. I should just like to add that I too was a part-time firewoman in the war. It is my recollection that it was an absolute disaster when an appliance was out of operation because of insufficient crew. It was absolutely never out of operation because the machinery did not work. It was always in working order, and it was 100 per cent. important that it should be. All noble Lords I am sure will know of someone who has had reason at some time to benefit from the instant reaction of the fire service. The speed of reaction is crucial and it is always an emergency. I hope that my noble friend is listening hard.
Lord Gisborough: I come from the County of Cleveland which has the highest fire risk in the whole country. I think that 16 per cent. of our county is designated as a very high fire risk. We have equipment which has to deal not only with all the ordinary types of fires about which one knows, but also those from chemicals of all kinds. We therefore have extremely well-trained men and complicated equipment. There are times when those fire appliances are at full stretch. For example, three or four years ago a tank fire was lit by arsonists. Every fire engine was needed. At the same time, there were two or three forest fires. Any vehicles on maintenance at that moment obviously had to be pulled out. As they were maintained by the county, there was little problem in so doing.
The case has been very well put by my noble friend and others. I should like to support it.
The Earl of Minto: Perhaps I may be allowed to speak as a member of a fire board in Scotland. Outside a fire board, I cannot remember ever having been in the company of so many distinguished firemen. Be that as it may, there is a very strong

599
feeling in Scotland about this matter. To try to follow what has been said by the professionals would be absurd. However, there is one item that I should like to stress.
The fire board of which I am a member covers the Lothians and the Borders, from the south coast of the Firth of Forth and through the refineries of Grangemouth down the coast to the nuclear power units at Torness, to the city of Edinburgh, through an urban and rural countryside. I have to inform Members of this Committee that at the present moment the firemen are genuinely worried. Their worries can be divided into two issues. On the first the points have all been mentioned. On the second the point has not. It is the personal relationship between the firemen and the persons who work in the workshop.
I take my mind back to 1944. I was speaking to my then brother-in-law, who was an outstanding fighter pilot. He had joined the Royal Air Force in 1940 in the Eagle Squadron since he was a citizen of the United States. In 1945, he was leading every fighter that lifted off the ground with the USAF from the United Kingdom. As a 16 year-old I thought that he was a hero—as indeed I am sure he was. I asked him "Of your aircraft, your armaments, or your sheer ability to fly, what would your priorities be?" His reply was very simple. He said, "You have missed out the most important one of all: that is my ground crew. If we take the ground crew away from our pilots they fly with a lack of confidence".
And so it is. If we take the workshops away from our front-line firemen they will fight with a lack of the confidence that we know they have at present. Therefore in whatever order these amendments are numbered or are taken, I consider that it is not simply a privilege but a duty to support whichever amendment is moved.
Lord McNair: Perhaps I may mention very quickly one practical point that, oddly enough, I do not think has been raised. I hope that I am not depriving the noble Viscount, Lord Mersey, of one of those issues that he was saving up for Report stage. These fire engines are allowed to exceed the speed limit. Thus it is obvious that firemen must have confidence in the man who maintains the braking system.
The Earl of Caithness: I cannot claim to have been a firefighter in the war, but, as Members of the Committee know, I have had considerable experience of the fire service, having had the privilege of working with it when I was in my former position in the Home Office.
I would endorse the comments praising the fire service which have been expressed all round the Chamber this evening, and particularly the words of the noble Earl, Lord Minto, concerning the relationship. When I went to fire brigades I always noticed the tremendous ésprit de corps, and that they all depended on one another. When the bell went the back-up had to be there; otherwise they did not function as a unit. If they did not function as a unit
600
they would not satisfy the strict criteria which my right honourable friend the Home Secretary laid down in the standards of fire cover to which my noble friend Lord Mersey referred in one of his four points.
We know that fire vehicles are complex. In two visits that I made I was especially interested in looking at the workshops. I learnt the details of how they worked and how they could be made more efficient, if possible, without breaking the relationship that currently exists. I know that Her Majesty's Inspectors of Fire Service, and, indeed, the chief fire officers are looking for efficiency as well as the maintenance of a service at this stage.
Of course, one must look now at the private sector. The fire service has very complex machines, but so does the private sector. Heavy cranes, cargo handling equipment, hydraulic platforms and earthmoving equipment are all maintained on a considerable scale by private concerns, so there is undoubtedly expertise in the private sector. Whether that is available for the fire service is something that I should like to look into. I hope the Committee will agree that I should take this away, give it further consideration, and discuss it with my right honourable friend the Home Secretary between now and another stage.
Lord Dean of Beswick: Will the Minister bear in mind during his considerations that when a fire engine goes out it is not just a simple engine; it is a complicated piece of self-propelled machinery mounted on wheels; it is very different from the original concept of a fire engine a few years ago. In an overwhelming number of cases when fire engines go out it is in order to save life, which may depend upon the speed with which they can get to a fire. This was drawn to our attention when the amendment was moved. Think of the horrendous loss of life there would have been in the fire at King's Cross if the engine had arrived three or four minutes later because of some lack of delivery. When the fire chief of a particular station knows that an engine is going out, it is essential that his men have confidence that it will perform at the maximum 100 per cent. and not just at 98 per cent. It has to be a 100 per cent. performance. I hope that that is a point which the Minister will bear in mind during his considerations.
Viscount Mersey: I am gratified that my noble friend is prepared to take away my two amendments and that of the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, and have a look at them. In that case I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 41.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 42 not moved.]
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 35, line 6, after ("vehicle") insert ("or of a specialist winter maintenance vehicle").
The noble Lord said: This is linked with Amendment No. 47. It is a similar amendment and would have the same effect, but it would relate to specialised equipment such as winter maintenance vehicles. We have been asked to hurry along with the Bill because of two issues which will arise later in the

601
Bill. The noble Earl will understand if I do not speak at length on this subject, although I could. Will he give an undertaking that the Government will be prepared to consider these amendments, and no more, at this time?
10.15 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: I shall look at this matter without commitment. I do not think it has nearly the strength of the argument of the fire service. The machinery that we are concerned with is considerably more simple. I remember from my days in Aberdeenshire when the farmers did much of the snow clearing and gritting of the roads quite happily for the local authorities. Perhaps, if the noble Lord is content, we shall return to this between now and another stage when we can discuss it informally.
The Earl of Minto: Before the noble Lord withdraws his amendment on those conditions, I put on a third hat as the chairman or vice-chairman of a highways authority for far too many years. I do not think that this matter should be underestimated by the Minister. It is indeed late, but the fact is that here too lies life and death. If you live in the North, as I do—and I have no reason to suppose that it is any different in the South—you may well be without railways, as we are; you may be without airports, as indeed we are; and you may rely entirely on your road network to get people to and from hospital, to and from the necessary health services that they require and to and from every sort of really important function in life.
While I welcome the fact that the noble Earl has said that he will think again, I should warn him that it is nothing like as far away from the last amendments as he has perhaps made out. The case to be made for the winter maintenance vehicles is very formidable indeed.
Baroness Blatch: I think the similarity between this amendment and the previous one is only in so far as these vehicles are about preventing accidents or making life safer for people who move about on our roads. Where the similarity ends is in the complexity of the vehicles. Almost every speaker on the previous amendment concentrated on two things: the complexity and the history of the vehicles and the necessity for them to be absolutely on the dot for responding to an emergency.
That cannot be said for this amendment. We are talking here about tractors, heavy-axle vehicles and snow-moving vehicles which are very much akin to other run-of-the-mill vehicles that are on our roads all day and every day. I think we are in danger of saying something fairly disparaging about those people in the private sector who maintain our vehicles.
The Minister has already agreed to take this matter back and look at it again, but I think the case for saying that somehow or other public authorities can maintain these vehicles to a high standard but the private sector cannot is a very weak one. I suggest that we must not go so far with this argument that we weaken the case for the fire brigade. I support the
602
case for the fire brigade, but we are in danger of watering it down so much that it will be only a matter of time before all vehicles are exempt. The case for these vehicles being maintained either inside or outside the public sector, depending on the most appropriate response to the tenders, is a proposition I support. I should not support exemption on any other grounds.
Lord Dean of Beswick: I said that I would try to be brief, but the noble Baroness has once again elicited something that needs a reply. I said that I would not speak at length tonight, because though in principle it was the same as the argument for the fire brigade it was slightly different.
As a Member of Parliament for Leeds who was at the time resident in Manchester, I travelled regularly on the M.62. I had the experience of doing a 360 degree turn on an icy motorway. I am not a fast driver and have never had the ability to drive fast. On another occasion my car was turned upside down on a stretch of road on Saddleworth Moor. I was lucky on both occasions; others are not so lucky. When my car turned 360 degrees the car behind did the same. I got out of my car but the young girl in the other car got out only as a corpse. This is an important issue and life is at stake.
I hope that when the Minister looks at the issue he will consider all the angles. I have never said that the private sector cannot perform but I believe that these vehicles are part of a public service. I have highlighted two experiences. Basically I am a city dweller but I can imagine the area from which the noble Earl on the Cross-Benches comes. I can also imagine the ability of such vehicles to perform during certain circumstances in inclement weather.
I hope that the Minister will give the matter serious consideration. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Caithness: I think it is right that I should respond to the amendment in a little more detail. I said that I would look at the matter again without commitment because the noble Lord was willing to speed up the proceedings and I think that I can do so. However, I stress to the noble Earl, Lord Minto, that I see a great difference between the request in the Bill for the contracting out to tender of the maintenance and repair of fire vehicles as opposed to winter maintenance vehicles. I disagree strongly with the noble Earl and I believe that local authorities will be able to produce a contract which will be sufficiently clear to enable the private sector to do exactly what is being done at the moment by the direct labour force should it come forward with a more economical price for the same service. That is the difference, and I think that the Committee lost that point in the argument.
I support my noble friend Lady Blatch. This is a separate matter. It is also important and if it were not I should not take it away to reconsider. However, I think that there is sufficient difference although I cannot hold out major hope to the noble Lord.

603
Having said that I shall look at the amendment again. I shall do so.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 44 to 48 not moved.]
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Works contracts: restrictions]:
The Earl of Balfour The Earl of Balfour moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 4, line 6, leave out subsections (1) to (6) and insert—
("(1) A person or party inviting tenders shall not accept a bid for a works contract offering to carry out work falling within a defined activity from a defined authority (a bidding authority) unless—

(a) the first or second alternative of the first condition is fulfilled, and

(b) the second condition is fulfilled.

(2) The first alternative of the first condition is that—

(a) the contract is made by acceptance of the bidding authority's offer to carry out the work,

(b) the bidding authority made the offer in response to an invitation to tender for the proposed contract; and

(c) the invitation to tender was made to at least three other tenderers who are willing to carry out work of the kind concerned, and who are not defined authorities or include at least three other tenderers who are not defined authorities.

(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations vary—

(a) the number of tenderers to whom an invitation to tender must be made under subsection (2)(c) above; and

(b) the minimum number of those tenderers who are not to be defined authorities.

(4) The second alternative of the first condition is that before entering into the contract, the person or party inviting tenders, published, in at least one newspaper circulating in the locality in which the work is to be carried out and at least one publication circulating among tenderers who carry out work of the kind concerned, a notice inviting tenderers to submit offers to carry out the work.
(5) The second condition is that the person or party inviting tenders, in entering into the contract and in doing anything else (whether or not required by this Part) in connection with the contract before entering into it, did not act in a manner having the effect or intended or likely to have the effect of restricting, distorting or preventing competition.").
The noble Earl said: I believe that the intended purpose of Clause 4 as printed is to prevent an authority, as defined in Clause 1, from entering into a works contract, as described in Clause 3, falling within a defined activity, as described in Clause 2, unless the tender for that contract was advertised to the local press and that at least three other firms had an equal opportunity to submit tenders for that contract. However, the responsibility for seeing that the tenderer for the contract does not act in a manner which has the effect of restricting, distorting or preventing competition under subsection (5) falls on the bidding authority and not on the party issuing the tender. Persons being invited to tender for a contract should not be in the position where they necessarily know who else is likely to tender; yet the clause states that the responsibility for seeing that the contract has fulfilled all the conditions falls on the bidding authority, not on the other party. I doubt whether a bidding authority could be penalised in law for any failure under the clause as printed because an authority or contractor cannot be held to a contract in which there are conditions over which they have no control. The suggested Clause 4 is designed to place
604
the responsibility for fair competition on the person, party or authority for that matter issuing the tender. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: I am grateful to my noble friend for moving the amendment. It provides an opportunity to explain the distinction drawn by the Bill between works contracts and functional work and the way in which the controls on work contracts imposed by Clause 4 will operate.
Authorities will in the main carry out activities covered by Part I of the Bill in fulfilment of functions either given to them in legislation or taken on by them under agency agreements. In either case Clause 3 of the Bill defines such work as functional work. In the case of agency agreements the specific provision is in Clause 3(3).
The in-house organisation wishing to carry out the work is simply part of the authority that decides who should carry out the work. If the work is carried out in-house there is no actual contract. There will be cases, however, where authorities carry out work for other authorities or, indeed, other people under contract. These arise, for example, through the powers given to authorities to carry out work for other authorities and public bodies under the Local Authorities (Goods and Services) Act 1970. Thus district councils might enter into contracts to cut grass in county-maintained schools or on the verges of country roads. There are many cases where one authority takes on small jobs for another.
It is much less common but nevertheless possible for one authority to enter into a contract to provide a complete service for another. One London borough could enter into a contract to empty the dustbins in a neighbouring borough's area. The Government have no objection to authorities entering into such contracts providing that they represent value for money for the ratepayers of the authorities concerned.
In order to ensure this, Clause 4 will mean that authorities can enter into contracts to carry out defined activities only if they win those contracts in competition with private contractors. To achieve this, Clause 4 effectively imposes duties on the body awarding the contract by providing that the authority bidding for the work may not enter into the contract unless the body awarding the contract has satisfied various conditions.
As my noble friend said, this involves complex provisions. I should point out that the same distinction between works contracts and functional work is made in Part III of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980, which imposes competition on local authority building and maintenance direct labour organisations and has not led to any real difficulty in practice.
Clause 4(6) provides a defence for authorities that enter into contracts in good faith if they later discover that the body awarding the contract has not complied with the conditions in Clause 4. To take an example closer to my noble friend's area, if a district council in Lothian region enters into a contract to cut the grass in Lothian schools in the area, it should ask Lothian whether it has invited tenders from three

605
contractors or advertised generally for tenderers. The district does not need to know the identity of those contractors. If Lothian tells the district that it has done so but it later emerges that it has not, Clause 4(6) provides that the district will not be vulnerable to challenge since it will be able to show that it did not know this at the time that it entered into the contract. Lothian region may, of course, be open to challenge on audit if there are complaints about the way in which it has awarded the contract. That is a specific answer to my noble friend's point about the authority giving the contract rather than the bidding authority.
The effect of Clause 4(6) is that authorities entering into contracts to carry out defined activities will be liable to the sanctions contained in Clauses 13 and 14 of the Bill only if there has been collusion with the body offering the contract aimed at avoiding fair competition.
I am afraid that it has been necessary to speak at some length on this complicated matter, but the way in which we aim to secure competition for works contracts is not simple. I thought that the Committee would welcome an explanation, albeit at this late hour.
The Earl of Balfour: With that assurance I believe that I am beginning to understand a little better. I wish to withdraw the amendment, but I should like to ask a brief question on Clause 4 stand part of the Bill.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 4, line 44, leave out ("enter into") and insert ("decide who is to carry out work under").
The noble Lord said: I think that it would be convenient to deal with Amendment No. 51 at the same time; like many Members of this Committee they hang together.
I should like the Minister to help me understand what has happened recently. At the bottom of page 4 of the Bill we are dealing with Clause 4(7) which says:
"This section applies where it is proposed to enter into the works contract on or after 1st April 1989."
The purpose of these two amendments is to elicit some information from the Minister in respect of what I understand to be a change of effective dates. I am here genuinely seeking information. If, since this Bill came before us, the words are at variance with those of the Minister and his colleagues regarding what they are carrying out or intend to carry out, then I think Members of the Committee ought to be made aware of it so that we may examine it. I move these two amendments in order to provide the Minister with the opportunity to come clean.
The Earl of Caithness: I do not think that there is a necessity for me to come clean. The Committee will probably be aware by now that until very recently the view taken in my department was that correct interpretation of the dates as regards functional work already had the effect which the noble Lords opposite, by their amendment, are now suggesting.
606
For instance, by 1st April 1989, an authority should have gone through the process of competition and be in a position to decide who, as a result, was to be awarded the work. The contract could then start at some convenient time shortly thereafter and a DLO could continue to do the work until then even if it had not been successful in competition.
In response to the authorities' queries about this we have taken a fresh look and have been advised that as regards functional work this is not so; and that since Clause 7(8) requires authorities to comply with detailed specifications which themselves have to contain dates setting out the period during which the work is to be carried out, they will have no authority at all to carry out work after the set dates unless they have won it in competition.
We recognise that as compared with our original view this effectively brings forward the whole timetable, since decisions on award of work will have to be taken in advance of the set dates. But authorities have been informed about this change of view in letters sent to each of them individually and will be able to take it fully into account in deciding how to respond to the implementation proposals set out in the paper which we circulated on 2nd November to which I have referred on numerous occasions. The consultations are continuing and the conclusions will be received by the end of the month.
I can say at this stage that some of them have correctly interpreted the provisions of the Bill so what I have said will be of no surprise to them. I hope that that clarifies the position for the noble Lord.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: The Minister was right in saying that they would not be surprised. The Minister is telling us that the earlier position was capable of misinterpretation or different interpretation, otherwise he would not have taken his recent action. I believe it is breath-taking that, although the intentions of the Government have been made clear for some time, the actual documentation that triggers the request or the remit has to wait. The Minister tells us that not only do they have to start doing things on 1st April 1989 but they must have actually completed the preparations in order to begin to do things then. If they continue to do that which has not gone out to competitive tender after that, then they are in default of the Bill.
I may have got it wrong. I listened to what the Minister said. What he said was that it effectively brings forward the timetable. For those who misinterpreted what the Minister originally thought—whether it was through ignorance or deliberate clouding of the issue—this must come as a terrible shock. Can the Minister tell us precisely for how many of the services which fall within the ambit of this Bill will authorities have had to have gone through the tendering process by April? Does it mean all of them or some of them? If it means all of them, and some of the authorities had genuinely, wishfully, or hopefully misinterpreted it, can the Minister tell us what each authority has to be in possession of by 31 st March in order to be legal for what they will have to do on 1st April?
The Earl of Caithness: As the consultation process is continuing—a point to which I referred earlier—it is something that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will bear in mind. The correct interpretation will play an important part when finally deciding on a phasing-in competition. As that has not been decided, I cannot answer the hypothetical question that the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, posed to me because it is part of the consultation process.
Bearing in mind what I have said, and that my right honourable friend can take this into account, the point at which it will strike is the initial process of complying with the provisions, and it will not recur at a later date. But of course if the consultation process shows that this is of concern to local authorities, it is something that we shall discuss with them because that is the flexibility we have built in.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I am grateful to the Minister. He talks about built-in flexibility, taking into account, and consultation processes that have yet to be completed. But the only specific thing we have is that 31st March and 1st April are something like eight or nine weeks away. I am trying to assess the weight of the work.
The Earl of Caithness: It is 1989. It is not eight weeks.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: One year and eight weeks. My noble friends on the other Benches are smiling at what they obviously think was a mistake. I shall make their smiles even bigger—it was. But I count carefully, and there are very few people here who heard me say that. No doubt they will read Hansard tomorrow.
What the Minister has told the Committee is that the actions in the past few weeks have significantly speeded up the process. With the timescale of Parliament, with the majority that the Government have in both Houses, and not with the compliance but with the recognition of local government that these things are going to come about, the Minister is not prepared to listen. The noble Earl may have told me that he is prepared to listen and that this is part of the flexibility; but the value of this short debate is that those outside the Committee will read with care what the Minister has said and will interpret it. I hope that they may be asking those of us on this side of the Committee, or the Minister, to take some action at a future stage in the Bill. I am grateful to the Minister for putting me correct on one point, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Caithness: Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may add one word to give a clearer picture. In our proposals, the authorities will have had to deal with only one activity and one-tenth of ground maintenance by 1st April next year.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 4 shall stand part of the Bill?
The Earl of Balfour: I should just like to ask about one point on the Question whether Clause 4 stand
608
part of the Bill. If a defined authority offered the best terms in the tender, all the conditions of the clause had been fulfilled, and the other party was also a defined authority, am I correct in assuming that a defined authority could then enter into a works contract with another defined authority to carry out work of a defined activity described in Clause 2; or does such a contract then become functional work under Clause 6?
The Earl of Caithness: I believe that it becomes functional work under Clause 6.
The Earl of Balfour: Thank you.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Functional work: restrictions]:
[Amendments Nos. 51 to 53 not moved.]
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [The conditions]:
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick moved Amendment No. 54:
Page 6, line 11, after ("notice") insert—
("( ) the detailed specification includes such particulars as to the performance and quality of the work as the authority may consider appropriate,").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I express the concern mainly of the National Consumer Council. While it has no view on the principle of contracting out, it is concerned that the introduction of new procedures for securing the delivery of key public services should not lead to a reduction in the effectiveness of any service provided.
The introduction of competitive arrangements may yield value for money improvements for consumers and ratepayers in the local government sector. However, such improvements are by no means a necessary consequence of competition. If attention is not given to quality of service but only to price competition, this can lead to the forcing down of standards of service delivery and thus reduce effectiveness. The National Consumer Council has devoted considerable thought to the issue of performance measurement in the local government sector. Its main study was published in 1986 under the title Measuring up. Last September the council also hosted a conference to discuss these issues, and a number of important papers were presented and have subsequently been published under the title Performance Measurement and the Consumer.
Our central argument is that it is essential that service providers set targets for the effectiveness of their services as well as for their economy and efficiency in delivery. We want to encourage local authorities to think about value as well as money, and quality of service is part of the value for money equation. By extension this argument clearly applies to any services which have been contracted-out by a given authority.
The Bill as presently drafted says nothing about quality of servicee delivery. The effect of this

609
amendment is that local authorities would be required to have regard to quality and performance considerations in drawing up detailed work specifications though it would be up to individual authorities to specify precise standards for the delivery of each service at their discretion. The amendment is consistent with the remarks made by Ministers both on the importance of quality of service in the delivery of local services and on the need to preserve some freedom of determination for local authorities in addressing these matters. I beg to move.
10.45 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: I am grateful to the noble Lord opposite for moving this amendment. He is absolutely right to say that it is consistent with the remarks that I have been making this afternoon, and indeed that have been made by my noble friends. In particular, my noble friend Lady Blatch has been saying precisely this.
The fact is that there is nothing whatever in the Bill to prevent authorities from specifying precisely what performance and work quality they will demand from those competing for contracts. They would be very foolish if they did not pay close attention to these vital matters. However, we believe there is no need to write this into the Bill, because the range of contracts and performance specification will vary so much. But we believe that in any case this will be taken into account by local authorities.
Lord Dean of Beswick: I am grateful to the Minister for that rather helpful reply, but in that case I do not believe that the National Consumer Council would have submitted this amendment, expressing its somewhat tentative misgivings about the Bill if it goes through as it is. It may well be that it will want to look at what the Minister has said. But having heard what the Minister has said, which I should like to read to see what are the implications, and on the basis that we may need to come back to try to get something more definitive written into the Bill at a later stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 [Accounts to be kept]:
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 55:
Page 8, line 11, alter ("authority") insert ("or private contractor").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 55 and, if it is for the convenience of the Committee, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 56 to 59 because they all do the same job. That job is to put local authorities on the same footing as a private contractor. The amendment would make the clause read:
"This section applies where a defined authority or private contractor carry out, in the financial year beginning".
The case, which I am sure the Committee will realise is very reasonable, is that it will be grossly unfair if there are two suppliers of a service—that is,
610
a local authority and a private contractor—and the private contractor does not have to submit to the disciplines contained in Clauses 10, 11 and 12, while the local authority does.
We shall be coming on to Clauses 10 and 11 in some detail later this evening, but we are talking here about what the Government feel is right and proper to ensure that ratepayers get value for money by exposing—I think that is the word that has been used at least a dozen times tonight—to competition and to other matters the services of local authorities.
We have some interesting experience over the past year or two of the practices of private contractors and of the lengths to which they go in order, in the first instance, to obtain what appears to be a very good deal for the ratepayers by putting in what is the most competitive tender.
The industrial performance analyses of 1986 and 1987 showed that the rate of return on capital of contract cleaners declined sharply over a period coinciding with the commencement of compulsory tendering in the National Health Service, and they made a loss in 1985 and 1986. For this labour-intensive sector, contract cleaners were also shown to be losing £5 per employee in 1984 and 1985. There will be voices round the Committee which say, "Well, they are not likely to last very long if they make a loss"; and many of them do not last very long. They go out of business, and many small contract cleaners are merged into one of the two or three big contract cleaners, which changes the position.
It is not beyond the experience of Members of the Committee, here and in the other place, that there are loss leaders and that contractors tender at prices deliberately calculated to undercut other bids to establish their market position. Other tenders have been pitched at unrealistically low levels through apparent incompetence. I am sure that the whole Committee is with me when I say that ratepayers ought to be protected from such practices.
This series of amendments invites the Government to satisfy the Committee that the disciplines which they want to apply in the public sector are not necessary in the private sector: "Keep your fingers crossed; do not ask too many questions; do not be concerned about their employment practices and their philosophy but simply obtain them because they are the cheapest and rue the day for a long time afterwards".
If the Minister wants to be consistent and to be seen outside this place to be fair, reasonable and balanced in his application of those measures, in view of the local authorities' exposure to them, he should find the amendments eminently reasonable. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: My reaction to these amendments is quite simply that they are aimed at bringing about a situation which already exists. What I mean by that is that they appear to assume that private contractors are not subject to the disciplines which this Bill would apply to direct labour organisations, and thus that for fairness they must be brought within a similar regime.

611
I really find it hard to resist the conclusion that this stands logic on its head. The Bill is required precisely because DLOs are not subject to the commercial disciplines that already apply fully to the contractors with whom they will be competing. Contractors may not report to the Secretary of State, but they have to produce annual reports and accounts. They may not have to meet financial objectives laid down by the Secretary of State but they most certainly have to meet market tests which are at least as stringent. The existing checks on financial losses by DLOs are slow, if they even exist at all, whereas a contractor who starts losing money will rapidly go out of business.
There is little further to say about these amendments except that they must clearly be rejected.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: It is a great pleasure for me to respond to the noble Lord, because as I understand it these are the first amendments to a Bill to which he has had the doubtful privilege and pleasure of replying, and he has done so most ably.
I am puzzled at the brief which the Minister has been given for this auspicious occasion because he is inviting the Committee to say that what is happening to local authorities under Clauses 10, 11 and 12 is no different from that which occurs in the private sector. If the private sector were subject, for instance, to Clause 10(2), which provides,
"The authority shall secure that such financial objective as the Secretary of State may specify".
I wonder what kind of financial objective the Secretary of State would set for the private contractor.
He will not do anything of that nature. The Secretary of State will be told by the local authority that the contracts have gone out to tender. He will be given the details, and told that the tender, although not necessarily the lowest, but invariably the lowest, has been accepted. He will merely say, "That is my job done. I have exposed the local authority to the winds of competition and it has carried it out". That local contractor will be free, as we all know, to carry out the contract and operate with profit always as his prime objective. I am not satisfied with the Minister's reply and I intend to divide the Committee.
Lord Borthwick: I should like to ask a question about the amendment. I am a little mixed up, but I think that this is where the point comes in. Some years ago I had a lot of trouble. I was snowed up badly. At that time the local authority arranged for various farmers with tractors and lifters to help out. They were not contractors. They were chosen because they were in a strategic position and able to open up the roads. They did so and they also opened up a lot of fences and dykes as well. One part of the country has been suffering from that ever since. I believe there is some method of insuring people if that happens to them, but it has not appeared so far.
Once these contractors contract, they do not seem to be responsible for any damage done. That is accepted by some authorities, but not by others. I have an idea that it should be more general.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I can perhaps help the Minister. How a contractor will comply with his responsibilities will first be part of the terms of the contract. Secondly, it will be up to the authority to make sure that it gets the best contractor to apply. The sad thing, I believe, is that some contractors are irresponsible; they will do a great deal in order to get the contract. Once they have got it, they will not be too careful as to how they fulfil it.
Lord Borthwick: In this case, it will hardly come under the contractors being paid money. The contractors are selected because of the key position which they hold, so that they can keep the roads open. The authority says, "You've got that, now get on with the job." It is a bit difficult, but it gets things moving. I can quite see the point about that; it helps tremendously. It comes under the legal definition.
10.55 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 55) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 8; Not-Contents, 29.

DIVISION NO. 5

CONTENTS

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.[Teller.]

Graham of Edmonton, L.

McNair, L.

Seear, B.

Nicol, B. [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS

Arran, E.

Dundee, E.

Balfour, E.

Gisborough, L.

Beloff, L.

Goold, L.

Blatch, B.

Hesketh, L.

Borthwick, L.

Hives, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Hooper, B.

Caithness, E.

Long, V.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Lyell, L.

Carlisle, E.

Munster, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Carnock, L.

Sheffield, Bp.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Trafford, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Trumpington, B.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
11.3 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 56 to 59 not moved.]
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 [Financial objectives to be met]:
[Amendments Nos. 60 to 65 not moved.]
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clause 11 [Report .for financial year]:
[Amendments Nos. 66 to 69 not moved.]
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee moved Amendment No. 70:
Page 10, line 11, leave out ("the first relevant date") and insert ("30th September").
The noble Earl said: I ask the leave of the Committee to speak also to Amendments Nos. 71, 72, 81, 82 and 83. The amendments place report dates on a uniform basis by bringing the Scottish dates into line with those applicable to England and Wales. The Bill now makes provision for local authorities to submit reports by 31st October for England and Wales and 31st December for Scotland and for their auditors to check the statement on the rate of return. The activities covered include those in the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980, as well as those covered by the Bill.
The Commission for Local Authority Accounts in Scotland takes the view that it is no longer necessary to put back the date for preparation and submission of reports for Scotland. Auditors checking the statements of rate of return will highlight any discrepancies in reports and thereby ensure that the reports received in the department are subject to scrutiny based on audited figures. What was a practical suggestion by the accounts commission has therefore simply been rendered redundant by the introduction into the Bill of a further refinement in the audit process which now applies to all local authority activities subject to competition. That provides a welcome consistency of approach north and south of the Border, and I am sure that the Committee will agree that those are uncontentious points which raise no new issues. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee moved Amendment No. 71:
Page 10, line 14, leave out ("the second relevant date") and insert ("31st October").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee moved Amendment No. 72:
Page 10, leave out lines 21 to 25.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 12 [Information]:
[Amendments Nos. 73 and 74 not moved.]
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clause 14 [Power to give directions]:
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick moved Amendment No. 75:
Page 13, line 7, leave out subsection (4).
The noble Lord said: Clause 14(4) of the Bill says that a direction of the Secretary of State to the effect that a defined authority shall cease to have power to carry out a specific function will take precedence over any enactment authorising or compelling the authority to do that work. It is considered that the clause, which allows the Secretary of State to over-rule primary legislation, should be resisted. The Law Society of Scotland is of the view that any direction made by the Secretary of State under the clause should be made on a negative resolution procedure in order that a degree of parliamentay control is retained in the matter. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: We believe that Clause 14(4) is a sensible and important provision aimed at putting beyond doubt that closure notices issued under the Bill are to prevail over any other statutory provisions requiring or enabling authorities to carry out work.
All that means is that authorities will have to find contractors to carry out the work in question. It does not mean that the work will go undone, as has been claimed by some. In issuing closure notices, the Secretary of State will of course have to satisfy himself that there are sufficient contractors available to do the work in question. It is not easy to envisage circumstances in which action is likely to be initiated under Clause 13 if there are no competing contractors. I hope that that explanation satisfies the concern of the noble Lord.
Lord Dean of Beswick: I am partially satisfied. Once again, that provision bypasses the question of primary legislation. I do not think that we can carry on in that vein. I think that the whole Bill implies that primary legislation can be dispensed with if the Secretary of State so wishes. On that basis, I think that I should perhaps press the amendment.
On Question, amendment negatived.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 76:
Page 13, line 12, at end insert—
("( ) On the default or liquidation of a contractor undertaking a defined activity, the Secretary of State shall, on the production of evidence of expense incurred by a defined authority as a result of that default or liquidation, make provision to meet that additional expense.
( ) The Secretary of State shall, by statutory instrument, prescribe the conditions to be satisfied and the method by which such reimbursement of expenditure shall be made.").
The noble Lord said: With this amendment we seek to persuade the Minister that, as a result of having gone out to competitive tender and having had a service, such as the collection of refuse, taken out of its hands by virtue of competition, the local authority has to consider the consequences. It is within the knowledge of every Member of this Committee that circumstances can arise whereby a contractor defaults, goes bankrupt and is unable to provide a service. This amendment says that:
"On the default or liquidation of a contractor undertaking a defined activity, the Secretary of State shall, on the production of evidence of expense incurred by a defined authority as a result of that default or liquidation, make provision to meet that additional expense".
I imagine that the Minister would consider that to be reasonable and not simply say, "Hard lines; this is the harsh, competitive world. Although it is somebody else who has caused you to incur public expenditure, you have to carry it because that is the reality".
The Minister must understand that as a result of competition and privatisation by some authorities who have not been so persuaded—certainly in the health service—there is a range of circumstances in which the carrying out of a contract by a private contractor can often mean that the local authority and particularly environmenal health officers, are

615
called in in order to put right a situation that is undoubtedly not in the best interests of the authority. Often they have to incur expenses. I am not talking about carrying out the service; I am talking about the cost to the authority of fulfilling its statutory functions in respect of public health and hygiene when they are forced to do so as a result of the inability of a private contractor to comply.
The argument may very well be that one should get rid of the contractor. Sometimes that is not the easiest solution; sometimes it is better to try to improve the quality of the defaulting service, in which case it will cost the authority money.
With this amendment and others which are related to it we request the Minister to take on board the fact that these are days of ratecapping and of circumstances in which every penny counts. We ask him to say something kind in respect of what we are trying to do, which is to relieve a local authority of the expense of ensuring that a contractor fulfils his obligations; and moreover that if there is a bankruptcy—as can very often happen—expenses which are incurred by the authority as a result can be reimbursed by the Secretary of State. I appreciate that criteria will have to be laid down and it is not just a question of the council saying, "It has cost us £10,000 to get out of trouble and keep the service going. Will you give it to us"? There has to be some definition and some criteria. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: It is of course possible to argue to the general proposition that whoever is responsible for the imposition of a burden should pay for it, though in fact that is of course not a general rule by any means. Householders have to pay for the cost of complying with building regulations, for instance, and there are many similar examples.
However, it is not necessary to pursue this line of argument, because the fact is that if an authority as client lands in court because of the failure of a contractor, that authority is itself able to take the contractor to court. There is no need for compensation from the Secretary of State. Normal contract law is designed to cater for these problems.
I think we are in any case in danger of losing sight of the overall rationale for these provisions. They are intended to and they will save local authorities and the other defined bodies very large sums of money—sums which will in all probability run into hundreds of millions of pounds a year eventually. Even if a small minority of authorities is unfortunate enough to get into a situation where net expense is occurred, the logic of then requiring compensation from public funds would—and I take the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Graham, if we extend it further—require savings to be paid to the Exchequer.
I am sure that my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer would welcome that idea, but I do not think that it would go down particularly well with local authorities. We are saying that the provisions in this Bill are designed to save the local authority considerable sums of money. The tendering and contract work that has been put out on a voluntary basis so far under the provisions of the
616
1980 Act have shown that considerable sums of money—many hundreds of millions of pounds at the end of the day—are the likely target. There may possibly be a small minority of authorities who get into a net expense situation, but of course there is the normal contract law to take care of situations of that kind.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
11.15 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 77:
Page 13, line 14, at end insert—
("( ) A defined authority shall not be prosecuted for any offence arising from failure to carry out any duty nor shall a defined authority be liable at civil law for any injury, loss or damage arising from failure to carry out any duty, other than in respect of negligence, in the following circumstances—

(a) a direction by the Secretary of State under that section that the authority shall cease to have the power to carry out a defined activity, or

(b) the failure by a contractor, for whatever reason, to fulfil obligations under a contract to undertake a defined activity.").

The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 77 inserts a subsection that:
"A defined authority shall not be prosecuted for any offence arising from failure to carry out any duty nor shall a defined authority be liable at civil law for any injury, loss or damage arising from failure to carry out any duty, other than in respect of negligence, in the following circumstances".
Then the circumstances are listed under paragraphs (a) and (b). We are arguing that the defined authority should be protected for a reasonable period from legal liability, whether civil or criminal, in the event either that the Secretary of State directs that an authority may not carry out a defined activity, or if a contractor defaults on a contract by failing to meet the required specification or by ceasing to undertake the contract as a result of liquidation, or for any other reason.
We are asking the Minister to bear in mind that we are breaking new ground. We shall certainly find many new contractors who will be awarded contracts. The responsibility in these matters will be bound up in the tender contracts. Nevertheless, there are circumstances such as those outlined in these amendments where the additional protection could be given by the Secretary of State without being too burdensome on the local authority. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: The second part of this amendment would apply to the consequences of contractor failure resulting from the provisions of this Bill, a legal doctrine that quite rightly does not apply to the consequences of any other sort of contractor failure.
If a paving stone is badly laid and injures a pedestrian, that pedestrian's complaint is not against the contractor who laid it but against the authority who ordered it to be laid. The authority itself then has redress against the contractor. That is how the law functions in respect of all such instances and I can see no reason why it should be any different just because the events leading up to the authority's failure to carry out its functions properly included compulsory competition.

617
Indeed, I can see at least one very good reason why it should not. If authorities thought that they were immune from prosecution they might well select their contractors with less than due care. They might even welcome one or more failures in order to be able, without fear of prosecution, to say that it was all the Secretary of State's fault.
The first part, in effect, also invites an authority on whom a Clause 14 order has been served to manufacture breakdowns in services so as to put pressure on the Secretary of State. If the Secretary of State has misjudged the situation to the extent that an authority cannot find competent contractors—which is a very unlikely situation indeed—then he is no doubt liable to judicial review if he fails to rescind the order. It seems clear that these amendments have their origins more in distaste for the Bill than in a real desire to protect the legal position of defined authorities. That position is already secured both by contract law and by administrative law. We therefore feel that the amendments are unnecessary.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 14 agreed to.
Clause 15 [Orders, regulations, specifications and directions]:
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 78:
Page 13, line 16, leave out ("section 2(3)") and insert ("sections 2(3) and 10(2)").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 78 goes to the heart of Clause 15. This clause empowers the Secretary of State to specify the financial objectives to be met, and more importantly to define the financial objective concerned by reference to such factors as he thinks fit.
We think that this needs some substantiation because we understand that the financial objective will be a fixed rate of return on capital, and what concerns those of us on this side of the Committee who take an interest in these matters is that there is a lack of control over the actions of the Secretary of State to alter financial objectives. In other words, the phrase "moving the goalposts" and deciding from time to time different criteria upon which he will compel authorities to operate is not, in our view, a very good means of maintaining good relationships with local authorities, nor of helping them with their financial prudence.
These amendments are designed to ensure that there is much greater control over the ability of the Secretary of State to alter the criteria at any given moment to suit his own financial objectives. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: I was rather surprised to hear the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, moving these amendments as I thought that they were all grouped with Amendments Nos. 62, 63, 64 and 65 which he did not move. Because they are so hound up, this has come as a surprise. Therefore, I
618
should like to read what he has said carefully between now and another stage.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: In that case, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 79 not moved.]
Clause 15 agreed to.
Clause 16 [Supplementary]:
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick moved Amendment No. 80:
Page 14, line 14, at end insert—
("( ) All establishments which have been maintained by a local authority in the last five years shall for the purposes of the Local Authorities (Goods and Services) Act 1970 be deemed to be public bodies and the Secretary of State shall make a statutory instrument to that effect if any such establishments at any time do not fall within the definition of public body for the purposes of that Act.").
The noble Lord said: I think it is true to say that we approach the benediction now. I do so with some relief, but I regret that the final prayer has to be rather longer than I would have wished. The amendment is to provide the right for local authorities to compete to supply goods and services to polytechnics, colleges and any schools who opt out of local authority control.
This new subsection has the specific and limited objective of still enabling local authorities to supply goods and services to education establishments who would go out of the local authority sector if the provisions of the current education Bill are enacted. These would be all the advanced further education institutions, city technology colleges and those grant-maintained schools which opt out of the local authority framework. Only the right to compete is asked for, not an automatic continuation of the current arrangements. It would of course still be open for the college or school to choose another contractor, but at least there would not be an automatic barrier to the local authority's ability to tender.
The proposed legislation will open local government to competition from the private sector. However, local government's ability to compete to supply goods and services to other bodies is very circumscribed. A local authority's ability to undertake work for other organisations is limited by the Local Authorities (Goods and Sevices) Act 1970 which empowers local authorities to supply certain goods and services (subject to certain restrictions) only to other local authorities and public bodies. Public bodies are defined by statutory instrument and include health authorities and organisations which exercise functions of a public nature—for example, local authority associations—but central government are excluded. Unless the polytechnics, colleges of higher education and so forth, are designated specifically as "public bodies", the consequence of the Government's proposals for change (as set out in the education Bill) will be that institutions will no longer come within the list of public bodies; local authorities will be barred from supplying them with any goods and services, even by competitive tender,

619
and another barrier to the ability of local government to compete on equal terms will have been erected.
What the amendment therefore seeks is an assurance from the Government that they will make a statutory instrument adding colleges and grant-maintained opt-out schools to the list of approved public bodies at the appropriate time so that local authorities can at least tender to continue to supply goods and services to these institutions. The ability to compete is all that is asked for. As a further sign of realism and moderation, the amendment does not seek to extend the list of approved public bodies beyond the current status quo, although the restrictiveness and anomalous nature of the list has long been apparent. For example, local government is not allowed to compete for central government business in, for example, purchasing contracts. But other organisations such as Crown Suppliers and Her Majesty's Stationery Office are allowed to supply local authorities and the private sector.
The Local Authorities (Goods and Services) Act 1970 permits local authorities to enter into agreements for the supply of goods and materials or the provision of administrative, professional or technical services. Astonishingly little in the debates on the Local Government Bill so far has been said about the virtues of economies of scale and cost-effectiveness particularly in the area of purchasing, although much attention was directed to this some years ago. It can make good economic sense and be very cost-effective for local authorities to be able to supply central support services such as participation in purchasing contracts, finance and computer services, etc., to appropriate other bodies broadly within the public sector. The local authority will continue to need these central support services in respect of its work, regardless of where the contracts go for the defined activities in the Bill, although these central functions will undoubtedly undergo changes as a result of the Bill. Polytechnics and local education authority schools currently rest clearly within the public sector and are legitimately served by central departments. But if they transfer out of local government and are considered to fall outside the definition of "public body", then by definition central departments in a local authority will lose the opportunity of bidding for or providing support services to these institutions regardless of the cost effectiveness and the benefits to both parties.
Oxfordshire County Council feels that it should be allowed to compete in the open market place generally and not asked to compete with one hand tied behind its back, which situation would leave councils ultimately to provide services which are unattractive to the private sector and not cost-effective to the rate payer. It therefore urges the provision for the continuing inclusion of polytechnics and grant maintained schools within the definition of "public body" as a small step towards fair competition.
The proposed amendment has particular relevance for the purchasing function. In 1987 the Audit Commission in its report Improving Supply Management in Local Authorities, recommended that
620
local authorities should be allowed to compete to provide supplies to central government and the private sector. This Audit Commission report stresses the need for a co-ordinated policy within a local authority if its purchasing is to be properly effective. But at a moment when greater professional-ism and consideration in local authority purchasing is advocated, it is unfortunate if the effect of the Government's legislative programme would be to bring about fragmentation of activity and thus undermine the degree of co-ordination and purpose which exists in well-managed local authority procurement operations. Although the Audit Commission report is critical of some authorities, it acknowledges that the policies and practices of the leading authorities are on a par with the best, in industry and elsewhere.
The Institute of Purchasing and Supply is the largest professional purchasing and supply organisation in Europe. Its 18,000 members hold appointments in most sections of industry and commerce and throughout the public sector.
The IPS wants an assurance that local authorities will not be debarred from supplying any education establishments currently within LEA control. It says:
"On the removal of certain establishments from local authority control the Institute would not wish to advocate sterile protectionism for local authority purchasing organisations. Competitiveness is central to the thinking of the purchasing and supply profession. It may well be to the advantage of the new free standing institutions however that they should have access to the expertise of a local authority's professional procurement manager and the benefits to be derived from co-ordinated purchasing".
It goes on to press for such access to be granted.
The right to compete to supply goods and services to institutions which are currently part of local government is what is sought—surely a modest enough proposal.
I have taken a little longer than I should have liked at this time of night, but I think that it is only fair to those involved to put the case properly because it is an important subject. It has been accepted that the Committee is now further on with the Bill than was expected. In those circumstances, I thought it reasonable to deal with the last amendment in extenso. I beg to move.
11.30 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: A local authority can do only those things necessary for the discharge of its functions, and the Local Authorities (Goods and Services) Act 1970 is a minor empowering Act which makes it legitimate for local authorities to supply goods or services to other local authorities, or to public bodies designated under the Act. The designated public bodies must be exercising functions of a public nature with the result that local authorities cannot supply the private sector. I am grateful to the noble Lord for the concern that he showed in respect of this matter and for explaining it so fully to the Committee.
I hope that I am able to reassure the noble Lord that legitimate local authorities have no need of this amendment. Local authorities are public bodies for the purposes of the 1970 Act and can supply goods

621
and services to each other. We have announced that polytechnic and grant-maintained schools will be made public bodies under the 1970 Act, and this will be achieved by provisions in the Education Reform Bill currently before another place. With regard to the city technical colleges referred to by the noble Lord, I should like to check on the current position that my right honourable friend has taken on the provision provided by local authorities. I shall write to the noble Lord in detail about the matter.
Lord Dean of Beswick: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. He did not use the word "sympathetic", but some aspects are still under review. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 16 agreed to.
Clause 31 agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Direct labour organisations]:
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendments Nos. 81,82 and 83:
Page 43, leave out lines 41 to 43.
Page 44, leave out lines 12 and 13.
Page 44, line 17, leave out ("or (in Scotland) 31st December").
The noble Earl said: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 81, 82 and 83. They are consequential on Amendment No. 70, which has already been spoken to.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Hesketh: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before midnight.

  CIVIL DEFENCE GUIDANCE
  CIVIL DEFENCE GUIDANCE
  ARTS AND SPORTS SPONSORSHIP: EXPENDITURE AND TAX FORGONE
  ARTS AND SPORTS SPONSORSHIP: EXPENDITURE AND TAX FORGONE
  ROAD SCHEMES: WILDLIFE PROTECTION
  ROAD SCHEMES: WILDLIFE PROTECTION
  ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:EC DIRECTIVE
  ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:EC DIRECTIVE
  BATS: PROTECTION
  BATS: PROTECTION
  CANADIAN ARCHIPELAGO: SOVEREIGNTY
  CANADIAN ARCHIPELAGO: SOVEREIGNTY
  MARITIME POLICY CO-ORDINATION
  MARITIME POLICY CO-ORDINATION