Sitting of 3 March 1988

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

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

Oral Answers to Questions
  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Church Land
    Mr. Alan W. Williams: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received from the secretary general of the General Synod of the Church of England on his policy on the use of agricultural land.
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Selwyn Gummer): None, Sir, and nor has my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales received any such representations from the Church in Wales.
    Mr. Williams: Has not the debate in the Synod on the use of agricultural land been crowded out by the Minister's obsessive attacks on the bishops and archbishops? Is it not about time that he decided whether he wants to be a churchman or a politician?
    Mr. Gummer: It is a new doctrine of constitution that one cannot be both a churchman and a politician. As an elected member of the Synod of the Church of England, I say no to the hon. Gentleman, and as a Minister I say that that is not an agriculture question.
    Mr. Key: Will my right hon. Friend make representations to the General Synod to continue the policy of privatising glebe land, which has been entirely successful in the dioceses that have adopted it? Will he also mention to the General Synod that it would greatly help the social fabric of this country if the dioceses in possession of agricultural land that is surplus to requirements could make it available below the market price for housing projects?
    Mr. Gummer: I shall certainly take that opportunity. The Church of England has a good reputation in its handling of both tenants and glebe land.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is it not the case that the Synod has not made representations because its members have completely lost confidence in the Minister because of his savage attacks on the clergy and his bishop-bashing? Does the Minister understand that tens of thousands of churchgoing people all over the country are tired of the way that he persists in meddling in the affairs of the Church and tries to impose his will—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. This question is about agriculture.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: —and the will of the Government on an independent Church? Keep out.
    Mr. Gummer: As an elected member of the Church of England I have more right to comment on those views than has the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). The hon. Gentleman demands the right to be robust in his views. Why does he stop other people from being roboust in theirs?
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that although there are a number of questions on this general topic, questions must be linked with agriculture.

    Abattoirs
    Mr. Barry Field: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to assist island communities that lack an abattoir.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Donald Thompson): The provision of abattoirs is a matter for the commercial judgment of the businesses concerned.
    Mr. Field: Does my hon. Friend agree that this country's experience in animal welfare is second to none in the EEC? Will he urgently consider the provision for casualties in constituencies such as mine, especially given the very tight margins that the pig industry faces?
    Mr. Thompson: I fully understand my hon. Friend's problems in his constituency. There is a plan afoot with the National Farmers Union and others for just such a project—in fact a more ambitious project than my hon. Friend asks for—at about £60,000. Planning permission for the abattoir has not yet been applied for, and I advise my hon. Friend to urge those in his constituency forward in that plan.

    Cereals
    Mr. Gill: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the potential of the United Kingdom pig industry to absorb surplus cereal crops.
    Mr. Donald Thompson: The potential for compounders and home mixers to increase their usage of cereals in pig rations is strongly influenced by the movements in price and availability of competing materials and therefore cannot be assessed easily.
    Mr. Gill: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. In the light of it, will he seek to restrict the importation into Europe of cereal substitutes, which are undercutting the price of cereals?
    Mr. Thompson: There is a GATT arrangement to import cereal substitutes into Europe. For instance, the spot price of manioc for the delivery of a handy load at the farm gate today is £83, compared with feed wheat at £100, or feed barley at about £104. I believe that it would be impossible to re-rig the GATT arrangement.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Is my hon. Friend aware that pig producers do not want privileged access to surplus grain, but rather the removal of the unfair disadvantage of an overvalued green pound? Does my hon. Friend agree that pig producers are among the most entrepreneurial and least subsidised of all farmers and that their request for an urgent devaluation of the green pound is entirely reasonable?
    Mr. Thompson: As a man who kept a considerable number of pigs, I agree with all that my hon. Friend says about pig producers being entrepreneurial, intelligent and able. I fully understand their request for the removal of MCAs. We have had a promise from my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for action on that matter, and that promise was echoed on 16 February by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
    Mr. Steinberg: During the last pig industry disaster in the 1980s one of my constituents, a pig farmer, lost about
    1142
    £25,000. What steps will the Minister take to ensure that that constituent—he is still a pig farmer and did not go bankrupt—does not face similar problems now?
    Mr. Thompson: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern for his constituents in Durham and the importance of the pig industry to Durham and the east side of the country. We have already introduced private storage aid into Europe and increased export refunds from 13 to 67 per cent. This year we have reduced MCAs from a minus quantity of 27 to about a minus quantity of 11. The other Friday morning I met 200 pig producers from the north of England. I am well aware of their difficulties and we are treating the matter with great seriousness and urgency.

    Biscuits
    Mr. Gregory: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give the volume and value of United Kingdom production of chocolate-coated and non-chocolate-coated biscuits for the most recent period for which statistics are available; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Donald Thompson: The Biscuit, Cake, Chocolate and Confectionery Alliance publishes estimates on home sales and exports based on members' returns. The approximate figures for 1986 are 132,000 tonnes out of 449,000 tonnes, which is £227 million out of £565 million.
    Mr. Gregory: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those figures. Does he agree that they are a little disappointing and are even down on the number of chocolate-coated biscuits sold in this country in 1973–74, the last year when such products were rated at the same level as other foods? Is it not time that we considered re-rating those biscuits? Even at this late hour, will my hon. Friend have discussions with our right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to tell him about the increases that took place in 1973 and how much more employment there would be in this important industry if there were such a re-rating?
    Mr. Thompson: My persistent hon. Friend again does an extremely good job for his constituency of York. He has drawn to my attention—
    Mr. Cryer: He has a very small majority.
    Mr. Thompson: So did the hon. Gentleman at one time. I have seen a copy of the submission from the Biscuit, Cake, Chocolate and Confectionery Alliance sent to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. As my hon. Friend has underlined, this is a matter for the Chancellor, but I am sure that his spies will be here today to draw his attention to this question.
    Mr. Shersby: Has my hon. Friend made any representations to our right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer about the distortion in trade caused by the imposition of VAT on chocolate biscuits? This is a very serious matter for the biscuit eaters of this country. As my hon. Friend is the Minister with responsibility for food consumption, I hope that he will have something to say about the matter.
    Mr. Thompson: I am aware of the MCAs on chocolate and chocolate biscuits. I recently visited an exhibition of the biscuit and sweet industry in Cologne. Our exporters

    1143
    were in good heart and were jumping the MCA barrier very well. In many cases, they were improving their exports to Europe and the rest of the world. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is aware of the distortion.

    Agricultural Stabilisers
    Mr. Boswell: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his latest estimate of the impact of the recent provisional agreement on agriculture stabilisers on the level of intervention stocks and the cost of the common agricultural policy.
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John MacGregor): The agreements on CAP reform reached at the recent European Council should restrain production, which should in turn reduce the pressure for sales to be made to intervention, and hence contribute to greater budgetary discipline in the CAP.
    Mr. Boswell: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on that solid and remarkable achievement. Will he use the authority that that has given to press for a satisfactory realignment of green currencies and, on a wider compass, to press internationally for a measure of multilateral agricultural disarmament of subsidies through GATT?
    Mr. MacGregor: Questions appear later on the Order Paper with regard to my hon. Friend's first point. As to his second point, I shall be going to the United States soon to discuss this matter with my opposite number there. I hope that as the European Community has taken some fairly tough decisions on agricultural spending and introduced substantial new restraints, that will help us in reaching agreement in the Uruguay round between now and 1990—which is the timetable set for the round—along the lines that my hon. Friend mentioned.
    Mr. Geraint Howells: Will the Minister clarify whether the agreement on sheep stabilisers is provisional or is legally binding on sheep producers? If it is binding, will he give an assurance that the present sheepmeat regime will remain intact for years to come?
    Mr. MacGregor: The Agriculture Council is meeting next week to discuss the detailed regulations that will follow the European Council agreement. After that, sheep stabilisers will be in place and will form a binding agreement. We shall turn our attention to the review of the sheepmeat regime shortly afterwards. I am not sure exactly when that will be, but it will certainly be later in the year. I imagine that that will be a protracted negotiation.
    Mr. Paice: Will my hon. Friend, in pursuing reform of the CAP, which the agreement that has been referred to set in train, do everything that he can to ensure that British farmers are not at a disadvantage with regard to the implementation of the programme across the rest of the Community?
    Mr. MacGregor: A number of measures in the original proposals discriminated much more against the British farmer than do those in the final outcome. That was a successful outcome to the negotiation for the United Kingdom. In particular, heavy emphasis was placed on the use of the co-responsibility levy as part of the cereal stabiliser mechanism. It remains in place because that is what the Commission and every other member state wanted, but it is very much reduced compared with other
    1144
    pressures we were under. I can assure my hon. Friend that, although one never wins 100 per cent. of the cases that one is aiming to win, most of the discrimination in the outcome of the summit was reduced for the United Kingdom, and many other member states had to accept decisions that were quite a long way away from their original starting positions.
    Mr. Pike: Does the Minister recognise that many small hard-working farmers, who are working the most difficult land in the country, believe that, despite all the reforms, the common agricultural policy is putting them out of business? Will he accept that that policy is a financial disaster for Britain? Is it not about time that we saw an end to the common agricultural policy?
    Mr. MacGregor: I am not sure that that is what farmers in the hon. Gentleman's constituency would want. It is worth mentioning that some of the policies that the Labour party would pursue would disadvantage farmers much more. I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the need for restraint on spending in the CAP, which is what we have been successfully achieving after working very hard to obtain.
    As for farmers in the hills and uplands and less-favoured areas, the hon. Gentleman will know that there are substantial policies, such as hill livestock compensatory allowances, designed to cope with precisely the difficulties that they face.
    Dr. David Clark: Will the Minister explain how the sheep stabiliser, coupled with the set-aside in agricultural arable land, will not result in sheep moving out of the upland areas to the lowlands, resulting in bankruptcy for many upland hill farmers?
    Mr. MacGregor: I take it that the hon. Gentleman is not against sheepmeat stabilisers. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] I will answer the question. If he is against the sheepmeat stabiliser, I hope he will take into account, bearing in mind what he has often said about expenditure on the CAP, that the costs of the sheepmeat regime were rising very fast, to well over 1 billion ecu this year.
    I hope the hon. Gentleman will recognise that it was necessary to have a sheepmeat stabiliser. There is a small discriminatory element because we have a separate regime. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I fought very hard against that, but in the overall outcome we had to accept it. Nevertheless, there is a need for the sheepmeat stabiliser. I am fully conscious of the hon. Gentleman's point about the knock-on effects for sheep producers in the hills, as restraints must occur in local areas. As for the set-aside, we have to take a decision on grazed fallow, which is what the hon. Gentleman particularly had in mind. This week I have had discussions with the National Farmers Union on that subject, and specifically on the impact on hill sheep farmers.
    Mr. John Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the imposition of a separate stabiliser for sheepmeat for United Kingdom farmers is deplorable? Is it not a fact that it is most important at the price fixing next week to negotiate the maintenance of the variable premium and to resist the imposition of headage limits on upland farms and lowland areas?
    Mr. MacGregor: We do not know yet, because we have not seen the Commission's proposals, whether the future

    1145
    of the sheepmeat regime will feature in the price review proposals or later in the year. We have yet to see more details on sheepmeat; they are very scanty in many regards. When we see those details, we shall make up our mind. I am determined to avoid discriminatory action against the United Kingdom and to ensure that whatever is done enables the United Kingdom to use its natural advantage in sheep farming. The proposal on ceilings and headage payments for ewes to which my hon. Friend refers was one of the items that we negotiated out of the recent package. We shall be opposing that again if it arises.

    Green Pound
    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent representations he has received concerning the devaluation of the green pound; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. MacGregor: I have received many representations on this subject.
    Mr. Jones: The Minister will be aware that there was quite a substantial decrease in farming incomes in real terms in 1987. There has been a substantial setback for farmers as a result of the disparity in the green pound at present, which is making what is otherwise a very efficient industry uncompetitive in relation to other EC countries. Does the Minister realise that an immediate 9 per cent. devaluation of the green pound is both necessary and would be realistic bearing in mind that it would add only 0.5 per cent. to the RPI?
    Mr. MacGregor: It is not true that there was a decrease in incomes across the board last year. In a number of sectors, including dairy farming, income increased in real terms. One of the areas most affected was the arable sector, partly because of the weather. Having made that clear, we have yet to see what the Commission will propose for further adjustment in green currencies in the price fixing. I am aware of the strong feelings of farmers, which I have heard at many meetings, and I shall take them into account when considering any devaluation of the green pound.
    Sir John Farr: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many small and medium-sized farmers are now beyond breaking point? May I express the hope that he will soon conclude his deliberations and provide for a remarkable and notable devaluation of the green pound?
    Mr. MacGregor: I am aware of the feeling about the green pound. We shall be discussing the price fixing in the Council of Agriculture Ministers towards the end of this month. I cannot say at this stage whether we will complete deliberations then. Obviously, I am anxious to get agreement on that as soon as possible, so that farmers know exactly where they stand.
    Mr. Strang: Is the Minister aware that his cautious replies to this question will be a matter of some concern to the agriculture industry? Before he returns to Brussels for discussions on agricultural price fixing, will he make it clear that the grotesque misuse of resources implicit in the CAP will not be resolved by the selective destruction of jobs and livelihoods in British agriculture, which is what the green pound is doing?
    Mr. MacGregor: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that in the past nine months we have put an
    1146
    enormous amount of effort into putting right what he refers to as the "grotesque" distortions in the CAP. We shall be completing that next week and then we shall be looking to the price review. In that context, I shall, as I said, be taking into account representations that I have had on the green pound.
    Mr. Lord: May I add my voice to those who are calling for a devaluation of the green pound, which, as my right hon. Friend knows, is doing such grave damage to Britain's pig industry, particularly in counties like my own of Suffolk? I know that my right hon. Friend is aware of the problems and I am sure that he will do all that he possibly can, because he, too, has many pig producers in his county. Is he aware that many people are now asking about fairness in Europe and, unless we get that aspect right in all that we do in Europe, the implications, not just for agriculture but for our membership of the EEC, will be grave?
    Mr. MacGregor: I agree with my hon. Friend. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear on 16 February, and as I have also made clear on a number of occasions in the House, I shall be pressing hard to secure the best possible improvements for our pig producers. This is one of the most hotly contested areas in the CAP, so it will not be easy to obtain a majority agreement, but I assure my hon. Friend that I am well aware of the problems and am determined to press as hard as I possibly can.

    Pig Industry
    Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the competitive position of the pig industry.
    Mr. Haselhurst: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is satisfied that United Kingdom pig producers are competing on fair terms with their Community counterparts; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Donald Thompson: We are in close and continuing touch with the National Farmers Union and the National Pig Breeders Association about the problems in the pig sector. The action which has been taken to strengthen the market seems to be having some effect as market prices have risen a little from the low point they were reaching at the beginning of February. Cereal prices are now showing a distinct downward trend. We shall be pressing hard in Brussels to secure the best possible improvement in pigmeat MCAs.
    Mr. Bruce: Is my hon. Friend aware that the French Government have recently introduced cheap loans for their pig farmers? What representations has he made to remove that unfair practice and any other unfair practices of our EEC competitors?
    Mr. Thompson: We are always looking at that matter. The balance between state aids to the farming industry is difficult to strike. Our farming industry receives the equivalent of over £400 million a year because it does not pay rates. I am sure that some continentals would complain about that. Such state aids have been notified to the Commission, which is considering their legality. We are always prepared to refer any evidence of illegal state aids in other member states, and we are determined that United Kingdom producers will not suffer from them.
    Mr. Haselhurst: Would it not help to produce a fairer regime for British pig producers if sterling became fully part of the European monetary system?
    Mr. Thompson: First, I apologise to my hon. Friend for not informing him quickly enough about the linking of his question. I can assure him that we were only trying to help and we intend to do better in future.
    The answer to his question is no, I do not think so.
    Mr. Alison: Is my hon. Friend aware that the letters MCA stand not for "Ministers' criticism of archbishops" but for "monetary compensatory amounts"? Is he further aware that the Archbishop of Canterbury for one, among many other pig producers and pig owners, is a great deal more interested in the pigmeat connotation of MCAs? Will my hon. Friend, in the interests of agricultural, ministerial and ecclesiastical harmony, do everything that he can to reduce the MCAs for pigmeat?
    Mr. Thompson: If my right hon. Friend were to set that to music it would be chanted in every church in the country next week.
    I have had long discussions with my right hon. Friend on this subject. He and I know the value of MCAs—monetary compensatory amounts — far more than others. We are doing what we can to limit them as soon as possible.

    Church Land
    Mr. Wareing: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will meet representatives of the Church of England to discuss the implications for rural areas of Her Majesty's Government's agricultural policy.
    Mr. Cohen: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will meet representatives of the Church of England to discuss implications for rural areas of Her Majesty's Government's agricultural policy.
    Mr. Gummer: No such meeting has been requested.
    Mr. Wareing: I accept that the Church of England has a genuine interest in agricultural and rural matters, but does the Minister realise that many of its members are refusing point blank to treat with him because of his savage and malevolent attacks on the clergy—including the bishops? In view of the Minister's attitude, are not the Government inhibited in their relations with the Church of England when dealing with these matters?
    Mr. Gummer: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to our agricultural debates and our discussions of ecclesiastical matters. What he said is entirely untrue and wholly contrary to what the majority of people in Britain think.
    Mr. Cohen: Do not Church of England representatives find it difficult to talk to the Minister because of his numerous attacks on them? He has attacked them whenever they have been in any way critical of Government policy. He attacked them for their report, "Faith in the City", and would presumably attack them if they produced a similar report entitled, "Faith in the Rural Areas". Is there not little faith in the Minister now?
    Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman must accept that it is an essential and central part of Judeo-Christian civilisation that Ministers in parliamentary organizations
    1148
    and Governments should be concerned with religion. There has never been a division between the two areas in his Church or mine.
    Mr. Latham: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that he will listen much more carefully to the views of the Church of England on agricultural issues than to any rant from the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) or other hon. Members on his private opinions about doctrine?
    Mr. Gummer: I shall do that, but I point out to my hon. Friend that, to judge from the letters I have received and the general reaction in the country, my remarks have had a ready echo among the majority of people.
    Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that any suggestions he might receive from the Church about an easy or quick solution to the problems of the pig industry might appear to be rather a Gadarene reaction to a problem that could perhaps be better dealt with in a condominium of interests?
    Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend is right. I am pleased to tell him that my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Prior has agreed to take the chair of a Church of England investigation into the way in which the Church can develop in rural areas. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will be happy to help in that discussion in any way.
    Dr. David Clark: Has the Minister, either in his ministerial or his ecclesiastical capacity, read the booklet, "The People, the Land and the Church", published by the diocese of Hereford, which shows that the result of nine years of Conservative Government is increasing poverty in rural areas, with the result that 25 per cent. of rural dwellers now live on the margin of poverty? What will he do about that?
    Mr. Gummer: I have read the book, and it does not show what the hon. Gentleman claims. I was happy to take part in a symposium in the diocese of Worcester, which discussed the nature of the book, and in which we were able to come to conclusions wholly different from those of the Labour party, which would reduce the income of farmers, because Labour Members based their arguments on an understanding of out-of-date Australian figures.
    Mr. Charles Wardle: In view of the obvious desire of Opposition Members that the Church of England should be better informed about agriculture policy, will my right hon. Friend explain to his friends in the Synod his progress on the farm woodland scheme?
    Mr. Gummer: I hope that the Church of England, like other organisations that own farmland, will be helped by the farm woodland scheme, which will enable us to provide farmers—tenants and landowners—with an opportunity to use woodlands as a crop, thereby decreasing Britain's dependence on exterior supplies of timber.

    Marginal and Hill Areas
    Dr. Thomas: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the implications of recent European Commission decisions for United Kingdom farmers in marginal and hill areas.
    Mr. MacGregor: I assume that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the outcome of the recent European Council.

    1149
    The decisions made there will provide United Kingdom farmers generally with a more stable framework in which to plan their business decisions for the future.
    Dr. Thomas: Does the Minister not accept that any reduction in the variable premium would have a particularly difficult impact on the store market, which is so important for hill farmers in rural areas? Is he aware that many hill farmers are still suffering from the effect of the Chernobyl events which was a severe shock to their incomes? Has he had an opportunity to read this week's Farmers Weekly, in which an article and the editorial are a devastating attack on the way in which all the Government Departments responsible for agriculture—his Department, the Welsh Office and the Scottish Office — handled that issue? Is it not time that the Government held a full inquiry into the real effects of the Chernobyl disaster on the incomes of hill farmers?
    Mr. MacGregor: I do not agree with the point that the hon. Gentleman has just made about the post-Chernobyl situation. In fact, to date, nearly £5.3 million has been paid out under the scheme, which was introduced quickly as a practical method of getting the money quickly to the farmers, and which has been operated flexibly since. There is one tiny point in relation to a small number of producers where we have been unable to see a way ahead. However, it is important to remember that we introduced the scheme very quickly—faster than any other country—to help our farmers.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the decisions arrived at recently in Europe are just the beginning, and the basis of the beginning, whereas when we review the CAP and the MCAs—matters that affect the hill farmers, the sheepmeat regime and the variable premiums—those areas will matter? I remind my right hon. Friend that the highland clearances began in my constituency and that people were replaced with sheep. We now want the sheep to remain there.
    Mr. MacGregor: As I have said on many occasions, I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of the sheep sector in the upland areas. I am very conscious of its position and will bear it strongly in mind when we come to the negotiations on the sheepmeat regime.
    Mr. Ron Davies: The Minister will find few people to share his complacency about the future of the uplands. Can he explain why, with one hand, the Government give capital and revenue grants to farmers in the uplands to help them to diversify, but will take the money back with the other hand when they introduce the uniform business rate and apply it to farm businesses?
    Mr. MacGregor: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has got it quite right. First, I have no complacency whatsover about the problems in the uplands areas and I do not think that I can be accused of that. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman knows that farmland and farm buildings will continue to be exempt from the unified business rate. However, when farmers move into a business that has nothing to do with farming, it is right that they should have to pay rates on such premises because often in the same village there may be a comparable business that already pays rates. The most important point — it is real humbug for the hon.
    1150
    Gentleman to have said what he did—is that under the Labour party's proposals those farmers would be paying very much more in rates.
    Mr. Marland: With regard to the effect of Chernobyl on sheep farming in upland areas, is my right hon. Friend aware that the Agriculture Select Committee has chosen that as its next subject for an inquiry, and that the outcome of the Committee's findings may be of great help to him in his future deliberations on the subject?
    Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. As I have said, I think that the scheme came in with great speed and that it was of great help to the farmers who were affected. The most important thing was to recognise that we needed to get the money to them quickly. Therefore, there were bound to be some elements of rough justice, which were fully agreed with the industry from the outset. I hope that that is a point that the Committee will take on board.

    Tree Planting
    Mr. Boyes: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he is having with environmental organisations about tree planting.
    Mr. Gummer: I have had a number of meetings recently with environmental organisations at which various aspects of forestry, including the proposed farm woodland scheme, were discussed.
    Mr. Boyes: Will the Minister make representations to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reform the tax incentive system which allows rich people, such as Lady Porter, the Tory leader of Westminster council, and the Law Lord Baron Ackner, and media personalities, such as Terry Wogan, to benefit from investment in large-scale, environmentally damaging coniferous afforestation? It is a downright scandal and should be stopped.
    Mr. Gummer: Although tax matters are not for me or my right hon. Friend, many of the statements made by the hon. Gentleman in his question were tendentious rather than true.
    Mr. John M. Taylor: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that an adequate amount of guidance is being given in the tree-planting schemes towards planting broadleaved woodland, which is the most naturally congenial environment for the wildlife in this country?
    Mr. Gummer: I hope so. That is the intention. We have a different scale of support for broadleaved schemes and, as my hon. Friend will know, we have been particularly careful to help with broadleaved trees, such as the oak, which takes so much longer to mature. I hope, therefore, that by a judicious mixture—in many cases coniferous trees are a good part of such a scheme—we shall be able to enhance the environment, improve opportunities for wildlife and give farmers a further diversified crop.
    Mr. Haynes: Is the Minister aware that we have an abundance of beautiful oak trees in the county of Nottinghamshire and that the chairman of Nottinghamshire county council, Miss Florence Price, is promoting those trees for transplantation to the rest of the country and the world? Will he have a word with her to see whether he can help Nottinghamshire county council in the wonderful efforts that it is making?
    Mr. Gummer: I am proud that the county of Nottinghamshire does so much for the oak tree. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will see what he can do to help the county council, but it is my view that the changes that we have made in the woodland scheme from the original plans put forward will help people to plant oaks, which are more difficult and take longer to grow, which is exactly what the chairman of Nottinghamshire county council would like us to do.
    Mr. Chapman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a fund of goodwill for tree planting and that the purpose and objective of his Department, in consultation with the Department of the Environment, should be to secure suitable sites for tree planting and to encourage voluntary contributions? To that end, does he agree that it is in the long-term national interest, economically as well as environmentally, to encourage much more deciduous tree planting on suitable lowland sites?
    Mr. Gummer: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right, and his record in promoting tree planting is the envy of all of us. However, I hope that, in its own way, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is now beginning to help considerably and I trust that in a few years' time there will be a great deal more deciduous planting in Britain as a result of the Farm Land and Rural Development Bill which is now before Parliament.

    Dairy Industry
    Mr. Wallace: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the current state of the dairy sector.
    Mr. MacGregor: Following the changes that were introduced at the beginning of the current quota year, and the agreement by the European Council to extend the quota system for a further three years, the dairy sector can look forward with more confidence now that measures are in place to bring about a better balance between supply and demand. Average dairy farm income in the United Kingdom increased in each of the last two years and is expected to increase further during the current year.
    Mr. Wallace: Will the Minister tell us what steps his Ministry is taking to monitor the operation of quota schemes in other EEC countries, particularly Italy and France? Will he give an assurance to the House that the British dairy industry is not being put at any competitive disadvantage compared with its European colleagues?
    Mr. MacGregor: Yes, I have raised that subject and consider it quite frequently. I have had discussions with my opposite numbers in those two countries and I can give an assurance that that is what we are always endeavouring to do.
    Mr. David Nicholson: Will my right hon. Friend say whether he is satisfied with the innovative record of the United Kingdom dairy industry, in view of the large quantity of imported dairy products on our supermarket shelves? Is he aware that, in my constituency and in four other constituencies, creamery closures have recently been announced?
    Mr. MacGregor: On the first point, that is primarily a matter for the commercial organisations concerned, but I would never be satisfied that we had done everything that we should. However, in recent years, great strides have
    1152
    been taken, both by dairy farmers and dairy organisations, to improve marketing and to increase our exports, as well as to increase our sales in this country.
    The second point relates to a different matter. It was a Dairy Crest decision to close certain creameries because, as supply and demand became more balanced in the dairy product sector, there was clearly over-capacity and, therefore, like any other industry in that position, it had to take the necessary action.

    Alternative Land Use
    Mr. Ron Davies: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he next intends meeting representatives of the National Farmers Union to discuss the operation of the Economic Community set-aside scheme in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. MacGregor: I met representatives of the National Farmers Union on 1 March, and that was one of the topics I discussed with them.
    Mr. Davies: Did the Minister manage to persuade the National Farmers Union that the view of the Farmers Union of Wales that the set-aside scheme is a charter for crooks and cheats was accurate?
    Mr. MacGregor: I do not think that is right. As in any scheme, there is obviously scope for abuse. One of my purposes is to ensure that the abuse is limited as far as possible. In any scheme, there will inevitably be some abuses. The hon. Gentleman should look on the positive side and see that it is important for environmental reasons. It is important in assisting the transitional process in the countryside and the rural communities, which he is always going on about. The scheme is important as we have to face the fact that more agricultural land has to come out of production.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Livsey: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 3 March.
    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): I have been asked to reply.
    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is in Brussels for a NATO summit meeting.
    Mr. Livsey: Does the Leader of the House agree that the report in The Times today of a switch from student grants to loans is totally unacceptable? Does he realise that under the American system a quarter of the civil servants on Capitol Hill had not repaid their loans within 20 years? Does he not think that it would be far better to increase student grants by 20 per cent in order to keep pace with inflation?
    Mr. Wakeham: No, Sir. Our manifesto last year was perfectly clear. We said that we were reviewing student grants and considering a way of supplementing grants with loans. We shall publish our proposals when the review is complete. I understand that that will be about the middle of the year.
    Mr. Stern: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 3 March.
    Mr. Wakeham: I have been asked to reply.

    1153
    I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Stern: Has my right hon. Friend had time to note reports that Derbyshire county council has forced Chesterfield school to alter its 400-year-old Latin motto to something considered more relevant? Does he intend to persuade the Royal Air Force to update its motto, per ardua ad astra, or to approach the College of Heralds over such outdatted mottos as "Ich dien" or "honi soit qui mal y pense" and replace them with what is considered more appropriate, namely, "Derbyshire supports nuclear-free zones"? Will my right hon. Friend try to stop that sort of cultural vandalism?
    Mr. Wakeham: I certainly appreciate my hon. Friend's concerns about such reports. Sadly, he will know that we have reached the point where nothing done by Derbyshire county council can cause us much surprise. I can certainly reassure my hon. Friend that our proposals for the reform of local government finance and the introduction of the community charge will help. Indeed, they have already had an effect. A recent issue of the New Statesman said:
    "The shameful point for municipal socialists is that it has taken Tory legislation to force them into examining their councils' record as a service provider".
    Mr. Maxton: In view of the fact that the Government have passed a series of pieces of legislation to try to stop local authorities from using their taxpayers' money to put out what is considered to be political propaganda, what possible justification can there be for the Scottish Office spending £2.5 million on sending out a misleading political pamphlet concerning the poll tax to every household in Scotland? The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the legislation in England and Wales is not complete and, therefore, the Scottish legislation may be changed, and that the rebate scheme has not yet been published.
    Mr. Wakeham: My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland acted totally within the rules in publishing information regarding an Act of Parliament in Scotland. It would be better if the hon. Gentleman read that document and understood it rather than made misleading remarks such as those that he has just made.
    Mr. John M. Taylor: Will my right hon. Friend take note of the fact that Tuesday's announcement about British Aerospace and the Rover Group has gone down well in the west midlands, not least with some of the striking Land Rover workers? Does that not represent a first-class opportunity for their shop stewards to re-ballot them about going back to work and being the second best paid car workers in the country?
    Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend makes his point very well, but it is not for me to add anything to what was said by my right hon. and learned Friend in his statement on Tuesday.
    Q.3. Mr. Wallace: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 3 March.
    Mr. Wakeham: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Wallace: Does the Leader of the House accept that, whatever claims the Government might have for the benefits in England of its policy of privatising cleaning and
    1154
    catering operations in the Health Service, those are singularly inappropriate policies to foist upon island health boards? What advice would he give to the health boards in my constituency if they were faced with an attractive and artifically low tender from an outside company, yet feared that by breaking up a loyal and efficient in-house team they might be held over a financial barrel the next time tenders arose?
    Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman does not make his case at all well. The purpose of using private contractors and going out to tender is to see whether there is a more efficient way of doing the job. Sometimes it will be proved that private enterprise can do it better, and sometimes the job can be done better in-house. In England and Wales the Health Service has saved about £100 million a year, which has gone into further patient care, and that could be emulated in Scotland.
    Q.4. Mr. Shersby: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 3 March.
    Mr. Wakeham: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Shersby: Will my right hon. Friend take time today to consider the extent of public concern about the number of bogus public officials who are gaining access to private property and depriving elderly people of their life savings and other possessions? Will he invite the Prime Minister to initiate an inquiry into the matter with a view to adopting a common identity card for all public officials, representatives of Government bodies, local authorities, and public utilities?
    Mr. Wakeham: I understand my hon Friend's concern about the risks that old people face when they let others into their homes. I share his view that pensioners and others should ask to see proper identity cards when officials try to enter their homes. I am not sure what advantages standardisation would offer, but I shall certainly refer the point to my right hand Friend the Home Secretary.
    Mr. Kinnock: In view of the justifiable concern of the Leader of the House, perhaps he will see that a special provision is built into the Local Government Finance Bill, which is now going through the House, to require identification for the poll tax snoopers who will come in. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, as a result of the changes that come into effect next month in social security entitlements, 700,000 pensioner households in Britain will lose housing benefit to which they are currently entitled? Can he tell us what justification he can offer for punishing the prudent in such a way?
    Mr. Wakeham: The right hon. Gentleman should present his case in a much more balanced way. There are 70,000 families caught in a trap, which means that for every pound they earn they are worse off, because they lose more money in benefit forgone and in tax paid. The new benefit structures will put a stop to that. The vast majority of those receiving income-related benefits, that is about 88 per cent., will see an improvement in cash terms this April, or no change in their position. Under the new scheme, working families with a low income will receive £200 million in net extra resources as a result of the change. That view is more balanced than that of the right hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Kinnock: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has picked out the wrong answer. I was talking about pensioner households. He might be aware that the loss to pensioner households under housing beneift changes is 85p for every extra pound that they will get in one way or another. I am interested to know whether the right hon. Gentleman can tell us what he would say to a pensioner couple who come into his surgery and who receive the national insurance old-age pension and, say, £10 to £15 extra from an occupational pension and have lifetime savings of around £6,000 a year — [Interruption.] Lifetime savings of £6,000. When pensioners who come to the surgeries of Conservative Members are getting pensions on the basic rate, a small occupational pension, and have lifetime savings of around £6,000, what does the Gentleman say to them when they say, "Mr. Wakeham, why am I losing my housing benefit?" What is his reassurance to them, when the Government are imposing such a fine on their thrift?
    Mr. Wakeham: I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman does when people come to his surgery. The first thing I do is to check on what they are entitled to and see that they get it. That is very important. The second thing I would do is explain to them that at present one household in three is getting housing benefit. I do not believe that the rest of the country should be paying that amount of housing benefit to one household in three. [Interruption.] Therefore, I believe that the Government are entirely right to redistribute the income so that it is more fairly spent on those in greatest need. That is what our proposals do.
    Mr. Kinnock: Redistribution is all very well, but how does the right hon. Gentleman justify taking away from those who are near poor—indeed, not very well off in any circumstances—in order to lift those who are very poor by just a marginal amount? What kind of reassurance is that for those who in a lifetime of work have shown their prudence, have some small savings and are now being penalised?
    Mr. Wakeham: The right hon. Gentleman makes a mistake in thinking that we are taking things away. What we are doing is dealing with taxpayers' money, taken from the taxpayers, and we are redistributing it so that those in society who are worst off get more. I am surprised that there is not more support from the Labour party for that.
    Mr. Cram: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 3 March.
    Mr. Wakeham: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Cran: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government will continue to seek opportunities to relocate Government offices outside London and the south-east, consistent always with costs on the one hand and efficiency on the other? I am sure he knows that London weighting costs taxpayers £147 million a year and office costs for the 93 buildings that the Government use in London cost taxpayers £287 million. That is a not inconsiderable sum of money which could be saved.
    Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend raises an important point. We made a commitment in 1979 to send 5,900 Civil Service posts out of London to the regions, and that objective has been largely met. Our policy is to site any
    1156
    new Government work in the regions as far as possible, and my hon. Friend gave some reasons for that. He may be interested to know that four out of five civil servants already work outside Greater London.
    Mr. McAllion: The Minister, in his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton), advised Opposition Members to read the booklet on the poll tax issued by the Government today. Is he aware that, although the booklet was issued to the Scottish press and the media at the press conference at 11 o'clock this morning in Edinburgh, it was only posted to hon. Members today? We have not yet received it and are unable to read it, as the Minister suggested. Does he think it right that hon. Members have not had a chance to question the content and legitimacy of the booklet before it was circulated to the Scottish press?
    Mr. Wakeham: I suggest that the hon. Member gets together with his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton), who told us that he had read it.
    Mr. Cash: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 3 March.
    Mr. Wakeham: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Cash: Has my right hon. Friend noted that not a one Opposition Member in the questions put to him today has made any reference to the NATO meeting that has just taken place? Will he also note that as a result of the very considerable skill of our Prime Minister and the Government, we have taken a lead in matters affecting NATO and, furthermore, that as a result of the meeting our respect in the world has been enhanced?
    Mr. Wakeham: My right hon. Friend went to the NATO summit meeting to discuss with our allies the way to ensure continuing sound defence for the countries of the Alliance. That is the first duty of any Government: the defence of the country and the preservation of peace. I believe that it was a successful meeting. My right hon. Friend has not yet returned, and the appropriate document will be available in due course in the usual way.
    Mr. Cohen: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 3 March.
    Mr. Wakeham: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Cohen: The Prime Minister claims to be very happy with the NATO summit. Presumably that means air-launched cruise missiles, sea-launched cruise missiles, battlefield nuclear missiles and many more nuclear missiles based in this country. That massive rearmament programme was never put to the electorate at the last election, yet the Prime Minister must have known that that was what she was planning. Why did she not put it at the last election? Did she not have the courage?
    Mr. Wakeham: The first duty of any Prime Minister in any Government is the defence of the country. My right hon. Friend, by her work in international negotiations, has done more for disarmament than all the ravings of the hon. Gentleman over many years.

Business of the House
3.31 pm
Mr. Neil Kinnock: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 7 MARCH—Debate on a Government motion on the privatisation of the electricity supply industry.
Motion on the Wages (Northern Ireland) Order.
Motion on the Customs Duties (ECSC) (Quota and Other Reliefs) (Amendment) Order.
TUESDAY 8 MARCH—Estimates Day (1st Allotted Day). There will be debates on Estimates relating to the Storm Damage Recovery Scheme 1987 and to assistance to the coal industry subject to the approval of the House of the Liaison Committee's report. Details will be given in the Official Report.
Motion on the General Assistance Grants (Abolition) (Northern Ireland) Order.
At Ten o'clock the Question will be put on all outstanding Supplementary Estimates and Votes.
WEDNESDAY 9 MARCH — Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Local Government Bill.
Motion on the Rate Support Grant Supplementary Report (England) (No. 4) 1983–84.
Motion relating to the Electricity Generating Stations and Overhead Lines (Inquiries Procedures) Rules.
THURSDAY 10 MARCH — Remaining stages of the Regional Development Grants (Termination) Bill.
Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund (No. 3) Bill.
FRIDAY 11 MARCH—Private Members' motions.
MONDAY 14 MARCH—Progress on remaining stages of the Housing (Scotland) Bill.
Consideration of Lords amendments that may be received to the Social Security Bill.
[Estimates debate on Tuesday 8 March 1988: Supply Estimates 1987–88, Spring Supplementary Estimates (HC 284): class IV, vote 3, so far as it concerns the Storm Damage Recovery Scheme 1987; class VI, vote 1.]
Mr. Kinnock: In view of the conflicting stories in the press this morning, in which the Government proposals for the inner-city policy are variously described as a White Paper and a press conference, can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that any new proposals will be announced in the House rather than in a television studio, and that hon. Members will have an early opportunity to debate them rather than just read about them in propaganda brochures?.
Would not the Leader of the House agree that, in view of the substantial number of amendments and the new clause introduced in another place on the Local Government Bill, the very short time allowed for hon. Members to table amendments and the short time allowed for the debate next week reveal either mismanagement or disregard of the House? Will he even now give consideration to postponing the debate and lengthening it in order to meet both objections?
Two weeks ago the Secretary of State for Employment came to the House with a White Paper on "Training for Employment". It was a very superficial and disappointing document in a country in which training provision is a
1158
fraction of that in our competitor economies. May we have an urgent debate on the subject of training for employment, which is obviously so vital to the future of our young people and the industrial strength of the country?
Very mixed reports are coming out of the NATO summit on exactly what the term "kept up to date where necessary" means and whether it loses something in translation from German to English and English to German. May we therefore have the Leader of the House's assurance that there will be a statement early next week on the NATO summit and its conclusions?
Can the Leader of the House arrange for a statement next week from the Secretary of State for the Environment on the Government's policy towards local authorities who follow the scandalous practice of selling off publicly owned cemeteries for minute prices in a way that completely disregards the effect that this has on bereaved relatives and friends and is also cynically careless of the wider public interest?
Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that the Foreign Secretary makes a statement to the House next week on the effect on British support for social and educational organisations among the majority population in South Africa of the legislation proposed this week by the Pretoria regime, which is designed to block further foreign funding of organisations that seek to counteract the effects of the apartheid regime?
Mr. Wakeham: The right hon. Gentleman has asked six questions. The first was about inner cities. As I understand it, a White Paper is not to be published. The Prime Minister will take part in a press conference. However, I note what the right hon. Gentleman has said and will see what can be done about a debate in due course.
On the Local Government Bill, I regret any inconvenience. The Bill will he available in the Vote Office first thing tomorrow and, on that basis, it seems not unreasonable to invite the House to consider the Lords' amendments next Wednesday.
I note also the right hon. Gentleman's request for a debate on the White Paper "Training for Employment". It is, as he rightly says, a very important matter, and I will have to see what can be done; but I cannot promise something immediately.
My right hon. Friend has not yet returned from the NATO summit meeting. I shall certainly pass on to her the right hon. Gentleman's comments about a statement when I see her on her return.
On the question of cemeteries and the local authority, I do not believe that this is a matter for a statement by my right hon. Friend. The Government consider that it is a matter for the council, its ratepayers and the district auditor. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I understand that he is now investigating the position.
With regard to the question on South Africa, we had a debate on South Africa earlier in the week, but I will certainly pass the right hon. Gentleman's request to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: May I express my gratitude to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House for informing the House that it will have the opportunity next week to discuss and, I hope, complete the remaining stages of the Local Government Bill.
Is my right hon. Friend aware that a leaflet has been put out in schools in Derbyshire? I have received a number of

1159
letters from parents, one of whom told me that she was frankly disgusted that her son, aged five, was used to further the Socialist ends of the county council by bringing this letter and leaflet home. Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that the sooner we get this legislation on the statute book, the better—and the better for the parents of Derbyshire?
Mr. Wakeham: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend. I notice also that he has an Adjournment debate next Tuesday on Derbyshire county council's spending levels. No doubt he can raise some of his points then.
Mr. James Wallace: Given the different structures of the electricity industry in Scotland and in England and Wales, quite properly two separate statements were made. Will the Leader of the House give some indication of the form of the debate on Monday? Will it cover privatisation proposals for both Scotland and England and Wales? If a Scottish Minister winds up, will English Members' points he dealt with, and vice versa?
Can the Leader of the House report any progress in setting up the Procedure Committee?
Mr. Wakeham: I understand that it would be for the convenience of the House for the privatisation of the electricity supply industry both in England and Wales and in Scotland to be taken as one debate next Monday. I have no doubt that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, who will reply to the debate, will cover very adequately all the points raised in the debate.
I hope to set up the Procedure Committee as soon as I can get agreement in all parts of the House.
Mr. Eric Forth: Does my right hon. Friend think that it may now be appropriate for the House to re-examine the role and activities of Select Committees, particularly their productivity, the attendance of Members, the distances that they travel and the cost to the taxpayer which they involve? Does he not think that we have now had adequate time fully to assess their role, and would he not like to give the House the opportunity of voting on whether they should continue to operate?
Mr. Wakeham: I think that from time to time the House would rightly wish to consider the activities of Select Committees. I am not sure that I can find time for that at the moment. Perhaps it could wait for a little while.
Mr. Harold McCusker: Does the Leader of the House recall the anger expressed on this Bench yesterday at the failure of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to make a statement of the House about matters relating to equality of opportunity in Northern Ireland? Instead, the Secretary of State decided to make the announcement to a press conference in Belfast yesterday afternoon.
Has the Leader of the House had an opportunity to consider the implications of that statement for Northern Ireland and the possible application of the principle of ending discrimination on the mainland as well? Bearing in mind that foreign politicians have been given several hours to question the Secretary of State about the matter, and that the press corps in Northern Ireland has also been given time to question the Secretary of State about it, when will hon. Members be given the opportunity to question him?
Mr. Wakeham: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State answers questions frequently in the House. He made a written answer yesterday perfectly properly. He issued a consultative document. I wonder why the hon. Gentleman did not give a response to the consultative document when he had the opportunity to do so.
Mr. Quentin Davies: Given that the recent agriculture debate was dominated inevitably by consideration of the Brussels summit, will my right hon. Friend arrange for another date to take place in the next few months on the farming industry which is currently faced with the greatest anxiety about its future since 1939?
Mr. Wakeham: I recognise that our debate on agriculture was dominated to a large extent by events in Brussels over the previous days. I should like to be able to offer my hon. Friend a debate in the near future. I cannot see it happening very soon, but I shall certainly bear his request in mind and hopefully will be able to provide a debate before long.
Mr. Ray Powell: After yesterday's Welsh debate, will the Leader of the House consider seriously the reintroduction of 10-minute speeches? Out of only six Tory Members representing Wales who attended yesterday's debate, two took one hour of the available time. I think you would agree, Mr. Speaker, that it is high time that the 10-minute rule for speeches was reintroduced. Seven of the my hon. Friends failed to participate in yesterday's Welsh debate because that rule has not been reintroduced. When will the Leader of the House make preparations for its reintroduction?
Mr. Wakeham: I am anxious to make progress with that and other procedural changes which have been recommended to the House by the Select Committee. I am having discussions through the usual channels. When I feel that the moment is right, I will go ahead as soon as possible.
Mr. Robert Adley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there have been mystification and impatience at the Government's delay in making up their mind about the future of the Settle-to-Carlisle railway line? Various other Government Departments are involved, including those responsible for the heritage, for tourism and for regional policy. In view of the difficulties, which we all understand, in reaching a conclusion, if the Government are not ready to make a statement, may we have a debate on the subject so that the Government can take note of the views expressed by hon. Members?
Mr. Wakeham: I recognise that there are strong feelings on both sides of the House about the issue. I wish that I could offer a debate in the near future. I do not see that as a possibility, but I shall certainly bear it in mind.
Mr. Harry Ewing: The Leader of the House has said that Monday's debate on the privatisation of electricity will be all-embracing and will take in Scotland. Does that mean that a Scottish Office Minister will take part in the debate? If no Scottish Office Minister takes part, that will be a calculated insult to the people of Scotland. The two sets of privatisation proposals are totally different. There is simply no way that someone in the Department of Energy can have any knowledge about

1161
the proposals which were put to the House yesterday about the electricity generation and supply industry in Scotland.
Mr. Wakeham: I said in reply to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) that my right hon. and learned Friend would reply to the debate. I anticipate that that is likely to happen.
Mr. Roger Sims: Every week issues arise on the Floor of the House which you, Mr. Speaker, rightly point out are matters not for you but for the Procedure Committee. The answers which my right hon. Friend has given already to a couple of questions are in the same terms that we have had for weeks and weeks. We are nine months into this Parliament, and we still have not got a Procedure Committee, nor have we debated the report of the previous Procedure Committee. May I ask my right hon. Friend to inject a note of urgency into his discussions on the matter?
Mr. Wakeham: Perhaps my hon. Friend will recognise that these things are not all one-sided. One has to do one's best to get agreement throughout the House, and that is what I am trying to do.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Perhaps the Leader of the House should have responded to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. McLoughlin), who referred to leaflets produced by Derbyshire county council, by telling him that that Labour-controlled authority was robbed of £20 million by the Tory Government. If the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West was doing his job properly and defending the ratepayers in his constituency, he would have complained about the £20 million taken away by the Government of whom the Leader of the House is a member, because it has meant that ratepayers in the hon. Gentleman's constituency have had to pay a lot more in rate increases. He would be doing his job if he did that.
Mr. Wakeham: If the hon. Gentleman examines more carefully what happened in Derbyshire, he will see that the excessive spending of Derbyshire county council meant that it lost some grant and that it knew full well what it was doing. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman's strictures do not carry conviction.
Mr. Tony Marlow: Let me reinforce the point made so eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth). Is it not largely the case that the departmental Select Committees are pompous, self-important and possessed of spurious expertise? Is not their first objective self-promotion and their first function—by splitting the difference between Government and Opposition—to embarrass the elected Government? Will my right hon. Friend accept the advice given by Henry II to his barons and rid us of these turbulent and extravagant Committees?
Mr. Wakeham: It would be untruthful of me not to admit that from time to time the Government have difficulties with the Select Committees. However, I am afraid that I cannot share my hon. Friend's view of the work of the Select Committees, much of which I think is very valuable.
Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Will the Leader of the House use his best endeavours to persuade
1162
the Home Secretary to make a statement to the House on the future of the various television companies? When the Select Committee is investigating the future of broadcasting, it is somewhat disturbing to hear an announcement made — almost publicly—that the franchises are to be auctioned off to the highest bidder. The Home Secretary said that there would be a White Paper next summer on the future of broadcasting and the television industry and how that interlinks with satellite and cable. Has not that White Paper been pre-empted by the leaked announcement of the sale of television franchises?
Mr. Wakeham: I shall certainly refer the matter to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. However, I do not believe that it automatically follows that the Government have to make an announcement when a rumour appears in the newspapers that is not the Government's responsibility. If it did, we should be for ever making announcements.
Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Will my right hon. Friend give further consideration to the handling of Northern Ireland business? He will be aware that until this year we had two debates on emergency provisions a year, each of which could last six hours. As he will know, the business on Tuesday of this week and Thursday of last week—one was a continuation of the other—gave the House only four and a quarter hours to discuss the situation in Northern Ireland, which by anyone's standards is both tense and serious. It involves most hon. Members because many soldiers from their constituencies are serving in Northern Ireland. I suggest to my right hon. Friend in those circumstances that if we want to prove to the people of Northern Ireland that parliamentary democracy means as much in Northern Ireland as it does anywhere else in the United Kingdom, more time should be found, or a complete day given, for a further debate on the situation in the Province.
Mr. Wakeham: I recognise my hon. Friend's interest in and knowledge of Northern Ireland matters. I also recognise that his points are extremely important. My task is to fit all the different, conflicting interests into the timetable of the House, which is necessarily limited. I take on board what my hon. Friend has said, and I shall see whether it might be possible to do better on another occasion. When I realised last week that there was not sufficient time, I moved quickly and I hope that my hon. Friend thought that that was the right thing to do.
Mr. Frank Cook: The fact that the motion on the inquiry procedure rules for power stations and overhead power lines will be discussed on Wednesday night will be welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the House because, as the Leader of the House knows, most of the power stations that have been announced for construction, and naturally the power lines that will lead from them, will be situated in areas of predominantly Conservative interest and support. In the light of that, the positioning of the debate at the fag-end of business on Wednesday means that hon. Members will have a poor opportunity to discuss the matter fully. Will the right hon. Gentleman consider bringing that motion forward to immediately after the main business of the day?
Mr. Wakeham: I thought that the hon. Gentleman was going to say something nice to me. He pestered me for a long time to put on this debate, and I have done what I can to help him. I fear that that is the best that I can do.
Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: Has my right hon. Friend noted that a staggering total of 318 right hon. and hon. Members have now signed early-day motion 6?
[That this House deplores the fact that, alone among public service pensioners, those whose service was overseas cannot count pre-appointment war service towards their pensions; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to remedy this injustice to a dwindling group of elderly people whose working lives were spent in adverse conditions while dedicated to the service of British interests overseas.]
As my right hon. Friend is rumoured to be party to a mechanism whereby conflicting claims on the public purse are later to be resolved, will he bear in mind the extremely strong feeling in the House about this issue?
Mr. Wakeham: If my hon. Friend is right and I have some responsibility in this matter, I will certainly bear in mind his point. However, on the assumption that he is wrong and I do not have any responsibility, I shall refer the matter to my right hon. Friend who is responsible.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Has the Leader of the House examined early-day motion 773?
[That this House expresses support for the 229 studio technicians, members of A.C.T.T., locked out by TV-am in a deeply serious battle with a hostile management which, in addition to attacking the trade union, has secretly sold off a significant overseas holding, contrary to the Broadcasting Act 1981, and produced programmes of such appalling quality, due to the lockout, that they are clearly in breach of the franchise; and calls upon the Independent Broadcasting Authority to suspend the franchise pending a properly negotiated settlement of the dispute.]
The motion, which has already attracted 60 signatures and is gathering them apace, expresses support for the locked-out television technicians. Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that, not only have union members been locked out and subsequently sacked, but also trainees who are not even members of the union have been locked out? The public consequences are a lowering of television standards and a breach of the franchise. Part of the station has been sold off to the Saudi Arabians in breach of the Broadcasting Act 1981.
May we have a debate on the early-day motion and the important breach of legislation to which the Independent Broadcasting Authority appears to be turning an indifferent eye? Is it not time that the IBA was urged by the Government to act on this serious breach of standards?
Mr. Wakeham: It is a matter for the IBA rather than the Government to determine whether an independent television company is in breach of its contract. I believe that that is an important point and that the IBA should not be leaned upon by the Government in this matter. The IBA should determine what is the right course of action, and I am sure that it will.
Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend arrange for an early debate on the correlation between high rates and job losses, bearing in mind that this year the Lyons group of companies in Greenford has had a rates increase of £600,000? That company is now faced with having to make possibly between 60 and 70 workers redundant to pay its rates as it cannot pass on the rate increase in higher charges. Is it not time that we debated this question thoroughly and exposed unreasonable rate increases of 50 per cent. or, in this case, 70 per cent. for what they are?
Mr. Wakeham: As my hon. Friend knows, these are important provisions of the Local Government Finance Bill, which is at present in Committee. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend will make his point when the Bill returns to the House before long.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Is not the Leader of the House uniquely well placed to shed light on early-day motions, 228, 253, 272, 273 and 286?
[That this House notes in the book, Campaign, by Rodney Tyler, the Selling of the Prime Minister: from behind the doors of Downing Street and Conservative Central Office—A unique inside account of the Battle for Power that the author on page 1, chapter 1, paragraph 1, sentence 1, states 'It was an extraordinary turnaround in fortunes from the moment on 27th January 1986 when Mrs. Thatcher secretly confided to a close associate that she might have to resign…' and on page 3 that 'On the eve of the crucial Westland debate she herself felt shaky enough to doubt her future' though some around her later sought to dismiss this as late evening anxieties of the sort that had disappeared the following morning). It is certainly true that if Leon Brittan had chosen to, he could have brought her to the brink of downfall, by naming the real culprits inside Number 10. Instead, he chose to remain silent', and calls on the Prime Minister to give a fill account of what transpired between 3rd January and 27th January 1986, at Number 10 Downing Street, in relation to the selectively leaked Law Officer's letter concerning the Westland Affair.]
[That this House notes that the Member for Aldershot on page 136 of his book Heseltine: the unauthorised Biography, states in relation to the Westland Affair that 'John Wakeham issued an order of the day which contained the trite, if effective message, that it was time for all good men to come to the aid of the party. We did and calls on the Leader of the House, The Right Honourable Member for South Colchester and Maldon, to explain when he first knew the role of the then Trade and industry Secretary, The Right Honourable Member for Richmond, Yorks, in the matter of the disclosure of a selectively leaked Law Officer's letter.]
[That this House notes that in his book Mrs. Thatcher's Revolution, published this week by Jonathan Cape and Co., Mr. Peter Jenkins writes on page 200 'Brittan himself refused to enlighten the Select Committee on any point of substance. However, he is reputed to have told close friends subsequently that not only has she known perfectly well what had happened but that, on the day following the leak, had expressed her satisfaction to him at the way things had been handled. However, at that time, the downfall of Heseltine had not been achieved … He (Mr. Brittan) might point the finger at her (Mrs. Thatcher). Potentially he now had the power to destroy her'; and calls on the Prime Minister to give the House a full account of her conversations with the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the Right honourable Member for Richmond, Yorks, over the period from 3rd January and 27th January 1986, in relation to the selectively leaked Law Officer's letter concerning the Westland Affair.]
[That this House notes that in The Thatcher Years—A decade of Revolution in British Politics, published by BBC Books, Mr. John Cole, on page 170, considering the selectively leaked Law Officer's letter in the Westland Affair, writes 'why did he (Sir Robert Armstrong) not give her a quick interim report when he discovered that the leak was an inside job, authorised by her office? Why did Leon Brittan not tell her? Or the private secretary concerned? Or

1165
his chief, who sits in the same room? Or her press secretary? And why did she never ask?'; and calls on the Prime Minister to inform the House of the answers to these questions.]
[That this House notes that, in the book 'Not with Honour—The Inside Story of the Westland Scandal', on page 142, Magnus Linklater and David Leigh write that 'Instead, following Havers's complaint, she spoke privately to Brittan about the leak. Although this is something the Prime Minister has failed to disclose, to widespread disbelief, the evidence comes from an authoritative source, who told us: "The Prime Minister knew about the leak. She was pleased it had been done. There was a meeting between Brittan and her after the complaint from Mayhew. Only the two of them were present … Brittan assumed she knew of [the leak's] origins. You must draw your own conclusions." One of Brittan's friends adds, "Nobody thought it was a problem. The complaints were out of the public domain and any inquiry was expected to be a formality. Leon wasn't worried at all about it."; and calls on the Prime Minister to give a full account to the House of the meeting between herself and the Right honourable Member for Richmond, Yorks, referred to therein.]
Is Mr. Peter Jenkins correct, on page 189 of his book, "Mrs. Thatcher's Revolution: ending of the Socialist era", in saying that on Sunday 5 January 1986, at Chequers, he was exercising his mind, along with Lord Whitelaw and the Prime Minister, about how to stop the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) running rings around the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan)? Was the problem on that occasion, as Mr. Jenkins suggests, how to deal with the Mayhew trap?
Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman may be right or wrong about whether I have any light to shine on these matters. I have said all that I have to say; I have nothing more to say. I should tell the hon. Gentleman, if he is remotely interested, that on that afternoon my children put on a play at home, which I saw and enjoyed very much.
Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Will my right hon. Friend, given the marriage of convenience that took place today between the Liberal party and the official wing of the SDP, give urgent consideration to the future of the Short money that is given to those parties and to the allocation of party political broadcasts?
Mr. Wakeham: I recognise that these matters may have some significance for Short money. Having seen the amount of champagne that was drunk, I wondered whether that might be of some relevance to the misuse of alcohol committee, for which I have been responsible.
Mr. Robert N. Wareing: May we have a statement next week on the refusal of the Government to support a BBC Wales television service, so that we can confront the Prime Minister and ask whether that refusal has anything to do with the televising of Parliament at the end of this year and the Prime Minister's fear that the rest of the world will see how vulnerable she is?
Mr. Wakeham: I do not like to disabuse the hon. Gentleman, but I believe that he lives in a world of make-believe most of the time. I do not believe everything that I read in the newspapers, and the hon. Gentleman should not either.
Mr. Bill Walker: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in Scotland we are concerned that the Act concerning the community charge is being misrepresented by the Opposition and the media? Frequently it is called something quite different from a community charge. That has led to Scots being misled. Therefore, it was essential that the Government should have produced a leaflet explaining clearly the effects of the Act and the fact that only 14 per cent. of the total spent by local authorities will be charged in the community charge. Every hon. Member should have had a copy of that leaflet today.
Mr. Wakeham: I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point. I understand that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland intended that the leaflet should be available to hon. Members before the press conference this morning. He regrets that there was a mistake in the arrangements and that the copies were not delivered to the House until 2 pm. He apologises for any discourtesy, which certainly was not intended.
Mr. Gareth Wardell: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement to be made next week on enterprise zones? A judgment in the House of Lords on 11 February this year in the case of Clement v Addis Ltd. has resulted in a substantial reduction in rateable value for a company outside an enterprise zone, which has been able to show that it has suffered from competition as a result of the existence of that enterprise zone. That has enormous implications for ratepayers located anywhere in the United Kingdom, because any commercial operator can now apply to the district valuer for a reduction in rates. It could also have enormous implications for domestic ratepayers. Therefore, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider carefully whether the Government should act soon in case local authorities are put in an impossible position.
Mr. Wakeham: I know about that case and 1 recognise its importance. My right hon. Friend is considering very carefully the implications because they are important and in some way very serious. No doubt he will decide how best to proceed when he has finished his considerations.
Mr. John Greenway: In view of the amount of time that the House spends on dealing with matters affecting Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, will my right hon. Friend consider sponsoring over the next few months a number of debates on the regions, perhaps beginning with a debate on Yorkshire and Humberside? Among the matters that could be discussed, could we not consider further the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley (Mr. Cran) during Prime Minister's Question Time that we relocate more Government Departments to the regions? That would benefit taxpayers in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
Mr. Wakeham: At the moment there is a limited amount of Government time and a heavy legislative programme to get through, so I cannot be too encouraging to my hon. Friend. I remember that some years ago the Opposition used a great deal of their time for debates about the regions, but since the sustained improvement in the economy they have not found that subject so interesting.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Was the Leader of the House present today during the Gummer slot of Agriculture questions when matters pertaining to

1167
the Church were raised? Will he tell his right hon. Friend the Minister of State that, if he persists in his attacks on the Church, I personally will ensure that in future there is a good flavouring of questions of a similar nature on all Order Papers relating to agricultural matters?
Mr. Wakeham: Although I admire the hon. Gentleman, if it came to a verbal exchange between the hon. Gentleman and my right hon. Friend, I know where I would put my money.
Mr. Edward Leigh: May I refer my hon. Friend to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett)? I suspect that my hon. Friend was motivated not by petty party politics, but by a serious concern for the public interest. Bearing in mind that the Social Liberal Democratic party—or SLID for short—has slid into a position in which fewer than five out of 1,000 people questioned in a recent opinion poll said that they would vote for it, and less than half its members actually voted for its culmination today, there is a serious point in relation to Short money. Bearing in mind that at the last general election a large number of people voted for what was then the alliance, or for the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), who is now the leader of the Campaign for Social Democracy, the House demands and needs answers on those serious matters.
Mr. Wakeham: I recognise that my hon. Friend has a serious point. It is public money voted by Parliament for those purposes, and we have to be strict and correct in the way in which we deal with it. As my hon. Friend knows, some problems have to be resolved. I hope that everyone will be as constructive as they can in suggesting how to deal with this matter. I cannot add anything at the moment, except to say that I am well aware of the problem.
Mr. David Winnick: Would it not be appropriate, before the Chancellor of the Exchequer presents his Budget, for there to he a debate on the report of the Select Committee on Social Services which stated that substantial extra sums of money should be given to the National Health Service, bearing in mind that that Committee has a Conservative majority and that the report was unanimous? I notice that the Chancellor has just come into the Chamber, perhaps to watch over the Leader of the House in the Prime Minister's absence. Would it not be an affront for the Chancellor to cut taxes again for the very rich while the National Health Service desperately needs cash and so many hospital wards are being closed?
Mr. Wakeham: I know that the hon. Gentleman is not too fussy about these matters, and makes his political points whenever there is an opportunity. I should remind
1168
him that the Budget is about taxation and borrowing and not about spending and that spending plans have been settled.
The Select Committee report is interesting, particularly because it recognises that there is a need for a full review of the Health Service. The Government are conducting such a review and I am glad that we have the support of the all-party Committee.
Mr. Ian Bruce: Will my right hon. Friend again consider the matter of financial assistance to Opposition parties — the so-called Short money? It rather concerns me to hear that the matter will be sorted out almost behind closed doors. It is clear from the motion passed by this House on 20 March 1975 that this money is not transferable to another political party. It is money given to political parties that put up candidates at general elections. The formula is based on that. Will my right hon. Friend therefore bring the matter before the House and not try to conduct it behind closed doors?
Mr. Wakeham: I assure my hon. Friend that, if there was not a bit of thinking behind closed doors, we really would be in a mess. I suspect that we might be in a bit of a mess even after we had done the thinking. I can also assure my hon. Friend that the Short money is paid in accordance with the resolution of this House, and that resolution will be adhered to until such time as we come before the House with a different resolution and that resolution is passed by the House. In spite of the fact that we shall have to think quite hard about how to get ourselves out of a predicament that is not of our own making, I promise my hon. Friend that everything will be conducted with propriety.
Mr. John Maxton: Is the Leader of the House aware that I am delighted to have confirmation from the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) that the Opposition have overwhelmingly won the arguments about the poll tax in Scotland, and his admission that the Opposition have won so convincingly? However, I am concerned that he believes that £2.5 million should be spent to tell the people of Scotland that the poll tax is really called the community charge.
May I ask the Leader of the House what progress has been made in establishing a Scottish Select Committee? Will he tell the House which Tory Members of Parliament, Scottish and English, have been invited to form that Committee and have refused to serve on it?
Mr. Wakeham: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the selection of Committees of this House is not for me but for the Committee of Selection. My difficulty was that the Labour Opposition originally laid down conditions about whom they would or would not be prepared to serve with on the Select Committee. I have done my best to resolve that situation and matters will move on from there. Discussions are still taking place, but we are trying to resolve the matter.

Consolidated Fund (No.3) Bill
4.6 pm
Mr. Speaker: I have a short statement about arrangements for the debate on the motion for the Adjournment which will follow the passing of the Consolidated Fund (No. 3) Bill on Thursday 10 March.
Hon. Members should submit their subjects to my office not later than 9 am on Wednesday 9 March. A list showing the subjects and times will be published later that day. Normally the time allotted will not exceed one and a half hours, but I propose to exercise discretion and to allow one or two debates to continue rather longer, up to a maximum of three hours. Where identical or similar subjects have been entered by different hon. Members, whose names are drawn in the ballot, only the first name will be shown on the list. As some debates may not last the full time allotted to them, it is the responsibility of hon. Members to keep in touch with developments if they are not to miss their turn.

Points of Order
4.8 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the presence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Yesterday, I received a letter dated 29 February, a copy of which I gave to your secretary last night, from the Chancellor of the Exchequer relating to my point of order of 23 February, as reported in column 160.
I assume, though the Chancellor does not make it clear, that he is referring to paragraph 17 of Sir Peter Walters's letter. Sir Peter Walters is the chairman of BP, with whom I have always had good relations on account of constituency involvement in the Grangemouth refinery. In that letter Sir Peter Walters promised to maintain existing commitments. However in the small print, he goes no further in essence than to "expect"—that was the word I used in column 154, quoting from the Chancellor's statement about Scottish research. I have quoted accurately because the Chief Whip gave me his copy for the sake of accuracy. Even if I had been able to read Sir Peter Walters' letter rather than Sir Peter Middleton's letter, my question and point of order happen to have been legitimate.
There are three other considerations. First, If the Chancellor is going to refer to documents, why does he place a single copy in the Library for which one has to queue at the desk? I make no complaint whatever about the Library staff, who happened to be harrassed at the time that I rushed out of the Chamber to try to check, as any Back-Bench Member of Parliament would, and had to take my place at the queue. If the Chancellor intends to refer to documents, surely he should put them in the Vote Office, the proper place for documents to which senior Ministers intend to refer on important statements, not the Library.
Secondly, why does the Chancellor scurry from the Chamber as soon as a point of order is raised? We all have to reflect on our parliamentary manners — I say this quite gently—but in opposition the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) would have been the first to complain if Labour Ministers had left after making a statement on which there would clearly be points of order.
Thirdly, we Scots can be forgiven for going into the small print of company undertakings. After all, Guinness reneged on its Edinburgh headquarters commitment. Since this is not a party issue, I shall not stick to what happened under a Conservative Government. We have memories, too, of the undertakings that Chrysler and Peugot gave to a British Government.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have allowed the hon. Gentleman to raise this point of order as a special matter, but he must not go into great detail. Will he come to the point of order?
Mr. Dalyell: That is why it was perfectly legitimate to ask questions on the small print and why I say quite gently to the Chancellor that, although he asks in his letter for some kind of apology, on this occasion I am not prepared to give one because I do not think that I have done wrong.
Mr. Speaker: The Chancellor is present and has heard what has been said.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have to spend your time in this part of the world and you reside in the area covered by

1171
Westminster city council. I just wondered whether we could join with you, as a resident in this area, to take appropriate steps to call for a special audit of the Westminster city council which has sold off three cemeteries for 15p.
If you were prepared to head the list of signatories, Mr. Speaker, as a resident within the area, we would join you in such a petition. I do not know whether, as a resident, you have any special powers, but I am pretty certain that you would be a formidable signatory in seeking to make sure that the selling of those cemeteries for 15p would be cleared up. Many people in and around this area have strong misgivings, and if we cannot get anything done by an extraordinary audit we should have a public inquiry.
Mr. Speaker: I am not responsible for audits, but I write many private letters.
Mr. John Maxton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the answer to the question that I put to the Leader of the House at business questions today, can the Chairman of the Committee of Selection come before the House either to answer questions or to make a statement about the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs? The Leader of the House misled the House today because he—
Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a parliamentary expression. No right hon. or hon. Member misleads the House.
Mr. Maxton: The Leader of the House said something different this week from last week when he referred to a helpful letter that he had received from my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). In a discussion in the House on the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden said that he was happy not to lay down conditions because he wanted the Select Committee to be set up as soon as possible. Since we should be making some progress on this matter as soon as possible, can the Chairman come before the House to make a statement?
Mr. Wakeham: If I did not give as full an answer as I should have done, let me try to be helpful now. We originally failed to set up the Select Committee because agreement could not be reached on its composition. My correspondence with the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) was to clarify the basis upon which the Labour party would be agreeable to the Select Committee being set up and it was a helpful correspondence. Other hon. Members have other considerations on the setting up of the Select Committee and discussions on those will continue.
Mr. Bill Walker: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You could say, Mr. Speaker, that I have a long-standing interest in this matter. Will you confirm that no Member of the House can be ordered to be a member of a Select Committee? Unlike Standing Committees, on to which hon. Members are drafted, if I can put it that way—Conservative Members are happy to be drafted — hon. Members can opt not to be members of a Select Committee. One cannot be made to become a member or be forced to attend.
Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members can be invited to join a Committee and they can also be appointed to a Select Committee.
Mr. David Alton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday, in a point of order, the hon. Member for Mid-Worcester (Mr. Forth) raised a question, of which he had been unable to give me notice, on the use of stationery to distribute a letter for which I had been responsible. I told the House at that stage that I had paid for the stationery and envelopes that had been used. I have now received a receipt from the Fees Office accounting for all the stationery used, but I must tell the House that some of the envelopes used were not paid for by me. I have now put that matter right and I apologise for what was a technical mistake.
May I also tell any hon. Members who feel that they may have been in any way wronged by anything that. I said in the letter that I distributed to a small number of people, that if they give me the undertaking that they are in no way involved in any filibuster, I shall happily withdraw any criticism? [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has made his explanation and apology.
Mr. Eric Forth: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I acknowledge what the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) has just said to the House. Further to the exchanges between us yesterday, I wrote to the Serjeant at Arms, but in view of what the hon. Gentleman has just said I am sure that the Serjeant at Arms will be able to regularise the matter.
I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman was able to take action between yesterday and today in order to put right what may have been wrong, but, when they become available, I invite the hon. Member to read the proceedings of the Committee which is considering the Licensing (Retail Sales) Bill — an important Committee dealing with an important matter. All the members of that Committee made it clear that the sort of action that was being taken by and on behalf of the hon. Member for Mossley Hill was distasteful, unacceptable and potentially unparliamentary and I believe that you, Mr. Speaker, may be considering the matter.
Mr. Speaker: I am considering the matter and we should not discuss it further now.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. There is great interest in the debate on the Royal Navy. I do not know whether those hon. Members who are rising wish to take part in it.
Mr. Frank Haynes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not often raise a point of order, but I am sick to death of the question of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. It holds up business nearly every flipping day and it must be sorted out. Will you, Mr. Speaker, put your foot down, knock one or two heads together, and get the beggars sorted out?
Mr. Speaker: I shall have to put my head on my foot.
Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There was a suggestion that the rules of order in the House are not being carried out properly by yourself or members of the Chairmen's Panel in that filibustering is not allowed in the House. As you know, Mr. Speaker, the Standing Orders specifically allow the Chair or you, Mr. Speaker, to stop hon. Members being repetitious. It is up to the Chair and to you, Mr. Speaker, to carry out those Standing Orders. To the best of my

1173
knowledge, and the knowledge of hon. Members on both sides of the House, those rules are adhered to and it is a general understanding that filibustering is not allowed in this place and I should be grateful if you would confirm that.
Mr. Speaker: That is absolutely correct.
Mr. David Harris: Further to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton), Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance about the conventions of the House. Perhaps I owe the hon. Member for Mossley Hill an apology; if so, I willingly give it. Yesterday, he told me privately that he had not written to my constituents. However, it is clear that other organisations have taken up his allegations. I have dealt with that and received a fulsome apology from them.
Is it right that an hon. Member should go behind the backs of other hon. Members and approach their constituents, whether on House of Commons stationery or not? Such an action puts hon. Members in an intolerable position. As a result of the whole wretched affair, I am now receiving many cards from my constituents who were under the impression that I was going to be part of a filibustering exercise. As I said yesterday, I am actually in favour of tightening up the law on abortion.
It would be extremely helpful to the House if you, Mr. Speaker, laid down some ground rules for the benefit of hon. Members about hon. Members who go behind the backs of their colleagues and approach their constituents. It is difficult to pull back this matter once it has happened.
Mr. Alton: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) and I discussed this matter yesterday. I have not written to any of his constituents; as he knows, I am sorry if anyone has. This is an issue that concerns all hon. Members. Whatever our views, most people want the matter to be processed properly, not by foul means but by fair. Democracy will be done no justice by a misuse of proceedings. I am sure that sensible arrangements can be arrived at if only hon. Members will speak to one another about them.
Mr. Speaker: I am considering these matters. As the House well knows, I have had a number of letters about them.

ESTIMATES
Resolved,
That this House agrees with the Report [1st March] of the Liaison Committee.—[Mr. Alan Howarth.]

The Royal Navy
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Alan Howarth.]
4.22 pm
The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Ian Stewart): Even by its own standards this last year has been a busy one for the Royal Navy. Since the Navy debate last year, our ships have made almost 500 visits to a total of 70 countries, among them the first visit for more than four years to Somalia and two highly successful visits to Mauritius. Royal Navy ships have continued to fulfil a vital role in the Gulf, providing reassurance and, where necessary, assistance to our merchant shipping in that troubled area. They have continued to provide a presence in the south Atlantic and in the Caribbean and they also make an important contribution to the prevention of illegal immigration into Hong Kong. In the NATO area, the Navy has continued to exercise and deploy, helping to maintain the peace through its deterrent power and practising the war roles which we hope it will never be called upon to fulfil.
Last September, 20 British warships and RFAs took part in the major NATO maritime reinforcement exercise, Ocean Safari, which involved 150 ships and 250 aircraft from 11 NATO nations. Earlier last year, the Royal Marines, who form our contribution to the United Kingdom-Netherlands amphibious force, participated in another NATO exercise, Cold Winter, in Norway, which proved to be the most complex yet of its series and demonstrated the flexibility and adaptability of our amphibious forces. Not only has there been extensive cooperation with allied navies, in the Gulf as well as in the NATO sphere, but the Royal Navy has also contributed significantly to that much closer relationship between our own three services that has been developing in a most encouraging way in the past few years.
The major improvement of recent years in the ability of the Royal Navy to carry out such a wide range of activities effectively is the direct result of the far greater resources that the Conservative Government have devoted to defence than were provided by our Labour predecessors. After allowing for inflation, defence spending is now 20 per cent. higher than it was in 1979. In practice, that means that we have spent more than £16 billion more in real terms on defence than if spending had remained at the level we inherited, and more than £4 billion extra has been devoted to the Royal Navy.
That additional expenditure is reflected in the comprehensive ship building programme that we have followed since coming to power. During the past eight years, 61 ships have been ordered for the Royal Navy with a cost, at current prices, of more than £6 billion. They include 12 frigates, 11 submarines — including two SSBNs—and 25 mine counter-measures vessels.
In 1987, four new ships joined the Fleet: the SSN HMS Torbay, the type 22 frigate HMS London, the Hunt class MCMV HMS Berkeley and the new RFA Sir Galahad. This year, four more type 22 frigates are due to be accepted from their builders, the first of which, HMS Cornwall, joined the Fleet two weeks ago. The training ship RFA Argus has today been accepted from its builders, leaving 26 major ships and submarines on order, with a value of about £4.5 billion.
Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: In view of the Minister's criticism of the last Labour Government, will he tell us why, under this Government, the size and numbers of the surface fleet have continued to diminish year by year; why all the latest surveys suggest that the present surface fleet is the smallest in the history of the Navy; and why some who are inclined to support the Government nevertheless ask whether the Navy can any longer meet its worldwide commitments?
Mr. Stewart: I shall come to the issue of availability of surface ships later in my speech. It is clear that the destroyers and frigates that we have are fully capable of carrying out the tasks that are needed.
Mr. Frank Field rose—
Mr. Stewart: I have just given way. I shall come to that point later.
Before looking at our naval activities further afield, both in the NATO context and elsewhere, 1 should say something at the outset of the role of the Royal Navy in our home waters. The direct defence of our own islands was a primary task of the Fleet in the days of the Armada, 400 years ago this year, and it has remained so ever since. Not surprisingly, it is a task which has increased enormously in complexity as a result of the huge advances in technology in the 20th century.
Today, the naval defence of our home base is provided not only by ships and submarines in the eastern Atlantic and the Norwegian sea, but in our home waters. The Royal Navy, ably supported by the Royal Naval Reserve and the Royal Marine Reserve, remains alert to the threat of mines in coastal waters and ready to defend key points, ports and anchorages.
It is worth remembering, too, some of the other roles which the Royal Navy performs at home. Apart from providing a valuable element of our military search and rescue services, the Royal Navy helps to safeguard the United Kingdom's fishing interests and North sea energy resources, as well as supporting the Royal Ulster Constabulary in the difficult but important task of patrolling the Province's 150-mile-long coastline.
Meanwhile, the Royal Navy's contribution to NATO remains the central ingredient—
Mr. Martin O'Neill: The Minister mentioned air-sea rescue in passing. In the RAF debate we received what we assumed to be fulsome assurances about the future public ownership of that facility. Before the Minister leaves the subject, will he comment on the prospective arrangements for Lee-on-Solent, which, I understand, may be different from the impression that the Minister sought to convey in the last debate? What is happening to Bristow's role in Lee-on-Solent? That, surely, has an impact on some of the Royal Navy services.
Mr. Stewart: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Solent is one of the busiest areas for civil shipping and boating. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has decided that he wants to add extra cover in that area for civil purposes. That does not affect the fact that cover for all military and many civilian services will continue to be provided in the area, but from Portland rather than Lee.
Mr. O'Neill rose—
Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend will respond later to the other points that will no doubt be raised during the debate. I think that I should get on with my speech.
Mr. Duffy: This is a debate.
Mr. Stewart: Yes, but if I give way every moment, it ceases to be so.
Meanwhile, the Royal Navy's contribution to NATO remains the central ingredient of the United Kingdom's maritime defence effort. The successful defence of western Europe, in the event of Soviet attack, would depend on NATO's ability to ensure the safe passage of seaborne reinforcements and supplies across the Atlantic, the Channel and the North sea. Britain provides nearly 70 per cent. of the maritime forces that would be immediately available to NATO in those areas, prior to the arrival of Unites States reinforcements. The Royal Navy would thus make a key contribution to NATO's strategy of forward defence, seeking to contain and intercept Soviet maritime forces in the Norwegian sea before they could reach the wider expanses of the Atlantic.
As in the second world war, the submarine is likely to pose the greatest threat to our reinforcement and resupply routes, and it is in that connection that the massive expansion and modernisation of the Soviet submarine fleet constitutes such a threat to the West. I do not believe that the Soviet Union has any current intention of attacking NATO by land or sea, but, with its history of sudden changes in policies and leadership, we can afford to take no risks.
It is difficult indeed to see the huge build-up of Soviet submarines as part of a purely defensive strategy. In the 1970s and 1980s the Soviet navy has built up a submarine fleet of about 400, of which over 200 are nuclear-powered; and new submarines are still being completed at an average rate of about one every six weeks. However, it is not only the sheer size of the Soviet submarine fleet which poses a major potential threat to NATO. The new classes of SSN, such as the Sierra and the Akula, show clear design improvements over their predecessors; modern Soviet submarines are much quieter, making their detection increasingly difficult. At the same time, older submarines are being modernised and their capabilities significantly improved.
It is not surprising, therefore, that the priority for our major investment in the Royal Navy's equipment has been to provide an up-to-date capability for anti-submarine warfare. For this reason we have developed new weapon's such as the Stingray and Spearfish torpedoes, as well as greatly improved means of detection through towed arrays and other surface ship and submarine sonars.
Many forces contribute to the overall anti-submarine effort. Our nuclear-powered submarines will be crucial in the forward areas, and RAF maritime patrol aircraft will also have an important contribution to make. But surface ships are an essential part of that effort because they can remain on task for long periods, yet react quickly to contacts over a wide area.
HMS Cornwall, the first of the type 22 batch 3 frigates, well illustrates the scale of our investment in that area. Her weapons include a highly capable hull-mounted sonar and a towed array passive sonar that will enable detections of submarines to be made at very long range. She can then prosecute contacts using the Lynx helicopter armed with

1177
Stingray torpedoes. Finally, her comprehensive communication system enables her to assist in the co-ordination of an ASW battle with a variety of other surface, air and submarine units.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Many people will be pleased that the captain of Cornwall is Captain WrexfordBrown. Would he have been given accelerated promotion if in any way he had been responsible for losing his submarine's control room logbook?
Mr. Stewart: I do not want to speculate on the processes of promotion in the Royal Navy, but we have many good captains, and he is one.
HMS Cornwall is also well equipped in the anti-surface and anti-air roles. She is the first Royal Navy vessel to deploy the Harpoon anti-surface ship missile, and the first to deploy the Goalkeeper close-in weapons system for anti-missile defence, in addition to the well-proven Seawolf. That element of HMS Cornwall's equipment reflects the fact that the past year has seen a major step forward in the air defence of the Fleet, the universal importance of which has been demonstrated by developments in the Gulf. To that end, we have accelerated our plans for the introduction of Phalanx into the type 42 destroyers, and we also placed an order in January for full development and production of the lightweight Seawolf missile system.
HMS Cornwall is a good example of the point made in last year's Navy debate by my predecessor, that the acid test of the Royal Navy's ability to perform its role effectively is not simply ship numbers, but its overall capability. Nevertheless, as the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) pointed out earlier, there have been suggestions recently that we do not have enough operational destroyers and frigates, and that few of them would be available for the defence of the waters around the United Kingdom.
I am glad to say that the real picture is very different. Of course, some of our ships are engaged in tasks out of area, but they could be recalled in the event of an emergency. We currently have 49 destroyers and frigates in the Fleet, of which no fewer than 43 are available for operational deployment immediately, or within a short perod if required.
In addition to the nine frigates currently on order, we have now received and are assessing tenders for up to four more of the highly capable type 23 frigates. Looking further to the future, in January—
Mr. Frank Field rose—
Mr. Stewart: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman as he tried to intervene earlier.
Mr. Field: I am grateful to the Minister of State for giving way. Can he tell the House something about the Government's plans in relation to those four tenders? Is it still the Government's intention to order four boats? Will he give the House the assurance that when the Government decide which yards are to get the order, that will be done on the basis of cost?
Mr. Stewart: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a definitive answer to that question, because decisions have not been taken. However, I have no doubt that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence
1178
Procurement will deal with procurement matters, including the procurement of ships, when he replies to the debate, if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. He will have heard the hon. Gentleman's point.
Looking further to the future, in January the United Kingdom signed the memorandum of understanding for the project definition phase of the NFR 90 — the proposed NATO frigate which could eventually provide a replacement for the type 42 destroyer at the end of the century. In doing so, however, we have made it clear to our partners that our continued participation is conditional upon an agreement of a timetable that is both realistic in technical terms and consistent with the time scale for progress with the ship's major weapons systems.
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: On the point about the NFR 90, my hon. Friend will appreciate the enormous political significance that is attached to the commitment of the United Kingdom Government to a joint project with our NATO allies. I hope that he will assure the House that technical details — I know that some can be important—will not stand in the way of full-hearted co-operation.
Mr. Stewart: I assure my hon. Friend that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Ministry of Defence fully appreciate the international significance and importance of co-operation with our allies in equipment of that kind. Equally, I am sure that he would not expect us to agree to go full ahead with the project unless it was on a realistic basis, which is the condition that we have suggested.
Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: Will my hon. Friend tell us the Treasury's view on that matter?
Mr. Stewart: Having left the Treasury, I think that I shall leave the Treasury to answer for itself.
The plast year has also provided further proof of the unique capacity of the Royal Navy to support our interests and connections worldwide. Royal Navy ships, and especially destroyers and frigates, can be used for a variety of purposes on the international scene. On the way to and from tasks both in the NATO area and beyond, our ships are frequent and welcome visitors in the ports of friendly and allied states. A ship can be dispatched almost anywhere at short notice, if need be, and provide us with a range of diplomatic or military options. Indeed, history, including quite recent history, is full of illustrations of the usefulness and flexibility of sea power.
The Royal Navy's Armilla patrol in the Gulf is just the latest example. It has been a busy year for the patrol. Since our last Navy debate, seldom has a week passed without news of events in the Gulf, and in particular of the so-called "tanker war". Throughout the year we have seen on television the results of attacks on merchant ships in the Gulf, many of them innocent victims caught in the middle of the conflict. During this period, the Armilla patrol has continued to carry out its task in a quiet but effective way. In 1987, the patrol accompanied no fewer than 405 merchant ship movements through the Straits of Hormuz. No ship eligible for Royal Navy protection has been attacked while in the vicinity of the patrol. That is a record of which the Navy can be justly proud.
Mr. O'Neill: We are grateful for the protection afforded by the Navy of British ships in the Gulf. Will the

1179
Minister tell us what is the total number of ships that have gone through the Gulf and what proportion of them were British?
Mr. Stewart: I can give the figures, as I have done, for British shipping, but, in view of the large number of foreign ships which have gone through the Gulf, I am not sure whether I can provide an accurate figure. I require notice to reply to that point.
Mr. O'Neill: I understand that the information was made available to the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs and that 80 per cent. more foreign ships than British ships went through the Gulf. Our shipping is in a rather special position, largely due to the efforts of our men who are serving in the area and to whom we must be grateful.
Mr. Stewart: I believe that the hon. Gentleman is correct. I particularly welcome his comments about the contribution made by the Royal Navy in that difficult and dangerous area.
The House will recall that, at the end of July, a new threat was posed by mines laid in shipping lanes, one of which was to cause damage to the merchant ship Bridgeton. Shortly afterwards, mines were found off Fujayrah, within Armilla's area of operation. Accordingly, four Royal Navy mine counter-measures vessels were promptly dispatched to the Gulf in support of the Armilla patrol. During their operations to date, our minesweepers have successfully disposed of 10 mines, representing a major contribution to safety of navigation for all shipping in the area. Recently we have been able to reduce the number of our minesweepers in the Gulf from four to three in the light of our experience in operations to date and the very close co-operation which I am glad to say we have developed with allied navies, in particular the Dutch and Belgians.
I know that hon. Members on both sides of the House would wish to join me in paying tribute to the outstanding contribution made by those serving in the Royal Navy in the difficult and demanding circumstances of the Gulf. In recognition of those exceptional conditions of service, I am pleased to be able to tell the House that free aerogramme letters will in future be provided to all those serving in our ships in the Gulf area and to their families at home. I have asked the naval staff to make arrangements to introduce this service as soon as possible, and they expect to be able to do so within the next few weeks.
Last autumn, the Royal Navy's out-of-area capability, as well as that of the other two services, was thoroughly tested during Exercise Purple Warrior, the major triservice amphibious exercise held in the Irish sea and southwest Scotland. A force of 39 ships, including HMS Ark Royal, Illustrious and Intrepid, took part with two brigades and support from over 100 helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft. Twenty thousand service personnel took part, of whom approximately 10,000 were deployed ashore. The exercise was an outstanding success in many ways. In particular, the complex command and control structure of joint amphibious operations was thoroughly tested and proven, and significant benefits were achieved in integration and co-operation between the three services.
Having myself acted as host at a dinner in Stranraer to the 34 observers from 20 states which accepted the invitation to observe aspects of the exercise under the terms of the Stockholm agreement, I can affirm from my own experience the value which I believe those
1180
arrangements have in encouraging personal contact between representatives of Warsaw pact and NATO countries, something which I am sure can contribute to a lessening of suspicion and mistrust between us. Over the years that could prove to be one of the most important elements in improving the security of Europe.
Mr. Dick Douglas: I apologise for not being present to hear the Minister's initial remarks. Will he tell us whether any reciprocal arrangements might be made to watch the work of the Warsaw pact navies, particularly the Soviet navy?
Mr. Stewart: I do not know whether the Warsaw pact countries carry out amphibious operations in the same way as we do, but, as the hon. Gentleman will know, there is an arrangement whereby all exercises over a certain size automatically qualify for reciprocal observation under the Stockholm agreement. Western observers have witnessed some exercises on land during the past year.
Looking much further afield, I was very pleased to be able to announce a few weeks ago that the Royal Navy will be making a group deployment later this year to the far east and Australia. The task group is set to leave the United Kingdom in June, and the focal point of the deployment will be the Fleet review in Sydney early in October. Named Outback 88, the Royal Navy task group will consist of HMS Ark Royal, as flagship, with HMS Edinburgh and HMS Sirius, together with the Royal Fleet Auxiliaries Fort Grange, Olwen and Orangeleaf. It was a previous Sirius which led the orginal first fleet two centuries ago and it is fitting that her namesake will be able to represent the Royal Navy at the Australian bicentennial celebrations this year.
Throughout the six months' deployment the ships will exercise with the forces of our friends and allies, including two exercises with nations which are party to the five-power defence arrangements, and also separately with the United States navy and the Royal Australian navy.
The task group will sail and return via the Suez canal and on current plans the first point of call will be Malta. Thereafter, the deployment will include visits to Singapore, Brunei, Hong Kong and Thailand. Those visits will be a valuable opportunity for the Royal Navy to renew links with other navies and with countries which cannot easily be reached during normal operational tasking. They also provide an excellent occasion to display a wide range of defence equipment in a realistic environment, which I hope British industry will be ready to exploit.
While speaking of exercises, let me also say a word about the Falklands —a theatre in which co-operation between the three services has flourished, particularly since the construction of the new complex at Mount Pleasant. Exercise Fire Focus, which takes place this month, will be the first occasion on which we are able to exercise the procedure for reinforcement in line with the policy that we set out in our White Paper after the conflict in 1982. During the past couple of years, completion of the airfield and the development of contingency plans for the rapid reinforcement of the Falklands have enabled us to halve the size of the resident garrison.
Such a substantial reduction of the military presence in the Falklands serves to confirm that our purpose is entirely defensive, but, in the light of recent history, it would not have been a responsible step unless we were in a position

1181
to bring more troops to the islands at short notice in case of need. It is, of course, our profound hope that actual reinforcement of the kind that we will be exercising will never have to be put into practice, and I believe that the very fact that we would clearly be able to do so will help to ensure that such circumstances do not again arise.
Fire Focus will involve the movement of no more than one battalion group and a small number of aircraft, with fewer than 1,000 men in all. Although that is, of course, no indication of the numbers that might have to be moved in a real emergency, it is the minimum required to conduct an effective test of the process of reinforcement. Some of the stories about the scale of the exercise have been so enormously exaggerated, I am not surprised that they have given rise to misunderstanding in some quarters. Therefore, I am very glad to have the opportunity to set the record straight.
Mr. Dalyell: Will the Minister explain why, although 23 south American states have come out against the exercise, he has not managed to obtain the support of Washington for the exercise?
Mr. Stewart: International reaction to the exercise has been greatly coloured by the exaggeration of its scale. I would merely repeat, for the benefit of those countries where there may have been such anxiety, that we have decided to establish the exercise on the basis of the minimum required to make an effective exercise of the process of reinforcement, which we hope that we shall never have to use for real.
The Royal Navy's most important resource is, of course, its manpower.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Stewart: I have given way many times, but I shall do so again.
Dr. Godman: Before the Minister leaves the subject of the Falklands, may I ask whether there have been any occasions on which the Falkland Islands Government fisheries protection vessels have called upon naval vessels in support of their operations in policing the fisheries zone?
Mr. Stewart: We do not discuss operational matters. However, I have no doubt that the presence of a Royal Navy vessel in the area has contributed to the stability of the Falkland Islands conservation zone for fishery purposes. Incidentally, I think that it has been of great benefit to the Falkland Islands' economy, and that is something that we welcome greatly.
The Royal Navy's most important resource is, of course, its manpower. This country is outstandingly well served by the men and women of the naval services. Currently the Navy, the Marines, the Nursing Services and the WRNS number just over 10,000 officers and about 55,000 ratings in total. During recent years the Royal Navy has progressively transferred manpower and other resources from the base areas to the front line, and fighting ships and their direct support now account for 70 per cent. of the Navy's uniformed strength. The overall result is a much more streamlined and effective Navy than we inherited in 1979, and the drive towards great efficiency continues.
1182
That brings me to the question of recruitment and retention. When one considers the enormous demands made on the members of the naval services, particularly those filling appointments at sea, the retention rate for those very highly trained people is pretty healthy. The level of premature retirement applications has broadly stabilised during the past 18 months at a level far below that experienced when this Government took office.
The retention of trained people is, of course, crucial to our manpower plans, and we are always seeking to improve it. The stress of separation and service at sea are an inevitable part of naval life, but that does not mean that we should take their acceptance by our naval personnel for granted. Much has been done in recent years to consider the needs of the sailor at sea, and we are looking into possible ways of improving conditions of service for seagoers.
Mr. Sayeed: Will my hon. Friend confirm that, although what he has just said was true a year ago, the curve has, regrettably, gone the wrong way and that the retention rate of officers and senior ratings with mechanical and electrical qualifications is declining?
Mr. Stewart: The figures have been similar over the past 18 months or so. I can assure my hon. Friend that that is not something about which we are complacent.
Mr. John Wilkinson: Will my hon. Friend confirm that, broadly speaking, the projections for manning in the Royal Navy, as outlined in Cmnd. 8288, have been maintained, even though the numbers of ships have, mercifully, not declined to the extent anticipated? Will he please bear in mind the fact that that causes stresses and strains for the families of men in the Fleet and that everything possible must be done to ensure that the separations are not too long? If he does that, the premature outflow of people will be minimised.
Mr. Stewart: I accept entirely my hon. Friend's point about the problems of separation. Indeed, I hope that the words that I have already used will show that we recognise the problems that that can cause.
Last year was one of the most satisfactory for naval recruitment in a long time. We are not, however, at all complacent about that. Like many employers, the Royal Navy is conscious that a progressive reduction in the numbers of young people joining the labour market over the next few years is likely to pose a considerable challenge to recruiting. Many of the young people now seeking employment are well qualified and have high expectations of themselves and of any potential employers. The Navy wants their qualifications, and it provides a well paid and challenging career.
The Government remain committed to expanding the Royal Naval Reserve and the Royal Marine Reserve. It is to those men and women that the nation would look to provide an important element of our wartime manpower and, in the case of the RNR, to man the majority of its mine counter-measures forces. We appreciate that, with competing demands of work, family and activities outside the reserve, finding time is not always easy, and we are therefore grateful not only for the dedication of those concerned but for the understanding of the many employers who allow the reservists time off work to carry out periods of continuous training.
On Monday, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces announced the funding of a

1183
national television campaign to explain the attractions and importance of reserve service. I hope that will encourage more employers to recognise the debt we owe to those who join the reserves. We should not forget the civilian volunteers in the Royal Naval Auxiliary Reserve, which celebrated its silver jubilee last year. The importance of their potential role at key United Kingdom ports and anchorages in the event of hostilities is fully appreciated.
One of the most demanding, as well as one of the most vital, tasks which our sailors have to discharge is the maintenance on patrol of our Polaris submarines. Throughout the past year, as in every year since 1969, the Royal Navy has continued to maintain at least one Polaris submarine on patrol at all times, thus ensuring the constant readiness of our nuclear deterrent. Although the Government"s policy of maintaining the British strategic deterrent was so emphatically endorsed by the electorate last June, the present Leader of the Opposition is equally determined that it should be abandoned.
I hardly need remind the House that the Labour party's policy of one-sided nuclear disarmament would pose great risks for Britain. It is not only a dangerous policy; it is a profoundly illogical one. For the Labour leadership to claim that they would remain good members of NATO, while repudiating the whole nuclear dimension of NATO strategy, is simply dishonest.
The logical consequence of the Labour party's nuclear unilateralism would be to pull out of NATO altogether, and, as the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) suggests, to adopt a policy of non-alignment in defence and foreign affairs. To do as Labour proposed in the last election—scrap Polaris, cancel Trident, expel all United States nuclear weapons from Britain—in short, to deny the whole concept of nuclear deterrence, but at the same time to take shelter under the protection of the NATO nuclear umbrella provided by the Americans, is a nonsensical policy.
No wonder there is talk in the Labour party of trying to find some form of compromise. One idea is that Polaris and Trident should be negotiated away as part of the wider disarmament process. The fact is that, for the foreseeable future, the British nuclear deterrent is of fundamental importance not only to our own security but to that of NATO as a whole. By providing a second centre of nuclear decision-making, it greatly complicates the assessment of the consequences of aggression against NATO and so makes such aggression itself much less likely.
Another idea canvassed by some in the Labour party is that, regardless of multilateral negotiations, or if such negotiations were not to succeed, a Labour Government would negotiate Polaris and Trident away for equivalent reductions by the Soviet Union. As the Soviet Union would still have more than 10 times as many strategic nuclear warheads as the United Kingdom with Trident, even if the proposed START agreement between the superpowers were to reduce their number by 50 per cent., such a bilateral agreement between Britain and the Soviet Union would be worse than uselees.
If there are two parties to a duel, one of them with 10 bullets and the other with only one, it is an unequal contest. But if one has nine and the other has none, then it is no contest at all. In the words of the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore):
"It would be simply folly for Britain to unilaterally abandon its new Trident fleet. And it would he equally foolish for us to negotiate it away on a bilateral one-for-one basis
1184
with the Soviet Union. The arithmetic is obvious. The possession by both France and Britain of an independent nuclear capability remains a major counter and deterrent so long as the Soviet Union itself possesses nuclear arms."
It is good to know that there are still a few voices of sanity on this subject in the Labour party, but it is a sad fact that they are now so heavily outnumbered.
Ms. Joan Ruddock: I want to refer to the analogy that the Minister has made with bullets. The hon. Gentleman talked of our having one and the others having nine. What kind of contest would there be with nuclear weapons? How many nuclear weapons does he believe that Britain could use, and in what scenario would we use them?
Mr. Stewart: I thought that the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) was to be one of the voices of sanity among the Opposition, but I despair of that. She knows, as everyone in the House should recognise, that a nuclear deterrent is to deter war, not to fight it. We believe that the effective deterrent that we have maintained for the past 40 years is the best chance of making sure that a war in Europe does not happen again.
Mr. Cecil Franks: Before the Minister moves to another subject, may I take this opportunity to remind him of the complete contradiction of the Opposition's policies. In their general election manifesto, they committed themselves to cancelling Trident and phasing out nuclear energy, as well as increasing the hunter-killer programme, although those submarines are nuclear-powered. That is completely inconsistent.
Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Franks) is quite right about the inconsistency of the Opposition. It will not have gone without notice that whenever embarrassing subjects are raised, all the Opposition can do is to resort to barracking.
Mr. Denzil Davies: So that we can put the record straight, we have made it clear, in relation to civil nuclear power, that our policy is to phase it out. We also made it clear that, in relation to nuclear submarines and military use, we would retain nuclear generation for conventionally armed nuclear submarines.
Mr. Stewart: Let me conclude, as my speech has continued longer than it should have done, on a note that I trust will meet with more general agreement.
In all its roles, the Royal Navy makes just as important a contribution to our defences today as it has done for many centuries. We owe our respect and gratitude to all those whose skill and dedication continues to maintain the highest traditions of the senior service.
5.2 pm
Mr. Martin O'Neill: I start by echoing the Minister's appreciation of the sterling efforts of the senior service. I recognise that it often has a difficult job to do in hard conditions. I am not surprised that the Minister took the opportunity to set the record straight in this debate about Fire Focus. While he was opening this debate, I took the opportunity to read again what he said in the previous debate. Certainly, the small-scale operation in the Falklands called Fire Focus, which we have heard about today, is somewhat different from the first full-scale reinforcement exercise that was described so fulsomely in the Royal Air Force debate a few weeks ago. The Minister

1185
has taken rather a gung-ho approach, however, and his retractions today will not do anything to reduce the anxiety in Latin America, and indeed in the whole of America, about what is at least a gaffe by the MoD in building up the image of a modest exercise.
We recognise that if troops are in the Falklands they must be exercised and trained, but it is evidence of the bellicosity of the Government that the most puny little exercise is blown up by the tinpot generals on the Conservative Front Bench. They take every opportunity to preen and inflate themselves, although admittedly the present Secretary of State does not need the hairnet of his predecessor when he went on these excursions. Nevertheless, the Government take every opportunity to blow up the significance of their military activities, often in a destabilising way that causes far more harm than it is designed to avoid.
To return to the debate, I believe that Opposition Members and those on the Conservative Benches who participate regularly in defence debates—I can see some real kind faces there—value services debates. With the reorganisation of the Ministry of Defence, it was feared that the identity of the individual services would be lost. I expect that many of my hon. Friends who have served in the Royal Navy or who have constituency interests relating to warship building and other similar industries, always like to argue in these debates for further procurement announcements. Today, I am afraid that we shall have to wait until the Minister's wind-up for reference to the procurement side of the Ministry of Defence. There has been nothing so far, not even an updating or comment on the royal dockyards, which have been operating for 10 months under privatisation. I expect that some of my colleagues will wish to refer to procurement as the debate continues, and I hope that I shall be able to refer to some procurement problems that the Opposition thinks should be aired.
At present, despite the optimistic noises coming out of Geneva and meetings between American Secretary of State Shultz and his Soviet counterparts, there is still heightening tension in the northern waters and problems are being created by what is now generally known as the forward defence strategy. We realise that much of what has happened in the past few days in Brussels has still to be assessed properly, and we might have to wait until the Estimates debate before the outcome is considered.
We hope that the Prime Minister will report to the House the events of the NATO summit. One of the regrettable aspects of the conduct of Ministry of Defence affairs under this Administration has been the failure of Secretaries of State to make a statement to the House when they return from NATO meetings. If the Prime Minister does that on Monday that might be the start of a change in approach, and we might be given more information about what takes place at NATO summits.
Much of the discussion, as I understand it, at the NATO summit has been concerned with central Europe and the modernisation of compensation, call it what you will, for the short-range weapons. It is inevitable that the greatest interest shown by the countries that have been making the most noise will be in relation to central Europe. Nevertheless the United States, Norway and the United Kingdom must be aware that changes in the ladder of escalation, and the removal of some of the rungs of the
1186
INF treaty and subsequent changes will result in a significant heightening of maritime strategy. As a result of that maritime strategy being applied nearer to Soviet bases in the Kola peninsula, there will be increased problems, and dangers, which are recognised by Norway but seem to be ignored by this Government and the United States.
I realise that the capabilities which must exist to meet the perceived threats and challenges are the result of a compromise between resources and needs, but as long as we have the massive expenditure on the Trident programme, anything else we seek to do in the Navy will be gravely limited, which will have a deleterious effect on our contribution to the Alliance and will weaken the overall defence of these islands.
In the 1987 Statement on the Defence Estimates we were told that the Navy had four tasks:
"the interception and containment of Soviet forces in the Norwegian sea;
direct defence of reinforcement, re-supply and economic shipping, in conjunction with US and European maritime forces, and supported by the RAF;
anti-submarine defence of the NATO Striking Fleet Atlantic; and
protection and deployment of the combined United Kingdom/Netherlands Amphibious Force to reinforce the Northern Flank of NATO."
The first three tasks indicate a change in strategy. The Royal Navy is now integrated in the United States forward maritime strategy. Instead of using Royal Navy destroyers and frigates as convoy escorts, the vessels, together with the Royal Navy anti-submarine carriers such as HMS Invincible, HMS Ark Royal and hunter-killers, will attempt to fight the next war in the Norwegian and Barents seas. Their task will be to destroy the Soviet fleet, destroy the Soviet means of second strike and their nuclear submarines in their bastions, and to launch attacks on Soviet territory.
United States and Royal Navy ships are armed with a range of conventional and nuclear weapons. Their nuclear inventory consists of gravity bombs, which can be dropped by Royal Navy Sea Harrier aircraft, and nuclear depth charges carried by frigates and destroyers. An increasing number of sea-launched cruise missiles are being fitted to United States ships. In a crisis it is clear that the Royal Navy and US Navy warships would surge forward to apply coercive diplomatic pressure, to contain the Soviet fleet and threaten the Soviet means of second strike.
In peacetime, in order to prepare for the strategy, the Royal Navy and US navy warships are operating in the Barents sea, shadowing Soviet ships and submarines. The danger of the tactic of shadowing ships was illustrated just a couple of weeks ago in the Black sea, when two United States and Soviet warships were in very close proximity. The Royal Navy could be similarly involved in northern waters. While the Ministry of Defence is quite relaxed about that, I have gained the impression from talking to people in the Norwegian Government that they are not quite so relaxed about it and are far more acutely aware of the high-risk strategy in the northern waters.
Mr. Wilkinson: Is the hon. Member suggesting that the Royal Navy should deny itself the right of free passage in international waters just because of the risk of accident, collision or some other eventuality? Surely it is necessary that the navies of the free world should exercise their fundamental right in international waters?
Mr. O'Neill: The hon. Member is confusing the two issues. If he allows me to answer the question, he can make

1187
up his own mind. It is clear that the long-standing convoy protection and support role and the plugging of the Greenland-Iceland-Norway gap have long been accepted as legitimate tactics and part of the strategy for the defence of these islands and the Atlantic convoys. We are seeing a change in the strategy; a pushing further forward into areas where the Royal Navy is participating in ways that it has not done before.
The United States navy, under the direction of Assistant Secretary of State Lehman, developed the strategy as part of the campaign for the 600-warship navy. The Lehman approach was graphically described in a metaphor, which would probably appeal to the Prime Minister, as "bearding the bear in its lair". That is highly provocative and not greatly appreciated by the people of Norway. It could create problems and dangers in northern waters at a time when we are led to believe, according to "Jane's Fighting Ships" that the Soviet Union is curbing some of its activities in the Barents sea. There is a long report in today's "Jane's" about the way in which the Soviet Union has been reducing its activity. It is not clear what the motives are; seeking to adopt a lower military profile or attempting to save money, co-operation—
Sir Geoffrey Johnson-Smith rose—
Mr. O'Neill: When I finish the point, I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.
The point I am making is that even if we distrust and are suspicious of the Soviets, they appear to be seeking to reduce the tension in the northern waters. Gorbachev has already suggested having talks about reducing the tension. I am not one of those people who embrace everything Gorbachev says. He is not necessarily the kind of man we should do business with. We ought to put his remarks to the test, and the test can only be put in serious discussions. The offers made in Murmansk last October have not been taken up yet or adequately considered by the Alliance.
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: The hon. Gentleman has raised an interesting point. It is difficult to do justice to it in putting a question to him, but he should tell the House that the idea of moving our submarine force closer to the Soviets, into the Barents sea, is based not just on a provocative view of the Lehman strategy for the Navy but on the fact that Soviet technology has changed. The Soviets have gone further away from the United States with their submarines by developing long-range weapon strike systems. If we are to shadow their submarines, we have to move closer to them. It is a matter of geography and good naval tactics; nothing more or less.
Mr. O'Neill: The hon. Member could be answered by the point that we have Trident and the Soviets have their weapons systems. Perhaps if we were to talk seriously—I hope we will—in the context of START, in a year we could say that because of the reduction in the Soviet threat we could talk in a different context. On this point the hon. Member and I will have to agree to disagree.
At a time when there seems to be an opportunity for certain localised initiatives to be taken, it would be foolhardy of us to urge the Alliance to ignore the initiatives. That is the point I have been trying to make in the context of the Murmansk speech by Secretary Gorbachev. Our position is not enhanced by reports such as those in The Times of July last year which showed HMS Superb joined with the USS Sea Devil and USS Bullfish surfacing at the north pole.
Mr. Churchill: Why should not the Royal Navy submarines surface at the north pole and exercise their right of freedom of navigation on the high seas? It is typical of the appeasement policies of the Opposition Front Bench that just because a couple of Soviet warships in international waters should have deliberately collided with a couple of United States warships, they are now telling us that the Royal Navy should not be allowed to go anywhere close to Soviet shores.
Mr. O'Neill: I am sorry that I let the hon. Member in. I did so because I expected something more than the usual old claptrap, but I will respond on this point. Since that time, and since Gorbachev's speech in October, I do not think that such an incident has happened again, and for that I am grateful. I hope that this will mark a better understanding between the Soviet Union and the Alliance, instead of the provocative and—to use the expression I used at the beginning of my speech—gung-ho mentality that seems to pervade the Ministry of Defence.
Mr. Sayeed rose—
Mr. O'Neill: No, I have to make progress. The hon. Member will I am sure, be able to catch Mr. Deputy Speaker's eye.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. A lot of hon. Members wish to take part in the debate. Perhaps hon. Members who are waiting to catch my eye would save their interventions for their speeches.
Mr. O'Neill: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We know that Defence Minister Yazov will be meeting Secretary of State Carlucci in the near future to discuss strategy and military doctrine in its wide sense. According to press reports, one of the matters on the agenda will be the very point that the hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) has made. One of the encouraging things we see in prospect at a discussion of this nature is that problems of this kind will be discussed frankly. I only wish that the Government would assist this process by giving vocal support for this kind of discussion, because we have yet to see from the Secretary of State—who I am glad to see is in his place — any such expression of enthusiasm or support. It is from such informal discussions that the other things that we all want will develop.
I have referred to the forward strategy and deployment of our Fleet in northern waters. This stretches the capabilities of the Fleet and brings into question our ability to discharge our responsibilities in the other parts of the maritime strategy, as laid out in the Estimates. Obviously, the convoy support role is critical for two reasons: first, because we recognise that material has to be transferred in time of crisis from the United States to Europe, and, secondly, because it is with our Royal Navy above all that responsibility for that protection will rest.
We have heard from press and other reports that the Select Committee has been looking into this function and has been taking evidence. I do not think that we are at liberty to speak about this in any context but press reports at the moment. We see that this Fleet protection role is being gravely stretched and strained by the small size of our Navy. Members of the Opposition are not too clear about exactly how many craft are available to the Navy.
Some weeks ago we heard an estimate made by Mr. Desmond Wettern, who has a certain expertise in these matters. Over the years he has caused a fair degree of

1189
discomfiture to the MOD and has tended to require it to be more frank than it would otherwise be. In conjunction with the Maritime League—not an organisation that is noted for its appeasement tendencies, but a non-political organisation made up of people who are very strongly committed to the Navy, and enjoying the support of hon. Members from all parties—he set a figure of 28 ships being operationally available to the Royal Navy.
We have heard today that the figure is now 43. Yesterday morning I heard an official giving evidence to the Select Committee in which he said that the figure was 36, but it now seems that seven have been found overnight. It may be that we shall get another seven before the Estimates debate and get back to 50.
I believe that many Opposition and Government Members will want to come back to this. It is only the understandable, but in this case, I think, culpable, loyalty of many Government Members to their Front Bench that prevents their taking this up with the vigour that they might well show once they get the evidence properly sorted out by the Select Committee and its report comes out. I hope that that report will be available for the Estimates debate later in the year, because this is a matter that exercises the mind of anyone who has at least the best interests of the defence of this country and the maintenance of the good name of our senior service.
The fact that we have a smaller Fleet means that, of necessity, we need to have more people at sea for longer periods. This is one of the most distressing aspects of the impact of the cuts in our Navy, because of the damage that it does to the manpower and the morale of our service men and service women.
It might be said that the Minister's brief was somewhat economical with the truth in relation to figures concerning manpower. He said that they had stabilised. On 15 February I asked the Secretary of State for Defence questions about the numbers of Royal Navy artificers who had left certain branches in each year since 1979. I was told that in 1986, 70 air engineers left and in 1987, 75 left, while in 1979 the figure was 29. The figures for marine engineers were, in 1986, 371 and in 1987, 345. The figures for weapon/electrical engineers were, in 1986, 444 and in 1987, 357.
The numbers leaving prior to completion of engagement have been higher in some years than in others. In 1986, the figure for marine engineers was 189, and in 1987, it was 176. The figures for air engineers leaving before completion of engagement were 18 in 1986 and 22 in 1987.
These figures may well give the Minister some comfort. They may well have stabilised. And, of course, in every debate of this nature we are told what it was like in the days of the Labour Government. In the days of the Labour Government there were at one point 1·7 million people out of work, and by April 1979 that figure was down to just under 1·3 million. We are now talking in terms of 2·9 million to 3·5 million, depending on which set of fiddled unemployment statistics one chooses to base one's argument on.
If there is one rule of recruitment for the services it is that unemployment is the best recruiting sergeant. There must be something wrong with a service with such long-standing traditions, which over the years has had a great reputation for morale and has provided people with the
1190
best possible training, if people are continuing to leave in the numbers that they are, to the detriment of the service as a whole.
If we have strains on our Fleet, if we have a loss of manpower and morale, and if there is a time of crisis, we have to look for additional support for our Fleet, as we had to do in the Falklands exercise. We have to look to the merchant marine.
The somewhat inelegant acronym, STUFT, is a word that I would not normally use in this House, but for this purpose. Ships taken up from trade are the backbone of the support that our navy expects in a time of crisis. Certainly the military requirements are seen solely in terms of ships taken up from trade for direct naval purposes. Yet ships so utilised cannot be used for their primary transport function and could represent a significant drain on our vital shipping resources, especially the fast cargo liners which are vital for reinforcement and re-supply.
There were 193 British-registered large ocean trading vessels, that is container and roll-on/roll-off ships, in March 1987. I understand that the figure this year is expected to be about 130. This deterioration in numbers is significant for more than one reason, the obvious one being, that on the one hand, it denies us naval support and, on the other, the facility for transporting the material. What is also significant is that it denies us skilled naval personnel because, as we lose each ship, so we lose the services and the skills of trained merchantmen.
The de-flagging of ships and the recruitment, by some of the unscrupulous shipping lines, of cheap foreign labour to work in intolerable conditions, creates problems. I cannot see why poorly paid foreign nationals would necessarily want to come to the defence of this country, a country which has done nothing to improve their working conditions and pay.
Mr. David Martin: I hope that the hon. Gentleman makes these points to the National Union of Seamen before it calls its people out on strike and asks them to take other industrial action. There are major problems, and increasingly shipowners will be unable to rely on British crews if we have these strikes. So I hope that he will put these views very strongly to the National Union of Seamen.
Mr. O'Neill: If the hon. Gentleman is arguing a case for the low pay of British merchantmen, he can do so in Portsmouth and see what he gets for his labours. Hon. Members on the Opposition Benches believe that our sailors in both the merchant marine and the Royal Navy are entitled to the best possible working conditions, pay and opportunities for reasonable periods of leave at home —because the Government's policy means not just the removal of the opportunity for merchant navy support, but the problem that many of our naval seamen are spending far too long at sea and far too short a time with their families. That is, above all else, the reason why we are seeing this decline in manpower and morale.
The lack of resources can be attributed to the distortion of the defence budget by Trident. In the past few weeks we have had a series of disclosures. We have had the rent-a-rocket scandal. We do not yet know whether we will own all our D5 missiles or just 80 per cent. of them. We have gone through the arithmetic and we get the usual Panglossion stuff from the Minister, that everything is fine and up-to-date. According to reports which appeared in

1191
The Independent about production of warheads, staff shortages and the difficulties with the facility at Aldermaston, it is quite possible that there will be considerable delays in the production of warheads.
I know that the Secretary of State said recently that everything was up to date. This may well be true if he is describing the position that we are expected to be in at present, but we may well find ourselves before too long in the position of having the first submarine but no missiles or warheads; we will probably have missiles if the Americans are prepared to grant us them but not warheads because that is the British part of the operation and we cannot produce them in time.
Perhaps when he replies tonight, the Minister will confirm the position on the production of warheads for the Trident system. Perhaps he will tell us the position regarding the facility at Aldermaston. We have had these arguments before in this Chamber, and somehow the reasons are always based on either commercial considerations or security. It does absolutely nothing for security for the House to be given either evasive replies or obfuscating statements from the Government Front Bench. We want the position clarified. We believe that defence and security matters must of necessity be subject to a degree of confidentiality, but that this Government's desire to cover up and conceal is out of all proportion to the nature of the problems that we are discussing.
We had from the Minister, in the last few minutes of what I imagine he would seek to call his peroration, the apologia for the British nuclear deterrent, so-called. When the Minister replies, will he say to what extent in the Trident programme the Government have considered the consequences of a treaty being produced from the strategic arms reduction talks? If we have a 50 per cent. reduction — and all hon. Members would want such an eventuality—that would not be an end in itself but only a means to an end. We are entitled to some thoughts from the Government on how they would meet their responsibilities in a phase two of START.
It is certainly the intention of the present incumbent in the White House and of Secretary Gorbachev to seek to secure a nuclear-free world. We know that the Prime Minister does not like such talk, that she finds it completely otiose and unacceptable. It seems that other Conservatives in other parts of the world, in Moscow and Washington, are prepared to view this, with some equanimity, as something to be desired. So it will be useful if we can have some indications of the Government's thinking on this strategic matter. It ill behoves the Government to carry on addressing the problems of defence and security in a provocative and bellicose manner which completely ignores the change in the climate of world opinion and denies Britain access to any of the meaningful discussions that take place.
Our reading of the limited reports from Brussels is that, rather than being a triumph for the Prime Minister, the meeting has been a massive rebuttal of the Prime Minister and her Secretary of State — the man who went to Monterrey a few months ago, arguing not for modernisation but for compensation and ending up with "modernisation wherever possible".
Mr. Harry Cohen rose—
Mr. O'Neill: I am just about to finish.
The Opposition believe that what has happened at Brussels marks a turning point in the attitude of the
1192
alliance to those who seek to jack up the arms race at every turn. What is a matter for regret is the fact that, as long as the Government keep their head in the sand with regard to the Royal Navy we will have to go on raising the questions of the inadequacy of the surface fleet, the poor morale and the drop in manpower.
Hon. Members, not only on the Opposition Benches but also on the Government Benches, who have some affection and respect for the contribution that the Royal Navy makes to the country's defences, recognise that we have the wrong strategy and the wrong priorities. These in turn, cause some of our finest and most committed people to give up in disgust and disillusionment — something that we deplore.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I see that 20 or more hon. Members want to take part in the debate. Arithmetic suggests that if speeches average about 10 minutes we may avoid disappointments.
5.38 pm
Sir Antony Buck: I hope that the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) will forgive me if I do not go through what he has said in detail, but one thing I must say because he provoked me somewhat. He must recall the days when we Conservatives took over from the Labour Government and when service pay had sunk lamentably low. The lifeblood of our forces was being drained away, and applications for premature voluntary release were being made—as a former Navy Minister, perhaps I may be allowed this phrase—at a rate of knots.
The first thing that we did on coming to office was to deal with the pay of our armed forces. That at once stopped the outflow of what might have been described as middle management in the armed forces. Many chief petty officers, lieutenants and middle management were leaving, Admirals are important, but I think that all hon. Members would agree that the middle ranks are also vastly important. In the Army, sergeants, staff sergeants and captains are very important. It was the middle ranks who were leaving when we took office.
I am glad that the hon. Member for Clackmannan agrees. I find it a little rich that the hon. Gentleman should take us to task about a problem which has been dealt with in the past. I have every confidence that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will deal quickly with the matter if he thinks that the position is deteriorating. If not, it will be drawn to his attention by many of his hon. Friends and, I suspect, by Opposition Members. We will keep an eye on things to see that nothing too disastrous happens.
It is right and proper that we should continue to have single-service debates. Quite a few of us were worried about the reorganisation of the Ministry of Defence when single-service Ministers were abolished. One thing which appeased us and led us not to take too strenuous a view against the reorganisation was that we were assured that time would be made available for the House to home in on each service. I am glad that the procedure has been adhered to. We can deal with matters of some detail though not the minutiae. What would not be appropriate in a two-day debate on the Defence White Paper is appropriate tonight. I welcome very much the fact that the debate is taking place.

1193
We are proud that the Royal Navy is the custodian of our independent deterrent. As long as we remain in government, that will be perpetuated by the D5 unless there is a major breakthrough in the arms reduction talks on both sides of the iron curtain. The chances are that we shall be going for the D5. I look forward to hearing later from the Front Bench, but I understand that we are getting the D5 for the Royal Navy for the same reasons as the Labour party updated the deterrent when it was in power.
The Labour Administration updated the Polaris weapons system by bringing in the Chevaline system. They did so without telling anyone. It is rich for Labour Members to talk sometimes about lack of open government when a former Labour Administration did that. Some of us got wind of it, but we thought that it was not appropriate to blow it because we agreed with what the Labour Government were doing. They had such trouble with some of their own supporters that if we had let it be known that they were updating the deterrent, they might have been forced not to do so. We had a shrewd idea about what was happening but, for patriotic reasons, we did not let it become public. Opposition Members should not criticise us for lack of open government when we consider their track record.
Sometimes people ask if our deterrent is independent. Of course it is. Once it is operational, the deployment of the boats will be under our control. It is appropriate that there should be full co-operation with our allies about deployment, but in the last resort it is an independent deterrent. It might be difficult to paint a scenario in which we would want to use it independently, but it is useful to have it under our control. It is another centre of decision making. The tough men of the Politburo might think that if they were to attack us our American allies would not come to our assistance. While we maintan the capability of inflicting unacceptable damage on the other side, that makes us all the more secure.
I know that the Royal Navy is proud to have the independent deterrent within its control. It will be updated by going for the D5. I hope that in the reply to the debate we will be given more detail about cost. It is considerable, but as a proportion of the Defence Estimates it is relatively small; its importance transcends the small portion of the defence Vote which is necessary.
That might be described as the top end of the Navy requirement. At the other end I should be interested to hear what my right hon. Friend has to say about the number of frigates. There seems to be a muddle about the numbers game. I am not good at numbers; I am rather a matches man. Like Randolph Churchill, every time I see a decimal point I think of those damned dots. Various numbers of frigates have been bandied about. I hope that my right hon. Friend will clear the matter up. The British Maritime League has circulated a document on the Defence Estimates in which it suggests that the total number of hulls is 46 and that it is expected to drop to 41 —far below the 50 major vessels about which we have had oft-repeated assurances. The surface fleet is of vast importance and my right hon. Friend should give us more information about it.
The right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), a former Navy Minister, would have virtually done away with the surface fleet because he was hooked on the idea of the hunter-killer nuclear submarine as the
1194
battleship of tomorrow. We need a substantial surface fleet, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will tell us how many vessels he expects will be in service.
This is an occasion when we have the opportunity of mentioning the Royal Marines and their tremendous amphibious capability. They are deployed now, as they have been all along, in Northern Ireland. I think that 40 Commando has just gone there. It is appropriate in a Navy debate that we should pay tribute to what the Royal Navy and the Royal Marines do on the ground in Northern Ireland and what the Navy does through the Granada patrol which prevents gun-running into the Province.
Perhaps in his reply my right hon. Friend will deal, too, with the deployment of the Royal Marines on Carlingford lough, which is very important. That was suggested by some of us much earlier to stop gun-running across the lough. I understand that the ship that was there has recently been replaced. I hope that in his reply my right hon. Friend will tell us how the Royal Marines are operating in South Armagh, which is often known as cowboy country, and will update the position on the Granada patrol. In these debates we can deal in more detail with such matters than is appropriate on the Defence Estimates.
The royal naval school at Holbrook is not often mentioned in the House. I have had the privilege of being on the board for a considerable time. When I was a Navy Minister I was chairman of the governors on the board of management, on which I still serve, together with Opposition Members. I greatly admire that school, which vastly values its connection with the Royal Navy. It is valuable in providing recruits, although not in large numbers, and particularly in providing the children of seafaring folk with a good, sound and fairly robust education. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will have a word to say about that.
It has been suggested that that school should be co-educational, and I think that that would be a very good thing. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy), who is a former Navy Minister, shakes his head. I know that Opposition Members are deeply conservative about these matters. Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I believe in co-education. We have a very good school in Holbrook and it is right to pay tribute to the work that it does.
I promised that I would be relatively brief, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I end as I began, by paying tribute to the calibre of the personnel in the Royal Navy. Whenever I visit a frigate, shore establishment or the Royal Marines, I am amazed at the professionalism, keenness and pleasantness of the young men in our armed forces. One might argue that too high a proportion of our best young people go into the armed forces, but I would never deploy that argument. It is a fault for the good that so many high calibre young people go into the armed forces. I am glad that we can focus attention this afternoon on the Royal Navy, with which we are all very proud to be associated.
5.50 pm
Mr. Ted Garrett: I am probably the only hon. Member to have been on two of Her Majesty's ships in the past two weeks. I refer to the visit to the Tyne of HMS Ark Royal, and, last weekend, HMS Illustrious. Both ships have completed their tour of duty in northern waters and are now making their way south for a short period of leave. I was impressed by the enthusiasm with which the ships were received on Tyneside. Swan Hunter,

1195
the prime shipbuilder in the country, North Tyneside borough council and the Tyne and Wear development corporation made arrangements to ensure that the ships came up the river and were berthed safely and that their crews enjoyed the traditional Tyneside hospitality.
It crossed my mind that in a year or so at least one of those ships would be coming up for a refit. I am sure that Swan Hunter will submit a tender if invited, and I hope that the Minister will consider that tender carefully. If he does, he will not only get the ship into the right place and a good job done on it at the right price but he will get it returned to the service in the time allocated.
The affection of the people in my region for the senior service has long been established. For generations, men have served on famous ships built in the region. Both HMS Ark Royal and HMS Illustrious were built on the Tyne, and when I made my layman's tour of inspection, both ships presented a clean and smart appearance. I shall not dwell on the subject of morale. All ranks were present at the receptions after the tours. I am a bit of a chatterbox, so I talked to many of the men. I found that morale was good. Not one of the men raised the issue of pay.
I talked to chief petty officers who were ending their period of office after 22 years. I even met one who had served 25 years. I talked to men of different ranks and in different appointments who had served for 17 or 18 years. They enjoyed their work.
The Minister will be pleased to know that I talked to the one Royal Marine on HMS Illustrious. It shook me to realise that there was only one Royal Marine on a ship of that size, out of a crew of about 1,260. When I asked him about it he explained to me, with a pained expression, that he was only the link man and that, if necessary, the same vessel could carry 800 men into active service virtually overnight.
We should not exaggerate the problem of pay in the services. I think that the pay is about right and that even if it is not, the tales that we hear about people drifting away from the services because of the pay are slightly exaggerated. But I know my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) disagrees.
I am rather disappointed that the Minister did not refer to AOR 2, the contract for which is still up for grabs. I recall the arguments that took place over the contract for AOR 1. I should inform you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the AOR 1 is the auxiliary oil replenishment vessel, and AOR 2 is a similar ship to AOR 1.
Mr. Sayeed: Thank you, Ted, but we know what an AOR is.
Mr. Garrett: Well, they are different ships and slightly different designs. The amateurs will have to smarten up—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should remember that I did two and a half years in the Royal Navy.
Mr. Garrett: In that case, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you should have checked me earlier, because I am sure you knew what an AOR was.
After keen lobbying, the contract for the AOR 1 went to Belfast. Some people in the north suspected that that was for political reasons and that it was not to do with competition. The contract went to Harland and Wolff. I
1196
understand that that ship has not been completed within the stated period and that there is an overrun on cost. If that is so, why has not the Minister told us about it?
Is it not time that the ship was towed away from Harland and Wolff and brought around to Swan Hunter for completion? Will the Minister see whether that is possible? We have done that in the past. We took HMS Cardiff from somewhere else and finished it to schedule. The Swan Hunter group deserves AOR 2 and it will get it by competitive tendering.
I am trying to stay within the 10 minutes suggested, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I should like to deal with the four frigates. I think that they should be ordered in one batch. That would be better than giving one to this yard, one to that yard and one to the other yard. Such a decision would be partly political and probably a bit more expensive than allocating the four orders in one batch. Swan Hunter has undergone dramatic changes since privatisation and is now fit and lean. No doubt it will compete with any other yard in the United Kingdom and I am confident that it will get the order if the four frigates are allocated in one batch. If that happens, the savings to the taxpayer will be considerable.
I do not know much about the NFR 90, although we look forward to its coming into service. Perhaps the Minister will give us an idea of the time scale for this European-designed vessel—if it ever comes to anything, bearing in mind our experiences of the European Economic Community. As I understand it, it will not come into operation until the end of this century or the beginning of the next century, but I gather that feasibility studies are taking place. Can the Minister tell us what progress has been made with those feasibility studies? I believe that the House is entitled to know.
This afternoon mention has been made about encouraging volunteers to the senior service. I recall that, some two years ago in a debate about the Army, I mentioned men who were unemployed volunteers finding the financial incentive of such service blunted because of tax claims on their allowances and bounties and the fact that their unemployment benefit was deducted. I gather that, since then, that problem has been partly resolved. I believe that that problem was a disincentive especially in areas such as the north of England and some parts of Scotland and Wales, where there are some first-class volunteers for the armed services.
I believe that there should be no hindrance with regard to the financial provisions made available to such volunteers. If I have any influence with the Chancellor I hope that when he makes his Budget Statement on 15 March, he will say that all earnings that volunteers receive for their services will be exempt from income tax. Those volunteers are committing their time and leisure to the services, and they should be exempted from such tax.
With those remarks, I shall leave the rest of the debate to my colleagues, who I am sure will be prodding the Ministers for their views on some urgent matters.
6 pm
Mr. John Wilkinson: It is a fortunate coincidence that the Navy debate is taking place at the same time as the NATO summit. This is an accident, but it gives us an opportunity not just to deal specifically with Royal Navy matters, but also with the maritime strategy of the Alliance to which the Royal Navy makes an important contribution.

1197
The Minister of State for the Armed Forces gave an extremely lucid account of the Government's thoroughly responsible stewardship of the Royal Navy. It was a somewhat nuts-and-bolts account, as is fit and proper for a single-service debate. However, I believe that the House all too rarely has the opportunity to debate maritime strategy and that is what I wish to discuss tonight.
I believe that it is absolutely right that, at the summit in Brussels, the leaders of NATO should address themselves to the most pressing issue which the Alliance faces—how to render our overall deterrent effective in the new era into which we are entering after the decision, in principle, taken between General Secretary Gorbachev and President Reagan to sign an accord to eliminate land-based intermediate nuclear forces. That decision renders more important rather than less the contribution of the French and British national deterrents and of sea-launched nuclear deterrent systems to the overall Alliance deterrent.
At subsequent summits I hope that the leaders of the Alliance will address themselves to another pressing and urgent matter—how to secure a more equitable sharing of the burden of Alliance defence among the members of NATO.
Mr. O'Neill: The hon. Gentleman has been extremely careful in his use of words and he mentioned sea-launched missiles. Would he include cruise missiles in that category, or is he talking about existing or prospective French and British deterrents? We have had discussions about sea-launched cruise missiles and I remember that the former Minister of State was strongly opposed to those missiles because of verification problems. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is developing a theme, but I believe that it would be useful to examine his premises closely before he develops his argument further.
Mr. Wilkinson: I was implying that we would do well to recognise that the Soviet Union has a formidable sea-launched nuclear cruise missile capability as well as an increasingly formidable strategic ballistic missile capabil-ity. Furthermore, NATO will become more reliant rather than less on sea-launched systems such as Trident and the new generation of modernised submarine-launched missiles coming into service in the Royal Navy, together with the force de frappe of the French Navy.
In the long overdue process of re-examining roles and responsibilities within the Alliance, I hope that its European members in particular will come to terms with today's reality, the decline of American economic power. That decline has been coupled with a decline in the ability of our United States ally to undertake all the roles and responsibilties upon which we have come to rely. It has been extremely useful and convenient to us that, in the 40 years in which the NATO treaty has existed, our American friends have been the dominant partner in the Alliance. I am sure that they will remain so, but it is clear that America will not, for ever and for aye, be able to do all the things which we have found so militarily convenient in the past.
If we consider burden sharing within the Alliance rationally and coolly, we recognise certain cardinal facts. The first is that the United Kingdom is the sole nation among the leading countries of Europe, either East or West, that does not have any form of conscription or
1198
national service. Secondly, we are geographically placed in a special position to the rear and flank of the Alliance. Thirdly, due to history and the development of our economy over the years, we are, especially in comparison with European members of the Alliance, dependent upon access to overseas markets and overseas sources of raw materials.
NATO strategy has been extremely effective and the strategy of flexible response has, to date, thank God, deterred war in Europe, but as the challenging document produced by the Iklé commission on integrated long-term strategy points out:
"the strategy has also had some setbacks. Soviet power has bypassed the lines we drew and has pushed into Southern Asia, the Middle East, Africa, the Caribbean and Central America."
The Soviets have learnt the potential of long-range power projection, which air power and, above all, sea power afford. The Soviets have made gains, in part because of the enhancement of sea and air power at their disposal, and access to positions of considerable strategic influence world wide.
I do not believe that the threat to our security interests rests above all on the central front. I believe that the threat is multi-dimensional and global and that this threat will grow unless the Alliance finds appropriate means to contain it. For Britain it means that we should revert to a strategy that is flexible and makes use of the special skills and talents which are afforded by professional, long-service Regulars. Navies and air forces require levels of technological competence and the ability to operate sophisticated equipment which are not found to the same extent in armies.
We have noticed with great interest the ever closer understanding on defence matters between the Federal Republic of Germany and France. Anything that brings two leading European members of NATO closer in co-operation is to be welcomed. French strategic doctrine is evolving so that they, through the force d'action rapide, are better able to support the Germans on the central front.
We, however, are finding it increasingly difficult to maintain the present level of commitment—to which we are required to adhere by the Brussels treaty—of 55,000 men and a tactical air force on the central front, given that our defence budget is declining in real terms. The consequence is that our strategy is inflexible. We are faced with choices which are extremely difficult to make and which threaten an imbalance in our overall defence planning.
To take one example, the press—in particular, The Independent—has suggested that we need another 500 Challenger tanks for the British Army of the Rhine. I do not believe that tanks in situ on the north German plain are the most effective antidote to armour. Intelligent munitions, fire-and-forget weaponry, and above all air power are the best antidote to armour, particularly for a defensive Alliance which does not know when or from where the threat will come, and which will need to concentrate the maximum force against it. This is particularly so for an island maritime member of the Alliance.
We risk an imbalance, and it must make it harder—to take a maritime example—to provide the necessary

1199
replacement of the amphibious vessels, Intrepid and Fearless, with purpose-built amphibious vessels of some new class in the near future.
The threat is not just global, but in the European area it seems highest on the northern and southern flanks. The Mediterranean flank of the Alliance, from the Balkans to the Iberian peninsula, is politically unstable. The North African littoral has regimes that are unpredictable at best and potentially dangerous at worst. The Soviets, at the northern extremity of Europe, have the greatest concentration of military power anywhere within the Eurasian land mass on the Kola peninsula.
The hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill), in a most interesting speech, challenged the forward naval strategy. I am sure, for good naval reasons, as explained by my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith), that it is necessary for us to deploy forward naval forces. To do so presumes, first, a willingness to get those forces in place early enough, and, secondly, that the Alliance retains control of northern Norway. Without the control of Norway it would be hard for NATO to win a future battle of the Atlantic. One does not need to read Tom Clancy's stirring tales to recognise the basic strategic truth of this fact. It is particularly important that we should be able to reinforce our Norwegian friends because they do not allow nuclear weapons or foreign troops to be stationed on their soil in peace time.
We should recognise the fact that an equation which was already loaded against us on the northern flank may be made even more unfavourable if our Canadian friends, for understandable reasons, go ahead with their declared intention no longer to commit a sea-transportable brigade and two air squadrons to the northern flank.
It is high time that the leaders of the Alliance sat down and coolly and rationally reappraised roles and responsibilities within NATO. As part of that reappraisal, Britain should do more at sea and somewhat less on land in central Europe. The Statement on the Defence Estimates for last year pointed out that we spent no less than £3·757 million on the central front and only £2·632 million on our maritime commitments to the east Atlantic and channel command areas.
We need, as the Defence Select Committee under-stands, to keep our surface fleet up to date. Perhaps above all, we need to be the leading nation among the European members of the Alliance, with a formidable attack submarine capability, as that is the best instrument against hostile submarines.
Last but not least, we need maritime air power in its fullest dimensions from organic naval air power to land-based maritime patrol aeroplanes to counter the ever-growing Soviet submarine threat.
We should never forget that the defence of western Europe rests not only on the Weser river but is ultimately secured by the ability to reinforce western Europe of our friends and allies in the United States. Without a secure bridgehead across the Atlantic, no long-term defence of our continent is possible, and no effective deterrent can be maintained.
The debate has come at an appropriate time. It brings home to us the key role that our strategic nuclear forces play, which are now embodied in the Polaris force and which will shortly he embodied in the Trident D5, which
1200
the Royal Navy is to acquire. It makes us think more deeply, in a changing strategic scenario, about how Britain can better play its part within the Alliance.
I am sure that the logic of all those arguments, which will be carried through in a spirit of goodwill in the Alliance, should lead us to modify our strategy to do rather more at sea, which our allies would welcome, particularly those who are potentially most exposed, such as our friends the Norwegians, on the northern flank.
6.8 pm
Mr. James Wallace: I am sure that the House is grateful to the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) for giving his views on the strategic considerations in this debate. He highlighted—I am sure that this fact is known to all hon. Members—the growing strength of the Soviet navy, not only in terms of its increasing number of vessels but their increasing sophistication. That poses challenges to the strategy to be adopted by NATO in response.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the build-up of forces in the Kola peninsula and the consequences of that. If it is thought necessary to develop a strategy of more forward defence in that area, one should take into account the problems that it raises. Inevitably, such action is perceived as being a more aggressive and more offensive posture than if we were to adopt a position further back.
When there is concentration of so much military might, particularly in times of tension, the risks are very high indeed. We hope that the Government will try to support initiatives to increase confidence-building measures with regard to naval action. For example, the type of notification that is given, which was agreed in September 1986, for land-based exercises could be extended to sea-based exercises. There should also be an exchange of observers for those exercises. Such measures would make some contribution to reducing possible tension in the area. We all welcomed the INF agreement, the first historic reduction in nuclear arms.
Mr. Duffy: This is a debate on the Navy.
Mr. Wallace: I was corning to that.
The INF agreement was limited to land-based nuclear missiles. Inevitably, the next round of talks will include strategic missiles, many of which are sea-launched. No one would suggest that Britain should put Polaris or Trident on the negotiating table in the first round of talks seeking a 50 per cent. reduction. However, in the second round, we may well be asked to make a contribution, and it would be welcome if the Government would say whether they would be prepared to join in, and consider what concessions they would be prepared to make in the event of Britain being asked to play a positive role in disarmament.
In recent weeks there have been alarming reports in the press of incidents relating to the civil aspects of the nuclear submarine force, rather than to the nuclear weapons, such as the incident at Faslane on HMS Resolution. The hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) may well try to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to discuss the alarm that that caused in his constituency. I shall deal with the matter on a more general basis.
Obviously, for reasons of security, there is not much open discussion about the nuclear propulsion of many of our naval vessels. HMS Vulcan is situated immediately

1201
opposite my constituency, and there have been trials of a PWR reactor there for some time. When it was proposed by the civil nuclear authorities to build a reprocessing plant at Dounreay, the public inquiry was the longest in the history of Scottish planning. However, military nuclear installations can go ahead and develop without the need for any of the public discussion which would be required for a civil development.
After Chernobyl, there is undoubtedly considerable public anxiety about the nuclear industry. I hope that the Government will become increasingly open about the incidents that occur on board nuclear submarines, and about the nuclear developments that take place in their establishments.
In the Clyde area public safety scheme, the Ministry of Defence estimated that maximum design accident is likely to occur once in 10,000 years of reactor operation. We were not told the technical basis for that. It almost certainly predates the comment of the safety chief of the International Atomic Energy Agency who recommended that the chance of an accident causing severe core damage must reduce by 10 times for existing plants. That brings the likelihood down to one in 1,000 operational years. We have already had 200 operational years, so the chance of an incident resulting in severe core damage seems inevitably to be increasing. Therefore there must be more openness about the incidents that occur so that there can be greater discussions among scientists.
We should like to see details of the incidents referred to in the main article in today's edition of The Guardian. It would be welcome if the Ministry would update the figures, which only go as far as 1979. The figures suggest that up to then 475 incidents had occurred. We should like to know how many incidents have taken place since then.
Clearly, the operation of nuclear reactors requires the highest training of the men involved. That applies equally to training for the use of the increasingly sophisticated weaponry and electronic equipment. The hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill), in a question answered on 24 February, elicited some important information about some worrying trends. The hon. Member for Bristol, East (Mr. Sayeed) also mentioned that highly trained people are leaving the Navy.
Why is that happening? What studies is the Department making into why men who have been trained at great public expense are now leaving the Navy? Is that trend reaching such a proportion that, although we shall have sophisticated equipment, in future there will not be sufficient men able to use it? Clearly, that goes to the heart of naval operations. There is little point in working out strategies and buying expensive hardware if we cannot retain enough skilled trained men who can use that equipment.
A number of hon. Members have mentioned the surface fleet. I seek a further assurance from the Front Bench that the Government's commitment to a surface fleet of about 50 frigates still remains. It seems that over the years the commitment has been reduced from 50 frigates to "about 50". There are doubts about when "about 50" becomes "about 45" and about whether the fleet will be reduced to the lower forties from the upper forties. It would appear that the present ordering rate is only about half the number that would be needed if we are to maintain our
1202
fleet of about 50 frigates. The response appears to be that many older vessels are to be kept in service for much longer.
That may be one solution, but the equipment on those vessels should not remain as it was. There are new and developing threats, and it is essential, if we are to keep older vessels, to ensure that they will use modern equipment and weaponry that will be able to meet the new challenges and threats posed by any potential aggressor.
Finally, both sides of the House have paid tribute to those who serve in the senior service, and on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends I too pay tribute, not least to those who currently serve in the area where they are most at risk—the Gulf. We have had a naval presence in the Gulf for some time, which was increased with the heightened tension at the end of last summer when, quite clearly the Iranians were planting mines.
It is a credit to our Navy that the quality and skills of our minehunters were internationally recognised. I certainly welcomed the action taken by the Government when they agreed to send out more support and protection to our merchant fleet. I stopped to consider that, if the Government had not done that, and if British merchant vessels had been involved in an incident and lives had been lost, those who challenged the Government's wisdom in sending out an additional minehunting force would have been first to complain that the Government were not performing their duty in providing adequate protection to our merchant fleet.
At the time, reasonable fears were expressed that by having a larger military presence in the Gulf, we could be sucked into the conflicts that were taking place there. Fortunately that fear has not materialised, but we should be ever conscious of it.
Although we have had excuses or explanations that it is almost impossible to integrate our vessels and create a United Nations naval presence in the Gulf, it is still worth making further efforts. Of course there are problems of integrating control and command, but the international threat to shipping is not necessarily directed at any particular country. Once mines have been laid, they can damage or destroy vessels from any country. The threat is to the international community, and the response could well be international. I very much hope that the Government will consider whether a United Nations-based naval presence could be created to police that very dangerous and tense area.
6.29 pm
Mr. Cecil Franks: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to speak in this debate. Conscious as I am that many hon. Members wish to speak, I am sure that I shall be forgiven if I concentrate on one aspect of naval defence — the Trident programme.
The nuclear deterrent has kept the peace in Europe for over 40 years, and I welcome the statement yesterday from Brussels at the summit meeting of NATO reconfirming our commitment to the nuclear deterrent.
It is perhaps worth while reminding the House that it was a Labour Government and a Labour Cabinet who, in 1978, took the decision to replace the aging Polaris fleet with the Trident submarine and missile. That decision is in stark contrast to the Labour party's policy statement in

1203
the 1983 general election, and in even starker contrast to the Labour party's 1987 manifesto pledge to cancel forthwith the Trident programme if elected.
It is perhaps worth while also reminding the House of the total contradiction which came then, and still comes, from the Opposition Front Bench. Unless there has been a change of policy, the Opposition are committed to phasing out nuclear energy on land, but are apparently committed to increasing nuclear energy at sea because the money that the Labour party reckons would be saved by cancelling the Trident programme will be committed to building more hunter-killer submarines that are nothing more and nothing less than floating nuclear power stations.
The decision having been taken in 1978 to replace Polaris with Trident, the first long lead orders were placed in 1981 and 1982. By 1983, 500 of the work force at the Vickers Shipbuilding and Engineering company's yards in Barrow were working on the Trident programme. That figure has increased year on year so that over 5,500 at today's date are working on the Trident programme and over 9,000, when the programme reaches its peak in 1990–91, will be employed on the construction of Trident.
The order for HMS Vanguard, the first of fleet of the Trident submarines, was placed in April 1986, and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister came to my constituency in September that year to open the new ship hall and ship lift and to lay the keel of the first Trident submarine. I understand that that project is proceeding on schedule and on time.
The order for HMS Victorious, Trident II, was placed in October 1987 and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State laid the keel in December 1987.
The launch date—by then, the traditional method of launching a submarine by a slipway will have been replaced by a ship lift which lifts and places the ship or submarine in the water—for Trident I is the spring of 1991 with a delivery date and commissioning by the Royal Navy in mid-1993.
Trident is being built by a privatised company. It is salutary to remind the Opposition that the most successful part of the naval defence contracts from the Ministry of Defence has, for many years, been the Vickers Shipbuilding and Engineering Co. Ltd. in Barrow. The Ministry of Defence has benefited from the company's privatisation. It is well managed, there has been an increase in productivity and it has a good work force. Perhaps no better example can be given of the new spirit and confidence than that 83 per cent. of the employees, when they had the opportunity in March 1986, bought shares in the new privatised company.
One of the interesting points that has emerged from this debate, contrasting it with earlier debates, has been the total silence of the Opposition Front Bench on the cost of Trident. I can well remember sitting in the House time after time listening to the wild figures being perpetrated by the Opposition. It is less than two years, perhaps less than one year, since we were being told by the Opposition that the cost of Trident would be £15 billion. In fact, the latest figures, given last month by the Ministry of Defence, show that there has been a reduction in the cost of Trident to just over £9 billion. That is at an exchange rate of $1·62 to the pound, which is lower than the current level, which has applied for some time. Whilst it is dangerous to make forecasts on the cost, from the experience of the past two
1204
or three years one can confidently expect the cost of the Trident programme to decrease rather than increase in real terms.
Mr. Dalyell: If Trident is so important, how does the hon. Gentleman explain that on 5 February part of Trident was lost from the deck of a ship off the Mull of Galloway, and in his own constituency next day, lo and behold, other parts fell into the sea? How is such carelessness explained?
Mr. Franks: I am sure that the management of VSEL would be more than delighted to have an explanation. That incident involved a subcontractor in Scotland. I gather that a part of Trident III was lost off the coast of Scotland, and, in a second incident on the same day, part of Trident II was lost off Walney Island, Barrow. I understand that efforts are being made to locate those lost parts. Their loss certainly had nothing to do with the VSEL management. I am also informed that they are currently being replaced, so the schedule, timing and production of Trident II has in no way been jeopardised.
Trident is extremely cost-effective. At its current cost, Trident will take 3 per cent. of our total defence budget and 6 per cent. of our equipment budget. At its peak, that will rise to 6 per cent. of our defence budget and 11 per cent. of the equipment budget. I remind the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O' Neill) that on 2 February 1987 he told the House:
"spending on new equipment as a consequence of Trident will fall by 30 per cent. in real terms between 1984–85 and 1989–90 and that by 1989–90 Trident will account for about 24 per cent. or 25 per cent. of expenditure on new equipment." —[Official Report, 2 February 1987; Vol. 109, c. 712.]
Those were the hon. Gentleman's words 12 months ago. He has been extremely prudent to remain silent in 1988 on the cost of Trident.
Mr. O'Neill: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for preventing me from remaining silent. He is selective in his use of the English language, which I would expect from an English lawyer. I expressly referred to the new equipment budget. The hon. Gentleman has referred only to the equipment budget. Those are two different items. I do not have the figures with me, but I think if the hon. Gentleman reads the earlier part of my speech he will find that I drew a distinction between the two and it is consistent to talk in terms of new equipment as distinct from what he is talking about. We were saying then, as we do now, that Trident will account for 30 per cent. of our new equipment budget in the peak expenditure years.
Mr. Franks: I take that comment with the same pinch of salt that I took the cost of Trident being £15 billion.
I remind the House that the last submarine in the Trafalgar class, which is nuclear-powered with a conventional weapon, has been ordered and that its launch will be in 1991. I am pleased that the shipyards have recently been invited to tender for SSN 20, the successor to the Trafalgar class of hunter-killers, and I thank the Secretary of State for that.
I want to close my remarks by asking the Opposition to state clearly and unequivocally, in this debate, whether the Labour party is still committed to the cancellation of the Trident programme.
Mr. O'Neill: Yes.
Mr. Franks: I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman has said yes and I am sure that his comment will have been noted by many people.
Mr. O'Neill: The election commitment by the Labour party to abandon Trident still stands.
Mr. Franks: I am even more grateful that the hon. Gentleman took that opportunity to clarify his first monosyllabic reply. His words will come back to him over and over again during the coming months and years.
I close by reminding the House and the country that successive generations have enjoyed something that my generation did not—peace. I can well remember being a young child in the war years, and I can remember the horror of those years. Generations since have taken for granted the peace which we secured in 1945. We would be utterly foolish, and remiss in our duty to future generations, if we lightly abandoned our independent nuclear deterrent just to satisfy the political whims and philosophies of a moribund Opposition.
6.41 pm
Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: Unhindered use of the high seas worldwide, as well as in the north Atlantic, is vital to this country and all the nations of the Alliance. Raw materials essential to our survival come from all over the world. Worldwide tonnage of trade has tripled in the past 20 years, and 90 per cent. of it is seaborne. On the other hand, we are faced, in the Soviet Union, by a nation virtually self-sufficient in raw materials, with secure internal lines of communication. We cannot escape the fact, therefore, that in peace and war our ability to traverse the oceans with least risk is an essential element of the Alliance's ability to survive.
Yet for more than two decades Soviet maritime capability has been expanding at an unprecedented rate. We have not kept pace with that increase, and the former worldwide numerical superiority of the NATO nations' maritime forces slipped from 3:1 in 1949 to 2:1 in 1964, until today we are not sure how thin the margins really are.
There must be a logical explanation for this Soviet maritime build-up, which is far greater than that needed to defend the homeland. Whatever moderate and reasonable intentions we may read into the Soviets and their Warsaw pact allies—and in the case of detente and disarmament we unhesitatingly do that—it is important to look beyond those intentions at their capability. Capabilities provide options, while intentions can change overnight.
Soviet naval programmes reflect two priorities. The first is to expand forces ideal for sea denial. The second, as the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Franks) reminded the House in an interesting speech, is to create greater depth in Soviet power projection capability. In the event of a NATO-Warsaw pact confrontation, the pact's major sea goal will be to deny the allies the use of the Atlantic sea lanes. That consideration is reflected in the composition of Warsaw pact naval forces. The underwater threat today, for example, is as great as it was in 1942 and 1943. I remember how dark and grim those days were. It is only now, with complete access to archives on both sides, that we have the full picture. But submarines today are much more sophisticated than they were then. So the scale of the problem is similar to that which faced the allies in those dark days.
1206
In spite of advances in methods of detecting submarines and the effectiveness of the weapons used against them, operational research in world war 2 showed that the submarine threat could be effectively countered only by adequate numbers of escorts and aircraft operating together as an integrated ASW force. Within the NATO Alliance, our country has the prime responsibility for providing those ASW assets, and more and more people are questioning whether we any longer have adequate numbers. We have heard that already tonight from the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) and from the hon. and learned Member for Colchester, North (Sir A. Buck), a former Minister with responsibility for the Navy.
In the event of crisis, shipping will be exposed to the submarine threat unless the routes are secured by adequate escorts and ASW assets. All that shipping will be at the mercy of the mine, too, unless routes are also secured by NATO's mine counter-measures forces. It is on the doubts that have been entertained by many hon. Members—as well as by people outside the House — about the adequacy of escort and mine counter-measures vessels that I want to speak tonight.
In 1980, under a £1 billion modernisation programme, it had been intended to replace the existing obsolete mine warfare vessels with at least 50 new hulls. To date, perhaps only half of that planned number of ships has been ordered, and contracts due for the next four vessels of the SRMH type have been deferred until 1989.
I have tried to outline three maritime perspective. First, the sea is a unique international highway, a dynamic medium on which conditions change daily. Secondly, the freedom to use the sea in peace and time of crisis is vital to this country and the Alliance. Thirdly, the build-up of Soviet maritime capability far beyond its needs to defend its homeland poses a big threat to Alliance security. Alliance security in the maritime context, and in so far as it would devolve upon Supreme Allied Commander Atlantic would relate first, to the northern flank; secondly, to the reinforcement and supply of Europe; and thirdly, to support for the shallow seas campaign in the area between the United Kingdom and continental Europe. Yet the greatest shortfall in SACLANT's force levels — I remind the Minister of this; it is known to some of his colleagues — is in escorts. No amount of carriers, submarines or aircraft can prevail without the support of those escorts. Their lack degrades the ability of the other forces.
The 1987 Statement on the Defence Estimates spells out some of the Navy's tasks, but, in view of what I have said, I must ask how those commitments are to be met. The Minister claimed that 43 destroyers and frigates were available to the Fleet. He did not say that they were operational, or how they are assigned, or in what category. It is only that sort of information that will convince some of us of how far—
Mr. David Martin: The Minister said:
"43 are available for operational deployment immediately, or within a short period if required."
Mr. Duffy: That is why I asked the Minister for further information. Without it we shall not be reassured—and neither will some of his hon. Friends.
The reader of the Estimates is invited to turn to various tables showing the current strength of the Fleet and the number of ships completed orordered in the previous

1207
financial year. I remind the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Martin) that there are 54 destroyers on operation, or on standby, or undergoing refit, but two of them, the Aurora and Naiad, which are listed as fully operational, were paid off for disposal last April before the statement was made available to us, and perhaps even before it was published.
The destroyer Fife was disposed of seven weeks later in June. The frigates Sheffield and Coventry were not due for completion until this year. Similarly, the total of 32 submarines includes two, Orpheus and Sealion, which the House had already been told were due to be paid off last year for scrap or sale, along with the ocean survey ships Hecla and Hecate, which were also listed as operational.
From that, one can see what a confusing picture we are given by those Defence Estimates. A footnote shows that the main elements of the standby squadron which, incidentally, was revived only two years ago with a fanfare —the frigates Leander and Galatea—are also on the disposal list. The hon. Member for Portsmouth, South then pondered on the kind of disposal list that his hon. Friends on the Front Bench are already drawing up for next year. My information is that it could run to as many as seven ships.
As the House has already been told once this evening, a British Maritime League survey shows that the surface fleet is quoted as being at
"its lowest ebb in the Navy's history".
The people responsible for making that judgment care just as much as we do. They are not trying to degrade the Government. They say that only 28 destroyers and frigates are ready to meet commitments worldwide. We all know —we have just been reminded—that the position will only worsen as the average age of the Fleet increases. We also know—some of us keep reminding the House, and have done so for several years — that the rate of ordering new ships is falling behind the rate at which older ships leave the Fleet.
Exercise Purple Warrior was intended to try out the services' capability for amphibous operations outside the NATO area. It reiterated a number of lessons—none of them surprising — but whether such lessons are acted upon by Ministers will give a fair indication of how much the Government's avowed intention to maintain an amphibious capability can be taken seriously, because to date the Government have yet to place a design study. I know that they have set some money on one side, but the design study itself is the second step for which we are all waiting.
Not a single aircraft order was placed last year, nor is there any mention in the Estimates of the crucial importance of the Sea Harrier and Lynx modernisation programmes. Both are key elements for the maintenance and effectiveness of the British contribution in the east Atlantic.
The Minister made questionable claims about outflow and retention. The total number of male officers in all the services — there is no individual service breakdown —leaving prematurely at their own request rose in 1985–86 to 1,223 compared with 1,094 in the previous year, while the figures for service men increased from 6,113 to 7,215, yet we all heard the Minister claim that the position on outflow and retention was stable. That simply is not true.
Despite the Government's much publicised intention of two years ago — reiterated last year— to boost the strength of the volunteers in the Royal Naval Reserve by
1208
40 per cent., the total number of male volunteer reservists on 1 January last year was 4,200—the same as in 1986, 200 more than in 1985, but 100 fewer than in 1981. We now know — and the Minister knows — that those reservists, unlike former reservists—I used to be one—are now a key element in the manning of the Fleet, and we need them.
In view of the time, I must come to a conclusion, but there is much more that could be said about the Estimates that would call into question some other statements that have been made this evening. I hope that if hon. Members cannot recall their earlier reading of the Estimates, they will return to them, because they deserve study. However, I think that the House has already got the impression that they are out of date, and I hope that we are not asked again to debate Estimates that are so woefully out of date.
The world gave a sigh of relief in December with the signing of the intermediate nuclear forces agreement. If it is succeeded in June by the signing of a START agreement, the world will have become a safer place in which to live.
One has only to look at events in the Gulf, however, to realise that, no matter to what extent East and West agree, to reduce their arsenals, there will still remain the need to retain some form of conventional forces simply to protect legitimate trading interests in areas of hostility. Much of the world's economy is still tied up in shipping, and it is the shipping routes which are a nation's jugular vein.
So, while the world can indeed sigh with relief at the reduction in the nuclear arsenal, there can be no let-up, certainly in the foreseeable future, in the need for a nation to maintain adequate maritime forces with which to protect its maritime interests. The failure of the Government to maintain adequate maritime forces, especially in respect of the surface fleet and in particular escort vessels, gives rise to grave concern, even on the part of many of their supporters.
6.55 pm
Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy). I have, as done on several occasions. As one would expect from a former Defence Minister, he is thoroughly well-briefed and not a single hon. Member in the Chamber doubts his interest in the Royal Navy or his determination to see an improved and strengthened Royal Navy in the future—and, of course, many of my hon. Friends agree with much of what he said.
I listened closely to the speech of the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill), who was also thoroughly well prepared. Listening to both those hon. Members, I thought of a line from Matthew Arnold about
"The unplumb'd, salt, estranging sea."
How wide the gap is between those two hon. Members and the 100-plus members of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament who have now joined the parliamentary Labour party. Those members of the Labour party decry service life and tradition whenever they get the chance and are contemptuous of NATO and our nuclear forces.
One is tempted to say something about the defence policy of the new party that has emerged in our midst. However, some of my sporting colleagues might say that that would be shooting at one-day-old chickens, so, although there is plenty of ammunition lying around, we shall wait for the official open season.
On hearing the meaty, almost fulsome, Front-Bench speeches, the main course, I thought that there might be

1209
a little role left for me as a sort of choccie going round with the coffee, but then I heard that the hon. Member for Clackmannan is coming back for seconds. He has had about three buns in between.
I shall try to be short and sweet. The Whips, who are always the waiters at these meals, tell me that there is increasing reluctance among new Members to take part in defence debates. Apparently, there is a feeling that it is all getting rather technical and difficult. I am not sure whether I entirely believe that. I have not noticed that my colleagues are overawed by speaking in public life when they do not know all the arguments and all the facts. I should like to think that, like me, they keep in their locker that marvellous quote by Gladstone:
"Expert knowledge is limited knowledge."
I draw to their attention also the words of their Lordships of the Admiralty at the beginning of the 19th century when they formally stated that they regarded it as
"their bounden duty to discourage to the utmost of their ability the employment of steam vessels".
My great grandfather was captain of HMS Warrior, which has since been restored, so I am sure that he would have wished to enter that debate.
In the 1920s, their Lordships
"saw no use for aeroplanes".
I am glad that they had changed their views by the time of the landing at San Carlos.
I shall confine my remarks to nuclear weapons—those obliterating weapons of our age. I make first the almost trite remark that, once they have been invented, we have to learn to live with them because they cannot be disinvented. I have heard President Reagan, and a Soviet diplomat, talk about the ultimate elimination of nuclear weapons. Either that is childish or they are deliberately misleading their people. I do not believe that there is the slightest chance that we shall suddenly wake up to a world without nuclear weapons. If we did so, the one country that then reinvented nuclear weapons would be able to blackmail its neighbours.
Admiral of the Fleet Lord Chatfield once said that the grand fleet of his day was the queen of the chess board. Even though it remained in harbour, it dominated the game. I like to think that our Trident submarines will be the queen of the chess board and that they will stop that game of chess ever starting.
In an article in The Times of 6 February 1985, Lord Lewin wrote:
"Spreading Trident's running costs across the three services might allow the Navy to run 12 extra frigates, the Army four more armoured regiments (55 tanks per regiment) and the RAF perhaps one more base of 50 Tornados. Adding 220 tanks to NATO's 13,500 when the Warsaw Pact order of battle is 42,600 is not a dramatic swing in the military balance. These marginal increases in NATO's conventional capability might cause the Soviet planners to recalculate how many days a conventional war might last. For the same cost, Trident can convince them that war is not worth starting."
Perhaps, as a sailor, Lord Lewin was rather optimistically expecting that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would say that if we do not need that money for nuclear weapons, then we can have it for tanks and frigates. I do not think that the Treasury is quite like that. I have never accepted the argument that we need nuclear weapons to sit at some mystical table, and I hope that Ministers do not use that argument.
1210
I believe in the principle of a NATO defence deterrent. One Western European country should have that deterrent as well as the United States of America, and that country must be part of NATO. It will not be West Germany. It is us, and the Royal Navy seems to be the ideal service to have that awesome responsibility. I am absolutely convinced that we are right to have a Trident nuclear force in the future.
I wish to turn now to the INF agreement. I suppose that that was the obvious layer of weapons to seek to remove. I remain to be convinced that it was the best layer of weapons to seek to remove. For the first time in our history, we have reduced a whole range of weapons, which is enormously important. Like Harold Macmillan, I believe that, in politics and in life, one must offer some light at the end of the tunnel. For the whole of my lifetime, we have been piling up nuclear weapons on both sides and at last have removed some of them.
In a speech in Strasbourg in May 1979, which has been much seized upon by CND, Lord Mountbatten had these wise words to say:
"To begin with we are most likely to preserve the peace if there is a military balance of strength between East and West. The real need is for both sides to replace the attempts to maintain a balance through ever-increasing and even more costly nuclear armaments by a balance based on mutual restraint. Better still, by reduction of nuclear armaments, I believe it should be possible to achieve greater security at a lower level of military confrontation."
That puts the case clearly and effectively.
Many of us have received letters from the Nuclear Weapons Freeze campaign in Britain. Superficially, Freeze is very attractive, but I am sceptical. Surely, in the history of warfare, individuals, armies and navies have sought to modernise and enhance their weapon systems, whether they consist of bows and arrows, cannons or tanks. To have a national policy of wear-out and rust-out, at a time when the Soviets are building up their own armed and nuclear forces does not seem to make much sense. It does not take into account either the fact that they are improving their ability to shoot down our missiles.
I hope that we shall continue to resist what appears to be the attractive option of holding back on modernisation. At the same time, I say bluntly to my hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench that I see no case for compensation to make up for the departure of those intermediate nuclear weapons. I think that the money could be better spent elsewhere. I do not think that a strong case has been made out, and I hope that it will be resisted.
We are at a very exciting time in the defence world. Great changes are taking place which worry the practitioners in the defence world because they do not like the uncertainty. Genuine disarmament, much talked about, is now happening before our eyes. I hope that we shall be cautious. There is no need for haste. It seems to be important that NATO should design and create some over-arching strategy of policy under which we can operate.
I leave my colleagues with this thought. Much as I respect what Mr. Gorbachev is trying to do, and much as I recognise the changes that are taking place in Soviet society, I wait to see the first rouble being knocked off that ample Soviet defence budget.
7.6 pm
Mr. John McFall: It is a great privilege for me to speak in the debate because the Clyde submarine

1211
bases at Faslane and Coulport are in my constituency. Polaris and Trident do not give me great comfort, but more than 6,000 people in my constituency work on them. I am accountable to my community and am proud to speak on its behalf in this Chamber.
My remarks will reflect two or three main issues — first, accuracy, in the light of my experience in the past few weeks when dealing with the Ministry of Defence; secondly, truthfulness; and, thirdly, accountability to Parliament.
With regard to accuracy, if one lives in Dumbarton, the statistics produced by the Ministry of Defence since 1980 do not give one great comfort. I concur with the sentiments of the Select Committee on Defence which, in its report of April 1987, stated that very little indication is given as to how taxpayers' money is spent. That applies to the building of Trident in my constituency. In 1980, we were told that the cost would be just over £5 billion. The latest estimate is just under £10 billion and, when it comes into operation, I am sure that we shall see a figure of some £15 billion.
The Select Committee's report also refers to contracts. It stated that, in 1980, when Trident was commissioned, 70 per cent. of the contracts would be undertaken by United Kingdom contractors and 30 per cent. by United States contractors. However, according to the Audit Commission in July 1987, 236 contracts have been awarded in the United Kingdom at a total of $62 million. It stated that that was very disappointing in view of the magnitude of the project.
Accuracy has not been forthcoming on the issue of jobs. In 1980 we were told that 25,000 to 35,000 direct jobs were at stake with Trident. The report of the Select Committee on Defence shows that the figure has gone down to just 9,000 direct jobs and 7,000 indirect jobs. The statistics represent a considerable decline in the original optimistic assumption. Is that inadvertent or is it by design? It is not for me to make the decision on that.
Little accuracy has been provided for my constituents who live in an area where economic deprivation prevails and where unemployment is 20 per cent. and has decreased only marginally in the past few months. Indeed, the areas closest to the Clyde submarine base such as Helensburgh and Greenock have suffered increasing unemployment in the past year.
I would contend that the Ministry of Defence has little accountability to my constituents. Yes, there was the 1984 environmental impact assessment, but nothing tangible has come out of that other than to say that when Trident is finished there will be fewer jobs than we had to begin with. The MOD did provide a nine-mile private road in Glen Douglas, but that does not prevent the bulk of my constituents from suffering noise, dirt and environmental disruption. There are 1,000 journeys a day up and down my constituency and there is no recognition from the MOD of the impact that that is having in the area. There is no financial compensation. There is precious little comfort for my constituents.
The missiles are now being serviced at King's bay, Georgia. I appeared on a television programme last week with the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker). He was introduced as the Scottish defence spokesman for the Government. I have a transcript of the programme before me. He said:
"What we said before Trident came into being in the early part of the last Parliament was that it would create more jobs.
1212
But, of course, we then ran into the most appalling opposition from all the local opponents, particularly politicians in Strathclyde, who declared their area and Dumbarton nuclear free zones. So, we decided, quite properly, that we could save a lot of money—and a lot of jobs were lost because of that—by having the missiles serviced in the United States."
I ask the Minister to support or reject that statement.
Perhaps I can help the Minister. I went to the Library as a result of that statement and discovered that on 9 September 1982 John Nott said that, because of the great advantages of commonality between the systems in the United Kingdom and United States, the Government would have the missiles serviced in King's bay. According to the press release from the MOD, the main reason for that was that it would produce savings of millions of pounds. They said that they would continue to communicate with the trade unions on the matter. If the MOD is to have a Scottish defence spokesman, it could tell us whether he is economical with the truth or economical with intellect. The Scottish public deserve an answer.
In the United States, the committee of appropriations assigned $3·1 million for the local community as compensation for the disturbance caused by the work around King's bay. The magnitude of the disturbance around the Clyde submarine base and my Dumbarton constituency is as worthy of compensation as the disturbance in King's bay, Georgia. If the MOD has any feelings for the local community, it should consider making a payment such as that. The approach of the United States contrasts strongly with the ad hoc attitude of the Ministry of Defence.
I shall now deal with truthfulness and the warhead convoys in my constituency. The MOD has never admitted that such convoys exist. I have been put off the road by one of those convoys going through my constituency. My young son was in the car and he asked what it was I said, "That is nothing. You do not see anything because the Ministry of Defence does not accept that anything is passing through my constituency. It will not tell me about that." Therefore, we saw a non-existent convoy. That story created great amusement among my son's school friends.
In the week of the general election the local papers in my constituency were saying that the return of a Labour Government would mean the loss of 4,000 jobs at the Clyde submarine base. I tabled a written question on 8 December and the Minister said that there would have to be a loss of jobs but that the Government were looking at alternative employment. I was intrigued by that answer, and on 15 January I tabled three more written questions asking how many jobs would be lost each year, what type of alternative employment were being considered by the MOD, and how many jobs could be generated by alternative forms of employment. I am sad to say that I did not receive an answer other than that of 8 December. The Government have recognised that there will be job losses, and it is incumbent on them to tell my community what is in store for it.
I should also like to deal with the question of truthfulness surrounding the incident on HMS Resolution on 26 January. The MOD said that it was an "electrical malfunction". As the Minister knows, I contacted him on the matter and I thank him for his answer. I said at the time that I did not necessarily accept what was said in the newspapers. I still hold that view. I said that I wanted candid and truthful answers. An exclusive report on page

1213
1 of The Guardian today provides a little hope on that front. We are now told that 700 such incidents occurred in the first 16 years of operation.
In a spirit of co-operation and moderation, I ask the Minister to explain what was meant by "electrical malfunction." Did it mean that a fuse had to be replaced? Was it on the microwave, the submarine or somewhere else? The Minister's answer was bland and he was doing a disservice to the MOD and to my constituents.
In the light of the report in The Guardian, I feel that we may never really know what happened on 26 January on the Clyde submarine base. One thing is sure: something happened. The incident was minor to the MOD, but it was major to the people living in the area and to those who have an interest in defence.
One would hope that one would be reassured by looking at the material in the Clyde public safety scheme. However, I have before me the announcement that would be broadcast after an incident. It says:
"An accident has occurred … which has resulted in the release of a small quantity of radioactive products."
Irrespective of the magnitude of the incident, that phrase is to be used. I do not consider that to be appropriate for the whole range of accidents that could occur.
Over and above the incident of 26 January and the questions that should follow, there are other issues. There is the need for co-operation, the need for honesty and the need for information. As a constituency Member of Parliament, I shall be giving those needs high priority. I give the MOD notice of that and it had better be aware of it.
7.19 pm
Mr. Churchill: It can only be a matter for regret that the hon. Member who has the honour to represent the constituency of Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) should be so vehemently opposed to the activities that are taking place in his constituency and the enterprise of some 6,000 of his constituents.
The debate today on the Royal Navy takes place against the backdrop of a relentless Soviet build-up at sea and in other spheres of military activity. As the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) pointed out, the build-up at sea by the Soviet Union is far beyond any requirement for self-defence. It can only be disturbing that expert analysts agree that so far—and I must emphasise the words "so far" —there is no evidence of a slackening in the furious pace of build-up of the Soviet war machine, on land, in the air and at sea. They continue to outbuild the entire inventory of Britain's armed forces every four months.
Mr. Cohen: On just that point, may I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to Jane's Defence Weekly, which, in its edition published today, says that there has been a reduction in the Soviet efforts at sea, which the hon. Gentleman has described as a build-up. Their programme has slowed down substantially, especially in relation to nuclear-powered craft.
Mr. Churchill: Evidence is not available at present to show that what the hon. Gentleman says is correct, although I very much hope that such evidence will be available in the coming months.
Mr. Denzil Davies: In view of the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the relentless build-up of Soviet naval forces, does he agree that it would be a good thing if naval forces on both sides were included in the talks on conventional arms stability? It would obviously be to our advantage to achieve a reduction in that build-up.
Mr. Churchill: It is important that our disarmament should be on a step-by-step basis. It was right for us to start with INF and to continue with the START agreement, which I hope will be signed later this year. In terms of the build-up in Europe, it is essential to bring Soviet forces on land, both conventional forces and those with short-range nuclear and chemical capability, into line with those of NATO. Ultimately, I have no doubt that it would be desirable if we could agree on some form of balance at sea, but that is not and cannot be the highest priority.
I warmly welcome the improvements in East-West relations, especially between Britain and the Soviet Union, which have taken place since my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and Secretary-General Gorbachev have come to power. There are those who say that Mr. Gorbachev's approach is merely a ploy to persuade the West to lower its guard. I happen to disagree. I believe that Mr. Gorbachev, although this is surmise on my part, is sincere in his wish for better relations between East and West and in his desire to see expenditure on armaments reduced in the Soviet Union in favour of civil programmes.
But the decisions affecting military security in our nation, and which our Government and the House are required to take, can be based only on perceived capabilities, as has been said by hon. Members on both sides, rather than some supposed intentions of a potential adversary. It certainly cannot be on the basis that today the Secretary-General of the Soviet Union is smiling, and therefore we can afford to stand down significant elements of our improvements for the Royal Navy or any other part of Britain's armed forces.
Who knows whether Mr. Gorbachev will be here in five years' time and what pressures there might be within the Soviet empire as a result of the withdrawal of Soviet forces from Afghanistan? What message will that send to the occupied nations of eastern Europe? There is every danger that one could be moving into an era where Mr. Gorbachev's glasnost is in danger of undermining everything that he hopes to achieve and, indeed, his own position, although I certainly wish him well in his endeavour, which is important for mankind as a whole. But who can tell whether circumstances might push him aside and bring back a cold war, where tanks again roll into Budapest, Prague or possibly into Warsaw? In those circumstances, we would rue the day that we had lowered our guard, whether in Britain or among our NATO allies.
Under this Government, the power of the Royal Navy beneath the sea has been growing apace. We have 15 nuclear-powered fleet and hunter-killer submarines, 12 of which are operational at present. That represents a potent and important capability. The construction of the Vanguard submarines for the Trident missile and submarine programme is going ahead to plan, with the second boat under construction already.
When the Minister winds up, perhaps he will tell us whether there is any truth in recent press reports that all is not well with the warhead programme that is under way at the Atomic Weapons Research Establishment at

1215
Aldermaston. There have been suggestions that the programme has slipped by a year, or perhaps two years. That could turn in turn require refitting of one of the Polaris boats beyond the time scale that had been previously planned. Any reassurance that the Minister can give that that is not the case will be most welcome.
It is true that the Trident submarine will carry significantly more warheads than the Polaris boats do at present; that is undoubtedly necessary, because the relative increase as between Polaris and Trident is no greater than the increase taking place over the lifetime of the Polaris boats in the Soviet nuclear missile fleet at sea. But if good progress is being made by the submarine forces of the Royal Navy, the same is not the case for the destroyer/frigate force.
The surface fleet of the Soviet navy has been growing relentlessly in strength and capability over the past 20 years. Meanwhile, the surface fleet of the Royal Navy has been significantly reduced under successive Governments, to the point where today we have only 49 frigates or destroyers available with the Fleet, and three of those already exceed their supposed lifetime of 25 years. This is no wonder, when we have an ordering rate that has slumped in the past five years to little more than one ship a year.
One must acknowledge that inevitably a hiatus will occur when moving forward to a new generation of vessels such as the type 23, but if the ordering rate has been only one per year, instead of the three per year which is the rule of thumb for the Ministry of Defence to maintain a 50-destroyer frigate navy, the rate of ordering must go above three per year if we are to get back to the Government's target of a 50 escort fleet.
I agree with the Government's commitment to maintaining 50 vessels. The difference of those extra 10 ships will give the Royal Navy the flexibility to deploy around the world. Without those 10 additional frigates or destroyers, the Royal Navy would become almost entirely a home-based fleet chasing submarines in the north Atlantic and it would have to jettison on a major scale its worldwide commitments out of the NATO area. We would no longer be able to maintain a ship, or two ships, in the Falklands or a guard ship in the Caribbean, and we would certainly not be able to undertake the very frigate-intensive Armilla patrol, which makes an important contribution to the protection not only of our vessels but of all vessels in the Persian Gulf going about their lawful occasion.
That is the sort of operation in which the Royal Navy should be involved, but if we were to allow the number of escorts available to the Royal Navy to slip from about 50 to about 40, those capabilities and commitments would have to go. That would be a devastating blow to the Royal Navy, to our country's capability and to our standing in the world.
I have no doubt that the Government fully intend to honour their commitment of a 50 destroyer/frigate fleet, but I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister in winding up the debate will spell out clearly how that will be achieved, because between now and 1992 some 11 of the Rothesay and Leander class frigates will have reached retirement age, and I understand that there will not be 11 new vessels joining the Fleet between now and 1992. I hope he will tell us what the Government foresee the frigate/destroyer force slipping to before they start to build up with new
1216
orders and also tell us what the new rule of thumb is to be if it is not that three frigates or destroyers a year must be ordered to maintain about 50 in the destroyer/frigate fleet.
The debate is important, and the men and women of the Royal Navy look to us to maintain their capabilities. Much has been said about the threat, but one element of it has been largely ignored — the threat from the Treasury. That threat is pressing and immediate, and I strongly urge my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his colleagues resolutely to resist it.
7.34 pm
Mr. Nicholas Brown: The hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) has continued his great family tradition of being unfair about the Labour party. Nevertheless, it is a pleasure to follow him.
Mr. Frank Cook: Not too far.
Mr. Brown: Of course, and not along the same lines.
I agree with what the hon. Gentleman said about the size of our surface fleet, but I hope he will forgive me if I do not follow him in the remarks he made about strategy or the size of the Soviet fleet. I would like to make a few points, as old hands in these debates would expect, about the size of our fleet and procurement.
The debate is dominated not by the decisions that the Government make on defence expenditure but by their decisions on public expenditure. It is clear from the response of the Ministry of Defence to the Treasury's outline of public expenditure that it will not be possible for the Ministry of Defence to meet its current commitments from its current allocation. The Ministry of Defence has already stated that there may have to be some rescheduling of equipment purchases. Those of us who follow defence matters, with or without constituency interests, know what that means for the Royal Navy.
When I was elected in 1983, the Government used to speak of their commitment to 50 surface vessels. That commitment has altered to about 50 surface vessels, so it has shifted slightly. It is difficult to get accurate figures, but some of us think that when the Government compile the figures they include HMS Victory, to make matters seem a little better than they are.
Different figures float around. It has been said that we have a surface fleet of 43 and a surface fleet of 36, with or without HMS Victory. My hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) suggested that the operational fleet was fewer than 30 vessels — he said 28. If one excludes other commitments, that would mean that fewer than 20 surface vessels — possibly 17 — could be committed directly to NATO. The Government will say that the number is larger, but, if it is larger, it is also very much older.
The hon. Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend) said that Opposition Members never miss a chance to disparage service men. I very much resent that. It is not a fair way to address Opposition Members, particularly those who regularly take part in defence debates.
Mr. Frank Cook: Some of us served in the forces.
Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) says that some hon. Members served in the forces, but I am referring to hon. Members of my generation as well.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Tim Sainsbury): My hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend) said that the 100 Opposition Members who are members of CND wasted no opportunity to disparage the services.
Mr. Brown: I am not a member of CND, but I do not accept that, because hon. Members are members of CND, they would automatically disparage the armed services. That contention is wholly untrue and unworthy of the Government Front Bench. It is perfectly possible to respect the role of conventional service people and believe in unilateral nuclear disarmament. I am surprised that Government Front Benchers, for reasons of guile, or for whatever reason, should pretend that they cannot grasp that point.
Mr. Peter Pike: Is it not a fact that in the CND nationally there are many people who served this country in the last world war and have served in subsequent incidents since, giving great service to their country, and who believe that nuclear defence is not defence but pretence? That is what they are opposed to, but they are still very patriotic and wish to see Britain maintain its independence.
Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I am surprised that the Government feel that they cannot acknowledge that point. Indeed, Government supporters ought to be ashamed of themselves for not acknowledging that important point.
The main theme of my speech is the size of the surface fleet. It is traditional that, in opening a debate such as this, the Minister comes to the Dispatch Box and makes whatever procurement pledges he can. It is very disappointing to those of us who want to see our service men not only properly equipped but equipped with the most modern weapons that our country can provide to find that the Minister has no new procurement statement to make to the House today.
What is the position with regard to the four frigates that many of us feel are needed? Is the Minister going to be able, in his winding-up speech, to say anything at all about frigate procurement? I suspect from what has happened so far that he will be making no definite statement. I hope that he will, but I suspect that he will not, although I certainly hope that he will address the point.
The reason that he will not do so, of course, is that this debate is dominated by the public expenditure debate, and the poor old Royal Navy has been hammered by other commitments, in particular the continuing commitment to the Trident programme.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wallsend (Mr. Garrett) spoke of the feeling on Tyneside for the Royal Navy and the enormous enthusiasm in our shipbuilding communities — his in Wallsend and mine in Walker, Walkergate, St. Anthony's and St. Lawrence's in east Newcastle—for the services and for the return of our aircraft carriers to the River Tyne. Crowds flocked to the banks of the River Tyne to see those ships come in. The suggestion that our solid Labour-supporting communities would disparage the services or disparage the vessels that they spent their working lives building is a peculiar and unworthy one to come from the Government Front Bench.
Those communities are under assault in just the same way as mining communities are under assault, and that assault comes from the Government, who have run down
1218
the procurement programme. For the Government to wave the Union Jack and claim that the Conservative party is the patriotic party, and then to do what they have done to the Royal Navy sticks in many people's throats, particularly those who represent the communities that have such a stake in and commitment to the Royal Navy and the maritime service in general.
Perhaps the Minister, when replying, could also refer to the Government's position on the air support ship. That is something to which the Government have said that they are committed in principle, but there has been no statement on progress and the Minister did not refer to the matter at all in his opening speech, although he had been urged to do so by Government supporters. He is now being urged to do so by me. I do not know if that is a comfort to him or a restraint, but I hope that it is not a restraint.
It would be unusual to have a debate on the Royal Navy or on shipbuilding without reference to the AOR programme, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Wallsend quite rightly referred. I seek from the Minister an assurance—I think it is right that the whole House should seek this, because it has been a very controversial matter—that the AOR 1 programme is within its cost target and is on time.
Could the Minister also comment on progress on the Trident submarine programme, particularly with reference to the current investigations at VSEL? There is a fear, as the Minister must know, among other warship yards that the heavy subsidy levels which are currently enjoyed by VSEL, because of the Trident programme, will give it an unfair edge when tendering takes place for what little there is going to be in the Government's procurement programme. Some explanation of what is happening in that area would be very welcome. Obviously, the main cause for concern is the type 23 programme—if there are to be any more type 23 frigates.
The privatisation of the warship yards, according to the Government, would lead to competition and a lowering of prices. The Government's argument in that area has been undermined by two things. One is the substantial reduction in shipbuilding capacity in this country, which has meant that there is only one supplier of submarines and probably now only one supplier of minehunters. If we are not very careful, the Government will find that they have moved into a position in which there is a monopoly supplier of frigates as well. That would most certainly be to the long-term detriment of this country. The Government claim that they support competition, but they have reserved special work for the royal dockyards, work that the private warship yards would certainly like to tender for as well, and I am surprised that the Government do not allow them to do so.
The Government—this is something that dominates this debate—have recognised the special role of Harland and Wolff shipbuilders. It is the only remaining mixed yard; other yards are either merchant or warship. The Government have not yet brought their merchant subsidies at Harland and Wolff into line with the European VI directive on shipbuilding and have given Harland and Wolff military work which many of us feel should have been won in open competition by British yards rather than go to a Government-owned yard which is kept buoyant by state subsidies.
Mr. Ted Garrett: This is a very important point, which gets up the nostrils of a lot of people on the mainland of

1219
the United Kingdom. But the subsidy to Harland and Wolff is not just by the present Government; it has gone on for a decade or more. My hon. Friend will agree that the Government are committed to commercial viability, but they will not institute that commercial viability in Northern Ireland, to the detriment of regions such as the north-east. That is what it is all about.
Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend makes a very powerful point. Hon. Members who represent shipbuilding constituencies in the rest of the United Kingdom are saying that the regime that applies to them should be the same as the regime that applies to Harland and Wolff. They are not seeking any special favours from the Government—God knows, they would not get them if they did—but they are saying that Belfast should not get such favours either. If they are forced to be competitive, then that should apply to the people with whom they have to compete. I should have thought that Conservative Members would not find that an unreasonable contention. Either there is open competition or there is not. There cannot be open competition for yards in the private sector and state subsidy for yards with which they have to compete.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) referred to the role of the merchant marine and British seamen. Whatever the military position of the merchant marine 10 years ago, it has now been undermined almost to the point where it has been lost sight of altogether. Many of the ships that still fly under our flag have foreign crews. It is very difficult to hold the line at the officer level. That undermines the position of our fleet in times of conflict, and it is something that the Government have been quite willing to see happen. There have been no effective measures from the Government since 1979 to reverse that trend, and I feel that it is probably now beyond reversal unless some very stark action is undertaken, and I do not see that coming.
My hon. Friend the Member for Attercliffe referred to the fact that 90 per cent. of world trade is carried by sea. The pity of it is that it is not carried in British ships any more, and it is looking increasingly unlikely that those vessels are going to be adequately protected by British ships either.
7.50 pm
Mr. Robert Banks: I never mind listening to Opposition speeches which call for the strengthening of the Royal Navy, and I am delighted to hear the call from the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) for more ships to be built. I should like to think that he is motivated by an attempt to ensure that we have proper defences and not solely by the employment that such construction would no doubt bring to his constituency. But when he refers to recruitment, I remember the time when the Labour Government were in power and when, in the Army, and the Royal Air Force as well as in the Royal Navy, there was a severe recruitment problem and pay was an enormous issue. It was in the 1979 election that the defence vote returned a Conservative Government because we were pledged to do something about pay and about the recruitment problems that stemmed from it. I must remind the hon. Member of that.
I join my hon. Friend the Minister in recording our thanks to and admiration for all the men and women who
1220
serve in the Royal Navy and the Royal Marines. They always display immense efficiency and reliability, and no other navy can surpass their expertise.
One of the great ships in the Royal Navy is the royal yacht, which epitomises the highest achievable standards of smartness and seamanship. Undoubtedly a decision will have to be made sooner or later—because she is a very old ship—about her replacement. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will grapple with this problem and that he will decide to lay down a new royal yacht when the time is right. Not only does the royal yacht perform a function of service for the Queen and the members of the royal family; it is a showcase for Britain in all parts of the world and it does a remarkable job in all aspects of commerce and showing the flag.
I welcome the timing of this debate, because we have a preoccupation with the forces on the central front. It is very easy for defence debates to concentrate on the problems of battlefield nuclear weapons in Germany and that part of Europe, and we can easily forget that one of the greatest threats to our security comes from the Russian forces stationed on the Kola peninsula, for instance. They have some 11 bases in the area of Murmansk to supply their navy, and it is crucial that we never lose sight of that threat, which could cause us and the whole of NATO an immense problem if, heaven forbid, a conventional war broke out in Europe and we were unable, because of those forces, to keep the supply routes open.
The forces in the Kola peninsula are estimated to be 126 submarines, 73 principal ships, 47 minor surface ships and 64 mine counter-measure ships. These figures are not necessarily accurate because they can only be estimated, but they give a picture of the size of the forces lurking in that part of Europe.
The role of the Royal Navy and the NATO naval forces is to ensure that we keep the seas open so that we can reinforce Europe with both men, tanks and equipment. The transport of reinforcements is principally done with the use of HMS Fearless and HMS Intrepid. I welcome the addition to our transportation capability with the conversion and commissioning of HMS Argus. I do not know who dreamed up the name "Argus", but it sounds rather like a supermarket chain to me. In naming our ships, I hope that we can link them to towns. I do not know whether there is a town called Argus, but I would be happy if the name "Harrogate" was chosen because we have connections with naval ships; it helps with recruiting and publicity, and I am pleased that we have an arrangement with HMS Cleopatra.
Argus will be used in a mixed role capability, which is a very important step. It will have aviation training facilities and carry Sea King and Lynx helicopters. By far the most important role, however, will be in the transportation of marines and their heavy equipment, if it were necessary to get those materials into Europe. It is a model of a vessel which could be taken up and expanded because it is a conversion from a container ship, its cost has been low and it has also been put into service in a reasonable time. There is, therefore, this very important role of the quick conversion to military use of merchant ships which was mentioned earlier in the debate.
We have this marvellous word STUFT—ships taken up from trade—but we are stuck with it. What it really means is that we must look closely at our ferries to ensure that their construction is such that it will give greater protection to the transportation not only of personnel in

1221
the civilian role but especially during times of hostilities when they would need watertight compartments to enable them to withstand attack. At the moment they are vulnerable. They have been used in exercises. I suspect that we have arrived at the point when NATO subsidies should be given to the private sector to ensure that ferries can be converted for military use of the kind that will be sustainable in attack.
The most important thing that has come out of the debate is the question of the number of ships in the Royal Navy. I am not really in the numbers game, because what matters is not the number that we have but our capability, the way in which we use technology, the way in which we are more advanced with our missile systems. Those are the elements which cause a potential enemy to take care. What is most important is that we co-operate within the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation to develop on a much more cohesive basis new weapons and techniques. That is a grey area: how we can get NATO actually to put these things together so that we can establish the funds, get the research under way and do the development. Of course, there are examples of our succeeding in doing that, but it has been a long, tortuous business and NATO must find a way to do it better.
One issue that I would like to address today is that of mines. I happen to think that mines are every bit as important as any other weapon that we deploy. Their possession alone could provide us with the capability to bottle up Soviet ships in harbour. That in itself means that the Soviet navy would have to enlarge its fleet of mine counter-measure vessels. The Russians themselves have probably the largest stockpile of mines in the world.
It is curious that the Russian character has always looked towards mining as being one of the great tools of the business of defence or hostilities. In 1906, the Imperial Russian navy built a mine-laying submarine which I think was the very first submarine of that sort in use. Germany and Britain together in the last war laid half a million mines, and the United States laid 130,000 mines to starve Japan of her supplies. The assessment of the present situation reveals that there is a deficiency both in NATO's minesweeping capability to deal with the mines that the Soviet Union could so easily lay and in our own capability to lay mines.
There are three types of mine: the ground mine, which is laid on the seabed; the buoyant mine, tethered to the seabed; and now the homing mine, which is an interesting new development. It can be dropped from ship or aircraft and will, to a pre-determined signal, home in on a target.
These are areas where technology, microprocessors and new material can be deployed to ensure that we produce one of the most sophisticated mines which can be found. Here I come back to what I said earlier about the need to fund proper research and development to harness the technology so that we are in a stronger position to bottle up Soviet shipping and to ensure that we have the edge on them in laying mines. The laying of mines is relatively simple. It can be done by aircraft or by ship. Here again merchant ships can be brought into service and used for that purpose.
The mine-hunting method of locating mines and destroying them has been advanced to a highly skilled technique. The number of counter-measure vessels in the 1960s totalled some 800 within NATO. We are now down
1222
to 250. That is not necessarily bad because we have perfected the ability to locate and dispose of mines, but it is important that we have sufficient vessels to undertake the task. Of course helicopters are an alternative, but they can be expensive. We are very fortunate that the United States has developed a helicopter which represents a quantum leap forward in quality, but the numbers are small.
Above all, at the end of the day we must be able to secure a free and safe passage for Royal Navy ships and the ships they escort which will carry vital reinforcements. Mining warfare has escalated in importance. Originally it was an impoverished gambler's long shot; now it is of prime technical and offensive importance. This is a key deficiency area, but we must never forget that the men who man the ships are the people who matter most. I pay the warmest possible tribute to the work and the role of the reserves who historically have always taken on this singularly dangerous task.
8.1 pm
Mr. George Galloway: I shall restrict my remarks because other hon. Members wish to speak in the debate. However, I want to associate myself with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) about the deeply offensive, insulting and libellous equation which has been made consistently by Government Members throughout the debate — that anyone who challenges the nuclear preoccupation of the Government's defence policy is, in the words of the hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill), an appeaser, or, in the words of the hon. Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend), disparaging the armed forces and the personnnel of the armed forces in particular. That equation is a great insult to the many millions of Labour voters who fought in the last world war and in wars since but who support a political party which questions the preoccupations of the Government's defence policy; we make no apology for that.
It was bad enough that libels should be uttered by Government Back Benchers, but when from the Front Bench the Defence Minister associated himself with the remarks it was a disgrace. Although he is not in the Chamber at the moment, I hope that on reflection before the end of the debate he will have the courage and the grace to withdraw his remarks and to apologise for them.
I wanted to speak in the debate for two main reasons. First, only a few hours ago I returned from a visit with a parliamentary delegation, led by the former Foreign Secretary Lord Pym, to the kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Having just returned from the eastern province of Saudi Arabia, where part of the Armilla patrol is docked, I want to make some observations about the role which the Royal Navy is playing in the Arabian Gulf.
I want to associate myself with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill), our Front Bench spokesman, who paid tribute to the skill, courage and dedication of the Royal Navy in general. I pay particular tribute to the Armilla patrol, which is operating in dangerous waters where it is carrying out sophisticated work for this country and for the international community in the face of wicked aggression by the belligerents in the Iran-Iraq war. In particular, the Iranians are keeping our service men and ships very much on their toes. As the Minister said earlier, not a single ship which has been escorted in the Arabian Gulf by the

1223
Armilla patrol has been hit or damaged in any way. That is a tribute to the Royal Navy and to the service men who are operating there.
The Government should note that the sea war in the Iran-Iraq conflict has faded from the headlines and that the war in the cities, the use of ground-to-ground missiles and the land activities of the two belligerents are very much headline news. However, it is important that no one begins to downgrade the real threat to world peace which exists on the waterways of the Arabian Gulf.
The delegation of which I was a member met many of the most senior statesmen of the Saudi royal family and other Ministers in the last few days. I want to record that they were extremely appreciative of the presence of the Royal Navy in the Gulf and of the Government for sending them there. I pay tribute, too, to the Government.
The Saudi statesmen are also anxious about the extent to which the Armilla patrol has to restrict its role in the area. Many times during our discussions Lord Pym was forced to say, although he was not speaking for the Government or seeking to do so, that we could not do much more because of the size of the Armilla patrol and the range of its work in the Gulf. He pointed out that we do not have the Navy which we used to have and that we are not the power which we used to be. Therefore, he felt that it was unrealistic of the Saudi Government or our other friends and allies in the Gulf to expect more from us.
That theme has come through in the debate. It is obvious that we are no longer the power that we used to be, although I am not crying in my soup about that. However, there is an important role which we could and should be playing in places like the Gulf in defence of our own interests and in association with important friends and allies of the United Kingdom which we cannot do to the extent which is required because of the current size of our surface fleet and because of the public expenditure problems which we have in maintaining a Navy of the size which hon. Members on both sides of the House would like.
I hope that the Government are still aware of the dangers on the waterways of the Gulf and have taken note of the importance of the Armilla patrol to our friends and allies in the area.
In defence debates here and elsewhere we used to hear about the missile gap. There has certainly been a credibility gap in this debate. I am a new Member and until very recently I was not particularly knowledgeable about, and I did not study particularly closely the nuts and bolts of the Royal Navy. I was astonished to discover that, while we talk about verification in defence matters, we do not seem even to be able to verify the size of our own Navy. The figures that have been kicked around show a surprising margin of error.
I came into the Chamber believing that we had a 49-ship surface fleet and that there was some argument about how many of those ships were operational, or could be made operational at short notice. I did not realise the extent of that argument. We have heard from my hon. Friends that as few as 28 ships are available to us at short notice. Other figures given have been 28, 36 and 43. We do not even seem to know how many of those 49 ships we can deploy at any one time. That alarms me. How are we supposed to verify the so-called massive build-up in Soviet naval strength, about which we have heard so much during the debate, if we cannot even get our figures straight when it comes to the number of surface ships in our own Navy?
1224
I represent the area that contains Yarrow shipbuilders, which has plied its trade for the past 120 years making wonderful ships of steel. It is the lead yard in the production of type 23 frigates. I was not encouraged by the Minister's opening remarks to think that we are doing what is necessary to keep our Navy up to strength. I would hope to be encouraged more by his closing speech, but I have been told that that is probably a vain hope and that nothing of substance will be said in the Minister's reply.
The Government are supposed to be committed to four type 23 frigates. In the Minister's opening speech, we heard that the Government are still considering issues relevant to whether the orders will go ahead. Speaking as the hon. Member whose constituency contains the lead yard, I stress that it will be a great crime and a tragedy, both for the Royal Navy and those of us with shipbuilding constituencies, if the orders for those four type 23 frigates are not placed soon. It goes without saying that I hope that the Yarrow yard, which has a proven record of expertise in producing these outstanding ships, will be considered favourably.
I have been puzzled and disappointed by the response this evening and in the correspondence that I have seen through trade union circles to the NFR90. I am not a technical expert, but I cannot understand the Government's reluctance to throw their weight into a joint European project to build the kind of ships that will be required at the turn of the century. It seems extremely short-sighted of them not to understand that such ships will be required and that European co-operation is the best, most economic and most defence-efficient way of proceeding. I hope that we shall hear more in the Minister's reply of the reasons behind the Government's thinking on the NFR project.
I am not a member of CND and I am not a pacifist. I think that it is deeply unworthy of the Government to question the patriotism of Opposition Members. Those remarks should be withdrawn. My hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan and others have made it clear that Labour is strongly committed to a strong defence policy for this country. We are ready to defend this country and we shall support the Government in so far as they are prepared to devote resources to defending this country. We have our questions—in a democracy, we are bound to—but we too pay tribute to the men arid women of the Royal Navy and associate ourselves with the salute that the House of Commons traditionally gives to the Royal Navy on Navy day.
8.10 pm
Mr. David Martin: First, I shall contribute some thoughts about the present strength of the Royal Navy and, secondly, I shall raise concerns which, while having a national interest, particularly apply to my constituents in Portsmouth.
A debate about the strength of the Royal Navy cannot be divorced from realistic considerations of its role, principally as part of the NATO Alliance concentrating in the English channel and the eastern Atlantic but — tantalisingly for those whose duty it is constantly to assess matters and reach decisions — needing to keep a capability to operate throughout the world in defence of British interests when required. The Armilla patrol in the Gulf, which has been mentioned many times, is the best

1225
example of that. I add my tribute to those serving in that patrol. They contribute so much to defending the interests not only of this country but of our allies.
The problem of how to be sufficiently prepared for war while keeping the peace and preserving freedom is an equation whose solution has excited naval theorists and practitioners in endless and seamless succession for centuries, and it continues to do so. There is a symbolism in these matters. Emphasis is placed on parts of our naval strength. Once emphasis was placed on the number of Dreadnoughts, whereas at present the totem pole has "about 50 frigates and destroyers" carved on it. Newspaper correspondents and columnists, the British Maritime League and others — some hon. Members among them — insist that the Government are not keeping to that provision and that, even if that figure is approached, too much reliance is placed on extended life and refits and not enough new is being added or ordered.
I do not want to go into the statistics. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) and the Minister did so, as did many other hon. Members. There is nothing new about relying on a mix of refits and new. The Navy that defeated the Spanish armada 400 years ago did that. Queen Elizabeth I was constantly accused of neglecting the Navy that her father had built up and of being far too mean to pay for the ships. I say that she was constantly accused. In Tudor times critics had to be somewhat restrained and had to use a uncrackable code. Sir John Hawkins, the treasurer of the Navy Board, rebuilt as many old ships under what was called "ordinary expenditure", meaning maintenance and rebuilding, as he built new ships under "extraordinary" expenditure. It is interesting that expenditure for new building was called "extraordinary".
Mr. Frank Cook: Somewhat different technology.
Mr. Martin: There is always somewhat different technology. The hon. Gentleman is right. The secret is to keep up with the technology of the day. There has always had to be a sensible balance, and so it is to this day.
I strongly agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks) that it is most important to ensure that our ships are equipped with the most modern and up-to-date navigational devices and armaments, both defensive and potentially hostile. Just last month such an example was accepted by the Navy at Portsmouth, which was referred to by the Minister—the latest batch 3 type 22 frigate, HMS Cornwall.
HMS Cornwall is packed with the latest high-technology equipment, incorporating lessons learnt in the Falklands, and her weapons system gives her the most up-to-date self-defence capability in the world. She will lead the new 8th frigate squadron. There are more such ships to come, and I am sure that we would all say, "Thank goodness for that."
I am pleased to see that the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) is in his place because earlier he mentioned Captain Wreford-Brown, the captain of HMS Cornwall. I deplore the fact that the hon. Gentleman sought to bring the captain's personal reputation into this debate. He did his duty properly when he was called upon to do so, and I wish him every success in his future in the Royal Navy. I am sure that that sentiment is echoed by the vast majority of hon. Members.
Mr. Dalyell: I have never said differently.
Mr. Martin: I understand that we cannot consider our total naval strength—above and below the surface, conventional and nuclear—in isolation from our allies in NATO. We should not be worried about admitting that, because political isolation has been and remains the main foe to our security. Without allied forces, the Royal Navy is not and never has been strong enough to gain lasting victory in a major conflict against a determined enemy. If that causes eyebrows to be raised, one need only consider that Spain was not subdued until long after 1588. Our isolated supremacy did not defeat Napoleon any more than it overcame Hitler. Allies in coalition were needed to bring about final and complete victory in those wars.
It is correct to point out the massive strength of the Russian and Warsaw pact navies. One may consider the hundreds of submarines, their fleet of carriers, the harbours teeming with their frigates and destroyers and their presence in all the world's seas and say that, in comparison, the British navy is not big enough within the navies of NATO. However, there is no way in which the public would back the measureless defence spending required to match Warsaw pact forces. The forces of NATO must at all times be weighed in the balance when judging the level and effectiveness of our armed forces, including the Royal Navy. We must not underestimate the threat, but we must also count our assets.
My judgment is that, if we continue the mix of defence policies that have proved so successful since 1945 and if, above all, we continue to demonstrate, beyond doubt, a united political will to stand up for ourselves and our allies, our prospects will he as fine as ever. Indeed, if we do not shrink from modernising—I am sorry, perhaps I should use the word "updating" so as not to offend the Germans or anyone else — when necessary, both conventional and nuclear forces, our prospects will be fine. That case was eloquently put by my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Franks). If such a course is followed, it will enable my young children to grow up experiencing peace, the priceless gift given to my generation from those lessons written in the blood of two world wars.
I wish to raise three matters of considerable importance not only to Portsmouth people, but to the nation. The first concerns the future arrangements for HMS Victory — Nelson's flagship — in Portsmouth dockyard. Many people do not realise that she is still in commission and is still a flagship—that of the Commander-in-Chief Naval Home Command. I ask that she should remain in commission. Indeed, if she were decommissioned perhaps there would be one less surface ship in the total given by my hon. Friend the Minister. I accept that, by all means, she should earn her keep more efficiently, but I ask that she should remain in commission and continue to be operated by the Royal Navy both as a naval shrine and as a tourist attraction, attracting about 400,000 visitors a year. The importance of tradition, ceremony and pageantry, particularly in the case of Portsmouth and the Royal Navy, must never be underestimated.
Sir Antony Buck: Has my hon. Friend noted the happy juxtaposition between the Victory and the modern "Know your Navy" exhibition that is close to the McCarthy museum? Therefore, there is a marvellous continuity between the ancient history of the Victory and the superb "Know your Navy" exhibition nearby.
Mr. Martin: I am obliged to my hon. and learned Friend for that intervention.
The importance of tradition, ceremony and pageantry also applies to the future of R company of the Royal Marines. That company is usually known as the display team that is renowned for free-fall parachuting. It is a 50-strong team. It promotes a fine image of the Royal Marines around the country and in particular it is a regular attraction at the Eastney tattoo. It is worth every penny, and I seek an early assurance that that company will continue to operate.
My final concern relates to the fleet maintenance and repair organisation in the Portsmouth dockyard— I believe that we should call it a naval base. Fortunately, the work load is well up and I have had a recent assurance from the Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement that the Ministry is planning to carry out the refit of HMS Exeter at Portsmouth. That is excellent news and I hope that that is confirmed as soon as possible.
However, nationwide there is over-capacity in the ship refitting industry. It is correct that there is keen pricing competition because budgetary controls are strict on such work—and that is as it should be. Warship design and technology continually improve, thereby enabling ships to have a longer operational capability with fewer periods of maintenance and repair. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement has kindly forewarned me of a visit to Portsmouth dockyard this month, and I hope to meet him then and to raise these matters with city leaders.
My hon. Friend is well aware that any further rundown of the Portsmouth facilities would be a grievous blow, especially if it was seen to be as a result of propping up Devonport. I am not expecting that to happen and I do not believe that Portsmouth deserves that.
I ask all the Ministers to look positively at what is on offer at Portsmouth. It is providing a first-class and necessary service for a modern Royal Navy. Indeed, Portsmouth is, borrowing a little from Gilbert and Sullivan, "the very model of a modern" Royal Navy repair and maintenance facility.
8.27 pm
Mr. John Cartwright: The last time the House debated the Royal Navy, I devoted the bulk of my remarks to trying to argue the case for an alternative to Trident. I argued that submarine-launched cruise missiles were a far more cost-effective minimum nuclear deterrent and much more appropriate to Britain's needs. I still believe that there is a powerful case that can be made for that approach. That view is reinforced by the extent to which the United States and the Soviet Union are now deploying cruise missiles and researching further sophisticated versions of cruise missile technology.
However, it should be recognised that the opportunity for such a change is no longer with us. The time is gone, to coin a phrase, for such an alteration. By the time we get to the next election, Trident will be so far down the track that reversal would be a massively expensive and wasteful operation. Any opportunity to seek to replace Trident with a different nuclear deterrent would, at that stage, involve a dangerous risk of a gap between the phasing out of Polaris and the introduction of some new system. Therefore, if one takes the view that Britain needs an
1228
effective minimum deterrent—the majority of the British public share my view—I accept that that deterrent must now be Trident.
Miss Ann Widdecombe: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that cruise missiles would not be as satisfactory as Trident, even if it were possible to replace Trident, principally on account of their range, which therefore limits the area of seas in which they can hide? Does he also concede that if, under those circumstances, one chose cruise rather than Trident a larger number of submarines would be needed to present as effective a deterrent system?
Mr. Cartwright: It was always clear that cruise was not a direct alternative to Trident because of the firepower that cruise could deploy. I still argue that Trident is a more powerful system than Britain needs for a minimum effective deterrent. The one advantage that Trident offers is its flexibility. It is possible to reduce the number of missiles on a submarine and it is certainly possible to reduce the number of warheads on a missile. Depending on the progress of arms control negotiations, particularly in the strategic sector, I hope that the Government will ensure that Trident's firepower will not be provocative in the light of possible reductions by the two super-powers.
Other hon. Members have referred to the changed position following the implemention of the INF treaty, and to the NATO Ministers' meeting. There is no case for attempting to compensate for the intermediate nuclear missiles that we have negotiated away through the INF process. I cannot see the point of going through all the trauma that was involved in the 1979 dual-track decision, and all the negotiations that flowed from that, only to try to bring back missiles in some other form. Therefore, the argument for compensation and for trying to circumvent the treaty is pointless.
For as far ahead as we can see, the security of western Europe will depend on a mix of conventional and nuclear deterrents. It is prudent common sense to ensure that the nuclear and conventional elements are kept as effective as possible. Nuclear weapons should not be allowed to decay into impotence. If they do, they no longer represent an effective deterrent.
The excitement about the Montebello decision of 1983 is difficult to understand. What was decided was that NATO should have a smaller nuclear arsenal deployed in Europe, but that the nuclear arsenal should be more effective, that weapons should have an improved range, greater accuracy and better survivability. That seems to be a common-sense view of the matter. The detailed implementation of the Montebello decisions needs to be examined in the light of the INF treaty, but the basic approach that NATO's deterrent must remain effective is one with which it is impossible to argue.
One of the obvious reasons why we must always be on the lookout to maintain the effectiveness of weapons systems concerns the Tornado. At the moment it is an effective system in relation to the Soviet air defences, but it may not remain so for all its planned lifetime. The idea of developing a nuclear or conventional stand-off missile that will enable the Tornado to remain an effective weapon system throughout its lifetime is well worth examining. I am glad that the Government, in collaboration with the French, are considering that possibility.
The issue that has dominated tonight's debate is that of the surface fleet. The Navy has been given major tasks,

1229
such as the direct protection of shipping in the Atlantic that is resupplying western Europe, the forward deployment of vessels to contain Soviet forces in the Norwegian sea and involvement in the amphibious reinforcement of NATO's northern flank. Those are all major tasks, and clearly the Navy needs substantial assets to carry them out.
It is against that background that we must approach the controversy of the "about 50" surface vessel fleet and examine the Government's record on the matter. I can understand the sense of puzzlement about the numbers involved that was evident in the speech of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway). It is claimed in the 1987 Statement on the Defence Estimates that there are 54 vessels — frigates and destroyers. However, it is clear that that figure does not stand up to close examination.
The figure of 54 vessels is arrived at only by including some that had already been paid off by the time that that document was published and others that had not arrived from the shipbuilders. Thus, that figure clearly had to be revised. The figure that we heard tonight was revised downwards to 49. There is some argument as to how many of those 49 vessels are immediately available. The most persuasive figure is 36 frigates and destroyers immediately available on a 48-hour time scale. It may be that others can be added to that on a longer time scale, but it will be interesting to hear what the Minister has to say on this issue.
An important point was made by the hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) —that total numbers do not reflect the age of the fleet. There are already 12 frigates that are over 20 years old. There are 19 vessels in the Leander class that were laid down between 1961 and 1969, which must be coming to the end of their useful life. Most of them will surely disappear over the next decade. The six type 21 frigates were laid down between 1969 and1974. It must be doubtful whether they will be in service by the 1990s.
Without labouring the issue of re-ordering, which has been dealt with at length, I find it hard to see how the current ordering policy will ensure that enough new vessels will be coming into service to replace those that should be phased out over the next decade. The only way that the gap will be bridged is by running vessels for longer than was originally intended when they first came into service. That has manpower implications, because the older vessels are more manpower-intensive. It also has implications for the morale of the seamen. It has operational implications, because some of the older frigates clearly cannot be used for some of the tasks with which the Navy is now grappling. Only frigates that are equipped with modern anti-missile defences can be deployed on the Armilla patrol in the Gulf. The fact that such work must be undertaken by a limited number of modern vessels means that they are taking a disproportionate share of the burden, with the inevitable strain on vessels and crews.
Much has been said about the threat. There has been general acceptance among hon. Members that the threat posed by Soviet maritime power has expanded over recent years. We may argue about whether it may continue, but it has certainly taken place. It is as the threat has become greater that the numbers of our destroyer frigate force have declined. I would accept that Britain's contribution
1230
to NATO in terms of nuclear-powered submarines has certainly improved, but on their own nuclear submarines cannot be the main anti-submarine element in NATO's navies. They must rely on frigates and destroyers for vital functions such as command, control and early warning to enable them to deal with a much larger Soviet submarine force.
The question on which I should like to conclude is whether the current and expected levels of frigates and destroyers are dictated by a calm, sober and rational assessment of the threat or by the economic constraints on defence spending. Are the levels what are needed by the Navy to do the job properly or are they simply the best that we can do in difficult circumstances? The House is entitled to a straight and clear answer to that point when the Minister replies to the debate.
8.39 pm
Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: The hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright), in his remarks about cruise missile submarines, shows the standard alliance tendency of wanting to have his cake and eat it—I am sorry, the SDP tendency; I cannot keep up with the changes. As my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) made clear, it was an absurd idea in the first place that will haunt them in the years ahead. They cannot fudge that much. They cannot try to con people and expect it to stick, because it will not work.
After those robust words, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will excuse me if I do not take up his remarks because he and I are members of the Select Committee on Defence, and we are currently undertaking a detailed investigation into the surface fleet. Therefore, because so much has been said on that issue, it is unnecessary for me to duplicate those words.
I shall concentrate on four areas of concern. The first is our ability to reinforce our northern flank. Secondly, I should like to question the strategy of concentrating our maritime assets in the Norwegian and Barents Seas in times of conflict. Thirdly, I should like to remind the House of the massive maritime capability of the Soviet Union. Fourthly, I want to deal with disarmament, with particular reference to chemical weapons.
On the first question, the ability to reinforce our northern flank, my hon. Friend will know that it is necessary to land two companies simultaneously on Norwegian soil and that is a minimum requirement. That will require 24 helicopters which will need 12 landing spots to be available at the same time. Fearless and Intrepid between them have only four landing spots, so where will the others be found? Fearless and Intrepid are some 20 years old. A ship, however many mid-life and long-life refits it has, cannot last much longer than 25 years as the hull will not take it, however much it is strengthened.
However, to return to the point about landing spots, it has been suggested that they can be provided by aircraft carriers and ships taken up from trade. The public evidence given to the Select Committee on Defence on 24 February by Mr. Mottram, who is the assistant undersecretary of state (programmes), made it clear that the operational priority for aircraft carriers will be their ASW role. That will be an absolute priority and their commando and anti-air roles will be secondary.
A carrier cannot change its role easily. It has at least to return to United Kingdom waters for resupply and refitting to take place. Ships taken out from trade are

1231
unlikely to fulfil such a complicated, time-sensitive function as providing landing spots for helicopters with all the materials and men that they have to move at one time. I therefore ask my hon. Friend to convince me, and possibly the House, how he expects to be able to land the minimum of two companies simultaneously on Norwegian soil.
Mr. Wallace: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if there was an amphibious landing it would need considerable air cover? Does he consider that sufficient resources are available in terms of aircraft carriers to provide that air cover?
Mr. Sayeed: The hon. Gentleman has made a very important point. If one analyses the public information that has been given to the Select Committee, it is clear that our three carriers are expected to fulfil, sometimes at the same time, four roles. As we are told, normally there will be only two carriers available as one will be in for refit. I do not see how they can fulfil four roles at the same time. The hon. Gentleman is quite right, but I must resist his blandishment to start talking about aircraft carriers and Harriers and the numbers that we require.
I turn to my second point about questioning the strategy of concentrating our naval assets in the Norwegian seas. The Royal Navy Broadsheet 1987 states:
"NATO maritime forces are guided by the principles of defence in depth, containment and keeping the initiative."
It goes on to say, in recognition of the massive Soviet maritime capability:
"The only way to contain this threat from becoming a reality is to deploy our forces as far forward as necessary to intercept and contain Soviet forces well away from the SLOCs."
However, the same document states:
"NATO, unlike the Soviet Union, depends for its survival on worldwide trade and its defence posture relies heavily on its ability to reinforce Europe by sea from the United States."
I wonder whether those statements are not incompatible. Clearly, we shall be forced to concentrate our maritime assets to protect the carriers in the Norwegian sea, and we need to protect our surface assets and our sub-surface assets.
There is no such thing as a 100 per cent. effective defence. We must therefore expect that, however many ships we push forward, some submarines will penetrate by running underneath and evading the screen and intercept the convoys from the United States. As NATO strategy is reactive, the Soviet Union will have more time than the Alliance to prepare for war. They will have time to push their submarine forces forward before the frigate and destroyer screens are in place and thus put themselves in a position to straddle the convoy routes between the United States and Europe. Because we put all our assets in Norway and in the Barents sea, those convoy routes will be denuded of defences.
Mr. O'Neill: Is not the real contradiction in NATO's own strategy? The basis of NATO strategy of flexible response is that conventional war in Europe will last eight days and then NATO becomes nuclear. With that strategy, we do not need a navy to escort convoys across the Atlantic as the war will become nuclear before they get here.
Mr. Sayeed: The purpose of an effective Navy is to permit us to react in different ways. I believe that the
1232
suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) is absolutely right. We should be building up our maritime forces at the expense of our forces in West Germany.
I shall now move on to the maritime capability of the Soviet Union. There is an old German folk tale about two doves watching an archer. The young dove said to the older dove, "What a nice man that archer must he. Look at the smile on his face." But the wise old bird said to the young upstart, "Don't be silly, little boy. Don't look at his face, watch his hands".
Mr. Gorbachev's willingness to be more open and to seek accommodation with the West is to be welcomed, but we must not forget that he is a product of the Soviet system. We cannot ignore the massive build-up of the Soviet fleet, with well over 200 nuclear submarines. We cannot ignore the fact that a new Soviet submarine rolls down the slipway every 37 days. We cannot ignore the fact that its military capability is far beyond that which is necessary for its defence. Nor should we ignore the Soviet economy's massive inertia or the power of its generals and admirals.
No Russian who has lived through the siege of Leningrad or listened to tales of the Nazi invasion would ever allow his nation's defences to slip, and we should understand that. No member of the NATO Alliance who has watched the expansion of the Soviet empire should fail to recognise that to create a power vacuum by letting our guard fall is to invite disaster.
Regrettably, we live in a world of mutual distrust and fear, which will be overcome only as our aggressive abilities mutually decline without leaving gaps which could be exploited. That will happen only when the Soviet Union ceases to spend 17 per cent. of its GDP on its military and reallocates those resources to raising the living standards of its people.
Therefore, it follows that the only policy of disarmament that has any chance of being effective is one that is balanced, verifiable and structured so as not to leave any side with an overwhelming capability in any one area. That is why my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was right yesterday in her determination to maintain modern weapon systems and to stand against the blandishments of Chancellor Kohl and his short-term political objectives.
Finally, I want to make some suggestions on chemical weapon disarmament. We have no chemical weapons. The United States has a limited capacity for chemical weapon warfare. The Soviet Union has a massive chemical warfare capacity.
Mr. Denzil Davies rose—
Mr. Sayeed: If the right hon. Gentleman will restrain himself, he will understand where I am going.
Mr. Davies: How on earth does the hon. Gentleman know the chemical tonnage and capacity of the United States when it has not announced it to anybody, not even to the Geneva talks on chemical weapons? How does he know that it has a limited capacity?
Mr. Sayeed: Because the United States has not built any for many years and chemical weapons deteriorate and degrade as they are not replaced.
An essential ingredient of any disarmament treaty is verification. However, despite what it said in the

1233
Supplementary Defence Estimates 1987, volume 1, page 10, chemical weapons cannot be verified by means of production. A petrochemical plant can produce one perfectly proper by-product. It can be next door to a detergent plant producing a perfectly proper by-product. Separate, the two are safe; together, they are lethal.
In addition, verification cannot be by means of delivery systems. We do not know whether chemicals, high explosive, or even nuclear materials are in a shell or a missile. If those two avenues are closed, how can there ever be a treaty on chemical weapons? The only way that I can see is a policy of self-denial where each side decides to deny itself protection against the other side's weapons. That will mean that neither side protects its men or its land-based battlefield weapon systems against chemical weapons. Because a man wearing a protective suit against chemical weapons must practise frequently in order to become effective, it should be easier to check whether chemical weapon protection is being used. In addition, it takes time to fit weapon systems with anti-chemical weapon suits.
There is an additional benefit in that chemical weapon protection for a weapon system or a man is similar to that for nuclear weapons and by denying protection against chemical weapons, and, consequently, nuclear weapons as well, the nuclear threshold would be raised.
However, I recognise that that exercise in lateral thinking has considerable downside risks. Those risks may be so great that on balance we shall have to live with the threat of chemical weapon warfare.
The Royal Navy prayer contains the words:
"The Royal Navy and the Fleet in which we serve".
Everyone here is proud of the Royal Navy and the way in which it serves and defends us.
8.56 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: In 16 written questions, the first seven answered on 15 February at columns 448–49, and the latter nine answered on 26 February at columns 378–80 of the Official Report, I have raised the issue of the loss of parts of Trident off the Mull of Galloway and off Walney Island on 5 and 6 February.
In my 25 years as a Member of Parliament, I have never indulged in making trouble for its own sake and I regard this as far too serious and costly an issue to try to tease Ministers. However, one can imagine the fun that some Conservative politicians would have had at the expense of the Government of the day had Labour been in power.
I understand that inquiries are currently being undertaken by the shipbuilders VSEL and by the subcontractor, Motherwell Bridge Engineering. I gather that the Ministry of Defence is represented at those inquiries. To learn what actually happened, we must await the outcome. However, there is a general point about the management of the Trident contracts that is legitimate before the inquiry reports.
Given that the work is so important that it requires retrieving from the bottom of sea, how is it that such a large cargo was entrusted in the first place to a small Bahamas-registered vessel with an unvetted crew? Like most of my hon. Friends, I am a non-believer in Trident, but it appears frivolous for the Government, the centrepiece of whose defence policy is Trident, to allow a situation in which crucial components can be swept off the deck on 5 February and again on 6 February.
1234
Secondly, I want to ask a question of fact about the Zircon satellite. I recognise that this is not the occasion on which to pursue further the disgraceful scene at Queen Margaret drive in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway), when friends of mine, executives of BBC Scotland, were hauled out of their beds at 3 am on the Sabbath morning of 1 February to assist special branch.
We know that in the summer of 1986 Duncan Campbell interviewed, among others, Sir Frank Cooper and Sir Ronald Mason and asked them both about Zircon. I understand that they both got on to the phone, quite properly, to their former Department, post haste, to recount the questions they had been asked about Zircon.
Who was the recipient of the communications from Cooper and Mason? What action did the recipient take? Were Ministers informed? If the former permanent secretary, one of the former great mandarins of Whitehall, and the former chief scientist, a fellow of the Royal Society and professor of chemistry, put through agitated phone calls to the Ministry of Defence, did the Department do nothing about their representations—if national security was involved?
Zircon never was about the security of our country. If it had been, Ministers displayed a dereliction of duty when they received the Cooper-Mason information. It was about political embarrassment. Alan Protheroe has made clear his concern on film.
Thirdly, I refer to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) about the Falklands yesterday. Why does at least Washington not understand our position on the Falklands if it is so watertight?
The final issue I want to raise concerns the log book of the Conqueror. My hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) raised this issue in an early-day motion and then in Defence Question Time. Although he has consulted me at each major step and behaved as a exemplary parliamentary colleague to another who has been concerned with the issue in the past, my hon. Friend—not I—has made the running on the log book saga. I do not make judgments on such areas on the basis of the say-so of persons whom I have seen briefly once, although in my judgment this person was possessed of transparent integrity. But one matter I am clear about beyond peradventure: when the shadow Defence Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies), a cautious Member of Parliament, asks for an inquiry following the early-day motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen, he is right to do so.
I have always been profoundly suspicious about the log book. Its alleged loss was announced out of the blue to the press late on 6 November 1985. On 7 November 1985, the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) was due to give evidence to a difficult meeting of the Select Committee. The loss of the log book was used as a smokescreeen to cover up other political embarrassments. I have never believed that the control-room log book of the only nuclear submarine ever to have seen action for real was lost and that no one can shed light on how it was lost or destroyed or where it might be. I have too high a regard for the Royal Navy to suppose that such carelessness could go unpunished and unremarked.
It was pointed out to me by an ex-petty officer, a regular member of the Bloxwich naval club, that the commander of the Conqueror would hardly have been given the captain's command of a brand-new ship —

1235
HMS Cornwall—two weeks ago if there had been a blemish on his record such as the responsibility for losing a log book. I make no criticism of him—I wish him well. I am assured, and believe, that no document from the Conqueror went missing during the de-briefing or afterwards as a result of the crew's negligence.
I have never been out to cause trouble for the Navy. To give an example of that, when I first read the Sethia diaries in the autumn of 1983, it was all too obvious that HMS Cardiff had inadvertently shot down at least one of our helicopters. I said not a word because I did not want to embarrass people in the Navy who would be full of remorse; neither did I want to hurt next of kin whom I did not know. However, Mrs. Cockton, the mother of the copilot involved, told me that she thought I was wrong to keep quiet, and on reflection she may have been right.
Ministers on the Front Bench tonight came to office long after these events, and ministerial prudence and self-preservation will have suggested that they should not become involved. All that is required from them is anodyne words, and they will pass on, and up their careers, unsullied. I have no quarrel with them or desire to embarrass them.
To the Defence Secretary I say something different. I have always found him, as an Under-Secretary of State and then as a long-serving Secretary of State for Scotland, a courteous and obliging Minister, unlike the present incumbent. Either the right hon. Gentleman knows the truth about the log book, or, if he set his mind to it, he could find it out from those who do. I warn him that such curiosity could be dangerous, even for such a long-serving Cabinet Minister. If he were to discover who was in the Downing street equivalent of Bluebeard's forbidden cupboard, Mr. Ingham might make his life as difficult as he did that of the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen). I do not forget that, in the Belgrano debate the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Mr. Stanley) snapped:
"Mr. Ponting did not know all, and Mr. Ponting did not know the most important of all." — [Official Report, 18 February 1985; Vol. 73, c. 820.]
I believe a source who told me:
"A copy of the control room log-book of the Conqueror, along with the crucial telegrams, is available to the Defence Secretary, if he wants them."
I concede that, careful politician as he is, the right hon. Gentleman might restrain his curiosity to the point of not wanting them.
I refer to the second paragraph of Mr. Ponting's introduction to the Belgrano action group's "Unnecessary War". He says:
"Key documents have gone missing or not been revealed. The log book of HMS Conqueror, the submarine that sank the 'Belgrano', had been lost in circumstances that have never been explained and even a month's long enquiry by Scotland Yard has found no clues. The crucial diplomatic telegrams over the weekend of the sinking have been concealed. Even when I wrote the Top Secret intelligence report now known as the 'Crown Jewels' I was not allowed to see these telegrams. Similarly the Foreign Affairs Committee was refused access."
If I say to the Secretary of State for Defence that I do not believe that he either does not know what happened to the Conqueror's log book, or cannot find out, he will not think I am unduly offensive, because why, these days, should we put our trust any longer in the word of Ministers?
I suppose that I first realised the extent of wrongdoing and manipulation on that remarkable day in the Old
1236
Bailey, when that able civil servant, Richard Mottram, going into the witness box for the right hon. Member for Henley, revealed that the Commander-in-Chief's report had been altered significantly, as to the detection of the Belgrano, behind Sir John Fieldhouse's back.
For the sake of time, I shall not go through the script, which proves the point, of the Ponting trial cross-examination of Richard Mottram by Mr. Laughland, the lawyer. A limp excuse was given by the Prime Minister. I refer to the Official Report, 12 February 1985, column 164.
I conclude on a rather sad note. The first service Estimates debate in which I took part was over a quarter of a century ago. I think that this is my 52nd speech in service Estimates debates.
I am one of a dwindling band of Members of Parliament who have the memory of George Wigg sitting on the Front Bench below the Gangway, bobbing up and down, challenging Jack Profumo. The issue was truth to the House of Commons. It seems that I am an old-fashioned Member of Parliament these days, a throwback to less professional, less glitzy days, who thinks that telling the truth to the House of Commons is all-important and central to our system of government.
When I complain about the Prime Minister, and her behaviour in relation to the selectively leaked Law Officer's letter on Westland, I am not met with any kind of rebuttal of what I am saying. Conservatives do not say, "You're wrong." They say, something different. They say "Well, she got away with it, didn't she?", or, "We know you are right—but you'd better blame the Leader of the Opposition for making such a daft speech, and letting her off the hook!" That is the kind of thing they say. I am not passing judgment on the speech of the Leader of the Opposition.
I am just an old-fashioned Member of Parliament, who profoundly believes that we should have the truth about matters such as the log book of the Conqueror, and that Prime Ministers should not protect their own position. After all, if the right hon. Lady had not said on 27 January 1986,
"I did not know about the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry's … role … until the inquiry had reported." — [Official Report, 27 January 1986; Vol. 90, c. 657.],
she would have been sending for the removal vans for 10 Downing street.
I do not think that senior Ministers should get away on log books, Westland, or the facts of the Libyan bombing with a brazen sustained lack of candour to the House of Commons.
9.7 pm
Miss Ann Widdecombe: I should like to thank the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) for his obvious efforts to keep his speech brief. I shall try to do the same because I am aware that the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) wishes to follow me.
There are three principal areas of concern. I am worried about the strength of the merchant fleet, about the disposition of weapons between our ships, and about training opportunities for women. Considering the very important role played by the WRNS, I am rather sad that too little attention has been given to them in this lengthy debate and that too little tribute has been paid to the role that they play.
Before turning to those three areas, I should like to touch first and briefly on the issue of the size of the Fleet,

1237
because it has tended to dominate some of the arguments of Opposition Members. They have claimed that the Fleet is now much smaller than it used to be, but they have totally ignored the fact that because a ship is now in refit for only 12·5 per cent. of its lifetime, as opposed to 25 per cent. in 1979, it is simply not necessary to have as big a Fleet to keep as many ships at sea. I should have thought that that was a fairly elementary piece of arithmetic that would not have been altogether beyond hon. Members.
Much the same argument applies in terms of the rate at which we should order and replace frigates and destroyers because the "gold standard", if one can term it that, of three frigates a year was conceived in 1982, when we were in a completely different situation. Modernisation has moved apace since then and, if we can guarantee longer lives for the new ships that we order, it is not so necessary to stick rigidly to three a year, even if that remains an ideal standard.
A NATO study, initiated by the Government, to their credit, appears to indicate that, in the event of a major emergency, we would need all 1,642 vessels available across all registers. There is no room for manoeuvre, reserve or emergency. It would need only a geographical conflict or a contractual disagreement to prevent deployment. Furthermore, there is a major deficiency in manning. We could not man those ships, even if we had them. I urge the Minister to address himself, as a matter of urgency, to our merchant fleet.
Secondly, although it is completely unreasonable to expect that all our ships will have the full range of weapon systems, provided that we are working on the basis of a slimmer, leaner fleet, we must make sure that each individual ship has a greater range of functions available to it than at present.
Thirdly, on the training of women, I should like to congratulate the Government on their efforts to encourage engineering training for women in the WRNS and on the encouraging moves that they have made in the employment of medical staff. However, I would draw the Government's attention to the Defence Estimates and to the decline in the number of female service personnel, because those personnel have not commanded any attention this afternoon. They are important and they must be encouraged, as they could help to make up for some of the deficiencies in our recruitment.
9.11 pm
Mr. Harry Cohen: I wish to thank the hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) for her short, sharp speech. She made her points very well and has given me the opportunity to contribute to the debate.
I wish to quote from an excellent pamphlet, recently produced by Greenpeace, about nuclear-free seas, as that should set the tone for tonight's debate. It states:
"At sea there are no boundaries. The naval forces of the nuclear powers move freely and quietly, unseen by the public and media. In the words of Admiral Carlisle Trost, U.S. Chief of Naval Operations, … the Navy operates in international waters, where no government's permission to base and fly aircraft is required … the navies of the nuclear powers use the oceans as their global arena. They are in the Norwegian Sea, the Bering Sea, the Sea of Japan, the Arabian Sea, the Mediterranean, underneath the Arctic, lurking off each other's coast and outside each other's ports. Every day they wage an invisible war on the high seas: signalling aggressive intentions to the other side, searching for weaknesses, and
1238
demonstrating a readiness to fight. One third of the nuclear weapons in the world, and over 500 nuclear reactors, are now deployed at sea. Virtually all of the ocean going ships and submarines of the superpower navies are nuclear armed. It is increasingly likely that nuclear war will start at sea."
There are
"numerous 'incidents' and misunderstandings … New long range, highly accurate nuclear cruise missiles have also recently joined the naval arsenals. There is a widespread belief among naval planners that nuclear war at sea might not escalate into a global conflagration. A nuclear war at sea is therefore more thinkable. The U.S. Navy, and possibly the other nuclear navies, has more autonomy … over the use of its nuclear weapons than the other military services."
The document concludes:
"None of these operations, strategies or weapons are the subject of current or foreseen arms control negotiations. The navies strenuously resist any attempts to subject their activities to international scrutiny or control. On the high seas it has become, as the U.S. Navy now describes it, an era of 'violent peace'."
That is the basis on which we should hold this debate.
The document referred to nuclear reactors and the 500 nuclear reactors at sea. My hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) reminded us of the near-meltdown and near-catastrophe involving HMS Resolution. Now we know that HMS Resolution is what the Government mean by the "resolute approach". There must have been a release of radiation from that ship, because one man had to be scrubbed down for over 24 hours. The Government called it a minor electrical malfunction. Presumably, that is what may have started the incidents at Chernobyl or Three Mile Island. I repeat the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton. The Government should answer candidly on that matter because there has been inadequate investigation of radiation health risks and there are inadequate emergency plans.
The Greenpeace report referred to the Royal Navy's involvement in the United States offensive forward maritime strategy. William Arkin described that in his Neptune papers for the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington. He said that forward policy means
"more aggressive operations close to the Soviet Union in peacetime, increased use of land-based aircraft and facilities in support of offensive maritime operations, crisis surge deployments of attack and ballistic missile submarines from home ports … during peacetime exercises … deployment of nuclear-powered attack submarines deep in the 'sea control areas' and 'home waters' of the Soviet Union, more aggressive electronic warfare operations".
The report goes on right up to plans for the first use of nuclear weapons at sea.
We are going along with that strategy. It is different from the defensive strategy of the past in which we have protected convoys. It is a more provocative approach. I note that NATO is redrafting its concept of maritime operations in line with that United States strategy. We are going along with it despite the misgivings in Europe. I have some questions for the Minister which I hope that he will answer, now or subsequently.
When and where will the Eurogroup meet to discuss the new concept of maritime operations and what opportunity will there be for prior discussion of the important issues? What role has Britain taken in the redrafting of the CONMAROPS? Who has been representing Britain and who will be presenting the proposals to the Eurogroup? Does the Eurogroup paper advocate what is written in the Navy International article of October 87? That article talks of

1239
"early forward deployment into the Norwegian sea of a NATO European battle-group led by Royal Navy Invincible-class carriers, to substitute for American battle-groups which cannot get there early enough."
If the paper does advocate such a policy, will it mean that the most controversial and hazardous part of the United States maritime strategy — the positioning of surface ships as far forward as possible, as early as possible in a crisis—will be carried out for the Americans by the Dutch, British and Germans? That would mean that we would be in the front line. Nelson said that no sailor but a fool would attack a fort. The Government appear to be making us look a fool. We should not be taking that frontline role on behalf of the Americans.
There have already been conventional skirmishes because of that forward offensive maritime strategy. In October 1987 two Royal Navy Lynx helicopters were involved in a dangerous confrontation with two Soviet nuclear weapon-capable Flogger aircraft during the surveillance of a Soviet exercise in the Barents sea. On 13 February there was a report in The Guardian about a skirmish in which two United States warships were inside Soviet waters. They were both dangerous, conventional skirmishes. Such skirmishes are increasing in number and could easily escalate into a nuclear fight. The problem is that the threshold is low and in a conventional skirmish the Soviets are faced with a choice about their own nuclear weapons; use them or lose them. That increases the danger of a nuclear fight enormously.
The other matter that I wanted to raise relates to the joint ocean surveillance information centre. We should have more information about that centre from the Ministry of Defence. It was unknown until the Pentagon announced last year the sale to the United Kingdom of $24 million-worth of upgraded items for the system. I understand that it is linked to the United States naval force Europe's headquarters at North Audley street in London, which houses the fleet ocean surveillance information centre Europe. While Britain officially adheres to NATO's maritime strategy, the operational reality is of a much closer integration with a more offensive United States maritime strategy which we have not yet agreed, certainly not in the House.
Why should JOSIC be a bilateral arrangement between Britain and the United States rather than part of NATO? If it is bilateral, why is it apparently funded entirely from the British defence budget? Why is there not a contribution from the United States? What control does the United Kingdom exert over the facility and its operational use in London? Why does the British taxpayer fund a system with a subsidiary role as a United States national intelligence system that is not assigned to NATO? The Minister should answer all of those questions.
Verification is a difficult problem to solve at sea. The Government should be considering how it can be achieved in detail because, without constraint on sea-launched cruise missiles and other nuclear weapons at sea, it will be very difficult for the United States, the Soviet Union or any other nation to assess and monitor the number of each other's nuclear weapons. That problem will complicate negotiations to limit or reduce nuclear weapons.
I conclude my remarks with a comment of retired United States Admiral Eugene Carroll. He said that the Trident missiles that we are buying will be
"a trigger to commit suicide"
and that the major powers are
1240
"addicted to new nuclear weapons. That addiction is as lethal as addiction to heroin or crack. We need a detoxification programme to wean ourselves off them. To live in a world in which safety is dependent on nuclear weapons is no safety at all. Sooner or later, they are going to be used."
9.23 pm
Mr. O'Neill: With the leave of the House, may I say that the debate has given long and thorough treatment to this important subject. It has been a more structured debate than in recent years, with a measure of agreement on the problems. Whether we have reached a consensus is a matter of debate.
Virtually every hon. Member has expressed anxiety about the size of the fleet. I hope that the report of the Select Committee on Defence will be published quickly and that time will be found for debate, perhaps before the Estimates are published. No doubt the business managers of the House are aware of the importance that hon. Members on both sides of the House attach to this issue, and of our concern. An opportunity to debate it again will be appreciated, particularly with information made freely available to all Members.
Those hon. Members who have sat through the Select Committee have the advantage of seeing draft minutes, which puts them in a better position in relation to this debate than the rest of us. I think that we get close to the edge of privilege when hon. Members quote from unapproved minutes. I do not want to carp, but that is all the more reason why this matter should be brought into the open so that we can find out what is happening.
Mr. Churchill rose—
Mr. O'Neill: This is the only intervention that I shall allow.
Mr. Churchill: I was quoting not from minutes but from a reply to a parliamentary question that I tabled to the Secretary of State for Defence.
Mr. O'Neill: I am happy and willing to attack the hon.. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill), but on this occasion he is innocent of any charge that I am making!
The debate has highlighted the anxieties of Opposition Members. Reference was made by the Conservative Benches to the significance of the procurement dimensions for most Opposition Members who have spoken on constituency employment, but the nature of shipbuilding means that the industry is a large and dominant employer, and the cyclical nature of warship orders has acted as a disincentive to private employers. Very few employers have come into the industry in the Tyne, Clyde and Mersey regions, so it is natural that my hon. Friends should be concerned about Royal Navy shipbuilding. My hon. Friend the Member for Wallsend (Mr. Garrett) pointed out the pride with which shipbuilding communities view their babies—their ships—and the manner in which they welcome shipbuilding is evidence of the community spirit which is manifest for construction and support services.
I will not go down the road of trying to choose between the competing claims of the Tyne or the Mersey for type 23s. It is not good enough for the shipyard workers, who are skilled men, to have to wait until June to be told who will get the tenders, although we realise that tendering is a lengthy process and it suits the purposes of the Government to delay their acceptance for as long as possible—at least until the next financial year when there will be more room in the Budget to find the £130

1241
million or £140 million needed for a type 23. We would like an indication, before the Estimates, of what the next round of orders will be and when they will start. The Government must give a commitment that they will carry on building type 23s.
Pleas have been made for the auxiliary oil replenishment vessels, and we have heard of the rivalry between Swan Hunter and Harland and Wolff. The Government must give an indication tonight when work will start on the recently ordered AOR 2 and when the four remaining AOR vessels will be ordered, because they are essential to keep type 23s at sea. One of the dangers of the shortsightedness of the Government's make-do-and-mend policy is that one craft is put at a disadvantage because another is not available to assist it and work with it.
Many references have been made to support in Norway and the need for amphibious vessels. The hon. Member for Bristol, East (Mr. Sayeed) referred to that matter, and we echo what he said. In 1986 the Ministry of Defence announced that it was putting aside £450 million in long-term costings to decide the future shape of the Royal Navy's amphibious capability. That announcement reversed the decision in 1983 to dispose of HMS Fearless and HMS Intrepid in the early 1990s without replacement. Then it was announced in 1986 that Swan Hunter had been awarded a £250 million contract for a study on the feasibility of updating the two landing platform docks. In March 1987 the industry was invited to tender for funded feasibility project definitions.
Those are high-falutin' expressions, but it is an expensive way of spelling procrastination or, to put it more simply, putting it off. We recognise that the decisions are important, but we suspect that the continual need for studies and reviews is just an excuse to delay expenditure on already severely stretched budgets. We know also that similar problems can arise in the anti-submarine carriers.
The refit for HMS Illustrious is to be postponed until 1991. This is critical because it could throw into chaos the whole refit cycle for carriers. By the early 1990s the Royal Navy will have only one carrier available for operational deployment.
We have had in the past from previous Ministers of State for Defence Procurement commitments to having two carriers generated at any one time, while the third will usually be in refit. Yet the Government's response to the Defence Committee report on the lessons of the Falklands said:
"two of the INVINCIBLE class carriers would be available for deployment at short notice and that to ensure this, a third carrier would be maintained in refit or reserve. The corollary of this is that two CAGs also need to be available at short notice".
During the recent exercise Purple Warrior, RAF Valley in Anglesey had to pretend to be an aircraft carrier because there were not enough aircraft or helicopter carriers. Probably it was just as well that this was in Anglesey and that they were only invading Scotland. The problems that these exercises indicate highlight the chaos into which we are lapsing and which the numbers aspect has in some respects clouded over tonight, because there are more deep-seated problems in procurement.
I have already spoken of the significance of warship building, but shipbuilding is a seamless garment. The skills that are gained in one yard are often translated, by the
1242
movement of individuals, to another. If we are not building merchant ships and we have an insufficient order book for warships, those skills will die.
I do not want to labour this point too much, but in talking about shipbuilding it is incumbent upon the Minister to tell us what has happened in the short fat ship controversy. It is now more than 12 months since Lloyd's was given the job of producing a report. When one goes to any part of the warship building industry and asks about this question, on invariably gets conflicting responses, but this was to be the definitive report. It may be that this is another judgment of Solomon that nobody wants to make or to publish, but I think that we would benefit from some straight talking on the issue.
In the recent past we have had some confirmation of the Government's good intent concerning NFR90. I would hope that we might this evening get a little more in this respect. We have had parliamentary answers, but this is the opportunity for the Minister to spell out the Government's intentions. We have the advantage — or disadvantage; I am not sure, Madam Deputy Speaker—of having a former Treasury Minister as the senior Minister for procurement, because as far as I can see it is the Treasury that is calling the shots on NFR90.
There is an aversion within that Department to any collaborative project. It sees the spectre of the European fighter aircraft looming on the horizon. But we believe that decisions of this nature are necessary, because if the shipbuilding industry in this country is to survive we must ensure that we keep the design teams together. I am speaking in particular about the work that is being done on the Clyde, because there is there a lead capacity that has to be sustained. It was for that reason that I said earlier that we want to know when the next four type 23 orders are to be placed, because nobody in warship building knows what is happening.
Strangely, we have not had any real mention in the debate this evening of the royal dockyards, partly because many of us believe that they are going through a difficult patch and it is better to—I do not want to say let sleeping dogs lie.
It may well be that the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) has other things to preoccupy him at the moment, but certainly Devonport is a cause for concern. It was promised core programme work by the Defence Secretary and predicted redundancies were based on the core programme coming through. Since then the MOD has reneged on those promises and Devonport is not getting the work. Therefore, the redundancies are taking an even greater toll, and it is an area where there is very little in the way of alternative employment because of the sheer scale of the place and the overheads which are a direct consequence of having such a large area in which to work. One of Rosyth's advantages is that it is a compact unit which is fairly well equipped and resourced.
The problem is that Devonport is finding it difficult not only because of overheads but because the scale of operation requires quite high rental fees; these are a burden which it has to bear and which many of the privatised yards do not, especially when privatisation was achieved at a very low cost to the people who purchased the yards. As regards in-house provision, there is also the question of the base at Portsmouth being used for refitting purposes. Work seems to be pushed towards Portsmouth, and the type 42 work which is being done at Portsmouth

1243
naval base is not being put out to tender. I should be interested to know why competitive tendering is not being applied there if it is such a cure for all ills.
To their great credit, the men and women in the yards have got down to the job. Those of us who were part of the long and weary progress of the Bill—I am not sure whether any hon. Members on the Government Benches tonight shared that experience, but a number of my hon. Friends who are here this evening did—were concerned that, although we did not want privatisation of the yards, when the House had had its say and the Bill went through, we were anxious about its consequences for industrial relations. Problems in this area have not been alleviated by the difficulty experienced by many workers in getting their redundancy payments. Some have had to wait as long as five months to get this money. The Ministry of Defence ought to get moving and to see to it that these payments are put into the hands of the work force as quickly as possible.
I will finish as I started, by paying tribute to the Navy and to the men and women who serve in it. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway) spoke movingly this evening about his recent trip to Saudi, where he met men who have been serving on the Armilla patrol. These men went out to what is one of the most unpleasant parts of the world in which to be a sailor and to work in craft which are not really suited to the climate there — air conditioning is the most basic problem. Nevertheless, they went there; they did not query it; they did not flinch from it; and they have done their duty with incredible courage in difficult and trying circumstances. They and the rest of the Royal Navy deserve better than they get from the Government. Between now and the next election all hon. Members have a duty to ensure that their conditions will be improved.
I hope that the Minister will be able to deal with some of the many problems raised in the debate, but that is perhaps too much to hope for.
9.38 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Tim Sainsbury): I agree with the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) on one important point, at least. Indeed, the whole House will agree with us that it has been an excellent debate with interesting contributions from all parts of the House. In the short time available, I shall try to answer as many of the points as possible, but I hope the House will understand that I cannot cover them all. Nor would it be fair to those who have already spoken to give way and thus further reduce the time available for my reply.
The first point to which I should respond was raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Sir A. Buck), by the hon. Member for Clackmannan and by most other hon. Members who have spoken. It relates to our surface fleet and, in particular, the destroyers and frigates in a variety of contexts. First, I reaffirm, yet again, the commitment of the Government to maintain a force of about 50 escorts. I was glad to hear that figure supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill).
There seems to be some confusion, to say the least, about the present size of the escort fleet. The hon. Member for Clackmannan referred to a figure of 36 escourts which appeared in the press today. The facts are simple. There are currently 49 destroyers and frigates in the Fleet. Of
1244
these, six are in refit, a significantly smaller proportion than a few years ago, largely as a result of the improved maintenance cycles that we have introduced. A further seven vessels are preparing for operational service or are engaged in trials or training. Of course, they would be operationally available in case of need within a short time. The other 36 would be available at about 48 hours' notice.
I was also asked about the ordering rate. We are not tied to a rigid order rate. Rather, we aim to place orders at a rate needed to maintain the level of about 50. While for planning purposes we may use ship life figures of, for example, 22 years, the reality is far more complex. Actual ship life is not simply a question of age; it is a trade-off between the material state of the ship and its capability.
As mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks), batch 3 type 22 frigates now coming into service — HMS Cumberland and HMS Campbeltown in the next financial year—are at least twice as effective in their role as the ships which they will replace and are the Navy's most capable frigates. The order rate comes down eventually to what vessels have to offer at a particular stage in their life. Another factor is flexibility arising out of our developing experience in running the new ships.
In this context I was asked about type 23 orders. Tenders for up to four type 23 frigates were received on 12 January. These are being evaluated. The precise size and timing of an order arising from the tenders have not yet been determined. [Interruption.] I do not think hon. Members would expect us to have decided on a tender in such a short time. It is just over a month since tenders were received.
One aspect of NATO's strategy has been mentioned several times by hon. Members who made interesting comments on this important subject. My hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend), the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Mr. Sayeed) referred to our important role in reinforcing the northern flank and, therefore, the important role of our amphibious capability. The House will recall that my right hon. Friend announced in December 1986 that the Government had decided to retain an amphibious capability in the longer term.
Our two LPDs are a vital element of that capability, as was mentioned. We are therefore now examining two options for the future of that element. One is the procurement of new build vessels, the other a ship life extension programme. A feasibility study has been carried out into the latter option by Swan Hunter, and further feasibility studies into the option of new build vessels are under way. They are being carried out under contract by three consortia, led by Swan Hunter, VSEL and Scott Lithgow. All the studies will be complete by the autumn of this year and the results will then be studied by the Ministry. This time scale means that we will be able to take a decision on the best way forward in good time before HMS Fearless and HMS Intrepid reach the end of their current useful lives in the mid-1990s.
In parallel with the work on the replacement of the LPDs we are giving active consideration to how best to accommodate the helicopter support, which was also referred to. I recognise that it is important for the amphibious group, and the concept of an aviation support ship features in this consideration. However, it is not the only option and no decisions have yet been taken.

1245
Two of the logistic landing ships, also important in our amphibious capability—the rebuilt Sir Tristram and the new Sir Galahad—have only recently joined the Fleet. There are plans to give older LSLs a ship life extension programme.
Last week I had the great pleasure and privilege of visiting the Royal Marine winter deployment in northern Norway, to see at first hand what amphibious operations involve north of the Arctic circle. I had the opportunity to watch 45 Commando deploying ashore, both by helicopter and landing-craft, from HMS Intrepid, and subsequently was able to spend some time with the troops as the exercise developed. It brought home to me vividly the complexity of this sort of operation, and the temperature in which it is carried out. I would like to pay tribute to the high levels of professionalism and skill shown by our service men when operating in these extreme conditions. Their presence is direct evidence of our commitment to the security of NATO's northern flank.
A number of hon. Members referred to Trident. The importance of Trident as a credible deterrent was stressed, understandably, by my hon. Friends the Members for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Franks) and for Bexleyheath. I am glad to confirm that the Trident programme is proceeding satisfactorily and on schedule. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made it clear on 23 February that production of warheads has started. Despite the reported difficulties on some building works at Aldermaston, we assess that deliveries of warheads will be on time to achieve the planned in-service date for the Trident system in the mid-1990s.
Mr. Dalyell: How about the parts that fell off the deck into the Mull of Galloway and off Walney Island?
Mr. Sainsbury: I shall resist the temptation to go down to the bottom of the Mull of Galloway with the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell).
The hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Garrett) raised several matters. First, I assure him that Swan Hunter has already been given the order for the AOR 2, which I announced just before Christmas. I note with interest his comments on the advantages of batch ordering. NFR 90 is now at the stage of project definition and the programme envisages first of class for the Royal Navy towards the end of the century.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Colchester, North made an interesting point about Holbrook school going co-educational. As my hon. and learned Friend will know, that question has been considered in the past but there are no plans to make any changes at present.
The hon. Members for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) and for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) referred to the HMS Resolution incident. There is no truth whatever in the allegation that there was "a near-disaster" on board HMS Resolution last month. The scrubbing-down story that was mentioned is a complete invention. There was an electrical malfunction which was dealt with by standard operating procedures. At no time was there any danger to the submarine's reactor, its crew or the public. It is not Ministry of Defence deception, but the scaremongering of the hon. Member for Dumbarton that is causing distress and concern to his constituents.
1246
I was glad to hear the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) on the WRNS and I welcome her support for the training in engineering.
The hon. Member for Clackmannan mentioned search and rescue at Lee-on-Solent. It has been our intention for some time to withdraw the Royal Navy Wessex flight from Lee-on-Solent on 1 April 1988. Coverage of the central English channel and Solent areas will be fully adequate—in many respects better—if we use the more capable Sea King aircraft operating mainly from Porton. The hon. Member for Clackmannan also referred to NFR 90, but I cannot add to what I have already said or to what my hon. Friend said in his opening speech.
The hon. Member for Attercliffe referred to increasing Soviet capability, as did other hon. Members. That is true, and it is a cause for concern. However, we should not ignore the fact that we do not need to meet this threat alone because we are part of the NATO Alliance and our own capability is growing.
I have been asked about procurement matters. Put simply, the objective of our policy is the economic procurement of the best equipment for the Fleet and therefore ultimately greater fighting effectiveness.
In recent years a consistent theme has been to bemoan the fact that modern defence material often costs much more in real terms than the previous generation of equipment that it is replacing. I do not accept the long-held view that defence equipment will inevitably become more and more expensive. On the contrary, I believe that we of can often get better defence equipment at a lower price. With improved skill, such opportunities will increase.
With regard to sonar we have made enormous strides in the important technology of software control and signal processing. That means that we can consistently improve our active and passive sonar capability, vital to counter the increasing Soviet submarine threat. At the same time we can also reduce the volume of inboard electronics, which has benefits for submarine design and ship fitting, and allows the production cost of the new equipment to be dramatically reduced. Today, for example, I announced that a competition for the new sonar 2074 has produced a solution, developed by Plessey Naval Systems Ltd., which requires only one sixth of the volume of electronics of its predecessor, and which can be procured for around 30 per cent. of its predecessor's cost. Its estimated through-life support cost is also around one third of the older generation of equipment.
Another area that has witnessed substantial technical progress that has been translated into improved performance by reducing real costs is electronic warfare, and, in particular, passive warning devices, known as electronic support measures. In the past few years we have initiated an extremely cost-effective updating of the fleet's main surface ship ESM, and we have held two competitions for submarine ESM, both of which have resulted in more capable equipments at unit prices some 15 to 20 per cent. less than those for previous ESMs.
With regard to mine warfare, also referred to in the debate, the hunt class mine countermeasures vessels, already among the most capable in the world and currently proving their worth in the Gulf, are to be followed by the new class of single role minehunters. Those ships will be only three quarters of the cost of a Hunt class vessel. However, they will have a number of improvements,

1247
including a far more capable mine hunting and disposal system, which will allow them to find and destroy mines in water three times as deep as the Hunt class ships.
I believe that our policies of competition, batch ordering and improved reliability and maintainability come together in a particularly striking way in the procurement of the type 23 frigate, referred to by a number of hon. Members. That ship will deploy all the major weapons systems of the previous type 22 frigate — helicopter, towed array and hull-mounted sonar, Seawolf point defence missile system, surface-to-surface missiles and a 4·5 in gun—yet it is being procured at around 80 per cent. of the cost of the type 22 frigate. It also has a significantly smaller crew, and we anticipate that it will, in due course, show substantial savings in its through-life operations and support costs as well.
Efficient management of procurement, using the stimulus of competition, has no doubt accounted for some of the price reductions, but we are also witnessing the benefits of technological advances that are allowing costs to fall.
Another area that has witnessed improvements in efficiency and about which I have been asked, especially by the hon. Member for Clackmannan, is the dockyards. The House will he aware that commercial management was introduced into the royal dockyards at Rosyth and Devonport on 6 April 1987. We took the decision to change the way in which the royal dockyards were managed because it had long been accepted that change was necessary.
The simple fact is that the old labour-intensive, uncompetitive, union-troubled set-up, ponderous and inflexible as it was, could not provide the cost-effective and rapid service now required by the Royal Navy. The Public Accounts Committee, commenting on the state of the dockyards in 1984, said that the time had come for more urgent and decisive action to balance efficient management and use of resources against the need to meet the Navy's operational requirements. A radical solution was needed both to improve the output and efficiency of the dockyards and to set in place a commercially-oriented management structure.
The Government decided that commercial management offered the best chance of a secure future for the dockyards, while protecting vital strategic assets by retaining them under Government ownership. Commercial management introduced the disciplines of competition and the best commercial practice into the hitherto protected world of warship refitting. This fulfilled the Government's obligations to obtain maximum value for money for the Royal Navy and the taxpayer, while at the same time giving the dockyards, with their unrivalled assets — which I recognise — work force skills and experience, the chance to ameliorate the worst effects of the decline in the defence ship refitting work load by seeking commercial work outside the defence sector.
The fundamental nature of those changes and the adjustments that have been and will be made in the dockyards — nearly all of whose employees have transferred from the Civil Service — and in the Royal Navy, as the new customer-supplier relationship develops in a commercial environment, cannot be overstated. It has therefore been a difficult time of transition.
Although it is early days, the Navy is already seeing the benefits of that, and the taxpayer is obtaining greater value for money. That is all the more impressive when it is
1248
remembered that commercial management was introduced against a background of union opposition — which had hindered the preparations that the incoming contractors were able to make — and after a period of industrial unrest, which was fuelled partly by the understandable apprehension and uncertainty of the employees.
I should therefore like to take this opportunity to congratulate Devonport Management Ltd. and Babcock Thorn Ltd. on the way in which they have approached their tasks and, in particular, on the great importance that they have placed, and continue to place, on good industrial relations. They have built on the spirit and loyalty of their work forces, who have responded very well to the challenge of this new approach.
As a result, there has been no significant disruption through labour relations problems in either yard since the change took place. That is a tribute to the good sense and restraint of all concerned. I should also like to record our appreciation of those within the Ministry of Defence's directorate general of ship refitting and dockyard planning team, who worked hard to make the installation of commercial management as smooth as possible.
We shall continue to keep the capacity of our defence refit capability under review. There is, as I am sure the House will recognise, a delicate balance to be maintained. On the one hand, we need to seek the undoubted benefits that open competition can bring — we have seen the benefits that it can bring—and, on the other, we have a responsibility to safeguard, by means of a core programme, the vital strategic assets in the royal dockyards, which include their ability, through regular experience and by maintaining the proper balance of work force skills, to repair and refit the most complex modern warships.
My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Martin) referred to the importance of Portsmouth to the Navy.
Mr. Nicholas Brown: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Sainsbury: I should like to respond to as many points as possible in the short time that is available.
As part of our continuing review of the capacity of our defence refit capability, the work done at the fleet maintenance and repair organisation at Portsmouth is being examined. While we value greatly the work that is done by the FMRO, it clearly cannot be immune to efficiency measures and to changes in the volume and make up of its work load. We cannot therefore guarantee that the current levels of employment there will continue indefinitely.
I should stress that Portsmouth, with its naval base and many training establishments, will remain a very important base for the Royal Navy, and the Ministry of Defence will remain a major employer in the area. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South that HMS Victory will remain as a tourist attraction run by the Navy.
We have every reason to be proud of the professionalism and dedication of our sailors and marines. I was glad that those qualities were recognised by all hon. Members. Their performance in the Gulf and elsewhere is evidence of their professionalism. We are determined to ensure that they are properly trained and equipped to carry out their demanding tasks.
My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South rightly drew the attention of the House to the significant

1249
increases in the capability presented by modern ships and weapons systems. That improvement is well illustrated by our escort force so frequently referred to. In the past five years, the number of towed array frigates has more than doubled. The number of ships fitted with Sea Wolf has increased twofold, and the number equipped with Sea Dart has risen by 25 per cent. Those numbers are increasing all the time.
The improvements stem directly from the Government's major investment in the Royal Navy during the past nine years. Many benefits of that investment are still being realised. Of 60 vessels ordered since 1979, nearly half have still to be delivered. In 1987, in addition to the four ships accepted for service, some six vessels have been ordered and a further seven scheduled.
It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

The Royal Navy

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (ESTIMATES)
  Ordered,
  That, at the sitting on Tuesday 8th March, paragraph (3) of Standing Order No. 53 (Questions on voting of estimates, etc.) shall apply to the Motions in the name of Mr. Secretary Younger relating to Estimates, 1987–88 (Army), Vote A or Estimates, 1987–88 (Air), Vote A as if the words 'for the coming financial year' in line 22 were omitted. — [Mr. Maclean.]

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That, at the sitting on Thursday 10th March, the provisions of paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 54 (Consolidated Fund Bills) shall apply to proceedings on the Consolidated Fund (No. 3) Bill as if the Second Reading of the Bill stood as the first Order of the day. — [Mr. Maclean.]
  10.1 pm

PETITION

  Turner Memorial Hospital, Keith
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I have the honour to present a petition to the House on behalf of more than 3,200 of my constituents in the communities of Keith and Grange in Banffshire. The petition relates to the desire of my constituents to retain maternity facilities at the Turner Memorial hospital in Keith and states:
  To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
  The humble petition of the people of Keith and district and Grange (Parish), Keith
  Sheweth that Grampian Health Board propose to close Keith maternity unit, Turner Memorial hospital, Keith.
  Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable House will also be against the closure of the Keith maternity unit at the Turner Memorial hospital, Keith, Banffshire.
  The number of petitioners represents 65 per cent. of the population in the area over the age of 16. That shows the strength of feeling of my constituents on this issue. I fully support their aims, and hope that the House will take cognisance of their desires.
  To lie upon the Table.

Profoundly Mentally Handicapped (Scotland)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —[Mr. Maclean.]
10.1 pm
Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me the opportunity to address the House in an Adjournment debate.
I wish to draw the Government's attention to the plight of Scotland's profoundly mentally handicapped, and to the provisions made by local authorities, health boards and voluntary organisations in providing care for that group and respite care for their families.
I should like to begin by defining, as best as I can, what it means to be profoundly mentally handicapped, to outline the problems in caring for that group and, finally, to suggest ways to improve facilities for this most deserving, and all too often forgotten, section of society.
Profoundly mentally handicapped people are very severely disabled, usually as a result of a congenital handicap, brain damage at birth or impaired development before birth. They have poor co-ordination and are often immobile, cannot feed, wash, dress or toilet themselves, are often incontinent, sometimes doubly incontinent, frequently have severe loss of hearing or sight, and do not have full powers of speech. In some cases they suffer acute epilepsy, taking multiple fits in rapid succession.
Profoundly mentally handicapped people therefore need constant round-the-clock care and attention to fulfil their most basic needs. They are totally dependent on those who look after them. That total dependency must never be forgotten. The degree of care that they need makes them different from other handicapped groups in society. There are roughly 5,000 people in Scotland in that category. A cause of great concern is that accurate figures cannot be obtained, which makes it difficult to plan community care programmes.
How then are the profoundly mentally handicapped cared for at the moment? Most of them are cared for at home where, in their natural environment, they are given all the tender, loving care that their parents so selflessly offer. It is generally agreed by parents, carers, the medical profession and, indeed, the Government, that the best care for this group is given when they are living at home in their neighbourhood communities.
But the parents of profoundly mentally handicapped people need support to help them to fulfil the task which, after all, demands all the time, energy and love that they can give. They also need a sign to reassure them that their children can exist and be happy without them in another environment which will also give them love and care.
Recent years have seen an increase in respite care facilities and in the provision of support services which are so vital in allowing parents to renew the great resources of strength that their everyday routine demands. Indeed, such back-up services have proved to be a godsend to such families, offering them the lifeline that they so desperately seek.
I have witnessed the excellent work done in the area of respite care because one such project, Mitre house, is in my constituency of Glasgow, Pollok. Such facilities give parents a breathing space in which to enjoy such luxuries as taking a holiday, going to a wedding, taking their other

1251
children out for the day or attending hospital, all in the knowledge that their profoundly mentally handicapped children are safe and happy.
I have also seen the great benefits that day care facilities can bring to profoundly mentally handicapped people and their families. It is to the credit of Strathclyde regional council that it has increased the number of day care places from zero in 1976 to 200 last year. I have also seen the increase in independence, albeit it in a limited way, that creating specific places for the profoundly mentally handicapped in Strathclyde's adult training centres, such as the one in Priesthill in my constituency, can bring to this group and the accompanying relief that it gives to their families.
But those services, admirable as they are, only tinker with the problem because they are not wide enough to resolve it. The demand for services is far greater than their supply. That is in no way a criticism of the local authorities, health boards or voluntary organisations, because they all do a magnificent job within the limits of their resources. It is rather a plea for additional resources to be given to them to allow them to continue and expand their work.
There are still too many profoundly mentally handicapped people in institutions. Department of Health and Social Security allowances and day care facilities are insufficient and there are not enough community-based back-up services.
The various sectors have combined in recent years to overcome many of those problems. A typical example is the co-operation that exists between regional councils and the voluntary sector in providing residential accommodation in small locally based units. But such co-operation needs funding. Financial support must be given to provide the necessary day care facilities and to top up DHSS allowances.
The health boards are finding it difficult to cope with the demand for community-based specialist services such as speech therapy and physiotherapy. That is due to the general underfunding of the National Health Service, but it is a particularly tragic result since those services are so vital to the needs of the profoundly mentally handicapped and their families.
The Scottish Office statement of January 1987 acknowledged the need for additional local government resources, but it made no commitment to increase resources specifically for the profoundly mentally handicapped. Rather, the Government are waiting until they see the outcome of the Griffiths report for England and Wales.
Scotland's profoundly mentally handicapped cannot wait. Their plight is urgent and desperate. It is the plight of people who cannot speak for themselves. Therefore, it is our duty to plead on their behalf. With the urgency and desperation of that plea in mind, I would consequently ask the House to consider the following proposals.
First, I ask the Government to review their method of collecting information relating to the definition of being profoundly mentally handicapped. That would allow more accurate figures to be obtained, and, as a result, would allow the caring agencies to plan their community care programmes more accurately.
Secondly, I ask for the immediate release of money to local authorities to help them provide care for this group and respite care for their families. I further ask
1252
that the health board be given enough funds to allow it to meet the demands for community-based specialist services.
Thirdly, I hope that the Government will seriously consider the suggestion of Strathclyde regional council that the pitifully small DHSS residential care allowances be augmented with special rates for the profoundly mentally handicapped. Alternatively, if the Government decide to pass the full financial cost to local authorities, I ask that assurances be given that those authorities will receive the necessary funding to allow them to meet the needs of the profoundly mentally handicapped.
The way forward lies in the continued co-operation that already exists among the sectors that care for the profoundly mentally handicapped. I have already testified to the good work being clone by three sectors in Strathclyde. It is echoed by similar provision being made by local authorities, health boards and voluntary organisations in other parts of Scotland. All these agencies need money to maintain existing services and to develop the new programmes of care that are so desperately needed.
I have already said that the profoundly mentally handicapped cannot speak for themselves. They do not form a powerful pressure group in today's rush-hour society, but their needs are constant, urgent and basic. Their silence is a plea for human understanding and dignity. It is a silence that compels us as a caring, Christian society to listen, to act and to give them the best that we have to offer. So I ask the House to hear the pleas of the profoundly mentally handicapped and I ask the Government to release sufficient funds to allow the continuation and expansion of the services that are so vital to the needs of these people and their families.
10.12 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Forsyth): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Dunnachie) for raising what is clearly a most important subject. His considerable experience in local government in Strathclyde before entering this House has clearly stood him in good stead in pursuing this matter with such vigour and obvious conviction, and I congratulate him on securing this debate and on his contribution to it.
It is difficult to be precise about the numbers of people who suffer from mental handicap. At one extreme, the handicap may be so slight as to be almost undetectable to others in daily living; at the other extreme there are those who are profoundly mentally handicapped—the group which we are talking about tonight.
It is a cruel fact that people with such handicaps have severe problems, which include difficulty in communicating their wishes and feelings to those who would like to help them. For that reason, they have to rely on other people to act on their behalf, to protect their rights and promote their welfare. The hon. Gentleman makes a plea on their behalf for human dignity and understanding. I am sure no one would dissent from that and I can assure him and this House that, as a Government, we are very much alive to the needs of this group. I hope that I can make that clear tonight.
On the health side, services for the mentally handicapped were of course identified in " Scottish Health Authorities Priorities for the Eighties" as being in the highest category of priority for the provision of services,

1253
and we have made clear to health boards and local authorities the emphasis that the Government wish to be placed on that priority group. It is only right that we should all do what we can to redress the balance in favour of handicapped people, and I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman's plea for additional funds.
We have backed up our commitment with real increases in the money available. Since 1979, gross expenditure on the NHS in Scotland has grown by about 28 per cent. in real terms. In 1979, it was £1,053 million. This year it is estimated to be £2,334 million, an increase of more than 120 per cent. in cash terms. It is a similar story for local authority expenditure on social work services, and I shall turn to that later. The profoundly mentally handicapped are receiving benefits from these increases. The hon. Gentleman has acknowledged this, but, if I may say so, in a rather negative way.
Some profoundly mentally handicapped people have particular medical problems which require that they are cared for in specialist mental handicap or general hospitals for most of the time. Others live in residential schools that specialise in education appropriate to their needs. Many profoundly mentally handicapped people live at home all their lives and are cared for by their parents with help from a number of statutory and voluntary agencies.
The hon. Gentleman laid great stress on respite care, and was right to do so. I am pleased that hospitals have also increasingly been providing respite care. Such facilities are now available in most mental handicap hospitals, as well as psychiatric and geriatric hospitals and units, and in units for the younger physically handicapped and in a number of general hospitals. This recognises that it is of the utmost importance that relatives and other carers get a break from the burdens of constant care. Profoundly mentally handicapped people living at home will be supported by the primary care health services and community mental handicap nurses.
We have long recognised a need to move towards less reliance on the long-stay institutions and the evidence is that, even for those with the most severe form of handicap, less and less is hospital seen as the best solution. The numbers of mentally handicapped people in hospital have been decreasing steadily in recent years, from 6,678 in 1979 to 5,459 in 1986. That most welcome trend is due to considerable work in the hospitals to assess, train and discharge patients and to the provision of community facilities both for former patients and for those who, not so long ago, might have been admitted to hospital. The joint planning and support finance arrangements are also making a significant contribution in the controlled move towards greater community care. However, it is important to stress that community care is not the panacea for all ills. Great care is needed to avoid discharging people from hospital before proper facilities are available for them in the community.
For some, the specialist facilities of hospital will remain the most appropriate form of care and we accept that conditions in hospitals must be improved. We have committed substantial sums to achieve that in recent years. For example, at Lennox Castle two new 12-bed intensive care wards, when fully commissioned within the next few months, will allow for the provision of care and treatment on a concentrated basis for groups of mentally handicapped people including those with profound mental
1254
handicap. Since 1979, we have provided in excess of 2,000 new and replacement mental handicap and mental illness beds, at a cost of over £60 million.
Nowhere is that provision more evident than in two of Scotland's largest mental handicap hospitals. At Lennox Castle, against a falling patient population, the Greater Glasgow health board last year opened four new 30-bed wards to replace unsatisfactory accommodation, at a cost of £2.5 million with a 20 per cent. increase in nursing staff. At the Royal Scottish national hospital over the past two years, the Government have provided the Forth Valley health board with capital resources of £2 million to carry out significant improvements in the fabric of the buildings, once more against the background of a falling patient population. Around 300 of the population live in new or upgraded accommodation, providing higher amenities and more privacy. Further improvements are under way. The health board has been successful in recruiting around 140 nurses—an increase of 25 per cent. and there have been a number of other staffing improvements at the hospital. The Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland, which had been critical of conditions at both these hospitals, has now publicly acknowledged the improvements which have been made.
The improving levels of care and services which profoundly mentally handicapped people are receiving in hospital or otherwise under the NHS are only part of the story. Happily, many handicapped people are able to remain in the familiar surroundings of their own homes. The hon. Gentleman has paid tribute to those carers and I too have the greatest admiration for the dedication of families and other carers in looking after seriously handicapped people.
In looking at the care of the mentally handicapped in the community, perhaps I could turn first to education. Though not mentioned in detail by the hon. Gentleman it has long been recognised that even profoundly mentally handicapped children are capable of benefiting from education.
It is clearly important that special needs should be discovered and addressed as early in the child's life as possible. Education authorities may therefore start making appropriate provision for a handicapped child, even when he or she is below school age. A contribution in helping to identify such children whose difficulties may not always be immediately apparent will commonly be made by doctors, health visitors and social workers. That is typical of the co-operative and collaborative effort that is encompassed throughout community care.
There were, at the last count, 1,070 profoundly intellectually impaired children or young persons at school, of whom 808 attend special schools. That represents just over 10 per cent. of those children recorded as having special educational needs. The money provided for special education needs in 1987–88 amounted to £59.5 million. Next year it will be increased substantially, by some 18.5 per cent., to £70 million.
While many parents of profoundly mentally handicapped children may wish to have their children living with them at home once they leave school, there will be some for whom that will not be possible. In the past, admission to hospital has been the only available choice in most cases, but the position has changed in recent years as the "Balance of Care" study published a year ago shows.

1255
The move towards care in the community is being brought about in a number of different ways. Local authorities themselves are devoting a larger proportion of their budgets to services for the mentally handicapped—5.5 per cent. in 1979–80 as against 7.8 per cent. in 1986–87 — but the budgets themselves are larger, as overall resources which we have made available have grown substantially in the past eight years. The planning figure for social work current expenditure in 1988–89 is 36 per cent. greater in real terms than in 1979–80 and 5.5 per cent. above authorities' own budgets for social work services in 1987–88.
Although there has been a substantial move away from the provision of fully staffed residential accommodation for those who are mildly or moderately mentally handicapped, some residential facilities are still being developed on a more traditional model. Those are undoubtedly serving a purpose for more severely mentally handicapped persons by allowing them to sustain their lives in the community in an environment which is fully supportive of their needs.
However, it is in the expanding field of day care that significant strides are being made in the development of community services for the care of mentally handicapped people. Day care, as well as allowing some respite, can provide much- needed scope for mentally handicapped people to develop skills and gain a sense of achievement in a variety of activities. In 1986, local authorities provided 6,542 day care places as against 4,387 in 1979, an increase of some 50 per cent. The voluntary sector also makes a valuable contribution as the hon. Gentleman said, providing a further 450 places.
Local authorities have increased the amount of residential provision for mentally handicapped persons which they make at their own hand, from 594 places in March 1979 to 865 places in 1986. There has also been a marked increase in the amount of accommodation provided by the voluntary sector. The number of places in voluntary establishments registered by the local authority has increased from 493 to 712 in the same period, but the range of accommodation which can meet needs extends to group homes and a variety of supported accommodation, including many schemes provided by housing associations. Together they make a sizeable contribution to housing in the community for the handicapped with over 460 units as at December 1987.
Mr. Brian Wilson: If the Minister is so concerned—I am sure he is—about the care of the mentally handicapped, can he tell us why he and his colleagues insist that the mentally handicapped should pay the poll tax? Does he not think that it runs contrary to the philosophy he is espousing? It has been confirmed in written answers to me that as soon as the mentally handicapped are released into care in the community they will be liable for the poll tax. How on earth can that be justified? Will it not be a severe deterrent to people who are trying to rehabilitate the mentally handicapped in the community to find that they will be hammered by the poll tax on top of everything else?
Mr. Forsyth: I regret having given way to the hon. Gentleman. He will know that the proposed community charge is subject to a rebate scheme. He will also know that the severely mentally handicapped are exempt from the community charge. It is another example of the hon.
1256
Gentleman's attacks on the community charge, which seem to be based on a lack of information about what we propose.
Mr. Wilson rose—
Mr. Forsyth: I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman again.
Not all the schemes to which I referred are designed to cater for the profoundly mentally handicapped, and there is still a need for additional residential accommodation. In that connection, I welcome the opening recently of a number of voluntary sector establishments. For example, the Fred Martin project for multiple and profoundly handicapped people is an inter-agency venture run by Barnardo's which has enabled some 16 people to be removed from hospital and accommodated in ordinary domestic-sized premises. Another, run by the Scottish Society for Autistic Children, is Balmyre house in Alloa — a residential hostel providing 24 places for young adults suffering from autism.
I very much agree with the positive things that have been said by the hon. Member for Pollock tonight about respite care. It is an area of growing interest in social work, not just for the mentally handicapped but for the whole range of clients whose care is provided in their own homes or elsewhere in the community. The role of residential accommodation in meeting respite care needs is recognised and the voluntary sector has a major role, as witnessed by such organisations as Crossroads, in the care of the physically handicapped.
While the main funding responsibility for local social work services rests with local authorities, developments in respite care have been made possible in some cases such as Mitre house run by the archdiocese of Glasgow to which the hon. Member for Pollock referred, with financial support from the Government through the urban programme.
Other bodies have been helped through a special programme of grants recently provided by us. Of the various projects which received grant aid for three years through the care in the community initiative commenced in 1985, four were for the mentally handicapped. Over the three years, the projects will have received some £165,000. In practical terms they have brought short-term respite care to 15 families in Dunfermline; helped extend day care in Skye; provided the opportunity for mentally handicapped people in Glasgow to live away from their families for short periods; and helped a number of people in Edinburgh into supported accommodation.
I should also mention the action taken within the past few weeks to help another five projects get under way by offering capital grants totalling about £150,000. Much of this relates to the cost of converting and fitting out accommodation. Some of the projects will provide residential accommodation in the community, and others—the hon. Gentleman will be delighted to hear this—will provide respite care facilities.
We have had an interesting and, I hope, useful debate this evening on this important area of the National Health Service and local authority activity. We have heard also of provision outwith these areas by families and the voluntary sector. It is to the hon. Gentleman's credit that he has chosen to highlight the needs of these disadvantaged people and their carers. In my response, while I was, perhaps, not able entirely to satisfy the hon.

1257
Gentleman's questions, I hope that I have demonstrated that care and services for the profoundly mentally handicapped are generally being provided at an appropriate level, and that where improvements can be made these are being addressed. I have noted the hon. Gentleman's view that planning would be facilitated by better statistical information. There are difficulties, but I shall certainly look at this matter to see whether any improvements might be practicable and I am grateful to him for making the suggestion.
I have also noted the hon. Gentleman's reference to difficulties with regard to provision of speech therapists and physiotherapists. As recently as 22 February I met COSLA to discuss this very matter, and I agreed at that meeting to take up the matter with health board chairmen. I shall be doing so when I meet them on 18 March. Perhaps I could mention that in the NHS we have managed to increase the numbers of speech therapists by 32 per cent., and physiotherapists by 28 per cent. since 1979.
1258
We continue to pursue the move from hospital care to community care, where proper facilities are available. To those who say, "Do more," I point to the considerable improvements that have already been made, and to the substantial increases in funding that we have given to the NHS and to local authorities so that services can be maintained and further improved for this important group of people and their carers.
Mr. Dunnachie: May I thank the Minister for his reply to me, but say that he leaves me somewhat baffled. The group that I am talking about are the Cinderellas, those with mental illness. They have little or no help. I am surprised when you tell me this, as I know for a fact that when we talk about—
The motion having been made after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at twenty-nine minutes to Eleven o'clock.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Derbyshire (ex-Chief Constable)
  Mr. Benn
  To ask the Attorney-General when he received a report from the Director of Public Prosecutions following the investigations conducted into the affairs of the former chief constable of Derbyshire, Mr. Parish; and what recommendations were made to the Director of Public Prosecutions by the West Mercia police and the Derbyshire constabulary.

  The Attorney-General
  I have received no report from the Director of Public Prosecutions concerning Mr. Parish. The contents of reports submitted by the police to the Director are confidential.

  Labour Party (Red Cross Emblem)
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Attorney-General when he expects the Director of Public Prosecutions to conclude consideration of the use by the Labour party of the Red Cross emblem on a party political leaflet; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  Police inquiries into this matter are continuing. The Director will reach his decision after those inquiries have been completed and a full report has been submitted to him.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Corporal Punishment
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what new sanctions for bad behaviour have been introduced into schools since the abolition of corporal punishment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  None. Corporal punishment was but one of several sanctions available to head teachers and governing bodies, who are responsible for disciplinary policy and practice within their individual schools. Her Majesty's inspectorate's report on good behaviour and discipline, published last year, gives schools guidance of best practice.

  RRS Frederick Russell
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what measures he intends to take to compensate for the withdrawal of the RRS Frederick Russell from service.

  Mr. Jackson
  It is for the Natural Environment Research Council to decide its scientific priorities within the total funds at its disposal. I understand from the NERC that the loss of the RRS Frederick Russell will in part be compensated for by the use of the replacement 624
  vessel for the RRS John Biscoe when it is not engaged on Antarctic duties and in part by the use of other countries' research vessels through bilateral arrangements. The replacement for the RRS John Biscoe is expected to enter service in 1990.

  Education Reform Bill
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what provision will be made for circumstances where, under the terms of the Education Reform Bill, local authorities become liable to pay compensation or legal costs where governors of schools with financial delegation have in good faith contravened statutory or contractual requirements, including the provisions of the Race Relations, Sex Discrimination and Employment Protection Acts, and collective agreements with trades unions.

  Mr. Dunn
  In so far as such costs relate to dismissal of staff, the Bill provides that the local education authority shall meet them outside the school's delegated budget unless it has good reason for deducting them from that budget. For other cases it would be a matter to be settled as part of the operation of schemes of financial delegation whether such costs were to be met outside the school's delegated budget or could be deducted from that budget.

  Consultancy (Higher Education)
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many tenders were sought and received for his Department's consultancy with Tyzack and Partners on higher education corporation governing bodies.

  Mr. Jackson
  The Department invited three firms to submit proposals for consultancy on the membership of higher education corporations. Proposals were received from two of these.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the cost to public funds of the employment of Tyzack and Partners as consultants to advise his Department on the composition of higher education corporation governing bodies.

  Mr. Jackson
  The contract is for the sum of £50,000, exclusive of VAT.

  Universities and Polytechnics
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has for safeguarding the independence of universities and polytechnics.

  Mr. Jackson
  The Government have no wish to see the proper freedoms of universities and polytechnics eroded. Universities' and polytechnics' substantial reliance on public funds means that the interests of the taxpayer have to be taken into account alongside desirable institutional autonomy. The right balance is being explored in debate during the Education Reform Bill's parliamentary passage.

  London Residuary Body
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what additional staff will be recruited by the London residuary body in the event of the abolition of the Inner London education authority.
  625
  Mr. Dunn
  Most of the executive work of the London residuary body in respect of the Inner London education authority will take place at a stage when the body's work arising from the abolition of the Greater London council has largely ceased. The question whether additional staff will need to be recruited will be considered at the appropriate stage.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Merchant Navy Reserve (Bounty)
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the new bounty proposed for the Merchant Navy Reserve is to be treated in the same way as the bounty paid to the Territorial Army and be free of tax.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The tax position of the proposed bounty for members of the Merchant Navy Reserve cannot be settled until the precise obligations of reservists, which give rise to the payment, have been established. I understand these are currently under detailed consideration.

  Income Tax
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what further research he intends to commission into the correlation between cutting the higher rates of income tax and the work effort and efficiency of those affected.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to commission any research on this subject.

  Mr. Summerson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much income tax will be paid in the present financial year(a) by a married man with two children earning £100,000 a year, (b) by a single man with no dependants earning £100,000 a year, (c) by a married man with two children earning £25,000 a year, (d) by a single man with no dependants earning £25,000 a year, (e) by a married man with two children earning £7,500 a year and (f) by a single man with no dependants earning £7,500 a year, in each case assuming no other income and no allowances other than personal allowances.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The information is in the table:

  Income tax liability, 1987–88

  Annual earnings

  Single man

  Married man

  £

  £

  £

  7,500

  1,370·25

  1,000·35

  25,000

  6,811·75

  6,195·25

  100,000

  50,203·00

  49,381·00

  The calculations assume that the man's earnings are his only source of income and that he has no reliefs or allowances other than the appropriate personal allowance. The number of children in a family does not affect the tax liability.

  Gross Domestic Product
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give the latest figures for levels of gross domestic product per capita in each of the United Kingdom regions.

  Mr. Major
  Provisional figures for gross domestic product per capita by standard region are available on 626
  page 86 of Economic Trends, November 1987, a copy of which is in the House of Commons Library. The figures are as shown:

  Gross domestic product per head (£), factor cost: current prices;

  19862

  North

  5,142

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  5,215

  East Midlands

  5,378

  East Anglia

  5,643

  South East

  6,575

  South West

  5,380

  West Midlands

  5,069

  North West

  5,232

  Wales

  4,795

  Scotland

  5,234

  Northern Ireland

  3,889

  United Kingdom1

  5,597

  1 Excluding the Continental Shelf region.

  2 Provisional.

  Manufacturing Investment
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the latest projections for the growth of manufacturing investment in each of the regions of England, Wales and Scotland and the United Kingdom as a whole.

  Mr. Major
  Official projections for individual regions do not exist. The Department of Trade and Industry's latest investment intentions survey, published in December 1987, projected a rise of 11 per cent. in United Kingdom manufacturing investment in 1988.

  Interest Rates
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received concerning interest rates.

  Mr. Lilley
  My right hon. Friend has received a number of representations on this subject.

  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the real level of interest rates in the United Kingdom, West Germany and Japan; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lilley
  There is no unique measure of "real" interest rates. But the OECD's monthly publication "Main Economic Indicators" gives various interest rates and price indices for OECD countries.

  Local Authorities
  Mr. Summerson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of total central Government revenue is given to local authorities.

  Mr. Major
  20·5 per cent. The February 1988 edition of CSO's financial statistics shows that in 1986–87 (the latest full year available) current and capital grants from central Government amounted to £22,831 million out of a total Consolidated Fund revenue of £111,211 million.

  Tax Matters (Convention)
  Mr. Madel
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action he proposes to take on the joint Organisation
  627
  for Economic Co-operation and Development and Council of Europe convention on mutual administration assistance in tax matters, which was opened for signature on 25 January.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  We have already undertaken to consult widely among interested parties before reaching a decision on whether the United Kingdom should sign this convention and, if so, with what reservations. I have therefore asked the Inland Revenue to seek the views of the representative bodies which have expressed an interest in this matter, including the CBI and representative bodies of the accountancy and legal professions. We will be glad to consider any views which any other interested party may wish to express. Comments should be sent by the end of September. An Inland Revenue press release issued today gives further details.

  Privatisation Sales (Advertising)
  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give the cost to the Government of advertising in each of the privatisation sales since British Telecom.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The cost to the Government of corporate and flotation advertising and advertising agency fees, exclusive of VAT, for each privatisation and residual share sale from British Telecom onwards is as follows:

  £ million

  British Telecom

  9·7

  Britoil

  3·0

  Cable and Wireless

  2·2

  British Aerospace

  1·7

  British Gas

  21·4

  British Airways

  2·8

  Rolls-Royce

  1·6

  BAA

  4·9

  British Petroleum

  18·3

  This reply replaces that given to the hon. Member for Dunfermline East on 18 January, which did not treat each sale on a consistent basis and also contained inaccuracies.

  Numbers and percentages of single people and couples with pay as main source of income

  Range of pay and percentage of average fulltime male weekly earnings at an annual rate

  North

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  Numbers (thousands)

  Per cent.

  Numbers (thousands)

  Per cent.

  Up to 50 per cent.

  185

  22·9

  319

  25·1

  Over 50 per cent. and up to 75 per cent.

  216

  26·8

  354

  27·9

  Over 75 per cent. and up to 100 per cent.

  220

  27·3

  316

  24·9

  Over 100 per cent. and up to 150 per cent.

  150

  18·6

  225

  17·7

  Over 150 per cent. and up to 200 per cent.

  27

  3·4

  37·

  2·9

  Over 200 per cent.

  8

  0·9

  20

  1·5

  Total

  806

  100·0

  1,270

  100·0

  Numbers and percentages of single people and couples with pay as main source of income

  Range of pay and percentage of average fulltime male weekly earnings at an annual rate

  North West

  East Midlands

  Numbers (thousands)

  Per cent.

  Numbers (thousands)

  Per cent.

  Up to 50 per cent.

  447

  27·0

  264

  24·8

  Over 50 per cent. and up to 75 per cent.

  481

  29·0

  284

  26·7

  Over 75 per cent. and up to 100 per cent.

  366

  22·1

  285

  26·8

  Over 100 per cent. and up to 150 per cent.

  266

  16·1

  178

  16·7

  Over 150 per cent. and up to 200 per cent.

  59

  3·6

  34

  3·2

  Charities
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the procedures for registering charities in Scotland by the Inland Revenue, in the light of the 16th report of the Public Accounts Committee on the registration of charities in England and Wales.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 1 March 1988]: There is no system of public registration of charities in Scotland. The Inland Revenue deals with claims to the tax exemptions available to bodies established for charitable purposes, on the same basis as it does elsewhere in the United Kingdom. Questions on general matters affecting charities in Scotland are for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

  Taxpayers
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what regional information is available on numbers and percentages of taxpayers on 50 per cent., 75 per cent., 100 per cent., 150 per cent., 200 per cent., 500 per cent., 700 per cent., 1000 per cent. and 2000 per cent. of average earnings; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lawson
  [holding answer 29 February 1988]: Information is not available in precisely the form requested. The table, based on the survey of personal incomes for 1985–86, shows the number of single people and married couples liable to tax on their total income and where the main source of income is pay. The ranges of annual pay shown in the table (of the husband in the case of married couples), are based on average full-time male weekly earnings in 1985–86 of about £198. Neither part-time nor part-year employees can be distinguished; thus those having average weekly earnings whilst in employment but working for less than half the year will be included in the less than 50 per cent. range. Pay will in some cases include taxable unemployment benefits or statutory sick pay. I regret that reliable information for the highest ranges of earnings requested is not available.
  629

  Range of pay and percentage of average fulltime male weekly earnings at an annual rate

  North West

  East Midlands

  Numbers (thousands)

  Per cent.

  Numbers (thousands)

  Per cent.

  Over 200 per cent.

  36

  2·2

  17

  1·6

  Total

  1,650

  100·0

  1,060

  100·0

  Numbers and percentages of single people and couples with pay as main source of income

  Range of pay and percentage of average fulltime male weekly earnings at an annual rate

  West Midlands

  East Anglia

  Numbers (thousands)

  Per cent.

  Numbers (thousands)

  Per cent.

  Up to 50 per cent.

  391

  27·6

  131

  26·3

  Over 50 per cent. and up to 75 per cent.

  388

  27·4

  119

  23·8

  Over 75 per cent. and up to 100 per cent.

  383

  27·0

  119

  23·8

  Over 100 per cent. and up to 150 per cent.

  200

  14·1

  100

  20·0

  Over 150 per cent. and up to 200 per cent.

  33

  2·3

  19

  3·8

  Over 200 per cent.

  22

  1·5

  12

  2·3

  Total

  1,420

  100·0

  499

  100·0

  Numbers and percentages of single people and couples with pay as main source of income

  Range of pay and percentage of average fulltime male weekly earnings at an annual rate

  South East

  South West

  Numbers (thousands)

  Per cent.

  Numbers (thousands)

  Per cent.

  Up to 50 per cent.

  1,190

  23·2

  283

  26·1

  Over 50 per cent. and up to 75 per cent.

  1,190

  23·1

  280

  25·8

  Over 75 per cent. and up to 100 per cent.

  1,180

  23·1

  264

  24·4

  Over 100 per cent. and up to 150 per cent.

  1,040

  20·2

  200

  18·5

  Over 150 per cent. and up to 200 per cent.

  313

  6·1

  41

  3·7

  Over 200 per cent.

  223

  4·3

  17

  1·5

  Total

  5,130

  100·0

  1,080

  100·0

  Range of pay

  Numbers and percentages of single people and couples with pay as main source of income

  Wales

  Scotland

  Northern Ireland

  Percentage of average full time male weekly earnings at an annual rate

  Numbers (thousands)

  Percentage

  Numbers (thousands)

  Percentage

  Numbers (thousands)

  Percentage

  Up to 50 per cent.

  191

  29·9

  354

  24·5

  103

  29·4

  Over 50 per cent. and up to 75 per cent.

  190

  29·7

  404

  28·0

  101

  29·0

  Over 75 per cent. and up to 100 per cent.

  117

  18·3

  369

  25·5

  74

  21·2

  Over 100 per cent. and up to 150 per cent.

  114

  17·8

  245

  16·9

  50

  14·4

  Over 150 per cent. and up to 200 per cent.

  20

  3·2

  46

  3·2

  14

  4·1

  Over 200 per cent.

  8

  1·2

  27

  1·9

  7

  1·9

  TOTAL

  639

  100·0

  1,450

  100·0

  349

  100·0

  Note: Members of Her Majesty's forces and the Merchant Navy are excluded from the tables.

  Rating Valuations
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will provide the terms of reference given to the interdepartmental group of the Board of Inland Revenue and the Scottish Session which is examining differences between English and Scottish assessors' valuation practice for rating purposes; when this group was set up; how many members it has; and when he expects it to report.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 29 February 1988]: A steering committee on harmonising rating valuation practice in England and Wales and Scotland was set up in 1986. It comprises the executive of the Scottish Assessors' Association and an official from Inland Revenue valuation office. In addition, there are four working groups on individual aspects of harmonisation. There are no formal terms of reference and the exercise will
  630
  not lead to a formal report or document for publication. However, it is hoped that the groups' observations will lead to proposals to reduce differences in valuation practice during and after 1990.

  Taxable Income
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in the manner of his answer of 18 January,Official Report, columns 473–74, he will estimate the effect of a one-earner, two-child family, of introducing a reduced rate band of 20 per cent. on (a) the first £1,000, (b) the first £1,500, (c) the first £1,750, and (d) the first £2,000 of taxable income; and if he will estimate the full year costs, at 1988–89 incomes, of each measure.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  (holding answer 19 February 1988] The table shows the gain from each of the reduced

  631
  rate bands for a married man whose wife does not work and the full year costs at 1988–89 income levels of each measure. The calculation of the gain assumes that the taxpayer has sufficient income to receive the full benefit from each reduced rate band. The cost of each reduced rate band has been calculated by comparison with the 1987–88 income tax regime indexed to 1988–89 levels according to the statutory formula. It has been assumed that separate reduced rate bands are available to both husband and wife where the wife has earnings.

  Width of 20 per cent. reduced rate band

  Benefit to a one-earner couple

  Full year cost at 1988–89 levels of income

  £ per year

  £ per year

  £ million

  1,000

  70·00

  1,650

  1,500

  105·00

  2,400

  1,750

  122·50

  2,750

  2,000

  140·00

  3,100

  Third World
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the totals of profits and dividends from outward investment repatriated to the United Kingdom from the Third world and to the Third world from the United Kingdom in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 29 February 1988]: I have been asked to reply.

  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 4 November 1987 at column 752.

THE ARTS

  Book Lending
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Minister for the Arts whether he intends to charge for basic book-lending at libraries.

  Mr. Luce
  No. As I have said in my recently published Green Paper, the Government's objectives are to preserve and support the provision at public expense of the free basic book-lending and reference services of public libraries. Within this context, I also want to encourage library authorities to expand their sources of revenue so as to provide their customers with better and more client-oriented and cost-effective services.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Lunar House
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish a table showing the number of applications by category dealt with at Lunar house in each year since 1979 and the number of staff dealing with them.

  Mr. Renton
  The number of citizenship applications dealt with since 1979 and after entry decisions dealt with since 1984 (comparable figures are not available before) are as follows:
  632

  Applications for citizenship completed

  Category of Case

  Year of Decision

  Naturalisation

  Registration

  1979

  2,832

  29,023

  1980

  7,442

  31,542

  1981

  7,903

  48,063

  1982

  8,416

  73,643

  1983

  8,675

  52,444

  1984

  15,226

  62,894

  1985

  16,262

  40,739

  1986

  15,209

  35,327

  1987

  119,895

  150,546

  1 Provisional

  After-entry decisions2 made 1984–87

  Year of Decision

  Category of case

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  Visitors

  31,600

  39,500

  44,000

  36,200

  Working holiday makers

  2,900

  5,200

  3,500

  3,800

  Students/trainees

  72,300

  81,000

  78,000

  71,500

  Au pairs

  1,400

  1,600

  1,700

  1,300

  Work permit holders

  13,900

  13,200

  13,100

  11,500

  Permit free employment

  13,700

  14,100

  12,500

  10,200

  Business/independent means

  2,300

  2,400

  2,600

  2,600

  Fiance(e)s

  500

  500

  400

  300

  Marriage

  4,800

  6,500

  7,400

  7,000

  Refugees/asylum

  3,100

  4,100

  3,500

  2,800

  Settlement

  25,700

  29,400

  26,000

  26,700

  Others1

  26,100

  32,400

  30,800

  32,700

  All decisions

  198,200

  227,900

  223,500

  206,600

  1 Largely return of passport cases.

  2 Including decisions taken by the regional public inquiry offices but excluding entry clearance cases.

  The number of staff dealing with this work in the immigration and nationality department at Lunar house in January for each of the years 1985–88 was given in a reply to a question from the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) on 9 February, at column 137.

  Ian Richard Thain
  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what were the grounds for his Department's decision to accept Ian Richard Thain, convicted in Northern Ireland, into a prison in Britain.

  Mr. Hurd
  Private Thain's application for permanent transfer to an establishment in England and Wales was regarded favourably in the light of the normal criteria governing transfers between the two jurisdictions.

  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the arrangements made for Ian Richard Thain's imprisonment in Britain provided for a continuing role or responsibility by the Northern Ireland Office, given the grounds and place of his conviction.

  Mr. Hurd
  No.

  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he made the decision to release Ian Richard Thain on parole;

  (2) what review body or parole board considered Ian Richard Thain's case; what was the date the matter was first referred to this body; what information this body had

  633
  before it in its considerations; what was the date the decision to recommend parole was taken; and to whom this recommendation was passed;

  (3) what information was available to him as to whether Ian Thain was returning to Army service when the decision was made on his parole.

  Mr. Hurd
  Private Thain's case was considered by the local review committee at Liverpool prison on 3 September 1986 and subsequently by the parole board on 13 October 1986. In common with the cases of all life-sentence prisoners, the information before the parole board would have included full details of the nature and circumstances of the offences, the prisoner's previous record and response in prison, and the views of the trial judge and the Lord Chief Justice on the requirements of retribution and deterrence for the offence. The board would also have taken into account the degree of risk to the public if the prisoner were to be released. Having taken all these factors into account the parole board recommended Private Thain's release on licence, and I accepted the board's recommendation.

  Both the parole board and I were aware that Private Thain's services had been retained by the Army and also that an undertaking had been given that, if released, there was no question of his again serving in Northern Ireland.

  Greenham Common
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has as to how many individuals have been(a) prosecuted, (b) convicted and (c) imprisoned under those Greenham Common byelaws which Reading Crown court ruled on 25 February were invalidly made.

  Mr. John Patten
  The information requested is not available from the records of court proceedings held centrally.

  Fire Stations (Closures)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list each fire station in England and 634
  Wales that has been closed since May 1979; and if he will give details of the appliance deployment and whole time, day manning, or retained, fire fighter staffing, as appropriate, at each immediately prior to closure.

  Mr. John Patten
  The information sought is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. If, however, the hon. Member has any particular case in mind he may wish to write to me.

  Fire Brigades
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list each local authority fire brigade in England and Wales; and if he will provide details of the net loss of uniformed operational fire fighting posts which have been implemented in each, with ministerial consent, under the Fire Services Act 1947, for each financial year since 1978–79.

  Mr. John Patten
  The information sought, but on a calendar year basis, can be derived from the annual reports of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Fire Services for England and Wales for the relevant years, copies of which are in the Library. The Secretary of State's approval is required before a fire authority may reduce the number of whole-time members of the brigade other than those whose duties do not normally include fire fighting, and of part-time members of the brigade.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list each local authority fire brigade in England and Wales; and if he will provide details of any net loss of fire appliances which have been implemented in each, with ministerial consent, under the Fire Services Act 1947, for each financial year since 1978–79.

  Mr. John Patten
  The local authority fire brigades in England and Wales are listed in the annual reports of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Fire Services for England and Wales, copies of which are in the Library. The other information sought is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Remand Prisoners
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners on remand from the Metropolitan police area were held in(a) Grimsby police station, (b) Lincoln police station, (c) Hull police station, (d) Scunthorpe police station, (e) Bradford police station and (f) Halifax police station on 1 March.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  On Tuesday 1 March, 38 prisoners from the Metropolitan police area were held in Grimsby police station; seven in Lincoln police station; 34 in Hull police station and 16 in Halifax police station. No such prisoners were held in Scunthorpe or Bradford police stations on that date.

  Leeds Prison
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) young, (b) long-term and (c) remand prisoners there were in Her Majesty's prison Leeds on the latest available figures.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The information is given in the following table.

  Population of Leeds prison on 31 January 1988: by type of prisoner

  Type of prisoner

  Young offenders3

  Adult prisoners

  Total

  Untried

  251

  422

  673

  Convicted unsentenced

  33

  51

  84

  Non-criminal

  1

  8

  9

  Sentenced:

  Short and medium term 1

  37

  396

  433

  Long term 2

  5

  172

  177

  Total

  327

  1,049

  1,376

  1 Including fine defaulters.

  2 Young offenders over three years, adult prisoners over four years.

  3 Persons under 21.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners were in Her Majesty's prison Leeds in(a) 4 June 1985 and (b) 12 February 1988.

  Offences currently1 recorded as homicide where the victim was a police officer by the result of court proceedings or other outcome England and Wales: Number of persons

  Year initially recorded

  Number of offences (victims)

  Decided by the court to be

  Other outcome

  Murder

  Section 2 manslaughter

  Other manslaughter

  1980

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1981

  2

  1

  —

  1

  —

  1982

  6

  3

  —

  1

  2 (one suspect—committed suicide

  1983

  3

  —

  —

  —

  3 (no suspects)

  1984

  3

  1

  —

  —

  1 (no suspects, one suspect died)

  1985

  2

  1

  —

  —

  1 (suspects acquitted)

  1986

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  19872

  3

  1

  —

  —

  1 (awaiting trial)

  1 (suspect committed suicide)

  1 As at 1 March 1988.

  2 Provisional.

  636
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  On 4 June 1985, 1,306 prisoners were held in HM prison Leeds. On 12 February 1988 the figure was 1,410.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects construction work to start and to be completed on the extension of Her Majesty's prison Leeds.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Work on the redevelopment of HM prison Leeds is being undertaken in four phases, the first of which has now begun. It is expected that the final phase will be completed by August 1996.

  London Information Business School
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what interchange of computer information took place prior to the raid upon the London Information Business School in connection with immigration matters; which other Government Departments were involved; whether this interchangeability is ad hoc or is to be permanent; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  None.

  Immigration Officers (Tottenham)
  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask he Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will estimate the cost of the proposed visit of immigration officers to the constituency of the hon. Member for Tottenham on 14 March.

  Mr. Renton
  I assume the hon. Member is referring to a visit by officials from the Home Office to Haringey on 15 March about which I wrote to him on 18 February. The costs incurred by the officials who travel to and from Haringey will be very small.

  Police Officers (Killings)
  Mr. Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many killings of police officers in England and Wales, resulting in murder convictions, have taken place in each year since 1980.

  Mr. John Patten
  The information is given in the following table.

  Prison Officers (Killings)
  Mr. Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many killings of prison officers in England and Wales, resulting in murder convictions, have taken place in each year since 1957.

  Mr. John Patten
  Since 1957, in England and Wales, one prison officer has been killed (in 1965) and the result was conviction for murder.

PRIME MINISTER

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

  Mr. Wakeham
  I have been asked to reply.

  My right hon. Friend will be attending the economic summit in Toronto in June.

  Cawston
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has any plans to make an official visit to Cawston, near Rugby.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I have been asked to reply.

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

  Identity Cards
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will set up a Cabinet Committee to consider the introduction of a system of identity cards.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I have been asked to reply.

  I have nothing further to add to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson) on 26 January, at column 133, on the establishment of a Cabinet Committee. The introduction of identity cards along the lines of those issued in some European countries has been considered from time to time, but we are not persuaded that a sufficiently strong case could be made out for their issue here.

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 3 March.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 3 March.

  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 3 March.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 3 March.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 3 March.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 3 March.

  Mr. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 3 March.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I have been asked to reply.

  My right hon. Friend is in Brussels for a NATO summit meeting.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Masons
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if any Officer of the House, in the last five years, has booked or sought to book facilities within the House for purposes related to the Masonic order.

  Mr. Wakeham
  No such purposes have been declared by an Officer of the House. In accordance with the rules of the House, such facilities should only be booked for private meetings in connection with a parliamentary subject.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Lord President of the Council (1) if he will take steps to seek to make disclosure of membership of the Masonic order a requirement of the Register of Members' Interests;

  (2) if he will take steps to seek to make disclosure of membership of the Masonic order a requirement of the Register of Parliamentary Journalists.

  Mr. Wakeham
  No. Any consideration of changes in the scope of the Register of Members' Interests or the Register of Parliamentary Journalists would, in the first instance, be a matter for the Select Committee on Members' Interests.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Headstart Programme
  Mr. Bevan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many inner-city residents in the Government's task force areas will benefit from enterprise training under the headstart programme.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The Industrial Society, which runs the headstart in the inner-cities programme, plans to provide enterprise advice and training to at least 6,000 inner-city residents during the present one-year contract. The programme is funded jointly by my Department and the MSC, but our input is more than matched by the commitment of the society's member firms, whose managers put tremendous effort into the programme's seminars and conferences.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many members of staff within his Department are located within each region outside London; what percentage this constitutes of staff within his Department; and what were the comparable figures in 1979.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Direct comparisons between 1988 and 1979 are not possible because of machinery of Government changes. The figures for 1 January 1988 for DTI, with illustrative figures for employment by its predecessor Departments in 1979, are follows:

  11 April 1979

  Percentage of DTI total

  1 January 1988

  Percentage of DTI total

  Scotland

  910

  5·3

  690

  5·5

  Wales

  2,320

  13·5

  1·660

  13·3

  639

  1 1 April 1979

  Percentage of DTI total

  1 January 1988

  Percentage of DTI total

  Northern Ireland

  35

  0·2

  5

  —

  North East

  390

  2·3

  250

  2·0

  North West

  490

  2·8

  380

  3·0

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  250

  1·5

  220

  1·8

  East Midlands

  150

  0·9

  170

  1·4

  West Midlands

  200

  1·2

  280

  2·2

  South West

  320

  1·9

  170

  1·4

  South East (excluding London)

  750

  4·4

  600

  4·8

  Total Regions

  5,815

  33·9

  4,425

  35·4

  1 Department of Industry, of Trade and of Prices and of Consumer Protection.

  Industrial Output
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster which countries have had a smaller increase than the United Kingdom in industrial output between 1979 and 1987.

  Mr. Maude
  Of the major industrial countries, France had a smaller increase in industrial output than the United Kingdom between 1979 and 1986. However, since 1981 industrial production in the United Kingdom has increased more rapidly than in France, Germany, Italy or the United States of America. (Comparable figures are not yet available for 1987.)

  European Regional Development Fund
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will seek an extension of the European regional development fund non-quota textile area regulation initiative; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  Council regulation (EEC) No. 724/75, on which the 1980 and 1984 textile area "non-quota" regulations are based, has been repealed. The current textile area regulation expires on 31 March 1989 and no further financial allocations can be made under it.

  These special "non-quota" measures were always intended to operate for a limited period and to depend on the substantial European regional development fund funding which was temporarily made available.

  However, small and medium-sized firms throughout Great Britain may now apply for the new consultancy grants recently announced as part of my Department's enterprise initiative.

  Space Research (Report)
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he intends to respond to the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology's report on space research.

  Mr. Atkins
  A debate on the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology's report on United Kingdom space policy is planned in another place for 30 March. The Government's reply will take account of the views expressed in the debate.

  Management (Report)
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the recommendation of the efficiency committee report "Improving Management in Government: The Next Steps," which are within the area of responsibility of his Department.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  My right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and I intend to apply the recommendations in this report as rapidly arid extensively as possible. The Department provides a wide range of services to industry and commerce, many from offices outside London, and the recommendations in the report should help in our drive to improve both the quality of these services and the value for money obtained by the taxpayer. Our first candidate will be the Companies Registration Office, whose headquarters are in Cardiff, and which employs just over 1,000 staff there and in offices in London and Edinburgh.

  Chemical Industries Association
  Dr. Michael Clark
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he last met the director general of the Chemical Industries Association; and what subjects were discussed.

  Mr. Atkins
  My right hon. and learned Friend has not met the director general of the Chemical Industries Association in his capacity as Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, but there are frequent meetings between the association and Ministers in this Department. A wide range of issues of mutual interest is discussed.

  Recording Industry
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what were the overseas earnings of the British recording industry in the latest available year.

  Mr. Maude
  The overseas earnings of the United Kingdom recording industry, comprising royalties from overseas on recordings made in the United Kingdom, services provided to overseas residents by the United Kingdom recording industry, profits and dividends from overseas branches and subsidiaries of United Kingdom recording companies, cannot be separately identified in the information provided to the Department for the balance of payments. In 1987 exports of pre-recorded gramophone records, tapes and other similar media were valued at £264 million.

  EC (Internal Market)
  Mr. Heddle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the extent and impact of the proposals contained in the European Commission's White Paper, "Europe without frontiers; Towards a Large Internal Market", in-so-far as his Department is concerned.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Proposals contained in the European Commission's White Paper "Completing the Internal Market, 1985," cover a wide spectrum of economic activity. Areas of interest to my Department include the elimination of physical and technical barriers to the free
  641
  movement of goods; the liberalisation of trade in service; and the removal of various restrictions on freedom of establishment for the professions.

  Removal of trade barriers will improve access to a market of 320 million people, encourage the growth of trade with other Member States, further improve economic efficiency and reduce costs to business.

  Legal Profession
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he has any plans to increase the flexibility of the legal profession.

  Mr. Maude
  Continuing work is being undertaken by my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor to improve the efficiency with which legal services are provided. The Government also await with interest any proposals which may emerge from current consultations within the profession itself.

  Textile Consignment (Occupied Territories)
  Mr. Robert Hicks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what response he has received from the European Commission following the alterations by Israeli authorities of the occupied territories' certification of origin of consignment of textiles for a United Kingdom customer; and what action he proposes taking.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The Commission need to consult the Israeli authorities; I am pressing it to get an early response.

  Carbon Carbon Technology (Export)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will institute an inquiry into the circumstances in which carbon carbon technology was exported to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics by Consarc of Bellshill in contravention of the regulations governing the export of sensitive materials to Communist bloc countries; what co-operation Her Majesty's Government intend to give to the United States Congressional inquiry into this matter: and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) on 29 February, at column 416. I see no need to institute an inquiry.

  Citizens Band Radio
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans the Government have for 934 MHz citizens' band radio.

  Mr. Butcher
  I am pleased to make such a statement. As the House knows, the Government, in common with other Administrations in Europe, are to consider the introduction of a short range radio (SRR) system in the band 933–935 MHz. One of the existing users of this band is the 934 MHz CB allocation. Approximately 3,000 users have these sets out of a total of over 115,000 CB licensees.

  Once SRR becomes widely used, it is inevitable that the CB service will suffer an increasing level of interference and it is important that potential users of the band are aware of this, and that the many potential users of any new SRR service are adequately protected.
  642
  I have decided therefore that the Performance Specification MPT 1321 to which 934 MHz CB transceivers are manufacturer certified should be withdrawn from 30 December 1988. This will provide warning to traders and potential users alike that no new sets should be made or imported from this date.

  It is of course only fair that existing users of the CB band get a good life from their sets. I can assure users that their existing equipment may continue to be used for its foreseeable useful life.

  Merger Control
  Mr. Stevens
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when full details of the proposed legislative changes in merger control, announced in the recent White Paper "DTI—The department for Enterprise", will be published.

  Mr. Maude
  The details of the proposed legislative changes in merger control are being published today as part of a DTI paper on the policy and procedures of merger control. Copies of this paper are being placed in the Library of the House and in the Vote Office.

  The paper sets out the present policy towards mergers; that the main consideration for determining whether a merger should be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission will continue to be its potential effect on competition. However, the law will continue to give the Secretary of State discretion to refer mergers on other public interest grounds. The paper discusses some of the concerns expressed about this policy and restates the underlying rationale for the Government's view. We believe that intervention by public authorities in lawful commercial transactions should be kept to a minimum, since broadly speaking the free commercial decisions of private decision-makers in competitive markets result in the most desirable outcomes for the economy as a whole. The paper goes on to look at this rationale in more detail and to set out how the potential effect on competition is assessed.

  While the broad thrust of merger policy remains unchanged, the Government have always considered there is room for improvement in merger procedures. A particular consideration is the length of time taken by the procedures; but the Government also want to ensure that the system is as flexible and efficient as possible.

  The paper sets out three major legislative changes directed towards improving the procedures; a new formal, but voluntary, procedure for pre-notifying mergers; a new provision for legally binding undertakings to be given in some cases without an MMC reference; and a new statutory charge to cover the costs of the merger control process.

  Prenotification.

  Those who choose to prenotify a proposed merger will need to submit answers to a standard questionnaire about the transaction and businesses involved. In simple cases, this information will allow a proposed merger to be automatically cleared within four weeks provided it has been publicly announced. In more complex cases, the OFT will need more detailed information and in those cases the parties will be informed that the right to automatic clearance has lapsed. I would expect companies to see considerable advantages in using this prenotification system. If a merger is not prenotified, it will generally take

  643
  longer than four weeks to decide whether or not a reference to the MMC should be made. Moreover, mergers which are not prenotified will remain liable to reference to the MMC for a period of up to five years. Firms therefore have much to gain in certainty and speed under the new procedure.

  Statutory Undertakings

  Some mergers pose a threat to competition which is obvious even from a cursory examination, but which may nevertheless be capable of being removed by some modification of the merger arrangements. The parties to such mergers are often willing to promise such modifications. At present, however, there is no means by which such undertakings can be given statutory force except by invoking a full Monopolies and Mergers Commission investigation. Therefore, we propose to introduce new provisions for statutory undertakings to be given to the Secretary of State by the parties, as a possible alternative to a full Monopolies and Mergers Commission investigation. These undertakings may cover such possibilities as divestment of some of the assets of the merging enterprises or the post-merger behaviour of the new group. This new provision will give the Director General of Fair Trading an enhanced role in negotiating modifications to a merger proposal and will provide a quicker and more flexible mechanism for dealing with competition problems in certain cases. The paper goes into the proposal in more detail.

  Charging

  All these improvements in speed and quality will involve resource costs at the Office of Fair Trading and the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. The Government propose to introduce a statutory charge to cover the costs of the merger control process. Details remain to be settled: one possibility is a charge payable by the acquiring company and leviable on mergers where a controlling interest is acquired and where the assets test is satisfied. The charging structure will be kept as simple as possible.

  Apart from these three major changes, the paper suggests a number of other changes in procedure aimed at speeding up and improving the present process such as closer integration between the Office of Fair Trading and the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. It is the Government's aim that the Monopolies and Mergers Commission investigations should in most cases last no more than three months.

  Newspapers

  Gross bilateral aid to SADCC countries at 1986 prices

  £ thousand

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Angola

  74

  17

  120

  66

  81

  160

  170

  317

  Botswana

  13,790

  16,661

  13,199

  9,111

  15,207

  17,530

  9,090

  12,805

  Lesotho

  11,457

  6,648

  8,236

  5,116

  5,373

  5,742

  2,467

  3,784

  Malawi

  43,153

  23,872

  20,705

  20,440

  16,730

  14,220

  14,511

  15,019

  Mozambique

  11,020

  6,680

  6,961

  2,316

  2,066

  4,589

  8,666

  7,424

  Swaziland

  14,449

  9,339

  5,363

  7,661

  6,483

  6,174

  3,497

  7,722

  Tanzania

  41,657

  46,348

  38,877

  32,889

  34,769

  36,248

  18,612

  12,715

  Zambia

  50,451

  29,864

  31,214

  17,134

  17,720

  36,104

  26,469

  35,366

  Zimbabwe

  8,772

  52,532

  64,771

  25,832

  22,261

  16,528

  24,484

  12,242

  644
  Cm. 278 in January announced that legislation will be introduced to enable the Secretary of State to specify the period within which the Monopolies and Mergers Commission investigations into newspaper mergers should be completed. The Monopolies and Mergers Commission has said that it will complete future inquiries into the general run of newspaper mergers within two months.

  The Department of Trade and Industry has also examined its own procedures for handling cases and will issue a guidance note giving details of the procedures and specifying the information required by the Department in considering all applications for consent to a newspaper transfer. Early contact between the Department and parties to transfers will be encouraged and the streamlining of procedures within the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and the Department will make it more difficult for companies to argue that an Monopolies and Mergers Commission inquiry is ruled out by financial urgency.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Aid Statistics
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects to announce the level of gross national product devoted to official aid in 1987.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  I expect to be able to inform Parliament of the figure for 1987 by early June.

  South African Development Co-ordination Conference
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list British contributions to South African Development Co-ordination Conference for each year since its formation.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Since the Southern African Development Co-ordination Conference was formed, the United Kingdom has committed the following amounts: £10 million in 1980–81; £2 million in 1982–83; £13 million in 1985–86; £10 million in 1986–87; £10 million in 1987–88.

  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the level of British bilateral aid to each of the member states of South African Development Corporation Conference from 1979 to 1986 inclusive, in 1986 prices.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The figures are as follows:
  645
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the level of

  Gross bilateral aid to South African Development Corporation Conference countries

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  £000

  £000

  £000

  £000

  £000

  £000

  £000

  £000

  Angola

  43

  12

  93

  55

  71

  146

  164

  317

  Botswana

  7,970

  11,546

  10,199

  7,570

  13,289

  15,975

  8,775

  12,805

  Lesotho

  6,622

  4,607

  6,364

  4,251

  4,695

  5.233

  2,382

  3,784

  Malawi

  24,941

  16,543

  15,999

  16,984

  14,620

  12,959

  14,008

  15,019

  Mozambique

  6,369

  4,629

  5,379

  1,924

  1,805

  4,182

  8,366

  7,424

  Swaziland

  8,351

  6.472

  4,144

  6,366

  5,665

  5,626

  3,376

  7,722

  Tanzania

  24,076

  32,119

  30,040

  27,328

  30,384

  33,033

  17,967

  12,715

  Zambia

  29,159

  20,696

  24,119

  14,237

  15,485

  32,901

  25,552

  35,366

  Zimbabwe

  5,070

  36,405

  50,048

  21,464

  19,453

  15,062

  23,636

  12,242

  Source: British Aid Statistics.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Nuclear Waste
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has on the outcome of the European Parliament special committee of inquiry meeting into the mismanagement of nuclear waste in Europe in Brussels on 22 and 23 February.

  Mr. Mellor
  The meeting was of a preliminary nature and reached no conclusions. We understand that the Committee intends to hold its next meeting in Strasbourg on 10 March, to be followed by a series of formal hearings. They will also be requesting written evidence.

  Panama
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on current relations between Her Majesty's Government and Panama.

  Mr. Eggar
  We maintain normal diplomatic relations with Panama. Together with our EC partners we have expressed deep concern about recent developments in Panama and have appealed to the present rulers of Panama to open the way for internal peace and democracy.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what advice is being given to British citizens in Panama in the light of recent events in that country.

  Mr. Eggar
  The situation in Panama remains calm. We have no reason to believe British citizens are at risk, but inquirers are being advised to contact Her Majesty's embassy on arrival for the latest information.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contingency plans exist to protect British maritime interests in Panama in the event of the closure of the canal.

  Mr. Eggar
  We keep the situation under constant review and are in touch with British shipping interests.
  646
  British bilateral aid to each of the member states of the South African Development Corporation Conference from 1979 to 1986 inclusive.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The figures are as follows:

ENERGY

  Electricity (Privatisation)
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what recent representations he has received concerning the future of the nuclear industry following privatisation of the electricity industry.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I have received representations from electricity consumers, unions, other nationalised industries and other interested parties about a wide range of issues related to the privatisation of the electricity supply industry, including the implications for the future of nuclear power.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if there will be any requirement on the new privatised power company including nuclear plant to renegotiate commercial contracts signed on 24 April 1986, by the Central Electricity Generating Board with British Nuclear Fuels plc for spent nuclear fuel reprocessing at the Sellafield thermal oxide reprocessing plant.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  No.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) what capital value will be put on the Central Electricity Generating Board technical research centres at(a) Barnwood, (b) Marchwood and (c) Berkeley under privatisation;

  (2) what capital value will be put on the Electricity Council research centre on electricity efficiency at Capenhurst under privatisation;

  (3) what valuation will be put on (a) Central Electricity Generating Board's Magnox plants and (b) Central Electricity Generating Board's AGR plants under privatisation.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The Government aim to achieve full value for the taxpayer for all parts of the industry, consistent with the Government's objectives for the privatisation. We will be seeking expert advice on the industry's value, but ultimately it will be determined by the market.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what requirements will be laid upon the new large power
  647
  company including the nuclear power stations to retain a holding in United Kingdom Nirex Ltd. under privatisation plans.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Details have yet to be considered, but present expectations are that the Central Electricity Generating Board's shareholding in United Kingdom Nirex Ltd. will pass to the successor operator of Central Electricity Generating Board nuclear power stations.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what are the implications for the present Central Electricity Generating Board commitment to research and development investment in the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority fast reactor programme of proposed privatisation plans.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The Central Electricity Generating Board agreed to provide some 30 per cent. of the funding of the fast reactor programme with the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority from 1987–88. After privatisation, it will he a matter for the industry to decide how much it should spend on the fast reactor.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what consideration has been given in his preparation of plans to privatise the electricity supply industry to the suitability of the present underwriting insurance arrangements in the case of a major accident at a nuclear power plant.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Arrangements under the Nuclear Installations Act 1965 will continue after privatisation.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) what valuation will he put on the spent nuclear fuel in storage ponds at Central Electricity Generating Board nuclear reactor sites under privatisation;

  (2) what valuation will be put on low and intermediate-level nuclear waste at Central Electricity Generating Board nuclear plant sites under privatisation;

  (3) what valuation will be put on (a) unreprocessed spent nuclear fuel, (b) uranium arisings, (c) plutonium arisings and (d) nuclear waste arisings from Central Electricity Generating Board nuclear fuel reprocessed at Sellafield under privatisation.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  It is too early to say what the valuation of these materials will be at the time of the privatisation of the electricity supply industry.

  CEGB
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Parkinson
  I meet Lord Marshall frequently, and we discuss a range of matters.

  Flue Gas Desulphurisation
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects the first flue gas desulphurisation plant to come into operation.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The CEGB envisages that the first stage of FGD plant planned for the Drax power station will be operational by 1993.

  Sellafield
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make available to the European Parliament Committee on Energy Research and Technology the facility attachments agreed with EURATOM for the safeguarding of the British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. Sellafield magnox reprocessing line material balance areas, with all site maps, photographs or information on access routes to the site excused from the documentation.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  No. I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) on 12 June 1986 at columns 268–69.

  Coal Imports
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his estimate of the impact of his policy as outlined in the White Paper published on 25 February upon coal imports as they may affect(a) deep and (b) opencast mining; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The privatised electricity supply industry will be free to purchase its coal from any source. The best protection for United Kingdom coal industry sales to the electricity supply industry is that it should produce reliable supplies of coal at prices which are competitive on the world market. Since we came into office we have backed British Coal with over £9 billion of taxpayers money.

  Onshore Licensing
  Mr. Butterfill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether he will make an announcement about the results of the second onshore licensing round.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  I have today announced the conditional award of 60 new-style exploration licences for blocks in England, Scotland and Wales. The licences allow companies to search and drill for petroleum, subject to the procedures of the planning system and the technical approval of my Department. Where the licences extend into coastal waters stringent conditions will be set to ensure that local interests will be fully taken into account before operations are undertaken.

  Details of the awards have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Hot Dry Rock Project
  Mr. Rost
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the outcome of the review conducted in 1987 of the geothermal hot dry rock project being conducted by the Camborne school of mines.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I have today announced a new phase of the hot dry rock programme to run from October 1988 and costing up to £8.15 million. The new programme will include:experimental work on the existing reservoir al Rosemanowes quarry to help test the feasibility of techniques that would be required to create a commercial system in a new reservoir approximately 6 m deep;
  an initial design study for a 6km deep system in collaboration with interested industrial companies; supporting technical and economic studies.
  649
  Reports of the review are being published and I will arrange for copies to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

TRANSPORT

  Ferry Safety
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures he has taken to improve the safety of roll-on/roll-off ferries since the Herald of Free Enterprise disaster of 6 March 1987; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Channon
  Since the tragedy at Zeebrugge, I have been giving top priority to improving the safety of the travelling public on roll-on/roll-off ferries. I have therefore been bringing in a wide range of measures, based largely on the recommendations of the Sheen report, which are aimed at achieving this objective. The action I and my Department have taken since 6 March 1987 is as follows.

  First, primary legislation. The Merchant Shipping Bill, which has completed its Committee stage in the House of Commons today, contains several important safety provisions. A ship can be classified as unfit to go to sea for a wider range of reasons. Penalties for an offence will include up to two years imprisonment or an unlimited fine, or both. Charterers and managers will be made responsible for their ships. There will be a totally new requirement that shipowners and managers must take all reasonable steps to secure the safe operation of their ships. The Bill stipulates that masters and other seafarers must exercise all due diligence so that they can carry out their duties without endangering the ship and its passengers; and it explicitly lays down that the duties of a master must include responsibility for the good management and safe operation of the ship.

  I also decided to use the Bill to set up an independent marine accidents investigation branch, modelled on the existing air accident investigation branch. It will be headed by a Chief Inspector of Marine Accidents, who will report directly to me. I intend to set up the new branch as soon as possible after Royal Assent.

  Second, I have made, or am preparing to make, a number of regulations. From 1 January all United Kingdom roll-on/roll-off passenger ships have had to be equipped with indicator lights and closed-circuit television on the bridge to show the condition of the loading doors, and vehicle spaces must be continuously monitored. From 31 July, these ships will also have to be fitted with self-contained supplementary emergency lighting. From 1 March, these measures have also been extended to foreign ships when they are in United Kingdom ports.

  From 29 February, all major United Kingdom passenger ships have had to operate boarding card systems to check and control the numbers of passengers. From 1 April, subject to parliamentary approval, these measures will be applied to foreign ships sailing from United Kingdom ports.

  From 9 March, new provisions covering the berthing of ferries and the closing of loading doors will apply to United Kingdom roll-on/roll-off passenger ships. Main loading doors and other weathertight or watertight doors above the water level will have to be closed either at the berth or as soon after leaving as is physically possible. Each operation will have to be reported and logged.
  650
  Subject to parliamentary approval, these measures will be extended to foreign ships sailing from United Kingdom ports by 1 April.

  On 31 July 1987, my Department issued a consultative document porposing that roll-on/roll-off passenger ships should be required to calculate and record draughts and stability before sailing, and that larger ships should be equipped with draught gauges and loading computers. This was followed up on 11 February by the issue, for consultation, of draft statutory instruments which would take effect from 1 November this year.

  On 2 September last, my Department issued a consultative document proposing regular checks of the stability of United Kingdom roll-on/roll-off passenger ships, and for the compilation of more comprehensive stability data. Draft statutory instruments, which will take effect from 1 November this year, will be issued shortly.

  On 23 December last, my Department circulated, for consultation, draft statutory instruments which would require every lorry to be weighed individually before being loaded on to a roll-on/roll-off passenger ferry, from 1 December this year.

  On 22 January, my Department issued a consultative document proposing that special emergency equipment should always be carried, and that equipment should be available and fittings installed to make it easier to move around in a badly-listing ship. These measures will be taken forward together with earlier proposals for the fitting of emergency windows to make escape easier.

  On 12 November, a consultative document was issued which proposed that all ships should carry comprehensive operating manuals, and that operators should name an individual in their shore management to be responsible for safety and for ensuring that the manuals are complied with. This document also proposed that log books should be more comprehensive, and that potentially hazardous occurrences should be reported. Draft statutory instruments and a merchant shipping notice, bringing these proposals into effect, will be issued shortly.

  I have also asked for draft instruments to be prepared which will cover the loading of roll-on/roll-off passenger ferries and lay down requirements on the securing of lorries and their loads.

  Third, we have introduced various measures which have not required legislation. Marine surveyors are stepping up their spot checks of passenger ships, including icognito checks. We have also decided that in future, counsel to the formal investigations into marine accidents will be appointed and instructed by the Attorney-General. In the past, my predecessors have appointed counsel both to the formal investigation and to represent my Department.

  Fourth, we have taken steps on the international front. On 9 November the United Kingdom secured the adoption of a resolution at the International Maritime Organisation to give urgent consideration to the safety of roll-on roll-off ferries. The IMO is now considering specific proposals we have made for international measures equivalent to those adopted in this country.

  Last October I wrote to the Shipping Ministers of 10 other European countries, proposing co-operation on ferry safety. Officials are discussing co-operative enforcement of our own measures, as well as parallel measures by the other Governments which will affect their own ports and ships.
  651
  Fifth, we have done a great deal of work on ship design. On 31 July last my Department called for full data on all roll-on roll-off ferries built before 1980 to be sent in by this April, so that assessments could be made of how these ships stand up to current tests of survivability in collisions. We will analyse this information fully, and intend to reach conclusions by the end of September.

  On 30 October my noble Friend the Minister with responsibility for shipping set up a steering committee, under the Surveyor General, to administer a research programme into the stability and related safety aspects of roll-on roll-off passenger vessels.

  We have awarded a research contract to examine the stability of existing roll-on roll-off ships, following collision damage, against new standards which are now before the International Maritime Organisation for adoption in April.

  We will shortly be inviting tenders for research into the likelihood that a ship on a cross-channel route would be in shallow water if it capsized, and into the means of escape from a ferry on its beam ends.

  We will also shortly be inviting tenders for a comprehensive programme of research to examine ways of reducing the risk of large volumes of water reaching the vehicle deck of a roll-on roll-off ferry, and to prevent such an event leading to a catastrophe. It is my intention that this work will be completed by the end of this year. Model tests will start at the same time, but will take somewhat longer.

  We have invited further tenders for the application of risk analysis techniques to the safe design and operation of roll-on roll-off ferries, and we will be placing a contract shortly. I intend that this work should be completed by February 1989.

  Sixth, there has been some further miscellaneous work. On 1 December my Department issued an advisory note proposing research into lifejackets that are simpler and esier to put on. We will issue a contract shortly.

  On the same day, my Department issued another advisory note on the clear labelling of decks, exits, lifejacket stows and muster stations, as well as on emergency procedure information for passengers. We will be issuing merchant shipping notices shortly.

  Last month, my Department issued a consultative document on the Sheen report's recommendation that the criteria for carrying lifeboats on ships that are never far from land should be reviewed.

  We have also prepared a paper for the International Maritime Organisation, which includes proposals for improving communications between ships and helicopters used for search and rescue.

  This long catalogue of follow-up action which we have already taken testifies both to the thoroughness of the Sheen report and to our commitment to implementing it. Since the report was published, we have been systematically working through its proposals and taking whatever action appears to be necessary. I am glad to say there has been widespread recognition of what we have already done.

  There have been steady improvements in ship safety, including ship stability, over the past decades; and the Sheen report made various further recommendations for work in this area. Last year I announced that I was making a further £1 million available for a research programme. This work is now being put out to contract, and I am
  652
  determined that any results which would allow real improvements in passenger safety will be obtained as quickly as possible.

  Finally, we have to remember the facts. Roll-on/roll-off ferries in the United Kingdom have an outstandingly good safety record. Until the loss of the European Gateway in 1982, there had been no major loss of life on a British roll-on/roll-off ferry since the Princess Victoria in 1953. They carry upwards of 20 million passengers a year, and their record compares well with other modes of passengr transport.

  But that is no excuse for complacency. I am determined to try to do even better.

  Near Misses
  Mr. McCrindle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had with the chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority about procedures for the reporting and investigation of air misses; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Channon
  I have discussed the present arrangements for reporting and investigating air misses with the chairman of the CAA, and I have asked him to review them. We both agree that the purpose of the procedures must be first to enhance flight safety by encouraging reporting so that lessons can be learnt from each incident; and, secondly, so far as is consistent with that, to strengthen public confidence in the air traffic control system through maximum openness and impartiality in the reporting and investigation of air misses. The chairman has now written to me with proposals that I warmly welcome as going a long way to meet our joint objectives. The text of the chairman's letter is as follows:We have discussed the recent reports of airmisses and the procedure for reporting and investigating them. You asked me urgently to review these arrangements. I am now in a position to make a preliminary report.
  We are in agreement that the procedures for handling information about airmisses and for investigating them should meet two objectives:—

  (i) Primarily, they should be designed to enhance flight safety by providing lessons from which all involved in aviation can benefit. This means that they should encourage the reporting of incidents by pilots and air traffic controllers, make for the speedy, accurate and impartial investigation of airmisses and draw on all relevant expertise in identifying causes and remedies.

  (ii) Secondly, they should give the public confidence in the air traffic control system by making available, wherever reasonably possible, prompt and accurate information about airmisses and their causes and provide for investigations that are not only expert and impartial but are seen to be so.

  As you know, the present procedure is that all reported airmisses, military and civil, are brought to the attention of the Joint Airmiss Working Group (JAWG) by the Joint Airmiss Section (JAS) of the NATS. JAS provides the Chairman and Secretariat of the JAWG, but otherwise the Working Group consists entirely of independent members from outside NATS, including representatives from the armed services, civil airlines and pilots and other airspace users. JAWG, having had all airmisses investigated, analyses them and three times a year circulates the results of its analyses in confidence to the aviation community in a volume known as the "Blue Book". We agree that these arrangements for providing information about airmisses, for investigating them and for reporting the outcome are entirely satisfactory for operational purposes.
  The CAA publishes statistics for airmisses three times a year based on the results of the JAWG's investigations. These show that there has been no deterioration in safety in the air

  653
  over the United Kingdom. Indeed the figures for risk-bearing airmisses involving commercial aircraft in recent years show a downward trend.
  In my view, this present system meets the primary objective well. I am most grateful to the NATS Staff in JAS and to the whole membership of the JAWG for the important work they have carried out so painstakingly and effectively over the years.
  However, the system was not designed with the secondary objective in mind. I have therefore considered particularly how the procedures might be modified so as to meet the second objective without impairing achievement of the first.
  My proposals are set out below.

  Initial CAA Reaction to an Airmiss
  It has been our practice, in line with the well-established principle of confidentiality, neither to confirm nor to deny the occurrence of an airmiss. Nevertheless, airmisses do become public knowledge and, as recent incidents clearly show, the ensuing publicity without any official information, can present a misleading impression. I have therefore decided that as soon as we know an airmiss has occurred involving an aircraft on a commercial air transport flight, we will from now on announce it with whatever reliable information is immediately available.

  Joint Airmiss Working Group
  One of the criticisms of the present arrangements for investigating airmisses has been that JAWG is within NATS and may thus appear to be insufficiently independent of the organisation providing most of the UK's air traffic control services. I am entirely satisfied that JAWG (with its outside membership) has always in practice functioned quite indepndently of NATS in carrying out its investigations. It should in any case be borne in mind that an airmiss may result from a failure in the aircraft as well as on the ground.
  However, in order to establish the JAWG's independent status still more clearly, I propose to have the Chairman of JAWG submit its reports in future directly to me and the Chief of the Air Staff as the Joint Chairmen of the Air Traffic Control Board. Moreover, I intend to consider with JAWG some enlargement of its membership, with a view for example to including on it one or two members currently active in air traffic control operations.

  Publication of .J A W G Airmiss Investigations
  At present the results of airmiss investigations are circulated widely within the aviation community but are not made public. This policy is designed to maintain the confidence of pilots and airspace users so as to encourage the full and frank reporting which is essential to ensure that airmisses are fully analysed and essential flight safety lessons drawn from them. It has served the cause of flight safety well over many years. Recently, however, it has been undermined by the frequency with which incomplete information has been unofficially disclosed.
  I accept that there is a legitimate public interest in the outcome of investigations of airmisses involving commercial air transport aircraft in U K airspace. I have decided therefore that the outcome of these investigations should be published. It is important that this is done in a way that not only satisfies public interest but also avoids jeopardising confidence in the objectivity and impartiality of the investigation system. I intend therefore to seek the advice of aircraft operators and pilots on the manner of publication as well as taking into account other comments that I receive. I shall reach a decision without undue delay.

  Reporting of Incidents by Air Traffic Controllers
  Recently, it has been alleged that the reporting procedures for controllers are inferior to those for pilots and that controllers' reports, being submitted via their line managers, are sometimes delayed or suppressed. I do not accept these allegations. Nevertheless, we are now in the process of devising improved reporting procedures which will be better designed for recording potentially serious incidents between aircraft and will provide for controllers to send reports direct to the Authority's Safety Data Analysis Unit. We will be consulting controllers' representatives on these procedures
  654
  before introducing them. Our objective is to ensure that any incidents observed by controllers but not by pilots will be reported.

  Conclusion
  I believe that the procedural changes described above will go a very long way to meet both the objectives I set out at the beginning of this letter. Not only should they maintain the already-proven effectiveness of the system in analysing the causes of airmisses and distributing information about them within the aviation community; they should also enhance its openness and the visibility of its independence and in doing so help reassure the public about the safety of our airspace.

  Cheap Bus Fares
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will consider seeking to amend legislation to allow the provision of cheap bus fares for retired males between the ages of 60 and 65 years, along the lines of provision presently available for other pensioners.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  We have no plans to change the present arrangements which effectively link eligibility for concessionary travel for the elderly to state pension age. It is open to all transport operators to give additional concessions; British Rail operates a scheme on a commercial basis which provides cheap fares for the elderly of both sexes from the age of 60.

  M11 Link Road
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps have been taken to promote and publicise development opportunities along the route of the M11 link road between Hackney and central London.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The A12 Hackney Wick to M11 link road will run from the A102(M) at Hackney to a point just west of the M11 at Redbridge roundabout. Possible development along this route is a matter for the relevant local authorities.

  "The Nuclear Trains"
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will seek to obtain for his departmental library the recent research report entitled, "The Nuclear Trains" by Large and Associates for the London nuclear information unit.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  The report has now been examined by the Department. The issues raised have been considered before, particularly at the Sizewell inquiry, where Sir Frank Layfield considered that the adequacy of the IAEA tests for ensuring flask integrity in an accident had not been effectively challenged.

  London Regional Transport
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give the dates and methods by which he published the current financial and other objectives on determinations applicable to London Regional Transport under the terms of section 16 of the London Regional Transport Act 1984; and what period of time elapsed between publishing those objectives and the closing of public comment on the first draft of the first strategic plan of London Regional Transport.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  The only objectives hitherto set under section 16 of the London Regional Transport Act
  655
  1984 are those set in the then Secretary of State's letter to the chairman of London Regional Transport of 20 July 1984. The text of that letter was reproduced in Hansard, on 20 July 1984 at columns 373–74, and in a departmental press notice of the same date. London Regional Transport conducted a public consultation on its first statement of strategy the following spring. The closing date for comments was 10 May 1985.

  Motorway Works (Speed Limits)
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any plans to introduce a mandatory 50 mph speed limit in areas of motorways which are subject to roadworks.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We are considering, with the police, the question of speed limits at motorway roadworks, as part of our current wider review of motorway safety. We hope to announce the conclusions of that review before long.

  Heavy Lorries
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on his policy towards lorry regulation, in the light of the National Audit Office report entitled "Regulation of Heavy Lorries", particularly in relation to the number of bridges which are not considered strong enough to cope with the level of freight they are carrying.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  As the NAO report noted, the Department's policy is to maximise the net benefits of road transport by lorry while taking full account of the effect of heavy lorries on people and the environment. The Committee of Public Accounts published its own report on the regulation of heavy lorries on 2 March and the Government will respond to that shortly.

  On bridge strengthening, I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) on 24 November 1987 at column 110.

  Compressed Cases (Transport)
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what account has been taken of the degree of hazard posed during road transportation of compressed gases in specifying the safety requirements placed upon the transport of compressed gases;

  (2) if he will review the specification for the design and construction of vehicles used for the transport of compressed gases requiring that the structures are strong enough to withstand a collision with other vehicles;

  (3) if he will take steps to require the owners of dangerous materials being transported in or around Britain to hold third party insurance capable of covering claims that could arise from any accident;

  (4) what requirement is placed upon the owners of cargoes to consult or obtain approval from the police authority in the transportation of compressed gases; and if there is any requirement to obtain or secure approval from each police area through which compressed gases are being transported.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Compressed gases carried in bulk in a road tanker or tank container are subject to the 656
  Dangerous Substances (Conveyance by Road in Road Tankers and Tank Containers) Regulations 1981 These regulations, which take account of the hazards involved, require tankers and containers to be properly designed, of adequate strength, of good construction and suitable for the purpose. A tanker or tank container cannot be used for the carriage of a dangerous substance unless it has been initially examined and tested by a competent person and is periodically re-examined and tested thereafter.

  Consignors of dangerous substances are required to ensure that vehicle operators are provided with accurate information about the hazards of such substances. Vehicle operators are required to hold third-party insurance, including cover for the additional risks from any dangerous substances carried.

  There is no requirement on owners to consult or obtain approval from police authorities.

  There are no plans to change these statutory requirements.

WALES

  Community Programme
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the impact of proposed changes in the community programme on voluntary organisations in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  Manpower Services Commission officials will shortly be discussing with individual community programme scheme managers their plans in relation to the new adult training programme. I hope that as many projcects as possible will continue into the new programme.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will establish a community fund in Wales to continue financial support for those schemes presently funded through the community programme, which will not be eligible for support under Her Majesty's Government's proposalss for a reformed community programme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  As the Manpower Services Commission said in its response on the new adult training programme, it hopes to explore with appropriate Government Departments the possibility of making financial provision for some community programme projects which are of particular benefit to the community but which will not have the training content needed for inclusion in the new programme.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proportion of places currently offered under the community programme in Wales are provided by voluntary sector sponsors.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The proportion of filled community programme places in Wales provided by the voluntary sector was 44 per cent. at 29 January 1988.

  Sports Centres (Rates)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what exemptions from the payment of rates local authorities offer to(a) privately run and (b) community run sports centres in Wales; and what information he has as to the extent to which local authorities encourage applications for such exemptions.
  657
  Mr. Peter Walker
  This information is not held centrally.

  Community Care
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he has taken to consult the voluntary sector in Wales concerning his Department's policy towards community care; and what specific plans he has for consultations in the future.

  Mr. Grist
  The Department is in regular contact with voluntary organisatons on a range of issues, including community care. We would normally expect to consult such organisations on significant developments of policy and we are always eager to have their views.

  Debt
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures are being undertaken by his Department to assist people to deal with the problems associated with indebtedness in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has responsibility for consumer credit matters and consumer protection generally. However funding from my Department is provided under the urban programme to a number of organisations, including for example some citizens' advice bureaux, which offer advisory services which include assistance on money-related problems.

  Community Facilities
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what specific financial assistance is available from his Department, from other agencies working through his

  Total pensioner households

  Shared WC

  Shared Bath-Shower

  No Bath-Shower

  No inside WC

  per cent.

  per cent.

  per cent.

  per cent.

  Alyn and Deeside

  8,600

  0·0

  0·0

  3·2

  2·9

  Colwyn

  10,700

  0·5

  0·5

  0·7

  0·7

  Delyn

  8,700

  0·3

  0·3

  1·1

  2·2

  Glyndwr

  5,700

  0·0

  0·0

  3·2

  3·7

  Rhuddlan

  8,700

  0·3

  0·3

  0·3

  0·3

  Wrexham Maelor

  14,300

  0·0

  0·0

  1·6

  2·6

  Carmarthen

  7,600

  0·0

  0·0

  4·1

  4·9

  Ceredigion

  10,500

  0·2

  0·2

  5·7

  4·7

  Dinefwr

  6,300

  0·2

  0·4

  3·3

  5·8

  Llanelli

  12,100

  0·2

  0·4

  3·3

  6·0

  Preseli

  9,500

  0·6

  0·9

  2·6

  1·2

  South Pembroke

  5,400

  0·0

  0·0

  3·0

  2·3

  Blaenau Gwent

  10,900

  0·0·

  0·0

  3·1

  5·0

  Islwyn

  7,900

  0·0

  0·0

  2·4

  10·0

  Monmouth

  9,800

  0·0

  1·1

  1·4

  1·4

  Newport

  15,900

  0·7

  0·8

  2·3

  2·8

  Torfaen

  10,800

  0·0

  0·0

  2·4

  3·1

  Aberconwy

  9,600

  0·5

  1·0

  1·0

  1·5

  Arfon

  7,800

  0·3

  0·3

  4·8

  6·0

  Dwyfor

  5,200

  0·0

  0·0

  8·4

  7·3

  Meirionnydd

  5,200

  0·0

  0·0

  2·5

  3·8

  Ynys Mon

  9,400

  0·0

  0·0

  4·4

  3·1

  Cynon Valley

  8,700

  1·1

  1·1

  9·8

  13·6

  Merthyr Tydfil

  8,000

  0·0

  0·0

  7·7

  11·3

  Ogwr

  16,100

  0·3

  0·3

  2·0

  3·2

  Rhondda

  12,000

  0·2

  0·6

  12·8

  14·7

  Rhymney Valley

  12,500

  0·2

  0·2

  3·7

  5·3

  Taff-Ely

  10,700

  0·2

  0·2

  3·1

  5·5

  Brecknock

  5,700

  0·0

  0·0

  2·1

  4·3

  Montgomeryshire

  7,700

  0·5

  0·5

  5·5

  4·7

  658
  Department, from agencies of his Department and from other Government agencies in Wales, to community halls, centres and community sports facilities in Wales.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Assistance may be available from the Department under the urban programme and the voluntary youth service village hall and community centre project. The Sports Council for Wales can provide assistance and the Manpower Services Commission can help through its community project scheme. Local authorities may also provide assistance under their various powers.

  In addition, other agencies in Wales may also provide specific financial assistance if the criteria of their individual grant regimes are met; in particular the Development Board for Rural Wales can provide assistance under the Development of Rural Wales Act 1976, the Wales tourist board can assist projects which will improve tourist amenities and facilities under the Development of Tourism Act 1969 and assistance may be available in the South Cardiff urban development area from the Cardiff Bay development corporation. Also, European regional development fund grant aid is available for leisure and sports facilities if they are linked to the promotion of tourism.

  Pensioners (Housing)
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many households in each district authority area in Wales include at least one pensioner; and what proportion of those households(a) share a lavatory with another household, (b) share a bath with another household, (c) have no bath and (d) have no inside lavatory.

  Mr. Ian Grist
  Estimates from the Welsh intercensal survey 1986 are given in the table:
  659

  Total pensioner households

  Shared WC

  Shared Bath-Shower

  No Bath-Shower

  No inside WC

  per cent.

  per cent.

  per cent.

  per cent.

  Radnor

  3,500

  0·0

  0·3

  5·4

  6·2

  Cardiff

  35,000

  0·4

  0·8

  1·5

  2·8

  Vale of Glamorgan

  13,500

  0·4

  0·4

  0·2

  1·2

  Port Talbot

  7,000

  0·0

  2·0

  2·0

  5·1

  Lliw valley

  8,400

  0·0

  0·0

  1·6

  6·4

  Neath

  9,100

  0·0

  1·9

  0·6

  3·6

  Swansea

  25,100

  0·4

  0·4

  2·1

  3·5

  Total

  383,400

  0·2

  0·4

  3·1

  4·4

  Pensioners (Housing)
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proportion of pensioners in each district authority area in Wales live in(a) sheltered housing and (b) residential care.

  Mr. Grist
  The estimated proportion of pensioner households living in sheltered housing at 1 April 1986 in each district authority in Wales is given in the table:

  Percentage of pensioner households in sheltered accommodation

  Welsh districts

  Percentage

  Aberconwy

  5·6

  Alyn and Deeside

  8·5

  Arfon

  3·7

  Blaenau Gwent

  2·7

  Brecknock

  10·7

  Cardiff

  1·4

  Carmarthen

  2·5

  Ceredigion

  2·4

  Colwyn

  6·6

  Cynon Valley

  1·1

  Delyn

  14·2

  Dinefwr

  1·4

  Dwyfor

  1·7

  Glyndwr

  5·8

  Islwyn

  6·7

  Llanelli

  4·1

  Lliw Valley

  4·4

  Meirionnydd

  2·7

  Merthyr Tydfil

  4·4

  Monmouth

  7·6

  Montgomeryshire

  6·4

  Neath

  3·4

  Newport

  6·7

  Ogwr

  1·7

  Port Talbot-Afan

  1·2

  Preseli

  3·9

  Radnor

  8·1

  Rhondda

  1·9

  Rhuddlan

  4·6

  Rhymney Valley

  6·8

  South Pembrokeshire

  4·3

  Swansea

  1·7

  Taff-Ely

  3·1

  Torfaen

  8·4

  Vale of Glamorgan

  2·9

  Wrexham Maelor

  3·5

  Ynys Mon

  6·3

  Information concerning the proportions in residential accommodation is not available specifically for pensioners, but numbers of men and women aged 65 and over in residential accommodation are shown in the table:
  660

  Number of residents aged 65 and above accommodated in local authority private and voluntary residential homes at 31 March 19871

  County council

  Number of residents

  Percentage of population3

  Clwyd

  2,828

  4·2

  Dyfed

  1,709

  2·9

  Gwent

  1,303

  2·0

  Gwynedd

  1,598

  3·6

  Mid Glamorgan

  1,656

  2·1

  Powys

  603

  3·0

  South Glamorgan2

  1,958

  3·3

  West Glamorgan

  1,243

  2·0

  1 Including homes for the elderly, younger physically handicapped, blind, mentally ill and mentally handicapped.

  2 Includes two residents accommodated in a voluntary home for alcoholics.

  3 Aged 65 and above.

  Cardiff Bay Barrage
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether, as part of his Department's submissions for regional development funding from the EEC, he is seeking funds for the proposed Cardiff bay barrage; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The European Commission has awarded ERDF aid to my Department towards the cost of the initial feasibility studies for the Cardiff bay barrage. The Government have yet to reach a view on the barrage proposal and further applications for ERDF support will be considered in the context of that decision.

  Hospital and Community Health Services
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish a table showing the relevant figures in tables 17.25 and 17.27 of Cm. 288-II adjusted by the hospital and community health services pay and prices deflator; and what were the equivalent figures in 1978–79.

  Mr. Grist
  [holding answer 29 February 1988]: The table sets out the information requested.

  Total net expenditure on hospital and community health services

  £ million

  Year

  Actual

  1Adjusted

  1978–79

  299·8

  710·8

  1983–84

  596·2

  764·6

  1984–85

  639·6

  775·9

  1985–86

  690·9

  785·0

  1986–87

  726·9

  784·3

  1987–88

  2803·0

  803·0

  1 1987–88 prices using the hospital and community health services pay and prices indices. Figures relating to the hospital and

  661
  community health services pay and prices terms have been constructed by reference to indices maintained by the Department of Health and Social Security from English data: no separate pay and prices indices for Wales are available. The figures for 1987–88 are provisional.

  2 The estimated outturn for 1987–88 excludes the additional £3·8 million announced on 16 December 1987.

  Note: The totals include expenditure on the services for the disabled and the administrative costs of the artificial limb and appliance service which will from 1 April 1988 be transferred to the Welsh Health Common Services Authority.

SCOTLAND

  Scottish Bus Group
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he intends to privatise the Scottish Bus Group as a single entity or in its individual company units; on what date he expects to publish his legislation in respect of this; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  No decisions have yet been taken on the form of the privatisation of the Scottish Bus Group or on the timing of the necessary legislation. Financial advisers are being appointed to advise on whether the group should be privatised as it stands or in a number of companies.

  Labour Statistics (Motherwell)
  Dr. Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the latest unemployment figures in the agriculture and food sectors of the economy in the Motherwell, North constituency.

  Mr. Lang
  Information on unemployment by industry grouping is not available. However the total number unemployed in the Motherwell, North constituency in January 1988 was 5,817. This represents a fall of 1,135 or 16 per cent. since January 1987.

  Private Forestry
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received about his policy towards the promotion of private forestry.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. and learned Friend has received many representations in recent months, particularly with regard to planting in Caithness and Sutherland.

  Strathclyde Regional Council
  Mr. Millan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish in the Official Report the reply by his Department to the letter dated 4 February from the Strathclyde regional council requesting a meeting with Ministers to discuss the level of capital allocations to the region; and if he will now arrange for such a meeting to take place.

  Mr. Rifkind
  My Department responded to the council's letter on 1 March. I am arranging to publish the reply in the Official Report. It is not the normal practice for Ministers to meet individual authorities to discuss their capital allocations, but on this occasion, my hon. Friend the Minister of State hopes to meet the council later in the year.

  Following is the letter:
  Dear Mr. McFarlane,

  662
  STRATHCLYDE REGIONAL COUNCIL: FINANCIAL PLAN 1988–89 TO 1991–92
  I refer to your letters dated 4 and 10 February addressed to Joan Fraser in which you restate the Council's request for a Ministerial meeting to discuss the Council's non-housing capital allocations.
  Your Council's representations were partly founded on the premise that its capital allocations do not equate directly with the level of population of the region. In previous correspondence with your Council at both official and Ministerial level, we have emphasised that population factors are not the main determinant of the level of capital allocations: and we have set out the main elements which are taken into account. I do not think that there is anything I can usefully add to the exchanges between the Scottish Office and your Council on this aspect. More generally Strathclyde is certainly not alone in receiving capital allocations which fall short of its aspirations. The resources available for distribution in the form of capital allocations are finite and for 1988–89, the pressure on the Scottish Block is especially severe as a consequence for the local authority current expenditure settlement for that year. An extra £71 million had to be found from within the Block to finance that settlement and local authority capital expenditure provision could not be exempted from meeting its share of these additional costs.
  Your Council will, I hope, by now have received Mr. Cameron's letter of 22 February notifying final capital allocations for 1988–89 and provisional figures for the following 2 years. Mr. Lang carefully considered your Council's renewed request for a meeting but he concluded that the representations were not such that he would merit departing from his and his predecessor's normal policy of not meeting individual Councils about their capital allocations. I can assure your Council, however, that the representations you made were fully taken into account before final decisions were made by him and the Secretary of State.
  Notwithstanding this policy, I am however pleased to inform you that when he is visiting the area later this year, (at a time yet to be determined), Mr. Lang has agreed to pay a visit to your Council when he will be prepared to hear at first hand, your Council's representations on such issues. The Council will then have a full opportunity to put before him your views on the capital expenditure programmes.
  Yours sincerely
  J. Stephen

  Capital Programmes
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which capital programmes of his Department resulted in an underspend in the year 1986–87; and what was the underspend in each case.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The underspend on central Government capital programmes within my responsibility for the year to March 1987 was as follows:

  Programme

  Net underspend

  £000

  Agriculture

  3,885

  Industry

  4,983

  Tourism

  149

  Roads and Transport

  7,030

  Housing

  2,431

  Other Environmental Services

  80

  Law, Order and Protective Services

  209

  Health

  7,296

  Social Work

  216

  Fife Health Board (Ministerial Meeting)
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the meeting of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health with the Fife health board chairman; and what agreements were reached.
  663
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I met the chairman of Fife health board on Monday 1 February 1988 to discuss health matters in Fife. The question of reaching agreements did not arise.

  Correspondence (Costs)
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the costs to public funds of the letter from the Minister with responsibility for home affairs and the environment at the Scottish Office, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), delivered to the home of the hon. Member for East Kilbride at 1 am on Saturday 27 February; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Rifkind
  There is no identifiable cost to public funds. The letter was considered urgent and a driver who had been engaged in other duties on the evening of 26 February delivered it without any significant deviation from his route.

  Tobacco Products (Oral Use)
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if it is his intention to offer any compensation to the United States Tobacco Company and its work force for the consequences of the announcement made by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health, the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) on 26 February,Official Report, column 362, concerning a prohibition on tobacco products for oral use.

  Mr. Lang
  My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South has invited representations from interested bodies and until these have been received and considered no final decision on the prohibition on tobacco products for oral use will be taken. The question of possible consequences of any prohibition does not therefore arise at this stage.

  Civil Scientific Research
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what were the funds allocated for civil scientific research in Scotland, in 1986 money, for each year since 1977.

  Mr. Lang
  The annual review of Government — funded R and D, published by the Cabinet Office since 1983, gives details of the R and D spending of Scottish Departments. Copies of the annual reviews are available in the Library. Information in the form requested could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  M8 (Baillieston and Newhouse)
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects work to commence on the extension to the M8 between Baillieston and Newhouse; what is the projected expenditure; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The proposed extension of the M8 between Baillieston and Newhouse is currently planned to be carried out in two phases. I expect the necessary preparatory work for both phases, the first between Baillieston and Shawhead and the second between Shawhead and Newhouse, to be completed in time to allow construction starts in late summer 1991 and early summer 1994 respectively. The actual timing of starts 664
  will depend upon priorities within, and the finance available for, the trunk road programme at those dates. The current estimate of cost for the whole works between Baillieston and Newhouse is £29 million.

  Operations
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the mean number, plus or minus two standard deviations, of operations performed in Scottish hospitals for each day, Monday to Friday inclusive.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  In the time available the information cannot be provided in the form requested. In 1985 a total of 443,365 operations were performed.

  Scottish Special Housing Association (Loan)
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland pursuant to his reply on 25 February to the hon. Member for East, Kilbride,Official Report, column 286, if he will give an estimate of the effect on the average rent charged to Scottish Special Housing Association tenants arising from the loss of £742,000 on the short-term loan from the national loans fund.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  There was no effect on the average rent levels.

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will write off the loss of £742,000 in the short-term loan on £16 million advanced to the Scottish Special Housing Association from the national loans fund on 30 June 1987; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The SSHA repaid on 31 December 1987, the £16 million loan advanced from the national loans fund at the association's request on 30 June 1987 together with interest of £742,000. The question of write-off does not therefore arise.

  Pupils (Qualifications)
  Mr. McTaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many pupils left Scottish schools with no formal qualifications in each of the last five years; and what percentage of the total that figure represents.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  the table gives information on school leavers who did not hold a Scottish Certificate of Education (SCE) qualification. Some of these school leavers would have held other qualifications such as the Certificate of Secondary Education (CSE), the Scotvec National Certificate or other vocational qualifications, but the numbers involved in this category are not available.

  Scottish school leavers with no SCE qualification

  Number

  Percentage of all leavers

  1981–82

  24,800

  28

  1982–83

  23,800

  26

  1983–84

  23,500

  26

  1984–85

  21,600

  25

  1985–861

  19,800

  24

  1 Provisional.

  Glaucoma
  Mr. McTaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many cases of glaucoma have been diagnosed in the Greater Glasgow health board area in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  This information is not available centrally.

  Hospital and Community Health Services Capital
  Sir Hector Monro
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the proposed distribution of the hospital and community health services capital for 1988–89.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  My right hon. and learned Friend has allocated £110·05 million to health boards to meet their gross capital expenditure commitments on hospital and community health services in 1988–89. This includes £21 million specifically for the improvement and upgrading of the NHS estate.

  The allocations to individual health boards are as follows:

  Health boards

  Capital allocation

  (£ million)

  Argyll and Clyde

  7·450

  Ayrshire and Arran

  10·900

  Borders

  3·550

  Dumfries and Galloway

  2·235

  Fife

  4·000

  Forth Valley

  9·932

  Grampian

  8·808

  Greater Glasgow

  21·365

  Highland

  4·787

  Lanarkshire

  7·790

  Lothian

  17·900

  Orkney

  1·642

  Shetland

  1·642

  Tayside

  7·184

  Western Isles

  0·865

  Total

  110·050

  In addition, a further £4·55 million will be made available for projects not specifically allocated to individual health boards. Also £13·4 million has been allocated to the Common Services Agency and £0·9 million has been allocated for the state hospital. In total, this amounts to £128·90 million.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Church Land
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received from tenants of the Church Commissioners on his proposals for diversification from agriculture.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received from tenants of the Church Commissioners on his proposals for diversification from agriculture.

  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received from tenants of the Church Commissioners on his proposals for diversification from agriculture.
  666
  Mr. Gummer
  I have received no representations from the Church Commissioners nor has my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland from the Church of Scotland.

  Mr. Wall
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has as to the proportion of land used for agricultural purposes in the United Kingdom which is owned by the Church Commissioners.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has as to the proportion of land used for agricultural purposes in the United Kingdom which is owned by the Church Commissioners.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has as to the proportion of land used for agricultural purposes in the United Kingdom which is owned by the Church Commissioners.

  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has as to the proportion of land used for agricultural purposes in the United Kingdom which is owned by the Church Commissioners.

  Mr. Gummer
  According to the latest available Church Commissioners' annual report the Church Commissioners' agricultural estimates at 31 December 1986 were some 165,938 acres which was equivalent to 67,154 hectares.

  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has as to the proportion of agricultural produce which is produced in England and Wales on land which is owned by churches.

  Mr. Lofthouse
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has as to the proportion of produce which is produced in England and Wales on land which is owned by the Churches.

  Mr. Buckley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has as to the proportion of agricultural produce which is produced in England and Wales on land which is owned by Churches.

  Mr. Heffer
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has as to the proportion of agricultural produce which is produced in England and Wales on land which is owned by Churches.

  Mr. Gummer
  I regret that this information is not available.

  Mr. Duffy
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received from the secretary general of the General Synod on his policy on the use of agricultural land.

  Mr. Gummer
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams).

  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will meet representatives of the Church of England to discuss the implications for rural areas of Her Majesty's Government's agricultural policy.
  667
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will meet representatives of the Church of England to discuss the implications for the standard of living of rural people of Her Majesty's Government's agricultural policy.

  Mr. Gummer
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply I gave earlier today to the hon. Members for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) and for Leyton (Mr. Cohen).

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will meet representatives of the General Synod of the Church of England to discuss the social and economic prospects for agricultural tenants.

  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will meet representatives of the General Synod of the Church of England to discuss the social and economic prospects for agricultural tenants.

  Mr. Gummer
  No such meeting has been requested by the General Synod, but I frequently meet representatives of landlords and tenants to discuss matters of mutual interest.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will meet representatives of the General Synod of the Church of England to discuss the social and economic prospects for agricultural tenants.

  Mr. Gummer
  No such meeting has been requested by the General Synod, nor from the Synod of the Church in Wales. However, I frequently meet landlords and tenants to discuss matters of mutual interest.

  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will meet the Church Commissioners to discuss the impact of Government policy on the use of their agricultural land.

  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will meet the Church Commissioners to discuss the impact of Government policy on the use of their agricultural land.

  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will meet the Church Commissioners to discuss the impact of Government policy on the use of their agricultural land.

  Mr. Gummer
  No such meeting has been requested by the Church Commissioners.

  Mr. Griffiths
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received from clergymen in rural areas about the effects of Her Majesty's Government's agricultural policy on the rural areas.

  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received from clergymen in rural areas about the effects of Her Majesty's Government's agricultural policy on the rural areas.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representation he has received from clergymen in rural areas about the effect of Her Majesty's Government's agricultural policy on the rural areas.
  668
  Mr. Gummer
  I refer the hon. Members to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis) on 25 February at column 313.

  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received from the secretary general of the General Synod on his policy on use of agricultural land.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representation he has received from the secretary general of the General Synod of the Church of England on his policy on the use of agricultural land.

  Mr. Gummer
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams).

  Mr. Benn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will meet the Church Commissioners to discuss the impact of Government policy on the use of their agricultural land.

  Mr. Gummer
  No such meeting has been requested by the Church Commissioners, nor have there been any requests from the URC or Continuing Congregationalists.

  Pig Industry
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent representations he has received about problems facing pig producers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave earlier today to my hon. Friends the Members for Dorset, South (Mr. Bruce) and for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst).

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he has taken to deal with the problems in the pig sector; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met representatives of the pig industry to discuss the state of the industry.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Bruce) earlier today.

  Green Pound
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received concerning the devaluation of the green pound.

  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent representations he has received on the level of the green pound, and its effect on British producers.

  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many representations he has received about the case for adjusting the value of the green pound.

  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many representations he has received about the level of the green pound; and if he will make a statement.
  669
  Mr. MacGregor
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones).

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what further steps he proposes to take to alleviate the adverse financial effects of current green pound rates on the agricultural industry in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. MacGregor
  Decisions on the green pound rates are best taken during the price fixing. The Government are fully aware of the real concern of United Kingdom producers about current rates and are considering the best approach to adopt in negotiations taking this and the other economic factors into account.

  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about recent changes in the level of the green pound.

  Mr. MacGregor
  Green pound changes are best made at the time of the price fixing. At the last price fixing in June 1987, devaluations were agreed of 7 percentage points for beef and 5·5 percentage points for most other products. This gave us a better outcome than any of our major EC competitors.

  Horse Sales
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent assessment he has made of the likely level of compliance with his proposed voluntary code of practice to implement the Farm Animal Welfare Council's recommendations relating to conditions at horse sales and markets; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  It is not possible to estimate the likely level of compliance with a code of practice which is still being drafted.

  Commodity

  Date

  Quantity (tonnes)

  Country of destination

  Sale price p/lb equivalent

  Wheat

  November-December 1987

  1,012,000

  USSR

  12·1

  Butter

  February 1987

  35,000

  USSR

  26·5

  Butter

  February 1987

  65,000

  USSR

  26·5

  Butter

  March 1987

  181,500

  USSR

  26·0

  Butter

  April 1987

  18,500

  USSR

  26·0

  Butter

  November 1987

  200,000

  USSR

  26·0

  Beef

  August-November 1987

  8,000

  Peru

  323.0–23.3

  1 The price is calculated from the dollar equivalent of the price actually paid by the purchaser (including MCAs), converted into sterling at the spot rate at the time of the sale. None of the wheat was exported from the United Kingdom.

  2 The price is the actual sale price out of intervention (exclusive of MCAs) and converted into sterling at the green rate, None of the butter was exported from the United Kingdom.

  3 The price is the sale price (including MCAs) that would have obtained if the beef had been exported from the United Kingdom, which it was not.

  I regret that the prices quoted for beef sales in reply to my hon. Friend's previous question on this subject on 4 December 1987, at columns 775–78, were incorrect. Instead of 28·2 to 36·4 p/lb equivalent, the prices should have been recorded as 23·0 to 31·2 p/lb equivalent.

  Surplus Food and Wine
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the total volume and value in pound sterling of surplus food and drink in the EEC.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  A note setting out the volume of EC intervention stocks of agricultural commodities is deposited in the Library of the House and updated monthly. The estimated book value of the EC stocks set out in the most recently deposited note is £5·7 billion.

  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on recent developments in the control of surpluses of agricultural commodities in the European Community.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I refer my hon. Friend to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 15 February about the outcome of the recent meeting of the European Council at which major decisions were taken involving substantial CAP reforms.

  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the present annual cost of storing surplus food stocks in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The cost of storage of intervention stocks in 1986–87 was £129 million. The cost of financing intervention stocks in 1985, the latest year for which information is available, was £86 million.

  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what special sales of surplus stocks of food and wine have been approved by the management committee of the EEC over the past 12 months; and what was the price, in pence per pound weight, of each such sale.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  At any one time CAP arrangements provide for a number of sales schemes. These tend to follow established patterns, but the following sales from EC intervention stocks to non-EC countries, agreed over the past 12 months, have distinguishing features:

  Alternative Land Use
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent discussions he has had with other European Economic Community Ministers regarding the proposed set-aside scheme; and if he will make a statement.
  671
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a further statement about the operation of the European Community set-aside scheme in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Lord
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he now expects a set-aside scheme for arable land to be introduced in Great Britain.

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will introduce a cereals set-aside scheme for Great Britain.

  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will implement a scheme to enable farmers to set-aside cereals land in Great Britain.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when a cereals set-aside scheme will be implemented in Great Britain.

  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent progress has been made in developing a set-aside scheme for arable land.

  Mr. MacGregor
  As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister reported to the House on 15 February, the general principles of a new set-aside scheme were agreed at the European Council on 11 to 13 February. This scheme goes wider than the extensification measure agreed in June 1987, and will supersede it. Discussions are proceeding in Brussels on the legal texts required to implement the agreement, and the Agriculture Council will be considering the matter next week. The Government will be making decisions about the implementation of the scheme in the United Kingdom, including the date on which the scheme will start, when the exact terms of the Community legislation are clear and we have completed consideration of the views expressed earlier in response to the consultation document issued in December.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he next intends meeting representatives of conservation groups to discuss the operation of the European Community set-aside scheme in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Gummer
  Ministers and officials of my Department are in regular contact with conservation bodies on this subject. A wide range of such bodies sent us views on the consultation document issued in December.

  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received concerning his proposals to encourage tree-planting on surplus agricultural land.

  Mr. Gummer
  We announced revised proposals for the farm woodland scheme in November following a consultation exercise last year. Since then I have discussed the revised scheme with representatives of the main interested organisations. Most of the changes we made have been welcomed on all sides.

  Research and Development
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the future of employment for staff employed in research and development in fisheries.
  672
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the future of employment for staff employed in research and development in agriculture.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the future of employment for staff employed in research and development on food.

  Mr. Gummer
  We are currently reviewing all our R and D programmes against the background of the Government's more general reappraisal of science and technology priorities and our policy that industry should fund more of the work of benefit to it. Future staffing levels will, as now, be designed to meet our objectives in the most efficient and cost effective way.

  Mr. Harry Ewing
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received concerning his review of agricultural research and development.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The review is an internal exercise which does not involve formal consultation outside Government. But we are receiving views from a number of bodies in the course of the study.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to be able to make an announcement about the future of research and development in agriculture, fisheries and food.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply which my right hon. Friend the Minister of State gave to the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) on 4 February at column 734.

  Forestry
  Mr. Turner
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he is having with local authorities on the future of forestry in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. MacGregor
  My right hon. Friend the Minister of State has had discussions recently with local authority representatives about the proposed farm woodland scheme.

  Upland Farming
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the future of upland farming in Britain.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I remain committed to ensuring a secure future for upland farming. The recent decisions of the European Council will provide farmers throughout the United Kingdom with a more stable framework within which they can now plan for the future.

  Free Food Scheme
  Mr. James Lamond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the progress made in organising the European Economic Community free food scheme in the United Kingdom.
  673
  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the latest position in the United Kingdom for the European Economic Community's free food scheme.

  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a further statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy towards British participation in the EEC's scheme to provide free food for the needy from EEC intervention stocks.

  Mr. Haynes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the progress of the operation of the European Commission free food scheme in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Gummer
  The period for receipt of application from organisations wishing to distribute under the arrangements ended on 29 February. The Government are examining these applications to establish what amounts the Commission should be asked to authorise for distribution in the United Kingdom. I shall make a further announcement in due course.

  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he is having with organisations eligible to operate the European Community free food scheme.

  Mr. Gummer
  Officials of my Department last met charitable organisations on 12 February, and we are in contact also with the local authority representative bodies.

  Sheepmeat
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he anticipates the European Community review of the European sheepmeat regime will be completed.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on current progress on reform of the sheepmeat regime.

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he is having in the European Community about the sheepmeat regime.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The recent focus of discussions in the Council on the review has been upon stabilisers for sheepmeat and other CAP regimes. Now that these have been agreed, I expect that further work will resume on the basis of the Commission's proposals of October 1987. The issues at stake are undoubtedly difficult and complex, and so it is not possible at this stage to say what conclusions will be reached.

  Fishing Industry
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he has for reducing the costs and other burdens borne by the fishing industry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  These matters are subject to frequent review and I would be happy to respond to any specific point which the hon. Member may have in mind. At a time of increasing prosperity in the industry with low fuel costs 674
  and value of landings at record levels, it is appropriate for fishermen to continue to make a contribution towards the cost of the services provided for it.

  Spirit Drinks
  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the current position of negotiations in respect of the draft European regulations concerning the nomenclature of spirit drinks in the European Community and the use of the term cider brandy.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Negotiations on the draft EC Council regulation defining the major spirit drinks are continuing. Provision for spirit drinks which traditionally use the term "brandy" but which are not made from a distillate of wine, such as "cider brandy", is likely to be dealt with later, during consideration of the detailed, implementing rules.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he is having with his European colleagues about the future of the common agriculture policy.

  Mr. MacGregor
  Forthcoming meetings of the Council of Agriculture Ministers will be concerned with the implementation of the agricultural elements of decisions reached at the recent European Council, and with the proposals the Commission will be making for the 1988–89 price fixing.

  Agriculture Industry
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent representations he has received about the present state of the agriculture industry.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I have received a number of representations on this subject.

  Sea Defences
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has had from coastal local authorities regarding grant-aid for sea defence and coastal protection schemes in the current year and for 1989; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  A number of coastal local authorities have expressed concern as to whether sufficient capital allocation can be made available to them to enable them to undertake the coast protection schemes they consider necessary. I have advised them that the overall sum available will be allocated amongst the authorities concerned in a way that takes full account of the priority of the work.

  Agricultural Support Costs
  Mr. Stevens
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the current cost of agricultural support in the United Kingdom; and what will the cost be in 1988–89 expressed in 1988 prices.
  675
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the cost of supporting agriculture in the United Kingdom in 1978–79; what is the most recent cost; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ken Hargreaves
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the current cost of agricultural support in the United Kingdom; and what was the cost in 1978–79.

  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the current annual cost of agricultural support in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. MacGregor
  Public expenditure on agricultural grants and subsidies for the years requested is as follows;

  £ million

  1978–79 (outturn)

  537

  1988–89 (estimate)

  1 1,783

  1 Source: 1988 Public Expenditure White Paper (figure for 1978–79 from Annual Review of Agriculture).

  The Government also support the industry in a number of other ways such as research and development, advisory veterinary and administrative services.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the cost of supporting British agriculture each year since 1979.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) on 9 February 1988 at column 156.

  Food Prices
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the average annual rate of increase in food prices since 1979.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The average annual rate of increase in the food component of the retail prices index was 5·8 per cent. during the period May 1979 to January 1988 and recent figures indicate that the rate has now fallen to 2·9 per cent. These figures reflect the success of the Government's food policies and can be compared with the rate of increase in food prices of 16·7 per cent. per annum between October 1974 and May 1979, the period in office of the last Labour Administration.

  Mr. Marland
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the increase in food prices in 1977 and 1987.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The average annual increase in food prices in 1977, when the last Labour Administration was in office, was 19 per cent. By contrast, the increase in 1987 was 3·1 per cent. This indicates the success of the Government's food policies.

  Sir Dudley Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the annual rate of increase in food prices in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The annual rate of increase in food prices since 1979 is given in the table.

  Increase in food component of the retail prices index

  per cent.

  1979

  12·0

  1980

  12·1

  1981

  8·4

  676

  per cent.

  1982

  7·9

  1983

  3·2

  1984

  5·6

  1985

  3·1

  1986

  3·3

  1987

  3·1

  11988

  2·9

  1 January.

  Source: Department of Employment.

  Animal Welfare
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent representations have been made to him about farm animal welfare.

  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has recently received about farm animal welfare.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  My Department is in regular contact with all the main organisations interested in farm animal welfare, and they have made representations on a wide variety of topics.

  Miss Fookes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received concerning the promotion of animal welfare.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I am not aware of any recent representations on this. However, the Farm Animal Welfare Council is just setting up a group to look into the subject, and I expect that it will report in due course.

  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will ensure that full information is made available about improvements in farm animal welfare.

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he takes to ensure that the public is fully informed about improvements in animal welfare.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The welfare codes, which embody the latest scientific advice and the best current husbandry practice, are sent to all known livestock keepers and my staff visit farms to make information available about improvements in welfare. My Department also makes regular announcements to the media about the steps it is taking to improve animal welfare.

  Agricultural Advisory Services
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the future work of the agricultural advisory services.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The advisory and R and D work undertaken by the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service (ADAS) is described under programmes 46 to 48 of the annual publication "Ministerial Information in MAFF (MINIM) which also gives details of ADAS contributions to other MAFF programmes. A copy of the most recent publication covering the period 1986–87 to 1988–89 is in the Library of the House.

  Dairy Industry
  Mr. Knox
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he next intends to have discussions with the National Farmers Union about the dairy industry.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I plan to meet representatives of the National Farmers Union on 13 April 1988 to discuss the future operation of the milk quota system.

  New Zealand Butter
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will next review the quota of New Zealand butter imported into the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The Council of Ministers is due to take a decision by 1 August 1988 on quotas for the import of New Zealand butter from 1 January 1989. That decision will be based on a proposal and report from the Commission.

  Intervention Stocks (Costs)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the total cumulative cost to date of EEC intervention storage in(a) Stratford and (b) east London as a whole.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I regret that records are not kept in a form which enables this information to be readily extracted.

  Environmentally Sensitive Areas
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the uptake of grant in the environmentally sensitive areas.

  Mr. Gummer
  We estimate that grant payments to farmers for the first year of operation in the first five English ESAs will amount to some £3 million.

  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the effects of the introduction of environtally sensitive areas.

  Mr. Gummer
  We are in the process of establishing a monitoring programme to assess the effects of environmentally sensitive areas. This will collect and analyse data on landscape, wildlife, historic features, farming practices and socio-economic developments. Our objective will be to assess the scheme's effects on those inter-related items. I hope to publish a first report, as required by section 18(8) of the Agriculture Act 1986, during the course of 1988.

  Mr. Chapman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what impact the environmentally sensitive areas scheme has had on conservation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  Farmers who applied to join the ESA scheme in the first year have been following the scheme conditions for 10 months. The impact of ESAs on conservation will be a gradual process, and to take account of that we will be monitoring its effects over the next five years. In the first year we have established a baseline of information on the land use, landscape, ecology and historic features of each area against which we will be able to monitor future trends.

  Animal Feedingstuffs (Cereals)
  Mr. Curry
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to receive proposals from the Brussels Commission concerning an allowance to incorporate cereals in animal feedingstuffs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The European Council has requested the Commission to examine what measures could be introduced for the utilisation of cereals in compound feedingstuffs and to submit appropriate proposals in the context of the 1988–89 price fixing. I continue to have reservations about the cost-effectiveness of schemes intended to increase the usage of cereals in animal feedingstuffs.

  Tree Planting (Essex)
  Dr. Michael Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received about tree planting in Essex; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  My right hon. Friend has received a number of representations about the replanting of woodlands in south-east England, including those in Essex, damaged in last October's storm.

  Food Exports
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture. Fisheries and Food what are the latest figures for British exports of food.

  Mr. Brandon-Bravo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the current level of British food exports.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the progress of British food exports over the last 12 months.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the level of British food exports over the past year.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  In 1987, United Kingdom food exports reached a record level of £3,063 million. This is 14·8 per cent. higher than in 1986. Over the same period food imports increased by only 2·1 per cent. This indicates the success of Government policies in supporting the British food industry.

  Small Farmers Association
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met the president of the Small Farmers Association; and what subjects he discussed.

  Mr. Gummer
  Sir Richard Body has taken a number of opportunities to put his views to me on issues of agricultural policy. I am always ready to meet him.

  Agriculture Ministers (Talks)
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on his latest discussions with the Agriculture Ministers of the EEC.
  679
  Mr. MacGregor
  The Agriculture Council last met on 8 February, and I reported the outcome to the House on 9 February in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker). Agreement on a number of key issues of agricultural policy was reached at the European Council on 11 to 13 February, which was the subject of the statement by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in the House on 15 February.

  Family Farms
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what specific measures he hopes to take to protect the future of family farms, and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  All farmers need a stable framework of policy against which to plan their business decisions. This was lacking while CAP spending was not subject to proper budgetary control and while exhaustion of CAP funds threatened the collapse of the system. The decisions reached, notably on CAP reform, at the recent European Council have averted that threat and provided the clear framework farmers need.

  Forestry Training
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what forestry training is received by Agricultural Development and Advisory service advisers.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The Agricultural Development and Advisory Service employs 180 chartered surveyors who have a sound basic training in forestry and the related questions of conservation and amenity in woodlands. This training will continue to be kept up to date in co-operation with the Forestry Commission. Twenty-four of these officers have already also received further specialist training under Agricultural Development and Advisory Service policy of continuing professional development.

  Departmental Purchasing
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to announce the results of his Department's review of its purchasing procedures; and what priority he attaches to improving access for smaller firms.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  As part of the purchasing initiative to seek value for money improvements in Government spending, my Department has carried out a review of its purchasing procedures for internal control purposes and has issued revised guidelines intended to assist all purchasing staff in achieving this aim. These guidelines cover advice on purchasing from small firms, and it is now this Ministry's policy to include at least one small firm wherever practical within each product group reviewed.

  In addition, as part of this Ministry's developing purchasing strategy, closer relationships with suppliers are being developed through regular purchasing seminars, and detailed guidance has been drawn up for issue to potential suppliers, including small firms, on how to gain access to the Ministry's major contracts. All main purchasing points have also been issued with a guidance booklet entitled "Payment on Time" intended particularly to assist small suppliers.

  Cereal Production
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many organisations responded to his consultation document "An Extensification Scheme"; which organisations supported the principle of reducing cereal production by set aside; which organisations supported the principle of reducing production by promoting less intensive farming methods; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. MacGregor
  More than 260 responses have been received, expressing a wide range of views on these matters. The conclusions I and my colleagues draw from these will condition our decisions on the United Kingdom scheme, on which I will be making a statement in due course.

  Cereals
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will estimate the total cereal crop for 1987 and give for each cereal and for each grade an estimate of production, consumption and amount sold into intervention.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  My Department's present estimates of United Kingdom production of cereal in 1987 and domestic consumption of home-grown cereals in the 1987–88 marketing year are set out in the following table:

  '000 tonnes1

  '000 tonnes2

  '000 tonnes3

  Wheat

  11,874

  10,144

  1,730

  Barley

  9,130

  6,170

  2,960

  Oats

  441

  441

  —

  Other cereals

  59

  59

  —

  21,504

  16,814

  4,690

  1 Estimated production.

  2 Estimated domestic consumption of home-grown cereals.

  3 Tonnages surplus to domestic demand in 1987–88.

  A breakdown of grades of cereals is not available. The volume of sales of wheat and barley into intervention this season will depend largely on the industry's success in finding export markets for the surplus tonnages. Only 1,429 tonnes of barley had been delivered into intervention in the period to 29 February, and total offers of cereal this season are expected to be less than 1 million tonnes.

ENVIRONMENT

  Sporting Events (Attendances)
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has on total annual attendance figures in the following sports(a) football, (b) cricket, (c) athletics, (d) swimming, (e) speedway, (f) ice-hockey and (g) motor-racing.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Information held by the relevent governing bodies shows the following attendance at sporting events:

  (i) Football: League matches and the four major Cup competitions in 1986–87—21·4 million.

  (ii) Cricket First class matches in 1986—0·82 million.

  (iii) Athletics: The 18 televised events—0·11 million.

  (iv) Ice Hockey: Premier and 1st divisions, Autumn cup and Wembley Championships—0·59 million.

  Attendance figures for swimming, speedway and motor racing events are not collected centrally.

  EC (Internal Market)
  Mr. Heddle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the extent and impact of the proposals contained in the European Commission's White Paper, "Europe without frontiers; towards a large internal market", in so far as his Department is concerned.

  Mr. Ridley
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster today. My Department has a particular interest in proposals covering free trade in construction products, as removal of barriers created by national standards will open up Community markets to United Kingdom exporters. PSA will welcome equality of opportunity for contractors competing for public works and supplies contracts.

  Housing Associations (Tenants)
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many tenants of housing associations(a) in England and Wales and (b) in Greater London, have bought their homes in each of the past five years; how many have bought under the transferable discount scheme; and what proportion in each case these figures are of the total number of tenancies with housing associations.

  Mrs. Roe
  The available information for England and for London for the years 1982–83 to 1986–87 is as follows. For Welsh figures, I refer my hon. Friend to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Sales of housing association dwellings to sitting tenants

  Number (percentage of dwelling stock)

  Financial year

  England

  Greater London

  1982–83

  13,890 (3·2)

  3,270 (2·6)

  1983–84

  7,870 (1·7)

  1,670 (1·3)

  1984–85

  4,080 (0·9)

  820 (0·6)

  1985–86

  3,700 (0·8)

  900 (0·7)

  1986–87

  3,100 (0·6)

  670 (0·5)

  In addition to those sales, the following numbers of housing association tenants in England bought dwellings through the transferable discount scheme of home ownership for tenants of charitable housing associations:

  Number

  Per cent. of dwelling stock

  1984–85

  160

  less than 0·1

  1985–86

  2,570

  0·5

  1986–87

  1,240

  0·3

  Figures for London are not readily available.

  Departmental Buildings
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) of 8 December,Official Report, column 97, he is now able to give the final cost of the refurbishment and building work at Richmond terrace, Whitehall; if he will identify separately (a) the cost of carpets and (b) the cost of gold leaf; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  On the total cost of construction and fitting out of Richmond House, I have nothing to add to my 682
  answer of 8 December. The final cost will depend on settlement of the final account including claims still being negotiated.

  The cost of carpets for the entire building was £202,760 including VAT. There was no expenditure on gold leaf.

  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the annual cost to the Exchequer of rents, rates and maintenance of all Government buildings and agencies within London; what has been the percentage increase over the past 10 years; and what has been the increase in the annual rate of inflation over the same period.

  Mr. Christopher Chope
  I refer my hon. Friend to my answer to his question concerning accommodation in London for the Department of the Environment, on Wednesday 2 March. The percentage increases in expenditure by the Property Services Agency on rents and maintenance over the 10 years period to March 1987 for buildings occupied by Government Departments in London are 110 and 42 per cent. respectively. The percentage increase for contributions in lieu of rates is not available. Equivalent figures for Government-funded agencies are not held centrally and could be produced only at disproportionate cost. Over the same period inflation, as measured by the GDP deflator, was 116 per cent.—representing an average annual increase of 9 per cent.

  Radiation Monitoring
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to include local authority schemes for monitoring radiation, including Radmoss in Somerset and Radmil in Lancashire, in his national response plan for any future radiation emergency.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Local authorities will be able to contribute data to the national radiation monitoring system provided they have been collected and supplied according to agreed procedures. Further details of the arrangements are given in the Government's statement of "National Response Plan" proposals published earlier this year. Copies of the publication have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Mrs. Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if the Rimnet monitoring equipment will be used to provide the public with information about a domestic nuclear accident.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Yes.

  Rural Deprivation
  Mrs. Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on his policy on rural deprivation, in the light of the report submitted to him by Mr. Brian McLaughlin on the subject of deprivation in rural areas.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The rural enterprise package, published in March last year, set out the Government's policy on the rural economy. The Development Commission is the principal agency for carrying forward that policy in England, and we are encouraging it to develop and implement a range of initiatives for improving economic and social conditions in the countryside.

  Nuclear Waste
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to submit a memorandum to the European Parliament committee of inquiry on current United Kingdom practices for managing and packaging nuclear materials and wastes sent from the United Kingdom to Mol in Belgium and Hanau in the Federal Republic of Germany.

  Mr. Moynihan
  [holding answer 1 March 1988]: No transfer of nuclear wastes from the United Kingdom to Mol or Hanau has been authorised by the Department and no request for a memorandum has been received from the European Parliament Committee referred to. Questions involving the managing and packaging of nuclear materials are for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy.

DEFENCE

  Belize
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what request he has received from the Government of Belize for additional military assistance to make good the sudden loss of support through the United States military aid programme; and what reply he has given.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  Any such requests would remain confidential between the Government of Belize and Her Majesty's Government.

  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consideration is being given to the more extensive use of facilities in Belize for the training of British forces.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  Regular consideration is given to ways in which training for British forces can be carried out more effectively within the limits of the facilities and resources available both in the United Kingdom and overseas. There are no plans at present to extend the use of facilities in Belize for the training of British forces.

  AWRE (Contracts and Agreements)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, with how many universities or other institutions of higher education the Atomic Weapons Research Establishment has research contracts or agreements currently placed.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms. Gordon) on 24 February 1988, at column 197.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the answer of 16 February,Official Report, column 540, whether the definition there used of an enhanced radiation-capable shell includes those which can function as an enhanced radiation shell with the addition of a separate module.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  It would not be appropriate for me to comment on the detailed technical questions concerning United States nuclear artillery shells. However, I can 684
  assure the hon. Member that the deployment to Europe of enhanced radiation nuclear artillery shells plays no part in NATO's plans.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the W-79 nuclear warhead, or any variation of it, is enhanced radiation-capable.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  Some W79 nuclear artillery shells produced by the United States before the fiscal year 1985 are of the enhanced radiation (ER) type. However, as the United States Department of Defence's "Annual Report to the Congress, Fiscal Year 1984", page 234, makes clear, all United States ER weapons are being stockpiled solely on United States territory. NATO has no plans to deploy such weapons to Europe.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the W-82 nuclear warhead, or any variation of it, is enhanced radiation-capable.

  Mr. Stewart
  As the United States Department of Defence's "Annual Report to Congress, Fiscal Year 1987", page 227, makes clear, the United States is not planning to produce any W82 nuclear artillery shells of the enhanced radiation type.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many W-79 nuclear warheads there are in Europe; and how many he expects to be in Europe by 1995;

  (2) how many W-82 nuclear warheads there are in Europe; and how many he expects to be in Europe in 1995.

  Mr. Stewart
  The number of nuclear artillery shells deployed in Europe by NATO now, or in the future, is classified.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consideration he has given to the extent to which the new generation of nuclear weapons are likely to be used.

  Mr. Stewart
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) and the hon. Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mr. Fields) on 23 February, at column 161.

  Parachute Regiment (Incident)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of Defence whether he proposes to undertake an inquiry with a view to disciplinary action in respect of the incident on 17 February in which members of the Parachute Regiment in a Land Rover, registration No. 94 AV 45, damaged a caravan and interfered with another vehicle; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  There were two separate incidents on 17 February. The first involved two soldiers of the Parachute Regiment, who were guarding an operational "out of bounds" area on Salisbury Plain. The two soldiers were in a Land Rover vehicle, registration No. 94 AV 45. They stopped a civilian driving a car through the prohibited area, and began to question him. The driver quite rightly told them that only MOD police had the right to question a civilian in such circumstances. He subsequently reported the matter to 3 PARA HQ, but made no formal complaint, nor did he wish for any further action to be taken. The soldiers concerned were reminded of the extent of their powers.

  The second incident, during the night of 17 February involved civilian occupants of a caravan on Salisbury Plain

  685
  reporting to the MOD police that soldiers had picked up the caravan, moved it 10 yds, and cut a CB radio cable. The MOD police promptly investigated the incident, but the occupants of the caravan were unable to identify those concerned, and the investigation produced no evidence that soldiers had been involved. No further action was thus possible.

  As both incidents were followed up at the time, I do not consider any further inquiry to be necessary.

  Trident Base (Clyde)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what road developments in connection with the Trident base on the Clyde have been undertaken; and at what total cost.

  Mr. Freeman
  An external network of new roads to relieve local communities of construction traffic from the Clyde submarine base development has been completed at a cost of some £20 million. Within the Clyde submarine base other roadworks are included in the various construction projects of the development programme.

  Greenham Common
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the implications for (i) military presence at the Greenham common base, (ii) access to the base and (iii) any other matters of the decision on 25 February at Reading Crown court in the cases of Georgia Smith and Jean Hutchinson that the Greenham common bylaws were not applicable; what action he proposes in consequence of this ruling; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The implications of the judgment will be considered in the light of the legal advice that I have requested.

  Tactical Nuclear Capacity
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether any sum has been included in his Department's long-term costings in respect of the modernisation and development of Britain's tactical nuclear capacity; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  It is not the practice of this or previous Administrations to provide details of the content of the long-term costings. No decisions have yet been taken on the modernisation of British tactical nuclear weapons.

  HMS Valiant
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects the refitting of HMS Valiant to be completed.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The refitting of HMS Valiant is currently expected to be completed in the latter half of this year.

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the incident involving the repair of pipes leading from the nuclear reactor in HMS Valiant.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I am glad to say that there has been no incident affecting nuclear safety on board HMS Valiant during her refit.
  686
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has renegotiated the price for the refitting of HMS Valiant.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Because the refit of HMS Valiant commenced before the introduction of commercial management, it was not practicable to negotiate a fixed price contract at the outset. It has since been agreed that labour costs will be covered by incentive arrangements. Other elements, for example, materials and sub-contract costs, will be priced on the basis of actual ascertained costs. Any extra work under the contract will be covered by these arrangements.

  Indonesia (Rapier Missiles)
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many members of Her Majesty's armed forces are currently visiting Indonesia in connection with the sale of Rapier missiles, how long they are expected to remain there; and at what cost.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  A small British military advisory team is currently on a loan service posting in Indonesia in connection with the sale of Rapier missiles. It is currently planned for the team to return to the United Kingdom in January 1989. The cost is in confidence between the parties concerned.

  RN Helicopter Flight (Lee-on-Solent)
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the total number of rescue sorties carried out by the Royal Navy helicopter flight at Lee-on-Solent in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Freeman
  The total number of rescue sorties carried out by the Royal Navy helicopter flight at Lee-on-Solent since 1983 is as follows:1983 155, 1984 121, 1985 125, 1986 119, 1987 136
  Information on sorties prior to 1983 could be provided only with disproportionate effort.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many rescue sorties were carried out by the Royal Navy helicopter flight at Lee-on-Solent in order to assist military personnel or ships in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Freeman
  The following rescue sorties were carried out by the Royal Navy helicopter flight at Lee-on-Solent in order to assist military personnel or ships since 1983.1983 nil, 1984 nine, 1985 one, 1986 five, 1987 five.

  Information on sorties prior to 1983 could be provided only with disproportionate effort.

  Radioactive Incidents (Monitoring)
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the meteorologists on the 45 sites to be part of the radioactive incident monitoring network will be required to sign a declaration under the Official Secrets Act.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  All staff of the Meteorological Office, including those working at sites involved in the radioactive incident monitoring network, would be bound by the Official Secrets Act as a matter of course.

  Submarine Hull-Mounted Sonar System
  Sir Geoffrey Pattie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the outcome of the recent competition on the submarine hull-mounted sonar system.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  My Department has today announced the placing of a contract worth about £10 million with Plessey Naval Systems Limited for the development and manufacture of a new sonar for Royal Navy hunter-killer submarines. The equipment is to be known as Sonar2074 and will include new arrays and associated processing and display equipment.

  The contract, which is firm-priced, was awarded to Plessey following a competition. The work will last about five years and will be carried out at the company's factories at Templecombe in Somerset and Newport, Gwent.

  Sonar2074 will be retrofitted in three Trafalgar and Swiftsure class submarines and is being procured at around one third of the cost of the equipment which it replaces. The new processing and display equipment will also be considerably more compact than the existing systems, a major advantage in the confined space of a submarine.

  The reduction in the cost of this sonar and its much smaller size owes much to the research work on computer technology and signal processing carried out at the Admiralty Research Establishment at Portland. This work is also being applied in the development of other new sonar systems for RN submarines and surface ships.

  Good sales potential is envisaged for a suitably modified version of Sonar2074, particularly the compact processing and display sub-systems.

SOCIAL SERVICES

  Medicines
  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services why applications made under article 3 of the Medicines (Exemption from Licences) (Special and Transitional Cases) Order 1971, as extended by article 3 of the Medicines (Exemption from Licences) Manufacture and Assembly Temporary Provisions Order 1972, are no longer being processed.

  Mr. Newton
  The Licensing Authority has for some time been increasingly concerned at certain problems created by the article 3 exemption system, mainly in relation to identifying the source of the products concerned. A review of the position has revealed serious legal doubts about the validity of these exemptions and as a result it is proposed to revoke article 3.

  The views of interested parties on this proposal are being sought as required by section 129(b) of the Medicines Act 1968. In the meantime no further exemptions are currently being allowed. I have today placed in the Library a copy of a consultation letter which is being issued to all known holders of article 3 exemptions, to applicants for such exemptions and to professional and industrial organisations.

  Cervical Cytology Laboratories
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what was (i) the annual running cost, (ii) the staff complement and (iii) the number of cervical cytology 688
  smear results processed in the cervical cytology laboratories in (a) Warrington and (b) Macclesfield in the latest available year.

  Mrs. Currie
  Such information as is available is set out in the table. Details of the annual running costs of laboratories are not held centrally and my hon. Friend may care to contact the district health authority chairmen for the information.

  1986

  Macclesfield

  Warrington

  Number of cases examined

  15,909

  10,600

  Of those examined number diagnosed as positive

  172

  98

  Trained staff in post at 31 December 1986 (whole-time equivalent)

  3·2

  4·0

  Source: DHSS form SBH140.

  Notes:

  1. A woman who was tested more than once was counted on each occasion, but where more than one smear was taken from the same patient at the same session, they were counted as one test.

  2. Staffing levels relate to fully trained staff with a whole-time equivalent being calculated for staff employed part-time. The following staff are included in the figures: Pathologists and other medically qualified staff, medical laboratory scientific officers, scientific officers and laboratory cythology screeners. We do not hold details of staff complement.

  London School of Prosthetics
  Mr. Hanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) what would be the estimated cost of modernisation if the London school of prosthetics were to remain at Roehamption and Paddington;

  (2) what would be the estimated cost involved in transferring the London school of prosthetics from Roehampton and Paddington to Salford.

  Mr. Scott
  These are matters for the Disablement Services Authority to which my hon. Friend should address his questions.

  Benefit Payments
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what has been the identifiable cost to public funds of his campaign to persuade benefit recipients to take payments through bank accounts.

  Mr. Portillo
  About £2 million.

  Heating Allowances
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will estimate the number of recipients of supplementary benefit heating allowances prior to April; and if he will list them by category of claim.

  Mr. Portillo
  The latest information from which the number of supplementary benefit claimants receiving weekly heating additions can be extracted shows that 2,829,000 claimants are receiving a heating addition. The number of heating additions in payments broken down by category of heating addition is as follows:

  Numbers (000s) Feb' 86 figures

  Rate from July 1986 (£)

  Basic rate (including age related)

  1,189

  2·20

  689

  Numbers (000s) Feb' 86 figures

  Rate from July 1986 (£)

  Higher rate (including disabled persons heating addition)

  681

  5·55

  Central heating addition—

  1–4 rooms

  401

  2·20

  5 or more rooms

  571

  4·40

  Estate rate heating addition—

  1–4 rooms

  51

  4·40

  5 or more rooms

  13

  8·80

  Others (amenity charges etc)

  21

  —

  TOTAL

  12,927

  Source: 1986 Annual Statistical Enquiry.

  1 In certain cases more than one heating addition may be payable to the claimant.

  Social Fund
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will amend the social fund manual to give effect to the undertaking given by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security on 15 December 1987, Standing Committee E,Official Report, column 638, that, when a social fund officer arranges for an applicant to be interviewed following an application for a review, the applicant will be given a written explanation of the reasons for the social fund officer's decision before he attends the interview.

  Mr. Portillo
  Social fund officers' decisions will be notified by letter. Where payment is refused, or is awarded to a lesser extent than that claimed, the letter will always include the reasons for the decision. Applicants will therefore be aware of the reasons for the decision before the interview, and no amendment to the social fund manual is required to accomplish this.

  Benefits
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many young people had their benefit reduced or suspended between April 1987 and February 1988 for either(a) refusing a youth training scheme place or (b) leaving a scheme early in (i) the Leeds, West constituency, (ii) the Leeds metropolitan district council area and (iii) Britain; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  The information requested is not available in the precise form requested since the boundaries of the Leeds, West constituency and the Leeds metropolitan district council area are not conterminous with the areas covered by the Department's local offices. However, the following information which is provisional, and therefore subject to amendment, may be of interest.

  Number of cases in which Supplementary Benefit was reduced for refusal of or premature termination of a youth training scheme place: 8 April 1987 to 9 February 1988

  Refusal

  Premature Termination

  The Department's offices at1

  Leeds (North)

  Leeds (North West

  Leeds (West)

  Nil

  1

  690

  Refusal

  Premature Termination

  The Department's offices at2

  Leeds (North)

  Leeds (North West

  Leeds (West)

  Leeds (East)

  Leeds (South)

  Nil

  2

  Great Britain

  58

  815

  Notes:

  1 An area roughly approximating to the Leeds (West) constituency.

  2 An area roughly approximating to the Leeds Metropolitan District Council area.

  Incapacity for Work
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will place in the Library a copy of the instructions and guidance issued to his officials, including adjudication officers, regarding the circumstances in which the question of a person's incapacity for work is to be referred to a medical practitioner under regulation 8 of the Social Security (Adjudication) Regulations 1986.

  Mr. Portillo
  Current advice to adjudication officers on this is covered in part V of the insurance officer's guide and in IOG memos 462 and 463, copies of which are in the Library. From April 1988, this guidance will be in volume 8 of the adjudication officer's guide and copies will be placed in the Library.

  Adjudication Officers' Guide
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will deposit additional copies of the available parts of the adjudication officers' guide in the Library for the use of hon. Members.

  Mr. Portillo
  The complete 10 volumes of the adjudication officer's guide will be published by HMSO before 11 April 1988. Three copies will then be placed in the Library in accordance with the usual practice.

  Sickle Cell Anaemia and Thalassaemia
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list by district the screening and counselling centres for sickle cell anaemia and thalassaemia; how many counsellors work from each centre; and whether they are engaged full-time or part-time.

  Mrs. Currie
  It is for district health authorities to decide the resources to be devoted locally to these inherited blood disorders in the light of local needs and competing priorities. Detailed information about screening and counselling centres is not held centrally but I understand that there are counselling centres in the following districts:

  Brent

  Birmingham

  City and Hackney

  Haringey

  Islington

  Lambeth

  Liverpool

  Manchester

  Newham

  Nottingham

  Southwark

  Waltham Forest

  Children in Care
  Dr. Owen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many children are currently in institutional care.

  Mrs. Currie
  Information is not available centrally in exactly the form requested. It is estimated that there were 16,900 children in care of local authorities in England who were in residential care at 31 March 1986.

  Breast Cancer and Cervical Cancer
  Dr. Owen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the average cost per head of breast cancer screening and cervical cancer screening.

  Mrs. Currie
  Expenditure on cervical cancer screening is not separately identified in health authority accounts. It has been estimated that the average cost of taking and examining a cervical smear is about £10. It is estimated that, based on the economic appraisal in the Forrest report, the average revenue cost per woman screened by mammography for breast cancer is about £14 including, where necessary, the cost of assessment and diagnosis.

  Measles
  Dr. Owen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what are the latest figures for the number of cases of measles recorded in England and Wales and the percentage of children vaccinated.

  Mrs. Currie
  The information is as follows:

  11986

  Notifications of measles2

  82,061

  Percentage of children3 born in 1984 and immunised by the end of the second year after birth (measles)

  71

  1 England and Wales.

  2 Source: OPCS Monitor MB2 87/4.

  3 Source: DHSS form SBL607.

  Elderly People
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what information he has as to what percentage of people(a) over 70 years and (b) over 80 years are able to do their own shopping, cooking, housework and personal care.

  Mrs. Currie
  The 1985 general household survey shows the following percentages of people aged 70 and over and 80 and over who can perform the tasks listed on their own:

  Aged 70 and over

  Aged 80 and over

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  Cook a main meal

  90

  81

  Do the household shopping

  81

  61

  Wash small amount of clothing by hand

  90

  80

  Brush hair or shave

  98

  96

  Cut own toenails

  65

  46

  Bath, shower or wash all over

  89

  78

  Clean windows

  76

  55

  Sweep floors

  85

  71

  Do jobs involving climbing a stepladder or steps

  62

  39

  Wash face and hands

  99

  98

  The 1985 general household survey interviewed nearly 20,000 people aged 16 and over living in private households in Great Britain.
  692
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what percentage of people over the age of 70 years and over the age of 80 years (i) live at home, (ii) live with members of their family, (iii) live in sheltered accommodation and (iv) live in residential homes, institutions or hospitals.

  Mrs. Currie
  The information is not available precisely as requested but in the 1981 census the percentage of people in Great Britain who were not resident in private households (that is lived in hospitals, homes, communal establishments or other institutions) was 5·2 per cent. of those aged 70 and over and 12·2 per cent. of those aged 80 and over. The general household survey does not cover institutional populations but provides the following information about people resident in private households:

  Great Britain, 1985

  Percentages

  Household type

  Aged 70 and over

  Aged 80 and over

  Living alone or with spouse only

  82

  75

  Living with spouse and others

  5

  4

  Living with siblings or children

  11

  19

  Other

  2

  2

  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what information he has as to what percentage of people over the age of(a) 70 years and (b) 80 years are (i) mentally fit and (ii) physically fit.

  Mrs. Currie
  I regret that we do not hold this information.

  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the projection for numbers of people who will be(a) over 80 years, (b) over 90 years and (c) over 100 years in five, 10, 20 and 25 years, respectively.

  Mrs. Currie
  The information available is shown in the table for the United Kingdom, using 1986 as the reference year.

  United Kingdom

  Projected resident population at mid year1 (in thousands)

  Age

  1986

  1991

  1996

  2006

  2011

  80 years and over

  1,841

  2,150

  2,365

  2,637

  2,678

  90 years and over

  201

  254

  329

  452

  492

  100 years and over

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  1 Source: Mid 1985-based principal population projections prepared by the Government Actuary.

  .. denotes not available.

  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give the figures for 1987, 1977, 1967 and 1958 of the number of people living in the United Kingdom aged over 100 years, aged over 90 years and aged over 80 years.

  Mrs. Currie
  The information available for the years and age bands requested is shown in the table. Figures for mid-1986 are the latest available.
  693

  United Kingdom

  Estimated resident population at mid-year (in thousands)

  Age

  1986

  1977

  1967

  1958

  80 years and over

  1,841

  1,414

  1,180

  945

  90 years and over

  201

  152

  ..

  ..

  100 years and over

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..denotes not available.

  Under-fives Initiative
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects to receive the evaluation report by Willem van der Eyken on the under-fives initiative; when he expects to publish it; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  We expect to receive the final document shortly, and will make an announcement about publication and circulation when we have studied it.

  Social Security Reform
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he has discussed the administration of the new benefit system with the Data Protection Registrar; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  There has been discussion with the Data Protection Registrar to clarify the data protection requirements in connection with personal data systems administered by the Department, but the administration of the new benefit system has not been discussed specifically. The housing benefit scheme is administered by local authorities who are responsible for the confidentiality of personal data. I refer the hon. Member to my reply to him on Thursday 18 February at columns 695–96.

  Pensioners (Benefits)
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what proportion of the population of pensionable age in Wales is dependent on means-tested benefits.

  Mr. Portillo
  It is estimated that some 20 per cent. of the population of pensionable age in Wales receive supplementary benefit. This carries with it entitlement to certificated housing benefit. Similar figures for standard housing benefit are not available.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many pensioners in Wales are entitled to supplementary benefit but do not claim it; and what measures his Department is taking to eliminate such underclaiming.

  Mr. Portillo
  We will continue to promote take-up of supplementary benefit by issuing claim forms to all retirement pensioners, and by a range of other measures.

  Take-up estimates are available only for Great Britain as a whole. A convenient summary of the overall position is provided on pages 272 and 273 of Cm. 288 (the 1988 public expenditure White Paper). These suggest that in 1983, 79 per cent. of available benefit was claimed by eligible pensioners. The indications are that the average amount unclaimed by pensioners is small, £3.40 per week, including some 60 per cent. entitled to less than £3. The 1983 take-up estimates are uncertain because of apparent deficiencies in the information obtained by the family expenditure survey from pensioner respondents.
  694
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many pensioner households in wales will receive a reduced amount of housing benefit with the implementation of the Social Security Act 1986 in April; and how many such households will lose their entitlement to housing benefit entirely.

  Mr. Portillo
  I regret that the information is not available for Wales alone.

  Committee on Safety of Medicines
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give the names of the members of the Committee on Safety of Medicines, giving the professional and business background of each member.

  Mr. Newton
  The names of members of the committee, their professional qualifications and the employment positions they currently hold are as follows:Professor A. W. Asscher, BSc, MD, FRCP (Chairman), Dean, St. George's Hospital Medical School.
  Dr. G. Booth, B. Pharm, PhD, FPS, MCPP, Senior Lecturer in Pharmacy Practice, University of Bradford and ex-President of the Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain.
  Professor A. M. Breckenridge, MD, MSC, FRCP, Professor of Clinical Pharmacology, University of Liverpool.
  Professor J. G. Collee, MD, FRCP, FRCPath, Professor of Bacteriology, University of Edinburgh.
  Professor P. H. Elworthy, B Pharm, PhD, DSc, MSC, CChem, MRSC, FPS, MCPP, Emeritus, Professor of Pharmacy, University of Manchester, Visiting Professor in Pharmaceutics at King's College, London and School of Pharmacy, London.
  Professor A. T. Florence, PhD, DSc, CChem, FRSC, MPS, MCPP, Professor of Pharmaceutics, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow.
  Professor M. W. Greaves, MD. PhD, FRCP, Professor of Clinical Dermatology, University of London.
  Professor H. S. Jacobs, BA, MD, FRCP, Professor of Reproductive Endocrinology, Middlesex Hospital Medical School, London.
  Dr. W. A. Jerrett, MB, BCh, FRCGP, General Practitioner, Glamorgan.
  Professor M. J. S. Langman, BSc, MD, MBBS, FRCP, Professor of Internal Medicine, University of Birmingham.
  Professor D. H. Lawson, MD, MB, ChB, FRCP(Ed), Consultant Physician in Clinical Pharmacology, Glasgow.
  Mr. F. E. Loeffler, FRCS, FRCOG, Gynaecologist, London.
  Professor J. O'D McGee, MD, PhD, FRCPath, MA, Professor of Morbid Anatomy, Oxford.
  Professor A. E. M. McLean, BM, PhD, FRCPath, Professor of Toxicology, University College Hospital, London.
  Dr. Elizabeth Mayne, MB, BCh, BAO, MRCP, FRCPath, Department of Haematology, University of Belfast.
  Professor S. R. Meadow, MA, FRCP, DCh, Professor of Paediatrics and Child Health, Leeds University.
  Professor S. A. Montgomery, MD, BSc, MB, BS, FRCPsych, DPM Eng, Professor of Psychiatry, St. Mary's Medical School, London.
  Professor G. Nuki, MB, BS, FRCP(Ed), FRCP(Lond), MRCS, Professor of Rheumatology, University of Edinburgh.
  Dr. B. L. Pentecost. MD, FRCP. Consultant Physician, Birmingham.
  Professor M. D. Rawlins, MD, FRCP, BSc, Professor of Clinical Pharmacology, University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne.
  Professor M. P. Vessey, MB, MD, FFCM, Professor of Social and Community Medicine, University of Oxford.

  695
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what guidelines he lays down for the working of the Committee on Safety of Medicines.

  Mr. Newton
  The Committee on Safety of Medicines works within the statutory framework set out in the Medicines (Committee on Safety of Medicines) Order 1970 (SI 1970, No. 1257), made under section 4 of the Medicines Act 1968. The committee's statutory purposes are giving advice with respect to safety, quality and efficacy, in relation to human use, of any substance or article (not being an instrument, apparatus or appliance) to which any provision of that Act is applicable; and to promoting the collection and investigation of information relating to adverse reactions, for the purpose of enabling such advice to be given.

  Under paragraph 4 of schedule 1 to the Medicines Act 1968, the committee has power to regulate its own procedure. Committee members are appointed for their medical, scientific and pharmaceutical experience and expertise. Guidelines on safety, quality and efficacy are published by the United Kingdom licensing authority and the European Community for use by applicants for product licences; the resulting applications may be put to the committee for its advice. Members are bound both by section 118 of the 1968 Act, which broadly restricts the disclosures of information furnished to a person in pursuance of the Act, and also by the law on confidentiality. Members are required to follow guidelines on declaration of interests as such interests may preclude members from participating in committee proceedings in relation to a particular product.

  Millions

  Number of prescriptions

  1978

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  All benzodiazepines

  30·6

  30·7

  29·1

  29·5

  29·7

  28·7

  28·0

  25·7

  25·3

  Lorazepam

  1·8

  2·1

  2·4

  2·9

  3·5

  3·5

  3·2

  3·1

  3·1

  The figures for 1987 are not yet available. Figures in this format for England alone are not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Figures for hospital and community health services are not collected centrally. Figures are based on a sample of prescriptions of approximately 1 in 200 in England and Wales and 1 in 100 in Scotland.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many yellow card reports of suspected adverse reactions to medicines were submitted to the Committee on Safety of Medicines in each of the years 1978 to 1987 inclusive; and how many in each of these years were in respect of(a) benzodiazepines in general and (b) lorazepam in particular.

  Mr. Newton
  The table gives the figures requested. Reports of suspected adverse drug reactions do not necessarily imply a causal relationship.

  Tranquillisers
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what plans he has to ensure that general practitioners take action on the Committee on Safety of Medicine's advice in its "Current Problems" No. 21, on the danger of overprescribing benzodiazepines.

  Mr. Newton
  Doctors must exercise their professional judgment based on current knowledge in deciding how best to treat their patients. The problems of benzodiazepine therapy have been known for some time and the number of prescriptions for these drugs is falling. The advice contained in "Current Problems" No. 21 supported and added to advice doctors already had available from a variety of sources such as manufacturers' data sheets and articles in professional journals. In addition, the Department funds the distribution to doctors of independent publications including the British National Formulary, Drug and Therapeutics Bulletin and Prescribers' Journal which have all provided guidance on the prescribing and use of benzodiazepines. Doctors of the Department's regional medical service which monitors general practitioner prescribing will continue to take a specific interest in the prescribing of benzodiazepines.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) how many prescriptions for the tranquilliser lorazepam were issued in each of the years 1978 to 1987;

  (2) how many prescriptions were made out for (a) all benzodiazepines, and (b) lorazepam in each of the years 1978 to 1987 inclusive.

  Mr. Newton
  The number of prescriptions for(a) all benzodiazepines and (b) lorazepam dispensed by community pharmacists in Great Britain in each of the years 1978–1986 inclusive was as follows:

  Year

  Total yellow card reports received

  Total where suspected drug is a benzodiazepine including lorazepam

  Total where suspected drug is lorazepam

  1978

  11,873

  201

  36

  1979

  10,840

  218

  29

  1980

  10,179

  232

  31

  1981

  13,032

  166

  24

  1982

  10,922

  226

  24

  1983

  12,689

  274

  35

  1984

  12,163

  243

  20

  1985

  12,652

  179

  29

  1986

  15,527

  143

  21

  1987

  16,431

  100

  16

  Notes:

  The second column gives the actual number of reports received by the CSM in the calendar year. The third and fourth columns are taken from computer records.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what was the cost to the National Health Service of the prescribing of(a) benzodiazepines, and (b) lorazepam in each of the year 1978 to 1988 inclusive.
  697
  Mr. Newton
  The cost to the family practitioner services1 in England of benzodiazepines and lorazepam for the calendar years 1985 and 19862 were as follows:

  £ million

  Benzodiazepines

  Lorazepam

  1985

  27·3

  3·4

  1986

  28·2

  2·7

  Notes:

  1 Figures are not available for costs in the Hospital and Community Health Services, as Health Authority accounts only record total expenditure on drugs.

  2 The information requested is not available in the form requested prior to 1985, and is not yet available for 1987.

  Long-Stay Patients
  Dr. Owen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) how much of the cost of all long-stay patients, respectively, for geriatric, mentally handicapped, mentally ill, and psychiatric patients, the National Health Service can claim back from social security;

  (2) how much the National Health Service could claim back annually from social security if the same arrangements applied for claiming the cost of residence as apply in local authority residential homes and private residential homes;

  (3) what would be the additional annual revenue to the National Health Service if patients whose incomes make them ineligible for social security payments were charged the cost of residence in long-stay hospitals.

  Mr. Portillo
  None. Social security is available only to individual claimants. The National Health Service, local authorities and independent residential care and nursing homes cannot claim any costs from social security. However, people in local authority and independent homes may be able to get help with charges from supplementary benefit. No data are available on which to base estimates of the amount of supplementary benefit which would be payable if health authorities were able to charge on the same basis as either local authorities or the independent sector.

  I regret that no information is available centrally to identify the number of National Health Service patients in long-stay hospitals whose income would make them ineligible for income-related social security benefits.

  Benefits (Disqualification)
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will reconsider his proposals to extend the maximum disqualification period for benefits to six months.

  Mr. Portillo
  An order to amend section 20(1) of the Social Security Act 1985 (which gives the power to disqualify a person for unemployment benefit) increasing the maximum period of disqualification from 13 to 26 weeks, was debated and approved by the House on 1 March.

  Terrorism, Jerusalem (Compensation)
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many dependants of the victims of the terrorist outrage in Jerusalem, perpetrated on 22 July 1946 698
  by the Irgun Zvai Leumi, are still in receipt of compensation from his Department; and what levels of compensation are paid.

  Mr. Portillo
  I am not aware of any.

  Meningitis
  Mr. Stevens
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement about the recent increase in the incidence of meningitis.

  Mrs. Currie
  The country has been experiencing an upsurge in the number of cases of meningococcal infection similar to one which occurred in the mid-1970s. Notifications have been rising since 1984 and the indication are that there will be some increase this year over last year's figure of 1,090 cases of meningococcal meningitis and 158 deaths from meningococcal infection.

  To ensure that doctors and health authorities were fully informed about the situation and were prepared to deal effectively with local outbreaks, Sir Donald Acheson the Government's Chief Medical Officer, wrote to all doctors last year and again early last month when he enclosed a copy of a leaflet produced for parents by Gloucester district health authority. He also sent regional medical officers a check list for management purposes and asked them to inform him of their regional plans to deal with the disease. These were discussed at a meeting held later in the month.

  I have arranged for a copy of the letter to all doctors to be placed in the Library.

  Young Persons (Housing)
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) what advice he intends to give 16 and 17-yearolds who have left home but receive no income support about housing themselves from September onwards;

  (2) how he proposes to determine the circumstances under which a 16 or 17-year-old may be justified in leaving home once income support has been withdrawn from under 18 year-olds.

  Mr. Scott
  [holding answer 25 February 1988]: Regulations have yet to be prepared, but it is the Government's intention that 16 and 17-year-olds who are not required to be available for work—for example, the lone parent and the severely disabled—will be entitled to income support at all times. School leavers who have good reason for being away from home and who have registered for a job or a YTS place will be entitled to income support during the child benefit extension period—up to the end of the calendar year for summer school leavers and up to three months for others—whilst they are considering the job or youth training scheme opportunities that are available. The regulations will include those young people with no living parent or guardian, those who have recently been in local authority care, those placed away from home by a probation officer of social worker and those who cannot live at home because they would be threatened with physical or sexual abuse.

  Those unemployed young people who wish to live away from home and who are not covered by the regulations will have no entitlement to income support unless the Secretary of State directs that, exceptionally, benefits should he paid on the ground of severe hardship. Someone who joins the

  699
  young training scheme will be able to receive income support, if appropriate, to supplement his training allowance.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) whether he proposes to make any exceptions to the withdrawal of income support for under 18-year-olds so that income support could be given to those resident in an approved scheme of rehabilitation, such as that provided by the Young Men's Christian Association; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) how many 16 and 17-year-olds he expects to be both living away from home and unable to pay rental and accommodation charges in September; what that number will be for the constituency of Stoke-on-Trent, North; and what advice he will give to the Young Men's Christian Association to enable it to continue to accommodate 16 and 17-year-olds until September in the knowledge that they will no longer be able to pay the charges when income supplement is withdrawn in September.

  Mr. Scott
  [holding answer 25 February 1988]: The Government do not intend to make any exceptions to its general rules on income support to cater specifically for 16 and 17-year-old residents of accommodation provided by the Young Men's Christian Association.

  Some will be entitled to income support without time limit because they are incapable of work, whilst those who are fit for work, who are living away from home with good cause—for example, orphans and those who would be threatened with physical or sexual abuse—and who have

  In-patients

  Out-patients

  Accident and emergency patients

  Day patients

  Day cases

  Hospital name and type

  Cost per in-patient per day

  Cost per case

  Cost per attendance

  Cost per new case

  Cost per attendance

  Cost per new case

  Cost per attendance

  Cost per new case

  Cost per attendance

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  Yorkshire region

  Acute (51 to 100 beds)

  81·03

  566·46

  25·92

  114·56

  1n/a

  n/a

  1n/a

  n/a

  75·33

  Mainly acute

  79·98

  710·46

  27·04

  122·46

  20·03

  28·50

  37·21

  1,314·36

  38·72

  Mainly long-stay

  62·15

  2—

  33·34

  175·80

  10·50

  21·87

  19·21

  535·68

  63·25

  Geriatric

  41·85

  2—

  22·19

  78·71

  10·19

  19·98

  22·93

  728·84

  1n/a

  Mental illness

  41·23

  2—

  27·24

  182·85

  8·36

  17·24

  17·90

  1,713·48

  1n/a

  Pontefract district

  Ackton Acute (51 to 100 beds)

  55·79

  1,498·89

  20·98

  130·84

  1n/a

  n/a

  1n/a

  n/a

  1n/a

  Pentefract general infirmary Mainly acute

  85·05

  581·74

  26·01

  114·24

  20·81

  30·60

  18·76

  751·23

  44·15

  Castleford, Normanton and district Mainly long-stay

  59·62

  2—

  19·89

  82·36

  8·68

  18·60

  16·54

  353·74

  36·00

  Southmoor Geriatric

  41·31

  2—

  1n/a

  n/a

  1n/a

  n/a

  31·01

  854·56

  1n/a

  Warde Aldam Mental illness

  58·34

  2—

  9·29

  33·66

  8·36

  17·24

  1n/a

  n/a

  1n/a

  1 No patients of this type were treated during the year.

  2 Average costs per in-patient case in respect of hospitals providing long-stay treatment are not routinely calculated.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Banbridge District Council
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what action he intends to take in view at Banbridge district council's decision to prevent further 700
  registered for a job or a youth training scheme place will be entitled to benefit for a short period whilst they consider the job and youth training scheme opportunities that are available.

  The guarantee of a youth training scheme place to all 16 and 17-year-olds who want one will be seen by the majority of young people as an opportunity to make a good start in life. Someone who joins the youth training scheme will be able to receive income support, if appropriate, to supplement his training allowance.

  No estimates are available of the number of 16 and 17-year-olds who will be living away from home in September and who will be unable to pay rental or accommodation charges. We estimate, however, there are some 21,000 in the age group in Great Britain who are either boarders or householders; there are no comparable figures for the Stoke area.

  Patient Expenditure
  Mr. Lofthouse
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what was the average annual expenditure per patient in 1986–87 by the Pontefract district health authority.

  Mrs. Currie
  [holding answer 1 March 1988]: For 1986–87, hospital costing returns submitted by the Pontefract district health authority show average costs per patient treated as follows (average costs for the Yorkshire region are also included for comparative purposes).

  consultation between the town and country planning department and the district council; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  The Department of the Environment (Northern Ireland) will continue to consult the Banbridge district council on all planning applications involving land within its administrative area. This will take the form of the presentation on a regular basis of a schedule of applications received. Schedules will indicate the
  701
  preliminary opinion of the Department as to how each application should be determined. In accordance with established practice, if the Department does not receive the comments of the council within two weeks, a decision will be issued in accordance with the provisional opinion.

EMPLOYMENT

  Job Training Scheme
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how much has been spent on advertising the job training scheme; and how much that was per filled place since its inception.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Expenditure on advertising up to the end of January was some £8,370,000. This represents a cost of £115 per place filled since the start of the scheme in November 1986 up to December 1987, the latest date for which information is available.

  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of entrants to the job training scheme in Barnsley have obtained a credit or qualification as a direct result of their time on the scheme since its inception.

  Mr. Nicholls
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given him by my hon. Friend the Minister of State,Official Report, Tuesday 23 February, at column 127.

  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many applications there have been for the child care allowance on the new job training scheme.

  Mr. Nicholls
  At the end of January 1988, the latest date for which figures are available, there had been 13 applications for child care allowance on the new Job Training Scheme in the 10 pilot areas where this allowance is available.

  Jobcentres (Docklands)
  Mr. Leyton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans the Manpower Services Commission has for setting up jobcentre facilities in London docklands.

  Mr. Lee
  Responsibility for jobcentres now rests with Department of Employment's employment service. It has a network of 23 local offices in the docklands boroughs of which 11 offer jobcentre facilities. It is currently reviewing this network with a view to helping the largest possible number of local unemployed people find work.

  Industrial Tribunals
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received from the Justice group on the industrial tribunal system; and if he will make a statement on any response he proposes to make.

  Mr. Nicholls
  I am considering, in conjunction with the presidents of the industrial tribunals, the recommendations made by Justice in its report on industrial tribunals published in December 1987.

  Data Protection
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many subject access requests under the 702
  terms of the Data Protection Act his Department has received; what was his estimate of this number; whether he is reconsidering the subject access fee charged by his Department as a result; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  The Department of Employment group, comprising the Department of Employment, the Advisory Conciliation and Arbitration Service, the Health and Safety Executive, and the Manpower Services Commission has received a total of 102 subject access requests under the Data Protection Act. Prior to the subject access data of 11 November 1987, it was not possible to make any firm estimate of the number of requests which would be received. We have no plans at present to reconsider the subject access fees charged by the Department of Employment Group.

  Community Programme
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what specific provisions are being made to ensure that smaller voluntary organisations will be able to continue to sponsor places on the revised community programme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Following publication of the White Paper "Training for Employment" on 16 February 1988 the Manpower Services Commission is developing the detailed rules for the new adult training programme. There will be a variety of opportunities for voluntary organisations to participate and I refer the hon. Member to para 5.13 of the White Paper which states:"The Government are very concerned that voluntary organisations and others which have an established role in the Community Programme should have the opportunity to make a major contribution to the new programme".

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what specific proposals he is considering to ensure a smooth transition in funding to the proposed new community programme for voluntary sector projects and organisations.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Existing providers who become training managers in the new adult training programme will be funded for all their filled places under the arrangements set out in the White Paper "Training for Employment" published on 16 February 1988. To ensure a smooth transition the Manpower Services Commission's area managers will be talking in detail with their agents and independent sponsors about these arrangements, and the positive role we hope they will play in the new programme.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what specific consideration he gives to regional variations in needs and opportunities in making allocations for project-based schemes under the community programme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Community programme places are allocated to regions and areas in the light of both national priorities set out in planning guidance issued on an annual basis, and local priorities determined in consultation with area manpower boards. The following factors are taken into account when deciding on regional allocations:

  1. The distribution of eligible unemployed people.

  2. Current and past performance in achieving filled place targets.

  3. The relative buoyancy of labour markets.

  4. Flexibility to meet special needs which may arise during the year.

  703
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make an estimate of the proportion of those current community programme schemes which will not fall within the guidelines for eligibility under the proposals for the programme's reform.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Manpower Services Commission are currently developing the detailed guidelines and criteria for the new adult training programme. It is not possible, therefore, to estimate the number of current community programme schemes that will not meet the guidelines for the new programme. However, the new programme will provide at least 170,000 places for project-based training, and this should ensure that the experience of existing community programme agents and sponsors can continue to be harnessed.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what consultations he will be undertaking with organisations running existing community programmes and adult training schemes concerning the implementation of the new adult training scheme and other proposals contained in the recent White Paper from his Department.

  Mr. Cope
  The Manpower Services Commission has decided to establish a task group representing employers, trade unions, local authorities, voluntary bodies and other organisations running existing community programme and adult training schemes to advise on the implementation of the new adult training programme. In the course of local planning, the Manpower Services Commission will also be consulting area manpower boards and potential providers of the new programme.

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proportion of the entrants to the community programme on the 12 months to December 1987 were(a) to full-time places, (b) men, (c) single, (d) aged over 25 years, (e) unemployed for over 12 months and (f) were formerly benefit claimants.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The latest information available is that relating to the 12 months to the end of November 1987. This is given in the table.

  Number

  per cent.

  Total entrants of whom

  272,697

  (a) Full-time

  31,633

  11·6

  (b) Male

  202,342

  74·2

  (c) Single

  203,977

  74·8

  (d) Aged over 25 years

  115,351

  42·3

  (e) Unemployed for over 12 months

  216,794

  79·5

  (f) Formerly benefit claimants in direct receipt of benefit

  263,153

  96·5

  (g) Formerly benefit claimants indirectly in receipt of benefit

  5,858

  2·1

  Major Hazards
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the members of the Health and Safety Commission sub-committee on major hazards; and if he has set a timetable for its work.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Health and Safety Commission's advisory committee on major hazards completed its work in 1984. The commission's standing advisory committee 704
  on dangerous substances subsequently set up a sub-committee on the major hazard aspects of the transport of dangerous substances. The current members of the sub-committee are:
  Mr. A. J. Williams, Health and Safety Executive (Chairman);
  Dr. D. Plester, Dr. I. Canadine, Mr. S. Hope and Mr. J. Middlemas (appointed after consultation with the Confederation of British Industry);
  Mr. R. Coyle and Mr. D. Matthews (appointed after consultation with the Trades Union Congress);
  Mr. W. Cooney and Mr. E. Johnson (appointed after consultation with local authority associations), Mr. P. Abbott, British Rail;
  Dr. V. Marshall, an independent expert.

  There is no set timetable for the work of the sub-committee. It will report as soon as possible, but the timing of final conclusions will depend upon the complexity of the problems revealed.

  Work Accidents
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people have suffered injuries or death in work accidents in(a) England, (b) Wales, (c) Northern Ireland and (d) Scotland for each year since 1974.

  Mr. Nicholls
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher)Official Report 16 December 1987, at column 578 in which I gave the available information for Great Britain. A breakdown of these figures for England, Wales and Scotland could only be provided at disproportionate cost. The position in Northern Ireland is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many prosecutions have been brought in respect of work accidents for each year since 1974.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The available information is set out in the table. Not all these cases arose from accidents at work.

  Year

  Number of prosecutions: information laid

  All1

  LAs2

  Fact & Agric. Insp.3

  Fact. Insp.4

  1975

  —

  —

  —

  2,956

  1976

  —

  —

  —

  2,174

  1977

  —

  —

  —

  2,814

  1978

  —

  —

  —

  2,603

  1979

  —

  —

  2,427

  —

  1980

  3,169

  545

  —

  —

  1981

  2,408

  516

  —

  —

  1982

  2,810

  468

  —

  —

  1983

  2,749

  511

  —

  —

  1984

  2,792

  585

  —

  —

  1985

  2,764

  451

  —

  —

  1986–875

  2,628

  453

  —

  —

  1 Data include prosecutions taken by HM Factory and Agricultural Inspectorates, Local Authorities (where known), Explosives Inspecorate, HM Mines and Quarries Inspectorate, Railway Inspectorate and the Petroleum Engineering Division of the Department of Energy, from 1983 but exclude the Pollution Inspectorate (formerly the Industrial Air Pollution Inspectorate). From 1980 to 1982 figures are for HM Factory Inspectorate, HM Agricultural Inspectorate and Local Authorities only.

  2 Local Authorities.

  3 HM Factory and Agricultural Inspecorate only.

  4 HM Factory Inspectorate only.

  5 Provisional data for the 12 month period April 1986 to March 1987.

  Benefit
  Mr. McTaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the number of people disqualified from unemployment benefit for each area office in the Glasgow area within the last year, giving the reasons for disqualification and the length of the period of disqualification.

  Mr. Lee
  The number of adjudication officers' decisions that disqualified claimants for receipt of unemployment benefit during the latest period for which figures are available (year ending 30 June 1987) are detailed in the table, broken down by reasons for disqualification. Figures are not available on an individual office basis and those given therefore represent the total number of disqualifications by adjudication officers in Glasgow. The figures do not cover disallowances of benefit, nor disqualification of those absent from Great Britain. No analysis is made of the length of the disqualification imposed, and this information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Year ending 30 June 1987

  Leaving Voluntarily

  8,716

  Misconduct

  3,113

  Refusal of Suitable Employment

  24

  Neglect of a Reasonable Opportunity of Suitable Work

  1

  Refusal to Carry Out Written Recommendations

  1

  Refusal or Failure to Take a Reasonable Opportunity of Approved Training

  22

  Trade Dispute

  4

  Mr. McTaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) what proportion of people disqualified from receiving unemployment benefit within the last year have appealed against that disqualification in(a) Glasgow, (b) Scotland and (c) Britain as a whole;

  (2) how many people disqualified from receiving unemployment benefit have appealed the decision; and what percentages of disqualifications this represents.

  Mr. Lee
  Separate records of the number of appeals against disqualifications of unemployment benefit are not kept, and such information could be provided only at disproportionate cost. The table shows the numbers of appeals against all adverse decisions, including both disqualifications and disallowances within(a) Scotland and (b) Britain as a whole for the year ending December 1986. The Department has no figures for other areas available.

  Great Britain

  Total of disallowances and disqualifications

  1,081,394

  Total appeals

  44,874=4·15 per cent.

  Scotland

  Total of disallowances and disqualifications

  116,109

  Total appeals

  6,272–5·4 per cent.

  Training Schemes
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment for each of the Manpower Services 706
  Commission's areas in Greater London, Merseyside, Greater Manchester, the Birmingham and Solihull Manpower Services Commission area and for Great Britain as a whole, what are the most recent monthly statistics for new job training schemes, for all those trainees who have left the scheme, how many (i) found work, (ii) failed to attend, (iii) went on to another course of training or education, (iv) completed the course, (v) left for sickness or (vi) went back on to unemployment and showing the total number of currently filled places.

  Mr. Nicholls
  [holding answer 22 February 1988]: At 29 January 1988, the latest date for which figures are available, some 26,249 formerly unemployed people were participating in the new job training scheme. The area breakdown is set out in the table.

  As for leavers from the scheme, a return from managing agents seeking information on the reasons for leaving was first requested in October 1987. Data from this return is known to be incomplete so far and will not be comparable between areas and managing agents in all places. The data does not provide reliable information about job entry rates or other trainee destinations. This information will be gathered by an independent follow-up survey of all trainees which has now started. Early results are expected in the spring. Managing agents' returns will be considered in the light of that information.

  Number of participants in training on 29 January 1988

  Number

  MSC—London areas

  North London

  386

  East London

  438

  South London

  308

  West London

  176

  Inner London North

  512

  Inner London South

  910

  MSC—Merseyside and Manchester areas

  Mcr Central

  815

  Mcr East

  389

  Mcr North

  410

  Merseyside

  625

  MSC Birmingham and Solihull

  823

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, for each of the Manpower Services Commission's areas in Greater London, Merseyside, Greater Manchester, the Birmingham and Solihull Manpower Services Commission area and for Great Britain as a whole, what are the most recent monthly statistics for new job training schemes, showing(a) entrants in the latest available period, (b) the number of cumulative entrants since the scheme started, (c) a breakdown of entrants, showing how many were (i) male and (ii) female, the length of time they had been out of work, their ethnic backgrounds and whether or not they had any disability.

  Mr. Nicholls
  [holding answer 22 February 1988]: The tables give the requested information about entrants to the new job training scheme.
  707

  Table 1

  Manpower Services Commission—London areas

  North London

  East London

  South London

  West London

  Inner London north

  Inner London south

  Number of entrants in latest available period (January)

  177

  180

  51

  109

  172

  194

  Cumulative entrants since scheme started (April to January)

  1,482

  990

  882

  838

  1,327

  1,923

  Cumulative

  (a)Male

  983

  625

  580

  489

  532

  1,346

  (b)Female

  499

  365

  302

  349

  795

  577

  (c)Length of time out of work

  (1) 6 to 12 months

  689

  435

  421

  398

  656

  836

  (2) Over 12 months

  367

  216

  226

  226

  380

  484

  (3) Over 24 months

  426

  339

  235

  214

  291

  603

  (d)Ethnic background

  (1) White

  682

  519

  531

  374

  638

  786

  (2) Black/African Caribbean descent

  400

  196

  153

  150

  412

  663

  (3) Indian Sub-Continent descent

  177

  158

  69

  162

  94

  98

  (4) None of these

  155

  85

  94

  97

  112

  190

  (5) I prefer not to say

  68

  32

  35

  55

  71

  186

  (e)Disabled persons

  23

  37

  41

  19

  29

  59

  Note: Due to difficulties in data collection some of the information given above is incomplete.

  Table 2

  MSC—Merseyside and Manchester Areas

  Mcr Central

  Mcr East

  Mcr North

  Merseyside

  Number of entrants in latest available period (January)

  317

  203

  145

  253

  Cumulative entrants since scheme started (April to January)

  2,437

  1,341

  1,358

  2,429

  Cumulative

  (a)Male

  1,912

  1,074

  1,063

  1,774

  (b)Female

  524

  267

  295

  655

  (c)Length of time out of work

  (1) 6–12 months

  901

  571

  960

  747

  (2) Over 12 months

  526

  351

  464

  599

  (3) Over 24 months

  514

  335

  509

  1,083

  (d)Ethnic background

  (1) White

  1,783

  1,126

  1,084

  2,118

  (2) Black-African Caribbean descent

  158

  30

  15

  16

  (3) Indian sub-continent descent

  85

  44

  56

  8

  (4) None of those

  348

  115

  158

  252

  (5) I prefer not to say

  62

  26

  45

  35

  (e)Disabled persons

  122

  35

  76

  47

  Note: Due to difficulties in data collection some of the information given above is incomplete.

  Table 3

  MSC—Birmingham, Solihull and Great Britain

  Birmingham and Solihull

  Great Britain

  Number of entrants in latest available period (January)

  789

  9,662

  Cumulative entrants since scheme started (April to January)

  2,461

  79,779

  Cumulative

  (a)Male

  1,721

  56,113

  (b)Female

  740

  18,966

  (c)Length of time out of work

  (1)6–12 months

  915

  31,547

  (2) Over 12 months

  580

  18,009

  (3) Over 24 months

  966

  25,170

  (d)Ethnic background

  (1) White

  1,446

  60,492

  (2) Black/African, Caribbean descent

  416

  3,968

  (3) Indian sub-continent descent

  331

  2,956

  (4) None of those

  219

  5,727

  (5) I prefer not to say

  49

  2,015

  (e)Disabled persons

  46

  2,785

  Note: Due to difficulties in data collection some of the information given above is incomplete.
  708 709
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment for each of the Manpower Services Commission's areas in Greater London, Merseyside, Greater Manchester, the Birmingham and Solihull Manpower Services Commission area and for Great Britain as a whole, what are the most recent monthly statistics for new job schemes on(a) the number of trainees in the latest available period who entered work placements, (b) the cumulative total of how many are in

  Manpower Services Commission—London areas

  North London

  East London

  South London

  West London

  Inner London North

  Inner London South

  Entered first practical experience placements in January

  48

  not known

  5

  4

  34

  26

  In practical experience placement at latest date (end January)

  246

  not known

  87

  26

  473

  293

  Number of leavers in latest available period (January)

  163

  186

  69

  93

  118

  226

  Cumulative leavers since scheme started (April-January)

  1,096

  552

  574

  735

  815

  1,013

  MSC—Merseyside and Manchester areas

  Mcr Central

  Mcr East

  Mcr North

  Merseyside

  Entered first practical experience placements in January

  110

  67

  75

  84

  In practical experience placements at latest date (end January)

  450

  248

  294

  434

  Number of leavers in latest available period (January)

  260

  152

  134

  289

  Cumulative leavers since scheme started (April to January)

  1,625

  953

  949

  1,745

  MSC—Birmingham, Solihull and Great Britain

  Birmingham and Solihull

  Great Britain

  Entered first practical experience placements in January

  102

  3,392

  In practical experience placements at latest date (end January)

  457

  15,389

  Number of leavers in latest available period (January)

  243

  7,175

  Cumulative leavers since scheme started (April-January)

  1,638

  52,029

  Note: Due to difficulties in data collection some of the information given above is incomplete.
  710
  work places at the latest available dates, (c) the numbers of trainees who left the scheme in the latest available period, and (d) the number of cumulative leavers since the scheme started.

  Mr. Nicholls
  [holding answer 22 February 1988]: The table gives the requested information on practical experience placements and leavers to the new job training scheme.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Ripon): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
The Marquess of Ely The Marquess of Ely—Took the Oath.

Air Europe: Fare Application
Baroness Burton of Coventry Baroness Burton of Coventry asked Her Majesty's Government:
What support they are prepared to offer Air Europe in that airline's proposed application to the Civil Aviation Authority and to the French authorities for a £59 one-way unrestricted fare to Paris.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, the recent European Council directive on air fares requires governments to approve proposed fares if they are reasonably related to the long-term fully-allocated costs of the applicant, while taking into account other relevant factors which include the needs of consumers. Provided Air Europe can meet those criteria and follows the proper procedures, the fares it proposes will be approved.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that amount of detail which will be appreciated as there are several issues at stake. Does the Minister agree that the chief issue is that Air Europe is endeavouring to make its fares cost-related rather than cartel-related which can only benefit air travellers? Secondly, can the Minister tell the House the present position: has Air Europe filed an application for the £59 fare?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we very much hope that UK airlines will be able to respond to the EC directive by introducing lower and more flexible cost-related fares.
In answer to the second point made by the noble Baroness, Air Europe has not yet applied but I understand that proposals for new fares will be filed shortly with the United Kingdom and the French authorities.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, it is so nice to make some progress. Perhaps I may ask the Minister this question. If the British and French Governments disagree on this matter will it be referred to arbitration? If that is the case, perhaps I may ask if the Minister recalls that on 12th January in a Written Answer to me at col. 1224 of the Official Report he said that the EC air transport package provides:
"a speedy and binding arbitration procedure on fares;".
Can the Minister tell the House what interpretation we might put on the word "speedy"?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, as regards whether it might be referred to arbitration, I cannot say anything definite until the proposals have been filed. Naturally, I hope that there will not be any disagreement because both governments must observe the rules for approval in the fares directive. If arbitration is necessary, the longest it could take to reach a decision is normally three months from the date when the fares were first filed.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, if we are making some progress on the cost of flights to Paris, would the noble Lord be prepared to consider the cost of flying on beyond Paris to Strasbourg? The return fare to Strasbourg is about £256 which is ridiculous by the standards of today. It is almost as much as the cost of flying to New York and back. Cannot something be done to break that part of the cartel?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, as Strasbourg is within the EC, exactly the same criteria would apply if an airline applied for cheaper flights to Strasbourg; it would be covered by the same directive as the one which is in question today.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, will the Minister take note of the fact that a fare of £59 is now available and on offer between London and Paris? In contrast, the fare between London and Glasgow or London and Edinburgh is £74. Can the Minister exercise some authority to induce a measure of competition in this area so that prices may be reduced?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, first, I should like to correct the noble Lord. The £59 fare is not yet available on the Paris route. As regards domestic fares, there is competition on the London to Edinburgh, London to Glasgow routes. There are two airlines competing from Heathrow and there is also competition from Gatwick. There is the possibility of low air fares upon those routes.
Lord Merrivale: My Lords, can the Minister confirm an article which appeared in the press on 10th February to the effect that Air Europe is refunding £25 in the aircraft, which is the difference between £84 and £59? If that is the case is it not rather a gimmick which should be discouraged by Her Majesty's Government?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I understand that practice is not actually happening at the moment.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, in expressing appreciation of the progress which is being made with regard to the Air Europe application, can the Minister give some assurance—if it is within the power of the Government—that the cheap fares will not be at the expense of the conditions of the persons who work for the particular airlines?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the conditions for people employed within the airlines must be for the management of the airlines concerned. The criteria for deciding on the new fares are set down in Article 3 of the directive. I touched upon two of them

275
in my original Answer. They take into account, for example, a satisfactory return on capital; the competitive market situation, including the fares of the other carriers operating on the route; and the need to prevent dumping.
The critical fact is that if the proposed air fare is lower than that offered by another air carrier operating on the route that shall not be a sufficient reason for withholding approval.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, would it be in order to congratulate my noble friend on having at last made some progress? After nine years with a Government committed to competition, if we achieve progress in this one field where the cartel has defeated all previous efforts would it not be appropriate either to put up a plaque or even a statue to the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, and perhaps to my noble friend Lord Bethell, as well? I should be very willing to open the subscriptions should this be necessary.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am sure that your Lordships will agree with my noble friend. The Government have been working very hard indeed over the past few years in order to achieve the first stage of this EC package. I emphasise that it is only the first stage. We hope to make further progress by 1990 and even more progress by 1992. The package we have achieved in Europe is not as liberal as we should have liked and it is not as liberal as we have achieved after bilateral negotiations elsewhere. However it is a first step.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, is the Minister aware that yesterday was the birthday of the noble Baroness? Would he like to share with us all in wishing her many happy returns of the day?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I shall indeed be happy to follow my noble friend's suggestion and congratulate the noble Baroness on her birthday of yesterday. I know that she has been very interested in the subject of aviation for many years. Perhaps it would not be rude of me to say that her birthday more or less coincides with the anniversary of powered flight.

Works of Art: Public Access
3.10 p.m.
Baroness Strange Baroness Strange asked Her Majesty's Government:
What proportion of works of art in museums and galleries are not on public display.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, the Government are keen to increase public access to the treasures in our museums and galleries, but inevitably the proportion of works of art in museums and galleries on public display at any time varies from institution to institution and with the nature of the collection. All national museums and galleries allow
276
access by members of the public to items in their reserve collections and all aim to rotate items between these reserve collections and public display.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his helpful and interesting reply. As he has pointed out that many works of art are not on public display, does he agree that there may be a case for some of the museums and galleries to mount more travelling exhibitions, to lease or lend those works of art where they might best be seen, or indeed to dispose of some of them instead of sitting like dragons on top of their hoards?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for asking a question which highlights what the Government have been doing. The Commission of Museums and Galleries has set up a travelling exhibition unit. As I am sure your Lordships are aware, the Government indemnity scheme has allowed many more works of art to be loaned between museums and galleries without the need for commercial insurance.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, in view of what the noble Baroness has said, I am glad to hear the Minister supporting the lending of works of art and travelling exhibitions. Can he say whether the Government still intend to legislate to empower trustees of the National Gallery, the Tate and the National Portrait Gallery to sell pictures from their collections? Is he aware that the trustees who are the present guardians of these collections are opposed to any selling off and that it would also be a betrayal of the generosity of donors who either have made financial contributions or have given actual works of art? These gifts will dwindle to a trickle if a policy of selling off is imposed.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, it is still our intention to grant to the three English national galleries the enabling power to which the noble Baroness has referred. However, I disagree with her that it would be a betrayal of gifts that were left to such galleries.
Lord St. John of Fawsley: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that disposing of works of art which are temporarily out of favour may or may not be a betrayal of the people who have left them as legacies but could be a very bad commercial judgment? If our museums and galleries had sold off Victorian pictures a few decades ago we would have lost some of the finest pictures in our collection today. Does he realise that at one time even the Mona Lisa might have been obtained for a song?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, my noble friend is on to a very important point about the danger of disposing of unfashionable works of art, but I am sure that the whole House has confidence in the trustees to exercise the disposal power with care. I am sure that the trustees will be very conscious about changing tastes and values. It would be wrong to restrict this enabling power where there are perhaps duplicates that could be disposed of without detriment to the collection.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, what steps have the Government taken to assess the likely effect on future donors of giving this power to our national collections?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, a number of galleries and museums already have this power, which they exercise very judiciously. All the Government are seeking to do is to extend this enabling power to the three galleries I have mentioned.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, will the Minister explain what he meant by "duplicates"? You cannot sell duplicates of the original. Did he mean that?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, you can of course have duplicates being copies.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, does the Minister agree that to display works of art requires space and that one of the reasons there is so little space to do so is the philistine attitude of this Government to the provision of extra space for the national museums? That is exemplified, first, by their refusal to be responsible for the addition to the National Gallery in Trafalgar Square; and, secondly, in their failure year after year to provide a home for the Turner Bequest, paintings left by that painter to the nation.
Does the Minister agree that unless the Government become more generous about the provision of space, and not leave it to the generosity of families such as the Sainsbury and Clore families, there will be no possibility of displaying the added works of art which are obtained with taxpayers' money year after year?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord's question is a little wide of the one on the Order Paper, but I should be very surprised if one could find any museum that would not like more space.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, will the noble Earl give the House an undertaking that when the time conies to return the Elgin Marbles to Greece there will be no question of selling them and that they will be returned as a free gift?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I cannot give any undertakings.
Lord Moyne: My Lords, may I as an Irishman ask a Kerryman's question? Can my noble friend say what proportion of the proportion he was not able to give of the invisible pictures is due to galleries being closed through lack of staff?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, that is not a problem for the national galleries. I can assure my noble friend that at the National Gallery itself 100 per cent. of the items are on display. That can vary down to something like 25 per cent. in the National Portrait Gallery.
Lord Birkett: My Lords, is the Minister aware that many years ago there was at the GLC a plan for a museum to encompass precisely the essence of this afternoon's Question? There was a plan for a display, on a non-permanent and revolving basis, of the reserve collections of the nation. As at the time the GLC unfortunately could not find a suitable site, and since, as he will doubtless have noticed, the GLC no longer exists, he is in an admirable position to take up the initiative himself.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Lord's comments, but the question of a site is very important.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, is the noble Earl prepared either by way of extra grant or by way of direct assistance to help those galleries which are trying to put on show their reserve collections by, for instance, lending them out? Will he encourage the lending of pictures and other works of art so that they may constantly be seen by the public?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am very happy to support the noble Lord in that question. That is exactly what the Government want to do and that is why the initiatives have been taken by my right honourable friend in that direction.
Lord Aldington: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there is at least one charitable foundation—and probably many more—which is ready and willing to borrow pictures in the reserve collections but finds when it approaches museums and galleries that there is no willingness at all to lend them? Will he make inquiries to see that the excellent intentions of the Government which he has just announced are being followed through?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we are aware that there is some reluctance, but I hope that the Government indemnity scheme will help in this regard.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that there are probably about 5,000 paintings in store at Kew? Many of them have been bought under the terms of the Chantrey Bequest and many of them have never been seen. One of them was the magnificent Landseer, at present on loan to this House, which had never been exhibited during the whole of this century. Cannot the Government begin to show some initiative and generosity in the way that the French Government have done over the foundation of La Musée d'Orsay where all these paintings, hitherto having been in reserve stocks, are now being shown?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, in my Answer to my noble friend's original Question, I outlined some of the initiatives which the Government are taking to ensure that some works of art are released for viewing by the general public.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, I wonder whether my noble friend can say how many pictures are on loan to government buildings both at home and

279
abroad. I should imagine the number is fairly high and would include those at present housed at No. 10 Downing Street.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am afraid I cannot answer my noble friend's question without some prior notice.

Chieftain Tank Replacement
3.20 p.m.
Lord Gainford Lord Gainford asked Her Majesty's Government:
What replacement is being considered for the army's Chieftain tanks.
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, as I informed noble Lords on 12th January (col. 1226 of Hansard), we have been considering the timescale in which we might need to replace our remaining Chieftain tanks which entered service in the 1960s, and are examining both the improved Challenger and possible overseas options.
Lord Gainford: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Has he any information as to the possible improvement in the new Army tanks in fire power in particular, with reference to gun laying and gun sighting? It seems in recent years that our army tanks have proved to be slightly inferior to those of other nations.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, we shall certainly be looking for enhanced capabilities within the areas to which my noble friend has referred in whatever tank we decide upon as the Chieftain replacement. Indeed, we are already applying such enhancements to the existing Challenger fleet and I hope that such improvements will be brought into service shortly.
Lord Irving of Dartford: My Lords, will the Minister bear in mind that the Army's recommendation was that the replacement should be the Challenger II? Does he agree with the comment made in the Independent a week or two ago that any Minister who decides that we cannot afford a replacement, or that we should go abroad for such a replacement, would in fact be passing a death sentence on the country's tank production capabilities?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am afraid I do not know about that. I and my ministerial colleagues are looking for the most cost-effective solution to the requirement to replace the Chieftain tanks. But naturally we shall take into account the implications of such a decision upon the British tank manufacturing industry.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, do the options which the Government are considering include updating the battle tank which Vickers are now making for the Indian Government?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I do not think it is correct to say that Vickers are supplying a tank for the Indian Government. As I understand the position, India is manufacturing her own tank, although I believe that Vickers do have some part in supplying some of the sub-systems. However, we shall take into account and consider all sensible options that are available to us.
Lord Morris: My Lords, in answer to a Question which was tabled in my name on 12th January, Her Majesty's Government responded by stating that no decisions on the timing for the replacement of the Chieftain tank had yet been made. Can the Minister tell the House whether there has been any progress in that direction?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, as I told my noble friend on the occasion to which he has referred, a decision has not yet been taken. That position remains the same; but I expect that we shall be in a position to make such a decision some time later this year.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, had the Government in 1938 and 1939 decided that it would be more cost-effective to buy tanks in Germany or France, where would that have left us in 1940?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am not sure whether that is a relevant question for today because the Germans, the French and ourselves are now all part of the NATO Alliance.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, does the Minister agree that if we were to lose our own domestic capacity to produce tanks of high quality by ordering them from overseas, our own capacity may well disappear never to come hack? Surely that would be to our peril as a nation.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am not sure that what the noble Lord has just said is a correct assessment of the situation. If we decided upon a tank of different origin to the one which the noble Lord referred to, then I dare say it would be manufactured in this country under licence. However, that decision has not yet been taken.

Iran-Iraq Conflict
3.24 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they, in conjunction with other governments with naval forces active in the Gulf, will arrange a meeting with the governments of Iran and Iraq.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, we have no plans to arrange a multilateral meeting of the type envisaged by the noble Lord. We keep in close touch with allies with naval forces in the Gulf, and maintain contact with Iran and Iraq.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer. Does he agree that there has been a

281
massive escalation of the war; an increase in the attacks on commercial shipping, and that British sailors' lives are in danger on British and foreign ships? Ought we not to make some endeavour, since the United Nations has not made much of an impact in bringing about a cease-fire and subsequent peace? Should not the idea at least be examined by our Government and a proposition made to other governments who have naval vessels in the area?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, there has in fact been a reduction in the level of attacks on shipping in recent weeks which is of course a welcome sign. However, there has been an unfortunate escalation of the attacks between the two capital cities of Iran and Iraq—a fact which we deplore. A United Nations Security Council resolution some months ago called for a cease-fire. We believe that the right way forward is for both parties to recognise and implement that resolution.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, in the light of what the noble Lord has just said about the welcome reduction in the number of attacks upon shipping, have Her Majesty's Government any proposals to scale down our naval forces in the Gulf? Furthermore, will he say whether there are any prospects of an agreement between the five permanent members of the Security Council for an arms embargo against Iran?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, as regards our naval presence in the Gulf, I expect the noble Lord will be aware that we recently announced that there would be a reduction from four to three in the number of minesweepers that we have in the region. We have no plans for any other significant changes in our naval presence in that area for the time being. As for the implementation of the resolution calling for a ceasefire (Resolution 598), we think that the time has come for a further resolution to secure the implementation of the earlier one. We believe that such further resolution should be in the form of an arms embargo on Iran.
Lord Rodney: My Lords, does my noble friend think that it is within the realms of reality to suggest that our Government should call a meeting between the governments of Iran and Iraq?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, for reasons that I am certain he can well understand, we think it would be difficult to proceed in the way that my noble friend suggested. We think that the best way forward lies in the implementation of the earlier Security Council resolution. We wish to give all our support to the Secretary General of the United Nations in achieving that implementation.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I welcome what the noble Lord has said regarding the possibility of a further resolution. However, can he say what action Her Majesty's Government propose to take in that matter?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that we are actively canvassing support for such
282
a resolution among all the members of the Security Council. The permanent member who is dragging his or her feet is the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union has accepted in principle the idea of a resolution to achieve an arms embargo, but has so far not agreed to the means of implementation.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether any progress has been made towards removing the obstacles to the creation of the United Nations naval force in the Gulf which has been proposed by the Soviet Union? The noble Lord recently told the House they were mainly to do with difficulties in regard to co-ordinating rules of engagement. Can he also say between which members of such a force would those difficulties be most pronounced?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, we continue to see formidable practical difficulties in the way of any such idea under present circumstances. There are not only the problems in relation to the rules of engagement and operational instructions (to which I referred on an earlier occasion); but there are also those of actually obtaining the agreement of the Security Council for such an implementation; and, for example, equitable costs and burden sharing.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, will the Minister be good enough to explain to me how it would be possible for the British Government to have conversations with Ayatollah Khomeini when the only person he is talking to at the moment is Allah?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the noble Lord is right to point to the difficulties of having a sensible conversation with people of influence in Iran. But I hope that in due course they will see the force of international opinion which is behind the implementation of the United Nations resolution in this matter and will enter into proper conversations; for example, with the United Nations Secretary General.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there is a serious side to this Question? Tens of thousands of people are being slain and maimed almost weekly. The increase in missile alerts augurs a horrendous escalation. Although Chapter VI of the United Nations charter says that mandatory sanctions cannot be imposed on anyone, the Minister said that Resolution 598 inspires hope. Would not that be fulfilled by a ban on the sale of arms to both sides?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, that is what I have been trying to say. We now think it right that the United Nations Security Council should move to a further resolution imposing an arms embargo. We are supporting moves to that end. We hope that the Soviet Union, which of course plays a major part in this consideration, will also reach that conclusion.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the

283
Report stage of the Social Security Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7 p.m. for approximately one hour and that during this adjournment the Second Reading and remaining stages of the Welsh Development Agency Bill will be taken.

Social Security Bill
3.31 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Attendance allowance]:
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 8, at end insert—
("(3) In section 35(5) of that Act at the end shall be added the words or any modification which would prevent the payment of attendance allowance in respect of persons under a specified age'.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I apologise for the fact that this is a rather late amendment, caused largely because I had not appreciated in Committee the concern that exists among organisations such as the Spastics Society and other specialist bodies about the needs of severely disabled children. That is what the amendment is about.
At present attendance allowance is not available to the parents of disabled children under the age of two years. The Bill presents an opportunity to do something about that. The aim of my amendment is to remove the two-year rule so that children can become eligible when it is clear that they are badly disabled. The Spastics Society points out that parents of disabled children face much greater demands on their time and resources than the parents of children who are not disabled. The argument for not providing the allowance at a younger age than two seems to hinge on the fact that all children are dependent, during the infant stage anyway, upon their parents and parents would in any event be expected to provide a great deal of constant attention to their babies.
No one would argue about that. However, children younger than 24 months who are severely mentally or physically handicapped can be difficult and demanding to care for. They may be in constant pain. They may be hyperactive. Entitlement to the allowance in respect of that group should be on the merits of the case, as for any other group. There should not be an age restriction.
One can imagine the strain put upon a family when it has such a child. It may mean the mother and the father working shifts at night to look after the child and its constant needs. Parents may have to give up jobs to share those duties. As at present there is no entitlement to attendance allowance, there is no invalid care allowance if a job has to be given up to provide such attention. Clearly that is wrong.
All sorts of ailments and conditions which affect young children put a tremendous strain on the parents. Sickle cell anaemia for one can produce a situation in which there are bouts of extreme pain
284
during which the child needs to be cared for. Other conditions, such as severe heart conditions, mean that the child has to have constant attention on a 24-hours basis.
If those children were looked after in hospital, it would cost the state at least £200 a week. We should surely be prepared to give assistance to the parents who are prepared to provide that cover. For those reasons, I have tabled the amendment. I hope that it has your Lordships' support. I beg to move.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Skelmersdale): My Lords, as the noble Baroness said, there are clearly two views about the payment of attendance allowance for severely disabled children under the age of two. For the sake of argument, let us call them the hard and the soft views. The hard view is that life is tough for parents of any child under two, whether or not the child is disabled, so that there is no need to pay attendance allowance. The soft view is that any severe long-term disability or illness in a child places extra strain on parents that could and should be compensated for. That is clearly the view illustrated by the noble Baroness. She mentioned, for example, sickle cell anaemia and other long-term illnesses and disabilities which I would put in that category.
As my honourable friend the Minister for Social Security and the Disabled has made clear after extensive debate on this matter in another place, we accept that there are children whose disabilities and needs it is possible to assess before the age of two. There is no dispute on this point. The question which is at issue is whether it would be right at this time to consider a change in provision for disabled people in this one narrow area. If we were to do so, we would, with the very substantial extension of invalid care allowance that we have seen, particularly since married women became eligible, also have to consider the interaction of attendance allowance and invalid care allowance in the context of any extension to those below the age of two.
There is also the point that I asked the Committee to consider; namely, what invalid care allowance is actually paid for. It is intended as income maintenance for those who forgo the opportunity of employment to look after a disabled person. That means that we should need to examine the merits of paying the allowance to the parents (usually the mother) of a child when that parent might well have given up work in any case.
In essence, if we were to consider the extension of attendance allowance to youngsters under the age of two who have needs substantially in excess of those normally required by a child of that age, it would be right to look at the interaction of attendance allowance and invalid care allowance perhaps throughout childhood to see what an appropriate pattern for that might be. We must look at those above the age of two as well as those below to ensure that we have equitable and sensible arrangements for that sort of cash assistance to disabled children and their parents.
Having mentioned the kind of issues that it would be right for us to consider if we reviewed cash support

285
for disabled children and their parents within the fairly narrow context of the existing attendance and invalid care allowances, I do not intend to speculate about what answers we might come up with if we engaged in that exercise. Such narrow questions are about to be overtaken by events. We are committed to a wide scrutiny of attendance allowances, along with other disability benefits, following the results of the OPCS survey of disabled people, which is expected to be available in the late summer this year, and Sir Roy Griffiths' study of community care, which, as I said at Question Time yesterday, is now under consideration. They may well point to significant changes in the form of cash and other support for disabled people, including children and their parents, and we shall want to examine their reports with a great deal of care.
Sir Roy's report and the OPCS results later this year will provide the material for a wider and better informed debate about all those matters. I therefore invite the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment. As I said, this is clearly a subject that will not go away.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that statement. I am obliged to him for the suggestion that the issue will not go away and that there will be an opportunity to look at the matter again when we have the report, which I gather is due later this year. In view of that statement, I ask leave to withdraw the amendment. I shall look to see what the report says later this year.
Amemdment, by leave withdrawn.
Clause 2 [Introduction of retirement allowance and other provisions relating to industrial injuries benefit]:
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 45, leave out ("25") and insert ("50").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, with this amendment we return to the subject of the industrial injuries scheme which we discussed in Committee, when I moved an amendment with which I did not proceed. That amendment would have had the effect of providing for people when they retired, when they reached normal retirement age, the same amount by way of retirement allowance as they had under the provisions for reduced earnings allowance. What the Bill does, if it remains unamended, is to remove the right to reduced earnings allowance from people who have suffered injuries at work. In its place there is a retirement allowance which is only 25 per cent. of the amount that they received as reduced earnings allowance.
I said in Committee that I thought that was very wrong because the reduced earnings allowance which is part of the industrial injuries scheme was introduced to compensate people who suffer injuries arising out of or in the course of their employment and who suffer reduced earnings as a result. It is a form of compensation for injured workers, a part of the industrial injuries scheme which I have said on a number of occasions in your Lordships' House is the only no-fault system of compensation for industrial
286
injuries that we have in this country. Therefore it is extremely important.
I believe that there is a case for paying benefits to people who are injured at work over and above benefits that they would get if they were otherwise injured, because there are hazards in going to work. There are many working environments which are particularly hazardous and are likely to give cause for injury or disease which workers would otherwise not encounter. I am suggesting as a result of the discussion we had in Committee that instead of the proposal in the Bill which reduces the allowance to 25 per cent. we at least allow people to go on to what may be described as half pay. That is the aim of my amendment.
I should like at this point to speak to the next two Amendments, Nos. 3 and 4, because they are part of the same concept. Instead of people losing nearly everything and simply retaining 25 per cent., they will have half pay rather than the quarter pay which is proposed in this amendment. I therefore beg to move.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the noble Baroness has, on more than one occasion in the House, stated forcibly and with feeling her objections to the Government's proposals in relation to the industrial injuries scheme, including the introduction of a new benefit, retirement allowance. The noble Baroness has carried out the promise (or was it a threat?) that she made in Committee to return to the fray. I certainly agree that these three amendments are part and parcel of each other. The net result is that the value of the benefit paid in retirement would be doubled. I have to say that the amendments would have a further effect—the noble Baroness did not say whether it was intended or not—whereby the minimum rate of retirement allowance would be set at £12.90 a week at today's rates.
We must be clear, I believe, about the issue in question. Reduced earnings allowance, up until 1986 known as special hardship allowance—though that was something of a misnomer—is paid as compensation for loss of earnings due to industrial disablement. At present, that allowance can continue beyond retirement; we are replacing earnings beyond the point at which earnings would anyway have ceased. Clearly this is a gross anomaly. The Government recognise that fact, as do many commentators, including the TUC, the Disablement Income Group and the Policy Studies Institute. The noble Baroness has herself on an earlier occasion accepted that there was a case to be made.
Clause 2 proposes to end entitlement to reduced earnings allowance on retirement and to replace it with a new benefit, retirement allowance. This reduced benefit will be paid in broad recognition of the fact that reduced earnings during part of working life may lead to a lower earnings-related pension. This is, I suggest, an entirely fair and sensible way in which to proceed, and I hope the House will agree with me.
The noble Baroness is concerned that the retirement allowance will be set at too low a level, although I did not hear—perhaps I missed it—any real evidence to support that view. The complexities

287
of earnings-related pensions are such that it would not be possible to calculate an exact figure for individuals who have received reduced earnings allowance. We have therefore adopted a broad approach, one that is simple to understand and to operate. It is broad-brush, though within that framework it is not ungenerous. It is worthy of note that the allowance will be tax free and statutorily uprated annually.
Concern has also been expressed about the size of the benefit reduction on retirement. I should like to make three points. First, if we do not make a reduction, we turn a blind eye to the anomaly and, having recognised it, perpetuate it nonetheless. I cannot think that would be the right and proper thing to do. Secondly, it would be a rare bird indeed who did not suffer a drop in income on retirement. Would that we could all be protected against it! Thirdly, we recognise that those affected by our proposals will need some time to adjust and plan. That is why we propose to give a year's notice of this change, which we plan to implement in April 1989.
So far as concerns the changes to the industrial injuries scheme, we have had a robust defence of, in effect, the status quo. For their part, the Government seek to take further sensible steps towards achieving the aims, set out clearly in the consultation paper in 1985, for an industrial injuries scheme which reflects the world of today, rather than that which existed in 1946, when the current scheme was drawn up. Therefore I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw this amendment.
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I am disappointed with the response from the Minister to my amendment, although perhaps not really very surprised. One of the reasons I think that the amendment is a fair one is that people who have been injured at work are not in the main in the higher income bracket. So a drop in income for such people is a quite substantial matter and often a desperate one.
Secondly, this is part of an insured scheme. In other words, it is a contributory scheme to which people in employment have made contributions against the expectation that if they needed to draw benefits under it those benefits would be available. The benefits are now being reduced. When this becomes operative it will have the effect—this is what I fear—of putting people who are poor and who miss the money on to means-tested benefit. It is the view of this side of the House that it is very much better to have people covered by contributory benefits in an insured scheme than it is to have people dependent upon means-tested benefits. For all those reasons I think that my amendment is a sensible one. However, I do not intend to press it at present and will therefore withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 not moved.]
Schedule 1 [Industrial Death Benefit]:
[Amendment No. 5 not moved.]
Clause 3 [Commencement of payment of family credit]:
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 4, line 11, leave out ("(6) of the Social Security Act 1986") and insert ("of the Social Security Act 1986—
(a) the following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (5)—
"(5A) In subsection (5) above "the applicable amount" means the applicable amount at such date as may be prescribed,"; and
(b) in subsection (6)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is essentially a technical amendment designed to give us sufficient regulation-making powers to avoid inadvertently penalising certain claimants who make renewal claims in good time before the end of their existing award. It allows entitlement to be determined on the basis of the circumstances at the date of the claim, even though it is made in advance. I can go much further if the House requires, but for the moment I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Banks Lord Banks moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 4, line 13, at end insert—
("(2) In section 22(8) of the Social Security Act 1986 at the end insert "except that in calculating the income of a single parent for the purposes of Family Credit there shall be disregarded a prescribed amount to take account of child care expenses."").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this amendment. In Committee I moved a similar amendment which said that there should be disregarded an amount equal to that necessarily incurred in reasonable child care expenses. I pointed out that family credit was concerned with poorly paid families where the parent was in work. Most lone parents on supplementary benefit or income support, as it will be next month, would prefer to work. In order to work they must pay essential child care costs. Most single parents are women and the wages they can command are usually at the lower end of the scale.
The combination of low wages, high child care costs and a means-tested benefit often means that they would be financially worse off if they took full-time work. I reported to the House that the organisation Gingerbread had recently taken a family income supplement case to appeal and a tribunal of social security commissioners had stated:
"We have the greatest sympathy for the anomalous position in which the claimant finds herself as a result of returning to work. This is a classical example of the 'poverty trap', but while we are sure that it was never the intention of the legislature to create a situation in which a claimant would be better off financially by refraining from work, the law is in our view clear and it is our duty to apply it."
My amendment sought to remove the anomaly from continuing under the new system being introduced next month by introducing a disregard for necessarily incurred reasonable child care expenses. I pointed out that there would be savings for the state because not only would the state be paying out less in benefits but it would also be receiving revenue in the form of tax and national insurance.
The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, advanced four arguments against the amendment. First, he argued that by including a benefit where the disregard had to be assessed in each particular case, the simple broad brush design would be frustrated. The nature

289
of the family credit scheme would be changed making it difficult to administer and raising problems with regard to the investigation of reasonableness. The last point about reasonableness seemed to have some validity, so in the amendment now before the House I call for a prescribed sum to be disregarded. In other words the first "so much" of child care expenses would be disregarded. How far that went towards solving the problem I outlined at the beginning of these remarks would depend on the level at which that disregard was put. There would be no problem about investigating reasonableness.
It might then be argued by the noble Lord that even to have a disregard of a prescribed amount would destroy the broad brush approach. However, I understand that family credit will take into account tax deductible expenses. That means that the broad brush concept is already not complete.
It would surely be less difficult to take into account a child care disregard of a fixed amount than it would be to take into account deductible expenses which can cover such a variety of different items and have in this context been known to cover gardening expenses. I do not think that the broad brush argument will hold water.
The second argument advanced against the original amendment was that family credit already recognises the special needs of single parents and makes provision for them. The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, said that single purse parents will receive the same rates of benefit as a couple and that the one parent benefit that they receive will be totally disregarded.
However, despite the recommendations of the housing benefit review team the housing benefit scheme will no longer recognise the fact that the housing costs of one parent families are the same as for two parent families and so they will be paying the same kind of rent. As a result of this change any gain under family credit is more than wiped out by the loss under the new housing benefit scheme.
I have the figures worked out in a particular possible case. A lone parent with a three year-old child on income support wants to work and is offered a full-time job paying £90 per week. If working full-time she would have to pay £35 per week in child minding costs. If she remained on income support her income after deductions would be £53.40. If she accepted the job, after taking into account her child minding expenses of £35 her income after deductions would be £44.55. In other words by taking the job she would be £8.85 per week worse off. So the inducement would be for her to remain on income supplement.
To provide that income supplement would cost the Government £85.40 in benefits. On family credit the cost to the state would be £20.05 taking into account tax and national insurance contributions. The effect of the disregard if it were anything over £28 per week would allow maximum credits to be paid which would make the income after deductions £62.40 per week instead of £44.55. In other words it would now be £9 better than the £53.40 that she would receive on income supplement. So the inducement would now be the other way. The inducement would be to take
290
the job, and the cost to the Government would be £47.30 per week as opposed to £85.40 on income supplement. It would actually cost the Government considerably less to provide this disregard and greatly help the lone parent.
Thirdly the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, argued that similar considerations apply to income support and housing benefit and that the principle that the same rules apply throughout the system would be violated. I agree that part-time workers on income support, for example, would be in a similar position. I agree that essential work expenses should be taken into account for all means-tested benefits. If this amendment is passed no doubt the Government would introduce any necessary consequential amendments at Third Reading.
Fourthly, the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, said that with the starting date so near it would not have been possible to introduce the original amendment. This amendment will require the amount of disregard to be prescribed in regulations which can no doubt determine a convenient date for coming into force.
In view of all that I have said about the advantage to lone parents and the saving to the Government which this amendment would bring, I hope that the Minister will feel able to withdraw his opposition. I commend the amendment to your Lordships.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, I rise briefly to express my support and that of my noble friends for the amendment. The noble Lord has set out the case so clearly that I need not delay your Lordships for more than one minute. However, I just wish to point out that several members of the Government and supporters of all parties have agreed that it is preferable for people to be better off when they are at work than when they are at home on benefit. This seems to be a most obvious case where that principle should be put into practice.
I would make just one special point. I am not sure whether all noble Lords are aware of the rising costs of day nurseries. Day nurseries are very expensive places to run if they are to be kept to a high standard. The difficulty is that local authorities have their problems in financing day nurseries and often have no option but to pass on higher costs than are practical for those who most need to have their children looked after.
There are of course many local variations in the standard of day nursery and other child care and in supporting this amendment I am anxious that there should be some nationwide help for single parents with small children who want to go to work and that the provision should not be a matter of geographical luck or the policies of the local authorities concerned. This provision seems to be eminently sensible and practical and I do not see that it departs in any way from stated government policies. I very much hope that we can make some progress today.
4 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, it would seem from the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Banks, when introducing the amendment that my answer to a similar one in Committee was like the instruction that

291
some of your Lordships put on your football coupons—perm any one from four. But I have listened carefully to what the noble Lord has said because as he pointed out we have been over this ground before.
I accept that this amendment is expressed rather differently from its various predecessors in referring to the disregard of a prescribed amount. I was listening to find out just what the noble Lord had in mind in that respect. It was not clear from the amendment as tabled whether this prescribed amount was to be a standard figure applying to all lone parents or whether it was to be more selective. I understood from the noble Lord's speech that it was to cover all lone parents. A disregard given to all lone parents would represent considerable over-provision as not all such parents would have any child care costs—in the way of day nurseries, for example, as explained by the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger—either because they were able to make arrangements with family or friends or because the children were at school and did not need the same extent of care as a pre-school child.
A more selective approach might overcome some of those problems and be better targetted, but we should still be left with some rather arbitrary decisions about the ages of children for whom a disregard could be allowed, and above all what the amount of the disregard should be, and whether it should have regard to the number of children in the family and so on. The approach of disregarding the amount actually incurred in the individual case is of course one that we have debated before and I am not sure that it would be possible under the terms of the noble Lord's amendment which seems to call for an actual amount to be prescribed. Perhaps he will correct me if I am wrong.
Having listened to the noble Lord I am afraid that I have nothing new to add. The basic principle is the same; that some amount should be deducted from a claimant's earnings in recognition of the child care costs faced by lone parents. In our view the special provision we are already making within the family credit scheme for lone parents is as far as we think it is reasonable to go.
I would remind the House that no provision is made in family income supplement at present for child care costs. We are therefore not taking away anything that is currently available. We are carrying forward the family income supplement practice in this respect and in regard to the extra concessions which are made to lone parents. Again I would remind your Lordships that they receive the same rates of benefit as do a couple and that the one parent benefit which they receive is totally disregarded. These are worthwhile extras and are a recognition that lone parents do have special needs. As I have said before, it would constitute a fundamental change of approach to introduce a further disregard for lone parents, and one that could hardly be justified if it were to be allowed on the indiscriminate basis which seems to be implied by the terms of the amendment.
I take the noble Lord's point about being able to introduce such a provision by regulations at some
292
future date, which he made in answer to my statement in Committee that it would be quite impracticable at this late stage to introduce it quickly. However, for all the reasons that I have given this afternoon, I hope that the noble Lord will be prepared to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Banks: My Lords, first, I should like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, for supporting the amendment. As the Minister says, it is quite true that this is not a new situation; it is an anomaly which already exists. I referred to a case in which the Social Security Commissioners fully sympathised with a lady who found that she was worse off as a result of accepting work and moving from supplementary benefit to family income supplement. The object of this amendment is to prevent that anomaly from continuing, as it will under the new arrangements as they stand at the moment.
The noble Lord repeated his point about family credit being for a couple and not for a single person and that any extra lone parent credit would be disregarded and so on. The fact remains that all those factors were taken into account in the example which I gave and it was quite clear that they were not sufficient to offset other factors which meant that the woman in question would have been worse off as a result of taking a job. By allowing a disregard it is possible to ensure that that does not happen and at the same time it is possible to save money for the Government. Therefore, I cannot for the life of me see why it is not done.
I stated that the disregard would mean that so much of a person's expenses in this connection would be disregarded, just as is done in other cases with earnings where an initial amount is disregarded. In this case so much of those earnings would be disregarded and the total amount that could be disregarded would be specified in the regulations. It seems to me quite easy to do that.
In view of the fact that we can remove the anomaly and save money for the Government by passing this amendment. I should like to test the opinion of the House and press the amendment to a Division.
4.5 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 7) shall be agreed to.
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 100; Not-Contents, 107.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Amherst, E.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Ardwick, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L

Attlee, E.

Carter, L.

Aylestone, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Banks, L.

Cudlipp, L.

Basnett, L.

David, B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L

Dean of Beswick, L.

Birk, B

Diamond, L.

Blease, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Bottomley, L.

Ennals, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Ezra, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Falkender, B.

293

Falkland, V.

Molloy, L.

Gallacher, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Galpern, L.

Mulley, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Northfield, L.

Grey, E.

Oram, L.

Grimond, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Hampton, L.

Peston, L.

Hanworth, V.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Hart of South Lanark, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Hirshtield, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Hooson, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Hunt, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Rochester, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Seear, B.

Jacques, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Jay, L.

Serota, B.

Jeger, B.

Simon, V.

John-Mackie, L.

Stedman, B.

Kearton, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Kennet, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Kinloss, Ly.

Turner of Camden, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Underhill, L.

Lawrence, L.

Walston, L.

Lcatherland, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Listowel, E.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

White, B.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Wigoder, L.

Longford, E.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

McNair, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Mayhew, L.

Winstanley, L.

Mishcon, L.

Winterbottom, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailsa, M.

Gridley, L.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Hankey, L.

Ampthill, L.

Harvington, L.

Arran, E.

Havers, L.

Barber, L.

Hesketh, L.

Bauer, L

Hood, V.

Beaverbrook, L.

Hooper, B.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Bellwin, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Beloff, L.

Joseph, L.

Belstead, L.

Killearn, L.

Blatch, B.

Kimball, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Braye, B.

Layton, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Long, V.

Broxbourne, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Caithness, F.

Luke, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Carnock, L.

Marley, L.

Cayzer, L.

Melville, V.

Cottesloe, L.

Merrivale, L.

Cowley, E.

Mersey, V.

Cox, B.

Morris, L.

Craigavon, V.

Mottistone, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

De Freyne, L.

Munster, E.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Nelson, E.

Dundee, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Ellingham, E.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Elibank, L.

Orkney, E.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Elton, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Ely, M.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Erne, E.

Plummer of St Marylebone, L.

Ferrers, E.

Porritt, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Gainford, L.

Reigate, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Renton, L.

Gray, L.

Rodney, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

St. Davids, V.

294

Selkirk, E.

Trafford, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Trefgarne, L.

Shannon, E.

Trumpington, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Ullswater, V.

Strange, B.

Vaux of Harrowden, L

Strathclyde, L.

Ward of Willey, V.

Sudeley, L.

Weir, V.

Swansea, L.

Westbury, L.

Swinfen, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Terrington, L.

Wise, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Thurlow, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.13 p.m.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 8:
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause:
("Special fund for severely disabled people.
.—(1) The Secretary of State shall establish a fund for the purpose of making payments to severely disabled people.
(2) The fund shall be administered by a Board of Trustees who shall be appointed by the Secretary of State on the recommendation of the relevant voluntary organisations.
(3) The operation of the fund shall begin on the date of passing of this Act and shall cease on 11th April 1991.
(4) The Secretary of State shall at the end of the first year of the operation of the fund and annually thereafter make and lay before Parliament a report on the operation of the fund.
(5) The deed of trust governing the operation of the fund shall make provision for—

(a) the criteria for determining the size of grants from the fund;

(b) the administration of the fund;

(c) securing that the costs of administering the fund are separate from and in addition to the total sum to be made over for the payment of grants;

(d) arrangements for adjudicating on the amount and frequency of grants in the event that a severely disabled person wishes to appeal against either the amount of any grant or the frequency of its allocation; and

(e) the responsibilities of the Secretary of State and the Board of Trustees respectively.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 8 I propose to introduce a new clause into the Bill to deal with a matter which has not been dealt with at any stage of the Bill so far. This results from the proposal by the Government to introduce a trust fund for severely disabled people which was announced on 9th February. The purpose of the amendment is to examine the Government's intentions and secure statutory backing for an important provision affecting the severely disabled.
I should like to explain the background to the amendment. The Government produced a Green Paper on the reform of social security in June 1985 and a White Paper in December 1985. In the period between the Green Paper and the White Paper considerable concern was expressed about the effects on disabled people of the proposed reforms in social security. In December 1985 the Disability Alliance warned:
"Disabled people, and people with disabled children, who currently receive significant amounts of additional requirements will be clear losers from the changes … The new disability premium will in no way compensate for the loss of the additional requirements and of the long-term rate".
That concern continued throughout 1986, when the Act became law. Your Lordships will remember than an amendment that was agreed in this House and which would have protected the severely disabled

295
was voted down in another place. After the Act came into force a number of meetings took place throughout the year, one between the All-Party Disablement Group, which I myself attended, and Mr. Nicholas Scott, the Minister responsible, in order to bring home to the Government the problems of severely disabled people that were bound to arise as a result of the new Act. I cannot say whether the lack of action by the Government was a result of administrative inertia or ideological fixation.
Finally, in October last year Mr. John Moore, the Secretary of State, admitted that help was required for:
"the few people who are not recognised within the scheme".
On 9th February in the other place there was an announcement by Mr. Nicholas Scott, the Minister responsible, who said:
"I have had a number of informal, confidential talks with a variety of organisations. As a result of these talks, we intend setting up a special fund in co-operation with the Disablement Income Group…This fund will make payments to those very severely disabled people who need extensive help to enable them to live independently".—[Official Report, Commons, 9/2/88: col. 172.]
So 31 months after the publication of the Green Paper, when concern was first expressed about the provisions of the Act and its effect on disabled people, and only two months—as it now is—from the full implementation of the Act, there is this proposal for a trust fund.
My amendment is not intended to introduce a debate about the philosophy of benefit. It is not about the removal of the basic right to benefit laid down by regulation—which is the situation obtaining under the present law—and its replacement by a system of discretionary grants which will be dispensed through a charity. The scheme proposed by the Government is now a fact, and I believe that it is essential that it should work both quickly and effectively to help disabled people.
Before turning to the amendment itself, I should like to put some questions to the Minister. A figure of £5 million was mentioned in the press release of the department on the day on which the announcement was made. I understand that £5 million is a grant-in-aid which will be topped up as required. Is the amount in the fund subject each year to cash limits? If the money runs out after nine months of the year, say, will the fund have to wait until the following financial year for the required topping-up?
I would also appreciate some estimate of the numbers of disabled people who will be eligible for grant. In a letter sent to me by the noble Earl, Lord Arran, in response to a Question that I asked, he said that the figure of 250 was the estimated number of claimants who would be eligible for the grant. In the week of the announcement, in a radio broadcast, the Minister referred to "a few hundreds". In the other place he referred to "hundreds and not thousands". I understand from the Disablement Income Group that it believes that the number of claimants might be of the order of 1,000 to 2,000. Can the Minister tell us what is the latest estimate of the department?
My third point concerns the expertise required to administer this scheme. Obviously, the Disablement
296
Income Group has the required experience but not the necessary numbers of people. I think that we are entitled to know how the requisite expertise will be provided in order to ensure that the trust fund works properly.
I have discussed this amendment with Mr. Peter Large of the Disablement Income Group who has expressed broad agreement with its main thrust. The first two subsections deal with the establishment of the fund and the appointment of trustees. Subsection (3) deals with the length of the scheme. The Government agree—and the Minister agreed with me on Tuesday in reply to my Starred Question—that the scheme is temporary. The purpose of subsection (3) is to stiffen the resolution of the Government and to suggest that three years is plenty of time to set up a scheme under statute which would operate instead of the trust fund. Subsection (4) deals with the important matter of an annual report.
Subsection (5)—perhaps the most important—provides that the criteria for grant aid shall be set out. We are entitled to know how the grants will be determined and the basis of those grants. On Tuesday the Minister stated that the criteria of grant-aid will be included in the trust deed.
The next subsection deals with the administration of the fund to ensure that the cost of administration will be treated entirely separately from the fund which is available for grants to disabled people. Subsection (5)(d) is of great concern to disabled people and their organisations. Since we are to have a discretionary system of grants, it is extremely important that some means of adjudication or appeal are included in the trust deed.
I very much hope that the Government feel able to accept this amendment. It they do so, it will reassure the very large number of disabled people and their organisations who have expressed considerable reservations regarding the principles and operation of the proposed fund. Acceptance of the amendment will give disabled people considerable reassurance regarding the intentions of the Government. I beg to move the amendment.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I should like to say a few words in support of the amendment. Although the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for reasons that I can understand, said that he did not wish to explore the philosophic problems that arise by the provision of such a scheme, I had grave doubts before deciding to add my name to this proposal since I am not attracted in principle by a scheme that involves removing the basic rights of severely disabled people to weekly payments from the state scheme to meet their established needs and compelling them instead to apply for funds to trustees outside the official hierarchy.
One ought to say for the record that it was for reasons of this kind that six of the seven voluntary organisations which were consulted by the Government felt unable to play their part in running the scheme. I was also aware that the Joseph Rowntree Memorial Trust Fund—which administers the family fund—had also not felt able to take on the assignment. However, in the end I put my name to the

297
amendment on the grounds—like those mentioned by the noble Lord. Lord Carter—that the scheme will be brought into being; and if there is to be a scheme it is better that it should operate under a clear statutory authority that, among other things, would specifically provide that there must be some right of appeal and would also put it beyond doubt that this was a temporary scheme with a date by which it must end.
I certainly would not wish to see permanent provision for those disabled people who have to look to their weekly needs being met through some voluntary set up outside the state scheme. I was glad to note the assurances that the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, gave on Tuesday about the temporary nature of this scheme.
I spent some little time in government circles and I am not naive enough to believe that the wording of this amendment will necessarily commend itself to parliamentary counsel as it stands. However, it raises the main issues to be considered under the scheme. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, has touched on most of them. I simply add this. I realise from what the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, said on Tuesday that the administration details have not yet been worked out. However, can he shed any more light on who the administrative staff of the trustees would be and where they would come from as it is these people who apparently will have the dealings with the individual disabled persons?
Can I also ask whether the intention is that payments will cover the extra cost of heating, diet and laundry as well as domestic help? Presumably it must have been known whether these payments were to be included when it came to calculating the make-up of the initial £5 million that is to be given to the scheme.
Finally, can the Minister confirm that the Disablement Income Group was right in saying in its press notice— a little surprisingly to me—that help under the scheme would not be restricted to people in receipt of income support? If this is right, it makes it doubly important to know what publicity is planned and how possible applicants will know that help is available and how to set about asking for it. I shall be grateful if the Minister can vouchsafe any information to us when he replies.
Baroness Lane-Fox: My Lords, with all humility perhaps I may suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, that in my experience the word "rights" is fundamentally unsuitable to use about disabled people. If there were a natural right for us we would not be disabled. It must be the wish of a majority in this House that constructive thought and provision be made by a government for this small but nonetheless very important group of people. If alliance is still a meaningful word to use in this House, then I can say that I have had a very close alliance with DIG over 20 years, as have the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, and others in this House. Perhaps therefore I am not a suitable person to refer to DIG's integrity, its economy in administration and its well-informed connection with the grass roots.
However, these reasons make me very happy that in this scheme for forming a trust the buck has
298
stopped with DIG. I have confidence in the DHSS and in DIG. I am therefore happy to believe that we should leave it to them to tie the so far untied ends. It is my concern that those who should be the eventual benefactors, and their families and friends, shall not now be depressed by anything that is said in this Chamber, or by others in charities and elsewhere who for some reason appear not to know all the facts, or the new benefits that this scheme is likely to bring. I therefore do not support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carter.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, like the noble Lord. Lord Allen of Abbeydale, I have had doubts about this clause. I have wondered whether it is right that most of our provision from public funds for those, such as the severely disabled, who are unfortunate in some way should be the subject of statutory control and the responsibility of Ministers who are answerable to Parliament. When I heard about the DIG scheme I wondered whether it fitted in as it should. I shall be interested to hear what my noble friend has to say.
He would be entitled to say that, although there is no statutory control, the fund will be charitable. That cannot be avoided because it is for a charitable purpose. As a charitable fund its administration by the trustees will be subject to such jurisdiction as the Charity commission is capable of offering, which is not very great at the moment. It will ultimately be subject to the jurisdiction of the courts if anyone manages to get a particular case before them.
I have a doubt about both the Government's scheme and that covered by the amendment. It is that I do not understand why they are both temporary. Severe disablement is generally a permanent factor and, alas, there will always be severely disabled people in our society who need care. I feel thoroughly mixed up about this issue. If we had not such an inhibiting procedure which prevents one from speaking again after the Minister has spoken, I should have hoped to hear him and then come hack. However, I must now resume my seat.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I shall only be a minute in indicating that we on these Benches warmly support the amendment proposed by the noble Lords, Lord Carter and Lord Allen of Abbeydale. My support is in no way based on doubts about the integrity of DIG or its abilities. I feel irritated by the fact that the Government have put themselves into a situation where a Bill designed to improve benefits has created this lacuna for the most needy people. They must resolve this. Severely disabled people will be worse off and that is a great indictment of the principle on which the Bill is based.
I agree with the noble Lords, Lord Allen and Lord Renton, that if the error exists it must be put right. The hole must be filled and I believe that that is best done in a statutory way. I do not believe that severely disabled people should be obliged to go to a "charity" in order to get what I—though not the noble Baroness, Lady Lane Fox—believe to be their right. I hope that this amendment will be carried.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I should like to say a few words because I also am puzzled about the scheme. I am sure that all noble Lords are grateful to the Government for having made available £5 million for disabled people. I am sorry that it has not been possible to put that into statutory form and on a permanent basis. I should like to know what will happen after the scheme ends in 1991, as would the noble Lord, Lord Renton. I presume that it is a stop-gap scheme put into effect while the Government consider a proper permanent basis upon which to bring the severely disabled back into the statutory framework.
I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Allen of Abbeydale and Lord Carter, for tabling this amendment because it forms a properly articulated basis for discussion. I believe that many noble Lords are full of questions and would like the Minister to answer them. Those questions have been ably set out by the noble Lords, Lord Carter and Lord Allen of Abbeydale, and I should like to add only two by way of emphasis.
However, I should first like to take up what was said by the noble Baroness as regards rights. I believe that the words "human rights" can be vaguely used. They can be waved in the air as though they are unanswerable propositions merely by stating them. I believe that it is the basic right of disabled people to have a weekly payment in recognition of their needs and to say that it is right that they should rather than to say that they have rights. That may sound like a quibble but I believe that there is substance in what I say.
We all have confidence in DIG and I too should like to pay my compliments to it. I am happy that it should look after this temporary scheme. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Allen, has said, it is important that it should have machinery for seeking out potential claimants and also that there should be a proper right of appeal. I should particularly like the Minister to address those two points in his reply.
In response to what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, I believe that there is no reason for severely disabled people to be depressed by what has taken place this afternoon. They should be pleased that the noble Lords, Lord Carter and Lord Allen, have tabled this amendment in such detail that the Minister will be forced to dissolve our fears and answer most of our questions.
Lord Banks: My Lords, I should like to support the amendment introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Carter. I recently said that it appeared that the Government's proposals were replacing a statutory right to benefit with cash-limited charity. As the noble Lord, Lord Carter, has said, the scheme is now a fact, and this amendment would bring it within the statutory social security system. I believe that that is required by all the organisations speaking for the disabled, including the Disablement Income Group. It has made clear the fact that it also wishes to see these arrangements, and any which succeed them, within the statutory social security system.
Lord Seebohm: My Lords, I do not know whether it would be of any use if I said a few words about the
300
early history of the Family Fund, which was a similar organisation. At the time I was chairman of the Joseph Rowntree Memorial Trust. I was sent for by the then Sir Keith Joseph, who told me that he had found so many special cases that it was impossible to cater for them all by way of regulations in a statutory way. He asked whether the trust would undertake to run the fund. At the time he was thinking of a figure in the order of £3 million, although it would be more than that now. He asked whether we at the Joseph Rowntree Memorial Trust would administer it.
I was very doubtful about the matter and expressed that doubt to my co-trustees. We discussed the position of a charitable organisation if it had to have some kind of relationship with the DHSS. We considered whether it might be dangerous for its charitable status and might end in all kinds of extraordinary squabbles and in appeals above its head. I finally told Sir Keith that the trust would carry out his request but only on the understanding that the moment the money left the Treasury, or wherever it was, and was in the trust's position it was the trusts money. It would administer the fund to the best of its ability and there would be no appeal above the trustees. After many teething troubles, it was a great success. I should add that I have not been connected with the trust for some time. I support in principle an idea of the same kind for the disabled.
It was interesting to note that, after a short time, the trust found that what appeared to be special cases were of such general application that the Government were able to take them over and deal with them under regulations. One such case was the mobility allowance. At the beginning, one of its main occupations was authorising second-hand cars so that people who had no means of transport could visit their disabled children in hospital, mental homes or wherever.
When I left the trust five or six years ago, the biggest demand was for washing machines for incontinent old people living at home. There are various other items which I believe still remain special cases and can be dealt with only on an ad hoc basis by trustees who are experienced in this field. Therefore, although I welcome the amendment I believe it must be treated very carefully from the point of view of charity if it is to be organised properly.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that the Family Fund does not go in for regular weekly payments?
Lord Seebohm: My Lords, that was not normally its job but some things go on for quite a long time; for example, before the mobility allowance came in we had to provide for the cost of taxis and transport for a regular weekly visit or something of that nature before we started buying cars, which was cheaper.
Lord Trafford: My Lords, I yield to nobody in my support for the severely disabled but, like my noble friend Lord Renton, I am in a quandary. I am slightly confused by the amendment tabled by the noble Lord. I should have preferred to say something after the Minister had given us the benefit of the answers to some of the questions asked. Unfortunately that is

301
impossible and therefore I must make the two points in advance.
I believe it is right in principle that any long term properly devolved scheme for the care of the disabled—or indeed any such scheme in most other fields of social affairs—is properly a government responsibility and it is better to have it on a proper well thought-through statutory basis. If I am correct in my interpretation, these do not seem to me to be quite the same circumstances. First, it is short term. In the second place, it is a grant. In the third place, I think that if I were in the position of a possible recipient, then under those particular circumstances, I would rather have a charity with the well known integrity and ability of DIG to be administering the scheme on the short-term basis; and I question the short-term basis.
The only argument that I heard, with due respect to noble Lords who have spoken on this, concerns the question of the right of appeal. As we have just heard, in another somewhat similar scheme, which has apparently worked extremely well, that was ruled out very firmly from the word "go" by those who were to operate the scheme. I assume that might happen under present circumstances. Therefore, I remain doubtful that we would improve the situation by introducing this amendment although I accept that were we trying to produce a long-term solution to this particular problem, it should be a statutory one. As I say, in many respects I feel that under these circumstances an experienced charity is perhaps best equipped to make judgments on grants in aid. Therefore, although I have great sympathy with the amendment, I should have great difficulty in supporting it as drafted.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, like other noble Lords I should like to see proper financial provisions for severely disabled people. However, I do not believe that there is any need for this amendment. If there was a need for this amendment the Government would not already be setting up a fund. As everyone knows, we are changing from one system of social funding to another. There are bound to be teething problems and I believe a fund of this sort is probably the best way of dealing with the matter. To have everything set down with detailed statutory provisions means casting everything in stone. Charities are normally a great deal more flexible and are often a great deal quicker to act. They can act where necessary, even bending their own rules if required.
At the same time the change from one system to another may take rather longer than we anticipate and the system that the Government are setting up, although temporary, could be extended if necessary. Unfortunately if we agree to this amendment, we have a very definite termination date after which there may well still be a number of cases of hardship and there will be no provision to deal with them. I feel that in the long run the Government's proposals to be advised on and operated by DIG will be better than this amendment. Therefore, I cannot support the amendment.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for tabling this amendment and to all noble Lords who have spoken to it in this short debate today. I believe we are at one in what we are trying to achieve in this area and I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, put his finger on it straight away. We are filling a lacuna and, let me add, temporarily. That lacuna is to enable severely disabled people to live independently in the community. We have already said that we intend to establish a trust fund to achieve just that end, and to make up to £5 million available to that fund in 1988–89. It will be an independent trust, set up with advice from the Disablement Income Group. This new clause seeks to put that commitment on a statutory footing. I believe that this is unecessary.
I pray in aid the wise words of the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, speaking with all his experience of the Joseph Rowntree Memorial Trust in the early days. This statutory footing—especially the very fixed one in the amendment before the House now—would not give such a trust the flexibility which, with all his experience, he has shown is necessary to take account of rapidly changing circumstances.
After hearing what I have to say I hope that noble Lords will agree with me on that point. First, it is indeed our intention that the trustees appointed to the fund should include individuals with particular knowledge and experience of disability. We also hope to include people with, for example, legal or financial qualifications. The responsibilities of trustees must, of course, be taken very seriously, and we shall want to see that all the appropriate qualifications are represented on the board. Not only have we had advice from DIG on this matter but we have also had the advice of the Joseph Rowntree Memorial Trust. Indeed, the department consulted that trust which is offering a great deal of practical help in planning the scheme. However, the trust felt that it could not take on the task as it felt that it was outside the trust's terms of reference.
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, and other noble Lords, I believe it would be appropriate to say a few words about the duration of the fund. I said a few moments ago that the Government are committed to looking at the overall position of disabled people within the social security system in the light of the report by Sir Roy Griffiths on community care and the results of the OPCS survey. However, with the best will in the world what I cannot say is when such a look would be translated into legislative action and that cracks the point of three years which the noble Lord, Lord Carter, put in his amendment.
In my view it would be unwise to tie the fund down so tightly. If, for example the need for the fund were to persist for only a few weeks after 11th April 1991, under this clause we would have no option but to wind it up or to come back in primary legislation at a time when there may not be any suitable primary legislation on the stocks. That would mean we would have to stop paying disabled people the money they need if they are to avoid being taken into residential or hospital care. We cannot predict what the outcome of the studies will be and I do not think it would be

303
wise to legislate for a specific timetable. In any event, 11th April 1991 may not be the uprating date for that year. Who can predict the future?
However, one point that your Lordships are clearly concerned about is how I arrived at the number of 250 for this group. The noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, has cross-questioned me on this several times. The answer is that I was advised, on a survey of just a few local officers, that it would be in the order of this number; and that is what I have consistently reported to the House. We are not talking about existing recipients; my noble friend Lord Swinfen is absolutely right. Their benefit will be protected at the point of change with real terms of protection for higher domestic assistance additions. We are addressing the problem of people who become severely disabled after next April and who claim benefit for the first time after that date. Our evidence is that this is likely to amount to a few hundred people. I have conceded already that 250 may not be exactly the right number, but we are in broad agreement with DIG that the numbers are small. We both agree that it is a few hundreds: up to 1,000.
My noble friend Lord Swinfen made the point that we are changing from one scheme to another, but I would add that the Government are protecting the group that we need to protect—the group upon which this amendment concentrates: the very severely disabled. In passing, I think there is merit in the idea that there should be an annual report on the operation of the fund, and we are examining ways of incorporating such an obligation within the trust deed.
This new clause sets out a number of details which the noble Lord, Lord Carter, wishes to ensure are incorporated in that trust deed, and I have already committed the Government in the course of a Question on Tuesday to publishing that and making it widely available. I can assure the noble Lord now, as I did then, that the eligibility criteria for the fund will be set out in the trust deed, which will be a public document. I can also assure the noble Lord that the deed will set out all those details about eligibility criteria, the duties and the role of trustees and other parties, and so on, which are usual and necessary in such cases.
We are discussing the administration details with DIG, but they cannot be finalised until the trustees are appointed; otherwise what is the point of having trustees? It is for them to determine how the fund will operate on a day-to-day basis in order to fulfil the objectives of the trust within the eligibility criteria.
The noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, referred to appeals. I have no doubt that the trustees will wish to examine very carefully indeed decisions which give rise to dissatisfaction. Overall duties and responsibilities of the trustees will be governed, as in any trust, by the terms of the deed and by the strict rules imposed by the law on trustees, which are enforceable, as my noble friend Lord Renton has pointed out, by the High Court.
I should like to make it clear that the 5 million we have initally set aside for the fund is intended to cover
304
administrative costs as well as payments to disabled people. I have been asked what these payments are for. The scheme will cover the costs of caring, which could certainly include laundry and anything else that is appropriate; but again it will be for the trustees to determine what the costs of caring actually are, including taking professional advice. We are confident that the sum available will be sufficient to cover the small group of people we are talking about, and I repeat what I said earlier this week: that future funding will be determined in the light of experience.
Finally, I should like to comment on the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, that in setting up this fund the Government are abrogating their responsibilites and forcing this group on to charity. I find it very difficult to understand the accusation that we are walking away from our responsibilities, when we are making cash available for the group. The fact that the channel for getting the cash to the group is a charitable trust fund reflects the need to deal flexibly with the needs of individual people—something for which a government scheme, with the best will in the world, has been found totally impracticable. That custom-made form of help is inappropriate in the reformed benefit scheme.
In the light of my assurances that the trust deed will be in the public domain and that many of the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and others who have spoken today will be contained in the trust deed—and I hope I have answered all the points raised: if I have not; it is not due to want of attention or being undesirous of answering—I hope the noble Lord, Lord Carter, will be able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Renton: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, I wonder whether he could clarify one point. The amendment refers to helping severely disabled people. He has said that the Government's scheme is to help very severely disabled people, of whom he estimates there will be not more than 1,000. Could he enlighten the House as to the difference between severely disabled and very severely disabled?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the working definition we have been using between those terms is to distinguish between those people who but for the coming into force of the new scheme on 11th April would be on different rates under the new benefit scheme. In other words, if exactly the same injury were incurred on 10th April, the claimant would receive a higher amount than that same claimant would have received two days later. It is this anomaly that the whole scheme is designed to clear up.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to all noble Lords who have supported this amendment. Your Lordships will realise that it was put down with the intention of discovering some of the answers the Government have given (and have not given) regarding the administration of the trust fund.
I should like to deal with a couple of points very quickly. First, on the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, regarding rights, as I said in my opening speech, this is not the place to go into

305
a debate on the philosophy of benefit. If the noble Baroness has a problem regarding the rights of disabled people, she should really take it up with her own Front Bench because there is the right to disability premium and severe disability premium in the new Social Security Bill.
All I would say to the Minister is that all the provisions which are in the amendment have already been agreed by the Government—I extracted them from the Hansards of this House and of another place—except for the three-year provision, and I have explained that was intended to stiffen the resolution of the Government in regard to what, in their own words, is intended to be a temporary scheme. I will read with great care what the Minister has said, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 [Income support and child benefit]:
Baroness Jeger Baroness Jeger moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 4, line 18, after ("circumstances") insert ("which shall include—

(a) that child benefit is not payable by virtue of subsection (1)(aa) of section 2 of the Child Benefit Act 1975 because he is living away from the parental or family home and—

(i) has no living parent or guardian;

(ii) has been in the care of a local authority within the previous 24 months;

(iii) is on bail or under the supervision of a probation officer or social worker and placed away from home;

(iv) cannot live at home because he would be threatened with physical or mental abuse and for this reason has been excluded from his home;

(v) mentally or physically handicapped or mentally ill and needs to live away from home because his parents cannot cope, but not so handicapped or so mentally ill that he is incapable of work; or

(vi) his parents or (if he has only one) parent are or is in prison, in a residential or nursing home or in hospital, or unavoidably absent abroad (but not in Her Majesty's Forces);

(b) that he is married;

(c) that he is a lone parent;

(d) that he is registered as blind;

(e) that he is incapable of work by reason of a disease or bodily or mental disablement (but not solely by reason of temporary sickness);

(f) that she is pregnant (for the period commencing 11 weeks before the expected date of confinement and ending 7 weeks after the date on which the pregnancy ends and for any other period during which she is incapable of work by reason of pregnancy);

(g) that he is in receipt of a training allowance;

(h) that he is regularly and substantially engaged in caring for a sick or disabled person or is looking after a child whose parent or other carer is ill or temporarily absent or looking after a member of the family who is temporarily ill;

(j) that he is a refugee attending a course for the purpose of learning English; and

(k) that he is a person to whom paragraph (1) of regulation 13 of the Income Support (General) Regulations 1987 (persons in relevant education entitled to income support) applies by virtue of one or more of subparagraphs (a) to (e) of paragraph (2) of that regulation.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move this amendment, which is a very long and complicated one. However, I am sure your Lordships will be glad to know that I am not going to make a long and complicated speech. There is a lot of concern in all parts of the House about what is going to happen to young people between the ages of 16 and
306
18 who are told that they must either go on a training course or stay in further education. We are concerned about young people in that age group who may suffer from all sorts of disabilities and problems which make it difficult for them to take up these options.
When we raised this matter earlier, the Minister gave a provisional list of young people who, because of problems and disabilities which I will not read out at the moment, were to be given special consideration and would not be subjected to the rigors of this new Bill. We took the wording in the amendment almost 100 per cent. from that list, given on page 280 of the proceedings of Standing Committee E in the other place, and repeated here at an earlier stage.
When it was suggested that these exemptions should be made statutory and written into the Bill, the Minister expressed some hesitation. He very kindly wrote to me on 2nd March, but he had to tell me that the regulations had not yet been drafted. So I feel that in regard to Clause 4, which will be implemented according to regulations not yet drafted, we are in some difficulty. I understand that this is a long and complex job but I cannot see why this whole Bill could not have been postponed until this question was settled, because in my view it is the kernel of the Bill. I was not the only Member of the House who would have preferred to see the rights of these young people made statutory instead of included in a list of undecided regulations.
I understand that the regulations are still being considered and will be presented at a later date for debate. By then, however, we will have passed Clause 4. We are being asked to buy a bit of a pig in a poke. I hope that it will be possible for the Minister to look at this again as it represents genuine concern.
5 p.m.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, is important, but the amendment is very long and contains a great deal of detail. I wonder whether this can be done in a more straightforward way.
I pressed my noble friend at a previous stage to put in regulations. He explained in a letter, for which I am grateful, that this is difficult. Indeed, I accept that it is not easy to write regulations until the Bill has been passed. Nevertheless we should like to have more information than we now have.
It is within my knowledge, and I think that of many other noble Lords, that housing associations are making preparations for those children who leave their families. This happens in one way or another, and arrangements have to be made for it. The associations like to know how they stand. Reference has been made to a person leaving his family for no good reason, but what is a "good reason" for leaving the family? It is difficult to say what is a sensible reason.
I accept the Government's proposition that people should either train or be in work. It is a straightforward proposition that I think most noble Lords would accept. Are we sure, however, that we are not putting on too much pressure?
I have several questions about the effect of the proposal. What form does YTS now take? Can it take

307
anybody who is in a position to go on the scheme? Has it ample room for training everybody? At the end of the day, what is the value of the training? I have not seen a YTS course in operation. Some of your Lordships may have done so, and the scheme may be very useful. If somebody leaves YTS, is he inevitably to blame for leaving or can he leave by what is described as mutual consent? We should know something about these matters. This is a vital period in anyone's life, and we should do our utmost to ensure that the years between 16 and 18 are properly used. I should like to be certain that people know how they can be used.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I oppose the amendment. I support the views of my noble friend Lord Selkirk that one should either train or be in work. This was discussed thoroughly at the last stage of the Bill. It was clear that there would be provisions for exemption where necessary. The amendment is very detailed, and I am not able to support it.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I made a suggestion at the last stage of the Bill which was taken up by the Minister in a circulated letter. It was that the cardinal principles should be listed in the Bill. I put my name to this amendment because I thought that it was worth bringing it before the House again in an attempt to have the cardinal principles included in the Bill. I wonder why they cannot be so included. I appreciate that the regulations are still in the process of being drafted. I do not wish to impose any sense of rush on the drafting of amendments, but the Minister surely knows what the cardinal principles are. Is it not preferable for them to be included in the Bill? I appeal to him to do this on Third Reading.
As it is, we are being asked to write a blank cheque. This is not what Parliament should allow. I am strongly in agreement with the sentiments put forward by the noble Earl. Lord Selkirk. I should be happy if the Minister could undertake to put forward, say, a number of heads in the Bill so that the details could be inserted in regulations. I therefore ask him to give this serious consideration.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, in answer to the last point, I undertook to consider the matter in Committee and that is what I have done. The House will recall that in response to a telling intervention from my noble friend Lord Selkirk, I gave details in Committee of the categories of 16 and 17 year-olds who would be entitled to income support throughout and of those so entitled only during the child benefit extension period. Following that, I wrote to those noble Lords involved in the debate and enclosed with the letter a copy of the provisional lists A and B covering the type of exemption case that we intend to put in the regulations.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, asked why the Bill could not have been postponed until the regulations were ready. She knows the answer. Other parts of the Bill amend the 1986 legislation, and it is necessary to do this because of the imminent working of the new reformed scheme.
Baroness Jeger: Unfortunately, my Lords.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the noble Baroness says unfortunately, but that is the answer, and, I submit, a good one.
This having been done, there is a basic difficulty that the House must face. The noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, spoke of writing a blank cheque. If this were so, I suggest that regulations would never be embodied in subsidiary legislation at all. It is normal for such details to be dealt with in regulations. As noble Lords are aware, it is a far more flexible way of doing things as regulations are more quickly amended than is primary legislation. If the categories were to be placed in primary legislation, we should have considerable difficulty if it were later found that the description of the category was unsatisfactory. This point was brought home by the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, in discussion of a previous amendment.
The suggested category descriptions given in the amendment of the noble Baroness, for instance, in some cases are not sufficiently explicit and will have to be amended or further explained in regulations. The person caring for another as described in paragraph (h) is not well-defined; nor is the phrase "temporary sickness" in paragraph (e). Because the categories were in primary legislation, we would end up not being able to help speedily enough even where we wanted to assist. However, the categories could be speedily amended when circumstances required such action if they were in regulations.
The precise wording and fine details of the exact circumstances have not yet been decided. Points made in debate and by interested parties will be closely examined to ensure that as far as possible the vulnerable groups are identified. There is of course the severe hardship power on which to fall hack. That is my answer to the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, about the preparations that housing associations have to make.
I believe that there is not a great deal to be gained by having the suggested categories entered on the face of the Bill. I am happy to give assurances about the kind of situation that the regulations will cover. We have debated these, and I have circulated them widely. There will be an opportunity to debate the regulations when they are laid. It is not unknown in this House or indeed in another place for a Minister who is commending regulations to the House to be put in the position of withdrawing them. I can think of two occasions when this has happened in respect of Treasury regulations, which must be very unusual. I do not therefore consider that any advantage would be gained by rushing categories into primary legislation at this late stage and I therefore recommend that the amendment be rejected.
There was a particular point made by my noble friend Lord Selkirk, I believe, who asked me what form YTS has taken. The whole rationale of this clause is that in the Employment Bill currently before your Lordships there is a guarantee of a place of work in the scheme. The two provisions stand or fall together; it is an integral part.

309
My noble friend also asked me about the provision for leaving YTS; for example, if a scheme is unsuitable. The guarantee extends to the age of 18 and if the first scheme or indeed the second or the third, is unsuitable then a further place will be found. In the meantime there is a bridging grant to which the young person will be entitled while he is between schemes. In those circumstances there is no question of young people not having the income that they need in order to support themselves.
I believe those to be the questions that my noble friend asked me. As regards regulations, there seems to be little point in entering into the Bill a description of a category of an exempt person when we may find very soon that on reflection we need to amend it. I am afraid that I stick with regulations.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, I am still worried about this clause. I do not believe we have taken into account youngsters who are estranged from their families. They are the people about whom I have been worried all along. As a consequence of being estranged from their families, they become homeless. I accept that it is quite difficult to put into the Bill details along those lines. However, it strikes me that what the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, said in Committee, and repeated is sound. We can have in the Bill some principles with regard to the kind of people who would not be allowed to fall by the wayside.
Even the argument put forward by the Minister is not wholly without a loophole. Even if it were laid down in the statute it would still be possible to add another clause giving the Minister the power to add additional categories. That is not such an impossibility as the Minister makes out. I believe that we need to look at this matter again. I know the extent to which this question is causing worry. There is acceptance that the Government want youngsters to work, to be educated or trained and not to look for benefit. I believe that is now generally accepted.
What we are all bothered about is whether there is a proper safety net for those who have been unable to fall into either category. I am particularly worried about those whose homes have left them. Your Lordships always talk about people leaving home, but I know many youngsters whose homes have left them. It is those youngsters I am most worried about. I do not believe that question has been answered.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, I can assure the Minister that there are many people both inside and outside this House who will be watching the development of this matter with great anxiety. I thank him for the explanations which he has given this afternoon. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Banks Lord Banks moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 4, line 18, after ("and") insert ("in some cases").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as the House is aware, the Bill raises the age at which income support may be claimed from 16 to 18. Sixteen and 17 year-
310
olds are denied income support unless in the opinion of the Secretary of State they will suffer severe hardship through not receiving it or they are exempted because they fall within certain categories which we have just been discussing and which are to be prescribed in regulations.
In the latter case the Bill indicates that exemption will be for a prescribed period. It states:
"for '16' there shall be substituted '18 or, in prescribed circumstances and for a prescribed period, of or over the age of 16'".
This would seem to state that in all exempted cases in the prescribed categories exemption will be for a limited period.
I moved an amendment in Committee which was designed to remove the reference to a prescribed period. In his reply the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, said that there would be two distinct categories of people who would be in prescribed circumstances. He has repeated that statement this evening. There would be those who are not required to be available for work and who would be entitled to income support without any time limit—that was his phrase—"without any time limit". Secondly, there would be those who would be entitled to income support only during the child benefit extension period.
The noble Lord gave examples and I was convinced by what he said that some in prescribed circumstances would within the terms of the Bill require to be exempted for a limited period. When I asked him whether everybody who is covered by prescribed circumstances will receive benefit for a prescribed period or whether some people would receive it without a prescribed period being imposed, to my surprise he said that the former was correct, which seemed to go against all his previous argument.
Assuming what the Minister said in his speech was what he meant to say, I have tabled this amendment to make it clear that the Secretary of State may prescribe a limited period and to avoid compelling him to do so in every case. I believe that that would be consistent with what the Minister was saying in his reply to me in Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I was hoping that I should be able to satisfy the noble Lord by repeating that we intend a prescribed period to be used in all cases of entitlement, but clearly I am unable to do so. We shall have to see how we get on.
In some cases (list A) which I hope the noble Lord received, the prescribed period will be during the child benefit extension period only. During this period the young person will have ample opportunity to consider the job and YTS opportunities that are available. Once a job or a YTS place is secured, income support will cease although some people who obtain a YTS place will be able to claim income support to supplement their training allowance of £28.50. Normally this would be boarders; in other words, this would apply to people who are working away from home on a scheme. For example, it may be a specialist scheme in, say, catering which would mean that the young person could not get to it every day and would have to travel so far that it would be worth boarding.

311
In some other cases (list B), entitlement to income support can exist both during and after the extension period and will last for as long as the young person still falls within the particular prescribed circumstance, for example, he is still a lone parent or is still a member of a married or cohabiting couple with a child. This effectively could be until the young person reaches the age of 18. I noticed that the noble Lord said that this would continue without any time limit. Of course the whole procedure comes to a grinding halt after the age of 18 because we are concerned in Clause 4 only with the 16–18 year-olds. In other cases in list B, entitlement will last for a shorter period; for example, the pregnant youngster for whom it is intended that benefit will only be payable for the period commencing 11 weeks before the expected date of confinement and ending seven weeks after the date pregnancy ends. Regulations will specify the prescribed period for all categories but, as I have mentioned, in many cases entitlement will last until the young person attains the age of 18, at which age the proposals in the clause will no longer apply. I do not consider that the amendment would achieve anything that is not already intended. Therefore I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw it.
Lord Banks: My Lords, those who will be able to receive income support for the whole period covered by the clause—16 and 17 year-olds—will not be subject to a prescribed period. I do not think that the noble Lord accepts that. If he accepted it —and when he said in his original speech "without any time limit", it appeared that he did—my amendment would be consistent with what he was saying. I am sorry that he is not able to accept the amendment, but I do not want to pursue it any further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Banks Lord Banks moved Amendment No. 11:
After Clause 4, insert the following new clause:
("Annual review of child benefit.
( ) The Secretary of State shall review the level of child benefit in April of each year, taking account of increases in the Retail Price Index and other relevant external factors.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment stands in my name and those of the noble Baronesses, Lady Faithfull and Lady Jeger, and the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton. In Committee we moved an amendment which would have included child benefit with the other benefits that are uprated every year. On a Division, that was defeated. However, the amendment did not actually mention child benefit although it would have had the effect described. Therefore some noble Lords will not have realised that the question of uprating child benefit was to be debated. It seems sensible therefore to afford the House an opportunity to look at the matter again in the light of this amendment, which does not go as far as the previous one since there is no obligation on the Secretary of State to take further action once the review is concluded. The implication must be that the benefit is to be reviewed with a view to uprating where increases in prices or changes in circumstances would make it necessary.
We have to bear in mind that child benefit replaced family allowances paid for the second child and subsequent children and income tax allowances for children. Thus child benefit was replacing allowances available to all families with children. Child benefit became the sole means by which all families with children were assisted, on the grounds that the period of bringing up a family was a time when people were faced with the greatest burdens. It followed that child benefit should be uprated in step with the other income tax allowances. Yet this has not happened. Since 1979 the single person's income tax allowance has risen by 14 per cent. in real terms; the married couple's income tax allowance has risen by 17 per cent. in real terms; but child benefit has fallen by 3 per cent. in real terms. People with families have become progressively disadvantaged as compared with the rest of the community.
The Government's Green Paper, Reform of Social Security published in 1985, said:
"The Government's conclusion from their study of the role of child benefit was that it had underlined the fact that there were two clear and distinct aims in helping families with the cost of bringing up children. The first is to provide extra help to families generally. The second is to provide extra help for poor families. It would be a serious mistake to confuse those two distinct purposes or to seek to restructure a benefit designed to meet one aim to meet another aim".
The Government are neglecting their own good advice. The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, said that the cost of child benefit is huge. I believe it is about £4·6 billion per annum. That has to be compared with the cost of the remaining income tax personal allowances. They cost in lost revenue about £25 billion per annum. The Minister also said that child benefit was not targeted on the poorest.
I asked in Committee whether the Minister was saying that the £25 billion which goes towards the other personal allowances goes only to those who seriously need it. We know that, unlike child benefit, these allowances give most to the better off. The Government say that they are spending more on the poorest. In so far as that turns out to be so, we will all welcome it, but the Government are saying that they did not uprate child benefit this year in order to have more for the poorest through income support and family credit. The argument that child benefit should be frozen to provide funds for the poorest means that families with children are singled out to provide funds for the poorest families. There is no justification for that. If we wish to help the poorest families, as we all do, that should be paid for by the generality of taxpayers and we should not single out those who already have children to provide the money.
Child benefit has the advantage that it does not give more to the better off. It is universal so that no stigma can be attached to claiming in anybody's mind. It has a nearly 100 per cent. take-up. It does not trap people into dependence on welfare. It is a fact that the absence of an uprating this year will push 15,000 parents and 30,000 children on to dependence on a means-tested basis. It helps those who do not claim other benefits to which they are entitled and who thus fall through the net of family income supplement and income support, or family credit as

313
family income supplement is to become. It redistributes from those without dependent children to those who have such children.
Personal allowances are uprated every year. By passing this amendment the House would clearly demonstrate its view that child benefit should be uprated every year as well where circumstances justify this in the shape of increases in prices or in other changes in the general position. I beg to move.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, the clarity and expertise of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Banks, has thankfully made my task brief. There has been a great deal of discussion throughout the country on the freezing of child benefit. I hope that the Government will take some notice of the fact that more than 70 organisations of many different political and social beliefs have joined in the campaign "Save Child Benefit". This is not a party matter.
I should like to make a couple of points. When child benefit was brought in, income tax child allowance was abolished. When child income tax allowances were being discussed no one said that we should not give them to well off people. On the contrary, the more well off they were the more they benefited from tax concessions. The genesis of child benefit is income tax law rather than social security law and so the figures of the costs we are given are an accountant's fantasy. The Treasury is saving money. The whole budget has been transferred to social security. That has absolutely distorted the finances of that department. I should like to see the Treasury having to take much more responsibility for something that stems from changes in the tax laws as much as from changes in social security arising from the abolition of family allowances.
During yesterday's debate I was reminded about this matter when many noble Lords expressed concern about the apparent insensitivity of the Government to much genuine public feeling on various issues. Child benefit is one of them. An agreement in your Lordships' House would not only be a great relief to worried mothers but would indicate at last a responsive concern by your Lordships, if not by the Government, across party lines and in the interests of the parents and children of our country. In that spirit I hope there will be wide support for this non-party amendment.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Seebohm: My Lords, in spite of what the noble Lord, Lord Banks, said, my name does in fact appear on the Marshalled List. I was unfortunately unable to speak in Committee as I was abroad and I am today speaking on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, who had to leave the Chamber for an important engagement. I should say that I have pursued the matter for some considerable time, but I still feel rather bitter in view of the statement made by Mr. John Major during the pre-election period when he said most clearly:
"Child benefit will continue as a non-means tested universal payment paid to the mother and tax free. There ought to be no doubt about this".
I know the statement was not explicit about indexing, but we all thought that that issue was well covered.
314
Now I must confess that I feel most let down and I expect many other people feel likewise because of the way the statement has been interpreted.
The in-word nowadays is "targeting". I think that if that word means anything it means that your shots in point of fact hit the target. We are told that on the most optimistic of views that possibly 70 per cent. of the shots might hit their target. That is possibly over-optimistic because so far it has never reached that figure at all. Perhaps I should add here that as regards child benefit, 100 per cent. of the shots actually hit the target.
In my opinion, there are three categories of need which we are talking about in this connection. First there is the 30 per cent. or 40 per cent. of the people who could rightly claim but who do not do so for reasons which are not always entirely clear. The second category is one that I think is equally important: the low paid. They do not come into the latter category but, nevertheless, they have families and consequently need strong support for the children. We know from many inquiries that without child benefit those people would not in fact be able to see their children properly clothed, shod and fed nor provided with the necessary school books.
The third category concerns people who may be quite high on the scale from the point of view of earnings of the husband but where, before we brought in child benefit, the wife was not receiving anything like enough money for the family. That situation may have arisen because the husband was a gambler, an alcoholic or just plain mean; but we know that anywhere up that scale you could have found mothers with insufficient money to treat their children in the way they ought to have been treated. There is a very strong case indeed—quite apart from the clear analysis given by the noble Lord, Lord Banks, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger—for looking at the matter from another angle.
A further point I should like to make is that people's circumstances change very quickly. People can be made redundant and many things can happen to change a family's circumstances. Therefore it is quite wrong in my mind to draw a hard line and say that certain classes shall receive such benefit while others shall not. We are also entering into a field of prevention. I believe that by giving child benefit, albeit much further up the scale than the Government apparently think necessary, we are in fact keeping some children out of care in the future; they can be brought up in the type of conditions that I am sure everyone in this House would wish.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, the debate on this particular amendment has been a vivid and for some of us a somewhat nostalgic revelation of the difficulties that face those who are responsible for social service and social security administration. It is always possible, if a particular benefit is in some cases abolished or in others restricted, to raise genuine and sincere feeling and emotion and to suggest that something terribly wrong is being done.
But, having said that, one still has to face the fact that the right honourable gentleman who is in charge of social security has the task of seeing that such resources as are available—and they are never

315
unlimited—are concentrated where they will do the most good. I am glad to say that for a great many years it has been the social policy of the Party to which I belong to emphasise the necessity of concentrating the available resources for social purposes in the areas of greatest need. But, in order to do that it means restricting them in other areas. The amounts will never be unlimited and should never be thought to be so.
In this particular case, as my noble friend the Minister will no doubt shortly be reminding us, the concept is that child benefit is not a benefit solely concentrated on those whose need is greatest. It goes to a fair number of people who are no doubt very thankful to receive it but who are in no sense in real need. If you continue making payments to those people, under a universal scheme of this type, you have, ex hypothesi, less resources available to concentrate on the areas where the need is greatest. I am sure that there is no one in your Lordships' House who will dispute for a moment the fact that there are still areas in our society where the need is very real and where the Government have the duty to try to concentrate the resources available.
A noble Lord: Which one?
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I do not know what the noble Lord means by saying "Which one?". He spoke, at any rate, from a sedentary position. I was in fact coming to the question of concentration. It is the family support arrangements that are based on need. It is exactly that concentration in those areas which must be the main object of any good Minister who is in charge of social security. Therefore although it is necessary to endure, if you do so, the criticism in respect of the area from which you are, to some extent, diverting those resources, nonetheless, I do not think any serious student of socal policy can doubt that that is the right course to take. It is for that reason that I think the Government are right in this matter, and I think that the amendment, however much it may have a sentimental appeal, is not one which is consistent with intelligent, clearly thought out social policy such as I hope that the Government will always follow.
Lord Seebohm: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I just ask him, in view of what he has just said, whether he is proposing to abolish the married woman's allowance?
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, first, in the light of what I was saying, I should stress that I was not referring to the married woman's allowance. However, were we to have the opportunity to debate that matter I should have the greatest pleasure of doing so with the noble Lord. I am far too old a hand to be caught out by such a catch question, as the noble Lord should know.
Lord Moyne: My Lords, I do not wish to cross swords with my noble friend whose rapier is always so particularly sharp, but I am afraid that my comment is a very naive one; namely, what is right in one year is surely right in another. Therefore, in order to keep it right, we have to look to inflation.
Baroness Strange: My Lords. I rise to support the amendment. In many homes child benefit is of inestimable support to the parents. When the cost of living goes up, children's appetites do not go down and their feet do not stop growing. It seems essential therefore that the benefit for children should continue and keep pace with the cost of living. If this were not so, it would not be a case of half a loaf but of no bread at all.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I should like to add my voice in support of the amendment. I gave way just now so that the greater authority of the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, could be heard. His name was after all on the Marshalled List.
I do not wish to speak emotionally about this but rationally. You either have the child benefit, which I think we all feel should be the case, in which case you index it; or you do not have it and you substitute something else for it. But what you should not do is to have a child benefit which is being invisibly eroded, as this has been, by 3 per cent. since 1979 and another 4 per cent. in 1988. It is that totally unemotional view which I put forward. With the utmost respect, I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. This does not seem to have been rationally or logically worked out. If it had been, we should either have had child benefit with index linking or we should have had a valid substitution. As it is, we have neither one thing nor the other and if we allow it to go this way it will end up like the death grant.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, of course I understand only too well the purport of the amendment and the strong feelings which many of your Lordships have evinced this evening on the subject. It would be appropriate for me first of all to turn to the amendment itself so ably introduced by the noble Lord. Lord Banks. I am afraid there is a basic misunderstanding here as to how decisions come to be made on whether a benefit should be uprated or not. Time does not permit me to go into the details of each and every benefit. Indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Banks, has said, the amendment only relates to one child benefit. I have to advise the House that child benefit is already subject to an annual review under Section 63 of the Social Security Act 1986. The Act requires the Secretary of State to review the benefit in each tax year in order to determine whether it has retained its value in relation to the general level of prices. The Act goes on to provide for the benefit to be uprated if the Secretary of State considers it appropriate, having regard to the national economic situation and any other matters which he considers relevant.
The new clause would therefore do nothing more than duplicate the existing provisions. It could be argued, I suppose, that the words "other relevant external factors", to quote the amendment, are not comprised in the words of the 1986 Act, which requires the Secretary of State to review the benefit
"in order to determine whether it has retained its value in relation to the general level of prices".
That, I submit, is a weak argument because the Act then requires the Secretary of State to lay a draft of an uprating order to increase child benefit if he

317
considers it appropriate having regard to the national economic situation and—this is the important bit—any other matters that he considers relevant.
There are several technical arguments which I could also adduce as to why this amendment is a strange way of going about what some noble Lords actually want, which is the annual uprating of child benefit in line with inflation. As we have been reminded, we dealt with this matter in Committee and the Committee felt so strongly that the House divided. I must advise the House that this amendment would add nothing further to the cause and is unnecessary, as the noble Lord, Lord Banks, went so far as to suggest. As he pointed out, it does not make for what many noble Lords who have spoken this evening actually want—namely, not only a review of the benefit but the automatic uprating thereof.
Having said that, I think I should be failing in my duty if I did not respond to some of the more fundamental background points which have been raised by noble Lords as to why we have not seen fit to uprate the child benefit this year.
First, I turn to the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger. I would say that child benefit should not be seen as a tax allowance. Benefits and tax allowances have different roles and cannot be compared directly. Tax allowances help all taxpayers, including those with children. They do not help the poorest who do not pay tax but nor does child benefit, which is taken into account in assessing supplementary benefit/income support and in determining family credit levels. The move away from tax allowances was partly because the tax allowance arrangement helped taxpayers, especially those paying higher rates, but did nothing for those whose incomes were below the tax thresholds, a fact which I am sure my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter would confirm. Through income support and the new family credit scheme we shall be able to give even more help to those who really need it. Child benefit has been in its present form for eight years. We should judge it in terms of its effectiveness as a benefit in its own right, not by measuring it against what might have happened to the tax allowance it replaced.
Let me repeat what we have said many times in recent months about our decision to leave child benefit at its existing rate—and, incidentally, pay it to the mother from April 1988—but to divert even more resources to less well-off families by means of family credit and income support. We have no plans at present to change the basis of child benefit, but we shall continue to keep child benefit and other social security benefits under constant review.
The noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, who feels particularly strongly about this matter, raised the subject of the take-up of income related benefits and argued that diverting extra money to boost income related benefits for families with children would not help those who will not claim family credit or income support. But the take-up of income related benefits is not so bad as some people sometimes assume. In terms of expenditure, 89 per cent. of supplementary benefit is claimed, as is 88 per cent. of housing benefit and 65 per cent. of family income supplement. We expect the take-up of family credit to be higher,
318
probably over 70 per cent. by expenditure, because of more extensive publicity and because the more generous benefit will inevitably become better known. I regard this as a good thing. It will be simpler for new claimants because they do not need to save wage slips: we shall approach employers direct.
Another noble Lord raised the financial implications of the non-uprating of child benefit from April 1988. Whereas uprating child benefit by 30 pence a week in line with the movement in the retail price index over the 12 months to September 1987 would have cost around £120 million net in a full year, we are putting much more than this into extra benefit for low income families through income support and family credit. Increasing child benefit would not have brought extra help to families receiving those benefits, since they are adjusted to take child benefit into account. What we have done instead has brought very worthwhile help, focused specifically on families in greatest need, whether in or out of work. As my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter has been generous enough to say, he is proud to belong to a party which holds this philosophy. I certainly share his pride. I am equally proud to belong to the same party.
The figures speak for themselves. From April we shall be spending around £100 million extra on families in income support. We shall be spending over £200 million extra on the family credit, which will of course he paid to mothers. So we shall be spending much more than a straightforward child benefit uprating would have cost. Family credit, which is more generous than family income supplement, is better focused on those in need and again is payable to the mother. In these circumstances I am afraid that in this year of all years I could not accept the argument of my noble friend, Lord Moyne, that what is right for one year is necessarily right for another. We are in a whole new ballgame with the extra money which I have just described. I should also say on a slightly different point that it would be nonsense to increase child benefit to help out a minority of wives in better-off families where the income is not shared equitably.
Finally, the remarks of my right honourable friend the Chief Secretary referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, made it entirely clear that one of our four main aims in social security was to bring more help to low income families. That is precisely what we are doing and what an increase in child benefits, which would be of no value to those receiving income related benefits, would not do. That is what we promised and that is what we are now delivering.
However, back to the amendment. As I have already explained, this new clause would not achieve the uprating of child benefit. I think the arguments on this have been well rehearsed by your Lordships and in another place. However, I want to say again that we recognise the significance of child benefit to many mothers but continually increasing its level for all is not the best way of helping low income families. Making real improvements in income related benefits as we are doing in April is a much more effective means of alleviating poverty. But to target help in this way we need the flexibility contained in the present legislation. Therefore I advise the House to reject the amendment.
Lord Banks: My Lords, I first apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, for having omitted his name from the sponsors of the Bill at the beginning of my remarks. That was very remiss of me as I know of his continued and deep interest in this subject. I am grateful to him for his support this evening. Indeed I should like to thank all noble Lords who have supported this amendment. As I think the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, said, this is indeed a non-party issue and that has been made clear by the support which has come to the amendment from different quarters of the House.
The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, said that we should not compare what has happened to child benefit with what might have happened to the personal allowance which it replaced if it had continued in existence. However, the fact remains that families with children have gradually become disadvantaged as opposed to the rest of the community and if we freeze child benefit that is accentuated. Is that something which we want to happen? I do not think it is. We are bound to take into account the fact that child benefit replaced in part income tax allowances for children.
The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, spoke of concentrating what we have where it will do the most good and where it is most needed. But in saying that in relation to child benefit he is falling into the very confusion which the Green Paper produced by the Government in 1985 warned against—namely confusing benefits designed to help people with families generally with benefits designed to help the poorest of people with families. While we all want to give more to the latter, it is not right to seek to do it by taking only, or even partly, from those who have children themselves.
The Conservative Opposition in another place when this child benefit was first introduced put down an amendment which was designed to ensure not only that it should be raised at least once a year but that it should be raised twice a year. That was the case they they fought in another place at the time.
This amendment is a more modest one. It only has in mind the review taking place once a year. The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, said that there is a section of an Act which states something rather similar and that therefore this provision is not necessary. He claims that this will not achieve the end which we have in mind. But I do not think that there is any doubt at all that, if your Lordships were to pass this amendment tonight, it would be clearly understood by the public outside and by the Government here that this House is in favour of uprating child benefit. I hope that in order to make that clear your Lordships will support this amendment now in the Division Lobbies.
5.53 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 11) shall be agreed to.
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 97; Not-Contents, 84.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Attlee, E.

Amherst, E.

Aylestone, L.

Ardwick, L.

Banks, L. [Teller.]

320

Basnett, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Birk, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Blackstone, B.

Lawrence, L.

Blease, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Longford, E.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Bottomley, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Brockway, L.

McNair, L.

Buckmaster, V.

Mayhew, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Carter, L.

Molloy, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Northfield, L.

Cudlipp, L.

Oram, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Peston, L.

Diamond, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Donoughue, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Ennals, L.

Rea, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Faithfull, B.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Falkender, B.

Rochester, L.

Falkland, V.

Seear, B.

Gallacher, L.

Seebohm, L.

Galpern, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Gifford, L.

Serota, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L, [Teller.]

Shackleton, L.

Simon, V.

Gregson, L.

Stedman, B.

Grimond, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Hampton, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hanworth, V.

Strabolgi, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Strange, B.

Hart of South Lanark, B.

Swann, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hayter, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Underhill, L.

Hooson, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

White, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Jacques, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E

Jay, L.

Jeger, B.

Winterbottom, L.

John-Mackie, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Arran, E.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Auckland, L.

Harvington, L.

Bauer, L.

Havers, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Hesketh, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Hooper, B.

Beloff, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Belstead, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Blatch, B.

Joseph, L.

Boardman, L.

Killearn, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Kimball, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Braye, B.

Lauderdale, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Layton, L.

Broxbourne, L.

Lindsay, E.

Caithness, E.

Long, V, [Teller.]

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Luke, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Carnock, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Cowley, E.

Merrivale, L.

Cox, B.

Mersey, V.

Craigavon, V.

Mottistone, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Munster, E.

Davidson, V, [Teller.]

Nelson, E.

Dundee, E.

Norrie, L.

Elibank, L.

Orkney, E.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Erne, E.

Oxfuird, V.

Ferrers, E.

Rankeillour, L.

321

Renton, L.

Swinfen, L.

Renwick, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Rodney, L.

Torrington, V.

St, Davids, V.

Trafford, L.

Selkirk, E.

Trefgarne, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Trumpington, B.

Shannon, F.

Ullswater, V.

Skelmersdale, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Westbury, L.

Sudeley, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
6 p.m.
Clause 6 [Unemployment benefit and occupational pension]:
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 6. line 34, at end insert ("provided that no day earlier than 6th April 1993 shall be appointed for the implementation of this Section.")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment deals with the intention of the Bill to remove the right to unemployment benefit from persons aged 55 and over who become unemployed but who have a small occupational pension scheme. Your Lordships will recall that we discussed this subject at some length in Committee. Unfortunately, I was unable to persuade your Lordships that this was a very unfair measure in that people who had a very small occupational pension would be losing entitlement to which they had contributed. That was despite the fact that many people who leave employment at 55 through redundancy or some other cause nevertheless regard themselves as still available for work and would be willing to comply with the availability for work qualifications set out in section 20 of the 1975 Act.
At Committee stage I failed to convince your Lordships that that was a very unfair situation. I am now putting another proposition before your Lordships. It is that we give such people five years' notice of the change. That would enable them to make alternative and extra provision for themselves, either through additional voluntary contributions or in some other way. It seems to me to be a very reasonable suggestion and I therefore hope that the Government will see their way to accept it. It would simply put hack the date of implementation until 6th April 1993. It would enable people who would otherwise be adversely affected but would not be entitled to unemployment benefit after the age of 55–and perhaps would have a very small occupational pension entitlement—to make alternative and additional arrangements for themselves. It gives them that amount of breathing space. I beg to move.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, this amendment is designed to delay the introduction of our proposal to reduce the age threshold for the abatement provision by a further four years beyond January 1989 to April 1993—beyond the life of the present Parliament. I have no doubt that the main purpose of the amendment is to ensure that this measure will never be brought into force at all. However, as the noble Baroness has said—is she denying it?
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, no.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the noble Baroness says no. I accept that it is a major point, but that would be an effect. As the noble Baroness said, it would also provide a stay of execution for all those in the 55 to 60 age group despite the fact that many of them are receiving substantial occupational pensions, and give those people who will find themselves in that age bracket in five years' time even more time to plan their finances accordingly.
I believe that the Government's job is to govern, and to delay implementation of the change would undermine a fundamental objective of this clause and run contrary to the conclusion of successive governments that it is unreasonable to pay full unemployment benefit to people who retire from employment earlier than the national insurance pension age with a substantial occupational pension. Those are the people with which this clause is concerned. In most cases, those people expect and plan to retire early and are not people whom unemployment benefit is intended to cover. This clause reflects the fact that, whereas in 1981 most people retired at age 60 or over, there are now increasing numbers of people retiring earlier. It is on that fact that we base our belief that the time is now right to lower the age at which abatement takes effect from 60 to 55.
The noble Baroness talks about giving people time to adjust. However, because the change is not due to come into effect until January 1989 and was well trailed, we are giving all those who may be planning to retire in the next nine months or so ample notice of the change so that they can take it into account when planning their retirement date.
She suggested that people who retire early receive a smaller occupational pension. Yes, but the abatement provision applies only to pensions of over £35 a week. Unemployment benefit is reduced by 10 pence for each 10 pence in excess of £35 per week. Benefit is not finally extinguished until the pension exceeds £85.90 for a married man and £66.50 for a single person. I am sure that the House will agree that those are substantial weekly sums. Where the pension is lower because of early retirement that may well be reflected in a smaller abatement of benefit.
Why not use the availability condition to test whether an occupational pensioner is genuinely available for work? That would seem to be an obvious question to ask. The most effective way of testing a person's availability is by the offer of a job. However, job opportunities for occupational pensioners have always been scarce because of a shortage of vacancies for older people. By abating unemployment benefit for occupational pensioners aged 55 and over we are seeking a different, and I believe correct, solution.
Finally, to delay implementation of the change would undermine the fundamental objective of this clause and would run contrary to the view of successive governments that it is unreasonable to pay full unemployment benefit to people who retire from employment earlier than the national insurance pension age with a substantial occupational pension. For those reasons I regret that I cannot recommend acceptance of the amendment.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I am sorry that the amendment does not commend itself to the Minister. I repeat, as I said when moving the amendment, that the main purpose is to provide people with extra time in which to make alternative financial arrangements. Your Lordships will be aware that making provision is often a long-term matter. One does not get very much if one has paid into an additional scheme over a short period of time. It is for that reason that five years is felt to be a reasonable period of notice for people in that kind of situation.
We are talking about a situation in which many people who become unemployed at the age of 55 find themselves because their firms have closed; they have been made redundant and there is no alternative work for them in the area. Many of them would be only too happy to work at almost anything should the opportunity arise. In that age group in particular it will be found that there are people—whatever may be said on the other side of the House about the work ethic and so on for younger people, and I do not always agree with what is said—who have worked all their lives and are very anxious to work somewhere if only they are given the opportunity. Very often they cannot do so and it means a drastic reduction in their income because, as the Minister said, the pension level is set at £35 and benefit applies only up to £66 for a single person and £85 for a married couple. Those are not enormous sums of money and certainly a situation in which unemployment pay can be phased out, as it were, from £35 onwards is not very satisfactory.
In Committee we discussed the fact that those amounts have not been uprated since 1981 and I believe that we obtained an undertaking at that time from the Minister that that aspect would be reconsidered. In my amendment therefore I have not sought to deal with that point although it is quite a major factor. However, in view of the fact that I have not been able to make any progress with my second attempt on this clause, I shall not press the amendment at this stage but shall beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Henderson of Brompton Lord Henderson of Brompton moved Amendment No. 13:
After Clause 6, insert the following new clause:
("Income support.
. In regulation 22 of the Income Support (General) Regulations 1987—

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

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

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall be very brief in speaking to this amendment, which is a retabling of one which I put forward in Committee. The Minister gave a helpful reply but there are one or two small queries arising out of it which I should like to have answered on Report.
In Committee the Minister stated that the Bill maintained the status quo in regard to income support regulations. I believe that under the present dispensation a decision is given that is favourable to a claimant when it is a matter of taking one doctor's
324
opinion against another's. That seems to me to be the right emphasis if there are two differing opinions.
So far as I can see, under the new rules the deduction will apply where the adjudication officer decides that the person is fit for work contrary to his own doctor's opinion. I do not like that rule. I should like to know whether or not the new adjudication officer's guide, which I gather has not yet been published, will reproduce the relevant provision of the present "S" manual. If it does, I shall be happy; if it does not, I shall be unhappy. I should have thought that it would be unjust and insulting to the medical profession.
My second question also relates to something that the Minister said in Committee; namely, that if the claimant won his appeal the reduced benefit would be made up to the full amount. Is that really so? The regulation seems to provide for the 40 per cent. reduction but not for its restitution should the appeal succeed. Let me put it in this way. Even if the reduction is only temporary, it is still a deterrent to an appeal, as it seems to me that if a person makes himself available for work contrary to his own doctor's advice, he will not be subject to any reduction at all. We cannot wish any person to make himself available for work contrary to his own doctor's advice.
Those are the two questions that I wish to put and I beg to move the amendment.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, it is a basic requirement for receiving income support that a fit person of working age is available for work or is within one of the groups which is exempt. I think that that is common ground between us all. Even persons who are only fit for a limited range of jobs, because of physical or mental disablement, will be required to be available. Where the adjudication officer dealing with a claim for incapacity benefit decides that a person is not entitled to that benefit, he will be required to be available for work if he claims income support. Let us take the case where there is a conflict of medical opinion; for example, where there have been two references for examination by doctors of the regional medical service and they consider the claimant fit for work but the claimant's own doctor continues to advise him to refrain from work and to issue medical statements that he is incapable of work. That is the point illustrated by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson. The claimant may decide not to sign on at the unemployment benefit office.
Since the claimant is not available for work and is not exempt by reason of incapacity, because that is the matter under dispute, he will not be entitled to income support in the normal way. The Government recognise that he could suffer hardship if no payment of benefit were made. We have decided that such a claimant should not be required to be available and that income support should be paid to avoid hardship. Since the full conditions for the receipt of income support are not satisfied, it is not equitable to pay the full amount. We consider that a reduced amount is appropriate and that there should be a 40 per cent. (or 20 per cent. if appropriate) reduction in the claimant's personal allowance.

325
The Government have taken this opportunity of clarifying the existing provisions of the supplementary benefit scheme. This payment will be made for as long as the person concerned does not satisfy the basic conditions for the receipt of benefit or until the appropriate independent adjudicating authority, in this case the Social Security Appeal Tribunal, can resolve the entitlement to incapacity benefit.
Certainly the person who makes himself available will not be subject to any benefit reduction, but that would apply whether or not he had appealed. As the income support regulations stand at present, a person involved in a situation where there is a conflict of medical opinion who does not make himself available and has not made an appeal is not entitled to any benefit at all. However, a person who has made an appeal is so entitled, albeit to a reduced amount, which as I explained in Committee is adjusted if the appeal is successful and not withdrawn if it is not successful. I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, did not quite understand that remark.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but which remark did I not understand?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the amount is adjusted if the appeal is successful and not withdrawn if it is not successful. It is that which I suspected I needed to spell out.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, it is a very difficult sentence to understand, even at second utterance. There are double if not triple negatives.
Lord Skelmersdale: I am sorry, my Lords. The point is that if the appeal is successful the amount of money by which the claimant has been shortchanged, if you like, is subsequently made up to the full amount, so the claimant does not lose out. I think that that is one negative—but I am not sure.
One would have expected in logic that if the appeal were not successful there would be a mechanism for seeking to withdraw the reduced amount of entitlement during the time that the appeal was taking place. The point that I was making is that there is no such provision in statute and that simply does not happen. Therefore I used the phrase, "the money is not withdrawn if the appeal is not successful". I hope that I have now been able to spell out that point.
The regulation provides for the 40 per cent. reduction but does not specifically provide for its restitution if the appeal succeeds. However, if the appeal tribunal decides that the appeal should be upheld and that therefore the claimant was not capable of work, then the tribunal's decision, as in all such appeal cases, will replace the original adjudication officer's decision. It effectively replaces the officer's decision from the date that the latter decision was effective and therefore entitlement to the higher rate is due to the claimant from that date.
I appreciate that the explanation may be a little complicated. I am afraid that I cannot translate it on
326
my feet. However, I hope that it will help the noble Lord when he studies it in order to decide what to do about this matter before the next stage of the Bill.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, the noble Lord's translation on the hoof was admirable. I was able to understand it the third time as the result of his explanation. I believe that the answers to my two questions are satisfactory. I shall read closely what the noble Lord has said. I thank him for having said it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Seebohm Lord Seebohm moved Amendment No. 14:
After Clause 9, insert the following new clause:
("Earnings of part-time firemen.
. In Schedule 8 to the Income Support (General) Regulations 1987—

(a) paragraph 7(1)(a) shall cease to have effect:

(b) after paragraph 7 there shall be inserted the following paragraph—

"7A. Any earnings derived from employment as a part-time fireman in a fire brigade maintained in pursuance of the Fire Services Acts 1947 to 1959"").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a very different type of amendment. It is not putting anything new in the Bill. Its objective is to retain the status quo. I hope that it will be treated as a non-party matter. I think that even my old friend the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, might receive it with acclamation.
Retained fire fighters provide some 60 per cent. of fire cover throughout England and Wales, and their payments in round terms are about £40 a week. They are volunteers and without them the fire service would be very difficult to operate. The money is a supplement to their incomes as employees or self-employed persons in their main occupational fields. Traditionally, if unemployed, their income from the fire service has not been taken into consideration because they are available for full-time work. The arrangement is of long standing.
The 1987 regulations when in force on 11th April will create an unequal situation as retained fire fighters in full-time employment will receive their pay whereas those who are unemployed will have their pay reduced by all sums in excess off £15 a week. Quite apart from the question of equality, the wider implications for the community are significant. In some parts of the country, in particular in areas of high unemployment, considerable use is made of unemployed retained fire fighters who provide essential day time fire cover.
What are retained fire fighters? They are personnel who are expected to respond within four minutes of a fire call. The catchment areas of fire stations are therefore extremely restricted. A significant source of recruitment to the service may be from a single employer. If the business ceases to exist, the viability of the fire service can rely upon the continued availability of the unemployed workers. If they are now denied their small fire service income, they might reasonably ask why they should put their lives at risk when they are little better off. They could easily earn £15 without all the other responsibility incurred by being a volunteer on-call fire worker.
Limited inquiries have established that the Cornwall Fire Service, as an example, is reliant on 30 or 40 unemployed fire fighters. The Camborne station, for example, is almost entirely dependent upon unemployed workers; and a similar situation occurs at Saltash where workers have recently been made redundant in the Plymouth Dockyard. If the retained fire service is faced with a loss of volunteers in this way, it will result in fire brigade appliances being unavailable with consequential effects on life and property loss. In the longer term there may be substantially increased costs to the community if whole time fire fighter replacements have to be recruited. The Audit Commission has identified that the typical cost of a retained appliance is £25,000 per annum. The corresponding figure for a whole-time one is £250,000.
The issue is essentially one of fairness. If retained firefighters in full-time work can keep their retained earnings there is an equal case for unemployed fire fighters to be similarly treated. It also has to be borne in mind that the long-established statutory provision for disregarding these payments for unemployed persons rests upon the view that workers are in any event available for whole-time employment when they can find it. It is most undesirable to deny public spirited individuals the small sums of money to provide a very cost-effective service to the community. An amendment to the Social Security Bill would have the effect of causing retained fire fighters' earnings to be disregarded for the purpose of income support. That restores the previous position.
This matter was very vigorously threshed out in 1982. I have a letter signed by Norman Fowler, addressed to Mr. Leon Brittan, at the Home Office. I should like to read the important paragraph. He states:
"I am happy to confirm that work as a part time fireman does not affect entitlement to unemployment benefit. Similarly, any payment from employment as a part-time fireman in a fire brigade maintained in pursuance of the Fire Service Act is disregarded in the assessments of supplementary benefit entitlement. There should therefore be no problem about Mr. Wilkinson working as a part-time fireman while still retaining entitlement to benefit".
That was followed up by an official letter from the department to the county fire office confirming this decision and ending by saying:
"I enclose leaflet NI 240 which tells you more about voluntary work and social security benefits".
It therefore seems that after the correspondence took place in 1982 nothing has changed. It seems only fair that this payment of the retainer fee should be disregarded. I beg to move.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I rise briefly to support this amendment. As the House understands, from time to time the full implications and consequences of legislation in every situation cannot be foreseen. I hope that the Minister will be able to say that this is such a situation. I cannot believe that knowingly, willingly and deliberately the Minister and his advisers are seeking to say to unemployed people who are retained firemen, doing very dangerous jobs for the community, "Because you are unemployed, and because a certain measure has been passed, you will receive less after 11th April
328
than before." I believe that the Minister is a fair man. I believe that those who are advising him are sensible. He must know that there is this grave consequence. Where people are literally risking their lives and limbs on behalf of the community—sometimes a thankless task—they may say, or their wives or their families may say, "Is it worth it? If this is how the community, through the Government, value your life and limb, we think it is safer to be at home.".
I wish to consider the situation in Northern Ireland. In Northern Ireland 89 per cent. of fire stations are run solely by retained firemen. In Scotland 79 per cent. of fire stations are run by retained firemen. I cannot believe that the Minister and his advisers have fully appreciated the consequences.
Perhaps I may give one other illustration. At Redruth in Cornwall 25 per cent. of the retained firemen at the fire station are now unemployed. They are therefore affected by this measure. One may consider the reductions and redundancies at Plymouth Dockyard, for instance. One may have many a town where all the retained firemen are employed by one business or one company. If they are all made redundant or unemployed at the same time one is putting literally the life and limb of everyone in that small town or rural area at risk. I cannot believe that the Minister wishes to say to those good and dedicated men that we value their services less and, because they are less able than the employed person to look after themselves, they will be more detrimentally affected by this legislation.
The body that has drawn my attention to what I am certain is a lacuna in the philosophy of the Bill as it affects these people is the Association of County Councils. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm. He has reminded the Minister of what his ministerial colleagues have said in the past. Copies of the letters are available. I cannot see how the Minister can argue against the good sense shown then in particular in the light of the far worse unemployment situation in 1988–89. I hope that the Minister will be helpful in this matter.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I believe that there is a great deal of merit in this amendment. When the part-time firemen are at work they must leave their jobs immediately a fire is called. How many noble Lords who employ people would be prepared to employ part-time firemen knowing that they could walk out without notice? I live in a rural community where, when the fire alarm rings, one sees men rushing across the fields to the fire station. It may be some hours before they return. If the Minister cannot see his way to accepting the amendment as a whole, can he give some indication as to whether an allowance may be made in order that they do not lose the whole of their income?
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, we on these Benches support the amendment and thank the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, for bringing the matter to your Lordships' notice. All noble Lords who have spoken have said that the retained fire service carry out an exceptional service for the community and receive very little recompense. It would therefore be

329
most unfortunate if an unlooked-for effect of the Bill would be to drive them away from the fire service. I understand that already a number of chief fire officers have expressed a fear that if the Bill passes through this House unamended there will be an exodus from the service. They will then be unable to fulfil their statutory obligations under the Fire Service Act and provide adequate fire cover for the community. I am sure that all noble Lords would regret that occurrence and I hope that the Minister will respond sympathetically to this amendment.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I should like to say straightaway that, in recognition of the valuable part played by firemen in the safety and civil defence of this country, the income support regulations already provide that their earnings will be subject to the higher (£15) disregard normally available to lone parents, people receiving the disability premium and couples under 60 who have been receiving benefit for two years. This provision recognises the special nature of the duties firemen perform and gives them the higher disregard straightaway. However, it is inconsistent in an income-related scheme intended to provide a minimum level of support to people who have no or insufficient resources of their own, to ignore larger amounts of income: the more earnings we disregard, the higher the cost to the taxpayer and the less we have to spend on improving basic levels of benefits. It must also be remembered that income support is paid to many thousands of elderly or disabled people who are unable to work and thus gain the advantage of the disregard.
It would also be divisive to disregard all the earnings of part-time firemen. My most recent information of those earnings is from 1985 but it may be that other noble Lords have more up-to-date information which the House would be interested to hear. I am informed that a fireman on the lowest rate of pay, and who attends one drill night per week and is required for turn-out once a week, will receive weekly earnings of £28. When the disregard is added to that I do not believe that he is being so badly treated. All noble Lords know that one night of training and one call-out per week is probably less than he would normally experience during the course of his work as a part-time fireman.
Certainly, it would create an inequity in the treatment of firemen under the income support scheme and the new family credit scheme which is intended for low-income families in full-time work. The amendment would mean that part-time earnings would be ignored in income support whereas in family credit a fireman, working perhaps only a few hours more, would have all of his net earnings taken into account. That cannot be right. The end result, after including any benefits payable, may be very little difference between their total incomes. It is clear that the proposed amendment has an undesirable effect on people's financial incentive to take up full-time employment and become self-sufficient. I wish to reassure your Lordships, however, that if a fireman's benefit is reduced because of the change in the earnings disregard the shortfall will be made up by the transitional protection.
The noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, said that the issue is essentially one of fairness between employed and
330
unemployed part-time firemen. I accept that this is an important issue but the Government must look at the matter in a wider sense. If part-time firemen are to be treated as an exception, why not offer the same treatment to other deserving groups? We must have fairness across the benefit system with common rules applicable to all. Part-time firemen have the same rules and the more generous £15 disregard as do other deserving groups. I recommend the House to retain the existing situation.
Lord Seebohm: My Lords, the Minister has not succeeded in convincing me of his argument. I consider that the issue is far wider than he believes it to be. The nation is in danger and the commitment undertaken by these people is one which we cannot afford to lose and which we must keep. I am 'afraid that I must press my amendment to a Division.
6.36 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 14) shall be agreed to.
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 58; Not-Contents, 72.

DIVISION NO. 3

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Amherst, E.

Jeger, B.

Attlee, E.

John-Mackie, L.

Banks, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Birk, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Blease, L.

Lawrence, L.

Brockway, L.

Longford, E.

Buckmaster, V.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Carter, L.

McNair, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L,

Morton of Shuna, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Mountevans, L.

Diamond, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Donoughue, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Prys-Davies, L

Ennals, L.

Rea, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Gallacher, L. [Teller.]

Seear, B.

Galpern, L.

Seebohm, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Stedman, B.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Grimond, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hampton, L.

Tordoff, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hart of South Lanark, B.

Underhill, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

White, B.

Hayter, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L

Ailesbury, M.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Arran, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Ashbourne, L.

Carnock, L.

Bauer, L.

Coleraine, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Colwyn, L.

Beloff, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Belstead, L.

Cowley, E.

Blatch, B.

Cox, B.

Boardman, L.

Craigavon, V.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Broxbourne, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Caithness, E.

Dundee, E.

331

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Munster, E.

Ferrers, E.

Nelson, E.

Harvington, L.

Orkney, E.

Havers, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Hesketh, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Hooper, B.

Rees, L.

Huntly, M.

Renton, L.

Joseph, L.

Rodney, L.

Kimball, L.

St. Davids, V.

Kinnoull, E.

Shannon, E.

Lane-Fox, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Strange, B.

Layton, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Lindsay, E.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Sudeley, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Trafford, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Trefgarne, L.

Merrivale, L.

Trumpington, B.

Mersey, V.

Ullswater, V.

Mottistone, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Moyne, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.44 p.m.
Baroness Jeger Baroness Jeger moved Amendment No. 15:
After Clause 10, insert the following new clause:
("Parliamentary Commissioner investigations.
In Schedule 2 to the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967, social fund officers should be added to the list of departments and authorities subject to investigation").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I rise to move the amendment standing in my name. This amendment, which suggests that social fund officers should be added to the list of departments and authorities subject to investigation by the parliamentary commissioner, arises out of earlier debates when we were unable to receive any satisfaction on the idea of an independent appeal for people who had applied for help from the social fund and who were refused that help.
I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, has sent me long letters and has answered points in the House at length, but neither he nor the Government in another place have said anything to suggest that there should be an independent right of appeal for people dissatisfied with a social fund officer's decision. That made us think that that was an injustice. Under the present situation where people can appeal to the tribunals over the past few years an average of 25 per cent. of cases have been found in favour of the complainant.
This amendment seemed to us to be one way of giving people who are dissatisfied with a decision the right of appeal, apart from the Department of Health and Social Security and its staff. The Parliamentary Commission for Administration can only investigate complaints of maladministration by or on behalf of one of the departments and authorities listed in Schedule 2 to the Parliamentary Commissioner Act. These do not include judicial bodies for the obvious reason that the judicial system provides its own remedies for injustice. Section 5(2) of that Act excludes jurisdiction from the parliamentary commissioner on any action in respect of which there is a right of appeal to a tribunal or a remedy by way of court proceedings. It seems to us that the Act does not allow a right of appeal to a tribunal. That is one
332
of our biggest complaints about it. Therefore it would seem only fair that the Department of Health and Social Security, as far as the social fund officers are concerned, should be brought within the jurisdiction of the parliamentary commissioner because otherwise they do not have any independent body to which they can look for assistance.
We realise that the status of social fund officers is very special but there is no question that they can operate independently of the department which employs them since under Section 33(10) of the Social Security Act 1986 they will be subject to the Secretary of State's direction and guidance. Therefore, there can be no right of appeal to a tribunal against their decisions nor is there any independent check on the way in which they perform their functions.
I understand that the social fund commissioner will have certain duties with regard to monitoring the decisions of the inspectors and to arranging their training but that is not much help to a person whose application for urgent and very necessary help has been turned down.
I am also not clear about the status of the social fund commissioner in relation to social fund officers. If they perform their work badly, who will know about it? Will it be the responsibility of the Secretary of State to take action in these cases or will the matter be pushed up higher and higher but always within the department? That is our concern. Therefore, it seemed to us appropriate that the parliamentary commissioner's jurisdiction should extend to social fund officers.
If this new clause is accepted, it does not provide an automatic right of appeal against social fund officers' decisions; that is a separate question. However, it would provide a means of investigating complaints about the way in which such decisions are made, including allegations which complainants might feel entitled to make about unreasonable delays, discourtesy, breaches of confidentiality and general maladministration. It would be one way of making applicants feel that at some point there is an opportunity to bring grievances against the department to someone who is not part of that department. I commend the amendment to your Lordships.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I am a little puzzled about this amendment, which seeks to put social fund officers within the purview of the parliamentary commissioner. I should be extremely surprised—I may be rusty about this—if they were not already there.
Lord Trafford: My Lords, I was going to make the same point as my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter and I should like to ask a further question. There is nothing in the amendment, although the noble Baroness spoke at some length about it, on the question of an appeal to a tribunal. The amendment refers only to the parliamentary commissioner. There is nothing in it about an appeal to a tribunal: yet the noble Baroness continued to refer to an appeal to a tribunal.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, perhaps I can help the noble Lord on this. There is nothing in my amendment about an appeal to a tribunal because there is no appeal to a tribunal.
Lord Trafford: My Lords, I fully understand why there is nothing in the amendment about an appeal to a tribunal, but that was the matter to which the noble Baroness was referring all the time. In fact the amendment refers to the parliamentary commissioner and it is my understanding, as it is that of my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, that social fund officers are subject to the jurisdiction of the parliamentary commissioner. Furthermore, the parliamentary commissioner is no substitute for an appeal tribunal because, as I understand it, the noble Baroness was really asking what an aggrieved party could do about a decision taken by the social fund, not about the question of maladministration, although doubtless that could come into some aspects of these cases. In other words, there is no way in which the parliamentary commissioner can say that a particular social fund decision is wrong. He can say that the way the decision was taken was wrong, but that is nothing to do with a tribunal. As regards the amendment, my understanding is that indeed they are subject to the parliamentary commissioner, but I remain open to correction from my noble friend the Minister when he replies.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, may I just say that the reason I put my name to the amendment was that I wanted to make sure that it is the case—if indeed it is—that social fund officers are subject to the parliamentary commissioner in respect of maladministration. If the Minister can reassure us about that I shall be happy, and I also hope that he can reassure us about whether the social fund commissioner himself is subject to the parliamentary commissioner in respect of maladministration.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I was going to start my response to this amendment by explaining why it was necessary, on the grounds that my noble friends have just adduced. But when I began my response to an earlier amendment this afternoon by saying that it was unnecessary and then went on to explain why, the instant reaction I received from the Benches opposite was, "Oh, it doesn't matter. We will divide anyway on another point. But never mind, let's get on with it."
Having got that out of the way, I will indeed say why this amendment is unnecessary. Social fund officers, being officers of the department under Section 32(8) of the Social Security Act 1986, are indeed already included in Schedule 2 to the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967. Section 5(1) of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act sets out circumstances of cases which the commissioner can investigate, and Section 5(2) categorises those cases which would be excluded. I could be more extensive, but I do not think it would be particularly profitable at this hour of night for me to be so. I hope that what I have said has satisfied noble Lords opposite.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, does that include the social fund commissioner?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, so far as I am aware, yes. If I am wrong I shall write to the noble Lord and also to others who are interested, and if they find it necessary to come back to the point at the next stage, of course they are perfectly at liberty to do so.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, I think that this is all rather confusing and I would say to the noble Lord opposite that out of modesty I was not asking for an appeal tribunal, although I think there should be one. Having been turned down on that basis several times by the Government, I thought that this more modest and gentle way of giving people some help would perhaps be approved of.
I hope that the Minister has got his information by now, but I have before me a letter to an MP dated the 6th October 1987, in which the parliamentary commissioner wrote:
"The Attendance Allowance Board, along with other statutory adjudicating authorities (such as adjudication officers, social security appeal tribunals and social security commissioners) operate quite independently of central government departments and are not so listed in Schedule 21".
These social fund officers are new people; it is a new grade and they have new responsibilities. If the Minister can tell us that they will come within the purview and responsibility of the parliamentary commissioner no one will be happier than my noble friends and I.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I am advised that the social fund commissioner is not subject to the parliamentary commissioner for administration, so I misinformed the noble Lord and I apologise to him for that. He does not take the decision, of course, but it is the people who take the decisions—and it is they for whom I understand the noble Baroness wants a measure of review—whose decisions will be subject to the parliamentary commissioner. So I confirm that the noble Baroness has, under the existing statue, got what she wants on this occasion.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, will the noble Lord read out his note?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, would that I could. I understand it to say that the role of the commissioner is to appoint the social fund inspectors, to train them and to monitor their decisions; but, as I said just now, it is they who are making the decisions and it is they who are caught under the ombudsman legislation.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, would be very kindly consider whether it would be desirable for the social fund commissioner to be subject to the parliamentary commissioner? If one of his functions is to review decisions, I should have thought that he should be subject to the parliamentary commissioner because I believe that he could (though I do not know in what circumstances) be guilty of maladministration, in which case he ought to be subject to the parliamentary commissioner's scrutiny.
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, my Lords. Since I was prepared to write to the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, anyway, I will still write even though he has got the answer to his original point following my consideration of the point that he has just made.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, I only hope that this short debate has got rid of some confusion in all parts of the House, and in the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 3 [The Social Fund]:
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 16, line 8, at end insert ("which shall include those aged 60 or over and in receipt of housing benefit or income support")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment to Schedule 3 concerns the new arrangements in regard to heating allowances for prescribed types of people during the cold weather. When the Bill first appeared we were all very glad to learn that the problems of heating in very bad weather, particularly as they affected elderly people, had been taken on board by the Government and that something was going to be done more positively about them than had happened in the past.
Since that time I have been in touch with a number of organisations that have concern for the elderly, and in particular Age Concern, which does a great deal of very good work looking after the concerns of elderly people. They tell me that they are particularly worried by the fact that there is an exclusion in the area of age 60 to 64 as regards women and groups who are in receipt of housing benefit or income support. It is said that this has given rise to a great deal of concern and resentment, particularly on the part of women in this category, of whom there are at least 130,000. In view of the fact that these elderly women are also ineligible for the age related heating addition, which is payable to those over 65 only, there is anxiety that the issue should receive some attention from your Lordships' House. It would be a pity, when there is clearly a genuine desire on the part of Government to do something in regard to heating allowances for the elderly in periods of exceptional cold, if this grouping were omitted. I therefore wonder whether the Government may be prepared to look at the matter again.
7 p.m.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, while I have a great deal of sympathy with the amendment. I think that it is unwise to include in the Bill specific categories of recipient, because it narrows things down and we are liable to end up with only those people receiving the benefit. What about severely disabled people, those with young children, the chronically sick and others, whom I am sure the Government will take into account? I hope that the Minister can assure us all on that point. I believe that it would be detrimental to narrow the target area of benefit.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, we have repeatedly made clear our intention to operate an extra cold
336
weather payment scheme next winter under the social fund. We have also said that we will not make decisions about a future scheme until the end of the present scheme, which operates under the supplementary benefit regulations. It is clear from the drafting of the Bill that any future scheme will be regulated. This will give Parliament, if it so wishes, the opportunity to debate a future provision.
I suggest to the House that it is more sensible to consider the scheme as a whole than piecemeal. On consideration, the noble Baroness may agree that that is what the amendment does. I can say, however—I hope that this will be helpful—that this will not be subject to a budget limit, and it will be paid as of right.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords. I thank the Minister for his comment, which is very helpful. I do not intend to press the amendment. I wanted to learn what the view was in relation to the problems raised by the voluntary organisations operating in this area. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Banks Lord Banks moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 16, line 10, at end insert—
("(2B) The following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (7)—
"(7A) The Secretary of State shall lay an annual report before Parliament listing the number of applications accepted and refused for grants and loans under the Social Fund and summarising the purposes for which applications were accepted and the reasons for which they were refused." ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I moved an amendment in Committee that would have required the Secretary of State to lay an annual report before Parliament listing the number of applications refused for grants and loans under the social fund and summarising the reasons. The Minister criticised the amendment as being unbalanced since it dealt only with refusals and not with acceptances. On reflection, I felt that the criticism was justified. I have therefore tabled this amendment calling for a report on both acceptances and refusals.
It was generally agreed in Committee, I think, that whether justified or not—I gave reasons why we on this side of the House think that it is justified—there is a good deal of apprehension about how the social fund will work in practice and that consequently its operation will require to be monitored very carefully, particularly in view of the fact that the social security advisory committee has stated that the arrangements in regard to the social fund are unfair and unenforceable. There was support from all sides of the House for the amendment.
We were all very encouraged when the Minister made it clear that it was the Government's intention to make a great deal of information available. There can surely be no objection to including in the Bill a balanced provision to ensure that this will be done regularly every year. I hope that the Minister will be able to accept the amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, we strongly support the amendment. The social fund is a new endeavour. Many people wonder how it will work and what will happen. It is important to have included in the Bill a

337
provision that there must be an annual report giving full deals of the acceptances and refusals of applications for grants and loans, if only so that the House can monitor the progress of the fund and in particular how it is working out as regards applicants in need of its help. We hope that the Minister will accept the amendment.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I had hoped that such an amendment would be tabled by the Minister, bearing in mind the general tone and tenor of debate in Committee and the way in which he received the comments of noble Lords from all sides of the House. That said, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Banks, for having tabled the amendment. It may give the Minister an opportunity to say that he is able to agree with the spirit of it and, on Third Reading, will bring forward an amendment of his own drafting.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I very much appreciate the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, and the noble Lord, Lord Banks, that the social fund is a new form of animal and Parliament will want to know what that animal is made up of as it progresses. That is why we published the social fund budget allocations as early as November last year, and produced the guidance to social fund officers as a published document which has been available from Her Majesty's Stationery Office since November. It is also why I promised in Committee that a great deal of information would be forthcoming on the operation of the fund.
However, I understand the great interest in an annual report which would come before Parliament. That understanding has been reinforced by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton. I am not sure at present how the drafting of such a government amendment would look. I therefore propose to the noble Lord, Lord Banks, that the Government should bring forward an amendment on Third Reading. I suggest that the noble Lord re-tables his amendment for debate on Third Reading so that we can compare the two. I should not like there to be any misunderstanding on the matter.
Lord Banks: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister and I have no hesitation in agreeing to what he suggests. I shall retable the amendment. I look forward with interest to the amendment that the Government will propose on Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Ennals Lord Ennals moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 16, line 15, after ("above") insert ("except in the financial year 1988–89 and such other financial years as the Secretary of State may direct ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I believe it is for the convenience of the House that Amendments Nos. 18 and 19 be taken together, as they are much the same.
It has been agreed by the House that the social fund is a new form of animal. While I welcome what has just been said by the Minister, like many others, I find it a frightening animal, especially in terms of
338
loans having the predominance and being cash-limited. The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, and myself was not pressed in Committee. We therefore bring it forward today.
The amendment is designed to give temporary relief to people who hitherto have been unable to claim as grants single payment benefits for essential items such as clothing, furniture, blankets, cookers and so on.
The matter of loans and the public affected by loans is becoming a serious problem. Just over 100,000 people had their electricity and 42,000 their gas cut off in 1985–86. Over 20,000 had their homes repossessed by building societies through mortgage default in 1986, an eight-fold increase since 1979. A recent survey of supplementary benefit claimants found that 56 per cent. of couples with children and 44 per cent. of one-parent families were in debt.
To repay loans a claimant's weekly benefit may be reduced by up to 15 per cent. This can he a very substantial sum of money and make life very difficult. Tied to the fact that the social fund is to be cash limited, it creates very great concern. It is not surprising to me that the Government's own Social Security Advisory Committee has said that it does not think that the social fund will work, neither will it be fair to the applicants. In a statement the committee said:
"We cannot support the social fund as it appears in the draft manual. It is dominated by a need to keep within the budget. It strikes what we regard as the wrong balance between loans and grants and between discretion and entitlement. We remain unconvinced that it will meet many of the genuine needs of some of the poorest members of society or command the confidence of agencies whose co-operation the manual itself sees as necessary."
The fact that it is cash limited has been one of the greatest criticisms of the social fund. The social fund budget and local needs vary from office to office, and because payments are at the discretion of DHSS officers, payments will vary across the country. What in one office will command a grant will, in another office, lead to a loan or in another office may lead to an outright refusal for either a loan or a grant. Bearing in mind that there is no appeal, this becomes a very serious problem.
As I have said, it has been criticised by the Government's Social Services Advisory Committee. When the Bill came before your Lordships' House in 1986 some of us very strongly argued against the cash limits. I supported an amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Banks, and we were absolutely delighted with the assurance that we received from the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, who was then the Minister. In replying to the debate in which both the noble Lord, Lord Banks, and I had spoken, the noble Baroness said:
"We have decided, however, that the fund will not at first be subject to a formal cash limit on its introduction. A decision—and I am sure your Lordships will agree that this is wise—on a move to what will be the normal cash-limiting arrangement will be taken when we have sufficient experience of the operation of the fund."—[Official Report, 15/7/86, col. 848.]
I thought that was a very reasonable proposal and this is why I was staggered to find that the Minister later overruled the wisdom of the noble Baroness in this House. I would have expected that amendment to have been passed by your Lordships in 1986 had we not had that assurance.
I immediately leapt up after the noble Baroness's statement and said:
"She has made a statement of profound importance that I personally enormously welcome. Although there has been no opportunity for discussion, I suggest that most noble Lords on this side of the House will also welcome it. The noble Baroness said that there will be no formal cash limit in the early stage … that is an extremely important statement."—[Col. 849.]
It was on that basis that the noble Lord, Lord Banks, withdrew his amendment. We were all delighted with what had been said. It irritated us beyond measure when we found that the noble Baroness, whom we supported, was not supported by her right honourable friends. The right honourable gentleman, Mr. John Major, said on 10th March 1987:
"We intend to issue separate budgets to individual local social security offices for social fund payments (other than those for maternity and funeral expenses). Decisions on the size of such budgets, and of the fund as a whole, will be taken nearer the time of the funds full introduction in April 1988."—[Official Report, Commons. 10/3/87; col. 157.]
That was the line which the Government were taking. What we are seeking to do in this amendment is to stand by the position taken by the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, when she was a Minister. We are not saying that there should never be a cash limit. I am sure that neither your Lordships nor the Minister would accept it. We are saying that initially there should not be a cash limit and that the Secretary of State should have the power to decide when a cash limit is introduced based on the experience, as the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, said, of that first year or two years or however long the Secretary of State thought that it should be.
That is the purpose of the amendment and if we are able to gain acceptance of it it will put us in precisely the same position that we were in when, in 1986, the noble Baroness made her concession to pressures from the House. I beg to move.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Banks: My Lords, I should like to support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, and confirm what he has said about the amendment that I moved on 15th July 1986. In reply the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, made the concession to which the noble Lord has referred. After the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, had said what he has just reported to the House, the noble Baroness repeated the assurance (at col. 848):
"that the fund will not at first be subject to a formal cash limit on its introduction."
This amendment would simply give effect to that. I hope the Minister will be able to accept it.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, listening to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, he gave the impression of a jealous god seeking to visit the sins of a forebear onto succeeding generations, if I may be allowed to paraphrase the wording of a much older system of regulations.
I am afraid that I have to disappoint him and tell the House that there is no inconsistency in the statements to which the noble Lord referred. My noble friend Lady Trumpington was not in error in what she said during the passage of the 1986 Act. The
340
meaning of her words was utterly clear in the way that we always try to make them. I cannot understand why the noble Lord should think them in any way embarrassing. Noble Lords who wish to consult the Official Report of the earlier debate will find it at cols. 847 to 850 of Hansard for 15th July 1986. My noble friend said (at col. 848) that the social fund,
"will not at first be subject to a formal cash limit on its introduction. A decision … on … what will be the normal cash limiting arrangement will be taken when we have sufficient experience of the operation of the fund."
Nobody has said anything to contradict that statement. The cash limit, when introduced, will apply to the money voted by Parliament into the fund effectively constraining the resources for the fund in the course of the year. While the cash limit will not technically apply in the first year of operation of the fund, the Government have always made clear that the fund will operate from the start to strict budgets at local office level. Additional contingency allocations will only be made to meet unforeseeable, additional demands.
I do not see that there is any way in which what my noble friend said can be construed as the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, has tried to do; namely, that the social fund officers should not have regard to the budget in determining applications for payments from the social fund. Clearly, it would be quite irresponsible to have a discretionary system without some form of direct financial control. As my noble friend said on the same occasion (at col. 847 of Hansard):
"a system operated by discretion must be subject to financial control, since otherwise it is open-ended; and in practice, setting a budget is the only way of exercising such financial control."
Turning to the first amendment, it has the unfortunate effect of preventing the Secretary of State from making any allocation at all either nationally or to local offices from the social fund in future years if he should so direct. I am sure that this would be an embarrassment to the noble Lord, Lord Ennals. It is clear that we need to have a scheme. I understand the reasons given why the noble Lords opposite do not like this particular scheme when single payments finish at the end of the month. Therefore it would be most invidious to put my right honourable friend in that position.
The second amendment would remove from the Bill the specification of the period to which a local office's budget allocation applied. That would make totally impossible any financial accountability, which cannot be a good thing. On those grounds and especially the ground with which I introduced my remarks on the comments made by my noble friend Lady Trumpington all that time ago, I hope that the noble Lord will see fit to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may say that I remember the occasion as clearly as the noble Lords, Lord Banks and Lord Ennals. It was on the assurance of the noble Baroness that the amendment was not pressed. I am not clear from the noble Lord's answer whether he is saying that the noble Baroness accurately predicted what is going to happen and that the social fund is not to be cash limited in its early stages. If that is so, we can be content. If it is to be

341
cash limited in its early stages, clearly a seriously misleading assurance has been given to the House. The noble Lord's answer has not cleared that up to my satisfaction.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I think that that remark was made before I sat down. Before I do sit down perhaps I may repeat what, probably inelegantly, I said earlier in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Henderson. My noble friend said that the social fund will not at first be subject to a formal cash limit on its introduction and I said that a decision on what will be the normal cash limiting arrangements will be taken when we have sufficient experience of the operation of the fund. That remains exactly the same today as it did when my noble friend said it.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I find it very difficult to understand what the Minister is saying. There seems to be no logic about it. We are talking about the same words. He has accepted the words that I quoted as being the words that were used by the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington. When I had made the response in which I said that I thought it was a remarkable statement of profound importance, she then repeated the assurance. She said:
"the fund will not at first be subject to a formal cash limit on its introduction".
She said that after I had welcomed the fact that she was saying that there would not be a cash limit and that the question of cash limiting would arise only after there had been sufficient experience of the operation of the fund. I do not know what words mean. Is what the Minister said right and there is no cash limit?
The noble Baroness said:
"the fund will not at first he subject to a formal cash limit".
Initially, when it is introduced in April this year, will it be subject to a formal cash limit? Is it true that cash limits have been set right down to local offices? If that is true—and I know it is true that it has gone right down to local offices—I do not see how the Minister can say that that is not a formal cash limit. The noble Baroness had herself said that it would not be subject to a formal cash limit. The noble Baroness made a second point. She said:
"A decision…on a move to what will be the normal cash limiting arrangement will be taken when we have sufficient experience of the operation of the fund". —[Official Report, 15/7/86; col. 848.]
That implies that there will be a separate type of cash limiting in the following year or the year after as against the cash limiting which exists this year.
I cannot understand how the Minister can say that this was not a concession. The House took it to be a concession. We welcomed that concession. The noble Baroness, responding to our welcome to that concession, repeated precisely, because I asked her to do so, the words that I had said. I cannot understand how, in the light of that, unless the noble Baroness was unintentionally misleading the House—I would not think of suggesting that it could have been intentional—the Minister can say that there will not be a cash limit in operation as from April of this year. Perhaps he can explain.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, with the leave of the House—I really think that I must seek the leave of the
342
House on this occasion—there is a basic misunderstanding between the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, and myself. What I am saying in a nutshell is that there is a difference between a cash limit and a budget. I shall explain why I am saying that. Cash limiting is, I am advised, a technical term relating to a national budget. My noble friend's assurance was that the formal cash limit related to the national allocation for the social fund. Would the noble Lord accept that?
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I know that the noble Lord has set a cash limit.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the cash limit in the technical definition I have given is not set today. It will not be set on 1st April or 11th April. What has been set is a budget for financial management purposes by which each local office has to be constrained.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, or while he is standing, may I ask him whether the figure of £203 million that has been widely published, is in the handbook, was repeated by the noble Lord in the debate at Committee stage and has been made available, is an actual cash limit? As Secretary of State I was involved with cash limits for years and years. I introduced cash limits. Is that figure of £203 million, which has been stated to be the cash limit, not a cash limit? When is a cash limit not a cash limit?
Lord Trafford: My Lords, before the noble Lord. Lord Ennals, sits down, when he was in government he was concerned at one time with the introduction of cash limits. At that time, and ever since, the term "cash limits" had meant particular accounting practices. It also had particular financial consequences. That is different from a budget. If one sets up an office to administer the social fund in an area, it must have a budget or it cannot function. You cannot say, "Let us operate a social fund according to a few rules here and there". You have to say how much money it can use. You have to say, "This is the preliminary target and that is how you budget for something".
The noble Lord was Secretary of State for Social Services for some time. He knows how this applies in the health services and in many offices. A budget is set and there are certain consequences. It depends on which way you look at it —it is rather like a bottle being half full or half empty. It is a constraint on financial management. Cash limiting, which is a national undertaking when applied to the fund as a whole, is an entirely different type of account with financial consequences which are different. That is my understanding of the confusion between the two sides of the House tonight. Perhaps the noble Lord will first tell me that he accepts and appreciates the difference in significance of a local office's budget and any subsequent national cash limits that may be imposed on the fund.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I believe that the question was put to me before I sat down, so perhaps I do not need to ask the leave of the House to reply. I am

343
afraid that I do not understand, nor from my experience as Secretary of State can I distinguish, the difference between the two cases described by the noble Lord. This figure of £203 million which was accepted by the noble Lord when we debated this in Committee as being the cash limit, the total national figure, has been divided up so that it goes down to each particular office. Each office knows what figure it has and that it is the limit to which it can work. I know of one office that has only 16 per cent. of what it had last year before the restraints were applied during the present year. It is operating on a reduced amount. It knows that it has to live within that figure. That figure is divided on a monthly basis. The officers know from the instructions sent to them by the Secretary of State that they cannot move out beyond that figure. They are told that, if during the course of any month there is a claim which would take them beyond the figure that has been set, they cannot pay that money. If that is not a cash limit, I do not know what a cash limit is. Perhaps the Minister, who is a little more up-to-date, will tell me just how strict cash limits can be.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, at this point I am not quite sure exactly what I am asking leave for but, notwithstanding that, I ask for such leave. I am extremely grateful to my noble friend Lord Trafford for explaining the difference, which I endeavoured to do, between a budget and a cash limit. One cannot have formal financial responsibility without a budget. The noble Lord no doubt runs a house and therefore has a budget—
Lord Ennals: I am all for cash limits!
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am not talking about cash limits, I am talking about budgets. The noble Lord may recall that there is a power in the Bill (on page 16 of Schedule 3 at line 29) whereby it is possible to shift resources in certain circumstances between offices. That provision cannot mean that there is a cash limit on those particular offices; by definition that is impossible. Therefore I am able to confirm that the £203 million is a budget and not a cash limit. Nationally and locally social fund officers will be working to that figure. A formal cash limit, in the terms which I am sure the noble Lord understands, will be set in 1989–90: in other words, the cash limit will not apply for the first year.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I must say that the Minister has not satisfied me one little bit. Of course I shall read carefully what he has said and look into the difference between the definitions of cash limit and budget to see whether I can decipher any way in which the Minister has moved one way—not just towards me—towards what his noble friend Lady Trumpington said to the House on that occasion so long ago. Therefore I shall not press the point at present but we shall reserve our position for when we come to Third Reading. It is an issue of great importance.
As I made clear earlier, I am not opposed to cash limits under all circumstances. Indeed, I think I
344
introduced cash limits in relation to the National Health Service. That fact is absolutely right. But the question is: is the cash limit enough? In this case we have a cash limit which is not enough but which the Minister says is taking a different name. As far as I can see, it is just a cash limit. However, having said that, I shall look with great care at what the Minister has said and perhaps return to the point at the next stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 19 not moved.]
Clause 14 [Financial provision]:
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 12, line 7, leave out ("7, 9 and 13") and insert ("8 and 9").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is one of several which are purely technical and have been tabled merely to correct errors which I regret we discovered in Clause 14(2). I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Minor and Consequential Amendments]:
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 18, leave out lines 11 to 24 and insert—
("(2A) Where it has been determined that a person is to be deemed in accordance with regulations to be available for employment in employed earner's employment in respect of any day, the question of his actual availability for such employment in respect of that day may be subsequently determined on a review of the determination as to his deemed availability.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, at the same time I shall speak to Amendment No. 22. These two amendments will enable the adjudication officer to review the question of availability in respect of a period for which the claimant's availability has already been deemed. I could be more explicit if it would help noble Lords opposite and indeed those sitting behind me, but for the moment I beg to move.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, as far as I can see, we are now moving from double Dutch to gobbledegook. Neither amendment makes sense. I wonder whether my noble friend could possibly come back on Third Reading with an amendment in plain English that a simple person like myself could understand.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am extremely sorry that my noble friend cannot understand the careful and constructive work that the draftsman has done on the amendments. I can assure him they concern merely two minor points. The first is a drafting amendment to a government amendment, No. 60K, which was laid in Committee, the second is a consequential, technical amendment. They relate to the Government's intention to safeguard the position of those claimants who might otherwise face a sudden loss of unemployment benefit when doubt arises about their availability for work. Under existing arrangements benefit is stopped until the adjudication officer has decided the issue.

345
As my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment announced in Committee on the Employment Bill in another place recently, it is our intention that in future, where a doubt about the person's availability for work arises at a Restart interview or otherwise during the course of an ongoing benefit claim, there should not normally be an immediately withdrawal of benefit while the question of the person's entitlement is being decided by the adjudication officer. The amendments fulfil that pledge. I therefore commend them to the House.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 19, line 34, at end insert —
("13A. At the end of subsection (1)(c) of section 104 (review of decisions) there shall be added "or
(d) the decision falls to be reviewed under section 17(2A) above;" ").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 20, line 12, at end insert—
("Social Security Act l986—housing benefit
("18A. The following subsection shall be added at the end of section 30 (housing benefit finance)—
"(11) The Secretary of State may by order make provision for the modification or termination of rights to subsidy under Part II of the Social Security and Housing Benefits Act 1982 in respect of benefit paid in excess of entitlement." ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 23 would amend Section 30 of the Social Security Act 1986 so that subsidy on overpayments of housing benefit made before 1st April 1988 (under the Social Security and Housing Benefits Act 1982) can be calculated on the same basis as for housing benefit overpayments made in 1988–89, which is the first year of the reformed scheme. This would reflect the policy intention already announced to the local authorities which forms part of the package of arrangements designed to give local authorities more incentives for cost control.
It had been understood that the current provisions under Section 30 of the Social Security Act would enable the new subsidy arrangements to be applied to "old scheme" overpayments. However, it is now realised that a specific power is needed in the legislation for that purpose. The amendment would also enable subsidy to be calculated in subsequent years on the same basis for all overpayments.
I hope that the House will agree that this is a worthy decision and I therefore commend the amendment to your Lordships. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 20, line 14, at end insert—
(". In subsection (3) of section 17 (statutory provisions which may be modified as respects pension schemes)—
(a) the following paragraph shall be inserted after paragraph (d)—
"(dd) the Water Act 1973;"; and
(b) the following paragraph shall be added at the end—
"(h) any Act which relates to the employment of persons by a harbour authority ("harbour authority" having the meaning assigned to it by section 57(1) of the Harbours Act 1964).".")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in Committee I was very pleased to be able to give an undertaking to the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, who was filling a lacuna—I think that is what we agreed to call it—created by my noble friend Lord Elliott of Morpeth. The amendment is a result of that "filling" and means that the Government have been able to prevent certain limited groups of employees from being denied the right to leave their occupational pension schemes when that right becomes generally available on 6th April under the Social Security Act 1986. That is because legislation relating to employment by statutory water companies and certain harbour authorities will, unless amended, continue to require employees to belong to the relevant occupational schemes.
The amendment amends the 1986 Act so that those other pieces of legislation can in turn be modified by regulations to remove the compulsory membershp requirement. Having said that, the amendment does no more than correct a technical anomaly and I commend it to the House. I beg to move.
Lord Elliott of Morpeth: My Lords, let me briefly and sincerely thank my noble friend for having so ably met the point of my original amendment moved in Committee. The amendment does, as he suggested, meet a legislative anomaly. It means in effect that in future workers in statutory water companies—and it would seem also in harbour authorities—will be able to determine the pension of their choice in line with workers in other industries. I am most grateful.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 20, leave out lines 28 to 31 and insert—
(""(5A) In respect of any period less than a week subsection (5) above shall have effect subject to such modifications as may be prescribed.".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Social Security Act 1986 (Section 23(5)(b)) states that payment of income support to a striker shall not be made if the "weekly rate of payment" is equal to or less than the relevant sum—at the moment £17.70.
An amendment to the Bill was laid in an attempt to ensure that this "weekly rate of payment" and the relevant sum could be apportioned in respect of any period of less than a week and paragraph 21(1) of Schedule 4 currently provide for that in new Section 23(5A).
Regretfully, we have received legal advice that there could be a problem over the amendment in that the reference to the "weekly rate of payment" is confusing, because in certain cases there may not be a weekly rate because, for example, the claimant is entitled to only four days. Obviously, we needed to clear up that matter, which is why I have moved the amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 17 [Commencement]:
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 12, line 38, leave out ("33 and 53 of the Social Security Act 1986") and insert ("and 33 of the Social Security Act 1986 and to the insertion of subsection (7A) in section 53 of that Act.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment is less technical, but it is technical. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 27 not moved.]

Welsh Development Agency Bill
7.41 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of the Bill is to raise the statutory financial limit for the Welsh Development Agency from the present level of £450 million to £700 million. The limit was last increased by the Industry Act 1981 when it was expected that a further change would not be needed until 1989. Current forecasts indicate however that the limit will be reached early in the forthcoming financial year owing to the agency's acquisition last October of industrial assets from the Cwmbran Development Corporation and the considerable increase in WDA resources which the Government have provided for 1988–89. It is therefore necessary to increase the limit now so as not to inhibit the agency's vital contribution to the redevelopment of the Welsh economy.
It is customary when setting financial limits to determine a figure sufficient to cover a period of about five years. Accordingly, the Bill proposes that the limit should be £700 million.
Your Lordships may find it helpful if I explain briefly the Welsh Development Agency's remit. Its main aims are to further the economic development of Wales, improve its international competitiveness and enhance the environment. It pursues those objectives through a wide but complementary range of activities: the provision of modern industrial property, the promotion of inward investment and new technology; business advice and venture capital; land reclamation and, increasingly, urban renewal.
Since 1979, the WDA has invested no fewer than £700 million at today's prices in its mainstream activities. In addition, it has given a further £150 million specifically to assist areas affected by the steel closures of the late 1970s and early 1980s. It has used the resources well. For example, its factory lettings have risen every year since 1981 and are on course to achieve an all-time high of 2.3 million square feet in the current financial year—12 per cent. up on 1986–87. The jobs thus generated should also achieve record levels.
The Principality's success in consistently attracting an agreeably high share of inward investment has contributed to that performance. And in the current financial year alone, the agency's inward investment arm is likely to secure 90 projects bringing in £160 million of private capital and up to 7,500 jobs. Wales is now firmly on the map as one of the very best locations for industrial development in Europe.
Backing up the push for increased investment, are the WDA's business and technology advice divisions. Both are reporting record activity, and a surge of inquiries from existing or would-be entrepreneurs. Thirty-nine thousand business inquiries were
348
handled in 1987 alone, nearly a fifth more than in the previous year. The WDA's venture capital arm is also ensuring that viable projects are not thwarted by a lack of risk capital.
If in addition to greater prosperity economic progress is to deliver a better quality of life, there is a parallel need to enhance the environment and remove the legacy of decay associated with the old traditional industries. The agency has a key role to play here, and an enviable track record. Since 1979, it has invested £130 million at today's prices in the land reclamation effort. When schemes in its existing programme are complete, 9,000 acres of derelict land will have been cleared and turned over to productive use to the benefit of all the communities involved. Reclaimed land, particularly in the valleys, is a major asset and a marvellous opportunity for development. The clearest evidence of the impact of the drive to transform the Welsh economy is the heartening fall in unemployment. The seasonably adjusted rate has fallen in each of the past 20 months, and the CBI has forecast that Welsh industry is preparing, in its words, for a huge injection of investment cash over the next 12 months, well ahead of the rise predicted for the UK as a whole. It is vital to build on this success, and the Government have committed themselves to doing so.
The Government have increased the agency's gross spending power—the sum of the direct taxpayer contribution and the receipts from rents, factory sales and other sources—by a massive 31 per cent. in 1988–89 by comparison with the budget for the present financial year. Its new budget will therefore be £113 million, with a further £232 million planned for the following two years.
As a result, the agency has been able to launch a remarkable factory building programme aimed at creating 1·5 million square feet of new working space: 75 per cent. more than in the current year or, to put it another way, 75 per cent. more than the new build in the entire three-year period prior to May 1979. That huge 40 per cent. boost in cash resources will provide accommodation for 4,400 jobs in 1988–89 alone, rising to 13,000 when resources for the two later years are taken into account. New measures, including a property development grant, have also been introduced to enable the agency to encourage private sector developers to play a greater part in the provision of industrial property in Wales.
The agency's business development unit has been given the important task of delivering the Government's initiative on consultancy assistance; and WINtech, its technology arm, is developing a range of new measures geared to stimulating innovation, technology transfer and the use of advanced manufacturing technology.
Resources earmarked specifically for rural areas are also being increased. The budget for the agency's rural affairs unit will rise fourfold to £2 million to promote rural enterprise and diversification of the rural economy. In a move to accelerate rapidly the drive to improve the environment, the WDA will be able to spend £75 million on land reclamation and urban renewal over the next three years, again, 40 per cent. more than originally planned. A good proportion of this total will be invested in the valleys. The WDA is a powerful weapon in Wales' economic

349
armoury. I commend the Bill to your Lordships so that the agency can build on its past successes and pave the way for many more.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Trefgarne.)
7.50 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I should at the outset declare an interest. The law firm with which I am associated acts for the Welsh Development Agency. We give this short Bill a very warm and unqualified welcome. The record to which the Minister has referred has demonstrated that the setting up of the Welsh Development Agency in 1975 was an event of enormous significance to the economic life of Wales. We were not then to know that the years which lay ahead would be so harsh for many of the older Welsh industrial communities. But of this we can be sure—that if the WDA had not been in position and working flat out in partnership with the Welsh Office and Welsh local authorities, the scars of the recession would have been far more deeply embedded right across the face of Wales.
The WDA has gathered strength. It has helped in many a community to turn some of our problems into opportunities. The new large developments along the M.4 lifeline, as far west at least as Bridgend and on Deeside, have provided a large number of jobs, not only in production, administration and sales but also in the all-important research and development sector. We want companies to establish all these operations, including the research and development work, lock, stock and barrel in Wales. Experience tends to show that once all these operations are established in Wales the company will usually stay there.
The Minister has referred to the WDA's record of attracting soundly based inward investment. We welcome this investment, but of course it represents only a small fraction of the WDA's investment programme. I think that that is a good thing, because there is by now increasing evidence to indicate that the key to industrial regeneration is the development of new export-oriented small and medium-sized local companies. I read the other day that in Japan 25 per cent. of manufacturing employees work in companies with fewer than 20 employees.
Although we acknowlege, as we must, that the WDA has made an immense contribution to the Welsh economy, unemployment remains high in Wales. It stands at 148,500. That is some evidence, I fear, that we have longstanding and profound economic problems of our own in the Principality. Therefore we welcome very much the Secretary of State's decision to increase substantially the financial resources which are to be made available to the WDA so that it can help to make a significant inroad into the present level of unemployment and we would hope, to remedy the basic weaknesses of the Welsh economy.
I should now like to make a few comments on four or five issues. First, when the WDA was set up a great deal of importance was attached to building factories which were ready for letting. I appreciate that the agency has just announced that it will be embarking on an ambitious programme of factory building during the next three years; it is overdue. I understand that there are gaps in the provision of
350
such factories in parts of Wales. Perhaps the Minister can tell the House how many district councils are without advanced factories ready for letting or at least without an adequate reserve of such factories.
My second point relates to the reclamation of derelict land. The Minister has made the point that the WDA has a very good record on land reclamation. Again one remembers that when the WDA was set up the then Secretary of State for Wales saw it as a natural place in which to continue the work of land clearance and land reclamation which had started after the tragedy in Aberfan, and linking the land clearance and land reclamation wherever possible with the task of factory development. Wales has an immense legacy of derelict land and it will continue for some decades to pick up the bill for the freedom of the past to spoil and pollute.
However, notwithstanding the magnitude and urgency of the problem, I understand that the land reclamation units of the local authorities and possibly of the WDA itself are often faced with major problems when seeking to purchase derelict land in the valleys from two state corporations: British Coal and British Rail. I am told that British Coal takes a very narrow view of its responsibilities to the communities which the coal industry plundered and polluted for generations. It will demand the highest possible price; it will delay a sale in the hope that one day a market will eventually emerge for the site, irrespective of the fact that the interests and wellbeing of the local community may best be served by speedy reclamation of the land and its subsequent treatment.
Likewise I understand that British Rail tends to demand a price which is based on an after-use of the land which British Rail envisages rather than on the needs of the local community as approved by the county councils and the district councils. I am advised by a senior county council officer that the WDA itself wishes currently to purchase a site for industrial purposes from British Coal but that the latter wants to sell it for retailing, which is not even approved by the county council for the district council.
So while these difficulties are being argued about for months and sometimes for years, valuable resources are being tied up. This is a sad commentary and it leads me to ask whether the Secretary of State for Wales, who, after all, has immediate and intimate involvement with all aspects of government policies in Wales and who is close to the painful urgency of Welsh economic problems, can find ways and means to intervene to resolve the difficulties which are being experienced with these two corporations.
On the other hand, to be fair to British Coal and British Rail, if they are statutorily bound to look in their books and to seek the highest price, based if need be on a change of planning use, can the Secretary of State persuade his colleagues in the Government to change the rules? In such situations what makes sense is that the position should be looked at in the round, whether it is British Rail, British Coal, the Welsh Development Agency or the local authorities, and that one hand should know what the other is doing.

351
My third point relates to the agency's urban renewal unit, to which the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, has also referred. It is my belief that the local authorities have no clear understanding of the precise policies and the detailed role of this unit, nor indeed of the resources which are available to it, although the noble Lord has thrown some light on the resources which will be available henceforth. Again the county council officials are unclear as to how this unit relates to the county councils and possibly to the Land Authority of Wales. This uncertainty, or rather ambiguity, was brought to the attention of Welsh Office Ministers in the debate on the Bill in another place. But in addition to the questions raised in another place about the urban renewal unit, I should like to ask two other questions.
How do the objectives, the functions and the powers of this unit compare, for example, with those of the urban renewal unit of the Scottish Development Agency? Can the Minister confirm whether it is intended with the resources that have now become available that the unit should play an active forward planning role, or is it simply to act as a means of channelling funds to approved projects?
As I said, there is some uncertainty and lack of understanding of the urban renewal unit of the WDA. That seems to me to point to the need for a clear statement by the WDA about the unit's objectives, functions, powers and policies so that the planning officers of the county councils and the local authorities throughout Wales are aware of its remit. They can then decide how they can best work with it in common harness.
Fourthly, I readily acknowledge the significance of WINtech, which is the technology arm of the WDA for higher education in Wales. It is particularly important now that Treasury funding for the universities is increasingly favouring those colleges and departments which are strong on research as against those which are weak on research. We are particularly pleased that, as a result of the increased funding going to the WDA, the activites of WINtech will be expanding in the years ahead. The universities are facing a crisis, and WINtech probably more than any other single undertaking can provide the support which the University of Wales and its colleges require in science and technology.
My noble friend Lady White, who is President of the University of Wales Institute of Science and Technology, which is merging with the University College Cardiff, is speaking in the debate. I am sure that she will dwell on the importance of collaboration between WINtech and the University of Wales and its colleges in the creation of centres of scientific and technological excellence in Wales.
I had intended to refer to the relationship between the WDA and the craft industries and to say something about the consultant's report on the future of this particular industry. It is important for rural Wales. Indeed it is important not only for rural Wales but also for the Principality. I understand that there are about 3,000 craft businesses in Wales. But the detailed information upon which I could have based
352
my comments has not reached me. I would however be grateful if the Minister would take note that a number of people who are involved in the craft industries in Wales have their reservations about the consultant's report and about the fact that they will be given every opportunity to put forward alternative proposals and that the Secretary of State and the Welsh Office will give them every consideration.
I have no other questions for the Minister. As I said at the beginning, we very much welcome the Bill, and our hope must be that the additional funds which are becoming available to the WDA will enable the agency not merely to support the Welsh economy but to tackle the root causes of our economic problems in the Principality.
8.5 p.m.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, I very much welcome this Bill, and I do not know of anybody in Wales who does not welcome it. What I thought was refreshing when I read the debate in another place last evening was the concentration of the present Secretary of State on the Welsh economy. He did not regard it merely as an extension of the British economy. He recognised its dependence; but, nevertheless, he treated it as something distinct and separate. That is very important in Wales because our social and cultural life cannot flourish unless the economy of Wales flourishes.
We have lost so much socially and culturally through young people in particular having to go away to find jobs. In fact the greatest export of Wales, whatever its other exports have been this century, has been that of bright young people. Other parts of the world have had the benefit of them. Although I am in no way a nationalist, I think it is a great pity that the Welsh economy was allowed to decay in the way that it did.
I also congratulate the Secretary of State the right honourable Peter Walker on refusing to be confined to an economically ideological straitjacket of thought prescribed for him by the Prime Minister. It is very significant that in Wales he has departed from the philosophy preached by the Government and has recognised the great importance of public investment as a necessary prerequisite very often to the flourishing of private enterprise.
Everyone who knows Wales knows perfectly well that without public investment over the years the Welsh economy would have been in a dreadful state by today. As some noble Lords know, I have been associated with one of the most successful private enterprise firms in this country which developed in my part of the world. All those who are concerned with that development know perfectly well that it could not have taken place without the investment of public money as well as the flair and enterprise shown by those who created that company.
Therefore it is very important that we have the public money in Wales to build the advance factories. Advance factories do not in themselves create a healthy economy but they are necessary for it. The creation of the necessary infrastructure, the social

353
investment and the cultural patronage is very necessary too. It is necessary because a minority culture like the Welsh culture cannot survive in poor social conditions or finds it very difficult to do so. The future of the Welsh language and the Welsh way of life depends on patronage. In our time the patronage very often has come from public investment and public authorities.
The economy of Wales cannot be transformed overnight into one that is totally or mainly dependent on private enterprise. That is why this Bill is so important and why the setting up of the Welsh Development Agency was so important. It is why the setting up of the Mid-Wales Development Corporation was so important.
I remember writing a booklet in 1961 with Dr. Geraint Jenkins, the present curator of the Welsh Folk Museum, in which we advocated the setting up of a development corporation for Mid-Wales. When it was eventually set up I saw how it gradually transformed Mid-Wales by means of a partnership between public enterprise and private enterprise. That was so necessary because the Welsh economy so decayed in the earlier parts of this century.
Some time ago I read in Trevelyan's Social History of England that the wages of Welsh industrial workers, particularly in Merthyr Tydfil and the anthracite coal mines, were the highest wages paid to industrial workers anywhere in Europe in the latter part of the nineteenth century. But the wealth generated in Wales in those days was largely exported; with some notable exceptions, there was no, or very little, reinvestment in Wales. The wealth was taken away from Wales. This measure is part of the great repair job that successive governments have had to perform in Wales in this century. It is taking some time. I venture to think that the Welsh Development Agency and the Mid-Wales Development Corporation will be needed for many years before their work in Wales is complete.
In Wales we also lacked national institutions to enable us to fight the battle to restore the Welsh economy. A great deal has been done in the last few generations to repair that lack. When I was a boy in North Wales Cardiff meant nothing to me. When I was a student in Aberystwyth, Cardiff simply did not rank as a capital city. When I met Scottish students I realised immediately that Cardiff did not have a place in the Welsh mind in the way that Edinburgh had in the Scottish mind. That situation has changed a great deal over the last 30 or 40 years. Cardiff is very much more a capital city now. There are national institutions, but we still lack sufficient public and private institutions. When I say private institutions let me put that in context. I do not think that Cardiff has yet begun to be the financial centre of Welsh investment that Edinburgh is for Scottish investment. We do not have the private financial institutions that have been set up there. A beginning has been made but there is a long way to go.
On the other hand, Cardiff has changed and stimulates the Welsh economy more than it used to. It means more. I regret to say that we still suffer from pretty poor communications between north and
354
south. That is a point to which the development agency and the Mid-Wales Development Corporation could address their minds.
While I welcome this Bill, I think that those agencies will need much more money in the future because there is a great deal of repair work to be done. I know from personal experience the enormous economic pressures placed on both industry and commerce to develop in other parts of the country.
Perhaps I may make two suggestions. The Government should consider extending the remit of the Mid-Wales Development Corporation to incorporate other rural areas. They could also do a great deal to encourage mature students to go to business schools. The young entrepreneur in Wales with two or three years' experience in industry or commerce often needs formal training to equip him for the competition that is required if private industry is to flourish. It would be very helpful if the Welsh Development Agency were to make it possible for mature students who have such experience in industry and commerce and the right kind of academic background to have a year at business school, preferably in Wales or even elsewhere. The Mid-Wales Development Corporation could do likewise. That would help a great deal in transforming a small business into something which is much more ambitious and much more likely to flourish and develop into a large business.
Altogether I think that the Government are to be commended on this Bill.
8.15 p.m.
Baroness White: My Lords, I wish to join in the gratification that has been expressed this evening that, as the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, has said, the Government for once have abandoned their basic philosophy and decided that instead of cutting their contribution, investment is the best policy. This is a Bill which I think all of us must welcome very warmly.
Before intervening in the debate on a particular aspect which I should like to touch upon, I should like to pay tribute to the foresight of those who originally established the Welsh Development Agency and also, as the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, has very rightly said, the Mid-Wales Development Corporation. I should also like to pay tribute to the members of the authority, including Mr. John Williams, the Chairman, Sir Donald Walters, and also to the staff.
Although the Bill does not deal directly with Mid-Wales, I should also like to pay a tribute to Mr. Leslie Morgan and his colleagues and staff for what they are doing in the more rural areas of Mid-Wales. It has not been an altogether easy progression and I think that we can congratulate ourselves that we have been able to call into public service in this particular sphere people of knowledge, experience and dedication to the needs of the Principality.
Today I wish to mention one particular aspect of the work of the Welsh Development Agency which

355
closely affects the constituent institutions of the University of Wales as well as the local authority colleges of higher education. That is the arm of the WDA known as WINtech, which my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies has already commended. I hope very much that the increased funding which is provided for in this Bill will directly or indirectly affect and encourage the work of WINtech. As some of us know from experience, WINtech is playing an increasing part in developing high technology and other appropriate activities in Wales. It is through WINtech that support is provided for university centres of excellence which seem likely to become focal points of international esteem. I am not using that word without due consideration; it really means international esteem. It is work which can meet the challenge of research and advancing technology in any part of the industrialised world. Such centres must combine academic quality with industrial relevance and also either have or have good prospects of obtaining substantial non-government finance.
WINtech was set up following a report produced in 1983 at the request of the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, when he was Secretary of State for Wales. Since its inception WINtech has maintained and supported half a dozen very important university projects, including two at Swansea, three at Cardiff and one at Bangor. The largest of these are the Telecommunications Centre at Bangor and the Semiconductor and Micro-Electronics Centre at Cardiff. I am glad to say that the latter enterprise at Cardiff is a most happy and successful conjunction between UWIST and University College. I believe that in due course we shall enjoy other similar successes. That is a hope which I am certain is shared by my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones, who is President of University College, Cardiff, and therefore my opposite number in this joint enterprise.
Some weeks ago, having provided substantial funding for the Semiconductor and Micro-Electronics Centre which is at the forefront of certain elements in this field, WINtech organised a successful visit to Cardiff by journalists from the scientific and technological press so that knowledge of the work being done there could be transmitted to appropriate industrialists throughout the kingdom, and in fact throughout the industrialised world.
At the moment about half the funding for the centre comes from Government sources, including WINtech, and almost half from industry.
In reply to a journalist's query, Professor Vernon Morgan of UWIST remarked:
"There's hardly a single major UK electronics company that isn't supporting us either in cash or in kind."
Without the encouragement of WINtech, that remark could not have been made.
However, equipment costs are rising and the squeeze on government-funded research at the university level is becoming tighter almost day by day. Just one essential machine at the centre costs around £½ million to buy, and there are in addition
356
the fairly high running costs consequential upon that purchase. As Professor Robin Williams of University College remarked:
"Getting funds to keep this sort of thing going is getting more difficult".
We have a united fear, warned Professor Morgan, that:
"the country will get cold feet at the last minute, and we'll lose out to the US".
May we trust that the increased funding for the Welsh Development Agency, and through it to WINtech, as provided for in the Bill, will help to resolve those problems and help to keep us in the lead—a lead which in certain areas we have already attained?
WINtech is also the channel for the distribution of Mr. Kenneth Baker's largesse for the technology centres, nine of which have been designated in the UK. The aim of those centres is to emphasise industrial and managerial training and capability rather than the industry-oriented research which is the main preoccupation of the university centres to which I have just referred. The Wales Technology Centre is not in fact a physical entity but an administrative unit, covering public sector colleges and the Polytechnic of Wales as well as the university institutions. We wish it well, but frankly it would be encouraging if rather more than the £100,000 that is at present available in total were to be found for the needs of the Principality.
Nevertheless, the work undertaken by WINtech, whether directly or as an agent, is a most important element in the current exciting and enthusiastic movement to modernise Welsh industry, to attract appropriate new industries and to raise our education institutions to the highest level. I have some sympathy with the suggestion made by the noble Lord. Lord Hooson, that it would be helpful both to the rural and industrial areas if young people in particular or those who have had a slightly longer experience of industrial affairs were able to supplement that experience with some well devised training in managerial and financial expertise.
I hesitate to do a commercial for the Cardiff Business School but I applaud that initiative which has very recently been undertaken, again on a joint basis with members of staff and students from University College, although it was started by UWIST, and which now has almost 800 students—that number includes overseas students. I am quite sure that an energetic programme is possible, and I have no doubt in due course will be undertaken, which I hope will supplement the kind of work that WINtech is encourging and which will make its contribution to the renaissance of modern industry in the Principality.
8.25 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am greatly obliged to both the noble Lords and the noble Baroness for their interventions and for their unanimous welcome to the measure which I venture to bring before your Lordships' House tonight. Having been squeezed out

357
of the dinner hour by earlier business, I am as always under constraint to be very brief at this moment. I wonder whether the noble Lords and the noble Baroness will allow me to reply to them in writing rather than to detain your Lordships tonight.
Perhaps I may just say once again how grateful I am for the welcome that has been accorded to this measure. I promise all who have participated in the debate the most careful study of what they have said
358
and a full and considered reply as soon as I can arrange it.
On Question, Bill read a second time; Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been dispensed with (pursuant to Resolution of 15th February), Bill read a third time, and passed.
House adjourned at twenty-seven minutes past eight o'clock.